Solange Knowles over the years has proven to be more than just Beyonce’s sister. She is a singer, deejay, songwriter, mogul and model. What has given her an even bigger boost is her incredible execution for fashion; she knows how to make almost any outfit work. Recently, her face graced the latest issue of Complex magazine and might I add looking as vibrant as the sun. 

Just only a few days ago Knowles hit the 66th Annual Cannes Film Festival red carpet in a very chic and daring dress by Stephane Rolland. The dress was a sheer, nude and earth-toned in color with a feather detailed train (the train was blowing in the wind and it made her look fabulous). Knowles’ body was covered in a bodysuit, just to let us all know that this was not a peep show. Sometimes  sheer material can make you or break you.  In other words sometimes it reveals all of the right places and sometimes it reveals just a bit too much. Knowles’s achieved the sheer look in elegance and with class. Not too mention that with her big afro the look was very Diana Ross. Ms. Ross herself would be proud. 

Take a look at Solange’s look:

What do you think of Solange’s bold look? Feel free to comment below.

A lot has happened since the first time that CoCo Full of Grace introduced you the nineties fashion inspired rapper, Swiper. He’s now eighteen and releasing the first single from his upcoming project entitled 35.15 OZ. (Black Gold). The song is called “Bout It,” and it’s clear that Swiper is letting all of his fans as well as his naysayers that he is about whatever life that we are clearly not.  The single isn’t very long, but entertaining enough to catch a whiff of his impertinent comments. Download and take a listen. 

Download link:

http://www.mediafire.com/?x6q55qb8cozh282

NOTE: Before any comments please understand that this is from a 9-10 page document that naturally would have been overwhelming to read if it came together in one post. I apologize for any misunderstanding. For the other parts please read the Introduction and Part 2). After this post there will be a Part 4. Enjoy and be mindful!

Carolyn Adams in an essay entitled “Philadelphia: Neighborhoods, Division, and Conflict in a Postindustrial City” (1991) says that poor nonwhites were the most affected by redevelopment projects (p. 119). As a result they faced the demolition and displacement from their homes.

In “Poverty and Inequality in the New American City” (2008) written by Michael B. Katz, Katz believes that there are pros and cons to urban renewal and gentrification. He states, “Trash-filled streets signify the poverty of city governments unable to pay for their cleaning and the inability of residents to hire private services” (p. 55). This is Katz’s way of recognizing the cons of urban renewal. He emphasizes that “cities remain vibrant centers of arts, culture, education, and research, and the new immigration has rekindled the diversity that lies at the core of the urban experience and constitutes its great appeal” (p. 55-56). In Katz’s opinion this is a good way to keep urban areas in a good standing in terms of preservation.

 One of the most accurate analyses was written by Kristen Koptiuch in an essay entitled “Third-Worlding Our Home” (1991).  She states (p. 90), “A quarter century ago, violent struggle wracked a North Philly African-American community reeling from the first flush of deindustrialization and the initial throes of what has by now become a wholesale extinction of labor-market options for young blacks (cf. Davis 1988).” It is a myth that the conditions of today’s North Philadelphia are the fault of the people. The area had also been blighted by a riot that took place in 1964. Koptiuch states, “The area has yet to recover from the devastation that seemed like a cancer to engulf, ghettoize, and significantly depopulate it, but this lack of improvement has not been the result of self-inflicted wounds.” These riots took place in a response to the national movement of civil rights but also because of “police chief/ mayor/ party (now Republican) Frank Rizzo” (p. 91). He was a controversially racist mayor who did an awful job at hiding his prejudice for non-whites.

Koptuich recognizes the change of North Philadelphia in the 1990’s and states (p. 91):

But while the political nuance of the new appellation symbolically invests with African-American ethnicity the planned urban renewal of the North Philadelphia ghetto, the riot’s scars indelibly mark the deep fissures rent in the social and architectural body of the neighborhood, as if in cumulative, collective refusal to forget an important moment of popular struggle.

This carried into the early 2000s and it was then that Mayor John Street decided to carry out his plan for the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative in 2001 (McGovern, Philadelphia’s Neighborhood Transformation Initiative: A Case Study of Mayoral Leadership, Bold Planning, and Conflict, p. 529). Despite his and the NTI’s efforts, they underestimated the cost of demolition as well as other factors. McGovern states, “The first two neighborhoods to attract a substantial infusion of NTI funds for demolitions and acquisitions satisfied these three criteria. Strawberry Mansion was a blighted community located in Lower North Philadelphia, just north of gentrifying neighborhoods in Center City and adjacent to Fairmount\Park, the city’s largest park.” The classification of blighted communities in terms or demolition appeared to be more about the gentrified Center City. By demolishing and beautifying the unattractive areas it would increase the wealth of Center City’s market.

