Toxic Neglect: The Plight Of Poor New Orleans
Covering the cleanup efforts after Hurricane Katrina, Robert Bullard examines why the government neglects the problems of the poor, and in fact, makes them worse.
"In the real world, all communities are not created equal. If a community happens to be poor, black, or located on the 'wrong side of the tracks,' it receives less protection than communities inhabited largely by affluent whites in the suburbs. Generally, rich people tend to take the higher land, leaving the poor and working class more vulnerable to flooding and environmental pestilence. Race maps closely with social vulnerability and the geography of environmental risks.
At the same time, much of the death and destruction attributed to natural disasters is in fact unnatural and man-made. "There is no such thing as a 'natural' disaster," Case Western Reserve University history professor Ted Steinberg writes in his book Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natural Disaster in America. What many people call natural disasters are in fact acts of social injustice perpetuated by government and business on the poor, people of color, disabled, elderly, homeless, and non-drivers—groups least able to withstand such disasters. Flooding in the New Orleans area largely resulted from breached levees and flood walls. A May 2006 report from the Russell Sage Foundation, In the Wake of the Storm: Environment, Disaster, and Race After Katrina, found that these same groups often experience a second disaster after the initial storm and that pre-storm vulnerabilities limit their participation in rebuilding and recovery."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
Change Comes to Committee on Energy and Commerce - Nov 21, 2008
Has SF Opened the Door for Tax-Free Transit Benefits? - Nov 13, 2008
Green Building Industry Staying Afloat - Nov 12, 2008
Freight Rail Flourishes Due To Innovations - Nov 11, 2008
Perils Of Green Energy - Nov 11, 2008
More detail is needed
Denese M. Neu, Ph.D.
During the past 16 months, I've read a great deal of inaccurate assessment, evaluation, and reporting with regard to pre- and post-Katrina New Orleans. While the post-disaster environmental issues are a concern, so too were the pre-disaster environmental issues of the 300 year old city. What I find disturbing about this author's piece is that he operates on the inaccurate perception that these problems are related to racial geography yet doesn't seem to know much about the physical geography of the area. For starters, he says "Gentilly, Bywater, Orleans Parish, and other New Orleans neighborhhoods". HUH!? All of N.O. neighborhoods are contained within Orleans Parish. Orleans Parish and the City of New Orleans have the same physical boundaries for those who are unfamiliar with the area.
Returning to the issue of race: N.O. was approx. 67% black prior to Katrina. Even areas that had high rates of white residency had higher than U.S. average minority population (meaning more than 12.7%). This author leads readers to assume that N.O. is composed of poor black and other minorities while rich whites live in suburbs that didn't flood. This is not true. St. Bernard Parish which is considered a suburb was 71% white and was 100% flooded. Jefferson Parish was 65% white and received substantial flooding. All in all, these data show that minority populations are higher than the U.S. average. With regard to the geography of income, the areas of Orleans Parish that survived the flooding did have higher rates of whites and pockets of wealth. These areas are higher ground and likewise comprise the oldest sections of this city.
New Orleans East may be predominately Af.Am. but so was the entire city. The dumping issue wasn't about race, it was about physical geography and geology. This area of the city was last to develop and is the only area that contains large, undeveloped land parcels. It also contained very affluent, gated communities with large minority ownership. In fact, my little "rich (i.e., white)" house along the river has less square footage than the garages of some of these "poor (i.e., Af. Am." homes that flooded. The argument is off and simply doesn't tell the story of pre- or post-New Orleans.
Also, the author states that the city flooded due to breaching of the levees and flood walls. No. The city flooded due to the collapse of the levees and walls built by the Army Corps of Engineers to protect THE ENTIRE population who resided within the flood protection system. It is my understanding that New Orleans East lies outside of the system, but again, this is not an issue of race but rather of residential location choice. You can buy more land and more square footage for your dollar but you also assume more flood risk than investing on higher ground.
Lastly, the author mentions the "shamelessly sluggish" rebuilding effort. How does a city and population more forward when every activist and rights group gets involved for their particular agenda? If the city is so unsafe for the location population, why have so many moved here post-Katrina for the jobs generated by the Katrina industry? And can we please stop correlating racial predominancy for an irrelevant argument? New Orleans was a predominantly black city so of course there are going to be a lot of areas that were predominately black.
The distinguished professor has presented some data, facts, and subjective interview material along with a suggestion that the government can correct environmental injustices. OK. Where does he suggest the debris go and does he suggest that New Orleanians not be allowed to return until the rebuilding is finished according to quality standards? Who's going to do the work? That was a stupid question...obviously it will be done by all the post-Katrina workers and researchers who have it all figured out...
wasn't just the poor and non-white
The professor writing here notes:
"If a community happens to be poor, black, or located on the 'wrong side of the tracks,' it receives less protection than communities inhabited largely by affluent whites in the suburbs. Generally, rich people tend to take the higher land, leaving the poor and working class more vulnerable to flooding and environmental pestilence. Race maps closely with social vulnerability and the geography of environmental risks."
Has the author even visited New Orleans? Certainly, the residents of Lakeview have more resources to overcome the flooding that overook the *largely white* area in the wake of Katrina. If you want to say they have advantages (as did white residents of Gentilly and Eastern New Orleans, by the way--NOLA had less residential segregation pre-Katrina than most US cities), that's perfectly legitimate, but why start the article in this hackneyed, careless way?