Unplugged on Katrina
I have dozens of random thoughts on Katrina and don't feel like putting them into any coherent order:
1. This thing is NOT Bush's fault. I don't like Bush. When he actually does something stupid, I'm more than willing to acknowledge it. The disorder after Katrina is not one of those times. First of all, there wouldn't even be much of a rescue needed if people would have gotten the hell out of there in the first place. Now, I know that there are reasons some people didn't leave. Some are handicapped. Some are elderly. If someone doesn't physically assist you in getting out of New Orleans, then you're stuck there. The news networks have tried to turn this entire ordeal into a racial or poverty issue, noting that the richer white middle class folk were able to leave
the city while the poor blacks were stuck there. I don't buy it. I know for a fact that there were free buses rolling around the city for the specific purpose of getting people out who couldn't afford to otherwise. But even if you for whatever reason weren't able to get ahold of one of those buses, is that Bush's fault? Of course not. I am willing to admit that there may not have been enough buses sent out, since footage has come in of scores of buses sitting in a flooded parking lot. The responsibility for that lies with the mayor of New Orleans. Yet he's the guy yelling at Bush on TV to get off his ass.
2. And by the way, the number one reason you hear from evacuees that they didn't leave isn't "We couldn't afford it." Most tell you either that they didn't think they needed to because every other time a hurricane was heading towards New Orleans and they were told to evacuate, the unthinkable never happened. Others tell you that they plain didn't want to leave their city (many are refusing aid right now for this very reason).
3. Even if you put aside the facts that people could have gotten out beforehand and that Bush and the Feds are not responsible for the failure to get aid, there are a few other things that people are failing to remember here. First, this is a natural disaster the likes of which has never been dealt with in American history. You can't expect that the rescue effort is going to go all that smoothly. I can't think of another time in American history when 100,000 people needed to be evacuated--and simply driving in convoys isn't an option. Also, it doesn't help matters when the people left behind are shooting at medics and contractors with the Army Corps of Engineers. Cut the government some slack.
4. It blows my mind that people are trying to call Bush et al racist over this crap. I suspect the reason is that someone has to be blamed and he's the easiest target. We never saw this sort of thing after 9/11 because we knew who did it. There was a clearly responsible party and one we could all agree to hate.
We don't have that today. Katrina was caused by random forces of nature. We can't just leave it at that, though. We have to take our frustrations out on someone, so blame the government. Blame the National Guard. Blame Bush. Blame racism. Blame the white people in the suburbs who actually did get out.
5. I was watching The Today Show on NBC this morning. Right before cutting to commercial, this is what they said. Swear to God: "If you're trapped in New Orleans, please log onto our web site at www.msnbc.com to find out how to get help." I love to imagine the guy sitting in New Orleans with a working internet connection for a week, wondering how he can get out. Then he sees this website and NBC saves the day.
1. This thing is NOT Bush's fault. I don't like Bush. When he actually does something stupid, I'm more than willing to acknowledge it. The disorder after Katrina is not one of those times. First of all, there wouldn't even be much of a rescue needed if people would have gotten the hell out of there in the first place. Now, I know that there are reasons some people didn't leave. Some are handicapped. Some are elderly. If someone doesn't physically assist you in getting out of New Orleans, then you're stuck there. The news networks have tried to turn this entire ordeal into a racial or poverty issue, noting that the richer white middle class folk were able to leave
the city while the poor blacks were stuck there. I don't buy it. I know for a fact that there were free buses rolling around the city for the specific purpose of getting people out who couldn't afford to otherwise. But even if you for whatever reason weren't able to get ahold of one of those buses, is that Bush's fault? Of course not. I am willing to admit that there may not have been enough buses sent out, since footage has come in of scores of buses sitting in a flooded parking lot. The responsibility for that lies with the mayor of New Orleans. Yet he's the guy yelling at Bush on TV to get off his ass. 2. And by the way, the number one reason you hear from evacuees that they didn't leave isn't "We couldn't afford it." Most tell you either that they didn't think they needed to because every other time a hurricane was heading towards New Orleans and they were told to evacuate, the unthinkable never happened. Others tell you that they plain didn't want to leave their city (many are refusing aid right now for this very reason).
