Oh Wallace....

One item that I am finding increasingly frustrating is the treatment Wallace gives his topics in Mickey Mouse History. It is unfortunate that he chooses to adopt such a condescending and hostile tone towards those with whom he disagrees. In the latest chapter, Wallace  covers historical preservation, economic progress, and the sociopolitical issues that battle over which is more valuable. Wallace once again casts aspersions upon any person of means (middle class or wealthy). Any person with any sort of wealth is automatically driven by sheer self-interest; essentially backing historical preservation out of a desire to preserve either social order or check out with a tax write-off. Wallace criticizes the bastion of tradition political conservatism, which he sees as a driving force of exclusion and and reduction in American history. He blasts traditionally-minded neighborhood conservation groups, pointing out the racist origins at the heart of the formation of many. Certainly based upon the length of his arguments alone, he directs more vitriol towards the rich bigoted than towards the poor and bigoted. In addition, his discussion of Jackson Ward, Virginia reflects his own hypocrisy. Jackson Ward was a historically black neighborhood. Wallace complained that once it received historical status, there was an influx of affluent young whites, attracted by the neighborhood's new found historical allure. While Wallace does not mention whether this was a case of gentrification and the displacement of the original residents, his silence is telling in my opinion. By omission alone I am led to believe that this was not the case; I cannot see Wallace leaving out something that which he could rage against. Honestly, I perceive Wallace's approach as just as bigoted and hateful as the conditions that led to the formation of a historically black neighborhood. As Chris mentioned in class, and as the speaker Tuesday discussed, there are several factors (many of them costly) when it comes to appropriately caring for a historic home and by extension neighborhood, especially when they are actively inhabited. Is it moral to preserve historic areas at the expense of the current residents (if it means they might have to move ), or is the lasting value of the home/area greater to the public as a whole? Certainly this is less of an issue when it comes to development projects than it is when compared to preservation projects; is current value greater than future value? And is it possible to balance the unfortunate realities of the needs of historical areas with the need for a cash injection versus in some cases, less affluent long-time residents?