Recently, I have been seeing a lot of different posts on Facebook linking to sites containing pictures of New York City in the 1970’s and 1980’s. They are usually black and white photographs showing mountains of rubble, garbage, dilapidated buildings, subway trains covered in graffiti and locals in various poses of derisive ambivalence. What I find instantly telling about these photos, is that they are in black and white. Meaning, that the starkness of that particular brand of photography lends a more esoteric and ultimately ominous level to the photographs. It also tells us that the photographer was a self-important bore.

Have you seen recent photos from Aleppo? Could you imagine if they were in black and white? Immediately, we would all do a collective eye-roll as a nation which would be so exaggerated that all together we would create the first audible eye-roll. The stark realities of life happen in color. Attempting to lend gravitas to situations where human lives are either irrevocably changed or even lost is the height of artistic hubris. It is painfully transparent and incredibly dull. Much like the people back in the 70’s who decided to take black and white photographs of a spilled dumpster in Brooklyn in order to let all the lame suburbanites know that the struggle was real.

The only people with legitimate beefs against the gentrification of certain urban neighborhoods are the people who are forced out by corrupt municipalities. On the opposite end of that spectrum are the people who indirectly benefit from gentrification and then rail against the horrors of it simply to seem modern and trendy. Much like gentrification itself.

No one is going to pat you on the back for spending a lot of money to live in a shitty neighborhood. ‘Ah, so I see your rent has gone up and your only dining option is Subway and that you don’t have a bank or grocery store within a five-mile radius of your home. Well done!’ I am sorry that some people seem to gauge their neighborhood’s worth by the number of violent crimes per-capita, per-year. I just don’t think there is a point to be made when the entire argument itself champions poverty and villainizes social progress. Is it a good thing when the local mom and pop store closes because people are going to Walgreen’s instead of their shop? No. But answer these; is it a good thing when people with disposable income move into a neighborhood thus boosting property values? Is it a good thing that an influx of cash into a neighborhood spurns on the opening of new businesses? Is it a good thing that crime rates tend to drop like a stone once an area becomes gentrified?

I’ll give up an authentic pierogi or bowl of gumbo for a cleaner place to live and less chance of being knifed for my wallet any day. Gentrification is good. Get over it.

Liberals, many of whom are young, white self-labeled liberals, want to allow scads of new immigrants into the country. I agree that this country is a better place with metered, monitored, sensible legal immigration. But I have to ask; where are the immigrants supposed to work? If we’re not supposed to be alright with the cultural makeup of neighborhoods changing from generation to generation, what is the response when the old pizza place is turned into a gyro shop?

Gentrification is a natural progression of human society. It is healthy and important for urban areas to revamp themselves and it is equally important for self-righteous, whiny, white hipsters to shut up about it.