3. Even if you put aside the facts that people could have gotten out beforehand and that Bush and the Feds are not responsible for the failure to get aid, there are a few other things that people are failing to remember here. First, this is a natural disaster the likes of which has never been dealt with in American history. You can't expect that the rescue effort is going to go all that smoothly. I can't think of another time in American history when 100,000 people needed to be evacuated--and simply driving in convoys isn't an option. Also, it doesn't help matters when the people left behind are shooting at medics and contractors with the Army Corps of Engineers. Cut the government some slack.
4. It blows my mind that people are trying to call Bush et al racist over this crap. I suspect the reason is that someone has to be blamed and he's the easiest target. We never saw this sort of thing after 9/11 because we knew who did it. There was a clearly responsible party and one we could all agree to hate.
We don't have that today. Katrina was caused by random forces of nature. We can't just leave it at that, though. We have to take our frustrations out on someone, so blame the government. Blame the National Guard. Blame Bush. Blame racism. Blame the white people in the suburbs who actually did get out.
5. I was watching The Today Show on NBC this morning. Right before cutting to commercial, this is what they said. Swear to God: "If you're trapped in New Orleans, please log onto our web site at www.msnbc.com to find out how to get help." I love to imagine the guy sitting in New Orleans with a working internet connection for a week, wondering how he can get out. Then he sees this website and NBC saves the day.
posted by Your Friendly Neighborhood Clark Bar at 9/05/2005 09:51:00 AM
Subscribe to Tommy Lawyer
16 Comments:
No power, no phones, water up to there but yet they have internet? Yes, there is one guy in a building somewhere downtown blogging but it looks like the Today show producers need more coffee in the morning.
I admit it, at first I blamed Bush. I don't like the guy and it was easy. But you can't fault the man for what is clearly a systemic problem whether is be top down or bottom up, the response is no one's fault and yet everyone's fault.
As for the race card, I don't think you can blame any one person for the fact that 60% of the city is black and that the majority of the nation's poor are minorities. If this were DC and a terrorist attack no one would be bitching that they went after minorities even though we have nearly identical demographics.
At this point, I just want to see the thing get cleaned up, the flood plains reconstructed, have the emergency management system revamped and if I get to have a discussion about ending poverty in the process than all the better.
And can everyone please stop calling them refugees? They are not fleeing to avoid persecution and they are still American citizens, homeless or not.
It's kinda funny that I just read this because I just finished writing about this myself. I do agree that some of the issues coming about (like the racism claims and the scapegoating of Bush exclusively) are illegitimate. However, I do think the government, both state and federal, are to be blamed for the pretty damn poor response after the fact. I'll grant you that people should have packed up and gotten the hell out of town, and those who are stranded after refusing to leave have no one to blame but themselves. However, I've read a lot about people who were trying to get out of town and there were lines at the gas pumps that were a city block long and other types of congestion. Some people were honestly trying to get away when they were caught in it.
That said, despite the mistakes that a lot of residents made in taking the threat seriously, I'm sure you would agree that the federal government and the states are still responsible for coordinating a relief effort to ensure a minimal loss of life. FEMA and other organizations are directly responsible for disaster responses, and with a catastrophe of this magnitude, it's all the more imperative that things are done right. And the problems I see going on right now Clark are the doctors who are sitting around right now waiting for assignments for the relief effort. There are doctors who took time off, travelled over 30 hours to get there, and are now just sitting there while people die from disease or injury. Furthermore, there are doctors who are straight up being turned away or deferred to someone else to deal with. I see a lot of passing the buck going on between FEMA and the government, and now is the absolute worse time to be doing that. FEMA, the federal government, the state and local governments; all of them should be focusing on the relief effort. Then they can worry about blaming each other.
With all due respect, it smacks of severe armchair quarterbacking to me, Shea. Criticize the fact that the situation on the ground isn't as organized as it should be on the one hand, but then criticize efforts to organize it on the other? Does it not make sense to announce through DHHS that if you're a health professional planning on heading to the gulf coast that you register with them so they know where to send you, rather than just showing up on site? Sounds like an idea to me.
Think about this though. Given the enormity of the situation, it might be just a little bit difficult to assign doctors immediately when they're just showing up, unless you want them assigned at random.
