Katrina and Race

[Redlass]

Six in 10 African-Americans say the fact that most hurricane victims were poor and black was one reason the federal government failed to come to the rescue more quickly. Whites reject that idea; nearly 9 in 10 say those weren't factors.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050913/...DMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

I wonder if the numbers would be the same here. If 9 out of 10 of those of us here who are white would say that race had no factor in the response.

Regardless of whether we think it does, I find it significant that 60% of African Americans do think that race and economic status were factors. And regardless of whether we think they are right or wrong, that is going to be a factor that we're going to need to face and deal with.

There's also an interesting comment in that thread about American honor, but that's for another thread.

[cristina1]

I havent read the article yet, but I did want to correct the link. The one in your post is to a story about Bush's response.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/pol...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

[Redlass]

Ooops, sorry! Was doing a lot of reading and obviously grabbed the wrong link.

Thank you.

[emeleel]

I think economics played a large part; unfortunately, a large part of folks at the end of the economic scale are black. So in that way "race" played a part, but I don't think it was skin color, it was economics and politics pure and simple. And, of course incompetence.

[cristina1]

emeleel said

And, of course incompetence.

I'd vote for this one. Economics played a part before the hurricane hit. I don't think that help was deliberately delayed after the storm because of race or financial status of the victims, though.

I had more I wanted to say, but my neighbor stopped over for a visit and now I lost my train of thought. I have to pick up my kids from school, but hopefully will remember what I wanted to post earlier.

[poseidon]

I think it is idiotic, so toss me in the 9-out-of-10 whites. I do believe gross incompetence was a major player. And, I'll state it again so that my opinion is pefectly clear -- there was gross incompetence at nearly every level, from the people of New Orleans on up. You've got an incompetent mayor, an incompetent governor, and an incompetent FEMA manager all in the mix, along with everyone in between.

One aspect has been fixed.

[Redlass]

But regardless of whether we personally think race was an issue, is it not significant that more than half of the black population surveyed does?

I mean, our saying "You're wrong," really doesn't change much and, in fact, might make things worse as we send the message that their opinions and feelings and observations are irrelevant.

[poseidon]

No, it really isn't more significant, and I'll tell you why.

It isn't as if you're interviewing people inside a vacuum. You're interviewing people after they've been blitzed by the news outlets about what went on and you've heard story after story after story from people who would like to convince you that Bush doesn't care about blacks. The stories have gotten out, and, whether they're true or not, they influence public opinion.

You also have a ton of misinformation out there, particularly over the story of how one jackass (I can't think of a nicer term to use) who ran a water taxi decided that he was only going to pick up white people from their roofs and not pick up blacks. And, who got blamed for that? I'll give you a single guess.

More people could have been saved from this tragedy if the local governments would have done the job that their citizens paid them to do.

I mean, our saying "You're wrong," really doesn't change much and, in fact, might make things worse as we send the message that their opinions and feelings and observations are irrelevant.

Sounds to me as if you're giving me two choices: Either lie and agree to something that I am unable to agree with or simply not voice an opinion at all. Gee, lemme think about that a second... I choose option 3.

[Redlass]

No, I'm not asking you to agree. I'm asking what it is going to mean that people think this way. In other words, what I'm asking is for an opinion on a different question that what was answered.

Let me try to explain.

Remember the blood libel? The one that said Jews made their Passover matzos with the blood of Christian babies?

It wasn't true, but many people believed it. The fact that it wasn't true did not stop people from murdering Jews because they believed it to be the case. Is it responsible for someone to say, "I don't believe the blood libel, therefore it isn't a factor for Jews or Christians."?

What I'm trying to get at is that it matters what people believe (regardless of whether we think their beliefs are "correct" or "incorrect.").

If you have 60% of a particular segment of the population believing that their neighbors and their government are willing to leave them to die in horrendous conditions, you're going to see the looting and violence that you saw in New Orleans in a lot of other places.

We can go into denial about it or we can prepare for it and try to figure out what to do. Now, what that is, I don't know. It's one of the reasons I brought up the topic.

[cristina1]

I saw a man on the news from the 9th Ward who believes that the government blew the levees with dynomite to sarifice the poor blacks to save the rich whites. I can bet that he isn't the only one who thinks so, but I have no clue what can be done about it.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

A White Supremist has also been saying the levees were blown up.

Which is rather funny in a dark sort of way.

[poseidon]

Redlass said

If you have 60% of a particular segment of the population believing that their neighbors and their government are willing to leave them to die in horrendous conditions, you're going to see the looting and violence that you saw in New Orleans in a lot of other places.

I disagree. You have people who loot because they're opportunistic thugs. It has very little to do with race and very much to do with a lack of respect of other people's property.

And, yeah, I do differentiate between people grabbing the necessities of life in an emergency situation and people grabbing TVs and jewelry. I don't care what the color of their skin is, if they can find food in a hopeless situation and aren't risking the lives of others in the process, then more power to them. A good, decent person might take note of that and pay the store owner down the road after the emergency has passed, even if it is done anonymously.

We can go into denial about it or we can prepare for it and try to figure out what to do. Now, what that is, I don't know. It's one of the reasons I brought up the topic.

I have a great idea. It can start from within the community. Instead of the usual suspects race-baiting every opportunity that they can, perhaps they should ask for people to come together and do what's right for the community. Perhaps neighbors can help neighbors instead of trying to search for racists around every corner.

