Those of you who've been reading me for a while will know I haven't got much use for either hipsters or the city of Oakland, and yet here's a story that leaves me more kindly disposed toward both. After a fashion.
"Hipster Invasion," proclaims the East Bay Express article, which then goes on to view with alarm the incursion of artsy types into the wasteland that is downtown Oakland. Okay, not just alarm; there's also a little hope expressed that the new wave of galleries and related enterprises will spark the revival of a long-blighted area.
But as usual with this kind of story, the author can't stop himself fretting about whether it's morally acceptable for young whites to move into an area that has been (according to him) "predominantly black since 1850." Most likely this is a typo; surely he meant to say 1950, but regardless, it's a dumb, racist argument, and I'm sick of it. If there's something wrong with whites moving into "historically black" neighbourhoods, how on earth can you fault anyone for trying to stop blacks moving into historically white neighbourhoods?
And this "historically" bit is a crock, too; neighbourhoods are organic, living things which by their nature change over time. It's a pretty safe bet that any "black" neighbourhood was at one time occupied by members of another race, and almost as safe that it will be again at some time in the future. What would you put forth as an alternative: that blacks should always stay in the same places, and that no other races should be allowed to move in? I think they already tried that one in South Africa, and the world was rightly horrified.
Anyway, face it: altogether too much of Oakland is in fact a miserable, dangerous, crime-ridden shithole. If any ambitious or creative young people - yes, even if they're the dreaded hipsters - are willing to invest their time and energy into making the streets habitable and enjoyable again, any sensible Oaklander should be out there welcoming them. Yes, when the artists move in, there is risk that the neighbourhood might get better, and that rents will go up, and those who thrive only in slums might have to move on, but what's your alternative? Leave it a slum forever? Is there anyplace on earth as screwy as the Bay Area? I'm really beginning to doubt it.
"Hipster Invasion," proclaims the East Bay Express article, which then goes on to view with alarm the incursion of artsy types into the wasteland that is downtown Oakland. Okay, not just alarm; there's also a little hope expressed that the new wave of galleries and related enterprises will spark the revival of a long-blighted area.
But as usual with this kind of story, the author can't stop himself fretting about whether it's morally acceptable for young whites to move into an area that has been (according to him) "predominantly black since 1850." Most likely this is a typo; surely he meant to say 1950, but regardless, it's a dumb, racist argument, and I'm sick of it. If there's something wrong with whites moving into "historically black" neighbourhoods, how on earth can you fault anyone for trying to stop blacks moving into historically white neighbourhoods?
And this "historically" bit is a crock, too; neighbourhoods are organic, living things which by their nature change over time. It's a pretty safe bet that any "black" neighbourhood was at one time occupied by members of another race, and almost as safe that it will be again at some time in the future. What would you put forth as an alternative: that blacks should always stay in the same places, and that no other races should be allowed to move in? I think they already tried that one in South Africa, and the world was rightly horrified.
Anyway, face it: altogether too much of Oakland is in fact a miserable, dangerous, crime-ridden shithole. If any ambitious or creative young people - yes, even if they're the dreaded hipsters - are willing to invest their time and energy into making the streets habitable and enjoyable again, any sensible Oaklander should be out there welcoming them. Yes, when the artists move in, there is risk that the neighbourhood might get better, and that rents will go up, and those who thrive only in slums might have to move on, but what's your alternative? Leave it a slum forever? Is there anyplace on earth as screwy as the Bay Area? I'm really beginning to doubt it.

