Racism and Katrina

[pegkerr]

In all my compulsive reading of the Katrina coverage, I've been mulling over the ugly questions that have been raised about how racism has made this whole story play out. I was withholding judgment for awhile. But then I read this, and this and saw this, among other things (there was one other link that I can't find right now). And I've decided that, yeah, chalk me up as one of the minority of whites who think that race does have something to do with the abysmal response. Along with class, I'll add.

I'm thinking about some advice I gave to two friends of mine recently who have been struggling with a troubled marriage: if one of you says, "I see a problem here" and the other says "you're imagining things, there is no problem here" then the proper response is: guess what, you both have a problem here, whether the second sees it or not. Because if it's a problem for the first one, it's a problem for the relationship.

So . . . what can a liberal but often clueless honkey woman like me do about it?

Comments

[silme.livejournal.com]

I like what one person said on one of your links...

Yes, it's one of the things that the ruling class uses to divide the rest of us. Stopping talking about it won't make it stop working: it will create a vacuum where race is talked about only by racists.

Yes, SES is a big part of it -- class, poverty, etc. But I keep seeing race as part of it also. And I say this as a privileged white person who looks very white; people can't see my 1/16th Native American nor can they what probably is 1/64th black. What might my life be like if they could?

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

In some cases, race and class are inseparable. I don't think that should keep us from recognizing that class is a factor. If those in power can keep those who have no power focused on each other as "the enemy," who does it benefit? Those in power.

I doubt that any well-off or even comfortably middle-class black people were trapped in the Superdome because they had no way out of the city. And while Bush played his new guitar, Condi Rice shopped for pricey shoes.

The pictures from the airport that show the evacuees from nursing homes show both black and white elderly people, lying in the same wretched conditions.

I'm not sure how the first account you link to (even granting that everything in it is true; there have been some challenges to its factuality, and not just from people on the right) supports the case for racism being part of this; the only mention of race is in reference to the Gretna sheriffs: "They responded that the West Bank was
not going to become New Orleans and there would be no Superdomes in their
City. These were code words for if you are poor and black, you are not crossing the Mississippi River and you were not getting out of New Orleans." But unless Bradshaw and Slonsky themselves are poor and black, the account shows that the sheriffs weren't letting anyone in.

In your second link, the question is raised whether the response would have been the same if all the poor people trapped in NOLA had been white. No one can know, of course, but we can look at history: for example, the treatment of poor white people who went in search of work in California during the Dust Bowl years . . . turned back at the borders by armed law-enforcement officers . . .

Again, of course I know that racism exists. But I think that those in power have a vested interest in convincing poor people of color that all of their problems are due to racism, and in convincing poor white people that all of their problems are due to people of color.

[perigee.livejournal.com]

I think that you can do plenty of things about it.

One is to keep talking about it. Another is to keep trying to make your choices (especially those that relate to these issues) intentionally and well-thought-out. I don't think it's possible for anyone to be totally consistent, but I do think that application of intent can help keep sure that any disconnect between intent and result is low in your life.

I do not think you are clueless at all, and I do like your analogy to relationships.

I can tell you that as a highly assimilated half-Chinese guy-like person, even I experience the negative effects of implicit and explicit racism directly, and it's easier for me to have as friends honkies who take it as writ that their lives are entwined in racism and that living sort of entails implicit racisms and implicitly slanted power dynamics. I find that people who do accede that no matter how hard they try, they're probably perpetuating some kind of power dynamic not everyone might be happy about are more intentional and careful about what they do and say than those who don't, and that that, in turn, minimizes the harm they do to me and to other I care about who may not be pink (or old or rich or male or...) themselves.

This is very difficult to talk about, and I still have people in my life who truly don't think about it, as well as many who do think about it and have come to different conclusions.

[perigee.livejournal.com]

Also, regarding your second link, there is an extreme disconnect in America, especially, where people are kind of "over" the whole "race issue" and so it's just business as usual that of course racial minorities are poor, so we can just stop thinking about that social injustice and focus on how poor people are treated.

