I'll settle for any real evidence (starting with potentially incriminating answers to questions 1-6). The stuff I've seen so far indicates the opposite.
I think evidence is important to support any position, especially one as serious as racism. That's logic, not denial.

Growing up in southern California, I saw a lot of racism: offhand comments, epitaphs, graffiti, cliques, unequal levels of pay or promotion, etc. Here, I see things that could have been done better*, but don't see any racism.

*I heard this Friday listening to an NPR story about Wal-Mart sending truckloads of supplies:
“(Kenner, La.) Mayor Phil Capitano says the company set an example for the federal government.:
“FEMA couldn’t get here. Red Cross couldn’t get here. Homeland Security couldn’t get here. The only one who could get here was the Wal-Mart Corporation. We are extremely appreciative and extremely grateful for them, and we would suggest maybe some of those other folks go over and meet with them so they can learn distribution and logistics.”

Aside from now giving the impression that any and all charges of racism must then be taken as truth, a latitude that is given to no other crime or persecution on the planet.......you try to justify the hypothetical opposite by saying that if this were a city of middle class white people, they would have had troops in mass numbers on the street BEFORE the hurricane hit.
Stating that we would somehow place mass numbers of troops IN the path of a devastating hurricane if the target were predominately white? Guess what the demographics of the surrounding parishes outside New Orleans are? Those mostly white parishes that were wiped off the map? Where were the mass number of troops in St Bernard Parish? Houma? Waveland? Slidell? Gulfport?

So where again is the evidence of racism

You say it does not exist- blacks say it does- so who is right? That is my point exactly- you can not "prove" any kind of racism except overt racism- such as the aforementioned graffiti and epitaths- as is said- you can't prove a negative, and in an intangible thing like institutional racism or racism by inaction- you can't prove it conclusively, or at least, it is very difficult, and it has to be pretty blatant, for any white, middle class person to buy it at all. Sorry to pick on one poster here- but the very act of claiming blacks are victims of thier own behavior, and our society and goverment are not culpable, is a type of racism IMO by itself- I am trying to be careful here, I am not calling them racists per se'- but it is this blindness to the reality of our treatment of minority races for hundreds of years, and now, not even 20 years out from the majority of this behavior- we act like it doesn't exist, or is a figment of jesse jackson's imagination- "using the race card"- and, in fact, I am not saying that they DON'T use the race card- Al sharpton lost all credibility to me with the Tawana thing (can't remember her exact name)-

in the end- it is like an argument of religion- I am hindu, and worship hundreds of gods, and it is the one true religion, and you are christian, and worship one god and it is the one true religion, and that is the end of any movement on that front!

How many regular members of color on this board agree with the white posters on this one, or , in fact, on darn near any subject? The white viewpoint among blacks is a minority within a minority- while the black viewpoint is a minority within a majority.

My personal feeling is the issue is a combonation here of incompetence, political blackmail by GW towards democratic members in LA that failed, and a type of "subconcious" racism if you will- it wasn't that big of a deal to the GW administration, because they were poor and black, in that order, not a big enough deal to come off vacation or anything - while, had it been a rich white area of florida, or around rich white poeple, he would have been ever so caring IMO- no amount of persuasion is going to make me, a minority within a majority, or the majority of blacks it seems, believe otherwise- just as no amount of circumstancial evidence, perhaps as Wertz posts points to, will change your mind.

No, but as I pointed out in my post on the previous page, is there ANY evidence of racism at all? I mean any?

It seems to me that people have seen deomonstrated incompetence on the part of Bush Jr., and simply ascribed it to race. As I said, is there any evidence at ALL that it was race? Could the motivating factor not have been poverty instead of race? Or democratic instead of race?

Or, as is far more likely, could it not just have been sheer incompetence and an inability to make decisions not spelled out to Bush Jr. by his handlers?

Is there in fact any evidence at all of a sinister motive of any kind? I'm not defending Bush Jr, his incompetence is plain, but as far as I can tell, all we have is evience of stupidity and inaction, not perfidity or collusion.

But you assume that all racism is sinister in design, not a form of incompetence or uncaring attitude in and of itself- not all racism involves a racial slur or epitath- alot of it , probably most of it in America today- is the notion that these poeple deserved it because they didn't leave or whatnot- or that somehow blacks deserve thier status in America yadda yadda- it is quite prevelent even here, and as a white male, I also feel the frustration that if I have a contrary opinion on this subject, I will be called a racist - not that I give a darn really though LOL- however, in this case, the point I am making is that you will never be able to disprove or prove racism when it is passive in nature.

Actually the burden of evidence lies on the person making the claim. The argument you seem to be making, essentially anyone who suggests that some personal responsibility was in order here, is racist, fails the reasonability test. I lived in Florida for 20+ years of my life. Every time there was a hurricane warning we stocked up on supplies and water if we planned to stay. If we had lived closer to the coast, we would have evacuated each time. It's just common sense. That 70 percent of the victims in this case were black doesn't eliminate all onus on personal responsibility. Isn't that a rather racist sentiment in itself?

Your argument reminds me of the old joke about the inkblot. The psychiatric doctor held out an inkblot to the patient and asked what it was, and the patient said it was obscene. Next, the doctor held out another, and another, all with the same response. The doctor finally looked at the patient and asked him why he saw obscenity everywhere and the patient responded, "Don't blame me, you're the one showing me all of the dirty pictures!" It seems you (or your friends) are blaming everything on racism when there is no evidence to base that conclusion on.

And therein lies the lack of movement of the entire race issue in America- I say "there was a component of racism in this" you say "how could you make such a claim, prove it" and I say "you can't prove something like this- because it is passive" so you say "well, if you can't prove it to me, it doesn't exist". Gee, I wonder why these threads get closed? The most interesting part of this discussion is the vehemence of denial of white people- it is pretty shrill denial, even though they are not being personally called racist for what happened in NO- but to suggest that there was any racism, makes white people very angry- while there is a sense of resignation to their opinion- but no real anger in folks way up here- but man, ask a white person , they go off the chain

I think someone quoted something of a poll on this site that bely what I have been saying- white people think it isn't so, black people do- why the difference in perception?

Wertz it is you who chose to compare Katrina and Frances. Their tragedies are not comparable..as I believe Katrina was unprecedented. Yet you were the one that claimed they had equal and like factors and it was you who claimed one was handled better...as if they were in fact equivalent.

