History Response You will be expected to post an original (250 – 300 words) response that includes at least 2 APA in-text citations for a bulleted question

Click here to Order a Custom answer to this Question from our writers. It’s fast and plagiarism-free.

 

 

Please answer at least 1 of the following:

1-Explain “Separate but not equal”, why was this an important conversation? Do you believe this is still the case today?

2-Describe how the 13th, 14th, and 15 Amendments have affected the Black Community and other communities such as individuals with disabilities and other people of color. 

3- What are the main points of Ilel, “A Healthy Dose of Anarchy”?

2/18/18, 8’00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics

Page 1 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/

Katrina’s Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in
American Politics
By Dara Strolovitch; Dorian Warren; Paul Frymer
Published on: Jun 11, 2006

Dara Strolovitch is assistant professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. She has been a research fellow at
the Brookings Institution and a visiting faculty fellow at Georgetown’s Center for Democracy and the Third Sector. Her
research and teaching focus on interest groups and social movements, and politics of race, class, gender, and sexuality.

Dorian Warren is a post-doctoral scholar at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy. He specializes in the
study of inequality and the politics of marginalized groups in American politics.

Paul Frymer is associate professor of politics and legal studies at UC Santa Cruz. He is the author of Uneasy Alliances: Race
and Party Competition in America (Princeton Press) and is currently writing about race and labor in the twentieth century.

In the public imagination, natural disasters do not discriminate, but are instead “equal opportunity”
calamities. Hurricanes may not single out victims by their race, class, or gender, but neither do such
disasters occur in historical, political, social, or economic vacuums. Instead, the consequences of such
catastrophes replicate and exacerbate the effects of extant inequalities, and often bring into stark relief
the importance of political institutions, processes, ideologies, and norms. In the words of New York
Times’ columnist David Brooks, storms like hurricane Katrina “wash away the surface of society, the
settled way things have been done. They expose the underlying power structures, the injustices, the
patterns of corruption and the unacknowledged inequalities.”

Katrina hit the Gulf Coast just as America prepared to mark the fourth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks,
and consequently, the fourth anniversary of the American government’s quest to bring American-style
freedom and democracy to other nations. The hurricane made clear, however, that the U.S. has not
resolved fundamental domestic disparities and inadequacies. Katrina did not create these inequities; it
simply added an important reminder that they are deeply embedded and constitutive of American
political, economic, and social life. From the voting rights violations of 2000, to the vast disparities in
drug laws that have resulted in the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of young African-American
and Latino men, to the continued widening of racial and wealth gaps when it comes to finances,
education, and health services, the last two decades alone have provided a series of examples that
demonstrate the vast inequalities of our democratic system, particularly as they are manifested along
racial lines. Were Katrina simply an accident of geography and ecology, we could perhaps be sanguine
that its effects might be resolved. But the disparities exposed by Katrina have deep-seated, historical and
institutional roots. While it is therefore unlikely that public policies in the aftermath of Katrina will
resolve these disparities, perhaps the inequalities laid bare by the hurricane will provide a longer-term

2/18/18, 8’00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics

Page 2 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/

The Political Roots of Race and Class Inequality in New Orleans

wake-up call to those who wish to actively build a more fair and meaningful democracy in the United
States. In particular, we hope that new attention will be paid to the role of American political
institutions in structuring and perpetuating contemporary racial, economic, regional, and gendered
inequities.

Storms and natural disasters such as Katrina always hit marginal groups in society harder than they do
other segments. Women, many of whom were primary caregivers for their children, were vastly over-
represented among those in New Orleans’ shelters, reflecting not only the gendered norms of family
relations, but the glaring statistical fact that women in America are more likely to live below the poverty
line. Similarly, the elderly and disabled faced some of the most severe horrors of Katrina, again in part
because they constitute a disproportionately high percentage of those who are impoverished, and
because too many were simply left to die in the face of rushing water due to the difficulties in rescuing
them. It was the compounded effects of the intersection of race and class inequalities, however, that was
brought most visibly to the fore by the national and international media in the days following Katrina.
Quite notably, President Bush, who had first resisted acknowledging the disproportionate impact of
Katrina on low-income and black residents of New Orleans, finally felt compelled to recognize “the
legacy of inequality.” The evidence of the centrality of racial and class inequalities is overwhelming, as
evidenced by Kanye West’s impassioned comments on television as well as by the fact that the topic
became one of discussion in such unlikely outlets as FOX news and the Rush Limbaugh show. By now,
we have all heard the damning statistics about the demographics of New Orleans residents so devastated
by Katrina: 67% are African American, 28% live below the poverty line (of whom 84% are black),
100,000 had no car, and therefore had no ability to flee the city when the storm hit.

