Indeed, dead bodies do eventually float to the surface.
I agree with you that this is life as we currently live it. This is life in a capitalist system. Is this what we have to accept though? Some people (including myself) wonder why money and resources are not invested in these communities by the state simply because they need it. There is enough money and there are enough resources in California or the United States or the world that everyone could live a dignified life. Unfortunately we live in a world where wealth is hoarded and forgets about neighborhoods like this until gentrification happens and money starts pouring in and wealth can be further hoarded.
This is not about this chef committing acts of physical violence (as you define them) and never was. I too enjoyed High on the Hog and those stories and think this chef is doing very interesting and important work. You will notice I have not said anything derogatory towards him or any employees at the restaurant. Unfortunately where he chose to further this interesting conversation is in a place that sees him as a threat to their survival.
The stories of those who are fighting his restaurant should at least be put on equal footing as his story. From a position of privilege it is easy to want to see his evolution and what he contributes to the excavation of history, et al. But none of that matters to a family who is facing eviction and cannot afford to relocate anywhere close to the community they have lived all their lives in. While many people might see the words āviolenceā and āgenocideā as hyperbole when they are not living through these situations, it would be more productive to ask people who are why they feel that way.
There is an interesting episode of Roy Choiās āBroken Breadā in the latest season that sees him reckoning with the unintended consequences of his decision to open Chego in Chinatown and how that accelerated gentrification. I recommend it.
@EattheWorldLA I do appreciate your perspective and am grateful you are sharing it.
Isnāt this what is happening here with a vacant historical building? Isnāt the cleaning up of the LA River area and greenway development a good thing for the neighborhood too, or should it just remain desolate? The new high school?
I see Dunsmoor being used as an unfortunate proxy for a take on capitalism and history. He has the freedom to do what he wants within the bounds of the law and so do the protesters, who in some instances have exceeded the bounds of the law. This is the same for every person in every neighborhood not just this one.
The accounts I have read suggest that many of these are not folks from Glassell Park but rather outside individuals and organizations such as the LA Tenants Union. There all also accounts too numerous to mention of Glassell Park residents that welcome the restaurant.
I donāt see anyone here living through genocide. This argument remains wholly offensive to me just as the vandalism crime. It would seem that there are other battles much more significant that could be waged in a lawful manner, such as against rogue landlords themselves, or the Avenues, a dangerous gang.
Again, happy to be part of respectful back and forth and even though we disagree it is nice to find a way to present everything in a way that does not denigrate into stupidity.
I honestly do not know the history of this specific building, but landlords are well-known to hold out for high value tenants. It is worth more to them to leave it vacant for years or even a decade than letting a low-value tenant occupy the space.
This can be answered partly by my comment about the way money and capital works in the country from the previous post. But I absolutely agree with you that ācleaning upā any area is a good thing and leaving things ādesolateā is not. But leaving these things to monied interests is where I think we disagree. These problems are worth solving for the current residents, not the residents people with money would rather see living there.
Maybe you are right and maybe the timing is not working in his favor.
The LA Tenants Union works with local residents wherever they fight, and for their opinion you should definitely reach out to them and read what they have to say about the matter since you do not agree with their tactics. I am also an āoutside individualā when it comes to Glassell Park and maybe you are tooā¦ but I would probably defer to them before I defer to a chef who lives in Pasadena because it sounds like they are talking to residents more than the restaurant has (from Eater article by Mona Holmes and Cathy Chaplin).
If it always comes back to this, I think we will never find common ground. If residents of Glassell Park and their allies had not vandalized some windows and picketed the restaurant (fairly or unfairly), this conversation would not have happened in the first place. I get it, you do not think they have the right to use the world genocide and maybe you are right. But what drives people to the point of evoking such strong language? Itās worth talking about more.
You are right, and what I wrote was not trying to prove otherwise.
But some people, including myself and probably most that are fighting gentrification, would prefer something better and are unwilling to declare defeat to a system that only benefits few when there is enough in the world for all.
