Anyone thought of New Orleans lately? You remember, right? That city that blew away and then drowned?You want to know the ugly truth?
Not much has happened there since the storm two years ago.
What is true of the city as a whole is even more evident among the poor--those hit hardest, both before and after the storm's arrival.
Anyone surprised?
Where is the national uprising for New Orleans? Where the outcry for a unified national response?I kept hoping that the President would appoint a Czar for the rebuilding of the Crescent City.
It is not to be, I suppose, what with us on our way to spending a trillion dollars on a war half-way around the globe.
Duncan Murrell published an amazing essay in Harper's Magazine (July 2007, pages 35-51), "In the Year of the Storm," that chronicles his life in the city following the tragedy of Katrina.
Murrell's work is fascinating, inspirational and frightening all at once. Everyone who cares about New Orleans should read it. Murrell's insights are instructive about this one American city laboring under the burden of this particular natural disaster and the public neglect that preceded and followed it.
But there is more here. Murrell's insights speak to and about sections of every American urban community today.
Take for example what he writes as he describes a parade of local "marching societies," a New Orleans tradition:
"What's left is a second line, forming up in front of the church. Brass bands tune up, the old men of the social and pleasure clubs straighten themselves, and the rest fall in behind, shouting out to old friends and hugging the necks of family back for a time from Atlanta and Memphis. It's no ordinary second line, either, but a city-wide summit of neighborhood marching societies and brass bands parading for unity. Unity, that state of grace known by few yet expected of the hopeless."
It is true, you know.
We expect so much of the people who have the least.
We expect the poorest, those most pushed down and away and to the sides of our society to be untied in an unshakable hope that "things will work out alright eventually" or in the end. If they will only keep believing, keep trusting, keep praying, keep working hard and behaving properly, then just maybe things will turn around.
Ironically, and tragically, the poor aren't nearly united enough around the forces and the decisions that could actually birth legitimate hope, authentic renewal and a new day for the great urban areas of this nation. Something at work in the way power plays out in cities usually prevents any genuine "uniting" or organizing for effective, systemic change among the urban "have nots."
But there is more here. Murrell's insights speak to and about sections of every American urban community today.
Take for example what he writes as he describes a parade of local "marching societies," a New Orleans tradition:
"What's left is a second line, forming up in front of the church. Brass bands tune up, the old men of the social and pleasure clubs straighten themselves, and the rest fall in behind, shouting out to old friends and hugging the necks of family back for a time from Atlanta and Memphis. It's no ordinary second line, either, but a city-wide summit of neighborhood marching societies and brass bands parading for unity. Unity, that state of grace known by few yet expected of the hopeless."
It is true, you know.
We expect so much of the people who have the least.
We expect the poorest, those most pushed down and away and to the sides of our society to be untied in an unshakable hope that "things will work out alright eventually" or in the end. If they will only keep believing, keep trusting, keep praying, keep working hard and behaving properly, then just maybe things will turn around.
Ironically, and tragically, the poor aren't nearly united enough around the forces and the decisions that could actually birth legitimate hope, authentic renewal and a new day for the great urban areas of this nation. Something at work in the way power plays out in cities usually prevents any genuine "uniting" or organizing for effective, systemic change among the urban "have nots."
I know one thing. If and when this new brand of unity arrives, a city like New Orleans will not be neglected or ignored ever again.
25 comments:
I am ashamed of this country. I never in my life thought Americans would ever turn their backs on their own citizens, but that is just what they have done. New Orleanians are rebuilding the city, but they cannot restore wetlands that will protect the city from damage from future hurricanes on their own. They are in mortal danger and American could care less. Patriotism is rampid as long as there is no cost or sacrifice asked.
As a Mississippi Gulf Coast Katrina survivor ... and nearly a native of New Orleans (I grew up about 10 miles upriver from there), I have a lot of opinions about this matter.
YES ... the poor are the ones who suffer the most. I have to give Fred Franke and the Carrolton Church of Christ a big hand of applause for the exceptional work they are doing in New Orleans.
HOWEVER ... America is not exactly ABLE to help New Orleans because of the political shenanigans of the Mayor and Governor. These two people should be held responsible for much of the delay and red-tape that is experienced in the attempts to rebuild.
We have had several work crews come to Mississippi who WANTED to work in New Orleans but ran into roadblocks. Fred Franke has an important (but untold) story about how the city has attempted to shut down their organization although they are doing extensive work in the city with volunteer labor.
The entire Gulf Coast has been flooded with volunteers from day one. This week we have a crew in from Nashville and then no scheduled crews until November. This is the first time since August 29, 2005 that we do not have a full schedule of workers in the coming months. How can I complain? America has been awesome to us ... not to mention Canada and Mexico.