Although jarring, these statistics can only be shocking to those who have willingly ignored systematic
evidence of what former Senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards topically called the “two
Americas.” Edwards may not have specifically mentioned race during his popular campaign stump
speech, but social scientists and political activists have long tried to draw the nation’s attention to the
scope of racialized (and gendered) poverty in the United States, particularly in the South. It is no
accident that African Americans in New Orleans are disproportionately poor, or that a disproportionate
number of the poor in New Orleans are African American. It is the result of centuries of concerted
decision-making by political actors at the local, state, and national levels, going back to the days of
slavery and continuing up to our current political moment.1 Highlighting the roles of race and class in
attitudes about and identities of those most affected by the aftermath of Katrina draws attention to the
ways in which these divisions have played an historically significant role in conflicts about the proper
relationship between local, state, and federal governments in American politics. Though many in the
media focused on the failed political response in the immediate aftermath or Katrina, little attention was
given to the long-term effects of weakened government capacity and its core functions in providing aid,
services, and jobs to impoverished urban communities, as well as the historical role of race as a causal
factor that has shaped these intergovernmental relations.

2/18/18, 8’00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics

Page 3 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/

Race has always been central to debates about the proper role of the American government in aiding
those Americans in need of assistance from the inequalities that result directly from the actions of both
the government and private citizens. Whether the national government should have the capacity to
intervene into local affairs was an issue of primary importance at the nation’s naissance. At the time,
race and labor—specifically debates about the slave trade, about the maintenance and expansion of
slavery into American territories, and about the status of blacks more generally—were the sine qua non
of the conflicts between federalists and anti-federalists at the founding of the nation. Southern political
elites argued that the federal government should have no authority over the governance of local
institutions and culture; these arguments were constitutionally protected in the 10th Amendment.
Pointing to the guarantee of “states’ rights,” southern states resisted all attempts to abolish slavery,
resulting in the secession of eleven states—including Louisiana—from the nation in 1860.

The Civil War prompted by this secession did not end race-inspired conflicts over federalism. Following
the defeat of Confederate forces, the national government used its power to expand rights and resources
for blacks primarily through the Freedmen’s Bureau. Its task was to coordinate relief efforts and
redistribute educational, employment and political opportunities among newly freed and homeless
former slaves, as well as to whites who had been dislocated by the war. With the help of the Freedmen’s
Bureau and the protection of federal troops, African Americans acquired land, sought employment,
voted in large numbers, served as elected officials, and used public accommodations in the years
following the war. Most southern whites resented the federal presence and resisted efforts to equalize
the status of former slaves. President Andrew Johnson vetoed congressional renewal of the Bureau in
1866, and undercut its efforts by restoring most land to its former white owners. As the ex-Confederate
states rejoined the Union, Congress further curtailed the agency’s power and personnel, and it finally
ceased operations in 1872. Five years later, the Hayes-Tilden compromise led to the withdrawal of
federal troops, effectively ending all Reconstruction efforts in the South, sealing the fate of the vast
majority of African Americans for generations and ushering in a new era of racial and class inequality.
Southern states, with little federal resistance, enacted “Jim Crow” laws that segregated public spaces,
curtailed voting rights, and reestablished white political, economic, and social supremacy.

But debates over federalism returned during the Great Depression, leading both to an emboldened
national government with power to interfere on matters of interstate commerce to mold social policy,
and at the same time, a recognition that states’ rights would limit the New Deal’s intervention into the
southern economy and political hierarchy. These political battles, in which the federal government won
certain powers with an explicit compromise that it would not threaten southern institutions, set America
on a path-dependent course towards a vastly curtailed welfare state and one that differentiated on the
basis of race. To obtain the necessary support of southern Democrats in Congress for his legislative
agenda, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and northern Democrats agreed to a series of measures that
codified racial inequities into policy. Critical legislation such as the Wagner Act and Social Security Act
did not cover workers in occupations commonly filled by blacks, such as agricultural and domestic
workers, and enabled private and local actors to discriminate in their enactments and interpretations of
the policies. Approximately two thirds of black workers were not initially covered by critical pieces of

2/18/18, 8’00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics

Page 4 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/

New Deal legislation, at a time when 50 percent of blacks were unemployed, a proportion twice that of
whites. Consequently, while black Americans benefited in some ways from the New Deal, the policies
were severely limited in reach and, in many instances, served to systematically create racial segregation
and poverty in communities such as New Orleans. Labor laws and construction grants allowed unions to
exclude black workers through closed shops and contracts, the Federal Housing Act allowed banks and
home lenders to “redline” their home and business loan policies to exclude black communities, and
federal welfare laws allowed local governments to make determinations of need and assistance.

