Come Hell or High Water: Hurricane Katrina and the Color of Disaster
List Price: $15.00 Our Price: $11.70 You Save: $3.30 (22%) Availability: | Usually ships in 24 hours (as of 2:22 PM CT - detail) |
ISBN13: 9780465017720Condition: NEWNotes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Product Description
When Hurricane Katrina tore through New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, hundreds of thousands were left behind to suffer the ravages of destruction, disease, and even death. The majority of these people were black; nearly all were poor. Displaying the intellectual rigor, political passion, and personal empathy that have won him acclaim and fans all across the color line, Michael Eric Dyson offers a searing assessment of the meaning of Hurricane Katrina. With this clarion call Dyson warns us that we can only find redemption as a society if we acknowledge that Katrina was more than an engineering or emergency response failure. What's at stake is no less than the future of democracy.
Spotlight Customer Reviews:
Summary:
Interesting discussion of racial issues relating to Katrina relief--but with problems.
|
Comment:
Michael Eric Dyson, for those who don't know, is a tireless advocate for the black community, a community that he proudly participates in and loves. For better or worse, Dyson has written many books on topics that emphasize and underscore racial issues in American society and how they affect the black community. This book is no different. His primary thesis is that the damage and suffering brought from Katrina would have been ameliorated if, instead of poor blacks, those affected were more affluent or of a whiter complexion. The primary culprit of this, according to Dyson, was the Bush administration, though his ire isn't solely directed at them. There are other emphases as well, including the interplay between racial stereotyping in society as a whole and media coverage and portrayal of blacks.
Regarding the prevalence of racial prejudice, Dyson doesn't claim that overt and explicit racism was the cause of the poor response to Katrina; rather, there was an implicit prejudice or "passive indifference" directed towards poor blacks. Unfortunately, Dyson doesn't proffer many arguments to support this position. The primary argument he gives (and it shows up several times) is simply a thought experiment: if these people were affluent whites, wouldn't help have come sooner and more effectively? He also includes a pointed example in which the media exemplifies this low view of blacks. On the same day, the AP printed two stories with stranded people wading through water with food in hand, one a black man, the other a white man and woman. The picture with the black man had the title referring to his having "looted," while the photo of the white couple was described as having "found" food. (It's hard to evaluate this example in isolation even if it is powerful, for one example does not make a strong case.) Even with the dearth of arguments for this position, some of what he writes weighs against his thesis. For instance, he constantly decries the inefficiency of the Bush administration (particularly FEMA)while giving another detail concerning the administration that (at least) undercuts the argument based upon race: incompetency. Dyson clearly accentuates the incompetence of the administration by detailing how they really had no structure in place to handle a natural disaster, particularly their lack of proper coordinating for handling the situation. Yet this militates against his main thesis, for the incompetency has no relation to racial issues; it was in place prior to the disaster. Of course, this doesn't discount the claim that implicit racism had something to do with the response, but there is an inverse relationship between incompetence and (racial) apathy. The primary problem, I believe, that besets his thesis is that it's quite difficult to argue for specific cases of implicit racism, leaving him to mostly rely upon the thought experiment example.
Dyson lambastes the Bush administration throughout the book. Most of the blame for this catastrophe is placed at their feet. (On a side note, Dyson doesn't tell the reader when he thinks these missteps are the product of indifference towards blacks.) However, it seems that Dyson goes too far in his blame of the Bush administration or--at least--he doesn't adequately support his position. For instance, he complains that FEMA's head knew of the disaster that was coming to New Orleans 3 days before it hit but didn't request troops until 5 hours after it hit. This would be a powerful example if Dyson had shown that FEMA had the authority, without state and local authority, to enter into NO, but he doesn't. Also, it's unclear how much FEMA knew three days before, which is quite important for doling out blame. Further, if what Dyson claims is true, NO mayor Ray Nagin would be the real culprit here for not issuing a mandatory evacuation sooner than the day before the hurricane hit, not using the Amtrak's services before its last run out of town, and not using all of the public transportation devices that, according to Dyson, were later seen swarmed by the flood waters. Dyson is also very critical about the amount of voluntary resources that were turned away by FEMA (e.g., the US BATAAN; Florida Airboat Association). But, again, it's unclear how much blame, if any, should be put on FEMA and its employees for this. If they were obeying the law, then there may not be any blame. At least this is something that is debatable, and it brings up the question of whether blame should be put on the individuals who allowed such laws to come into existence; moreover, it raises the question as to whether less government is better than bigger government in dealing with these situations, something contrary to Dyson's political persuaion. But there is no room for a nuanced discussion on this issue with Dyson; Bush and his crew are guilty, and that's that. (It's also interesting to note that Dyson points out the bureaucratic red tape that prevented New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson from sending Coast Guard troops for quite some time, the problem coming from LO Governmor Blanco not issuing a request, yet there isn't a discussion about blame here.)
Dyson clearly holds a certain level of antipathy for Bush and his political philosophy, and this appears to cloud his judgment on issues in which Bush is related (not unlike many political pundits on both sides of the political aisle). There is a really good example of this clouding of judgment. Shortly after the Federal Government entered the environment in NO, Bush noted that the efforts from the Fed were "not acceptable." Several days later, while outlining his plan to assist NO, Bush claimed that the devastation there was simply too much for the state and local governments to handle, resulting in citizens not getting the help they need and that this was "unacceptable." Dyson claims that Bush was attempting to transfer blame from the federal government to the state and local governments through "word association" (105-06). This is an egregious interpretation of Bush's statements. He didn't even place any blame on the state and local governments in his statement but, rather, on the situation. This is a clear example of Dyson's cloudy judgment regarding Bush and justifies one taking his pronouncements on anything related to Bush with a grain of salt.
