I don't know about other people but reading about "structural racism" is not new to me. Having taken Environmental Politics, it's easy to see where loopholes in the justice system have become opportunities for profitability to certain groups of people. However, most times I think the general public is not adequately exposed to such incidences hence a large part of society tends to brand what seems to subtle racism as outcomes of a "free-market" economy.
In page 61, Cass Sunstein suggests that market dynamics are usually due to choices that are socially and culturally influenced. As a result, it is hard to pinpoint the exact cause of environmental racism as there are numerous factors that intertwine with each other to produce such outcomes. Examples that were given in the book show how decisions that are made at every level, by the individual affected or by others involved contribute to the end result.
As much as people would like to say that waste facilities are biasly situated by large companies in neighbourhoods that are poorer and have a larger proportion of colored people, they have to keep in mind that their decision not to stay in those neighbourhoods also contributed to this. Since a lot of the causes are indirect most of the time, I think it will be difficult to undo the current situation or at least, try and pinpoint the blame on some party without them having enough wriggle room to get out of it.
Structural racism is a culmination of political loopholes, indirect bias, racial history, denial, corruption but more importantly, indifference.
The case of the Latino community in Buttonwillow was intruiging to the very end even though the community lost the fight against Laidlaw. In this instance, it is easy to see why such corporations target poorer immigrant communities largely due to their lack of education and ignorance. There was one part I found rather funny...though I'm not sure if its supposed to be...but it was about Paco and how Rosa Solorio-Garcia had a hard time convincing him that there was corrupt practices going on because he thought that the American government was too good for such things (pg 85).
Coming from a different country, I can see where such naivete would stem from. The US has been the world's superpower for a very long time and in more ways, have stood for everything good and prosperous. In a lot of ways, the US stands up to this reputation but in a lot of other ways it doesn't. But I shall not talk about this for now. Like what Rosa Solorio-Garcia says, corruption over here is extremely subtle and money can get you anywhere. If one had little knowledge of English, let alone the law, I doubt they would question the legitimacy of what was going on with Laidlaw and LAC.
The one thing that I would have been extremely annoyed at if I were part of the Latino Buttonwillow community was that the LAC refused to provide translators for them. That in itself is blatant racial discrimination. Imagine a poor immigrant worker trying to make a living by doing hard labor to earn enough money to feed his family and those people wanted them to take English lessons just because he does not understand much of the language. Even those in the community who spoke English could not fully understand the technical terms of the reports that the LAC went through. The worst part was that the general sentiment to this was "Well, they can learn English" (pg 94).
What Montoya said in page 101 was really interesting:
"More than anything, I was disillusioned. Because I really believed that the United States government was different than the Mexican government," says Montoya. "The only difference
is that, in Mexico they do what they do outside of the law. And in the U. S. they want to make the laws legitimate what they do. In other words, they want to make things appear legal."1
I still find it hard to accept that politics is the way it is.
Notes
1 Cole, Luke. From the Ground Up : Environmental Racism & the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement.
New York, NY, USA: New York University Press, 2000. p 101.
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/drake/Doc?id=10032503&ppg=114
Copyright © 2000. New York University Press. All rights reserved.
Next semester
7 years ago
3 comments:
I agreed with your post when talking about the US government and that they have a lot of alterior motives when dealing with their own citizens. I wrote about some things like that on my blog as well.
I just wanted to ask about one thing you wrote..when you say "They have to keep in mind that their decision not to stay in those neighbourhoods also contributed to this" I didn't understand who you were talking about. Both the plants and the people in the community were there and the people in the community had to deal with the effects. I thought maybe you meant the fact that they stayed there has some contributions, in which I would agree. I didn't really understand at first why they would stay there. But, I guess it isn't really their fault.
First, being so poor I'm sure its hard to just pick up and move. Second, I see from the reading it is the government in the first place that pushed a lot of these people into the community with things like zoning and housing laws. That was an interesting point I was just kind of confused on.
I was also going to comment on the same remark mentioned by "call on me." I'm not sure how you mean that statement to be interpreted--and if I'm wrong, please let me know--but I understood it to mean that the poor, black population's decision to stay in environmentally hazardous areas contributed to the proliferation of the cycle of injustice.
This point occurred to me when I read Chapter Two of From the Ground Up about Chester, PA. The authors explain that the city is 65% black with the highest mortality rate in the county and the highest crime rate in the state. I read this and thought, "Well, of course they do: all the kids have lead poisoning as a result of the toxic waste in their community." Lead poisoning slows cognitive function, which likely contributed to the fact that Chester has the worst school district in the county. These factors leave residents disadvantaged from the start; they can't compete in the job market and ultimately can't afford to leave Chester. This is just one example of many such environmental hazards that disproportionately effect poor people of color and help keep them trapped in these harmful environments.
If you consider New Orleans or another community in Louisiana's Cancer Alley, the refusal to move in response to environmental hazards is also usually driven by cultural factors. Especially in that area, a lot of families have spent generations in a single area. Uprooting themselves from their homes, their lives and their families hardly seems plausible or just.
I think I may have not completely elaborated on that particular phrase. That phrase deals with structural racism and how I find it cyclical.
What I meant in that phrase was us middle class folk choosing not to live in those neighborhoods contributed to the overall structural racism of the system. We may decide to move off because of other reasons that are economic in nature (as McCrickerd explained in class..) or for safety. Even though our intentions may not be racist, we are overall contributing to such racism just because of the way the system is.
But yeah, I agree with the both of you that there are social and cultural factors that prevent the intermingling of neighborhoods of middle class folk and neighborhoods of color.
I don't have all the answers as to how this can be stopped but I personally have friends in St. Louis that have intentionally moved into the inner city area as part of a project to try and slowly restore the area around that community. If you think that is interesting or would like more details, just shoot me an email or something.
And I appreciate your comments. :)
Post a Comment