Southern states continued to resist federal efforts to combat segregation, discrimination, and the
increasing use of terror against blacks in the South well into the 1960s. Faced with civil rights activism, a
series of Supreme Court decisions, and critical new federal laws, conditions improved for blacks in the
“new south.” But, as Philip Klinkner and Rogers Smith have argued, this moment was brief—the
“unsteady march” toward racial equality quickly moved backward. Beginning with President Richard
Nixon, the ambitious plan of the Great Society to use federal funds to combat poverty and racial
inequality was curtailed. The Supreme Court retracted from its ambitious Equal Protection agenda,
instead privileging state and local boundaries that limited policies designed to reduce racial segregation
and inequality in employment, schools, and criminal justice. This was often a bipartisan effort,
witnessed by President Bill Clinton’s signing of welfare reform that cut federal funding sharply to those
in need of assistance. The legacies of racial and economic inequality, from slavery and segregation to the
exclusionary nature of federal aid, remain evident in every Southern state. Racial disparities in
Louisiana and New Orleans are certainly more extreme than they are in other states, but racial
inequality prevails in the former Confederacy, in no small part because of the ongoing invocation of
states’ rights to justify unequal treatment and to resist federal attempts to intervene.

It is important to recognize, however, that while states’ rights arguments have been used historically to
undergird southern racial and class inequalities, they have been invoked inconsistently. Like most
political ideologies in American politics, states’ rights is much less a fundamental and enduring
principle than a political foil that has been deployed opportunistically by political elites to advance their
interests and agenda. Southern conservatives have often invoked states’ rights to resist federal
intervention, but they have also been quick to disregard this principle when it has suited their needs, as
they did earlier this year when asking Congress to overrule a state court that allowed the removal of
Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. Such inconsistency has historical roots that make clear that southern
invocations of the 10th Amendment have more to do with protecting their power than they do with
concerns about states’ rights. While many southern states endorsed the 10th Amendment during
constitutional debates, they also supported the Commerce Clause and the Full Faith and Credit
provisions of the Constitution—both strongly anti-state rights—in order to stop northern states from
taxing their products that were made with slave labor, and as a way of legally demanding the return of
slaves who escaped to northern free states.

Federalism then, may be a center of the debate, but it provides a smoke screen more than a concrete
barrier to political reform. The reason federalism debates are so powerful is because our national

2/18/18, 8’00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics

Page 5 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/

American (Lack of) Recognition of History and Structural Inequality

political institutions are fundamentally divided over race, a division that is as old as the nation itself. To
maintain racial hierarchies, southern Democrats and racial conservatives consistently invoke states
rights when it suits them. These interests, while a minority in American society, have always been
important pivots and veto players in the national political arena. Because our political institutions, such
as the Senate, the Electoral College, and the party system, are unduly beholden to these pivotal votes,
federal distinctions remain politically meaningful at a time when many scholars have argued that they
are antiquated and artificial. It is for this reason that even those political actors who support the
expansion of racial and economic justice have had to make political calculations that work against such
goals. This is perhaps most notable in the way that the two party system has been affected by the pivotal
role of the South. With brief exceptions, the two major political parties have been equal opportunity
ignorers of racial inequality going back to their formation in the 1820s. To win elections, parties need to
appeal to southern whites and racially conservative voters. Democrats as much as Republicans are
vividly aware of this, as the actions of national candidates from Bill Clinton to Al Gore to John Kerry
have emphatically illustrated. The poor in New Orleans only entered our television screens with Katrina,
in part because no major party presidential nominee has made race or poverty a campaign issue in
almost four decades.

Fifty years after Louis Hartz remarked that Americans were “born equal” and that, as a result, they have
no sense or interest in history or the broader development of ideas and inequities, it is not surprising
that the American response to New Orleans was viewed through an exceedingly narrow lens. Most
Americans were shocked by New Orleans and our media reflected this with pictures of the faces of
inequality capped with headings ending with question marks—How did this happen? Where did this
inequality come from? Who is to blame? The sense of wonderment is held only by some segments of the
American population, however. As is the case with many other issues, race has been the critical variable
in determining Americans’ perceptions and attitudes about Katrina’s aftermath, and about the way it
was handled by the government.

