Flight and 'Responsibility'

      The Ivory Tower and academia have much to offer, but the realities of what are studied may often differ from what is hypothesized. This was highlighted in Legacy, which chronicles the struggle and rise of one family out of poverty, addiction, and effects of the ‘underclass.’ Seeing and reading about the effects are much different, but one phenomenon in particular seemed to contrast readings-the problem that not only White flight, but middle-class Black flight leaves in its wake. The problem in readings of ‘jobless ghettos’ that result from a lack of economic investment and infrastructure (history, racism, policies aside) have also been attributed to the lowered economic activity (and willingness to invest by either racist or ultra-utilitarian companies) after ‘White flight.’ White flight has been documented and proven, and its detriment is surrounding residents real. Some researchers also bring up the problem of Black middle-class flight, which leaves the poorest of the poor and takes most semblances of money and economic productivity out of the area. These both sound condemnable, that those individuals are responsible for leaving their fellow citizens in squalor. But legacy humanizes that choice, and complicates the picture.

                In legacy, the Collins family is torn apart by the shooting of Terrell, a family member, and the individual members aim to better their situation by pursuing further education, escaping addiction and ultimately leaving the poverty and crime of the neighborhood behind. The story is inspiring and does well to humanize the struggle of a socioeconomic group so often dehumanized and condemned for perceived ‘social ills.’ Many would say that others could and would, if they had to opportunity, aspire for a life story like the Collins’. But what implications does the ending of their story have?

                Why is it not the responsibility of all community members to try to better their community? White and Black flight are shamed-Legacy made me ask what roles community members should play rather than leaving their towns to better their own opportunities. This brought me back to a recent meeting with human rights activists across the country at a Summit in D.C. last week. In my group was a friend of mine, Peter, who was one of the “Lost Boys” of South Sudan, who came to America to escape conflict. Like Peter, I also have heard the stories of the Congolese diaspora students at Northern Illinois’ University English as a Second Language Program. These people have been afforded amazing opportunities to ‘escape’ their situations, which have many parallels to violent, poor communities in the United States (but not really…for arguments sake we will use this comparison.) Peter, however, uses his time in America to speak to students about his story and the conflict, and spends the rest of his time developing the school he and a few others built back in South Sudan. The Congolese students often work with a Congolese businessman in Chicago who trains them on how to return to their country and start entrepreneurships that benefit their community. I am an opponent of respectability politics, and do not intend to suggest that anyone who moves out of a poor area owes something to it. I think that the Congolese business model is amazing, however, and that if people  (White people, you too!) returned to communities and invested (such as the ‘Blackout for reform’ movement) the escape from poverty would be less ‘in it for themselves’ to ‘one for all, all for one.’

A plug for the Total Blackout for Reform Movement as co-founded by an NIU alumni

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Total-Blackout-For-Reform/496079570536779