Hurricane Katrina - a tragedy unaddressed - one year later
Last year, most in America witnessed a tragedy. People living New Orleans were stranded by the waters of Lake Pontchartrain, which broke through the levees constructed to hold the lake at bay. These waters were transformed - by gasoline in submerged cars, oil from the same, and general grit and grime - into a toxic soup which was unsafe to drink, or even to walk in. People found themselves stranded, in a swamp they could neither drink nor traverse, on rooftops or in upper floors, 24 hours after the hurricane blew through.
Some say that these people should not have been there: they should have evacuated before the storm struck. I know I was one of many watching The Weather Channel, safe in the Midwest, five days before the storm made landfall, seeing that all the predictions had Katrina hitting New Orleans head-on. I didn't gather my belongings, board up my house, and find refuge at a relative's house in another State - I didn't have to. But even if I lived in New Orleans, I may have had the confidence that "nothing will happen to me" and have seen this as a great adventure and stayed put. On the other hand, if I were poor, had no car, and had a pet cat or dog, then I'd likely rationalize, "I can't afford a bus to get out, and they wouldn't let my dog on anyway".
The truth is, they DID dodge a bullet, at first. The storm passed, the streets were dry, the buildings were still standing, and things were looking good. Katrina had weakened from a Category 5 storm to a Category 3, and passed to the East - the "weak side" of the storm struck New Orleans. But the levees, their bases planted too shallow in poor soil, had been rocked back and forth by Pontchartrain's waters, and were undercut. Pontchartrain slowly infiltrated the lowest parts of the city, cutting people off in their homes. Some were drowned as the water rose and trapped them in their attics, and the invalid drowned in their beds. But this is not the tragedy I wish to address.
On the second day of the flooding, there were reports of looting and other civil unrest. Some people were getting the provisions they failed to stock up on from locked-up stores whose owners had evacuated. Others were taking advantage of the lack of security guards and police, and were looting or hoarding items for future resale. Pictures were taken of people raiding stores, and some captions read that these people were "taking provisions"; others were "looting". Some pointed out that an image with white people described them as provision-takers, whereas images with black people called them looters. These choices of words suggested a bias in the media, whether overt, covert, or coincidental. But this is also not the tragedy I speak of, but we're getting closer.
No, the tragedy I speak of is the incident, two days after the hurricane, where "a helicopter was fired upon by black men as it was engaged in the evacuation effort". This halted the rescue operation entirely. The reasoning, I recall, was "angry black men, probably going through withdrawl after two days without drugs, were trying to shoot down rescue helicopters because the helicopters were likely carrying morphine or other narcotics." This rationalization shut down the rescue operation for three days, until the next thing we saw - as far as rescue operations - were tank-like military vehicles rolling into the city.
Here is why I consider this a tragedy: the country and FEMA - the Federal Emergency Management Agency - put the brakes on the rescue operation because of the CLAIM that rescuers were being shot at by drug-starved black men. The men may have just been trying to get the attention of the helicopter so they could be rescued. Regardless, the rest of those in the flooded area - and those stranded on overpasses and in the Superdome and Convention Center - were forced to wait until the armored vehicles showed up. I envision this scenario:
Official #1: You're back without any evacuees. What's the problem?
Official #2: We were fired on by a group of angry black men as we were evacuating the hospital.
Official #1: They probably wanted your medication, or the hospital's. They're getting desperate already.
Official #2: What do we do?
Official #1: Pull all the rescue teams out. It's too dangerous in there.
Official #2: But what about the rest of the people? The hospitals?
Official #1: You know how those people get when they've been without their drugs. Everyone else is just going to have to wait until the big guns get here. They deserve it, anyway, not getting out, knowing they're in the path of a hurricane. They've made their decision: this is the way they want to live, so they're stuck with it.
Official #2: But sir, the children, the elderly, the women...
Official #1: There's nothing we can do. They've made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. It'll just be for a few days, until the military gets down there and puts a stop to all that crap.
My scenario continues: As rescue teams and independent volunteers showed up from across the country at the edge of the city, they were informed, "angry black men are shooting at rescuers, so you are not allowed to go in there." "I'll take my chances," some said. "I will not allow you to pass," came the reply from the "concerned" officials. But I suspect - and this just boils my blood - that many of those helpers, when told they could not help because of the danger posed by "angry black men", simply said, "Oh, OK", as if they were told, "venomous alligators and ravenous lions are roaming the streets, so we're looking out for your safety, and won't let you go in there".
My scenario concludes: Finding themselves stranded on bridges, some tried to walk to nearby towns, but were stopped by those towns' police forces. Those police were charged with keeping "them" from entering the neighboring communities and stealing drugs from their pharmacies and looting their stores. "They can stay on the overpass for a few days," the suburbanites decided. "Soon help will be on the way. Why didn't they get out while they had a chance, before the storm? They certainly aren't going to pull any of that crap in MY town."
This is a tragedy because of the undertone of racism few whites want to address: "angry black men" were causing trouble in a city suddenly populated almost exclusively by blacks (because they were the poorest of the poor and could not leave), and everyone was labeled a trouble-maker, a looter, a person who easily reverted to sub-human, animal behavior. "They deserved their fate," is the unspoken concensus. "If they behaved like civilized people, they would have been given help. But no, they behaved like the animals they are. It'll probably happen the same way the next time. Well, next time they will have to rely more on their own State and local governments to help them out. The 'State and local' governments can't rely on the U.S. government to clean up the mess caused by 'their' people."
