Ethnic Cleansing on American Soil

Brittanica’s concise encyclopedia online refers to ethnic cleansing as “the creation of an ethnically homogenous geographic area through the elimination of unwanted ethnic groups by deportation, forcible displacement, or genocide.”

No longer do we have to go to the Congo or Sudan to see the evidence and effects of ethnic cleansing at work; we need only turn our eyes to New Orleans, La., and there, in our own backyard, we can see ethnic cleansing in its worst form. The lack of progress in rebuilding less-affluent neighborhoods has been termed a policy of ethnic cleansing by inaction .

In New Orleans, people of color are being denied, through various political and economic devices, the right of return. Victims are not physically killed, but instead are sentenced to die a thousand emotional deaths in the every day hell of the reality forced on them:

• Displaced to faraway places while their property is condemned and insurance companies and banks force them to remit property payments
  Victimized by FEMA’s negligence and forced to endure repeated evictions without the prospect of stable housing
• Separated from family members that remain missing
• Denied fair and equal access to the electoral process

The face of New Orleans has drastically changed. In a city which was once more than 70% Black, people of color are scarcely visible. More than 400,000 residents, a majority of whom are Black , were displaced. Their voices have been silenced by natural and man-made disasters that washed them away from their homes.

Now, mostly Whites plan the fate of those displaced persons and all roads either lead away from New Orleans or have colossal roadblocks to return. Capitalizing on the involuntary migration of Blacks out of the city, “planners are advocating plans to reduce the city’s population, using the expression, ‘a smaller footprint.’ Properties have been condemned and slated for demolitions, and rebuilding plans call for making neighborhoods where people of color once lived green spaces, wetlands, or development zones. Under these plans, many Black residents would be unable to rebuild. The racially-biased “smaller footprint” is a move that threatens to systematically confiscate the right of return from New Orleans’ Black residents.

What is most disturbing is that those who would most vehemently oppose such a restructuring plan may not have the opportunity to make their voices heard because elections are to be held without providing easy access to the polls for displaced citizens. White politicians are crowding the ballots for election to key offices; of more than a dozen potential candidates in the mayoral race, less than eight are persons of color. This is particularly noteworthy considering New Orleans has had Black mayors since 1978. Current policies and guidelines make voting a cumbersome process for displaced voters; some prohibit participation altogether. Scattered throughout the country, those languishing without necessary assistance to return and repair their dwellings are now confronted with a mounting, racist attack on their democratic rights.

History appears to be repeating itself as the situation in New Orleans today mirrors political unrest in the city’s not-so-distant past. Standing on the shoulders of white politicians who, in the 1980s, tried to deprive black voters in New Orleans of the opportunity to elect a member of Congress of their choice, current New Orleans officials are poised to disavow a large, racially homogenous segment of the voting bloc of their right to vote.

In the 80s, political officials met in the Capitol basement in the night, excluded the Black members of the legislature, and drew a districting plan that included a district for New Orleans that the federal court found was shaped like Donald Duck. The landmark 1980’s case, Major v. Treen, is perhaps the most infamous voting rights violation of the post Voting Rights Act era, but the travesties of justice being perpetrated in modern-day New Orleans threaten to surpass historically racist agendas in severity and potential harm.

Today, New Orleans officials are conducting business in the open, redefining city boundaries without benefit of input from the displaced masses. A report from the Bring Back New Orleans Commission cites the recent Supreme Court Kelo decision, which permits the use of eminent domain to serve private interests, as a chance to rebuild New Orleans in their own image.” Unfortunately, “in their own image” refers to a brighter, whiter New Orleans, a city without the black and brown faces that are indigenous to the area. As US Congressman Richard Baker (Wall Street Journal-post Katrina) stated after the storm, "We finally cleaned up in New Orleans . We couldn’t do it, but God did.”

While there has been a genuine influx of compassion and concern for the plight of Katrina survivors, we cannot ignore the undeniable evidence that the New Orleans that is rooted in Black culture and history, is in danger of extinction. Amid debates over New Orleans’ new footprint, registered New Orleans voters countdown to the April election unsure as to whether restrictive voting measures will serve as barriers to voting. Meanwhile, in the absence of many Black voters, New Orleans officials are working quickly to advance their agendas and create a city based upon their ideal.

“Over much of the last century, Whites in New Orleans gambled that they could build a society of White privilege and Black disfranchisement, and do so with the help of the rest of the nation. Tragically, that is exactly what happened.” It is no coincidence that those in New Orleans who will benefit most from silencing the Black majority are not racing to make provisions for fair, equitable elections. It is a poignant example of ethnic cleansing, justified by American government and perpetrated on democratic, American soil.

Race in Black. White.

The premier episode of the new, controversial television series on FX channel, “Black. White.” was enough to make me anticipate watching this week’s show. Admittedly, I enjoy television drama as much as the next person. So, the show catered to those of us that thrive on watching controversy and opposition on the small screen. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the highest, I give “Black. White.” an 8.5 for entertainment value. On the same scale, I rate it only a 3 for advancing the discourse on race in America.

The premise of the show is that two typical suburban families, one Black and the other White, agree to live together in a house and undergo intensive makeup sessions that transform them into members of the other race. In Black or Whiteface, the families venture into public situations to find out what life is like for someone of a different skin color.

In general, “Black. White.” does a poor job of depicting the realities of race relations in this country. While the White family’s ignorance to the most basic qualities and characteristics of Black people is similar to the White America’s ambivalence toward anything Black, it is obvious that these reality show “actors” have been coached to appear denser than most for the sake of controversy. For example, the White husband refuses to acknowledge that racism still exists. He repeatedly talks about how he is waiting for an overt racial episode, for someone to walk up to him and call him the “N’ word. His misguided thought pattern resembles the segment of society that believes racism was eradicated by the Civil Rights Movement. The Black family tries in vain to educate him about the fact that although the days have passed of Black people being sprayed in the streets with fire hoses, today’s racism is just as real, and ever-present. It is NOT a figment of our imagination.

The recent Oprah Winfrey Show, “Trading Races,” that featured the two families reflecting upon their experiences during the course of the show, foreshadowed the petty bickering that characterizes the show. Still, emotions remained raw, and it’s apparent that even though the taping of show is complete, deep feelings and conflicts about race remained. I was concerned, however, that the Black family, because of their persistent criticism of the White family, and the White family’s “can’t-we-all-just-get-along” response, will likely be dismissed by Whites as “angry Black folks.” However, discerning “Black. White.” viewers may look past the bitter façade to recognize the historical significance of the Black family anguish over racism.

One article on “Black. White.” compares the show to John Howard Griffin’s groundbreaking book, Black Like Me, which is a stretch. Despite the show’s success thus far, I caution viewers to keep the show’s primary purpose in perspective – entertainment. If Americans try to use this show as a measuring stick for the nature of race relations today, the analysis will fall far short of what is necessary to achieve racial justice. Regardless of the program’s inherent realism, often the ignorance of the White family to the most basic qualities of Black people seems staged. At times, both families appear clueless and hopeless, spouting narrow-minded views of the other race.

In the end, the redeeming quality of “Black. White.” is that it sometimes conveys the truth about race in this country – race still matters – albeit in an exaggerated way that, at times, borders on comic relief. My advice: prepare to be entertained and to yell at the television screen; consider it a welcome surprise if you are enlightened in the process.