The Drowned and the Saved

It would be great if we could compare the numbers for the group of New Orleanians that heeded Mayor Nagin’s evacuation order with those for the group that remained in the city. I suspect that people living in poverty made up a larger percentage of the group that didn’t leave.

So we ask the question: should we have had a more robust evacuation plan that went beyond simply telling everyone to flee, and leaving them to their own devices? Did the government discharge its responsibilities when it gave the evacuation order, or should it have been responsible for ensuring that people without cars and money actually had a way to get out?

And since people are bound to wonder, we ought to ask if the race and socioeconomic class of most of those trapped in New Orleans was in any way related to the speed with which the federal government mobilized its relief efforts.

Hopefully, the disaster in New Orleans might teach us something about the proper role of government. My hope is that we’ll realize (remember?) that a laissez-faire approach can be barbarically inappropriate more often than the country’s conservative leadership is willing to acknowledge.

And since people are bound to wonder, we ought to ask if the race and socioeconomic class of most of those trapped in New Orleans was in any way related to the speed with which the federal government mobilized its relief efforts.

So too are we bound to ask if people of the race and class of the vast majority of those in the astrodome etc has implications for their abilities to plan ahead, to self organize in a disaster, to refrain from violence in a situation of social disorder.

dp, merely by virtue of your being able to post here I find your identification with these people laughable and risible.

But feel free to correct me with details of your specific circumstances.

And, also, if the measurement is merely a) income for the last three years, and b) housing situation, then I’m certain I can beat any claim you might make to poverty. Because my answers are “zero” (I’ve been living on charity); and b) technically homeless (again, charity). And I’m disabled. And I would never dare to compare my situation with those in the poorest areas of the ghettos of New Orleans.

This doesn’t go to Jet’s point about social and cultural capital, but internet access doesn’t automatically make you rich. Over the last couple of years I spent a lot of reasonable amount of time logged onto the internet in public libraries. There were some visibly poor people logged onto the internet next to me.

Whoa! It’s nice being taken to task for once. Actual dialogue!

First, I did not mean to diminish Alan Schussman’s main points. I apologise for leaving that impression. In addition, my situation is expressly not those of poor blacks in New Orleans after a devastating storm and facing the institutional and cultural racism Americans are so careful to maintain. So call me inconsiderate for not fitting the profile/sterotype to the last iota. More importantly, I am not tied to place by family and local loyalties, so I’m ready to leave this place at the first opportunity. In that way I am probably *very unlike* some residents of New Orleans. I think this is a more salient point than the role of furnishings. People don’t leave family. More on this in a moment.

In spite of all these disqualifications, I think that ‘poverty’ applies to anyone in a condition of indenture, of fiscal and social deprivation, situations characterised by restricted mobility. Poverty in that sense is about being stuck; stuck in places that are not good socially or economically, with no immediate prospect or means of getting out. Note also that the paycheck-to-paycheck, living-in-a-bedsit mode is only one form of poverty. There are plenty of others that deserve equal consideration in light of the question about people’s priorities. But even in the situation described, I would happily abandon my furniture, the things Jack Schafer mentions. These can be scavenged in whatever place I end up. The main thing would be to get out. I’d also be happy to abandon my bad debts, my failed relationships, whatever. It can be good to go.

I think a lot of people in New Orleans, pre-and-post hurricane, would empathise. I also think a lot of people would jump at the chance to leave, particularly if someone else footed the bill. How many economic migrants would say no to that?

Now back to the point about family. I read Jack Schafer’s remarks as having an intimation that departure would have long-term consequences. Here they are again.

A paycheck-to-paycheck victim … “couldn’t risk leaving because if he (sic) lost his furniture and appliances, his pots and pans, his bedding and clothes, to Katrina or looters, he’d have no way to replace them. No insurance, no stable, large extended family that could lend him cash to get back on his feet, no middle-class job to return to after the storm.”

I’ve got news: my cooking equipment, my chairs and shelves, my blankets, my bicycle, my cassette player, my computer, my lamps and even some tools come out of rubbish bins. Middle-class people sure throw away a lot. So Jack seems to have overlooked informal economies, and the larger question of how poor people cope, make do, take care of themselves and others. Ever lived on the street? How did you manage the transition back to ‘housed’ accommodation? Granted, the process varies widely depending on one’s circumstances, but it can be done pretty easily, even while destitute, without friends or family.

Maybe Jack’s hand-to-mouth people cannot scrounge, and need insurance, need extended family. Fair enough. Maybe that’s typical in New Orleans. Or maybe we’re not thinking of the same class of people. But I have had no problem replacing stuff after periods of living rough or as an itinerant. So I think Jack misses something, and this isn’t picked up subsequently by Alan, nor by respondents here.

Maybe that’s the point I should have made initially. It’s not difficult to put a life together, particularly if one is destitute and footloose. Footloose as in not being bound to place by family or social ties. It’s hardly a lose-lose situation. So here’s a pertinent question: did those people stay in New Orleans because of the risk scenario Jack describes, or did they stay for social reasons? Which do you find more compelling, more likely?

Aside from that, the one point worth responding to is about cultural capital. If I understand it as intended, the presumption is that the people stranded in New Orleans are extraordinarily disenfranchised, far more so than anyone with internet access and the ability to carry on a quasi-intellectual conversation. I don’t buy that argument. It smacks of patronising stereotypes. Sure, some, maybe even many residents of New Orleans could be described that way, but it’s incredibly blinkered to deny all of them the social and cultural capital that facilitates activity in discussions like this.

In short, it sounds like you’re saying none of those people can do what we can. That might be a point worth clarifying. Matt Weiner’s remark goes to the heart of it: being *visibly* poor is what matters.