Those who have, get in return. That seems to be the theme for the rebuilding New Orleans. And for those who don’t have? Take advantage of them or let them try alone.
“It seemed briefly as though everyone living here had experienced the same loss at the same time. For those back in the city at times it felt like differences of race and class had washed away,” is what Jordan Flaherty wrote. And for a moment during and maybe after the storm, that was probably true. When something like this happens to a city, people take a moment and remember they are not alone in the situation. However, often that doesn’t last. Not long, and class and race came racing to the top of the issues determining how the city would be rebuilt. The wealthy people of the city quickly became priorities of insurance companies, and I’ve heard it in agriculture too: keep the big customers happy first because they write the biggest checks. And when aide finally arrived (if you can call it that) it went to the same place the insurance was going. Corporations took advantage of struggling people and those with money were able to pay to get help and services. For the majority of the wealthy, however, they didn’t have nearly the most damage. They had already built their homes and business in parts of town that were much less affected by the flood.

“Disaster capitalism,” as Naomi Klein called it, looks for people with money after these disasters to help out. Helping people without money is the same thing as charity, and charity doesn’t take advantage of people. Not to mention, people from around the country paying money to see the devestation 'first hand' in the form of disaster tourism, looking out the window of a Greyhound bus. And then what happens? The poor people get blamed for squandering the money therefore they don’t get any of it. It’s a dark, long spiral downward for the people of New Orleans.

No comments:
Post a Comment