The reason I call it a disconnect is that the fact is, poor people are still often disproportionally (and in urban areas, usually) of racial or ethnic minority. And I thought it was the dream of the civil rights era that 1) there'd be a good mix there and that if we had to have poor people, a representative portion of them would also be pink or 2) if we could avoid it, we'd try not to have desperately poor people.

And we got done with Civil Rights and we still have a bunch of poor people who also happen to be non-pink. But since we're done with Civil Rights activism or something, it's rude to bring up the "race card" and instead we should focus on economic factors of prejudice.

I think I missed the "being over race" bus. Somehow, no matter how hard I scrub, my olive skin doesn't turn pink, and people still treat me differently from pink people. Or maybe it's my eyes. Should I have a surgeon "correct" my epicanthic fold?

[dreamcoat-mom.livejournal.com]

Again, of course I know that racism exists. But I think that those in power have a vested interest in convincing poor people of color that all of their problems are due to racism, and in convincing poor white people that all of their problems are due to people of color.

That is something my sister, a transplant from lily-white NW Wisconsin who lived in rural south Georgia for over 10 years observed almost immediately upon her arrival there. We spend a great deal of time bemoaning the existence of racism, which we KNOW flourishes, but seldom seek its source. There are points at which race and class can and cannot be separated. In the case of the Katrina response, you're probably right - it would be pretty tough to tell - but in light of the point you made in your last sentence, I don't think that citing racism as at least one of the elements here is inappropriate.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Yes, poor people in the U.S. are disproportionately people of color. But I don't think it matters to the power structure whether they are or not. Countries, societies, cultures, that are racially/ethnically homogeneous still have class structures, still have rich and poor. You'll find rich and poor--powerful and powerless--in Liberia and Korea as surely as in a U.S. city.

For many people, the only measure of their success, of their position, of their status, of their value, is to be better than someone else. It's a zero-sum game: I can be "better" only if you are "worse." (Look even at the human tendency to believe that "different" must mean one is better than the other.) And one obvious, clearly delineated way to measure "better" is by worldly goods. If you have more than I, you are obviously "better" than I. "Have" is obviously better than "have not."

This isn't just a material measure, either. One thread of Protestantism is not the only world religion in which one's success in life is considered to reflect one's spiritual stature. And not all of those religions are in white cultures.

Focusing on economic injustice does not mean that one does not believe that racial/ethnic injustice exists. But my reading of history is that in every time and place, when people divide the world--as humans seem unable not to do--into "us" and "them," the single certain differentiation is between "have" and "have not."

If you believe that racism is the most pervasive human characteristic causing injustice, then surely your focus should be on racism. I don't think that means that you don't think classism exists. But neither does my opinion that classism is the most pervasive human characteristic causing injustice mean that I don't think racism exists.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

but in light of the point you made in your last sentence, I don't think that citing racism as at least one of the elements here is inappropriate.

Of course it's not; racism is a component of much in human (not just American) life.

But I think that if racism were magically eliminated (even retroactively, to eliminate the historical effects), there would still have been poor people trapped and neglected. They have been trapped and neglected throughout history (and probably prehistory as well).

[perigee.livejournal.com]

I don't know if racism is the most pervasive human characteristic contributing to or causing injustice. I've always tended to think that the most cogent narrative I've ever seen about what contributes to us vs. them mentalities is The Mahabharata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata) which, among many other things, is a narrative that seems to assert that a human characteristic is putting one's children's well-being and comforts ahead of others' children's, and that as long as that is a human characteristic, there will be bias and there will be war.

I think you and I have demonstrated amply that you and I do not share the same view of the world. In fact, in this very thread, I started, and then stopped myself, to/from talking directly to you about your take on things, because I don't think you and I communicate very well in race-oriented discussions, even when that's not really the necessarily primary point of the larger discussion. I do not know why this is so, though I suspect part of it is cultural and part of it is generational, and some of it may also have to do with our experience of the world from the perspective of our personal morphology.

But regardless of the reason, I wish that you and I could leave well enough alone. I think our disparity of perspective and reason cause us both a bit of heartache.

