Flip Chart Unity
I was thinking that we just went through what I call “flip chart unity” phase where in the post-Katrina recovery neighborhood planning process we created the illusion that blacks and whites could collaborate without a discussion of “greenspacing” black neighborhoods or preventing the poor from returning and other race and class issues.
In the planning process we combined neighborhoods that historically have not collaborated and had them create an imaginary city of the future with limitless resources. This process created the illusion that we could have racial and class unity without addressing the uncomfortable and potentially divisive racial and class disparities of the rescue and recovery.
Now that we are “off the flip chart” phase and moving toward dividing up the scarce federal funds, the unity is collapsing as white neighborhoods want to claim a disproportionate share of the recovery pot — like former council person Jackie Clarkson saying the other day that most of the funds should go to intact neighborhoods that did not flood because they are economically vital and can pay taxes (and which of course, are mostly white) rather than funding depopulated, flooded neighborhoods struggling to return (which are predominantly black). Or the recent report that recommended we prioritize rebuilding above sea level (white) rather than below sea-level (black).
At least one letter-to-the-editor writer in the Times-Picayune astutely observed that the whole city is at least 10 feet below sea level once a year when the river crests, so sea-level is hardly a safe guide to where to rebuild; ultimately we all depend on levees for our safety.
If we had these discussions of who suffered more and deserves more help early on, those who fared better in the storm would be reluctant to demand their “share of the pie” — and we would have had an opportunity to build interracial trust based on coalition partners supporting the more needy even at their own expense and sacrifice.
3 Comments | No Trackbacks |
comments feed  |
This sounds tritely trotskyest but I feel I have to say it: they didn’t want to greenspace black neighborhoods, they want to greenspace poor neighborhoods. In the one city in America where we are reasonably class conscious, we should never let them make it about race when its about money. That’s their trick.
Jesus said that we should love one another, and love has it’s roots in “support.” The Buddha stated that “We are born, we suffer, and then we die.” On one hand you have one prophet stating the “dreams of man,” and the other prophet is stating the “realities of man.” The truth is that both are correct. If you follow Jesus’s dreams we should get together to provide an alternative plan, or places to live, for people who were in the areas that flooded. If you follow the Buddha’s logic we really shouldn’t re-build in areas that we know will flood again (Unless you have total faith in the Army Core of Engineers). The reason why people suffer is because they focus their attention on the “outer man.” The outer man says that you are a black, or white person. The inner mans says that we all are “the children of God”; Just a thought.
I agree with Lance’s sentiments about an exclusionism, and I agree that sometimes it sounds to me to be too much about race, and not enough about the issues of class. It’s not like the middle class are fairing well in the recovery. There are vast tracts of the city that were the American dream, the ranch house in a suburban neighborhood. Gentilly and East New Orleans come to mind. Those are areas that are suffering from exclusionism as much as public housing.
However, I do respect that Lance has the gaul to talk about race, because it is most certainly an issue in this lack of recovery.