It is probably no great surprise that the disparate effects of natural disasters on housing of different quality should prompt some people to speak of the subject of environmental racism.  Yet it is not clear at all that the disparate effects of natural disasters on housing of different quality is in fact racist, because the risk for natural disasters and the patterns of land use by race and class are highly variable and in many cases culturally dependent.  In addition, there are plenty of other factors at play when it comes to the differential damage done to housing in different areas where it is clear that something other than race is the most important factor.  As is the case when we are dealing with a mess like this, it is useful to conduct a thought experiment so at least we may better examine the situations that occur and ponder how these make sense, or do not, when one views them through different perspectives and asks thoughtful questions about the reasons for the disparities that exist.

The general thesis of environmental racism, if one may describe it simply, is that disadvantaged groups suffer disparately from natural disasters.  According to this view, the fact that the largely poor and black people of, say, New Orleans, Louisiana suffer massively from flooding from hurricanes and other tropical weather because racism forces them to live below sea level and not find the high ground elsewhere in the bayous that would allow them to live safely.  Such a viewpoint examines geographical disparities from a racial viewpoint, such that racism is blamed for the fact that Haiti as well has a far larger death toll from hurricanes and earthquakes than would be the case in other areas from storms or tremors of similar strength.  It does appear, though, that racism is merely assumed and not proven.  There may indeed be a correlation between ethnicity and the severity of damage that comes from various natural disasters, in that Bengalis may suffer particularly badly from typhoons relative to Thais, for example, but such correlation can never prove causation, especially in the face of competing explanations for those disparities that do not involve race so much as various cultural and economic factors.

We must first ask the question of whether it is in fact race or something else that is at the bottom of disparate effects of natural disasters on various housing stock.  The relationship between the effect of natural disasters and the damage caused to various quality of homes or various classes of people is by no means straightforward.  In general, we find it to be the case around the world that the wealthiest have tended to have the first choice of what neighborhoods to live in while decreasing wealth and status has tended to involve living in more and more marginal land.  That said, while this pattern is pretty consistent, what land is considered to be the most desirable for elites varies considerably across different cultures.  For example, in Europe and the Middle East, easily defensible hilltops were the location of the most desirable elite housing, while poorer people had to make due with homesteads or villages outside of the walls or on lower ground.  Meanwhile, wealthier people in Southern California have tended to also desire to live on the hills while poorer people have lived in the valleys.  In Florida, though, the pattern is reversed, where wealthier people have tended to live in waterfront property on floodplains while poorer people live on the heights that flood less often but are also less in demand by hydrophilic wealthy Floridians.

In such situations, though, it is by no means certain that the disparate risk to natural disasters that follows is in fact racist.  Wealthy Iron age Europeans or people in the Middle East sought high ground because it was easier to defend from raiders or enemy armies, so long as that high ground had a secure water source.  Contemporary wealthy Californians enjoy the views that one gets from high ground, even at higher risk of wildfires and landslides, while contemporary wealthy Floridians enjoy the proximity to water that low ground offers, even at the risk of higher flood damage.  Such housing patterns are perhaps classist, but they are not strictly racist.  Indeed, elite housing is often sited for aesthetic reasons that are often correlated to higher risks that are worth it because of the ease of obtaining low-cost government “insurance” for their at-risk housing.  The fact that elites can build vulnerable housing and receive taxpayer subsidized “insurance” for it is problematic, to be sure, but not precisely racist, as this advantage is open to elites of any ethnicity so long as they follow the same pattern.  To be sure, trailer parks destroyed by tornadoes or houses in places like New Orleans would potentially have the same benefits, even if the value of those properties is likely to be lower than that of elite housing stock.

Let us now turn our attention to other issues, such as the disparate effects of earthquakes in housing in different areas.  This is itself not a strictly racist phenomenon as it is based on matters like construction codes and their enforcement.  There is a greater expense in enforcing building codes but that added expense in ensuring higher quality housing means that earthquakes are far less destructive in a place like California than they are in places like Iran or Mexico City or Haiti.  Here again, as was the case previously, the disparate effects of natural disaster on housing stock and the resulting death and destruction from such disasters is far more due to questions of culture and class than strictly on matters of race and ethnicity.  A Pakistani living in the suburbs of Los Angeles will benefit from better American building standards than that dealt with by his or her cousins in Karachi or Islamabad if earthquakes of the same strength struck both areas.  The same would be true of an Iranian living outside of Tehran as opposed to one living in the West Hills of Portland, or of a Haitian living in Cap François or Miami when dealing with hurricanes or tropical storms.  The quality of housing stock depends far more on economics as well as politics with regards to how much quality housing one can afford or how well a given polity establishes and enforces building standards to minimize harm for others.

As an aside, it is not race that drives this.  For example, a friend of mine is engaging on a crusade to protect children from deaths due to falls into outdoor grease interceptors.  Such a crusade, which I support, makes perfect sense in a culture where the lives of children are precious and where there is a willingness to regulate behavior in order to protect children from even obscure threats to their well-being, but would not likely be a priority in a society that could not enforce even basic building or environmental codes.  Protecting children from outdoor grease interceptors is definitely a first world problem, but being in the first world is not merely a matter of race but has a lot of other elements involved as well, namely a culture that values the lives of children and is willing and able to pay for their protection from at least some of the threats of existence in our built environment.  We would be much better off if instead of blaming racism for all of the disparities of our existence that we took a hard look at ourselves and our world as to the various factors that combine to create inequality in our existence, and to act in ways to minimize that equality so far as we are able.