A different black perspective on New Orleans/Katrina

It's little wonder that this story didn't make it to prime time on CNN.
Too politically incorrect. An interesting counter view to the prevailing on presented on the mainstream news media.

An old story, Katrina, I know but the factors that led to the situation being as bad as it was still exist and will continue to drive higher crime and social problems until the black community comes to grips with them.

 

My initial response - if we wasn't black himself, he'd have been dragged through the courts 100 times over by now. :roll:

Saved by the colour of his skin, how ironic


Just as a complete side-track (sorry Grieg) how many seats are there on an American school bus? if it is about 30, then 200 x 30 = 5,000 people. How many people needed to be evacuated? (I'm not making a point, I'm just wondering)

 

More like 40 and with standing in the aisle say 50 people per bus or about 10,000 total (per run).

 

Nagin could have ordered the evacuation a week prior to the storm's arrival but chose not to.It was a political decision in stead of common sense.He figured if he evacuated the city needlessly it would effect him in the election.The guy is an asshole.There was plenty of warning that Katrina was gonna be bad.It's incredible that anyone that didn't leave has the nerve to blame anyone but themselves.

 

in america , only a black man can openly say anything negative about black culture...chris rock,jesse jackson and bill cosby have all recently said negative but true things about black society in america ,all have paid dearly and recanted....rev peterson must have a very thiick hide indeed...

 

Thanks.

And now back to the topic on hand...

 

You were on topic. What Nagin and the black community should have done rather than blame others is part of it.
Incidentally that is just school buses. The New Orleans city government had other means as well. Untold numbers of city buses, cars, trucks etc.

 

Grieg, this article contradicts an article you post earlier which stated that the supposed "anarchy" in the Superdome wasn't nearly as bad as the media would have it. Is this something you overlooked? It seems that the information concerning the Superdome is being bent in whatever direction is needed to make a point, regardless of the facts.

Personally I would no approach this subject from a racial but rather a socio-economic point of view. Did people stay behind because they were black? I remember pictures in my newspaper of many white families staying behind too. I think the reason for people staying behind and triggering chaos is not racial at all, even if it looks like this on the surface.

Of course, being poor is no excuse for violence or crime or any immoral stance whatsoever. It would give this article an entirely different spin, though, if its author would be truthful and state that it was about poor people who happened to be black, not vice versa.

 

The previous story was longer after the fact and the facts about how much (or how little) chaos actually occured were better known. It was plain that the media had sensationalized the events.
This article was written not long after the event and many of the points hold up even when the sensationalized versions have been somewhat discredited. The reason this story is still important is not related to how much chaos occurred but as to who was to blame for the fact that so many mostly black people were not evacuated prior to the storm. the media and many black leaders like Jesse Jackson point to racism as the cause for the lack of evacuation. This version of events points to other causes. I see no contradiction with the other story I posted in regard o that point.

 

It has some relevant points but to be honest the writer damages his own argument by using language, which is damn near open racism.

Honestly hard for me to add much else, I've never lived in the US so I only have what I've read and seen on TV to go on. I would make a couple of observations:

1) The last I heard the situation in the Superdome was over stated. Yes some very bad stuff happen but apparently not to the extent first claimed*.
2) How much organisation does it take to move people? The writer seems to be assuming that its all a simple task. Personally I would guess it takes a lot of organising. Those 200 buses he mentioned, lets assume they’re good for a 150 each. That gives us 4,500. How many people are you looking to move? Where are you moving them to? How are you planning on collecting these people? All questions that have to be covered before you can write it off with sweeping statement about how hard can it be.
3) I’m guessing the writer has at least reasonably favourable attitude to Bush and since I don’t want to get into a debate on the merits of Bush I make one point only. There were clearly huge failures in the various involved government bodies. As President of the United States of American Bush but accept a large measure of responsibility but as must the local government. In short blame can be laid out deep, thick and even.
4) The idea expressed that the failure of many residents to get out can be attributed to morale laxity is where the writer comes across as most blatantly racist. With no personal transport and uncertain outside support remaining in their homes would have seemed to wisest approach. In many cases that was the wrong decision but being wrong doesn’t make you immoral.
5) On a final point I generalise. From what I can tell from this side of the pond there are areas of the black community who have developed a victim culture. This, regardless of race, religion or nationality, is an unhealthy attitude. Ultimately governments can only help so much, individuals must in the end pull themselves up. Those who take it upon themselves to be leaders must encourage their followers to aspire and not pander to self proclaimed victimhood.






*a bit like kill claims of WW2 bombers, i.e. one B17 shoots down a 109, the nearest dozen bombers all claim it, hey presto you’ve shot down a dozen 109’s

 

You are aware that the author is black, right?

His point wasn't so much that it was easy but that the local government (which is majority black) was responsible for planning and preparations for evacuating local residents not the federal government and certainly not the President of the US.

BTW you might wanna recalculate 150 x 200..

 

Although in PC-land that is important, in real life it is surprisingly not. The most rascist guy I know, who hated all asians with a passion, was Indian himself. Before it is brought up, this went beyond the usual 'I'm Indian & hate Pakistanis' problem.

 

I am now . I still stand by my position though.

Stupid typo! I was trying to correct for information added while I was writing my comment. You guys have dinky little buses, I thought everything was meant to be BIG in the US.

 

We are referring to school buses. You know the yellow ones? The city buses are much larger.

 

urban black america has been workin the blame card hard and fast since about 1965 (with much support from liberal dems ) ,ironically ...aids ,crack cocaine and the 911 attacks were the work of the us. govt in the thoughtful opinion of a majority of urban blacks...also they excell in sports and music only because the " MAN " keeps them from rising to the top executive jobs in corporate america...conspiricys abound

 

Another interesting insight...

Hurricane Katrina struck the Lousiana/Mississippi coast on August 29, 2005.
Welfare checks are distributed at the FIRST of each month.
Hmmm.
I suspect many weren't gonna leave til they had their welfare checks in-hand. Even though the US Postal Service credo is to deliver the mail in all manner of weather-conditions... I do believe with a hurricane, all-bets are off.
When you create a welfare mentality, the people depend upon--and blame their government for--most everything.
Whatever has happened to "common-sense" I wonder?

Tim

 

A lot of them only know life with the federal government. The Feds give them houses to live in, food to eat, money to spend, and insurance for their health. When they're born, the gov't is there, when they get old the gov't is there. They have no idea how to do anything without the gov't being there for them and when it came time to evacuate, they waited for the gov't to do that for them.

 

That's a peculiar view on how the welfare state works. In most countries the welfare fee for poor people is the same or slightly lower than the country's minimum wage, meaning that these people would constantly be struggling to make ends meet, rather than sitting around all day being pampered by "the government" which is never actually willing to pay them, for obvious reasons.

It is also important to realize that the welfare state was originally created to give the sick, the elderly and the unemployed a certain basis of existence as they recover/live in retirement/search for a new job. None of this is ever intended as pampering.

 

Yeah , but some governments provide just enough for someone to get my without getting a job. Some people just collect welfare and live off that.They're content with that sort of existence.

 

The saying "The road to hell is paved with good itentions" comes to mind when discussions turn to welfare, It has become a completely different beast in practice as opposed to what it was supposed to be.