Race and poverity in relation to disaster relief..I dunno

[Adex_Xeda]

I find myself repeatedly thinking about this article.

This needs to be talked about, but I'm still thinking about what the root question/issue is.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... EKCOV1.DTL

PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE
Exposed by a hurricane

Pati Poblete

Friday, September 9, 2005


* Printable Version
* Email This Article

Opinion

.Main Opinion Page
.Chronicle Sunday Insight
.Chronicle Campaigns

SF Chronicle Submissions
.Letters to the Editor
.Open Forum
.Sunday Insight

THE CONFERENCE table was filled with journalists from various ethnic media. The tsunami in Southeast Asia had hit just two weeks earlier, and these editors wanted to discuss the media's role in relief efforts for the victims.

Each person pointed out different angles of the story: "India needs more help than is being reported."

"Burma's government has censored the number of deaths."

"America must help rebuild."

And then a lone voice stood out.

"What about Africa? What about Rwanda? These people have been dying for years. Where are the relief efforts there?"

The questions came from Cobie Harris, who wasn't a journalist, but a professor at San Jose State University.

"Is it because these countries are filled with poverty and black people?"

Harris was only one of two African Americans in the room -- which was now filled with silence.

Nobody knew how to react. In the face of such a devastating natural disaster, no one would ever expect that the two cards -- race and class -- would ever be dealt.

But they were.

And while his questions were met with silence that day, the wrath of Hurricane Katrina and the images of the victims left in its wake have dealt the same uncomfortable hand once again. The question is: Will the nation react in silence, as we did during that meeting?

Take NBC, for example.

Nobody expected rapper Kanye West to veer from the script during a live celebrity telethon, but he did. West complained that America is set up "to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as possible."

When the visibly upset performer declared that "George Bush doesn't care about black people," the station cut his microphone and panned to comedian Chris Rock.

Though his comments were heard live on the East Coast, the station censored them from the West Coast, where it aired three hours later.

While it may be easy to blame the network for silencing his opinion, the censorship shouldn't be surprising.

So politically correct has our society become that any mention of racial disparity is enough to end a conversation altogether.

What Hurricane Katrina has done is blow the cover off this facade. Yes, even in this age and in this country, there remain deep economic and cultural divides rooted in racism -- and here are those who suffer from it.

They are the most vulnerable, disadvantaged and ignored in our society -- those left behind because they can't afford cars to escape from a catastrophic natural disaster, who can't afford to buy homes in the hills, or dip into a nest egg in an emergency.

They are those whose neighborhoods have the poorest schools, stores with little or no fresh produce and check-cashing centers in place of banks. They are those who are the most dependent on the government when they lose everything.

Before Katrina even touched down, New Orleans was home to one of the largest and poorest black populations in the country. Two-thirds of the city was African American, one-fourth of them living in poverty.

In the area most damaged by floodwaters lived the highest concentration of African Americans.

Nature doesn't discriminate, but in this case, it can educate. The hurricane and the government's slow response in its aftermath has reopened discussion that has long been swept under the national rug.

"For people to walk in feces in the wealthiest country in the world is an abomination -- for whatever reason," said Harris, who teaches political science. "When the tsunami hit, we got there in 48 hours, yet it took days to get to New Orleans. What does that say?"

Bay Area resident James Harris (no relation) recently returned from the Houston Astrodome where he was filming a documentary on the economic impact of the hurricane. "We have seen on countless occasions where the federal government responded with vigor and force where there was motivation," he said.

"So I'm not satisfied with the response that President Bush is inept to handle the situation. When he has been motivated, he has moved swiftly. In Iraq, he wasted no time, when the hurricane hit Florida, he got things done. He's not incapable. These are the people who have been forgotten for years."

It took a tsunami to show us what America could do for the international community.

It took a hurricane to show us there's far more work to do here at home.

Pati Poblete is an editorial writer. You can e-mail her at ppoblete@sfchronicle.com.

[Voronwë]

i dont think FEMA did a poor job of responding to this situation BECAUSE most of the stranded people were black. I don't think George Bush kept to his business-as-usual publicity calendar (making ludicrous speeches comparing Iraq to WW2) on the day after the levees broke because he doesn't like black people. I don't htink any of it is concious or deliberate racism.

I think it has more to do with class. In that these people are poor. Their poverty is definitely associated with their race, and hundreds of years of institutionalized racism, and a continued mismanagement of social services in that area.

but i think the lack of urgency of response probably was in part due to their being underclassed citizens. In that they don't have people banging phones 2 seconds after the levee breaks on their bahalf making things happen. There are not influencial persons among their midst who can tap into resources and connections rapidly.

I think though, regardless there are glaring problems with the governmental response.

On Saturday morning, 2 days before landfall, Katrina was the largest measured storm in the Atlantic in 70 years, with a dead aim on New Orleans.

There was every reason to believe that New Orleans was going to be completely obliterated. Anybody who did not view that as a very real contingency is a complete incompetant fool. In fact, Katrina weakened substantially by the time it made landfall.

IMAGINE IF IT HAD STAYED AT 170 MPH!? How woeful would this response have been in that context?

There should have been flatbed trucks, tractor trailers, tanker trucks full of water, national guard, all of that sitting in Texas or Oklahoma by Sunday evening if not Monday morning, ready to roll out.

There was no danger of the storm threatening that far west, and there was a completely massive amount of space and infrastructure to stage a response to be ready to roll into New Orleans within hours.

