About My Language

[Kaspit raised some concerns about my use of the word "genocidal" in my first post about FEMA and the Red Cross. Since others may have felt similarly, I'm going to offer an initial response to my friend's comment out here, as a new post. For ease of reference, I'm going to repost Kaspit's comment in the comments to this post. --BG]

Kaspit,

Thanks for your feedback. I value it a great deal and hope we can have more exchanges on these and other related topics. At the moment it is a little difficult for me know how to modulate my anger in a way that isn't off putting to some (maybe many). Some of that may be warranted by the scale of injustice and some of that may be a reflection of my having much shorter experience than you in doing social justice work, and maybe with experience you learn how to take things better in stride in order to be more effective politically.

That said, this is my personal blog and not the website of an advocacy organization, and I don't know that I necessarily need to do anything differently. I provide the links for my sources, which others can use in other ways, if they wish. I also think there is some value in being open about how angry-making recent events are for me and, I'm sure, for many others (including you, I would guess).

A philosophical and moral question in many areas of the Katrina tragedy is at what point does willful neglect carry the weight of intent? The legal profession uses the categories of gross negligence and wanton misconduct* to describe forms of negligence that border on or are equivalent to intent. Regardless of what could be argued in a court of law, on a moral level I believe that government and Red Cross officials have crossed that line, showing "indifference to whether harm will result."

Willful withholding of food and water that can only result in death, illness, and irreparable harm definitely qualifies in this department, in my opinion—especially when the evidence shows that there is no practical or administrative reason, at this point, that the Red Cross could not have been delivering relief inside of New Orleans for some time. As I said in my post, it is a genocidal policy. That is, the policy has genocidal effects. I do not see how those crafting the policy can be unaware of those effects. Therefore, I hold them responsible.

Maybe it would be helpful if I say a little on how I think about the relationship between institutional and individual expressions of racism (and other forms of oppression). One of my analytical aphorisms is that institutionalized racism promotes individual, local acts of racism. For example, in the 2004 presidential election in Ohio, elections officials created long lines at the polls in heavily African American neighborhoods by purposefully withholding voting machines from those areas. Because there were up to 10 hour waits to vote in some of these places, there were horrendous parking problems. Many had to park illegally in order to be able to vote. At some polling places, poll workers went around threatening to have voters' cars towed, forcing voters to choose between staying in line and paying towing fees. There were also gross acts of cruelty against disabled and elderly voters whom poll workers forced to stand in line with no option to sit or receive other appropriate accommodations.

I feel reasonably confident that those officials, who were administering racist policies at an institutional level, did not instruct poll workers to discriminate against Black voters in local situations. I do, however, hold elections officials culpable for cultivating an atmosphere in which it was okay for individual poll workers to violate the voting rights of, and demean, Black voters. Maybe not legally culpable (lawyers, please opine...)—but definitely morally culpable.

Similarly, long standing institutionalized racism in NOLA made Black people disproportionately vulnerable to profoundly neglectful government policies, individual acts of neglect, and overt, racist aggression on the ground.

I think I understand part of your criticism to be that it is not practical to argue that policies under discussion are genocidal in their effects. In fact, I think you're saying that it's not even that practical to try to convince Americans that the Red Cross is messing up. Maybe from a political strategy / policy making standpoint you are right. However, I feel a moral obligation to speak about the ramifications of behaviors as I see them.

I do hear you when you point out that that the word "genocidal" is potentially inflammatory and that wielding it at the outset, before I've made my argument, may undermine my argument for some readers. On reflection, I think you are probably right and that if I had it to do over, I might have used the word later in my post and defined it in my post. Still, I stand by the usage and think that stating it upfront also has some value, the value of breaking a taboo on speaking directly about the nature of injustices that we have all witnessed.

I know there are fine points in your analysis that I have not addressed as of yet. As time permits, I'll try to get to them back in the comments thread.

Your friend,

Ben

Notes

*Links are to legal definitions in Michigan state law and are being used as reference points only. I make no legal claims about the technical application of "gross negligence" and "wanton misconduct" in Louisiana state or national contexts.

Comments

[Ben G.]

These are the comments from Kaspit that I am responding to. He originally posted them here.

Ben, I have found it hard to read and link to some of your posts because your expressions of anger make it hard for people (e.g., me) to take in the information as information (i.e., as reliable data). So, you lose me early on in that post about that "genocidal policy" of the Red Cross. Though I didn't see comments on it, I assume that's what prompted this poston genocide.

1. It's difficult enough to convince (enough/many) Americans that the Red Cross is messing up. (Or, as in text above, that a police officer is messing up.)

