In his book, Come Hell or High Water, Michael
Eric Dyson recounts how hundreds of thousands of people were left behind in the
Gulf Coast region to experience the after
math of Hurricane Katrina. Those left behind to suffer the destruction,
disease, and death were predominately the black poor. These people had no way
out of the city before the storm hit, and received inadequate relief after the
destruction was done. It is no secret that the people who were mainly affected
by the aftermath of Katrina were poor people of color. These people also tended
to be the largest group with the smallest voice in political matters. Is this
mere coincidence or part of an intricate hierarchy of oppression? During this
day and age it isn't legal to practice overt racism like that during the Jim
Crow period, but Dyson gives plenty of evidence that the neglect the people of New Orleans faced wasn't merely arbitrary. Why did these people have to wait so long for aid? Was it
really as simple as because they were black? Dyson frames these questions along
with others by exploring how class, race, political association, and history
intersected in New Orleans
to contribute to the Katrina disaster.

One of the first possibilities Dyson brings
up concerns race and political association. It could have been that New Orleans had a
predominately black Democratic constituency and that the Bush administration
didn't find helping the people of their opposition district a top priority
(Dyson 30). Social critic and author Jacob Weisberg makes the connection
between the Democratic constituency and the black people living there: "[T]hey
[the Bush administration] don't see blacks as a current or potential
constituency, Bush and his fellow Republicans do not respond out of the
instinct of self-interest when dealing with their concerns." It comes to the
point where rendering assistance to poor blacks is a "matter of charity to
them, not necessity" (Dyson 30). When the President of the United States and
his cabinet don't believe you are deserving of federal assistance, it doesn't
matter how much political representation you have- you will receive nothing, if
not token assistance. This is what the people of New Orleans experienced despite the Bush administration's promise that slow moving aid had nothing to do with race. "The
storm didn't discriminate" he said, "and neither will the recovery effort,"
(Dyson 31).

What Bush failed to recognize before making
such statements is that there was no escaping the question of race in this
matter. Eighty percent to of the households in the flooded area belonged to
minority populations, while this was true for only 54 percent of the city's
white population. Those who lived in the flooded area made on average $17,000
less than those who lived on higher ground, proving that poverty was
concentrated mainly among the black and non-white populations of New Orleans (Dyson, 31-2). What the administration fails to do is recognize that even though natural
disasters do not discriminate on the basis of race, those who are going to be
the most affected by the results of such a storm are going to be predominately
people of color and the poor. They do not have the kind of mobility that the
wealthier people of the area have, nor the same amount of resources to get
themselves out of that kind of situation (ex- cars, money to buy plane or bus
fare out of the city, etc.). If special
measures are not taken to protect the most vulnerable citizens, then of course
it's going to be seen as a race problem or a class problem. What the government
is saying by not protecting these people is that it doesn't care about them as
much as those with money... or and Kanye West simply, yet powerfully stated:
"George Bush doesn't care about Black people" (Dyson 27).

Despite Bush's promise that the relief effort
wouldn't discriminate, the history of how the government dealt with natural
disasters such as this put them in less than a fantastic light. When hurricanes
Charley and Frances hit Florida
in 2004, the White House took immediate action. Bush visited victims four times
in six week and delivered relief checks personally (Dyson 31) No such attention
was given to the victims of Katrina. Instead of immediately going to New Orleans to visit the
people (or survey the damage firsthand) he had Air Force One swoop down below
the clouds to have a view of the devastation below (Dyson 71). His lack showing
a desire to personally connect with the people suffering in the Superdome or
stranded on rooftops solidified the sentiment that he really didn't care about
the people of New Orleans.

If lack of sympathy from the government
wasn't enough, the people of New
Orleans also had a mistrust that had been building up
for many years. Those living in the poorest areas also lived in the area
furthest below sea level. When the levees broke and flooded their homes, some
people of the Lower Ninth Ward and St. Bernard's Parish claim that the levees
had been deliberately blown up in order to save the richer, whiter areas of
town (Dyson 67). This is not the first time something like this would have
happened, as the levees were blown in 1927 to save the business district during
the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 (U.S. News & World Report). Could
something like this have happened again in 2005? Thought many speculate that it
was possible, no evidence has been made public. Had the residents of New Orleans been white
Republicans, would aid have been sent quicker by the federal government?

