Gentrification is often described metaphorically as a form of ‘colonization,’ however in this paper I argue that gentrification comprises one strategy in the continued historical colonization of Indigenous peoples in the Canadian context, and more specifically in the settler city of Toronto. I propose that the colonial relationalities, both symbolic and material that give rise to the settler city, persist as a discipline on poor and Indigenous bodies, spaces and lands, through the capitalist way of life. Colonial relationalities are again heightened through gentrifications role in Toronto’s strivings for global city status in a neo-imperialist global economy. Gentrification is based on moral investments in the capitalist ideology of private property and monetary investments in shifting of property values. Investment in private property is fraught with the ethical contractions of land theft, exploitation, ongoing original accumulation, and displacement, which form the basis of homelessness and Indigenous marginalization in the city. However, gentrification theory and Marxist geography do not fully or consistently account for the implications of colonial history in the current understanding of gentrification. Neil Smith, for instance, relegates Indigenous history and epistemologies to an irrelevant past failing to unsettle or decolonize the notion of gentrification. Other Marxist theorists, who have attempted to connect issues of gentrification and colonization offer a way forward to a decolonized understanding, however, more engaged dialogue with Indigenous scholars and communities are necessary to continue this discussion in a more liberatory direction.
This is very interesting!
I myself have read a lot of Marxist Geography works, but never really attempted to synthesize or “interrogate” them with decolonial theories myself.
Not really the most though-provoking or interesting, but this quote stood out to me:
I am not sure how a self-identified Marxist could even justify Eurocentric/bourgeois property relations, especially with regards to land, as anything close to a net good, by providing a stageist and ahistorical view of Indigenous Land.
However, the author did respond with a smart quip that did put a smirk on my face:
What is it with Colonialism that makes many Eurocentric Marxists simply ignore it?
“I didn’t personally do any colonizing, therefore, it’s not my problem, it just is the way it is and colonized subjects-of-empire just have to deal”, basically. I have never heard a settler address colonized land in any way that doesn’t eventually break down to that single response.