The American public is sharply divided along racial lines in its assessments of George Bush’s efforts to
help Katrina’s victims. Data from a recent poll by the Pew Research Center show that many more
African Americans (85%) than whites (63%) believe that President Bush did not do “all he could to get
relief efforts going quickly.” Moreover, race also has also shaped perceptions about why the response
was as slow and inadequate as it was. The poll results suggest that a vast majority of African Americans,
but very few whites, agree with hip-hop artist Kanye West’s charge that “George Bush doesn’t care about
black people,” and that America is set up “to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as
possible.” Echoing West’s sentiments, the Pew poll found that two-thirds of blacks (66%) agreed that the
government response to the hurricane would have been faster if “most of the victims had been white,”
compared to less than one-fifth (17 percent) of whites.2

The disjuncture between white and black attitudes on this question is illuminating not only for the

2/18/18, 8’00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics

Page 6 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/

wideness of the racial gap in responses, but also because the responses tell us about each group’s
understanding of the way in which race and racism structured individuals’ experiences of and the
government’s response to the hurricane. For white respondents, the question seemed to ask whether
overt racism had led the government to intentionally ignore black residents of New Orleans, leaving
them to suffer on purpose. This understanding is captured in First Lady Laura Bush’s denunciation of
West’s allegations as “disgusting,” and her statement that “President Bush cares about everyone in our
country.” Within this line of reasoning, unless President Bush, Michael Brown, and the Louisiana
National Guard had made explicit decisions to avoid helping or rescuing black victims of the hurricane,
no racial discrimination would have occurred.

For black respondents, however, the question was much broader, and far more subtle. Though not
disconnected from concerns about negative feelings about black people, intentional acts of
discrimination by individuals and government agencies and from the facts of the hurricane itself, black
responses are embedded within an understanding of what social theorists call structural racism. From
this perspective, the racialized impact of Katrina, though clearly more severe than anything in recent
memory, was nothing new but was instead yet another chapter in a long history in which the needs of
blacks have been ignored, and in which seemingly race-neutral policies have actually been very
specifically designed to disadvantage them, whether through provisions that excluded black workers
from social welfare protections or the use of “redlining” and other techniques that served to exclude
black Americans from government subsidies. Had anyone really been concerned about African
Americans and other poor residents of New Orleans, they would have anticipated the fact that many did
not own cars and would have arranged for transportation to help them leave the city as the storm
approached. (Although it should be noted that public officials have ignored just about every warning by
scientists, academics, and journalists of the impending disaster in New Orleans. Just last year, Mike
Davis forecasted exactly this chain of events in an article in Mother Jones magazine and his broader
books on ecological disasters, blaming directly government officials who have promoted harmful
policies for short-term benefit. A similarly prescient article appeared on the front page of the New
Orleans Times-Picayune only 3 years ago.) Instead, the plight of these residents was not even on the
President’s radar screen. Low-income and poor people always suffer more when disaster hits. Eric
Klinenberg’s recent book on the Chicago heat wave of 1995 shows the myriad ways in which African
Americans suffered most extensively from the record temperatures because of worse housing
conditions, less access to medical facilities, less attention by police, fire, and paramedics, and less urban
infrastructure designed to handle such emergencies. As the old axiom goes, “when America sneezes,
black people get pneumonia.”

In this sense, the experience of African Americans in New Orleans can serve as the “miner’s canary,” as
Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres argue. Similar to the way in which canaries alerted miners to the specter
of poisonous air, the fates that befall people who are disadvantaged by inequalities based on, for
example, race, class, and gender, are signifiers of society-wide inequalities. If policymakers and the
public heed the lessons of Katrina and make efforts to address the structural and institutional sources of
American inequality, perhaps the brunt of future disasters will not be borne by those who are the least

2/18/18, 8’00 PMKatrinaʼs Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics

Page 7 of 7http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/

Endnotes

able to endure their costs.

1 While these decisions have had disproportionate effects on African Americans in the southern states,
the exploitation of racial animosity also undermined the possibility of a comprehensive safety net that
would have benefited white poor and working-class southerners as well.

2 In addition to structuring responses, the immediate widespread reports by the media of gang violence,
mass rapes, and looting hearken back to similar tall tales about African American mayhem in the
aftermath of the civil war, the Chicago Fire, and the River Rouge Strike. Barbara Bush’s callousness
towards those suffering in relief centers similarly stems from embedded stereotypes of African American
cultural deficiencies when it comes to work ethic and responsibility.

Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by one of our experts, guaranteeing you an A result.

Need an Essay Written?

This sample is available to anyone. If you want a unique paper order it from one of our professional writers.

Get help with your academic paper right away

Quality & Timely Delivery

Free Editing & Plagiarism Check

Security, Privacy & Confidentiality