How is it everyone is supposed to be accepting of your comparison of the two to prove that the FEMA acted better and more efficiently because more white people were involved. Yet my assertion that in fact Frances was also wrought with corruption, mismanagement and ill directed relief funds somehow is "most callous things I've come across here in a very long time" How dramatic!

My point was not to do what you did...which was equate the two as equals. My point was to show and compare the constant in the two..which was FEMA's mismanagement, and inability to direct funds and assistance to those really in need. When I review the two events race of the individuals is not the constant comparative factor I am looking at....as you were.
Race was not what these two incident's outcomes had in common.
What I was making a comparative of was things like..
After grilling FEMA Director Michael Brown about the payments at a hearing in Washington on Wednesday, the committee is now turning its attention toward fixing what one staffer described as "repeated mistakes" in federal disaster aid going back more than a decade.

White people have the same mismanaged, inefficient, FEMA as black people do.

Why not address this commonality? I know it is not race based and a lot less inflammatory but it the most tangible and real problem and claiming racism was at fault allows the real issues to once again not get the attention they need. Cheer and chant the racism explanation all you want. But I believe In terms of fixing the problem and addressing the failures you offer the nation nothing.



The Gulf Coast of America was not just flooded. A category 5 hurricane also happened to pass through. And more spectacular and widespread? What is this a contest? I really have a bad feeling about your intentions in informing us all of how this is "nothing new".

Seven-in-ten blacks (71%) say the disaster shows that racial inequality remains a major problem in the country; a majority of whites (56%) say this was not a particularly important lesson of the disaster. More striking, there is widespread agreement among blacks that the government's response to the crisis would have been faster if most of the storm's victims had been white; fully two-thirds of African Americans express that view. Whites, by an even wider margin (77%-17%), feel this would not have made a difference in the government's response.
(thanks BOF for the quote on the poll numbers) -

now why in the world is there such a disparity of viewpoint here? Are 2/3s of all black poeple just wrong in thier views, while the white poeple are right?

so far, in my admittedly unscientific poll, and today, I am the minority at work by a long shot, being the only white male at work today- not a single black person, not even one, said there wasn't a racial component in the lack of help and the way they dealt with folks in NO as well- such as the okay to shoot folks and stuff- they say "they won't be shooting any middle class white poeple there I bet, if any white poeple at all"

So why are so many black poeple wrong and all the white poeple right in this debate- it is a serious question- because this is what it all boils down to?

Interesting. I suggest that you need evidence to back a claim, and this is "vehement and shrill denial" and makes me "very angry". I'm not angry at all, in fact I'm curious as to why you feel the need to paint it that way. Again, like the inkblot, everything is some racist attack. Contrary to what you are suggesting here, there is often some strong evidence of racism when legitimate racist claims are made. I wouldn't claim sexism if a hypothetical population of 70% females were in this exact situation.

I am not implying YOU had a shrill answer- though the denials here are quite vehement- I am talking about my small, 20 person poll, actually growing at this point LOL- sorry if you thought I was directing it at you personally. However- don't you find it a bit odd that reasonable black poeple think that racism is involved, and reasonable white poeple don't? Who is actually more affected by racism- white poeple are black poeple in this case? so you DO think that all those black poeple polled are wrong? Why do you think thier feelings are wrong and yours are right, don't you think that black poeple in general have had to deal with real racism more than you have?

Was I wrong? Did you get a bad feeling because I was making something up? Or are you saying this is an entirely unpreciented event in modern history?

Your questionable suspicions aside, my only intent was to say that smaller nations have faced similar or indeed worse disasters of the same nature, and through extensive preparations and immediate response the loss of life was much smaller. My intent was to further demonstrate the incompetence if Bush Jr. If you disagree, please make the point rather than making logical leaps about my straightforward statements.


CruisingRam: Your argument is untenable. You maintain there is racism involved, and show as your argument that many black people believe racism is involved. While this argument does carry some merit, there has to be more. There are far simpler and far more likely answers to the qustion of why Bush Jr displayed such incompetence than he was motivated by racism.

And while I certainly cannot definitively claim he was NOT motivated by racism, I would need to see some evidence at all of this. To me this is just Occam's Razor. In the absense of any real evidence of suspicious or sinister motive, I would rather simply assume the far more likely incompetence due to lack of independent thinking and general stupidity.

You can surely understand my point. I just need something, anything, any bit of evidence pointing to racism before I am willing to entertain that as a realistic motive.

There is precious little "crying wolf" going on in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. There will always be hyperbole, exaggerations and outright lies being spread. Much of it coming from the White House and right-wing media machine trying to prop up a unpopular president whose poll ratings are in free fall.

I can't think of anything less worth my time and effort than trying to convince people who see racism in the words of black politicians and leaders, but none in the words and deeds of conservative white politicians.

I've rediscovered the writings of novelist and essayist James Baldwin; which has been quite valuable since becoming a member of America's Debate. Facing the vocal resistance of whites who continually say, "Racism? What racism?" I've gained a new understanding of why Baldwin titled one of his books, The Evidence of Things Not Seen.

Many whites seem to believe the only racism that exists is racism when it's up in your face. A burning cross, a Klan rally, a black body swinging from a tree. That's kind of obvious but easy for all but the most myopic bigot to recognize as racism.

But there's another kind of racism. The invisible, insidious kind where you aren't overt in your acts of prejudice. Sometimes it's as outwardly benign as being ignored by the waitress when you're trying to order breakfast at Denny's or buy some gear at Abercrombie and Finch. Do you have a bad waitress or a racist one?
How do you tell? She's not wearing a sign around her neck saying, "I don't wait on black people" but she might as well.

The Evidence of Things Not Seen hangs over the words, deeds and actions of this president like a bad smell. How to convince the doubters of its existence is beyond my power to do so. Just as white people were able to rationalize the beating of Rodney King despite the videotape or the shooting of Amadou Diallo despite the overkill of 42 bullets being pumped into the general direction of a luckless immigrant reaching for his I.D., it comes as no surprise that they see no racial bias in the government's cruelly slow response in New Orleans.


Funny how that works.

If Jesse Jackson has done more to damage race relations than Nazi skinheads or the Ku Klux Klan I'd have to ask you Dontreadonme for the same thing you and others in this thread have said doesn't exist in the accusations of racism in the Bush Administration's bungling response: proof.

You'll get no defense of Reverend Jackson from me. He's a camera whore. A philandering hypocrite. A man who claimed a larger share of prominence in the circle of Dr. King's confidants and acolytes than he deserved. Jackson is a impediment to the development of younger black leadership.

