I'm not really getting this post by Jane Galt, probably because I'm not buying at least half the assertions she makes. The poor are areligious?
The poor were less likely to have cars, or know people with access to cars. They are less likely to be connected with churches or other social organisations that could have functioned to make sure they got out.The whole post is like that--one assertion that has me nodding my head ("less likely to have cars") followed immediately by one that has me scratching it ("less likely to be connected with churches"). Jane wrote this once, so she can't be entirely ignorant of life in the cheap seats. Well, maybe it's different in New York, or maybe she knows something I don't, but in general, it has not been my experience that the poor are "less likely to be connected with churches."
And then there's this harping on education:
The poor do not listen to news as frequently, or as intently, as the middle class, meaning that they had a much hazier idea of what was going on, even if they had had the education to understand what a Class Five hurricane was.Pardon me, but how much education does one need to "understand" what a Class Five hurricane is? I'm not even sure how much native intelligence you need--all you're asking anyone to grasp is that Class Five is very big and very bad. I can't figure out how to get out of Dodge without my Master's now, is that it? No, I am not buying this one--obviously education isn't all that if someone who actually has some is claiming it's required in order to get your head around "Class Five hurricane."
As for this:
The poor are vastly less responsive to public education efforts than the middle class (I've seen few good theories as to why). This meant that they didn't take evacuation warnings seriously.I have a theory as to why: Maybe because they resent being condescended to by the people providing public education. Maybe the people in charge of providing that public education are exhibiting some of the same attitude I'm finding in . . . this post. Maybe they lose sleep nights over whether someone with a GED can comprehend a hurricane severity scale that goes from 1 to 5.
"Harold, I'm worried. These people have so little education!"
UPDATE: One of those she-said-it-better-than-I-did moments. From the comments, Moebius Stripper on that whole they-won't-respond-to-public-education thang:
The statements that the poor don't listen to the news frequently, and that they're less responsive to public education efforts, were the ones that blew my mind the most. This might have something to do with the fact that the bulk of my exposure to The Poor has been with impoverished immigrants and refugees, and I've never met a group of people who took better advantage of public education efforts of all flavours. In particular, I'm acquainted with a mother and daughter who moved to Canada less than three years ago, and didn't speak a word of English at the time. They live in a bachelor apartment, and sleep on a double mattress - in other words, these folks are not rich. And they have the radio on constantly, and all of the librarians knew them by name because they're at the library several times a week. Because, well, listening to the news and borrowing books from the library are ways to educate oneself for free. But if there were a major earthquake in our neck of the woods, I don't know if they'd be able to get out of town. They don't have cars, and although they have close ties to their community, most of the members of that community are carless immigrants too.And while education might eventually relieve some of those circumstances--obviously the immigrant families haunting the library believe it will--it's not going to be the kind of education you can provide in a two-minute public service announcement.
I think in that earlier racism thread I said something about wanting to identify concrete causes before dealing with abstract ones. That's just my nature, but this backs me up on it, because "The poor are vastly less responsive to public education efforts" is just the sort of sentence that results when you weight the abstract more heavily than the concrete; in this case, the assumed relative knowledge and comprehension of an economic class before the more practical issue of lack of transportation.
Whether having high school diplomas instead of GEDs might have helped people achieve higher incomes, enabling them to own cars, is not really something I consider important in this context, in the immediate aftermath when folks are trying to pin down what all went wrong. "The poor won't listen to us" strikes me as something of a copout here.
Posted by Ilyka at September 9, 2005 01:56 PM in hell is other people | TrackBackRACIST
Posted by: OHNOES at September 9, 2005 02:54 PMAs someone with a GED, I can state with absolute certainty that I understand what a Category 5 Hurricane is -- and I don't even live where we have hurricanes.
I think that the reasons for not evacuating are as varied as the people who stayed. Not something easily pigeonholed.
Posted by: Ith at September 9, 2005 03:55 PMExactly, Ith.
Jane followed that post up with several others making boneheaded assertions about The Poor. Someone needs to take away the shovel, honestly.
Posted by: ilyka at September 9, 2005 04:06 PMOne of the current Republican talking points is to blame the NOLA victims by tagging them all as welfare recipients, blurring (or completely erasing) the line between "on welfare" and "working poor" (the latter of which seems to apply to more folks there than the former). I think it's absolutely heartless to blame poor people for anything when you've never known want yourself. I don't know this Jane Galt person but, judging by the financial status of most of us with blogs, I'd say she's probably never been poor.
Posted by: Elayne Riggs at September 9, 2005 05:25 PMNo, I see what it is. People are poor because they're stupid. Duh.
Posted by: Lauren at September 9, 2005 05:43 PMOne of the current Republican talking points...
Nonononono, not MY talking point. Watch what you label Republican, lest I call "America is not worth fighting for" a Democrat talking point.
