In the 1950s Southwest Philadelphia initiated an urban renewal project to address the underdeveloped regions of Eastwick and the marshlands of Tinicum (28). This project would disrupt the Philadelphia region’s local grassroots movements. Studying the history of Tinicum and Eastwick enables researchers to appreciate the violence and hardships associated with civil rights violations in eastern Pennsylvania.Enter Will Caverly’s Tinicum and Eastwick: Environmental Justice and Racial Injustice in Southwest Philadelphia. This polished work depicts how the people of Eastwick and the inhabitants of the marshes of Tinicum struggled to fight for their homes (x). Caverly employs government sources, newspapers, nongovernment organizations, oral histories, and records from Philadelphia Conservationist Inc’s periodic newsletter, The Beacon to tell the story of environmental and human rights violations in 1950s Philadelphia. He explains that this book brings together the idea of two movements: one sought to preserve the habitat of animals, while the other sought to preserve the habitat of humans. More specifically, Caverly focuses on how both movements “encountered hostility, political impasses, stark economic realities and more” (x).Will Caverly is a writer of history and the outdoors. He focuses on environmental and economic injustice in Pennsylvania. Over the years, he has raised money and researched, examining the outdoors and hunting in his early years. These ideas, which he mentioned on his podcast “The Tinderbox,” eventually led him to explore cities’ civil and political conflict through an environmental lens. This led to his present work on the history of urban planning in 1950s Philadelphia.In Tinicum and Eastwick, Caverly examines the intersection between urban redevelopment, community resilience, and environmental conservation. Caverly believes that through the story of Tinicum and Eastwick, humans can understand that it is not impossible to fight for social and environmental changes. He brings to light the emerging challenges of civil rights and grassroots movements looking to preserve Pennsylvania’s marshlands and communities. He ultimately tries to show that if changes are made to the Philadelphia region, do not expect the environment not to fight back: “Humans can ignore the titanic, perennial fistfight with nature, but do so at their peril” (x).In the introduction Caverly presents his arguments and reviews the story behind the book. Each chapter addresses background information on the lives and environments of Tinicum and Eastwick communities, eventually leading to the battle for environmental conservation and economic justice. Throughout the introduction, Caverly assembles a solid overview of the argument. He shows how political leaders prioritized economic development over the well-being of vulnerable communities and environments, disproportionately affecting the marginalized communities and environments of Tinicum and Eastwick.Chapters 1 through 4 provide the background history of Tinicum and Eastwick communities. Caverly notes that many people from outside of Philadelphia viewed Tinicum and Eastwick as “the swamp” of the Philadelphia region (24). Specifically, outsiders recognized the communities for their history of crime and periods of pollution and flooding in the local marsh regions. The second half of this section of the book introduces how these communities could be redeveloped into what the author refers to as a “city-within-a-city” (28). Here, Caverly examines The Beacon newspaper to demonstrate how the citizens of Tinicum and Eastwick expressed their grievances against the redevelopment of these regions. These grievances were built on the arguments against destroying the marshland environments of Tinicum and displacing thousands of residents from their homes. The idea of the paper was spread through the newly developed news title “BE A CON(servationist)” (45).Chapters 5 to 8 examine how redevelopment affected Tinicum and Eastwick communities and how people demonstrated their freedom of speech and protested against redevelopment. The Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority believed that by demolishing existing communities, more housing could be developed for individuals, and the neighborhoods they were looking to remove were the homes of lower-income minority groups in Eastwick.In chapters 5 and 6 Caverly quotes citizens who protested against project development in Tinicum and Eastwick, such as Dolores Rubillo, who, when fighting against the development of Tinicum and Eastwick communities, said: “We ask for the things that our ancestors fought for, and we fought for. We will fight again to protect our homes. It is indeed a sad situation that now exists in this proud democracy” (93). Overall, in these chapters Caverly references multiple personal experiences and words of people of the Eastwick and Tinicum regions and includes perspectives of organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to illustrate the racial intentions of local governments. Times magazine mentioned a report that Philadelphia’s goal was to have “no more than 10% of Eastwick . . . be Negro. We have to give the whites confidence that they can live in a town without being flooded” (99).Chapters 9 to 13 focus on the experiences of the two communities discussed after the start of Philadelphia’s region redevelopment. Tinicum and Eastwick were the only locations around Philadelphia in which whites and minority groups lived among each other, providing outsiders with a clear view of the progressive attitudes of the region. With the areas in the discussion being more of a swamp-like environment, there were constant flooding and sewage problems, further supporting the Philadelphia City Planning Commission’s desire to redevelop the region (111–12). Although the area was viewed from the outside as unsanitary and overcrowded, Caverly provides photos, oral histories, and conservation records to show how people viewed their home as a green region full of grass and trees that would be lost in construction.Caverly’s final section of the book examines the long-term effects of the disruption of the marshlands of Tinicum. Tinicum’s marshland environment is located near businesses such as the Philadelphia Airport. Examining the redevelopment plan for Tinicum, Caverly emphasizes the focus on flood mitigation and industrialized expansion (147–48). The people of the region found beauty behind the marshlands. They worried that the redevelopment project would destroy the meadows and beautiful lands they called home (150). In the 1960s the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge group sought to create a sanctuary for wildlife while educating the public on the importance of conservation when considering urban development (170–72). When examining the Philadelphia region today, people see a significant loss to the Tinicum marshlands because of development, which Caverly emphasizes to his readers is an ongoing problem balancing human development and environmental prosperity (172).Finally, in the epilogue, Caverly provides readers with a breakdown of both sides of the redevelopment. Focusing specifically on the living bodies of the region, “the landscape of Southwest Philadelphia and Delaware County is one that has a life of its own” (210). Whether examining the more environmental regions in Tinicum or the communities of Eastwick, people will have their visions and ideas about how the land should be used for industrial development. Caverly’s study shows readers how a region’s development can injure the land and harm people through racism, ignorance, and greed (211).The book’s primary strength lies in Caverly’s ability to employ government sources, newspapers, nongovernment organizations, oral histories, and Philadelphia Conservationist Inc’s periodic newsletter to depict what he calls a struggle against environmental and racial injustice. If Tinicum and Eastwick shows any weakness, the reviewer wonders what other larger cities worldwide have ignored environmental conservation and human rights to develop towns and organizations. Ultimately, Caverly’s work is an easy-to-read study that will appeal to environmental and civil rights historians while also catching the attention of a general audience. Moreover, Caverly’s study opens the door for environmental and civil rights historians to examine similar studies in large cities across the United States.
Nicholas D. Brothers (Thu,) studied this question.