Ideias para Debate

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Nova Orleães 2

O Patricio Langa mandou um texto muito interessante sobre Nova Orleães. É pena estar em inglês mas vale o esforço. Aqui vai:

New Orleans and the Third World
by Mukoma Wa Ngugi; September 08, 2005


The devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina is being compared to
disasters in the "Third World" but with no specific countries or
disasters named. And if not compared to this black hole or repository of
disaster that is the "Third World," a comparison to Africa is as
specific as it gets. "New Orleans is a scene from the
Third World", "like the Third World", "US Handles the crisis like a
third world country", "bodies floating on water reminiscent of Africa"
etc. This has been a constant with news commentators, analysts, members
of the senate and congress and other sections of America commenting on
New Orleans. The accompanying statements to this have been "I cannot
believe this is America" or "This is not
supposed to happen in America". It is supposed to and can only happen
somewhere else. Attending a food festival event in Madison, Wisconsin I
overheard a joke - "Where is New Orleans again?" New Orleans is next to

What role is the "Third World" playing in how Americans are dealing
with the disaster? Where does the "Third World" fit in the imagination
of the American? What does it mean to say that this is not supposed to
happen in the United States? To me, it is almost as if by displacing
disasters and human suffering to the "Third World," the New Orleans
disaster is not really happening in the United
States. New Orleans is "out there" and everyone else is ! safe and
American - the crisis in New Orleans is happening in a "Third World"
outpost and the United States remains rich, strong and invulnerable.

The American citizen has been stewing in nationalism, manifest destiny
and the myth of the democratic society that errors but never oppresses
or marginalizes for so long that even a natural disaster cannot be seen
and understood outside this lens. And the fact that most of the victims
are predominantly poor and African American is
not being understood as a creation of very specific domestic policies
and conservative ideologies; it has to be filtered through the "Third
World". As if a disaster from that "part of the world" somehow managed
to sneak through the porous Mexican borders.

Bush's Remarks

It is interesting therefore to look at President Bush's remarks after
touring New Orleans on September 2nd after four days of inaction. His
first sentence was "I've just completed a tour of some devastated
country". A detached statement but it gets worse - a little later he
says "I know the people of this part of the world are suffering…" and he
goes on to talk about how progress is being made. Then he says "The
people in this part of the world have got to understand…" Shortly after
this, he says "You know, I'm going to fly out of here in a minute, but I
want you to know that I'm not going to forget what I've seen" and again
refers to his constituents as "good folks of this part of the world". It
is almost as if he is in a different country consoling its citizenry. He
himself is so detached about what is happening in the very country he
leads that he refers to it as "this part of the world". As far as I
know, no one in the mainstream media picked this up, they too are
reporting on that "part of the world".

Believing that humor is the best medicine, in the same speech he also
makes a rather tasteless joke: "I believe the town where I used to come
[to] from Houston, Texas, to enjoy myself, occasionally too much, will
be that very same town that it will be a better place to come to".
Now, this is a President who up to this point has not visited New
Orleans, a disaster area that is being acknowledged as probably the
worst in recent U.S. history, yet, speaking to an evacuated, wounded and
dying constituency, he refers to their
drowned city that was their whole life as his old party ground.
All in all President Bush gives the kind of speech a visiting leader
would make during a hurriedly prepared press conference after being
caught unawares by a natural disaster. It captures his inability to
empathize, to really be one with the victims.

The Myth and the "Third World"

An American dying in a natural disaster will look like a human being
dying in any natural disaster and not necessarily like an African.
A homeless American looks like any homeless human being and not always
like an African. And a natural disaster should not be seen as somebody
else's natural disaster but as one that afflicts all humanity. We are of
a common humanity. It is the myth that only other nations torture that
led to Abu Ghraib. It is the myth that only other countries have
political prisoners that keeps political activists like Mumia Abu Jamal
and Leonard Peltier in American jails for fighting American
marginalization. It is the belief !that only other countries exile those
that oppose their policies that has led to the bounty on Assata Shakur -
exiled in Cuba for fighting for African American rights - being raised
to one million dollars. And it is the myth that only other countries
ignore and exploit their poor that led to the disaster in New Orleans.