New Orleans is a city that re-elected a man that delayed reconstruction, profitted from disaster, and left his own population out in the cold by treating this disaster as a political opportunity.
I'm not ashamed of America at all. THOUSANDS of Americans have come through our little city alone. I think the conscience of New Orleans should be sore at this point because they were duped into re-electing Mayor Nagan.
But that still leaves the question ... of how to assist the poor who have no say in how this all happens around them.
Sorry to be so long in my comment Larry!
John, thanks for your report and insights. I certainly have no desire to defend anyone in government in New Orleans or in Louisiana. I guess my point is that the federal government has the power to override all of that due to the disaster and to take action to rebuild the city. Volunteers can only do so much with a problem of this scale. This is what most people mean when they say that "America failed." There is a collective response that can be engaged. The local and state officials need to be held accountable, but the feds need to be involved with a "whatever is required" attitude regarding law enforcement, contracts and resources.
I think that churches, non-profits and individual volunteers should be highly praised for their incredible response to the Katrina crisis and for the continuing assistance that they provide. They were the pride of the nation in the heart of the disaster, and they put to shame the federal response.
Which is unfortunate in some ways, because it only fuels the fire of an argument that caring for the poor should be left to volunteerism and philanthropy.
I was waiting in line at the airport the other day, and struck up a conversation with a man behind me. We inevitably got to the topic of work, and I explained what we do at Central Dallas Ministries. He was very impressed -- in fact, he said, "See, that's why the government should get out of the business of caring for the poor. You guys do a great job."
I was stunned.
I tried to explain that nearly 1/3 of CDM's budget comes directly from the government. I also tried to explain how, effective as we are, we lack the scale to tackle a problem as deep and entrenched as poverty.
There is only one way that we can get the government to respond to the Katrina crisis and the ongoing problem of poverty:
We need to speak out on behalf of the poor to politicians, media and people in power. We need to lobby for change in the political machinery of our world.
The same churches and non-profits who are guiding the redevelopment of New Orleans need to be at the forefront of this conversation. Now is not the time for timidity, or worrying about the reactions of donors.
We need to kick the money changers out of the temple.
Federalism anyone?
The federal government can usurp authority over a state or local government, though most of the time, its not a great idea.
And why should the Bush Administration step in. The local and state politicians have done nothing but point fingers at them for a bad response, to deflect attention from their own (state and local) failures. Would it not look really bad if the administration stepped in and took over from a black mayor and a democrat city? Imposing martial law? Or something like that... I could see the talking points now.
Truth is, government has been a barrier to reconstruction. If it were for all the red tape involved, private companies who are trying to make a profit, would have had the city cleaned right now.
And just another example of government red tape causing problems... there are a whole host of FEMA trailers sitting in Arkansas, unable to go to new orleans, because government regulations say that trailers can't be in a flood plain.
America failed and the Government failed are not synonomous. Just because people elect those bozos, does not mean that we can control them from acting in their self interest and screwing up policy.
The american people rarely fail. And when they do, its likely that the government had something to do with it.
My bias is showing. Gotta get back to work. ;)
Seems like I remember a story about Franklin D. Roosevelt making his way by car across long stretches of the United States then suffering terribly from the Great Depression. He finally realized that recovery would require a commitment and decisive action from the federal government. I'm reminded of that every time I step outside my office on the corner of Jackson and 25th here in Amarillo. The very solid concrete curb says "Works Progress Administration." Evidently, WPA didn't always mean "We Poke Along." Something got done.
One of the biggest myths is that Roosevelt got us out of the depression by his public works. World War ll got us out of the depression.
Right. Because wars produce so many good things.
Chris, you amaze me. The US was emerging from the Great Depression before WWII arrived. The war did stimulate the economy further and the GI Bill and other government benefits for returning soldiers helped create a middle class in the naiton. FDR saved the nation and his philosophy post war in Truman continued. Eisenhower's interstate highway plan also played a key role.
I know it's a popular idea that Roosevelt got us out of the depression. But now even liberal economists dispute this claim. One good book on this is "FDR's Folly" by Jim Powell. In fact, the thought now is that he prolonged the depression.
Chris, you'll never convince my parents of that and you'd have never convinced my grandparents. My PhD work at Tulane University didn't turn up such a view either. I suppose that "revisionist history" (a phrase I am sure you have refreenced on occasion) is not just the penchant of the left!
The economic library says that while the new deal did alleviate suffering, it ended up slowing economic recovery rather than expediting it.
http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/GreatDepression.html
That's basically what I learned in AP History. And in college.
