Katrina, Rita and Racisim

[dda]

In the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, there have been a lot of accusations made regarding racism. A number of the Black leaders are jumping on the band wagon and are claiming anything from the Bush Administration blew up the levies to flood the black part of New Orleans (Louis Farakhan--Nation of Islam) to aid was slow to come because the white President Bush didn't really care about Blacks and was a throw back to "Bull" Connors of Birmingham, Alabama circa. 1964. These accusations are clearly political and are just as clearly crap.

What amazes me is that the most visible display of racisim in the whole thing has never even been mentioned.

The press, which is overwhelmingly white, and overwhelming liberal (for Americans) reported on the situation at the Superdome and told of horror tales of rapes, murders and boddies stacked by the hundreds in the basement of the Super Dome.

Now that the dust has settled, so to speak, the truth is that there were 6 deaths at the Super Dome, that four of those were from natural causes, 1 was a suicide and 1 was a drug over dose. There were no murders. Not a single incidence of rape has been reported or otherwise verified from the Super Dome.

The point is this, 25,000 or so, mostly poor, mostly black Americans were stranded for several days under the most trying of circumstances and the fact of the matter is that human decency and respect for others did NOT break down. All, in all the people in the Super Dome were well behaved and, while they were not happy about their situation, they maintained themselves in a rather admirable way.

So......why was the white press so willing to believe that they were acting like animals just because they were under pressure and didn't have an oppressive amount of police or military presence to keep them in line?

The fact that everyone of them accepted tales of attrocity committed by Black people against other Black people without checking their facts is far more blatantly racist than anything else which has come out of the current mess.

I,for one, believe that the press owes the Black people of New Orleans a profound apology for the way they treated them in their news stories.

[Dace]

Originally Posted by dda

A number of the Black leaders are jumping on the band wagon and are claiming anything from the Bush Administration blew up the levies to flood the black part of New Orleans (Louis Farakhan--Nation of Islam) to aid was slow to come because the white President Bush didn't really care about Blacks and was a throw back to "Bull" Connors of Birmingham, Alabama circa. 1964.

lawl

What will those negroes think of next?!

etc etc etc

[Yahwe]

I firmly believe that putting any sort of racism spin on this man made disaster will do nothing other than distract attention from the real issues and by distracting, make it less likely that real lessons can be learned.

On a side note, i would not damn the democrat (i find the word liberal simply can not come to my lips when discussing american political belief, not out of any political belief of my own, but out of a need to be honest) media. The handful of British citizens who came to be in the superdrome where escorted out under armed guards by american military officials who believed that because they were white they were unsafe. Those British citizens interviewd where flattered by the special treatment (they were given hotel rooms) but did not say there was any sort of 'breakdown of order' in the superdome.

so just to balance. the republican army and police officers in new orleans (those there in the early days) were in agreement with the democrat media.

let us not talk of party/political/racial divides. let us instead talk of lessons to be learnt.

I do still believe that such a man made catastrophe requires some 'heads to roll'. but then i believe that a captain ought to go down with his ship and i accept that my concept of honour and what is right may not be very 'modern'.

But above all else the 5 words that never leave my thoughts on this matter are"let it never happen again"

[Yahwe]

having said that I am of course curious as to the differences between Britain and america.

please understand all i would like to do is explain.

If such a natural catastrophe had occurred in england and had the tony blair's government handled that catastrophe so badly that it became a disaster on the scale america has seen. If that had happened then tony blair would have no choice to resign.

now of course Britain doe not have a written constitution, so i can not point you to a subsection that sets this out in black and white. Instead the British constitution is a series of unwritten conventions. So to a certain extent you are going to all have to trust what i am telling you. the British constitution would require tony blair to resign.

what's more is that blair would have had to resign before the disaster is over. what would have followed is what we call a coalition government between all of our political parties that coalition then having a 'non elected' prime minister. for the duration of the crisis.

then when the crisis was finished we would have an election. it is not at all clear that anyone would think less of mr blair's party just because he had resigned. indeed his party colleagues would have worked in the coalition government. and infact given the present voting climate tony blair's part would be very likely voted back into power.

It amazes me how george bush is not put in a similar position. It also upsets me that posters like Texan automatically assume that my inability to understand why bush has not resigned is a criticism of the republican party. cleerly the republican party is not to blame.

but the captain goes down with the ship.

i'm not even speaking hypothetically. this is exactly how Winston Churchill became PM during the war as head of a coalition government created because the PM of the time was making everything worse.