But there are ways in which America is like the "Third World".
Privatization, which in "Third World" Countries becomes structural
adjustment programs, has been happening in the United States since the
Reagan years of small government, through the Clinton years that saw a
full assault on Welfare and affirmative action originally
designed to buoy the marginalized, and through the Bush years that have
been rewarding the rich while taking away from the poor through Federal
and Supreme Court nominations that support big business and reduce the
power of labour unions, among other things. These have been the years of
'blaming the victim' while preying on them. They are poor because they
are lazy -! Enter the "welfare queen". While
the mainstream United States was busy trying to convince itself that
poverty and racism were things of the past or happened only to other
nations, the marginalized were becoming even more vulnerable. Most of
the victims in New Orleans are black and poor - race and class - an
inversion of Frantz Fanon's one is rich because he/she
is white and one is white because he/she is rich to read one is poor
because he/she is black and one is black because he/she is poor.
Just like in the "Third World" in times of natural disasters and wars,
it is the most victimized in New Orleans that are doing most of the


The reasons why the poor couldn't leave the city are quite easy to
They couldn't afford it. They simply did not have cars or money for
transportation, are jobless, or live pay-check to pay-check and couldn't
have had any money saved up for relocation.
Where poor people owned houses to which they had mortgaged their lives,
where their homes had become the marker of their humanity and
achievement, staying put and essentially fighting for their lives was
the only option.

Like the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, or the ongoing genocide in Darfur,
this particular disaster had been telegraphed - we all knew it was going
to happen, and more political and economic will, including a more
comprehensive effort to evacuate the city of New Orleans, could have
minimized human suffering. What makes it even
worse is that the millions being pledged now by private citizens and
corporations and the 10.5 billion initially pledged by the government
could have saved New Orleans ten times over through improvement of
infrastructure. Because of the federal government's push for
privatization which translates into public services being
slas! hed or sold to private companies, perhaps the government simply no
longer has structures in place to handle disasters. This could explain
why Bush ended his speech with "If you want to help, if you're listening
to this broadcast, contribute cash to the
Salvation Army and the Red Cross". Each death in New Orleans was
preventable. But money is not made in prevention but in reconstruction.
Soon, like in Iraq, the big contracts for reconstruction will be on
their way -
some corporations will make a killing. Let the bidding begin.

Also, it is with a sense of irony that one reads of corporations like
Wal-Mart contributing millions of dollars to the relief efforts.
Yet were their employees in New Orleans working in better conditions and
with better pay, some of those who couldn't afford to evacuate would
have been able to do so. These corporations are responsible for the loss
of jobs through outside contracting to
sweatshops. In "Third World" countries where in turn occasional fires
break out leading to hundreds of deaths. In "Third World" countries,
they no longer pay government taxes in the tax free trade zones, leading
to further destruction of already fragile and poor economies. Where
these corporations have remained in the United States as retailers and
manufacturers, they have seen to wages being cut. They are rabidly
against unions and essentially use the community the same way colonial
companies used colonized communities for cheap labour, extraction of
raw materials and of course as buyers of products whose production is
finished elsewhere.

Thus coupled with a government that has engineered its own version of
structural adjustment to maximize profit, and corporations that
economically and politically colonize a community, the vulnerability
which in real terms is the result of victimization - seen in New Orleans
is not a surprise. Rather, it is the culmination of well planned and
orchestrated policies that consolidate wealth in the hands of a few at
the expense of the poor. Globalization is not resulting in a world that
becomes better as it gets smaller, but rather in a world where poverty
becomes more prevalent and more apparent. This globalization of poverty
makes New Orleans a village! In everybody's backyard. Instead of
outsourcing disaster to an unnamed "Third World" it seems to me that
citizens of the United States should be placing the responsibility for
the preventable deaths and suffering in New Orleans on their government
and corporate board rooms.

Mukoma Wa Ngugi is the author of Conversing with Africa: Politics of
Change and the forthcoming, Looking at America: Politics of Change.

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.


Post a Comment

<< Home