In this world of inequity and inequality, one thing that you would think everyone is affected by equally is nature, right?
Wrong. The more vulnerable and underprivileged you are, the more damage you endure. And to top it all off, those sites that get hit the hardest (and thus, need the most aid) aren’t the ones who receive the money or resources.
Miriam Greenberg in “The Disaster Inside the Disaster” makes it very clear that recovery efforts following natural disasters, especially in urban areas, have not been very successful. This is largely due to the fact that aid and resource distribution after the disaster hits is not done in an effective and proportionate manner. Time and time again, we see that “low-income, disproportionately non-white communities, workers, and small businesses, the primary victims of disaster, were further disadvantaged in receiving aid, while wealthy, disproportionately white neighborhoods and high-end industries were privileged” (Greenberg 46). As Greenberg mentions, the recovery efforts following Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and 9/11 in New York City share many similar qualities including the very important fact that, in both cases, billions of dollars were used to fund real estate developments, corporations, and wealthy neighborhoods. These areas were increasing in wealth and population while gentrifying low-income neighborhoods and displacing residents who had already lost everything.
William Donner and Havidán Rodríguez in “Disaster Risk and Vulnerability: The Role and Impact of Population and Society” state that vulnerability in this specific context refers to “the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influences their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a natural hazard.” Here, Donner and Rodríguez make a similar claim to that of Greenberg. Essentially, different types of people with different resources and socioeconomic statuses go through different levels of suffering before, during, and after a natural disaster occurs. Instead of providing aid to the people who need it most, it is given to the people and neighborhoods that will bring (and have brought in) the most money.
Which brings in the idea of “environmental gentrification” proposed by Melissa Checker in “Green is the New Brown.” The idea is that green initiatives–like closing down power plants and creating more parks and farmer’s markets–are put in place to make the low-income neighborhood more appealing to the wealthy and make it appear more livable (Checker 159). I don’t know about you but if that doesn’t raise some red flags then frankly I’m not sure what will.
The problem isn’t just with not receiving aid after the disaster but begins even from prevention. One issue that Donner and Rodríguez raise is the language barrier of a large portion of the underprivileged. Because weather warnings and other cautionary instructions are provided in English (if provided at all), those who are unfamiliar with the language can easily misinterpret the warning and not be able to help themselves. Whether it’s on prevention or recovery, there needs to be a serious conversation and a more meaningful effort on discussing this issue. Why is it that the same people are constantly beaten down and the same people are always winning?
Sources:
Donner W, Rodríguez H (2011) “disaster risk and vulnerability: the role and impact of population and society. http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2011/disaster-risk.aspx (last accessed 7 May 2017)
“The Disaster Inside the Disaster,” Greenberg, Miriam. 2014. New Labor Forum, 23 (1): 44-52
“Green is the New Brown: ‘Old School Toxics’ and Environmental Gentrification on a New York City Waterfront,” Checker, Melissa. 2014. In Sustainability in the Global City: Myth and Practice, pp. 157-179
Hey Angela,
Awesome post. You raise a lot of good points. What I found really enlightening is, as you pointed out, how Greenberg explains how recovery efforts primarily help the wealthy and disadvantage the poor. I always knew that New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was a mess, but it never occurred to me that the same trend had occurred here after Sandy. If you’ve ever seen “When the Levees Broke,” (amazing documentary, definitely recommend) it makes it very clear that the government failed and abandoned those who needed its help the most. Bush claimed to have not known about the storm, however the evidence shows that Bush was actually warned about its potentially disastrous effects. People were sequestered in the Superdome and stranded on interstates for days with little-to-no food or water. And one crazy thing is that people tried to walk the length of the bridge to get to safety only to be met with a line of guns as the president of that parish declared he wasn’t letting anyone seeking refuge from the Orleans Parish in. On the other hand, I always thought that recovery efforts during Sandy were relatively successful. I mean, there weren’t people stranded without food for days. But Greenberg depicts how aid was