Yet, to try and make the case that Jackson is worse than white racists that have terrorized, lynched and murdered black people is an outrageous smear without any basis in fact or reality.

Trying to flip the script to make a faded civil rights leader the biggest obstacle to race relations instead of the lackadaisical actions of a ineffectual, bumbling failure of a Chief Executive who displayed his callous indifference to the suffering of thousands based upon their color and size of their wallet is nothing short of appalling.

Nighttimer, in my opinion, you've gone off the deep end on this one. Racism and incompetency are completely different accusations. Your partisanship bleeds of cynicism and apathy, and perpetually negates the fact that Kathleen Blanco and Mayor Naglin weren't publicly asking for help any faster than Washington sent help. It negates the fact that the Mayor issued an evacuation warning days prior to the hurricane's arrival.

We can talk about racism on a different thread, in relation to how or whether black people are more/less racist than whites (or hispanics or Asians for that matter), but the fact remains that a city with nearly 1/3 of its population below the poverty level was hit with one of the worst natural disasters in American history. It (by chance) hit a state and city (home to me none the less) with a high minority population. Who else was going to be left behind other than the poverty stricken?? In this case, they were white. Being from Louisiana, I've seen tornadoes hit trailer parks (and large portions of the Arkansas-Louisiana-Texas area) in which case people are left homeless and stranded. I'm positive that the Governor and President didn't come to see them because of their skin color too... oh wait, they were Predominantly white.

Bad service, poor test scores, cultural apathy, and now natural disasters. What else will be the fault of a skin color? Seriously. Next thing you know diseases like influenza and the common cold will be because of skin coloration. This is absurd. Rodney King was a criminal, but didn't deserve his fate. What's the point? Seriously.

Allowing people like Kanye West to cause racial division in a time when Americans need nothing more than to be American is abhorrid and should be embarrassing to anyone finding themselves in his corner. I spent my money this weekend to help people undoubtedly as black as anyone on America's debate, as did millions of Americans of all colors and party affiliations. If you don't care for Republicans or conservatives, so be it. To think that the lack of response was due to skin color is ridiculous. Where there not white people in New Orleans??? I personally know multiple affluent people from the Big Easy, displaced and disheartened just as if their skin color didn't make their homes and belongings immuned from the disaster. They're, surprise, white and now without homes or belongings just as the people of other skin colorations.

Insidious racism? Like saying "white men can't jump" or "asians are good at math"? (awww.... black people wouldn't say something like that, would they? ) Are you saying that getting bad service is the same as allowing people to die? Are black people immuned to "racism" because of something our great-great-grandfathers did? Frankly, I believe that people whom are on the fore-front of racial division can come to my house and borrow my samsonite- and get packin'. This is deplorable. It's not about the tone of your skin, the amount in your checking account, or any other prejudicial mechanism. Forget that there are hundreds of people of color in this administration, forget that the Mayor of New Orleans is black. This is all racist... think that way... we'll still be there to help. Even Republicans like me.

Aevans176 you have been willingly or unwillingly, wittingly or unwittingly duped by a common Karl Rove tactic--blame the victim.

According to a Molly Ivins article in this morning's Fort Worth Star Telegram:



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists...ns/12610752.htm

Link requires registration.

Geez - get off the 'Blame Rove' crud for awhile.

There's been more then enough evidence to show that the mayor of NO and the governor of LA were caught with their britches down by this disaster. Not even Russert this morning gave Nagin a break (good show by the way, but hey, guess by BoF's definition and the grilling Nagin recieved - Russert is Rove's new stooge).

Nothing you posted disproves that the response from local/state agencies wasn't "woefully inadequate" or the fault of 'bureaucratic obstacles from the state and local officials." If anything, evidence provided in the other threads on the subject support these facts.

Regarding racism - hah! Makes me laugh. The charge is flung around so much it has lost all meaning. It is not applicable here. As someone said earlier, keep crying wolf over and over, when the wolf finally comes, no one will believe you. You want to experience overt racism - send your kids to public school in the Rio Grande Valley.

I don't think so.

Here is the link to the New York Times article Molly Ivins was talking about.



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/national...ial/05bush.html



Nothing you've posted indicates that Bush was anything less than Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

Edited to add:

Again from Molly Ivins:


http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists...ns/12610752.htm

Whether the woefully lacking response in New Orleans [as compared to Florida a year a year ago] was based on race, class, economics or just being incompetent, this is one Bush is going to be held accountable for.

A look at Bush’s poll number’s in September, indicate the old blame someone else game isn’t working. Finally, Bush has run out of hall passes.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/President...04/bush_ja.html

Nobody disputes the federal goverment failed miserably in their handling of this disaster.

Now, I'm willing to bet that if the governor of LA and the mayor of NO had an R instead of a D you'd be giving them a helluva lot more heat.

Are you excusing the lack of action on the part of the mayor and governor because they're Democrats? Sure seems that way. There's evidence provided in by Dontreadonme, Mrs.P, Carlito, etc in the other thread that clearly show they hold as much responsibility if not more for their bungling in this disaster as the federal goverment.

Again, get off the "Rove is the Devil" crap - it gets old after awhile. Especially when they're correct in this case. Blame needs to be spread fairly and not, as you wish it, solely on the Republicans.

Molly Ivins is the Left's equivalent of Sean Hannity - so what she has to say means little to me. She's a political opportunist who takes every opportunity she can to sink her claws into the Republicans.



I'm not trying to prove the federal goverment didn't fall short in this disaster - remember, but you're the one making the assertion that the governor and mayor are lilly-white in this failure... hell, you do so in the classic manner of all good Leftists with the shrill cry of "Blame Rove!"

Here we go with the old "conjecture game." I seen similiar statements. Criticize Bush and someone inevitably says something like "if it were Bill Clinton you wouldn't be saying that." Do not make wild guesses about or tell me what I would or would not do, think or say under other circumstances. You need to put away that crystal ball your fumbling with. The fact is jleavy you don't know how I or anyone else would react under different circimstances. The mayor of NO was a Republican until recently, a kind of reverse of the way things have gone in Texas with John Connally, Phil Gramm, Rick Perry and Carole Strayhorn starting out as Democrats and then becoming Republicans.

