Analyzing Harlem’s long career as “setting and image” of African American and Diasporic life and tradition, Race Capital?: Harlem as Setting and Image is a serious contribution to historiographies centered on urban Black individuals, queer life, city Black freedom movements, and New York Metropolis. It is a foundational text for understanding Harlem’s previous, current, and future, and presents much less familiar narratives and frameworks on a neighborhood we thought we knew so nicely. Editors Andrew Fearnley and Daniel Matlin be a part of an present group of students, including Jeffrey Ogbar, The Harlem Renaissance Revisited, Shannon King, Whose Harlem Is This, Anyway?, Kevin McGruder, Race and Actual Estate, and Farrah Jasmine Griffin, Harlem Nocturne, whose publications explore the “Black Mecca’s” multifaceted socioeconomic, political, and cultural landscapes and how an ethnically numerous Black inhabitants contested what historian Jeanne Theoharis identified as Jim Crow North. Distinct from these aforementioned research, Race Capital advances historiographies centered on Harlem. Collectively, the twelve essays impressively reevaluate twentieth-century scholarly assertions of Harlem as a logo of Black progress and potential and situates the as soon as recognized “Black Metropolis” within transnational histories and recent conversations regarding gentrification and racial capitalism. Furthermore, Race Capital gives recent and insightful views on Harlem past the closely studied 1920s and 1930s.
From the 1920s Harlem Renaissance to the 2017 grand opening of Entire Foods, the authors revisit Harlem’s multifaceted histories and interrogate how and why Harlem, as considered one of many flourishing urban neighborhoods of the early twentieth century, achieved its “exceptional” standing. Race Capital is divided into three sections, featuring chapters that uniquely reappraise “the neighborhood’s pertinence and power” while contemplating the importance of place and locality (7). Section One, “Mythologies” reconsiders how Harlem’s dominant picture as an iconic Black neighborhood and symbol of blackness and “capital” was crafted, refashioned, and debated amongst intellectuals, writers, and filmmakers. 4 case studies place aesthetics, representational methods, and the Black press at the middle of master tropes of Harlem. Writers, students, and strange residents imagined the Black enclave as each “capital” and “ghetto.” Analyzing Harlem’s longstanding special character and id, Andrew Fearnley argues that the neighborhood’s “key symbolic frameworks have been the products of attempts to ground visions of Black life not only in place but in addition in time” (11). Daniel Matlin moves past Harlem’s racial capital motif, displaying that the world’s transformation from famed capital to wicked ghetto was not a linear shift. Each “capital” and ghetto” stood side-by-side, reflecting what writers and 1930s New York City prosecutor Eunice Hunton Carter seen as a “medley of track and tears.” Harlem’s vibrant canvas was captured in early and mid-twentieth newspaper editorials and cartoons and films. Media platforms strengthened, refashioned, and challenged imageries of racial progress. Clare Corbound’s work on 1930s and 1940s New York Amsterdam News (NYAN) cartoonist E. Simms Campbell suggests that artistic illustrations have been instrumental in circulating photographs of a various Harlem. Campbell rejected notions of group cohesiveness. His NYAN drawings, entitled Harlem’s Sketches, reflected Black Harlemities’ experiences with race, class, and gender conflicts and rivalries, as well as their achievements and want for intimacy, pleasure, and laughter. Specializing in filmmaker and author Chester Himes’ provocative visual work, Paula J. Massood underscores how Submit-World Warfare II film themes of Black sexuality, crime and poverty, and juvenile delinquency ignited longstanding debates about urban representations and aesthetics.