distributed incredibly unevenly, favoring the wealthy over the poor, during both Katrina and Sandy. This got me thinking, and I realized that the mainstream success story I was fed actually contradicted with the first-hand evidence I observed. For instance, I have a cousin who lives on the LES, and within two days he got his power back and was able to resume normal life not long after that. However, two days after the hurricane I drove through the Rockaways and saw cars on 2nd-story porches, buildings with chunks torn out, burned out wreckage where houses used to stand, and sand and rubble everywhere, and it was like that for months after. No one on the Rockaways was able to resume normal life a week after the storm hit. Additionally, even in the Rockaways there was a breakdown in recovery. The more affluent, beach-front Bel Harbor bounced back much faster than largely black and lower-class Far Rockaway. Also, a woman who works at my local grocery store lives in low-income housing in Brighton Beach and didn’t have heat or electricity the whole winter. Like you write, those who needed aid most were left high and dry while the money was given to those who were predominately wealthy. As for why you ask, I’d like to offer an answer that’s paraphrased from Harry Belafonte, a singer, actor, and activist, who speaks in “When the Levees Broke.” When talking about the government’s inaction during Hurricane Katrina, Belafonte says that Bush didn’t respond because Bush felt that the people who were caught in this tragedy were socially of no importance and racially of no importance. In the highly individualistic, capitalistic Amerikkka, being poor or being black is bad enough, but being poor and black is just winning the apathy potluck.
Hey Angela!
Excellent blog. I liked how you were able to choice one quote to explain the whole passage, rather than summaries. With this great evidence, I would have liked to see a little more personal information or insight from you and feedback on this topic. It does seem that the governments are only investing where they believe they “will get money’s worth” but this is completely inappropriate. They assume the other cases are not worth it, because like you said they are looking for their return value, what they are going to get back. This remind me of our discussion of exchange versus use value and it seems to me (and I believe you feel the same) that the value of money is being placed of higher importance than the value of people or the value of their lives. The government is only seeking projects that will get them the praise and attention they want for doing something ‘extra’ and ‘heroic’, like protecting and caring for their residents that they represent to give them homes or businesses. (Oh wait that is what they are suppose to do.) If you really want to go full circle, you could also see this in NYC’s agenda for parks and community initiatives. You made a good point in noting, “Essentially, different types of people with different resources and socioeconomic statuses go through different levels of suffering before, during, and after a natural disaster occurs.” After Hurricane Sandy, a huge fundraising effort was put up in the form of a concert with our time’s biggest stars to collect money, increase awareness and support for the coasts along the tri-state area. As you brought up, I don’t know what kind of awareness was made about New Orleans after Katrina but it might have only been a couple of celebrities who visited, simply to take a couple of shots for their own selfish and shallow needs in Hollywood but in terms of ‘real’ assistance, I believe they were dependent on this government set up to already fail to meet their needs.
Best, Beatriz DaMotta
I think you wrote an amazing post on this issue of environmental injustice. The first paragraph really captured the whole topic and was so well said. One would really think that nature affects everyone equally, until you look deeper into the way New York City is run. The truth is that most cities are run in a way that favors the wealthy and powerful, but at the expense of minorities. And that is what leads to the environmental injustice that exists in New York. Minority neighborhoods are the ones that are left with the wastewater treatment plants, the bus depots, and the last ones cared for in times of natural disasters. In my opinion, the reason why that happens stems from a bigger issue of who gets to be voiced by the government. Somehow the wealthy communities always manage to fight against environmental burdens from being placed in their neighborhoods, but why is it that when minority communities complain, even for health reasons, they are not voiced? This double standard should not exist but unfortunately it does. All communities should be able to voice their opinions,especially when it comes to public health, we are all human beings and it shouldn’t matter how much money you make to be protected by the city. I think that environmental injustice is really just a smaller form of racial and general injustice that exists in NYC.