Chris and Justin, economic recovery of what kind and for whom? It seems to me that the question that should be asked here and asked first is one you never hear asked at all: not what ended or overcame the Depression, but what caused it in the first place? Possibly and economic policy not all that unlike today that produced incredible disparities and huge benefits for the few over the many.
That article would agree with that, somewhat. We were a country operating on debt or credit, and when we no longer have a hard currency, we are subject to massive issues such as the great depression.
We need to go back to hard currency rather than just printing money en masse. This would keep prices stable, and would allow the free market to better help those in povery.
So you're right Larry, that some of our policy ends up hurting the poor at the expense of the rich, but wealth redistribution does not fix things. It hasn't since the new deal, and it doesn't now. The truth is that if the economy isn't stable, if those owning corporations aren't making money, then there aren't jobs for the least of these anywhere to be found.
This is why I can't get on board with some of these programs, especially at a federal level. If you hurt business, you lose tax revenue, which means you operate on money that you have to print, which not backed by gold, means the economic boom will only last momentarily, until inflation renders that extra cash in circulation moot.
I mean, I could be wrong about all this, but I've read a whole lot about it, and it seems to make sense to me.
Justin, of course, I don't know either! Does anyone, really? Appreciate your attitude.
What I do know is that capitalism has to have an underclass. One of the negative givens. What it does not have to have is a severely disadvantaged underclass like exists on such a scale in our cities. I am arguing for policy that protects the bottom, including labor, the service sector and those good folks who keep this country running, as well as the week and marginalized who live in chronic conditions that will require on-going attention. The current extremes are both unnecessary to accomplish what you suggest and unacceptable to me.
Liberals have created, and the minority leadership has exploited, a community of dependent people, unaware of the true route to prosperity and happiness: self-reliance and self investment. Instead, people are told that America is unjust, unfair, and full of disadvantages. They are told that their only hope is for government to fix their problems. What has happened is that generations of people have bought into this nonsense and as a result have remained hopelessly mired in poverty and despair---because the promised solutions don't work, and they never work--they never have.
Rush Limbaugh--"The Way Things Ought to Be." pp 221-222
Chris, Rush Limbaugh is so full of hot air it is unbelievable. For one thing, there are virtually no entitlement benefits left for the poor--at least,not the kind that Limbaugh turns into urban legends! You know, the welfare Cadillac sort of stories that have been debunked since the Reagan era. There are modest health and housing benefits for a fraction of the poor. But as our President said in a speech recently, we all have health care because we have the ERs of America!
I work in an urban assistance center. Over the last 12 months I have interviewed hundreds of poor folks in need. I can't recall one poor person blaming the government for their plight, nor expecting anything from anyone except just some help to keep food on the table given their limited earning capacity and making ends meet.
Chris, it would do you good to spend a day with us.
Now, why don't you ask Rush about real dependence on government hand outs--military contractors, farm subsidies to millionaire farmers and others, corporate tax abatements from every level of government.
Rush Limbaugh is a demagogue of the first order. He wrote the book on exploiting the fears of America. He may make for great cross country, keep you awake radio, but when it comes to public policy he is a horror show.
I admire this site for allowing this sort of junk to be put up. . .talk about letting everyone have their say!
Jake
Jake,
I wouldn't expect poor people to blame the government for their plight but I do think they expect government help to support their out of wedlock children when there is no father around. I heard one reason people didn't want to get out of N.O. before the hurricaine is because they were expecting their welfare check.
Actually N.O. should have been a utopia with all those Democrats running it for generations.
Chris,
Welfare payments only make up appx 1 percent of the federal budget.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-runawaywelfare.htm
Entitlements in general (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc) make up a vastly larger percentage.
I'd say we need to phase out all of these things. If for no other reason, because of this
http://financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/martenson/2006/1217.html
It likely won't matter at all to Chris, but Justin, you are right on target. Welfare reform that kicked in in 1996 under the Clinton Administration (D) ended the "welfare check" system as we know it. AFDC was replaced by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or TANF. The temporary support amount was cut back significantly and more importantly, individuals were placed on a 5-year lifetime limit to be eligible for any such assistance.
Chris, you will continue to spread many inaccuracies that simply perpetuate hatred, racism and class-based bias unless you "get out more," as in turn Rush off and read the newspaper!
"but Justin, you are right on target."
Signs of the apocolypse?
Larry,
I read a newspaper daily but with all the political correctness coupled with the left-wing slant it's hardly the accurate reporting one would hope.
Chris, now there is a surprising comment about your newspaper! :)
Post a Comment