[JonnyBGood]

Surprisingly (prefix un to be added as required) I had not heard anything about reports being exaggerated. However after the mildest minute of looking for information on the bbc website I found this. Two particular bits I'd like to bring to your attention are as follows

Police chief Eddie Compass, who spoke on the Oprah Winfrey show of babies being raped, stood down on Tuesday.

I didn't hear this one at the time but I mean ****ing what? What the ****ing ****? I mean good ****ing god here. That's so outlandish it's unbelievable. Are we supposed to believe the entire black male population of new orleans was so hard up after two days that they formed up into roving gangs going around raping babies (presumably ignoring the thousands of women around). Also oprah winfrey. Laughing out loud.

And on the streets of New Orleans, many remain convinced that there is truth to the tales of rape and murder.

Ane Daniels, a 48-year-old hotel cleaner, told the BBC she was warned by a young boy not to take refuge in the Superdome.

"He said, 'don't go up there ma'am - they are killing people and they are raping people'. And if a 12 -year-old boy is saying that, you know something is up."

Sorry? Twelve year old boys lie like there's no tomorrow. When I was twelve I lied to amuse myself never mind the fact I repeated everything I was told like gospel truth (irony lol). Did you know if blow hot air up a girl's skirt she becomes pregnant? True story.

"I think the US media are just covering up what really happened because this city lives on tourism," said Mike Maver, an Illinois firefighter who has been assisting the relief effort.

Well gee thanks for that Mike, it's so refreshing to have an informed point of view so well backed up by such an over-abundance of evidence. WHY THE **** DOES MIKE MAVER GET ON THE BBC NEWS WEBSITE AND I DON'T? I'M STUPID AND SENSATIONALIST AS WELL. I EVEN THINK THE JEWS ARE INVOLVED IN A WORLDWIDE MILLENIUM SPANNING CONSPIRACY INVOLVING THE COCA COLA COMPANY FOR GOD'S SAKE.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Sorry? Twelve year old boys lie like there's no tomorrow. When I was twelve I lied to amuse myself never mind the fact I repeated everything I was told like gospel truth (irony lol).

The preist touched me here mammy

[Chika]

I truely don't think racism had any part in Katrina. It is fact that Bush was slow with the help, etc. But what is he expected to do when an entire city floods out. I as well as many others wish he would have reacted that very same day. But it didn't work out that way.
I do admire the families that kept thier composure. I despise the people that started looting etc. Black and white people both loot, but what is funny is I doubt white people try to loot when thier entire house is flooded and thier kids are swimming in the middle of downtown.
WHERE ARE YOU TAKING THAT TV??!?! ITS WET AND BROKEN!2!3

[JonnyBGood]

I had an uncle who joined the christian brothers when he was young for about seven years or so. He said everyone there was either an adulterer, gay, an alcoholic or abused young boys. A rather disturbing illumination of the state of the catholic church's monastery system.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Chika

I despise the people that started looting etc.

there was no time to plan.

do you despise me if i tell you that if the hurricane had hit the day before i was due to go shopping and thus had no food in the days that followed.

the five days.

i would have looted and i would not feel guilty.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I had an uncle who joined the christian brothers when he was young for about seven years or so. He said everyone there was either an adulterer, gay, an alcoholic or abused young boys. A rather disturbing illumination of the state of the catholic church's monastery system.

I think the priets are a bit confused. They vowed to no sex, so I suppose they think same sex acts doesn't count. They do not think they are breaking any vows and bonds they have with thier god. Something equally ridiculous and similar train of thought, women in the middle east (Bahrain) Have to be virgins when they get married. So prostitutes with hopes of one day getting married, only have sex in the butthole.*

????!?!!













*its true.

[JonnyBGood]

I would have beaten up yahwe and stolen his food and not felt guilty. However I would have felt guilty for the complimentary jocking.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

there was no time to plan.

do you despise me if i tell you that if the hurricane had hit the day before i was due to go shopping and thus had no food in the days that followed.

the five days.

i would have looted and i would not feel guilty.

For survival. Can't knock anyone for trying to survive. But surely you don't need a TV, laptop, and a Microphone for that.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Chika

I think the priets are a bit confused. They vowed to no sex, so I suppose they think same sex acts doesn't count. They do not think they are breaking any vows and bonds they have with thier god. Something equally ridiculous and similar train of thought, women in the middle east (Bahrain) Have to be virgins when they get married. So prostitutes with hopes of one day getting married, only have sex in the butthole.*

????!?!!
it's true.