Kind of funny - you did exactly what you accuse me of. Perhaps you shouldn't lecture me on the "If it were Bill Clinton" crap when you're guilty of it a few posts back. Aevens pointed out, as has been documented in the other thread, that the governor and mayor both hold quite abit of responsibility for the aftermath of Katrina. Your response was to Bush-bash by using a well-known partisan hack for the left's article, I may as well use an Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity article to rebutt. It'll be just as factual and just as scathing of the Left as Molly Ivins' article is of the Right, and just as spun.

*rubs the crystal ball* Still seems to be pretty accurate so far considering your dodge of the question I put to you.

Last I checked, the Democrats accepted Nagin into the fold (as well as winning the endorsement of Democratic organizations) and he filed then got elected as a Democrat.

Molly Ivins is a well known Texas writer who is published in major newspapers. Coulter and Hannity do not carry that kind of weight, but I suppose since you haven't backed up what you said with anything, they would be better than nothing.

I also backed up my post with an article from the New York Times.

I guess part of what I'm requesting is that you not put words in my mouth.

In fact, if you read my posts, you would see that I was claiming the opposite. I claimed that Frances struck a relatively affluent area compared to Katrina - I posted economic statistics for the two areas to demonstrate that, in that regard, they were different. Frances wreaked comparably less damage than Katrina - I didn't think a source for that needed to be cited to demonstrate that, in that regard, they were different. Preparations for Frances were handled much, much, much, much, much better than they were for Katrina - I cited the Department of Homeland Security's own press releases about their preparations and responses to the two storms to demonstrate that, in that regard, they were different. Any two things can be compared, whether you like it or not - and I was comparing two hurricanes of similar force and the federal preparations for both. But I spoke of three different ways in which the tragedies were distinctly not alike.


True, Frances and Katrina were hardly identical. The fact that Katrina, even while offshore, was even worse just underlines the point I was making. I made it very clear - in two separate posts - that I was referring to the preparations for the storms, specifically the "coordination of efforts and resources and the effective evacuation of the residents". And you attempted to rebut this by citing some problems with reimbursement for damages after the fact?

Again, I was speaking of the coordination of efforts by the federal government prior to the storm and the preparations by the federal government for the evacuation of residents. In West Palm Beach, FEMA and the DHS took responsibility for both. In New Orleans, FEMA and the DHS took responsibility for neither - and it cost lives. Your comparison of apples to asteroids couldn't be less relevant. But since you seem determined to write the Katrina tragedy off as some kind of chronic bookkeeping problem, perhaps you could tell me why the preparations for the two storms were so vastly different.

You are quite right: Hurricane Frances and Hurricane Katrina, while comparable, were not the same. Katrina was far more severe and far more damaging - and everyone knew in advance that it was going to be. That makes the fact that the feds abrogated responsibility for Katrina before the fact and are washing their hands of responsibility for their lack of preparation after the fact that much more heinous. Messing up on a few claim forms following a storm is nowhere near as devastating as failing to coordinate preparations at all levels of government and failing to take charge of emergency evacuations.

Preparations for Frances were handled better, even though it was known that Katrina would be worse. That is a fact. How many lives did a couple of claim forms cost? The bodies resulting from the "corruption and mismanagement" of Katrina are still being counted, but the official count has already passed 400 - and they've only just begun. If one finds my reaction to this "dramatic", I dread to think how dimly they might view all that histrionic grieving that we are seeing from people whose parents and husbands and wives and children are dead. "Oh, stop crying - so your baby starved to death. Don't you realize that people in West Palm Beach were overpaid?" Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but I do find such an attitude callous.


I'm sorry. I thought you had actually read my posts before responding. Allow me to reiterate my answer to the question for debate (from my first post to this thread):
To be perfectly clear, while I see a very real correlation between race and poverty, that was me discounting race as the overriding factor here.


Yeah, but the "white people", to use your characterization of the class issue, were overpaid. The "black people" are dead. I see a marked difference between those types of "inefficiency".


Because I don't see a commonality. A health inspector could skip checking out the conditions of a certain restaurant because he doesn't like the neighborhood and twenty people could die from salmonella as a result. Another heath inspector could cheat on her travel expenses and make an extra twenty dollars. Both of the above could be considered "inefficiency". In addressing problems, I have always found it best to set priorities - and I would suggest that it might be more important to address one of the above than the other, whatever apparent "commonality" twenty deaths and twenty bucks may have.


Out of curiosity, what exactly are you offering the nation to "fix the problem"? Posts to a discussion board? But you're right - I'm not doing much more. I'm just trying to alert people to the fact that I believe we are in the middle of a class war, that the wealthy in this country are treated differently than the poor, that the feds actually prepare for disasters in affluent areas and do damn all to prepare for disasters in poverty-stricken areas. And, apart from posting here and to my blog - and writing to my senators and representatives - and talking to everyone I know and urging them to do the same - and contributing as much as I can afford to three or four relief agencies - I'm not offering the nation much.

Like you, I want to see FEMA and the DHS get their act together and fix their problems. But I believe that coordinating efforts among federal, state, and local governments and planning for emergency evacuations before a storm of this magnitude strikes is more important than making sure that no one gets a red cent more than they deserve after a storm has passed. I also believe that we need to address the reasons for one area getting a different level of preparation than another area - and I am not willing to write it off as some sort of general "inefficiency". The DHS did not coordinate preparations with state and local authorities in Louisiana and New Orleans to an extent even approaching the level of coordination with state and local authorities in Florida and West Palm Beach. The DHS did not take responsibility for emergency evacuations from New Orleans; it did take responsibility for emergency evacuations from West Palm Beach. I think we all deserve to know why. If it wasn't a class issue, what was it? If we could get an answer to that question - and "inefficiency" doesn't cut it - I think it would offer the nation something.

Actually, the MORE I read about actual accounts of the situation, the LESS culpability I give to teh state and local officials, and the MORE I heap blame upon the feds COMPLETELY. Holding ems because of paperwork, consulting lawyers- making fire crews take two days of sexual harrasment training in Atlanta before going to NO, stuff like that- the guv and mayor had absolutely nothing to do with that kind of stuff- I would blame them if THEY held up relief, but the governer running screaming to the Fema poeple "were are the buses" and such, accounts we have now- ya, I don't think that would have happened in a predominately white nieghborhood, regardless of class distinction.