"State and local". Now whose war cry has "State and local" been since Katrina? Oh yes, the Right-Wing pundits and Bush Administration apologists. And they, by and large, are very rich ... and very white.
Some say that these people should not have been there: they should have evacuated before the storm struck. I know I was one of many watching The Weather Channel, safe in the Midwest, five days before the storm made landfall, seeing that all the predictions had Katrina hitting New Orleans head-on. I didn't gather my belongings, board up my house, and find refuge at a relative's house in another State - I didn't have to. But even if I lived in New Orleans, I may have had the confidence that "nothing will happen to me" and have seen this as a great adventure and stayed put. On the other hand, if I were poor, had no car, and had a pet cat or dog, then I'd likely rationalize, "I can't afford a bus to get out, and they wouldn't let my dog on anyway".
The truth is, they DID dodge a bullet, at first. The storm passed, the streets were dry, the buildings were still standing, and things were looking good. Katrina had weakened from a Category 5 storm to a Category 3, and passed to the East - the "weak side" of the storm struck New Orleans. But the levees, their bases planted too shallow in poor soil, had been rocked back and forth by Pontchartrain's waters, and were undercut. Pontchartrain slowly infiltrated the lowest parts of the city, cutting people off in their homes. Some were drowned as the water rose and trapped them in their attics, and the invalid drowned in their beds. But this is not the tragedy I wish to address.
On the second day of the flooding, there were reports of looting and other civil unrest. Some people were getting the provisions they failed to stock up on from locked-up stores whose owners had evacuated. Others were taking advantage of the lack of security guards and police, and were looting or hoarding items for future resale. Pictures were taken of people raiding stores, and some captions read that these people were "taking provisions"; others were "looting". Some pointed out that an image with white people described them as provision-takers, whereas images with black people called them looters. These choices of words suggested a bias in the media, whether overt, covert, or coincidental. But this is also not the tragedy I speak of, but we're getting closer.
No, the tragedy I speak of is the incident, two days after the hurricane, where "a helicopter was fired upon by black men as it was engaged in the evacuation effort". This halted the rescue operation entirely. The reasoning, I recall, was "angry black men, probably going through withdrawl after two days without drugs, were trying to shoot down rescue helicopters because the helicopters were likely carrying morphine or other narcotics." This rationalization shut down the rescue operation for three days, until the next thing we saw - as far as rescue operations - were tank-like military vehicles rolling into the city.
Here is why I consider this a tragedy: the country and FEMA - the Federal Emergency Management Agency - put the brakes on the rescue operation because of the CLAIM that rescuers were being shot at by drug-starved black men. The men may have just been trying to get the attention of the helicopter so they could be rescued. Regardless, the rest of those in the flooded area - and those stranded on overpasses and in the Superdome and Convention Center - were forced to wait until the armored vehicles showed up. I envision this scenario:
Official #1: You're back without any evacuees. What's the problem?
Official #2: We were fired on by a group of angry black men as we were evacuating the hospital.
Official #1: They probably wanted your medication, or the hospital's. They're getting desperate already.
Official #2: What do we do?
Official #1: Pull all the rescue teams out. It's too dangerous in there.
Official #2: But what about the rest of the people? The hospitals?
Official #1: You know how those people get when they've been without their drugs. Everyone else is just going to have to wait until the big guns get here. They deserve it, anyway, not getting out, knowing they're in the path of a hurricane. They've made their decision: this is the way they want to live, so they're stuck with it.
Official #2: But sir, the children, the elderly, the women...
Official #1: There's nothing we can do. They've made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. It'll just be for a few days, until the military gets down there and puts a stop to all that crap.
My scenario continues: As rescue teams and independent volunteers showed up from across the country at the edge of the city, they were informed, "angry black men are shooting at rescuers, so you are not allowed to go in there." "I'll take my chances," some said. "I will not allow you to pass," came the reply from the "concerned" officials. But I suspect - and this just boils my blood - that many of those helpers, when told they could not help because of the danger posed by "angry black men", simply said, "Oh, OK", as if they were told, "venomous alligators and ravenous lions are roaming the streets, so we're looking out for your safety, and won't let you go in there".
My scenario concludes: Finding themselves stranded on bridges, some tried to walk to nearby towns, but were stopped by those towns' police forces. Those police were charged with keeping "them" from entering the neighboring communities and stealing drugs from their pharmacies and looting their stores. "They can stay on the overpass for a few days," the suburbanites decided. "Soon help will be on the way. Why didn't they get out while they had a chance, before the storm? They certainly aren't going to pull any of that crap in MY town."
This is a tragedy because of the undertone of racism few whites want to address: "angry black men" were causing trouble in a city suddenly populated almost exclusively by blacks (because they were the poorest of the poor and could not leave), and everyone was labeled a trouble-maker, a looter, a person who easily reverted to sub-human, animal behavior. "They deserved their fate," is the unspoken concensus. "If they behaved like civilized people, they would have been given help. But no, they behaved like the animals they are. It'll probably happen the same way the next time. Well, next time they will have to rely more on their own State and local governments to help them out. The 'State and local' governments can't rely on the U.S. government to clean up the mess caused by 'their' people."
"State and local". Now whose war cry has "State and local" been since Katrina? Oh yes, the Right-Wing pundits and Bush Administration apologists. And they, by and large, are very rich ... and very white.
posted by batguano at 10:43 PM
<< Home