PDA

View Full Version : Katrina Damage



Pages : [1] 2

BillyBob
August 31st, 2005, 10:37 AM
Here is a link for Glenn Beck's website, he has quite a few articles [a couple dozen or so] on Katrine linked there. It's convenient.

There are articles about looting, suicides, transporting survivors to the Houston Astrodome, oil business etc.

http://www.glennbeck.com/page2/index.shtml

BillyBob
August 31st, 2005, 03:47 PM
:rain:

drbrumley
August 31st, 2005, 03:49 PM
This is one of the saddest things I have ever seen.

BillyBob
August 31st, 2005, 03:53 PM
The looting part of this story is unbelievable.

So the question is, should they bother rebuilding New Orleans? It's just gonna happen again....and again....

drbrumley
August 31st, 2005, 04:03 PM
I would say No. But it isnt up to me.

drbrumley
August 31st, 2005, 04:04 PM
Actually, I read Bush was blamed for this... how pathetic. The blame is on the liberals for the afermath disaster this has turned in to. two days before any food can get in. How pathetic.

GuySmiley
August 31st, 2005, 04:42 PM
The looting part of this story is unbelievable.

So the question is, should they bother rebuilding New Orleans? It's just gonna happen again....and again....
Dont rebuild it, trade it to the liberals as a new wetland for their agreement that we can drill for oil in Alaska. Or make it a scuba park.

Gerald
August 31st, 2005, 05:08 PM
Y'know, it won't surprise me if Fred Phelps & Co. put up a big banner on their website saying "THE DED CATLICKS OF NU ORLENZ R N HELLLL!!!!!11"...

Army of One
September 1st, 2005, 01:30 AM
Y'know, it won't surprise me if Fred Phelps & Co. put up a big banner on their website saying "THE DED CATLICKS OF NU ORLENZ R N HELLLL!!!!!11"...I wish I could look at your "prediction" as a joke, and just laugh about it. But I don't think such a statement would be beneath an idiot like Phelps. :nono:

Gerald
September 1st, 2005, 12:16 PM
I wish I could look at your "prediction" as a joke, and just laugh about it. But I don't think such a statement would be beneath an idiot like Phelps. :nono:You're right: it wasn't (http://www.godhatesfags.com/featured/20050831_thank-god-for-katrina.html).

wickwoman
September 1st, 2005, 12:25 PM
Blaming the President, liberals, or gays is counter productive. And, at this point, I think the only thing to blame is water. And we can't control that. It's just silly to start pointing the finger, that's connected to a hand that could pick up a shovel or something and start working to help.

The looters shooting up at the rescue helicopters and helicopters bringing supplies should be shot on site. They are causing bodies that could be helping get people off their roofs to be diverted to keeping the peace. It's pathetic and they don't deserve to live.

beanieboy
September 1st, 2005, 12:27 PM
You're right: it wasn't (http://www.godhatesfags.com/featured/20050831_thank-god-for-katrina.html).



New Orleans, symbol of America, seen for what it is: a putrid, toxic, stinking cesspool of fag fecal matter.


When did Rimi become a part of Westboro Church?

PureX
September 1st, 2005, 12:37 PM
The looters shooting up at the rescue helicopters and helicopters bringing supplies should be shot on site. They are causing bodies that could be helping get people off their roofs to be diverted to keeping the peace. It's pathetic and they don't deserve to live.Yeah, but it comes from a lifetime of rage and poverty. They are dying from lack of water and they see the emergency helicopters passing them over, time after time. It's horrible, but it's not that surprising.

BillyBob
September 1st, 2005, 12:40 PM
Typical lib, make excuses for bad behaviour and label the criminals as victims. :down:

beanieboy
September 1st, 2005, 12:43 PM
Blaming the President, liberals, or gays is counter productive. And, at this point, I think the only thing to blame is water. And we can't control that. It's just silly to start pointing the finger, that's connected to a hand that could pick up a shovel or something and start working to help.

The looters shooting up at the rescue helicopters and helicopters bringing supplies should be shot on site. They are causing bodies that could be helping get people off their roofs to be diverted to keeping the peace. It's pathetic and they don't deserve to live.

I find it kind of absurd to say that blaming Bush is pathetic, but blaming the liberals is not.

Seems to me that it was hurricane. These things happen.
What is truly sad is that people see this catastrophe, and blame someone for it, rather than trying to figure out how to help.

I, too, was angry at the looting, but then I saw some of the looters. A camera man said, "why did you just loot Walmart?" The man lifted his feet, which were barefoot, and said, "Look at me!! I have nothing!! I don't even have shoes! I have no money, no food, no shelter, and I walking all over with houses smashed all over, so I at least need shoes!"

Is it ok? No. But everything is taking a long time, they have no water, no power, it's hot, and so in desparation and frustration, many people not even knowing where their family is, have turned violent.

I think nature is to blame, and nothing else.
But it is now up to all of us to do something about it.

wickwoman
September 1st, 2005, 12:43 PM
Purex, I can see looting for food and meds, suntan lotion, mosiquito repellant, but stealing stereos and tennis shoes? If a person has digressed so far in their life that they shoot at helicopters going to help the needy, there's not much hope of them every being a productive member of society. I understand you are trying to put yourself in the other guys shoes, but sometimes I just can't identify with that kind of mindset.

beanieboy
September 1st, 2005, 12:50 PM
Yeah, but it comes from a lifetime of rage and poverty. They are dying from lack of water and they see the emergency helicopters passing them over, time after time. It's horrible, but it's not that surprising.