It's not that they don't think they're breaking their vows. They just don't care enough to not break them.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Chika

For survival. Can't knock anyone for trying to survive. But surely you don't need a TV, laptop, and a Microphone for that.

and is there evidence that people looted these goods?

is there?

the windows weren't there. (big shock after a hurricane). the levies broke. water and several hundred mile an hour winds. are we suggesting that any laptops that were in new orleans still worked?

you can not blame any one. black, white, divine. If there is no order. If there is no government. Then there will always be chaos and chaos can not be explained.

In Britain there is a principle. that principle states "we are all only 4 meals away from anarchy" do you blame the people subjected to it?

and how many meals do you have in 5 days?

[[ND]Kar]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

and is there evidence that people looted these goods?

is there?

the windows weren't there. (big shock after a hurricane). the levies broke. water and several hundred mile an hour winds. are we suggesting that any laptops that were in new orleans still worked?

you can not blame any one. black, white, divine. If there is no order. If there is no government. Then there will always be chaos and chaos can not be explained.

In Britain there is a principle. that principle states "we are all only 4 meals away from anarchy" do you blame the people subjected to it?

and how many meals do you have in 5 days?

Have to agree with Chika on this one. There was footage of looters leaving stores with boxes of shoes, televisions, and in one actual instance that a grocery store was looted, there was still lots of food on the shelves, but the one thing that was completely looted dry was (but of course) ALCOHOL. Now I may be wrong, but I thought you needed food and water to live, not beer and liqour.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

but the captain goes down with the ship.

i'm not even speaking hypothetically. this is exactly how Winston Churchill became PM during the war as head of a coalition government created because the PM of the time was making everything worse.

Heh. That has to be one of the worst examples ever. The PM of the time was Neville Chamberlain who had hit bottom two years earlier--and just kept digging. :/

How many ships did Neville lose? Austria, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Poland, Norway--and then, only then, with the German army in the low countries did he resign. His policies cost Britain every ally and potential ally she had in Europe--except the French (who were soon to be revealed as more of a liability than an asset). Bush could screw up ten Katrinas and it still wouldn't be as disastrous as what Chamberlain did to your country.

Oh yes, Chamberlain went down with the ship all right--but only after he ran out of ships.

[Dante Hicks]

On the exaggeration front I found these links mildly informative :

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporlea...26.html#082732

http://www.guardian.co.uk/katrina/st...563532,00.html

[PSH]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

and is there evidence that people looted these goods?

is there?

Not lap tops, but not exactly essentials.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Heh. That has to be one of the worst examples ever. The PM of the time was Neville Chamberlain who had hit bottom two years earlier--and just kept digging. :/

as fun and enjoyable as it would be to get into a discussion with you about the various intricacies of WWII it wasn't really my point now was it?

[dda]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

having said that I am of course curious as to the differences between Britain and america.

please understand all i would like to do is explain.

I am also curious at to the differences between the UK and the US.

I frankly admit ignorance as to how things work in your country. I will try a brief and overly simplistic explanation of how our government is structured.

In a situation such as this we have three levels of government which are involved.
1. Federal----Bush and his minions (FEMA) (US Military) (etc)
2. State----Governor Blanco and her minions (National Guard (state police) (state transportation workers) (etc)
3. Local----Mayor Nagin (city police) (city fire department) (school system assest to some extent) (etc) Parrish leaders (parrish law enforcement) (parrish road crews) (etc) County Boards of Supervisors (same as parrish leaders only in Mississippi, Alabama and Florida)

Under our model, the initial responsibility falls upon the local government. to plan for and respond to such events as occurred here.

The mayor made the decision not to use local assest (school and municipal buses) to evacuate the poor and elderly.

The mayor made the decision not to order the evacuation until it was too late to get many people out.

The mayor made the decision to tell the American Red Cross that they would not be allowed into the city for several days though they were only a few miles away with water, food etc. and wanted to enter the city within hours of the end of the storm.

The mayor made the decisions that caused most of the unnecessary deaths in his city.

The mayor acted within the law in making the decisions he made. The governor and the president did not have the authority to over ride his judgement. Should they be given this power, perhaps but it will be fought tooth and nail by local governments.

The governor made the decision not to place the assets at her disposal in a position to move in right after the storm.

The governor made the decision not to ask for federal assistance which was necessary under our laws, before the federal government can move in such a situation. Speaking of natural disasters.