Here are some excerpts from a very long article: Mods, I tried to excerpt just the salient parts I wanted to include, please forgive if I cut too muchhttp://www.startribune.com/stories/125/5607750.html

The new york times article, "A disasterous response" gave a stark difference in the response in a disaster WE KNEW would be worse, compared with the response in Florida (thanks wertz for spelling this out, AGAIN )

"The governor of Louisiana was "blistering mad." It was the third night after Hurricane Katrina drowned New Orleans, and Gov. Kathleen Blanco needed buses to rescue thousands of people from the fetid Superdome and Convention Center. But only a small fraction of the 500 vehicles promised by federal authorities had arrived.

Blanco burst into the state's emergency center in Baton Rouge. "Does anybody in this building know anything about buses?" she recalled crying out.

They were an obvious linchpin for evacuating a city where nearly 100,000 people had no cars. Yet the federal, state and local officials who had failed to round up buses in advance were now in a frantic hunt. It would be two more days before they found enough buses to empty the shelters.

An initial examination of Katrina's aftermath demonstrates the extent to which the federal government failed to fulfill the pledge it made after the Sept. 11 attacks to face domestic threats as a unified, seamless force.

Instead, the crisis in New Orleans deepened because of a virtual standoff between hesitant federal officials and besieged local and state authorities, interviews with dozens of officials show."

And-

Overwhelmed

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officials expected the state and city to direct their own efforts and ask for help as needed.

Leaders in Louisiana and New Orleans, though, were so overwhelmed by the scale of the storm that they were not only unable to manage the crisis, but they also were not always sure what they needed.

While local officials assumed that Washington would provide rapid and extensive aid, federal officials, weighing legalities and logistics, proceeded at a deliberate pace.

FEMA appears to have underestimated the storm, despite an extraordinary warning from the National Hurricane Center that it would cause "human suffering incredible by modern standards." The agency dispatched only seven of its 28 urban search-and-rescue teams to the area before the storm hit and sent no workers at all into New Orleans until after Katrina passed on Aug. 29, a Monday.

"The Louisiana National Guard, already stretched by the deployment of more than 3,000 troops to Iraq, was hampered when its New Orleans barracks flooded. It lost 20 vehicles that could have carried soldiers through the watery streets and had to abandon its most advanced communications equipment, Guard officials said.

Partly because of the shortage of troops, violence raged inside the New Orleans Convention Center, which interviews show was even worse than previously described. Police SWAT team members found themselves plunging into the darkness, guided by the muzzle flashes of thugs' handguns, said Capt. Jeffrey Winn.

In 2002, Joe Allbaugh, then the FEMA director, said: "Catastrophic disasters are best defined in that they totally outstrip local and state resources, which is why the federal government needs to play a role. There are a half-dozen or so contingencies around the nation that cause me great concern, and one of them is right there in your back yard."

Following its plan

As Katrina bore down on New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin largely followed the city plan, eventually ordering the city's first-ever mandatory evacuation. Although 80 percent of New Orleans' population left, as many as 100,000 people remained.

No sense of urgency is the way to describe the entire fiasco- and why is there no sense of urgency? State and local officials, as they became aware that this was a guided missle toward thier city, definatly had a feeling of a sense of urgency- but there was none by GW, or any other high ranking federal official- for which, in the end, GW bears all ultimate responsibility. No one came off vacation, ceased buying shoes or playing golf, clearing brush or whatever they do to clear thier schedules- no sense of urgency- in an area they were repeatedly warned about for years, and a department that is 100% the brain child of this administration (Homeland security) - was definately the weakest link in disaster preparedness.

So why is there this HUGE disparity of perception between whites and blacks concerning the fed repsonse? Why do blacks feel that there was, at the very least, a component of racism? Because, they can see, in everyday life, the difference in response of EMS to black nieghborhoods vs white nieghborhoods (anyone remember the public enemy song "911 is a joke"- or remember the show Martin where they tried to convince the police they were white so the EMS would come pick up the dead plumber in thier apartment?)- and there is "no sense of urgency" when it came to poor black neighborhoods, and downright uber-mobilization when it came to west palm beach-

Ya, incompetency is a major factor, perhaps the largest factor, and, as a white guy, I can see Vermillion and others that don't cut this admin any slack for thier incompetency seeing this was GWs bad leadership as the primary reason for this failure- but, I can also make the leap that, when it is poor black poeple vs poor white poeple even, you can expect a different response from the feds and GWs admin- which, in the end, may not be the KKK brand of racism, but definately is a type of racism- and I don't think NT is off one iota in his assesment and comments on this subject either.

Below are some of the excerpted comments from several stories, which leads me to my conclusion- would have GWs political go to guys allowed the below things to happen, where it to happen to even poor white folks? Hard to prove, since it is a what if? type question, but i sincerely doubt it:


"The agency dispatched only 7 of its 28 urban search and rescue teams to the area before the storm hit and sent no workers at all into New Orleans until after the hurricane passed on Monday, Aug. 29."




"Rather than initiate relief efforts — buses, food, troops, diesel fuel, rescue boats — the agency waited for specific requests from state and local officials."




"Hundreds of firefighters, who responded to a nationwide call for help in the disaster, were held by the federal agency in Atlanta for days of training on community relations and sexual harassment before being sent on to the devastated area."




"FEMA would not let the trucks unload," Mr. Vines said in an interview. "The drivers were stuck for several days on the side of the road about 10 miles from Camp Beauregard. FEMA said we had to have a 'tasker number.' What in the world is a tasker number? I have no idea. It's just paperwork, and it's ridiculous."

I repeat my earlier statement.



The President of the United States is not Ray Nagin. It's not Kathleen Blanco. It's George W. Bush. Now we can argue over whom is most responsible or more incompetent, but there are two things that we cannot argue.

1. There's more than enough blame for all the government officials.

2. George W. Bush is a government official and certainly is not blameless in this debacle.

You can try and shift all the failures to the first responders in Louisiana if you wish to Aevans176, but one of the main functions of the president is to provide quick and decisive leadership in a time of national crisis.

George Bush was tried, tested and failed. Dismally and utterly.

And I (and Kanye West) believe it is largely because George W. Bush doesn't care about black people. Others can arrive to whatever conclusions they want. That's mine and nothing has happened to make me think any different.

The personal goodness, mercy and charity of individual Americans, black, white and other, rich, poor, and just getting by and liberal, conservative, Democrat and Republican does NOT absolve the President of his own personal shortcomings.

That's the critical difference here. The American people deserve a president as good as they are and in Bush, they don't have one.