But I need you to know that part of the reason race and racial issues matter to me is simply that ignoring them is not an option for me. Racism is done to me, no matter how hard I try to opt out of it. That you are able to personally opt out of it by passing as pink in our pink-oriented culture is your privilege and I envy you for it.

At the same time I figure you have the same or similar criticism potentially on me, since I pass regularly as a man and sexism is likely done to you whether you try to opt out of it or not.

My point is that it is not my cussedness that causes me to be fixated on racial issues, but my morphology - the color of my skin and the shape of my eyes - and I think you and I may have more in common about being victims of non-consensual implicit and explicit bias than it may appear at first blush.

For what it's worth, I strongly agree that economic power disparity is in the mix, but I also don't think that you can meaningfully separate or ignore the concommitant implicit and explicit biases regarding color of skin or general personal morphology of the involved people. It's not just economic position and it's not just racism, but a really difficult mix that I think is enriched when we talk about all the factors, including those, and family structure, and religion and all sorts of other things that are in the mix. Race is interesting in the mix because it involves often very quick visual assessment. Economics is also interesting because it is almost as easy to determine economic position visually, or at least behaviorally (both in an enculturated sense and in the sense of whether a person has or has not possessions, or is or is not able to personally arrange travel for emself out of a disaster area).

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

If someone could wave a magic wand, would you trade the physical circumstances of your current life, including your home, material possessions, and degree of financial security (whatever it may be), as well as the way people treat you, for a poor white man's life, including his home (if any), material possessions, and degree of financial security (i.e., none at all), as well as the way people treat him?

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

But I need you to know that part of the reason race and racial issues matter to me is simply that ignoring them is not an option for me.

I know that. How could I not know that? It isn't like I have no (even if secondhand) experience with an Asian American male's (or Asian American female's) not being able to ignore race and racial issues. But this phrasing frustrates me. It seems to imply--perhaps I only infer it--that race and racial issues don't matter to me or that I ignore them.

I don't want people to overlook the racism in the reactions to this disaster. I simply want them also to see the clear classism: people who were trapped in the Superdome were trapped not because they were black (they weren't all black) but because they were poor (or in some cases, elderly and/or sick, which are other issues). What happened after that may well have been the result of racism, but they were there in the first place because they were poor.

As you have your reasons for focusing on race, I have mine for focusing on class. I grew up in a working-class family. We were never "poor," I don't think--certainly we always had food, and even treats like Kool-Aid--but my parents lived from paycheck to paycheck during my childhood. My father spent a lot of time in the late '40s and early '50s away from the family, traveling to wherever there was a job in construction. He never knew what it was to be his own boss, to work just for the welfare of his own family. After he died, sooner than he should have at 65, I wrote a song in which the chorus says, "It was bosses that killed Charlie, God damn their souls to hell."

No wonder I followed my mother's example (she was a medical transcriptionist) and became a freelancer!

At the same time I figure you have the same or similar criticism potentially on me, since I pass regularly as a man and sexism is likely done to you whether you try to opt out of it or not.

Well, no, I don't have the same or similar criticism of you. It would never occur to me to criticize someone for making their issues those issues that have direct relevance to their lives.

Truth be told, I have experienced very, very little sexism in my life. Some of that may be because of my appearance--I am tall and never slouch, I have a confident demeanor (or as my husband says, I look not only like I could, but like I would be willing to, "beat the shit out of them"). Some may be good fortune. Some may be an intrinsic ability to ignore other people's opinions and go on doing what I'm doing. For whatever reason, no one, ever, told me, for example, that there was something I couldn't do because I was female. (OK, one guy in college told me that there was a career I couldn't get into because they didn't take "girls," but he was factually wrong.)

I agree that we don't communicate very well on race. I don't know why. I'm pretty sure that it isn't generational, because my kids are younger than you and they and I communicate well on the issue. I'm sorry that our exchanges cause you heartache; as I tried to make clear last time, the only pain that they cause me (for reasons I explained to misiais that they seem to cause you pain. I'm a born arguer; I may get frustrated, exasperated, annoyed, or even angry (not often) in arguing, but it doesn't cause me heartache.

