Is the suffering brought about by Katrina distributed evenly in our society? I received this email: "In the Boston Globe sports section today, Bob Ryan made a chilling comment:
I fully realize that there were always two New Orleans, the one I and other tourists saw, and the other New Orleans, the one inhabited by the thousands of poor people, mostly of color. Judging from the shots we see of those who were herded into the Superdome, the white people mostly managed to get out. The others weren’t so fortunate.
Shouldn’t we be guided by the Talmud’s direction not to build a tannery in the city? Isn’t this exactly what we’ve done in New Orleans -- at least for the people who don’t have the means to get out when a catastrophic event hits?" -- sent by an anonymous reader, thanks. I do sense that the poor and people of color are most likely to not be properly evacuated. Along with sick and elderly, they may lack the money and/or vehicles to leave. Furthermore, they may have less means to cope with the hurricane's aftermath. Blacks may also be portrayed by the media as "looting" rather than coping with a desperate situation. See Ben's telling photos at Hungry Blues. This disaster also makes it difficult for people to get their drugs, whether meds for mental health or narcotics. (Plus, more stress for caffeine and nicotine addicts). Not certain how the pharmacolization of society is distributed, but again the poor are disadvantaged. As Ulrich Beck wrote in Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity: Some people are more affected than others by the distribution and growth of risks, that is, social risk positions spring up. In some of their dimensions these follow the inequalities of class and strata positions, but they bring a fundamentally different logic [than wealth] into play. Risks of modernization sooner or later also strike those who produce or profit from them. They contain a boomerang effect, which breaks up the patter of class and national society." p23 trans.Ritter Beck points out the complexity of social justice. In a natural catastrophe, like Katrina, a wide swath of people are harmed. Certainly, many wealthy folks will suffer physically and economically. The boomerang strikes those invested in the development of New Orleans, Biloxi etc, in the concentrated petro-chemical industries of the region. Nevertheless, before the boomerang, hurricane Katrina strikes hardest and first at the poor and disadvantaged. In a risk society like ours, social justice issues may be more obscure and difficult to ferret out. Kaspit
Also writing about the poor and/or people of color: Larry James and J-wild. Jack Shafer in Slate. Larry James writes: "Hurricane Katrina ravaged the poor. Almost 30% of the population of New Orleans lived below the national poverty line before she hit. As is usually the case, the poorest citizens in the city lived in the worst places in terms of vulnerability to a storm like Katrina. .... Politicians and preachers take to the stages of America to pray and to pronounce. The following day the poor continue to suffer. Just once I wish we were honest enough to link this call and its promise to our out-of-control materialism, to our systemic national injustices and to our failure to care for the weakest among us."
This is a good question that I've been pondering from my own perspective as a liberal Catholic--and as a resident of a neighborhood not so different from the poorest parts of New Orleans (I live in North Minneapolis, MN, which--contrary to the visions many have of tow-headed Swedes, this neighborhood is 2/3 black and 1/3 below the poverty line; I'm solidly middle, class, single and white). I know that my neighborhood doesn't get the same resources--investment in infrastructure and business, police protection, funding for transport, etc. And I think everyone in the broader city knows it, but chooses not to face it. I wonder if there will be any change following Katrina, or will we as a country face the reality of our divided culture by sticking our heads deeper in the sand?
P.S. Can you explain the tannery reference for us Talmudically under-exposed?
Posted by: paul | September 06, 2005 at 06:59 PM
Institutionalized racial discrimination is hard to pin down, and hence hard for those both outside and within the institutions to ameliorate.
The tannery reference is from the Mishnah (Bava Batra 2:9), which requires that a tannery be distanced 50 cubits to the east (downwind) from city limits. I think my correspondent rightly points to this rule as an example of a health/safety precaution under Jewish law. A goal of this blog is to critically examine whether Jewish law actually could help guide us toward cleaner, safer public policies.
Thanks very much for your comment; your have a fine blog.
Posted by: kaspit | September 06, 2005 at 09:53 PM