Another problem with Dyson's evaluation is his overemphasis of race. He states, "How can race possibly be quarantined from a consideration of Katrina when it so thoroughly pervades our culture--the choices we make, the laws we adopt and discard, and the social practices that are polluted by its pestering ubiquity?" (19). Yes, race plays a role in our society, but this is an overstatement. Most decisions people make have nothing to do with race. This overemphasis on race, I believe, leads him to find racial disparity in every conceivable place. For instance, he spends a few pages discussing how other minorities were affected by and treated after the Katrina disaster. He notes Latinos, Native Americans, and Vietnamese, cites a couple of facts around their departure of NO, and then refers to how the government had abandoned or mistreated them. The problem is that he doesn't really argue for this, or at least he does so poorly. He claims that Latinos didn't receive help because they were afraid to ask, fearing deportation related issues, and that of the 30,000 Vietnamese refugees many were turned away from the Astrodome, yet the precise number isn't given nor are the general numbers of those trying to get into/those rejected entry into the Astrodome.
For those who have seen Dyson give commentary on TV, it's obvious that Dyson has a way with words. He's extremely eloquent in those situations. However, this is not the case when Dyson goes to print. He seems to try too hard to sound profound by using big words and elongated sentences that obfuscate, rather than elucidate, the issue at hand. I can cite one example: "And by raising the problem of evil as an issue that is but one remove from the theological landscape when it probes human responsibility and agency, redistributive theodicy seeks to clarify the ultimate cause of human suffering and disaster" (193). It's unclear, in almost any context, what it means for something to be 'one remove' from something else, and 'theological landscape' is another obscure phrase in this context. The best I can surmise is that Dyson is referring to some sort of freewill defense toward the problem of evil here, but there are much better and clearer ways (e.g., Alvin Plantinga's works) to express this. Another example of Dyson's pedantic tendencies can be found where he explains the etymology of the work 'theodicy'. He correctly notes its origin from the Greek words 'theos' and 'dike', but, for no reason other than to display how learned he is, he provides the Greek for these words; however, there's a problem: the Greek letters he uses for 'theos' are not correct. Of course, how many people know Greek? Not many, so most will just look at this as Dyson even knowing Greek. The point is that even if he knew Greek, the reader gains nothing from this.
Some reviewers have referred to Dyson as a Marxist. I think such labels aren't helpful because they're only used in the pejorative sense. Dyson surely favors more of a "spread the wealth" political philosophy, and there's a nice quote that sums up his views on this matter that some may find informative: "Charity is no substitute for justice. If we never challenge a social order that allows some to accumulate wealth--even if they decide to help the less fortunate--while others are shortchanged, then even acts of kindness end up supporting unjust arrangements. We must never ignore the injustices that make charity necessary, or the inequalities that make it possible" (152).
I had some other problems with Dyson's claims, such as his defense of those who stole non-essential products for no other reason than that they wanted these things, but putting these aside, the book does have its positives. The most important--though exaggerated--was that racial issues are still present and shouldn't be ignored even in a society that has a (half-)black president. I agree with Dyson that class certainly had something to do with the response to Katrina and that race probably played a role too, even though I'm not convinced that Dyson's account of the extent to which this was present is correct. I'll end by noting that according to Dyson, 67% of New Orleans was black during the time of Katrina, yet (from another source) only 49% of the casualties were black. This number is at least food for thought, especially considering Dyson's emphasis on the fact that the communities that were hit the most (i.e., the poor) had a higher concentration of blacks than the general populace.
|
Summary:
Why not talk to the people of New Orleans?
|
Comment:
Dyson, of course, is brilliant and he places the Katrina disaster in the context of race relations in the United States, but the book would have been greatly enriched by a few research trips to New Orleans to interview actual eye witnesses to get their perspectives on race and the handling of the aftermath of Katrina.
|
Summary:
This guy belongs on "IN LIVING COLOR"
|
Comment:
This author reminds of a character played on In Living Color where Damon Wayans is a convict that tries to use as many multi-syllabic words as he can so he can SOUND intelligent. This author is not.
This book is nothing more than an appeal to left-wing wackos suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
|
Summary:
A compelling and descriptive audio about Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath
|
Comment:
Here is a compelling and descriptive audio about Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath. Professor Michael Eric Dyson points out that the majority of the people most affected were black and poor, and sees the problem as more than just a simple emergency response failure. He provides background information about the tense race relations in the city before the hurricane, along with the national media's response that may have contributed to racial bias in the United States.
|
Summary:
Bad Planning; Worse Response
|
Comment:
Hurricane Katrina was an event in which almost no one came away looking very good (OK, maybe forecasting chief at the National Hurricane Center, Max Mayfield; and the Coast Guard and Gen. Honore), and Dyson takes every level of government, particularly the federal government, to task, in this short but powerful book. About every five pages, you'll find yourself gasping "No!" and "They couldn't have done that!" but they did, exacerbating the suffering of the poor and forgotten, particularly in New Orleans.
Dyson lost me somewhat near the end with a fairly complicated theological discussion of the event and its aftermath. I don't think he endorses floodwater theology, the idea that God punishes the wicked with natural disasters, but I couldn't quite make out his point in this section (the Editorial Review above seems to have done a decent job on this point).
Overall, I recommend this book to those with interest in natural disasters and in the role of race in public policy. Based on Mike Tidwell's study of Katrina and global warming, "The Ravaging Tide", these are issues that everyone should be engaged in. My wife says Breach of Faith: Hurricane Katrina and the Near Death of a Great American City written by the New Orleans reporter who wrote Amazon's editorial review is an even better book.
|
|