Malini Ranganathan makes her case that environmental racism is inextricably linked with the formations of racial liberalism and racial capitalism which developed in the United States in the mid twentieth century. In her view, both systems are responsible for Flint’s slow poisoning (2016, 2-3). Her central argument is that Flint’s issues can be best understood as a “paradigmatic case of racial liberalism’s illiberal legacies” (Ranganathan 2016, 3). Ranganathan states that several narratives or discourse exists on the cause of Flint’s plight today which may present a myopic view of the real issue at stake, and she insists that for better understanding, a close look at its history as well as the impact of liberalism must be thoroughly analysed.
…show more content…
She cited two narratives, one by Michael Moore, a progressive film maker, who tweeted “when you knowingly poison a black city, you are committing a version of genocide” and the second, who sought to explain the Flint case using race and poverty as the formative factors of the Flint tragedy (Ranganathan 2016, 4). While Ranganathan does not dispute the discourse on environmental racism (although in her opinion, they appear to simplify the problem in Flint as just another racist generated problem), she however maintains that there are deeper issues and simply “equating environmental racism with the prejudices harboured by participating individuals is not enough” (2016, 4). For example, among the decision makers to switch to Flint’s water was a black person and this belies the environmental racism theory. Ranganathan states that focus should not be solely fixed on the intent of the individuals in question but also on a “more structural definition that accounts for discrimination beyond conscious intent” (2016, …show more content…
The promises of liberalism appear to exclude certain persons from capitalist wealth and made people like those in Flint outsiders to its benefits. To Ranganathan, this is a stark betrayal of the core purpose of liberalism whose first call should be freedom and equality for all. Recounting the vital role that race (negro slavery) played, both in the United States and abroad, in the history of capitalism, it seems crucial to understand that racial liberalism is unfortunately, one of its offshoots (n 2006, 5). Ranganathan explores the question of who is actually the “liberal individual,” concluding here that society makes maleness as well as whiteness the preconditions of liberalism’s notion of those deemed worthy to enjoy its benefits (2016,
She cited two narratives, one by Michael Moore, a progressive film maker, who tweeted “when you knowingly poison a black city, you are committing a version of genocide” and the second, who sought to explain the Flint case using race and poverty as the formative factors of the Flint tragedy (Ranganathan 2016, 4). While Ranganathan does not dispute the discourse on environmental racism (although in her opinion, they appear to simplify the problem in Flint as just another racist generated problem), she however maintains that there are deeper issues and simply “equating environmental racism with the prejudices harboured by participating individuals is not enough” (2016, 4). For example, among the decision makers to switch to Flint’s water was a black person and this belies the environmental racism theory. Ranganathan states that focus should not be solely fixed on the intent of the individuals in question but also on a “more structural definition that accounts for discrimination beyond conscious intent” (2016, …show more content…
The promises of liberalism appear to exclude certain persons from capitalist wealth and made people like those in Flint outsiders to its benefits. To Ranganathan, this is a stark betrayal of the core purpose of liberalism whose first call should be freedom and equality for all. Recounting the vital role that race (negro slavery) played, both in the United States and abroad, in the history of capitalism, it seems crucial to understand that racial liberalism is unfortunately, one of its offshoots (n 2006, 5). Ranganathan explores the question of who is actually the “liberal individual,” concluding here that society makes maleness as well as whiteness the preconditions of liberalism’s notion of those deemed worthy to enjoy its benefits (2016,