I donāt agree with this part. I donāt think the vandalizing and extreme and offensive āgenocideā allegation does help the dialogue, the opposite really. I sense that lawful picketing and protest on point would have been more helpful and could have achieved more successful results for the activists, and then not as successful as articulating and opposing the real roots of the problems, perhaps bad actor landlords or commercial development that do displace tenants. The point that is not being conveyed clearly or well by the protestors is what this specific restaurant has to do with their problems ā my conclusion is it doesnāt have any direct nexus. If itās merely a proxy for their problems and concerns, as you recognize could be the case, itās a scapegoat and being unfairly treated. I think the majority public response in my estimation reflects this. There will always be scapegoats in history and a high end restaurant isnāt the most sympathetic one to be sure, but these are people like Dunsmoor chasing their dreams too, and their dreams matter as much as any other personās, not less, not more. The fact that he is trying to share more than just good food (which alone is something vital) makes his voice significant to me.
As to capitalism, yeah, it can be a merciless market-driven dynamic and there is absolutely more power for entities and people that are wealthy. I recognize the abject desperation of many people but I have to think there are better ways to accomplish social progress and egalitarianism than what happened here. Much of this specific protest comes off as too poorly articulated and directed and undermined by affiliated bad actors, and organizations that manipulate and misdirect well-meaning people. Obviously lots of organizations do this and there are good and bad parts too, itās complicated.
Just as I hope the restaurant learns to be a part of its new neighborhood and to be a good neighbor, I hope that more and more people will welcome it and other new neighbors in a civil and nice manner. Thatās life in a huge vibrant diverse city - there arenāt walls and things arenāt set in stone, and change happens in many neighborhoods and communities. Positivity and collaboration are more powerful than destruction and division.
Iām nowhere as intelligent and articulate as you folks - so hereās my simpleton view.
I think capitalism with meaningful social programs can co-exist, heck we pay enough in sales and income taxes in this state to accommodate the needy and displaced. The root of the problem is the rampant corruption prevalent in the state and city government resulting in the misappropriation of policies and funds designated for social programs .
There is a way, just not a will by the elected officials.
Off topic, but if you ever take a look at NextDoor in my community (the Brentwood district of LA), itās quite clear (IMHO) that, separate and apart from corruption/misappropriation/etc. (which are certainly real probs), capitalism, as it exists currently in this country, and meaningful social programs really canāt exist, unfortunately.
Many people are tired of peacefully protesting for 200+ yrs and continuing to be marginalized. I wonder if they couldnāt care less about violence (or how itās perceived) b/c the system doesnāt work for them anyway, so why not destroy it. Why allow anyone to have anything, when people who ālook like youā never seem to get anything?
Iām not saying that violence is ājustifiedā or that I even agree w/ the line of thinking above, but until the āunlawfulā and violent actions are understood and recognized as being (among other things) a sign of multi-generational and growing anger (including an anger at being told the oppressed just need to behave better), it will not stop (again, IMHO).
Just to jump on something a bit nit picky: There was no genocide allegation. The chefs are not being accused of this and moreover, they couldnāt be as individual actors. Of course, I know thatās not what you meant.
However you feel about the rhetorical tactic of using the word āgenocideā it is a choice that calls attention to how gentrification (which also canāt be prosecuted) could be seen to be implicated with one of the acts of genocide āDeliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in partā (questions of intention are what always dog genocide allegations more broadly so I wouldnāt jump on that here).
One could argue that gentrification (and really the developers interested in āraising property valuesā) is an act of wilful destruction of an existing community to make space for another. It is just not seen as destruction because nice restaurants and luxury housing (or sports stadia) are seen as āhelpingā. Meanwhile people are displaced-- not just for the rents, but for the property taxes-- and often, the cooptation of housing for short term rentals (developers swallowing up properties for Airbnb or student housing) means that a political constituency cannot develop to advocate. Some might benefit from gentrification. But often, it means harm is done to a more vulnerable segment.
One might also be more generous given how economic and social rights (the second covenant of the UNDHR) are being increasingly recognised-- and more people are recognising poverty and its causes as human rights issues.
But a tactic (a sign or two) in a protest is not the whole of a movement, and should not be treated as such as an opportunity to dismiss really valid concerns.
(As for rising tides, Iām with @EattheWorldLA: Allows the bodies to float. Surely if that were the case, the increase in billionaires over the period of the pandemic would have ātrickled downā to others. Instead, thereāve very real cost of living crises and more people are using food banks. )