And yes, the state authorities and FEMA do have a duty to safeguard the lives of those affected, but it's the job of the state and the locality to minimize the potential damage so they can do that more effectively. 100,000 refugees all of a sudden and it doesn't go 100% smoothly? Ya don't say. Naturally we have an expectation that our government takes every step it reasonably can. Surely you'll agree that what's happened in New Orleans is beyond the scope of what's been dealt with before. They're in new ground. When that happens, there are going to be some significant snafus.
To return to my original point, here's what bothers me: scapegoating the president when he's done all that he can, especially when those who bear the bulk of the responsibility are doing so (i.e. the mayor of New Orleans). What infuriates me are those who would take that misconception a step further and claim racist motives are at fault. Kanye West can go screw himself. Complete a sentence, asshole.
And on a side note, these people are refugees. If the same happened in another country, that's exactly what we'd be calling them regardless of whether they were seeking refuge from political oppression or a natural disaster. We don't like to call them that because they're Americans.
Almost forgot about the first point on getting out of New Orleans. First, if you can't get gas at the station, then hop on the bus. That simple. Second, they had four days, Shea, in which to find a way out. Why is it that we give the people who are stuck there there so much leeway when it comes to getting their own asses out of the city while it's still dry, but we expect miracles from the National Guard and FEMA to get their asses out of the city for them after it's gone under 25 feet of water? It's easier to blame the faceless monolithic government than the people we see suffering on TV. In most cases, however, that's where responsibility lies.
I just had a similar conversation with a friend who works at homeland, and I have to say she has made me see things in a new light.
Apparently, even now with all that has happened there are people in their homes who are refusing to leave but want to be brought food and water and medical supplies. She says that some are just stubborn, but that some have outstanding warrants and are afraid they will be arrested if they accept help. She also says that there is a very virulent rumor that we are trying to evacuate the city in order to flood it and destroy it. Clearly, the lack of information is breeding trouble.
Also, I agree that the able bodied had four days to get the hell out of town. But there should have been provisions made for the elderly and the infirmed. For them I feel truly sorry. But if you had two good legs, I'm not sure what to say to you.
And as for your point about calling them refugees, you're damn right I don't like calling them refugees because I feel it alienates and belittles them. But I don't want to argue semantics when there is real work to be done.
Oh, and btw, if CNN doesn't stop encouraging the government to force the western states to give up their fire fighting helicopters to put out house fires I may lose it. They have a ton of military helicopters and personnel, they don't need Montana's small fire-copter arsenal, especially when my state and most of the ones around it are burning.
I don't think it is semantics. We're not down in Louisiana scooping water out of the city or anything, so we can't very well dismiss the characterization as irrelevant because "there is real work to be done." The way in which we think of these people is important. Personally, I disagree that it is belittling to call an American a refugee, but okay to apply the term to non-Americans. They are refugees by definition and if we try to avoid the term, then we're fooling ourselves into thinking that the situation is less dire than it really is.
By "definition" they are not refugees. But it isn't the definition as much as it is the way people (at least the ones I have talked to) talk about these people as if they are now second class because of what happened. And clearly there is something to this discussion if news organizations and federal employees are now being asked not to call them refugees.
But because I know that most people don't mean to belittle or dismiss, I am not going to debate you on this anymore.
That's largely dependent upon the definition, actually. And I don't dispute that news orgs and the federal employees are probably being instructed not to use the term for the same reasons that you described. No one hesitated either generally or in the media to refer to the victims of the tsunami as "refugees," however. And that's my point, really. The only distinction is that these refugees are American. To think of the term as belittling, we're belittling someone by ever using it. If the American evacuees are not refugees, then it is belittling to call the tsunami victims the same thing, isn't it? I personally don't think it is belittling, but I do believe that the term has more gravity than the candy-coated terminology the media might prefer.
I don't remember the term refugee being used all that often after the Tsunami. Mostly I remember them being called victims. Though, I'm sure some people used it then, and that was just as wrong.
I guess to me when you call them a refugee you completely strip them of identity and relegate them to nameless faces masses. I met a bunch of them today at the Armory and I'll meet a lot more of them over the next few weeks as they flood into DC and onto the GWU campus, I guess I just would prefer we don't let anything get in the way of seeing them as human beings and as Americans.