            Community groups and affordable housing advocates both agreed that the NTI was headed in the right direction, but felt as though the administration should do more to improve the housing conditions for existing residents (p. 553). McGovern also explained that others were concerned about the influx of gentrification in their areas. City officials were not concerned about the issue but the “responses to gentrification fears did not satisfy community activists, who increased pressure on the Street administration to take more assertive steps” (p.554). Although Street attempted to help beautify and revitalize many regions such North Philadelphia, the NTI had a model that was reflective of urban renewal, which is a reason that it warranted various protests. Street went wrong by not getting the community involved and not attempting to receive public funding. He could have gained the community’s support if he engaged them or let them in on NTI’s plans. The NTI model needed “to be supplemented by measures to ensure that revitalization will actually benefit existing residents” (p. 563).

 By taking the necessary step of getting community involvement in the future, this can be the solution to implementing revitalization to blighted areas such as North Philadelphia.  Revitalization can be beneficial to everyone if the community becomes more of a priority, as opposed to displacing poor non-whites within the area. It can be concluded that the city’s plans for North Philadelphia were very similar to Stephen Girard’s vision of exclusivity.  Their vision for exclusivity did not benefit poor non-white families.

Works Cited

1.     Byrne, J. Peter. “Two cheers for gentrification.” Howard LJ 46 (2002): 405.

2.     Clampet-Lundquist, Susan. “Finding and keeping affordable housing: Analyzing the experiences of single-mother families in North Philadelphia.” J. Soc. & Soc. Welfare 30 (2003): 123.

3.     Gares, Albert J., and Stephen Girard. “Stephen Girard’s West Indian Trade 1789-1812.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 72.4 (1948): 311-342.

4.     Hyra, Derek S. “Conceptualizing the New Urban Renewal Comparing the Past to the Present.” Urban Affairs Review 48.4 (2012): 498-527.

5.     Katz, Michael B. The price of citizenship: Redefining the American welfare state. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.

6.     Koptiuch, Kristin. “Third-worlding at home.” Social Text 28 (1991): 87-99.

7.     Levine, Marc V. “Book Review: Philadelphia: Neighborhoods, Division, and Conflict in a Postindustrial City, by Carolyn Adams, David Bartelt, David Elesh, Ira Goldstein, Nancy Kleniewski, and William Yancey.” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 118.1-2 (1994): 176-178.

8.     McGovern, Stephen J. “Philadelphia’s neighborhood transformation initiative: A case study of mayoral leadership, bold planning, and conflict.” Housing Policy Debate 17.3 (2006): 529-570.

9.     Shanks, Hershel. “” State Action” and the Girard Estate Case.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 105.2 (1956): 213-240.

10.  Slater, Tom. “The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research.”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30.4 (2006): 737-757 

NOTE: Before any comments please understand that this is from a 9-10 page document that naturally would have been overwhelming to read if it came together in one post. I apologize for any misunderstanding. For the other parts please read the Introduction and Part 2). After this post there will be a Part 4. Enjoy and be mindful!

This issue became a case that was taken to the Supreme Court. Many felt that Girard’s will should not have been overturned, because the law is supposed to protect property related issues. Others argued that non-whites such as blacks should be able to attend the school because it was a civil liberty. Due to racism, prejudice and the time period, it was not in Girard’s vision for his boy’s school to service black children. In order to enforce that his vision would not be tampered with, Girard specifically stated who would be allowed to attend the “College.”  This is very similar to what is happening to the North Philadelphia region, because like North Philadelphia, Girard had the vision of exclusivity.

 Legally, it cannot be stated that a race of people cannot reside in a revitalized or gentrified area, but there have been ways to reinforce that non-whites keep out of these areas. By increasing the property value of homes, families of low income will not be able to purchase and must find housing within their small budget. Associate Professor of Sociology at Saint Joseph’s University, Dr. Susan Clampet-Lundquist states in “Finding and Keeping Affordable Housing: Analyzing the Experiences of Single-Mother Families in North Philadelphia” (p. 134, 2003) that in the American in a “1985 Housing Survey, 40% of rental units in the poorest central city zones [ex. North Philadelphia] of Philadelphia were physically inadequate (Turner & Edwards, 1993).”  She found in an interview with black and Latino women that during their quest of find affordable housing, the most that they could afford were rental units.  Aside from the housing issue Clampet-Lundquist explains that the women were highly concerned with their neighborhood conditions. The women are “worried about the public drinking and drug sales their children witnessed on their streets, and they worried about the violence which often erupted on their blocks” (p.135).  Despite the poor conditions in their neighborhood “they can only afford apartments with very cheap rent” (p. 135).