I could go on about the ways that the
government failed the people of New Orleans and speculate reasons as to why,
but it is my personal opinion that one must also notes that all the actions
taken or not taken by the Bush administration and FEMA all had alternative
motives behind them, as do most decisions made in politics. I believe that the
government, for whatever reason, did not believe it was cost effective to send
adequate aid to the victim of Hurricane Katrina. Because of this it cost
thousands their live, homes, and livelihood. The people who suffered the most
were the poor who were criticized for not getting out of New Orleans before the hurricane hit, as if
they had the luxury of such mobility. If they had, why would they be living in
the worst parts of the cities to begin with? There is the myth that poor people
are lazy, slow, or stupid, and that these same people in New Orleans could have gotten themselves out
before the situation got bad. This is simply not true. Their society is set up
in such a way that ensures poor people stay poor, that mostly people of color
find themselves in that class category. The areas in which these people live
are not economically stable, nor are there many businesses there owned by the
people who actually live in the area. Unemployment is high, and crime is
widespread. The schools in which children attend are not up to standard, and
many children drop out or graduate with a inferior education. Because these
children are systematically disadvantaged from becoming productive adults, the
vicious cycle of poverty starts all over again, as they are not able to
contribute to building the infrastructure of their communities.

Why does this keep happening? Why doesn't
somebody do something to end the violence? The answer to these questions is the
same reason why the people of New
Orleans suffered so greatly: somebody else benefits
from exploiting people of a minority group. These people have little money and
therefore little voice in the political system-they are disposable. This system
of exploitation of one group for the benefit of another is called capitalism,
and it runs rampant in the United
States. The small number of ridiculously
wealthy people in the US
could not stay that way if they did not continuously exploit the majority of
the poorer people of the nation. It is almost as if first the capitalists in
this country make he thieves and then punish them, or that they first create
and environment for failure and chastise people for not succeeding. The truth
of the matter is, the Bush administration did not feel it was important to
adequately prepare for a natural disaster; they are more interested in funding
an unjust war in Iraq or Afghanistan.
He appointed people to FEMA positions that had no business being there such as
Michael Brown, fought with the politicians in Louisiana
for power and pride, and because of this cost the people of New Orleans a great deal. If just a little
more effort had been shown by a number of federal forces, many people wouldn't
have had to die or lose as much as they did.
If proper time had been spent planning for such a disaster on the part
of the government which is supposed to protect the people, the damage may not
have been as great.

After much frustration, several questions
come to mind. How long will it take to bring the city back to its original
state? After two years, why hasn't significant pressure been put on congress to
send aid to the still very vulnerable people left in New Orleans? As a part of the larger picture...
how much longer are Americans going to ignore the structural factors that
contribute to poverty and continue to blame the poor for their own condition?
The poor people of New Orleans
aren't the only ones suffering from ineffectual efforts on the part of programs
ran by the government. We must move to improve and restructure such entities so
that they are truly designed to meet the needs of the people-not just serve as
symbolic program or policy. To continue to allow such things to be merely
symbolic is putting a great number of people in this country in significant
danger. Dyson lays it all out for the reader: class, race, political
association, and history are all part of the hierarchy of oppression, and quite
relevant to the plight of those in New
Orleans. How long will it take to get the American
people to see the entire realm of the problem, not just consider the 15 second
news snippets on the evening news? Although there has been a tremendous effort
on the part of the American people to monetarily aid those affected by the
disaster, Michael Eric Dyson still believes "[c]harity is no substitute for
justice." "If we never challenge a social order that allows some to accumulate
wealth-even if they decide to help the less fortunate-while others are
shortchanged," he says "then even acts of kindness end up supporting unjust
arrangements. We must never ignore the injustices that make charity necessary,
or the inequalities that make it possible" (152).

----

Another Flood
That Stunned America.
U.S. News & World Report, 2005. 20 Apr. 2008
<http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050912/12leadall.b.htm>.

Dyson, Michael
Eric. Come Hell or High Water: Hurricane
Katrina and the Color of Disaster. New
York: Perseus Books Group, 2006.