Posted by: OHNOES at September 9, 2005 05:47 PMThe statements that the poor don't listen to the news frequently, and that they're less responsive to public education efforts, were the ones that blew my mind the most. This might have something to do with the fact that the bulk of my exposure to The Poor has been with impoverished immigrants and refugees, and I've never met a group of people who took better advantage of public education efforts of all flavours. In particular, I'm acquainted with a mother and daughter who moved to Canada less than three years ago, and didn't speak a word of English at the time. They live in a bachelor apartment, and sleep on a double mattress - in other words, these folks are not rich. And they have the radio on constantly, and all of the librarians knew them by name because they're at the library several times a week. Because, well, listening to the news and borrowing books from the library are ways to educate oneself for free. But if there were a major earthquake in our neck of the woods, I don't know if they'd be able to get out of town. They don't have cars, and although they have close ties to their community, most of the members of that community are carless immigrants too.
Posted by: Moebius Stripper at September 9, 2005 05:51 PMNote, however, that my main qualifications for being a Republican are as follows:
A) I support the Iraq conflict and hope/expect to see it come to a positive end.
B) I do not think President Bush is innately any of the following
1) evil
2) immoral
3) an election thief
4) a moron
Barring all that, I generally like to call myself conservative rather than Republican.
Posted by: OHNOES at September 9, 2005 05:51 PMMoebius, I would hope that a certain mayor could send buses to pick up those people and help them escape.
Posted by: OHNOES at September 9, 2005 05:52 PMAlmost certainly, OHNOES, though to be honest I don't know if that would fall under local, provincial, or federal jurisdiction. I'm just saying that having close ties to church/community isn't necessarily sufficient to get out of town, if that church/community lacks the means.
Posted by: Moebius Stripper at September 9, 2005 06:14 PMI've been working poor. Thanks to my own brilliance and initiative I'm not now. But...even when I didn't have two plugged nickles to rub together I knew what a category 5 hurricane was.
Posted by: Jim at September 9, 2005 06:23 PMBut...even when I didn't have two plugged nickles to rub together I knew what a category 5 hurricane was.
That ain't what I heard, Jim. I heard you spent all day long swearing at the television and un-teaching yourself how to read and plotting how to marry your cousin. Hey, is it true you still have trouble with the letter "v?"
[runs away giggling]
Posted by: ilyka at September 9, 2005 06:34 PMSee... Like the poor are like sooooo not with the times. Like all they had to do was get on the cell phones and call a helicopter in to get them. Like it's so easy!
And don't forget that the poor have brains the size of bottle caps so can't even comprehend flooding even while they trying to get away from the water. ;-)
Sometimes when things are so obvious (poor don't have the financial means to evacuate) some folks see the complete nonsensical opposite.
Posted by: T-Steel at September 9, 2005 09:00 PMHugh Hewitt, champion of personal responsibility. The media, I mean, the MSM is to blame for insufficient communication regarding the severity of the storm.
Posted by: Hubris at September 10, 2005 11:09 AMJesus, what a dumb f'n statement that the poor are "less likely to be connected with churches." Like you said, maybe in New York, but it's so precisely WRONG about the South that it's laughable. I hate it when people talk out of their asses. That statement alone deserves a serious bitch-slap.
Posted by: Beth at September 10, 2005 01:45 PMJesus, what a dumb f'n statement that the poor are "less likely to be connected with churches." Like you said, maybe in New York, but it's so precisely WRONG about the South that it's laughable.
Exactly. I mean, I'm not even in the South but it's true in the Southwest, too. I'm going to church in the barrio here. Why? 'Cause that's where most of the churches ARE. If I were making a conscious effort to attend a "whiter," more affluent parish I'd be driving 10 extra miles and I guess I'm just not racist or classist enough to wanna do that. Geez.
That statement alone deserves a serious bitch-slap.
I knew you wouldn't have no halfway opinion. :)
Funny thing is, last I read the comments there I could only describe the tone of most of them as "adoring." No one's bringing up much objection or even asking for a little factual support to some of the more out-there claims.
Posted by: ilyka at September 10, 2005 01:55 PMI put in my objection, although more politely than my comment above would imply. ;-)
I should mention that many of the adults in these families I know are HIGHLY educated. It's just that being a leading expert on the Ming Dynasty and having worked in Shanghai as a museum curator won't necessarily help you make more than $8/h if your English is shaky. The correlation between marketable skills and wealth is a lot stronger than the one between education and wealth, a blindingly obvious reality that seems completely lost on the folks at that other site. People under the illusion that book-learnin' and wealth increase in tandem will naturally assume that those who are living paycheque to paycheque are rock stupid.
Posted by: Moebius Stripper at September 10, 2005 02:13 PM