[dreamcoat-mom.livejournal.com]

Yup - racism/classism in this case looks like a chicken/egg sort of thing here. It's an awful travesty whether it's a matter of race or class or both, but the fact that it's happening to 21st century Americans is almost beyond belief. Your assertion that racism still exists in large part because it continues to serve those in positions of power makes sense to me. I live in a community that is predominantly poor and white - the median income is around $15,000.00 per family per year, yet the majority of voters voted Republican. Why? Because they believed that it was more important to vote a "morally conservative" platform than to save jobs or human services "that'll just go to all of the black people in Milwaukee," a quote I overheard in a cafe during the election year.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Yes. Exactly. "Divide and conquer" isn't just a cliche, it's a strategy that's practiced every day by the powerful.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd rather believe that you keep discussing this with me at length because for some good hearted reason you wish to reach mutual understanding, than because of being a born arguer you are compelled to flog this with me even though I obviously would rather just get through it and beyond it with you. :>

[(Anonymous)]

In the days since the Titanic went down, where the affluent passengers floated away in half-empty lifeboats and the lower class passengers drowned/sank/froze to death, we've come exactly, well, not far at all.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

Race intertwined with class, most definitely. I think a lot of what can be done about it is /talk/ about it, and keep talking about it, and keep encouraging discussion.

Resist blaming, and encourage other people to resist blaming either themselves or others. That leads to defensiveness, and when defensiveness is manifesting itself, it's hard to listen to anything. The kind of racism that I've been seeing during this disaster is most often not conscious and not deliberate. If you saw the two captions of 'finding vs looting', you probably know there was a very good /reason/ for the captions-- but it's also true that it played into and helped create people's perceptions of what was going on.

Keeping aware of it is kind of like keeping aware of sexism. Most sexism isn't done deliberately by cruel people, after all.

So basically, keep talking, keep being aware, and keep confronting your own part in it. (I'm white, I'm middle class, and I am quite often clueless. I have, however, had good friends who have helped me immensely.)

If you want to do something Right Now, I'd really suggest seeing if there's a local organization thinking about holding a dialogue on race. These things can often be uncomfortable, but extremely effective. I didn't do a lot of web searching, but it seems as if the Minneapolis YWCA is doing a lot of good work on the subject. (With both adults and kids.)

I keep hearing, incidentally, the question of whether Larry Bradshaw and Lorrie Beth Slonsky are white. (For those not following links, those are the folks who wrote the account of the Gretna Sheriff denying them entrance.)

That's so very much not the point. In fact, this is an example of racism hurting everyone, be they white, black, or polka-dotteed. The essence of the confrontation is that the Gretna Sheriff is one of many people who had heard the rumors of the situation getting out of control at the Superdome, and /believed/ them. I don't know if all of the wilder rumors /are/ true (the 'they're shooting at the helicopters' one turned out to be false), but /regardless/ of whether it's fact or fiction, the Superdome had, at that point, turned into one of those big ol' boogeyman Things To Be Scared Of. So it affected how he thought about the entire situation, and how he reacted to people who were not at the Superdome at all.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Maybe I didn't write that well. The part about my being a born arguer was related to my not feeling heartache from arguing, not to my reason for arguing.

My main purpose in arguing--whatever form it takes or name it has--is to challenge my own opinions. Second to that is to reach mutual understanding; however, since it's impossible ever to know for sure that one understands what another means, much less feels, I hope only for a reasonable approximation.

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

Ask your interlocutor, "Do you think that if there had been a disastrous flood in Portland, Maine, the suburbs next door would have sent out the sheriffs with shotguns to keep the refugees out?"

Because, no, nobody would have allowed this to happen to a majority-white population.

Not racial, I don't think

[amandageist.livejournal.com]

My husband and I were talking at length about this, because neither one of us feel race has much to do with it. We asked ourselves: if this had happened in San Antonio/south Texas, and where Hispanics are in the majority and probably comprise most of the poorer classes, would it be racial?

Our thought: No. Because we both ascribe "racial" in the way it is being used, as having some intent attached. Given the geographic location and the history, it so happens that there are loads of black people in New Orleans. Lots of them are poor. Just like, given the geographic location and the history, there are lots of Hispanics here. Lots of them are poor.