In order to understand the relationship of a blighted Philadelphia to a revitalized and gentrified Philadelphia, a person must understand what causes an area to become blighted. Dr. Stephen J. McGovern in a reading entitled “Philadelphia’s Neighborhood Transformation Initiative: A Case Study of Mayoral Leadership, Bold Planning, and Conflict” (2006) states, “Blight became a monumental problem in Philadelphia because of the decentralization of the region’s employment and population base. Between 1967 and 1987, the city lost 160,000 manufacturing jobs—more than half of its entire industrial sector (Wilson 1996)” (p. 536). McGovern fails to mention the correlation between blight and race for it appears that the most blighted of areas contain non-white residents. In the article “Two Cheers for Gentrification” (2003) written by J. Peter Byrne he argues that there are many positive aspects about gentrification that can be inferred. He deems that most express a “distaste” for the term gentrification (p. 1). He also mentions that there is a difference between urban renewal and gentrification, by stating in his summary that urban renewal is “where the federal wrecking ball obviated any doubt about displacement or its cause” (p. 1). Byrne says that whites are more displaced than non-whites, but that can be argued against in a section such as North Philadelphia or Philadelphia holistically.  Although, Byrnes in some ways agrees with Michael deHaven Newsom, he also argues against him.  In a case such as North Philadelphia, Newsom’s argument closely aligns with the current issue of displacement in North Philadelphia.  Byrnes states that Newsom, “sets the trend in an early article, published before the term “gentrification” had become current” (p. 3).  He also states, “He assaulted the “Georgetown syndrome” whereby affluent whites had redeveloped historic housing in Georgetown, both displacing low-income blacks and obliterating the neighborhood’s black heritage.” 

Read PART 4…

STEPHEN GIRARD:

Today, not only does Girard have a school named after him but he also has a section in North Philadelphia named after him as well.  He is known and praised for making several charitable contributions to the city of Philadelphia as well as building up areas known today as North Philadelphia. Girard’s untarnished name is historically inaccurate, because his wealth was obtained from money that did not belong to him.  He found ways to invest these funds into banks and trading systems.  Stephen Girard’s history is relevant to how it illuminates current patterns and neighborhood change in North Philadelphia, but there is a solution that can incorporate low-income families into the revitalization of North Philadelphia. 

Girard was born on May 20, 1750 in Bordeaux, France. Now Haiti, a slave revolt occurred in Saint Domingue during the end of the 18^th century. Black slaves were uprising and killing many white Frenchmen. During this period Girard invested into West Indian trade. On February of 1793, Great Britain and France went to war. In 1948, Albert J. Gares states in a reading entitled “Stephen Girard’s West Indian Trade 1789-1812” that “France declared war on Great Britain and nine days later opened her colonial ports to American vessels, placing them on an equality with French vessels” (p. 315). Gares also explains that President George Washington created a proclamation that would help the American trade system expand, but a decree on May of 1793 created by the French authorized French vessels to seize any neutral vessel laden with provisions belonging to neutrals if the vessel were bound for an enemy port, since neutral flags were not being respected by the enemies of France” (pp. 315-316).

In Gare’s reading, it is evident that he takes the side of Girard.  The revolt caused for many of Girard’s friends’ properties to be destroyed and stolen, which caused for them to run away.  Although, this could possibly be true, that does not necessarily mean that their salvageable property was for Girard to keep.  Gare makes a claim that Le Cap, an area of trade, had a deal that would allow for vessel and cargo to become the property of Girard September 9, 1793(p. 317).  The ship that Girard used from Le Cap to travel to Philadelphia that contained the vessel and cargo left on August 20, 1793(p. 317).

Although this can be argued against Gare states (317):

The capture and detention of the Folly gave rise to rumors that the wealth of Stephen Girard was founded on the confiscated be longings of refugees from the Santo Domingan disorders. That this was not true was attested by Mr. Aubert himself, who, like many other passengers, had put his possessions in coffee barrels aboard the Folly, only to find that when this fact was disclosed by a member of the Folly’s crew and several servants, the privateers placed these barrels on board their captain’s vessel.

Girard kept vessel and cargo that belonged to his friends, when the originally plan was for him to put it into safe keeping.  The vessel and cargo was not his. Despite the truth, Girard was able to clear his name and later invested into the vessel and cargo, which was the start of his obtaining of wealth in Philadelphia. This investment produced more money because of him keeping something that did not rightfully belong to him.  Not only did the money that he obtained that came from vessel and cargo belong to his friends, but in many ways it was made money that stemmed from the Haitian Revolution. He later became the first multi-millionaire saved the U.S. government by financing them in order to keep them from collapsing during the War of 1812. In a will that Girard created, it was his desire that Girard College, a boarding school for orphan boys, would be created. The boys would have to be honor students and the “College” was to admit, as written in the will, “as many poor white male orphans between the ages of six and ten years, as the said income shall be adequate to maintain.…” (Hershel Shanks, “State Action” and The Girard Estate Case,” p. 214, 1956).  In order for the school to start, Girard gave 2 million dollars to the school. In 1954, two black boys applied and were denied, because it went against the will of Girard.

This issue became a case that was taken to the Supreme Court. Many felt that Girard’s will should not have been overturned, because the law is supposed to protect property related issues. Others argued that non-whites such as blacks should be able to attend the school because it was a civil liberty. Due to racism, prejudice and the time period, it was not in Girard’s vision for his boy’s school to service black children. In order to enforce that his vision would not be tampered with, Girard specifically stated who would be allowed to attend the “College.”  This is very similar to what is happening to the North Philadelphia region, because like North Philadelphia, Girard had the vision of exclusivity.