The government declared a state of emergency at this time. They should have done more than issued a press release, and truly mobilized for an emergency.

There was almost no scenario where a major response wasn't going to be needed, and to say "they had to wait and see what happens" is idiotic.



so that is that piece. FEMA and associated agencies so utterly botched this entire thing it is ridiculous. Stuff should have been there on Tuesday, if not Monday night. Exactly, we can airlift shit to Banda Ache, Thailand in 48 hours, but it takes 4 days to get to one of our own cities.


The WORST part is that George Bush was going about it all as business as usual, doing press appearances strumming a banjo in Idaho or wherever. What?

Dick Cheney was too busy purchasing a luxurious waterfront home in Virginia.

So if somebody thinks that the administration didnt really give a fuck, maybe its because that's exactly how they responded.

i do think that in America today we dont want to talk about race and class. And why is it that today in 2005 we still have very large concentrations of urban, poor black people. Bill Cosby has asked some social questions that did hit tangentially to these larger issues, at least the components that the African-American community itself controls.

But we try to sweep poverty under the rug in the United States. We have higher infant mortality rates in some of our cities than some 3rd world countries, where people make like $1000 a year. And race is intermingled with class in this country - in part due to institutionalized racism for hundreds of years, that unfortunately still has broad reaching effects even today.

i think there is definitely a camp that is of the opinion that wants to act like there is no problem. Toilets are integrated, kids can go to the University of Arkansas, 'quit complaining already' and pull yourself up by your bootstraps. my opinion is that this view is simply unrealistic. Real progress takes generations, and it takes investment.

there is also a group that takes these efforts to correct the ethnic disparities and tries to use them to their advantage, and not in the interest of those persons or society at large.

[Aabidano]

There's a lot of money in NO. Most of the non-poor people were gone, but the people with money's homes and businesses were still there. A big chunk of the US petro-chemical industry is based in or supplied from that area too.

I don't know if race is a valid argument as a primary cause as to why relief didn't get there sooner. A secondary cause? Maybe.

Never attribute to malice that which can be acheived by incompetence.

[Nick]

Meh, I don't think the President specifically wants all these black people to die (but would you bet against it?) but he really obviously does not give a flying fuck about poor people anyway, and to say it is beyond the administration to be malicious (especially against poor people) is just, like, wrong and stuff.

Their agenda lies with keeping the rich rich and the poor poor, regardless of any disaster.
Don't believe me, have a look at how the Bush administration has been throwing cookies at the elites for the last 5 years.

The list of tax cuts and breaks is longer than your arm.

I digress, but you clearly have much more faith in your governments integrity than most (both in the USA and worldwide).

[Voronwë]

i agree with you aabidano. I dont think it was in the thought process of why any decision was made.

I think that were these affluent, influential people in trouble, the urgency of response would have increased. That is all hypothetical though.

We do know the entire response was botched on a massive level.

Regardless, though we do have an opportunity to examine race and class in our country, and instead of running from the conversation like we usually do, perhaps it would be better to truly investigate the causes and solutions on all sides.

[Aabidano]

Their agenda lies with keeping the rich rich and the poor poor, regardless of any disaster.

I don't think they care enough to make an effort to keep the poor poor. That would require activity when simple neglect would seem to be quite effective.

No government programs will ever lift more than a fraction of them out of poverty. They've been trained to be dependent, without major changes to the welfare state that part will never change.

[Bubba Grizz]

I just hope that when this gets a deep looking at they weigh more on it being Class over Race. In this regard I mean that I hope that someone who is poor isn't neglected just because they aren't black. Poor is Poor regardless of Color. No one wants to talk about the Poor White Man because that will come off as racist no matter how unintentional.

[Voronwë]

i disagree with that Aabi to some extent. I believe some of that is real.

But it isnt a level playing field. In Atlanta, compare the facilities, faculty and staff, and overall quality of education in the lower income predominantly black public schools, and the public schools in Northwest Atlanta.

The manner in which the government funds basic social services like education is absolutely tied to affluency. Yeah "education starts at home" (cliche but true), but part of the reason the welfare society thing perpetuates is because there simply is not a ton of opportunity beyond it.

i think if opportunity was more robust, and if the training (ie education) to prepare people to sieze the opportunity was at an acceptable level, you would see a lot larger percentage of people making the choice to leave slums and welfare checks behind.

[Aabidano]

i think if opportunity was more robust, and if the training (ie education) to prepare people to sieze the opportunity was at an acceptable level, you would see a lot larger percentage of people making the choice to leave slums and welfare checks behind.

No disagreement from me on that point. On the other hand I don't know how many would take the opportunity unless given no other alternative. People are very resistant to change, even for the better.

For a long time I thought a lot of it was enviromental, then they bulldozed some projects in Tampa (to make expensive condos and widen I-4) and moved the people out into the county. They brought their baggage with them, hopefully the second generation takes advantage of the better schools and such available where they are now.

[Voronwë]

i dont think there is much chance of "saving" adults with established habits and so on. the place to focus resources is on subsequent generations, and to the current generation to the extent that their prosperity/health/welfare is critical to the kids and so on.

[Kylere]

Man, within the US I cannot imagine much worse of a place to be poor and black than in the NO to Biloxi strip.

[Pherr the Dorf]

There's a lot of money in NO. Most of the non-poor people were gone, but the people with money's homes and businesses were still there.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9261560/