He notes that the companies that are responsible for this injustice often deposit their waste in areas of least resistance. I would say that although this may be true, that does not necessarily imply that his cry of racism is founded. It is much more probable that the people who decide where to dump do so with the intent of finding the least resistance to their project, as he suggested. But they more likely choose the areas they do because of their lower financial means, not directly their race.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Dumping in Dixie
I feel that the author takes a very partially minded point of view to his book. He seems to be determined to label the black community as a victim and the government or dumping companies or whatever the racist perpetrator of environmental injustice. Sure in the South African-Americans tend to live in lower class neighborhoods, and sure the lower-class neighborhoods are where the majority of the dumpsites probably are in the South, but that does not necessarily suggest that there must be a connection there that would suggest that those responsible for dealing with our waste are prejudice against the black community.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Its not that simple. Sure socila status plays a role in there mistreatment but it goes back to its history when no matter the black mans status in society, money or not he would still be degraded and experience dehumanization by the white. In the authors frame of reference, current day southern part of the US, in many parts similar policies and actions that are specifically discriminatory towards African Americans,not surprisingly still continue to exist. In some parts African Americans are afraid to look the white man in the eye because they live in fear of getting bullied or have their homes raided.
ReplyDeleteNow what is occurring to day with the business dumping most of their crap on poor black communities, i believe once again it ties down to a longitudinal comparison where it compares action a and policies over time in a country.
1) A policy that was in effect for around 50yrs. in the us from the begging of the Reconstruction (after the civil war) around 1865, when they stated if you can not read you can not vote. This was intentionally a discriminating towards blacks. Whats so racist about that its just want every one who votes to be more "educated", well just so happens that most of the African population was illiterate, why? because for generations it was forbidden for a person of color and even more a slave to learn how to read. you see how indirectly it targets a race. Now whites did not have to go through that sort of degradation,even if they were poor they had the opportunity to move up (many white Americans can testify to this). Now to the actions of saying, it ok to pour crap on the poor, is like sayig back in 1865 if you cant read you cant vote, because it so happens that Majority of the poor in the south is black, this is due to the disparity gap, the education gap and other factors that have contributed to the oppression of the black. American taught in schools to the Blacks that they were inferior to whites from around 1864 to around, lets say the 1980's (and im being nice) This cycle of subordination has gone on for hundreds of years and this also reflects in the socio economic status of the African American. Oh quick fact the wealthiest people in the united states is around 20% of population from that less than 5% are people of color. And over all wealthy families in the US are around 90% white and the rest minorities, where in poor whites are around 10% of that population.
If I'm understanding Austin and others who have already posted correctly, the term "environmental racism" seems to be too strong because of the implication that the perpetrators of toxic dumping are intentionally placing waste in black communities, and moreover, because of a sense of racial superiority. If we read racism in this sense, yes, perhaps the term environmental racism is too strong, and something more like environmental discrimination based on a number of factors. However, I think there is a margin for interpreting racism in less personal ways. Maribel is helpfully gesturing to the ways that racism can infiltrate and thus characterize such supposedly "impersonal" things like institutions and procedures, from voting to hazardous waste disposal to architecture (e.g. sites designed to accommodate cars but not public transit, see Langdon Winner's famous "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" and Steve Woolgar and Geoff Cooper's response).
ReplyDelete