[poseidon]

cristina1 said

I saw a man on the news from the 9th Ward who believes that the government blew the levees with dynomite to sarifice the poor blacks to save the rich whites. I can bet that he isn't the only one who thinks so, but I have no clue what can be done about it.

What should be happening is for community leaders to tell the community the truth -- that this guy is either very misguided or worse.

[Redlass]

Yes, looting comes out of opportunity. Riots, though, typically come out of frustration, pent-up anger, and despair. They come out of a feeling of powerlessness and helplessness--something no one likes to experience.

The race riots destroyed Detroit. I've watched my entire life (they happened the year I was born) as the city has tried to recover from them and it never did. Detroit isn't a particularly dangerous city (despite its reputation), but it is a dead city. The most striking thing about it are all the abandoned buildings. There are people who have grown up in the suburbs who have never made a trip into the city to patronize the few remaining sparks of life.

I find this incredibly sad knowing the vibrancy that used to belong to the city. It is something I wouldn't wish on anywhere else in the country. It is something worth preventing.

[Redlass]

Here's another very good article from a German site that analyzes the race question. While they are obviously a very outside source, it does let them take a less political view than most organizations here in country do. This is the same site that said right after the hurricane that European aid was unnecessary because the U.S. government had the infrastructure to deal with it:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...373388,00.html

What I like about this article is the hope that it offers toward the end--that there are signs of people recognizing the crisis and what they are doing to reach out and start repairing rifts.

[pippadaisy[$]]

I think that the issue isn't so much race as socioeconomic status. If this had been Malibu, or Manhattan, or The Hamptons, I think that it wouldn't have happened. I mean, jeez, even the President's first though was rebuilding Trent Lott's huge house with a big ole porch. Was it because most of the people were black? No. Was it because they were poor? Abso-freaking-lutely.

[rmthunter]

Pippa's right, and it's a fact of life in this country that the poor are disproportionately black. There has also been a growing perception that the administration does not care about poor people. When the Republicans went after the black vote in 2004, it wasn't on the basis of any remedies for poverty or for giving people a helping hand to get themselves out of it -- it was on the morals and values ticket.

I think it was Erik who started another thread on the Republicans' recommended budget cuts to free up money for disaster relief; they are centered on social programs, most of which help the poor and elderly. Their idea of "corporate welfare" includes such handouts as research on alternative fuels.

Jeff, let me ask you one thing -- do you think that the perception that same-sex marriage threatens the family had no effect on the last election, or that it has nothing to do with the proposed constitutional amendments in the various states banning same-sex marriage? Of course it does -- perceptions, whether they are accurate or not, shape discourse in this country, and rhetoric rather than reason is the accepted mode.

Bush has shaped his presidency on his leadership and the vilification of those who oppose his policies. Suddenly, people are realizing the emperor is naked, and it's interesting to note that Karl Rove, because, I guess, of his long and valuable experience in disaster management, has been put in charge. Unfortunately, Rove's expertise is in the wrong kind of disasters to really affect the reality of the situation. (Rove, by the way, as Rita strikes the Gulf, is at a Republican fundraiser in North Dakota. Can you say "deja vu"?)

I see the right-wing response as a new and grander form of "blame the victim." (And before I'm accused of being overly general, it's the meme that's been on the right-wing blogs and talk shows ever since Katrina struck -- we've seen it here: it's their fault for living in New Orleans. You might as well say it was the 9/11 victims' fault for working in the WTC.)

If the black community is saying that the slow federal response was because most of those stranded were black, it's something we have to deal with, and we may perhaps, finally, be at a point where posturing and photo-ops are not going to do it. If that perception costs Bush support, I can't say I'm sorry. I'm just sorry that he's been irresponsible enough to allow things to get to that pass, and I'm sorry that we, the people, have allowed him to get away with it.

[drmomentum[$]]

I think the people who are saying "Bush doesn't like black people" are missing the point.

The word "black" is unnecessary in that sentence.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Whether or not *we* think it's economics instead of race is not relevant if there is a large segement of the population that thinks it's race instead of economics.

Another thought - it can be a combination of the two. Economics led them to get stuck, but when the TV coverage started it was a bunch of faces that, unfortunately, some people have learned to look past instead of look at and be compelled by. (Example: I've learned to look past the homeless on the streets of NYC. I probably walked by four or five yesterday. I couldn't have told you what any of them were wearing, their races, etc.)

Would it have been more compelling to the Powers That Be if the TV screens were showing elderly white women instead of black men and women? White children instead of black children? And how much did the reports of looters affect how compelling the victims were - did "looter" immediately conjure up images of "black man" in the minds of the decision-makers? Were the (mostly black) victims lumped in with a perception of looters being black people? (Note that I am not saying leaders made a conscious decision to not help black people, I'm suggesting that perhaps unconsciously, the coverage had less impact than if it showed a different group of people, one that the leadership subconciously identified with more or valued more for various reasons.)

[rmthunter]

You mean, like Trent Lott?

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

White residents protest temporary housing for (mostly black) Katrina evacuees

True, people have all sorts of rational and understandable reasons for not wanting a huge influx of evacuees settling in their towns. But...

"The only thing we see about these people on the news is what happened in the Superdome," said Philip Devall, 42, a white resident of Greensburg, at a recent meeting of the parish government. "They're rapists and thugs and murderers. I'm telling you, half of them have criminal records. I've worked all my life to have what I have. I can't lose it, and I can't stand guard 24 hours a day."