1 - Tax cuts have nothing to do with this, so not sure why you're bringing it up, unless you want to acknowledge that the Bush tax cuts have resulted in the largest ever revenue take for the US Government in history?
2 - I'm sure Kanye appreciates your applause, vs. the boos at the Pats game. You're right, it's really gutsy of Kanye to bash the president and display his righteous indignation. There's hardly any of that these days - bravo for speaking out! [/sarcasm]

Perhaps the intellectually and fact-challenged Mr. West is the loudest voice, but it doesn't make him right. Here you can see more of his deep thoughts on race in America.


First, how delusional do you have to be after appearing in prime time on every awards show in the country, to say on TV to Ellen DeGeneres that black people are being "swept under the sink."

Secondly, contrast Mr. West's approach to sweeping with that of a slightly more appropriate black role model, one Booker T Washingon.
link here, then you have to click "full text" which loads really slow



I think this captures it very nicely. Kanye West is successful because he is a great producer. Race hasn't hurt him one bit. If anything, the contrary, it gave him additional street cred in the world of hip hop. Maybe he should shut up and produce records, because he does not excel in punditry. To be fair, I say the same to white actors and celebrities who feel entitled to speak on issues they don't understand.

Question for you - do you think that George Bush "doesn't care about black people" only in Louisiana, or that he doesn't care about them in Mississippi as well? Because I haven't heard any complaints that race affected government response in that state.

edited to add this from Jack Kelly
I'm not an expert, but these response times just don't scream "racism" to me. There is plenty of blame to hurl at all levels of government, but if you depend on the government, you tend to be disappointed.

Yes I did in fact read your posts fully and do recall you claimed race is always a factor. So I thought it was fair to believe you felt race was a factor in regards to the federal response to Katrina. I also did read your hypothesis that Frances was handled much much much much much better because of some press release you found yet I do not feel you were very inclusive in your observations of how these two events differed. From FEMA's own web page in their press release archives we have...
Homeland Security Prepping For Dangerous Hurricane Katrina
Residents in path of storm "Must take action now"
The release date on this is Aug 28th..one day before Katrina hit. In the press release it also uses the word prepare and also claims to have many "emergency protective measures" taking place. Isn't FEMA the federal government?
So read the press release you claimed did not exist and then please tell me how the preparations were different and much, much, much, much, much worse.

Fact is your claims and you comparisons of the two Hurricanes and their federal response are flawed and extremely hypothetical.


No you attempted to (and continue to do so) portray my argument as such. FEMA had well known documented and even CONGRESSIONALLY investigated issues of "repeated mistakes" in federal disaster aid going back more than a decade." Claiming the response was much much much much much better is an attempt to negate this fact..fact meaning something I can prove with tangible evidence. All that was much much much much much better was the effects of Frances. We can not honestly say that had Frances been much worse that the federal response would have been better, that is purely hypothetical. Which is what most of the arguments are on this debate to begin with.




I will wait for you to review the FEMA press release for further proof that somehow one was prepared for federally and one was not. Yet my argument is not about financial discrepancies it is about mismanagement of funds, resources and assistance in all forms. Frances warranted financial assistance from those effected..not water or food or emergency evacuation. I understand the difference but I still see the commonality. If FEMA could not coordinate, manage and attend to those in need after Frances hit why would we believe that it would do better with Katrina? AND we knew this!...our government (that means republican and democrats) not even a year ago had a congressional investigation into FEMA's mismanagement of relief and I don't remember it being all the much of a concern of anyone's.



Yes that is very dramatic argument. Your claim is I somehow degrade or even begrudge other's suffering and loss of life because I had the audacity to correct your assertion that FEMA handled things much much much much much better in Florida.
Well they didn't Wertz and our gov. was well aware of this and now that over 400 and counting have died have they decided to start making a fuss. Because that is what it takes..death and destruction of the people of the US in order to get the services they not only need but pay for. And it hasn't got a thing to do with race or class..it is our public services are broken and have been broken.



And the form in which the inefficiency occurred had more to with what? The Federal government? Race? Class? Or the storms and damage themselves?


So essentially you are saying that inefficiency and mismanagement of our federal government is only worrisome or a priority when lives are involved. Why have to wait until it becomes that extreme? Wouldn't that same lack of oversight and misuse of funds that we see result in small monetary loss also be the same oversight and misuse of funds that could result in death? What is the difference really? Both of your examples show failure of a system on a very individual level...that I am sure a more accountable and tightly managed system would prevent. That seems a bit off from your initial argument which was that preparation and preparedness helps save lives.



Yes and that was all claimed on a press release for Katrina too. The only difference is Katrina was a true test of the system and it's actual preparedness and ability to act quickly and coordinate efforts. They failed before they failed again and they continue to fail and it had nothing to do with press releases.

Indeed, this does capture it very nicely. The fact that you would use Booker T. Washington's advice as a summary of racial accommodation is revealing. Booker T. was a great man struggling to find a way for individual blacks to advance in the face of extreme racial prejudice. While his advice may have helped a few gifted individuals that could avoid racial suppression to advance within a segregated community, it did little to lift the general position of blacks or to stop the lynchings that were taking place. While his advice remains admirable on an individual level, it remains misguided in advancing the community. To recommend his approach as the way forward for blacks today is akin to running a hundred yard race with most blacks starting at the start line and the majority of whites starting at the 50 yard line. While some blacks and other racial minorities are making progress in a more tolerant society, many are still trapped in poverty made worse by cuts in government programs and the export of manufacturing jobs. The poor (blacks and others) trapped in New Orleans were there because of an historical legacy that our society has failed to address. Perhaps blacks see the role of government different than you do because they owe the end of slavery to government action, they owe much to New Deal programs under FDR, and they owe much of the advance in racial relations we have made to the civil rights movement and the legislation that institutionalized it!

We share a philosophical difference here - I want individual blacks to succeed in every way. I'm not at all concerned with some arbitrary, racially definied "community." Indeed most black Americans do succeed, only to be constantly reminded by others that "their race" is doing this or that.

1 - we disagree that whites have completed half the race at birth. Indeed, purely in economic terms, since we know from census data that those in the bottom 20% of income will someday also be in the top 20%, most of us move around a bit in our starting position, depending on how you define it.
2 - Who was it that gave 50 free yards to Irish, Italian, Caldean Lebanese or Korean immigrants? Their fellow "race" or the government?


Trapped in New Orleans? I've edited your sentence a bit and now I start to agree with it.