ABC News: Diseases Threaten Tsunami Refugees http://abcnews.go.com/International/Tsunami/wireStory?id=387999
U.S. Dept. of State: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/b/prm/45702.htm
NPR: Engineering Low-Cost Housing for Tsunami Refugees http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4266942
Those are just the first three hits you find when you google the term "tsunami refugees." The US government, US media, and world media all used the term in reference to them. There was no outcry then that it was "belittling" to call the tsunami victims refugees, nor should there have been. It's not belittling; it's realistic. The fact that they're Americans should have nothing to do with whether or not you call them refugees, Abra.
I didn't say no one called them that, I said I didn't remember but that I was sure some nearsighted fool had.
And you and I appear to having a miscommunication. I am saying that it is not okay to misapply the term to anyone American or foreign. There are refugees in Sudan, in Palestine, in Taiwan, etc. There are victims in Louisiana, Aceh, etc.
I don't think the term should be misapplied because I think that in the minds of many Americans it reduces people into a faceless horde. And as the months go on and the costs of the rebuild rise exponentially it is going to be very critical that we remember these people are Americans. It's myopic to misapply the term to mean any downtrodden group made homeless by a tragedy not of their making because what is happening in Sudan is not the same as what happened in Aceh or Sri Lanka or the Gulf.
"Nearsighted fool." ABC News, NPR, BBC, US State Department, etc. etc. etc. All myopic fools. That's nice.
1. The term is not misapplied. Some definitions out there are more restrictive than others, but generally the term is applicable. Take the root of the word refugee: "refuge". There's no political component to it.
2. I think clearly common usage dictates that both tsunami victims and Katrina victims can be categorized as "refugees."
3. If we call Sudanese victims in Darfur "refugees," are we "belittling" and "alienating" them? I think not. If that' sthe case, someone better tell Refugees International that their organization is inherently offensive. By using the term, you're simply calling a spade a spade.
4. Refusing to call them what they are because of (a) their nationality ("they are still American citizens,;" "I just would prefer we don't let anything get in the way of seeing them as human beings and as Americans;" "critical that we remember these people are Americans") or (b) because the truth of their situation makes you uncomfortable does not do them or anyone else any good.
I'm not going to argue this with you anymore, except to say that I don't agree. And you won't hear me referring to them as refugees. I just prefer to think of them as American people.
should be running out of the door as I am already horribly late, but I stood behind reading your posts on katrina.
as I wrote in response to your comment on my blog, political strumentalisation of this is simply revolting, but it is admittedly the admnistration's fault if everything went SO wrong. apparently there had been warnings that severe cutting in funds to provide a higher financial flow towards, let's say, terrorism prevention or troops abroad, could lead to a dimnished capability of the preposed agencies to act in other occurences. as it in fact did happen.
there had been warnings
and no, this is not something in the hands of local authorities. not at all, the handling of federal funds is a lot higher up, around presidential hands, I guess
on the time magazine report I read, it did also state that an area like the one hit by katrina was already troubled with high levels of corruption and disappearing funds (and consequently richer administration men, funny that, reminds me of italy quite a lot..)
in fact I did read somewhere that there had been plans, but somehow they failed to be put into action
so something must have gone horribly wrong locally
but this does not spare the white house from criticism, in my slightly uninformed foreign opinion
Matilda:
Federal versus state issue. This is one of those times that a unitary government like, say, France would come in handy. Ours is a government of divided authority and pissing matches are a natural consequence of that.
Granted, the buck stops with Bush. He takes responsibility for anything that might be the fault of the federal government. The appointment of Mike Brown as director of FEMA is something I'm sure he's not proud of at this point. As for the levies, both the state and federal governments are responsible for that one. The Army Corps of Engineers did a cost/benefit analysis and concluded that they only needed levies that could withstand a Category 3. Chances are it's a decision that Bush never made, but people appointed by people appointed by Bush made...and I suppose the same accusation could be made against every administration that failed to reinforce those levies, going as far back as possibly Carter.
The reason my post was targeted largely at Ray Nagen is that Nagen played the victim when he is probably more culpable than anyone else. The plans were all in place to get people out. You can find them in PDF format on the net (I might try and go find the link again) that specifically provide for buses to be coordinated and to take people out of the city. Nagen not only didn't carry out that plan, but didn't issue a mandatory evacuation until 24 hours beforehand and only then at the personal urging of President Bush, since only Nagen had the authority to do so. Then the day after the hurricane, Nagen is telling Bush to get off of his ass? I'm sorry, but that's enough to piss a guy off.
Post a Comment
<< Home