By the time the governor acted to get federal aid going, probably all but a very few of the deaths attributable to the disaster were history.

The federal government moved initally through FEMA. FEMA is not a first responder. They try to guide recovery efforts. They are not designed to provide police assistance. they cannot go into an area that is considered unsafe.

The federal also moved to make some military assets available. US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine helicopters began working on the rescue of people off of their roof tops soon after the storm cleared the area. Something like 25,000-30,000 individuals were rescued in this fashion. People stuck on their roof tops were considered in greater danger than those at the Super Dome and in hindsight this assessment was correct.

The US Navy moved ships into the New Orleans area in order to serve as a base of operations for the helicopters. They also were brought in to provide a source of water and food for those doing the rescue work and others as capabilities allowed.

The US military cannot be used to police the streets of an American town except under very limited circumstances. This is not one of the circumstances allowed by law. Perhaps the law should be changed, but as an American citizen, I am not eager to give any more power to the military internally than absolutely necessary.

Had the same disaster befallen a similar area and population concentration in the UK, what would have been the responsibility of the various levels of government in the UK?

Does the national government have the power there to move immediately without regard to any restrictions?

Understanding the differences in the way power to act is distributed under your system as compared to ours may do much to illuminate the difference in response in the aftermath.

[Yahwe]

essentially in England we only have one government.

we don't have the layers of local, or state government.

Local government is a joke, it is taken as a measure of the popularity of the three main parties, but has now power and is effecticely an administrative body. the national government controls how much 'power' the local government sub strusture has and essentially government is centralised in the hands of national government.

BUT i don't genuinely belief that a detailed look into the sytem of government alters my point.

Mr Blair would have to resign even if absolutely nothing that had been done (that caused the catastrophe) was his fault. It would be seen that it was his government which had failed. as the leader he would have to resign.

now of course Mr Bush is not only the head of government he is also head of state. which from a british constitutional position would increase the need for him to resign (this is one of the very strong reasons way maintaining our head of state/head of government divide is a prudent thing for Britain to go on doing). If you take the example of september 11th (i'm sorry all the examples are american but it does seem Britain just isn't as exciting a place) now on sept. 11th the big mistake was made by the chief fire officer (i forget the title) sending the firemen into the towers despite the risk of collapse killed hundred of fireman who's lives could otherwisehave been saved. now if that had vhappened in Britain. An employed fire chief (who can't really be considered part of the government and certainly not Mr Blair's fault) then Mr Blair would still have to resign

essentially i do not believe thie difference between america and Britain on this issue is sytem based. it seems much more to be based on what the people would expect to happen.

it is curious to me that this issue in america is being treated as a party political issue rather than as a critique of government.

in Britain Mr Blair's labour party would be demmanding his resignation just as much as the opposition.

*** Another curiosity is the sheer amount of layers of government in america, when, as i understand it, america is generally against government interference?

[dda]

It grows out of the written constitution. The civil war grew out of a disagreement as to the rights of the states as opposed to the rights of the federal government. Strong central government won the day but it did not displace the constitution.

One of the central issues between Democrats and Republicans is the role that the federal government should play. How big? How powerful? That is at the heart of the squabble that is brewing over appointments to the US Supreme Court. "Conservative" judges (you will note that I use quotation marks when I use the terms "conservative" and "liberal" in order to avoid any insult to your sensibilies or those of my other European friends) would be expected to be more in favor of more power residing at a local level while "liberal" judges would be expected to favor "big government."

That is the crux of the abortion issue in the American courts, actually. Whether the regulation, or non-regulation, of abortion should be decided by each of the states or by the federal government.

At any rate, when the colonies broke from the mother country, we were very suspicious of central governments and were specificly rejecting the British model. The bill of rights was adopted as part of the agreement to the constitution because of a distrust of a too strong central government. This is a distrust which is still a strong strain in American politics.

As to the politicization of the events, most Americans are apalled by it. At the same time, they tend to fall into it themselves. Republicans tend to lay the blame at Democratic door steps (Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin0 while most Democrats see it as a failure of the Bush administration. Both sides have their points. But again it goes back to the central divide between the two parties. Where should the burden be placed in running the affairs of various geographic areas? State or Federal government?



We also have a constitutional succession which would mean that if Bush resigned, Chaney would become president!