2. It's certainly a difficult case to make that federal (or local) failures in disaster preparation and response have a racist aspect. In order to do this, (1) it's important to lay out exactly what is meant by racism. Because there are different types of racist conduct, e.g. institutionalized racism is quite different than a hate crime. In particular, different types of racism implicate different degrees of willful / deliberate intent and of ideology. (2) Then, I think people can hear/read the argument better if the evidence is presented in a fairly factual and NPOV (neutral point of view) manner. Without labelling the evidence by the conclusion lechatkhila (at the outset). (3) The evidence needs to show not just a pattern of discrimation, unless the conclusion is limited to something like institutionalized racism, but also intent. For that purpose, it's helpful to explain what grounds can support an argument about intent. E.g., the use of racist ideology, texts that arguably show intent, actions in the face of warnings etc.

3. Genocide requires INTENT to destroy a group. I think "in whole or in part" conveys something like a criminal's forethought that, e.g., "considering that we can't kill all the Jupiterians, I'll settle for killing 10,000 of them." Surely, "destroy...in part... a group" does not cover the intent to kill an individual, no matter how racist/ anti-Semitic/ homophobic etc. the intent. Otherwise, genocide would be collapsed to the meaning of violent racism/etc. As horrible as is anti-ABCism violence, genocide is a crime of a different scale. So, it seems patently incorrect to assert "Every time a cop kills a Black when he would not kill a white, that is genocide: killing MEMBERS of a group." (In other words, the statement presupposes something about all cops that is not shared, I think, by most readers. E.g., what if it's a black cop? On the other hand, the statement would be more plausible about a KKK member, because we may assume that lynchings were rooted in an intent and ideology to destroy a group.)

4. Where is there any evidence that the Red Cross has the intent to destroy a group? Absent better evidence, the "genocide" language is inflammatory and defamatory.

You can be sure that I love your blog and the information you are providing is terribly, terribly important. Plus, you are covering the story in a comprehensive way. But I'm reluctant to link to these posts because of characterizations that are too quick for the readers, and here too explosive and wrong (e.g. genocidal). Please reconsider.

Respectully, your admiring reader,

Kaspit

[kaspit]

Ben, You’ve explicated your view helpfully here and I’m honored that you took the time to respond to my comment. I have a better sense now of where we disagree.

I am still surprised and concerned by your position on using “genocide” about the Red Cross. In your previous post, you accept a definition of genocide in terms of intent. But now you write: “As I said in my post, it is a genocidal policy. That is, the policy has genocidal effects.” But genocide is not judged by effects, it is not a consequentialist concept. When judging by effects, what might be shown would be systematic discrimination, i.e., institutionalized racism. If I’m not mistaken, the whole concept of institutionalized racism (or sexism, etc) is to identify and demonstrate discrimination without needing to demonstrate personal intent or motivation.

Racism is terrible and it kills. But not all racism or anti-Semitism etc, and certainly not institutionalized racism, can responsibly be labeled as genocide. As I said in disputing comparisons of the evacuation of Gaza settlers with the Holocaust, terms like genocide can unfortunately be used correctly in recent situations. People should be careful to avoid such language for polemical purposes. (Ben, I don’t see how the personal nature of your blog matters. You are somebody who believes deeply in personal responsibility, plus you are trying to educate your readers. If you write, “I’m so angry I want to scream ‘Genocide’!” well, that I can understand fully.)

I agree that gross negligence (or wanton misconduct) borders on malicious intent. Still, they remain different and the distinction is morally important (e.g., Jewish law and Kantian ethics). Intent is a large part of the difference. Plus, it’s not easy to show an equivalence between the negligent will, which indirectly causes harm, and the will of a person intending to harm. Are they willing the same harm? Moreover, under many moral theories, indirect harm is evaluated/judged quite differently than direct harm.

Furthermore, with New Orleans, indirect harm is distinct because the people in NOLA are not under the control and full responsibility of the Red Cross (or any single agency). So their negligence would not seem to be a sufficient explanation or cause of the harm experienced by NOLA residents. (Ok, I suspect you disagree on factual grounds.) Contrast this to the statutory situations in your link to gross negligence (e.g., "persons who voluntarily render cardiopulmonary resuscitation", "firefighters who provide first aid at the scene of emergencies").

Perhaps my own position was not clear about the American Red Cross. I think it would be quite politically important and practical to show that the Red Cross has been (grossly etc) negligent. At a minimum, it would help to educate Americans about the political nature of the Red Cross and its strong ties w/Republicans. (This responds to, above, “I think you're saying that it's not even that practical to try to convince Americans that the Red Cross is messing up.”)

Fondly and respectfully,

Kaspit

PS From your links FYI: “The court said that willful and wanton are distinct and logically inconsistent, so “willful and wanton” is to be read as “willful or wanton.” Willful, as Burnett said, requires intent to harm while wanton means the equivalent, reckless conduct without intent to harm but with indifference as to the result.” (emphasis added)

PSS Sorry about the long response. As in the past, I trust you to edit. ;)