Throwing a few trillion dollars at a problem may make you feel better, but it hasn't helped those most in need if you still think that they are "trapped" in poverty. It's interesting that even you note the progress made from slavery until Civil Rights. Indeed black economic conditions improved at a far more rapid rate before 1960, (when families and neighborhoods were intact but poor), than they have since the Great Society has underminded both institutions with welfare and projects.

I don't have time to refute your post in detail. I will come back to it later. However, you are mistaken in your view of the impact of the Great Society programs and black economic progress. Blacks advance the most relative to whites in this period and started to slide back with the Nixon and Ford administrations and even more with the Reagan administration.

Source

There is some true in your reference to the break down of black communities but the reasons for it are varied. Let's return to this discussion later.

I don't want to derail this thread with who's a better role model, Kanye West or Booker T. Washington, but I will say this.

First, I have never understood the arrogance of people who seem to think the only thing entertainers should do is entertain us. Kanye West was a citizen of this nation long before he became a rapper. The fact that he is a entertainer does not remove his right to speak out on issues that concern him.

Secondly, I have addressed Booker T. Washington's stature as a black leader before. On one hand you have to try and evaluate him in the context of the times he lived in. By that standard he was quite successful and achieved considerable standing as not just a Negro leader, but a national figure that consulted with the most powerful men in the nation.

But Washington is no role model for me. Washington was a appeaser. A groveling sycophant who flattered the egos of wealthy white men and assured them Negroes would never demand the rights they were entitled to as free human beings as long as he maintained his prominence.

If you so admire Booker T. Washington's powers of oratory, Carlitoswhey do you also endorse the sentiments of the now notorious Atlanta Compromise speech of 1895?

Casting down your bucket among my people, helping and encouraging them as you are doing on these grounds, and to education of head, hand, and heart, you will find that they will buy your surplus land, make blossom the waste places in your fields, and run your factories. While doing this, you can be sure in the future, as in the past, that you and your families will be surrounded by the most patient, faithful, law-abiding, and unresentful people that the world has seen. As we have proved our loyalty to you in the past, in nursing your children, watching by the sick-bed of your mothers and fathers, and often following them with tear-dimmed eyes to their graves, so in the future, in our humble way, we shall stand by you with a devotion that no foreigner can approach, ready to lay down our lives, if need be, in defense of yours, interlacing our industrial, commercial, civil, and religious life with yours in a way that shall make the interests of both races one. In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.

The wisest among my race understand that the agitation of questions of social equality is the extremist folly, and that progress in the enjoyment of all the privileges that will come to us must be the result of severe and constant struggle rather than of artificial forcing.

http://www2.volstate.edu/socialscience/Fin.../btwatlanta.htm

Washington did much to encourage better relations between blacks and whites, but his methods reeked of accommodation and appeasement. During all those years while Negroes were whipped, shot, burned alive and lynched, Washington kept a discreet silence not wishing to offend his white benefactors by speaking out against the crimes perpetrated against his own race.

I fully understand why some still long for the kind of mollifying and coddling behavior of a Booker T. Washington. It makes them nostalgic for the days when blacks were barely seen and certainly never heard. They suffered their lot in life silently. They weren't so rude as to speak their minds as a Kanye West did so eloquently with passion and dignity.

Then again, as this debate has shown, the way most whites and blacks perceive how this entire matter has been handled is drastically different. With such wildly conflicting opinions so deeply held, it's no wonder we're making little progress in finding common ground.

Sorry for the tardy reply BOF, but I've been busy, to which lends itself to the fact that I haven't read a word of Human Events and/or had much "right wing" media exposure (unless you count the weather channel...).

That being said, my opinion is purely based upon statements made by people such as Kanye West.

I believe that you did not address my point about laying blame and apathy. Frankly, as "black" as Kanye West and the media wants to portray New Orleans as, there are/were many whites in the population. Afterall... this is southern Louisiana... I personally know people who had homes and property destroyed, have spent time with caucasians that don't know what is coming next, and my parents live among a community riddled with evacuees that may well be permanent additions to the Shreveport community.

That being said, the Mayor is Black, the Governor is a Democrat, and under even Gov Blanco's admission, she didn't ask for federal aid until late Wednesday. Pulling the race card, in my opinion, plays on the ignorance and the cynicism of the black culture, and frankly is appalling. People like Mr. West probably don't have any objective information as to what % of stranded NO people were black, how many made an attempt to evacuate, what % of white people's homes were destroyed, how many whites (and/or other races) have taken financial aid, etc.

People like nighttimer are far too intelligent to deduce that this disaster and its federal aid programs (or lack there of) were race based. There is no objective comparison readily available, the community is diverse, and this city provided 44% of the state's tourist revenue and untold number of tax revenue. Why on earth would the state not want to get New Orleans back on its feet???

If we were "attempting to rid the city/area of blacks" and/or were not concerned due to the demographics of the area, why on earth would were there not Black leaders such as Jesse Jackson on the scene immediately spending personal resources? OH- it's because this was a massive undertaking, slow to begin on the state and federal levels because the destruction was far worse and wide spread than was expected.

This isn't insidious/back-door racism. This isn't any form of racially motivated federal decision. It is a disaster of untold proportion on US shores, of which the state and federal government wasn't ready for.

Funny enough, the only people ready really were the employees of Walmart... which is something like the 17th largest economy on the world and it's a company as opposed to a country... surprise, surprise.

Did race matter in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

Race matters in America, full stop. (Or period, if you prefer.) It mattered before Katrina brewed up in the Altantic, it mattered during the worst of the stroms, it mattered while New Orleans was being dunked in sweage diluted with lake and river water, it matters now, and it will matter when every trace of Katrina's effects have been completely expunged.

It matters because all Americans - black ones, white ones, brown ones, purple ones with green spots - think it does. Many black Americans (and some white ones) think that they are being treated less well because of their skin colour. Many white Americans (and some black ones) think that black people are not treated any differently - some even think they are getting preferential treatment (read any of the archived threads here about Affirmative Action if you don't believe me).

So did (and does) race matter in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - yes, of course it does. In an imaginary universe where it didn't matter, this thread would not have got to the point where five pages of responses were posted in two days.

But was race the primary reason that the aftermath of Katrina gave every appearance of being disorganised and under-resourced? No - and nobody here has said that it was not nighttimer or anyone else. I don't know who Kayne West is - maybe he's but the primary blame on racism.

To my mind, this whole debate is a continuation of the main thrust of modern American politics.