[Yahwe]

you really need to get a third party in american government. it stops divicive polarisation.

did anyone ever notice the the Empire only created 'states' in the sense of administrative entities? the one thing i can promise you is that centralised government is much cheaper. (our local government strata is filled by volunteers ). we're so cheap it's ace.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

*** Another curiosity is the sheer amount of layers of government in america, when, as i understand it, america is generally against government interference?

That's rather the point. The idea of federalism is that power is divided amongst multiple levels of government, both to prevent any level of government from getting too much power but also to put power over local issues in the hands of those who are directly affected by them. The states counterbalance the national government and this is repeated at the local level, with cities and counties counterbalancing the state governments.

Of course, this introduces redundancies and inefficiencies into the system because power isn't centralized. The President has no authority over the local police, for example. This is bad in an emergency situation because the President can't just tell the local police what to do (assuming he knows what to do). On the other hand, this is good if the President tries to usurp power because he can't just tell the local police what to do.

This principle is repeated by separating power between the multiple branches of government. Power is dispersed to prevent its concentration. Our Founding Fathers believed, correctly imho, that governments are the greatest threat to liberty. The one saving grace of our government is that it is designed to be inefficient. God help us if/when it ever manages to overcome that.

[Weeks]

As far as there being no rape going on, there was a woman the bbc picked up claiming that there was. She was actually there. Surely she'd know.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Of course, this introduces redundancies and inefficiencies into the system because power isn't centralized. The President has no authority over the local police, for example. This is bad in an emergency situation because the President can't just tell the local police what to do (assuming he knows what to do). On the other hand, this is good if the President tries to usurp power because he can't just tell the local police what to do.

there is no 'good side'

you don't stop tyrants arising by making the present government deliberately incompetent.

this paranoia has to stop.

all it seems to do is allow your fellow citizens to die because of the incompetence, that you say, is inherent to the system.

Britain has had centralised government for 800 years.

can you name me a british dictator?

i mean look at what you wrote "this is good if the President tries to usurp power because he can't just tell the local police what to do." honestly? you can't possibly believe that??? what utter nonsense.

Why do you not analyse tyrannies that have arisen in the past? If you fear tyranny so much why not actively research and combat the potential causes of it???

I am blown over by you specious reasoning.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

there is no 'good side'

you don't stop tyrants arising by making the present government deliberately incompetent.

this paranoia has to stop.

all it seems to do is allow your fellow citizens to die because of the incompetence, that you say, is inherent to the system.

I said inefficient, not incompetent. Big difference.

Britain has had centralised government for 800 years.

can you name me a british dictator?

You mean besides Cromwell?

And tyrany can arise without a dictator. Britain did a pretty good job of oppressing us with just a king and parliament. We finally had to make other arrangements.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I said inefficient, not incompetent. Big difference.

no.

there is not.

Originally Posted by Tactitus

You mean besides Cromwell?
And tyrany can arise without a dictator. Britain did a pretty good job of oppressing us with just a king and parliament. We finally had to make other arrangements.

did Britain?

tyrants were they? who were you then?

everything requires a perspective.

being old i prefer the perspective of the time and not the perspective of the present.

EDIT: i suspect that is because of my age. the present is always changing. the past you see, the past never changes. perhaps in time you will see.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Weeks

As far as there being no rape going on, there was a woman the bbc picked up claiming that there was. She was actually there. Surely she'd know.

Erm...no. People on the ground are often going to be the most vulnerable to rumour and hyperbole. Especially when they're hot, tired, and fearful.

[dda]

The ultimate point is this.

Two things caused almost all of the deaths in this situation.

1) Katrina

2) The failure to get out of Katrina's way.

No one can be blamed for Katrina and no one could have done anything to stop her or move her.

The state and local authorities had ample resources, information and authority to have evacuated properly, they did not.

[schryenm]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Heh. That has to be one of the worst examples ever. The PM of the time was Neville Chamberlain who had hit bottom two years earlier--and just kept digging. :/

How many ships did Neville lose? Austria, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Poland, Norway--and then, only then, with the German army in the low countries did he resign. His policies cost Britain every ally and potential ally she had in Europe--except the French (who were soon to be revealed as more of a liability than an asset). Bush could screw up ten Katrinas and it still wouldn't be as disastrous as what Chamberlain did to your country.

Oh yes, Chamberlain went down with the ship all right--but only after he ran out of ships.

Hmm, afaik he already lost support of the conservative party in april 1940, when the Germans squashed brittish & french troops in Norway (meanwhile loosing a major part of their destroyer fleet, but thats another story