Scholarly response to current critiques about Harlem exceptionalism is the topic of essays featured in Section Two. Entitled “Models,” Part Two supply several thought-provoking and revolutionary essays that underscore the significance of Harlem’s location in African American socioeconomic, political, and cultural life, while introducing new historic narratives and analyses concerning the neighborhood and its individuals. Headlining the section, Winston James convincingly asserts that Harlem was in contrast to another transnational city metropolis. The “metropolis inside a metropolis” was more than some extent in the circuit of Black internationalism. The “Negro Metropolis” was a “black contact zone with distinct characteristics with extraordinary political and cultural dynamism” (114). Harlem was primus inter non-pares, giving rise to a vibrant social, political, mental, and inventive enclave. Minkah Makalani and Cheryl Wall discover the political and literary worlds of Black ladies intellectuals and writers whereas assessing Harlem’s connections to broader political and Diasporic movements. Makalani contends that Harlem was not “the center” of Black radical thought. Nevertheless, the world’s “specific modes of interaction and interconnection textured its political and social material,” making it potential for the novel transnational activism of Communist activists and politically engaged Black ladies. Cheryl Wall strikes past the “race capital” time period, preferring and adopting James Weldon Johnson’s “culture capital.” Recognizing 1920s African American fiction writers’ imaginative pull and attraction to Harlem, Wall argues that outstanding writers, resembling Zora Neale Hurston and Rudolph Fisher, interpreted Harlem, despite the realities of race, class, gender, and sexual tensions, as an important website for vernacular cultural types and practices, which was profoundly inspired by Harlem’s population density and its interracial and intra-racial conflicts and prospects. Whereas Part Two revisits Harlem’s broad significance, students Shane White, Brian Purnell, and Dorothea Lobbermann present new histories of Harlem. Calling for further historic research on Harlem, contributors exhibit the alternative ways through which Harlem served as a catalyst and unique hub for 1930s unlawful playing rackets, mid-twentieth century Civil Rights and Black Power period activists’ political and organizational mobilization, and queer literature, life, and tradition.
Current scholarly discourse on gentrification, demography, actual property markets, and commerce are highlighted in Race Capital’s ultimate part: “Black No More?.” Contributors Themis Chronopoulous and John L. Jackson, Jr. discover late twentieth and early twentieth-first century transformations in Harlem. Chronopoulous focuses on 1980s Harlem, explaining population modifications, the displacement of low-income New Yorkers, and how neighborhood modifications impacted schooling, employment, housing, and city policy. Harlem’s evolving demographics, notably the significant presence of white residents, middle-class Blacks, and Central Harlem’s quickly growing Latinx population ignited conversations about Harlem as a Black capital, as well as debates over its present and future. Chronopoulous means that gentrification was not merely a results of numerous ethnic and racial teams migrating to Harlem. However slightly “a consequence of New York Metropolis’s neoliberal municipal governance and housing insurance policies over a number of many years which resulted in displacement, alternative, and exclusion” (16). John L. Jackson, Jr. also explores a rapidly evolving Harlem, demonstrating two competing conceptions of “racial capital.” Traditionally, racial capital was rooted in Black metropolis dwellers’ creation of flourishing autonomous and financial websites inside city spaces. One other impression of racial capital, one articulated by brokers of gentrification, is its useful foreign money. Employing trend magazines similar to Vogue Italia, Elle Magazine, and GQ, Jackson demonstrates how various media platforms, notably national and worldwide publications, crafted “a selective manicured view of Harlem’s racial past to package deal for consumption, and to sell Harlem’s multiracial current” (17). Mainstream visible representations ushered in a so-called “new Harlem Renaissance.”
Harlem Nocturne writer Farrah Jasmine Griffin fittingly concludes Race Capital?, offering an insightful view on Harlem’s previous, present, and future. In her afterword, Griffin conjures up historic and modern photographs of well-known soul meals eateries, musical and literary legends, and renovated brownstones, in addition to that of gritty streets, run-down housing buildings, and Black, brown, and non-Black our bodies promenading down Lenox Avenue. Whilst an evolving neighborhood, Harlem “has maintained its id because of our ongoing need for it, our need for a spot where black humanity and risk are cherished and nurtured” (285-286). At the similar time, the Black enclave’s historic and cultural identities and iconic imageries have turn into marketable manufacturers and merchandise for shoppers that have little-or-no investment or curiosity in their genealogies. However Griffin is hopeful about Harlem. Her optimism lays in the social, political, and cultural efforts of Harlem’s new stakeholders: a multigenerational group of scholars, educators, political activists, and residents invested within the Harlem’ new day and committed to protecting and preserving its longstanding social, cultural, and educational institutions. They’re the stakeholders maintaining Harlem’s dynamic history, tradition, and legacy alive.
Copyright © AAIHS. Is probably not reprinted without permission.