EVERY issue has to dyadic - if you'll forgive the pun, every issue has to be black & white; "you're either with us or you're against us".

In this context, the arguments seem to be that Bush is Satan's representative on Earth and deliberately left tens of thousands of American citzens to die, while the state and city authorities were at best incompetent; or that the state and city authorities are completely culpable and President Bush (peace be upon him) is a benevolent and supreme leader being undermined by nasty horrible accusations from enemies of America.

The people in NO who were caught out were all sainted honest citizens let down by a callous and racist establishment, or they were all stupid fools who were only poor because they were too lazy or stupid to get a £100k job working in a Manhattan stockbrokers and if some died then that's just Darwinism at work (aside: isn't it strange how many of the people most likely to think Darwinism can work as a societal driver are least likely to believe it is responsible for creating the world we see around us).

I'm exaggerating for effect - nobody here has been quite that extreme. However, even as we accept some blame or incompetence for "our side" we have to make sure the other side gets a rather bigger chunk of blame too. And while we accept that our side's blame was caused by incompetence - the idea was right but the execution was wrong - we have to cast doubt on the ideas and motivations of the other side. Their blame has to be somehow worse than the blame we're willing to accept ourselves.

Well, here's a fresh perspective for all of you. ALL Americans are to blame for the aftermath of Katrina. If government could have made a difference, the way you operate and fund it over there - by hamstringing every branch of government by requiring oversight and agreement from every other branch, at all levels; and by point-blank refusing to contemplate the idea that taxation is anyhting other than legalised theft and must be minimised at all costs - this practially guarantees that your government (as an institution, not as a transient administration) was never and will never be able to respond to anything on this scale in a coherent and functional way. People were dying, and the elected President of the country has to wait to be asked for help by the State? That's not a racist or a political barrier to effective action - it's a Constitutional one.

Don't get me wrong, the US Constitution is a Good Thing ™. But it has it's downsides, and in large part the repsonse to events like Katrina will be one of them, because the Constitution's (perfectly noble) desire to prevent government from having too much power also prevents it from acting effectively and decisively when lots of power is required - such as responding to a disaster within days rather than weeks.

And here's another newsflash - while race politics in America has at least advanced to the point where skin colour itself is not generally, and almost never publicly, considered to be evidence of inferiority in an of itself (Instead it has been sublimated on all sides into a debate about the behaviour or certain racial stereotypes - the unemployed black welfare mother, the white trailer trash, and so on.) - the politics of poverty in the USA have never really advanced beyond the Victorian ideas of the "deserving" and the "undeserving" poor.

The New Deal attempted to do some levelling, but because it didn't solve the problem in an instant (another fundamental part of the American psyche is the demand for instant results, which like every other aspect of the national character - in every nation - has it's balancing plus-points), America got bored of funding it and has, in the last 20 years or so, and especially under the current administration, shown every indication that it wants to get rid of welfare provision (except to people who "deserve" help).

Racism may or may not be the biggest faultline in US soceity that gets talked about , but the unmentioned elephant in the room is that pretty much everyone in America dislikes and distrusts the poor. The saddest thing about this situation is that the poor do too.

Everyone - rich or poor - buys into the myth that - if they just work hard enough - they can become rich. But this is a myth - the few examples that everyone points to to "prove" that the American Dream can come true are a tiny minority. The problem is that America is not a very economically or socially mobile society, and probably never has been since the end of the frontier. Most hardworking honest poor people find that they die poor and hardworking. That's just the way it it - dumb luck plays as much, if not more, of a part in the way life turns out as hard luck. If you accept that poverty happens to the unlicky, and not to the undeserving, then it's a lot easier to think of welfare and government itself as a necessary safety net than as some vampire trying to steal things to give to people who don't deserve them.

A poor person - black or white - in "socialist" Europe - even the class bound UK - is more likely to be able to work themselves up to a higher economic and/or social status than a poor American. And the poor in Europe generally get more welfare support than Americans do. And we can only fund that because rich Europeans pay more taxes. Maybe if Americans paied European levels of taxes, the poor in NOLA (black and white) would have been able to afford to buy cars?

Now, I'm not saying all of this because I think you've got everything wrong and Europe has everything right - far from it. I'm just pointing out what I see as the inevitable, if unintentional, consequences of some of the aspects of American society, and the very idea of America itself. I don't know whether Americans see these as so obvious they don't need to be mentioned, but I can't help thinking that you're in denial of them, and would much rather blame the Democrat mayor and governor, the Republican president, the feckless blacks, the racist whites, the weather, the Iraq War, anything, ANYTHING except come out and admit that the great and noble (and I genuinely believe they are) ideas that are at the core of what America is all about have downsides. That the Idea of America is not perfect, and the problems you have are not only in the execution.

A provocative question. So perhaps I'll ask some of my own.

What exactly do you mean by "pull out all the stops"? Ignore the US Constitution and the Rule of Law? Trample all over the Posse Comitatus Act? Ignore the elected democrats running the city of New Orleans and Louisiana?? Wave a magic wand and make flooded roads passable, non-existent communications operable, and food and water instantly available to the residents who ignored the warnings?

And, let's not stop there.

1. If the city of New Orleans had been 67% "white and wealthy", would we see widespread looting (of non-essential goods), the firing on relief workers and helicopters, and the general "war zone" state that resulted in the aftermath and that delayed the relief effort by at least several days?

2. If the people housed in the Superdome were "white and wealthy", would we expect to find the violence, unorganized behavior, and general mayhem that erupted within that haven (6 documented homicides and several rapes) and have to remove 30 visitors (British tourists) who were threatened and intimidated because of their physical appearance (their "race")?

3. If the citizens of New Orleans were "white and wealthy", would they ignore the government warnings of a disaster and refuse to leave, or would they, upon deciding not to leave, not bother to take even basic precautions such as having ample food and water on hand to weather the storm and instead wait for someone else to help?

4. If the mayor of New Orleans was "wealthy and white", do we think he would have taken more prudent measures to equip the haven (Superdome) with food and water and use additional public resources (school busses) to evacuate citizens, or would he, as the incompetent mayor of N.O. did, just ignore his OWN evacuation plan, throw up his hands, and then blame others (the feds)?

5. If the governor of Louisiana was a republican (she's a democrat, but wealthy and white), would she have more than a 6th grade knowledge of Posse Comitatus, state's rights, and her obligations and responsibilities, or would she throw up her hands, act