Summary

In this chapter, Bob Bolin writes about “what five decades of hazards and disaster research

have revealed about race, class, and ethnic inequalities.” He talks about Hurricane Katrina,

which hit New Orleans in 2005. The low-income African Americans constituted a significant

chunk of the city's population. The city had 30% of the people living in poverty, and the

government did not take substantial measures to aid the people. The author refrains from

discussing other incidents involving racism and ethnic discrimination. He purely focuses on

environmental cases. The author states his belief that race, class, and ethnicity are critical

markers of a person’s potential vulnerability to environmental hazards of all types and further

argues that ecological calamities are shaped by the already existing social, political,

environmental, and economic conditions and thus should not be considered as “natural”

occurrences. He mentions a number of contemporary writings and shows the arguments

made by them. He defends them and proceeds to show how his views align with them. He

also shows how the U.S. society fails to differentiate among subsections within ‘non-white’

people and how this affects the demography as each one of those races is different. Bob

then moves over to the class and political-economic transformations. He enumerates a

variety of class indicators like income, property, occupation, and level of education, among

many others.

The author then talks about disaster research in the post-WWII USA. he mentions that this

research paid little attention to the victim diversity or social inequalities by race or class. He

gives an example of this by stating a study by Moore (in 1958) that showed how the blacks

had suffered excessive losses and injuries and thus needed a more significant amount of

assistance. This was matched by other studies and agreed upon by the author. A certain

researcher’s study showed that in Mexican society, there was a high dependence on the

family and relatives for help rather than to accept official aid. The author recognises this as

another potential reason for the disparity. The author gives more from various studies

conducted from 1960 to 2000. After this, Bob focuses on ‘vulnerability’ and how it links up

with the concepts of race, class and ethnicity. In this, he mentions a critical case study. He
says that though some classes may not be considered vulnerable typically, certain

situational factors may cause a particular faction to become vulnerable. He supports these

by giving scenarios affecting the middle-class homeowners in L.A. and another example of

Latino farm workers. He concludes by saying, “vulnerability research emphasizes political,

economic inequalities and processes of racial and ethnic marginalisation in relation to risks

from environmental hazards.” After this, he states that there is a missing link between

environmental justice and sociological literature on disasters. By environmental justice, he

means the fair treatment of all people, regardless of race, colour, or income, with respect to

the development and enforcement of environmental laws and policies. He mentions some

studies that show how environmental justice research has thrown light on “environmental

racism”. He says Bullard’s (1990) and the United Church of Christ’s (1987) independent

studies on how racial minorities are at greater environmental risk due to more exposure to

hazardous waste sites. Related to this topic, he mentions Pulido’s discussion of the

development of environmental injustice in Los Angeles (2000). In this, Pulido argued that the

economically ‘superior’ white control the locations of hazardous industries and waste sites,

putting them at a far lesser risk than the racial minorities who cannot take countermeasures

against this white privilege. He ends the chapter by saying that “the studies of racial

formation and class inequalities would strengthen disaster research by providing a spatially

and historically informed understanding of the conditions that shape the severity and

consequences of the disaster.”

Critique

The author has put forward his thoughts very firmly and quotes important things from

previously conducted research. He has used good case studies as an example to promote

his point. He fails to capture the essence of differences among the ‘non-whites’ though he

has pointed out that it does exist.

References

● Bolin, B. (2007). Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Disaster Vulnerability. In: Handbook of
Disaster Research. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research.
● https://www.wikipedia.org/