It was past racism that affected the particular mixes in these locations. But to say that the fact that the poor were black, affected the way response happened? I'm sure you can find isolated incidents of race affecting an individual response, but to apply it to the entire effort? In fact, I'm not sure you can, the effort has not been coordinated enough to have any sort of central scheming like that.

Occam's Razor. I can ascribe all the mistakes to human error and poor organization. I don't have to reach any farther than that. I think if the stranded people had been white, Native Americans, Russian emigres, Hispanic, Asian, migrant workers, etc.--the response would have had the same problems.

As to your marriage analogy--I can't give it 100% applicability. For one, you don't take into account that in some cases, the partner with the problem is not healthy, and I think that applies to your racial analogy. I think minorities have an unhealthy belief that they are entitled to special treatment because of various past injustices (long past), and I don't remotely agree with that. If I'm in a relationship with you, and I believe you ought to bring me breakfast in bed every day, and you don't--yes, it's a problem for the relationship, but it's your attitude that needs to change. What I need to do is help you through that growth, not bring you breakfast.

That said, there's surely work to be done. What I do? I have raised my children to be as color-blind as I can. I work with others on the basis of their abilities and contributions, not their race. My firm, in fact, has Diversity listed prominently in the competencies one must master to succeed, and it does not limit itself to race, but includes diversity in styles of approach, ways of thinking, etc. I see so much of the discussion about race having the effect of reinforcing the differences, rather than ignoring them to celebrate the similarities, and this is sad. So I try not to join activities or movements that, to my mind, only draw the lines darker.

If any of this is coherent? We so often share goals but got there by widely divergent paths.

~Amanda

Re: Not racial, I don't think

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

*Is speechless for a moment* In this case, I believe these people were absolutely damn right to expect someone to bring them breakfast in this exact situation. Why? Because they were American taxpayers, and they had paid for that breakfast with the fruits of their labors, their own tax money.

You speak as if you think by helping these people we would have been doing them a favor, going above and beyond what was expected and necessary, something that they don't deserve.

I entirely disagree. Giving someone emergency aid isn't "special treatment." It's the designated function of FEMA.

It is good, I suppose, that you are raising your children to be color-blind.

Just be sure you don't raise them to be blind.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I don't know anything about the economic situation of Portland, Maine, so I don't know what the class system might be. But armed law enforcement certainly kept white people out of California during the Dust Bowl years.

Re: Not racial, I don't think

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I have raised my children to be as color-blind as I can.

Only parents of white children dare to do that.

Re: Not racial, I don't think

[kiramartin.livejournal.com]

Be careful (when well intentioned) teaching children to be color blind too much...we all have differences and our eyes don't overlook that one is white, asian, black, etc. I have an adopted korean boy and I am advised by international adoptive specialists continually to embrace his culture and ethnicity and who he is-celebrate it ...not to ignore it...as though it isn't there or a part of who he is. Don't get me wrong...we don't focus on it either. At the same time ALWAYS supporting the fact of how we are the "same inside"...we give and receive love, we all have an amazing brain, having feelings, etc. Just something to think about. I feel that acting "color blind" is in a way...racial...saying to ourselves "okay Im not racial and I'm going to just ignore that she is black (or whatever). I have ALWAYS taught my kids we are all the same inside. Just another point of view...

[bordergold.livejournal.com]

I'm not white or black, but I honestly honestly think that it has nothing to do with racism, or even much with class, it's sheer INCOMPETENCY and IDIOCY on both Brown and Bush's part.

Re: Not racial, I don't think

[genealogygirl.livejournal.com]

So, you think if it were white doctors and lawyers and investment bankers and their families and children clinging to the roofs of their Garden District mansions shown on CNN that first day, the response would have been the same?

:::raises eyebrows:::::

I suspect the Marines would have been storming in, had that been the case.

I think it's correct to say that poverty is the root underlying issue by and large, but I think either way (whether because of poverty or racism or both), the response was utterly appalling at every level. Nothing less than a national disgrace.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

On that, a substantial number of people can agree, I'm sure.