That's what I think happened - that they have been on top of their houses, trying to be rescued, and helicopter after helicopter has left without them, and angry, they shot at the helicopter.

It has been an extremely tramatic time - some people not knowing where their family is, or knowing that their friends have drowned or missing, there is no water, and they can't return to their homes for 2 months.

People change when they are in these kind of circumstances, and desparate.

BillyBob
September 1st, 2005, 12:54 PM
People change when they are in these kind of circumstances, and desparate.

I don't buy it. :nono:

These people are taking advantage of this circumstance to do something they WANT to do, not something they have to do.

beanieboy
September 1st, 2005, 12:55 PM
Thompson said the situation is even more dire in New Orleans.

"There's no drinking water. The toilets are backed up. There's no power, no electricity and there's no telling when help will arrive," Thompson said. "If you're not from the South, you don't understand that once that levee breaks, you've got snakes, you've got alligators, you've got everything going through the city."

Thompson said it's gotten to the point where he can't watch the news without getting distraught.

"I turn on the TV and I have to turn it off because it's all bad news," Thompson said. "I really feel like I can't watch anymore."

The Rams Marshall Faulks said this:

Given the chaos he sympathizes with looters, saying they're just doing what's necessary.

"Everything is out and people are going into survivor mode," Faulk said. "They're calling it looting and I'm saying it's survival. What's a store with food in it if you don't have food? What's a store with fresh water if you don't have water?

"What do you do? What are you supposed to do?"

GuySmiley
September 1st, 2005, 12:56 PM
That's what I think happened - that they have been on top of their houses, trying to be rescued, and helicopter after helicopter has left without them, and angry, they shot at the helicopter.
Anyone who shoots at the helicopters should be shot. Anyone carrying a TV should also be shot.

wickwoman
September 1st, 2005, 12:58 PM
There's a difference between looting for food and shooting at helicopters. The police have helped some people loot for food. That's different. Shooting at helicopters is inexcusable.

beanieboy
September 1st, 2005, 12:58 PM
I don't buy it. :nono:

These people are taking advantage of this circumstance to do something they WANT to do, not something they have to do.

That's what I thought originally.
But let's say you go to Walmart and grab a TV.
And then what??
Bring it with you to the dome, and leave everything else?
You won't have electricity for at least 2 months.
If you are bused, you are going to bring it with you on the bus?

I don't agree with it, but people aren't just thinking, "gee, I'm going to go still a TV in the midst of the panic." They have just had their houses destroyed, and no where to go for miles, some of them searching for family members. So if all someone really is thinking about is stealing a TV, I'm unsure where they plan to bring it home to, and are probably doing so out of not thinking clearly.

beanieboy
September 1st, 2005, 01:57 PM
1000 people died in Iraq while making a pilgrimage. Someone said that they saw someone with a bomb strapped to their chest. People panicked and stampeed the bridge. Most of those who fell from the bridge were women and children.

If you were to interview everyone on the pilgrimage, and say, "If you found out that someone had a bomb and knew that you might be in danger, would you push your way to safety, even if women and children died?", most would answer, "Of course not!!"

People have died in fires in clubs, died from stampedes for concert tickets, but none of them would ever think they would kill someone for concert tickets, are push someone out of the way if a fire broke out.

People change in different situations.

beanieboy
September 1st, 2005, 01:58 PM
Anyone who shoots at the helicopters should be shot. Anyone carrying a TV should also be shot.

You suggest that people go to New Orleans, where people have no food, or water, and there is panic in the street, and start shooting people that have crossed the line?

That's even worse than looting.

BillyBob
September 1st, 2005, 02:00 PM
People don't suddenly become thieves unless they have a predisposition to unethical behaviour.

Trust me, Beanie, most of us would not start breaking into Wal Marts and steal TV's just because there was a flood.

BillyBob
September 1st, 2005, 02:02 PM
You suggest that people go to New Orleans, where people have no food, or water, and there is panic in the street, and start shooting people that have crossed the line?

That's even worse than looting.

I don't agree. Private property must be protected.

wickwoman
September 1st, 2005, 02:02 PM
Beanie, I don't think he's suggesting people go over there, shotguns in hand. But if a helicopter pilot has a good view of a shooting looter, I wouldn't be opposed to taking him out of our misery.

wickwoman
September 1st, 2005, 02:05 PM
O.K., well, I'd draw the line at going over shooting people for stealing T.V.'s that's a different matter. Stealing T.V.'s is wrong, but not on the same scale with shooting rescue helicopters. That's just unthinkable.

beanieboy
September 1st, 2005, 02:24 PM
I was posting this on the looting thread.

Have you ever seen that Twilight Zone episode, where a guy has a fallout shelter? He is friends with his neighbors, who simply think he's a kook. Sirens go off, and people panic. The man shuns his friends, saying that he cares only about himself. Some of the men push the women out of the way to get to the front of the line. One neighbor argues that he's the head of a bank, and more important than a plumber. Finally, the all act together, and try to break the door down.

Then, they find out that it was a false alarm.

Do I think it's wrong to shoot a rescue copter? Yes.
But like the neighbors who were willing to destroy the shelter if they weren't let in, they probably watched group after group leave, and angry, shot at the copter.

Because I am not under that stress, have an apartment, have family that could support me in an emergency, I look at them and think, "Why are you biting the hand that feeds you?" But after seeing the conditions, I thought:
Were a storm to hit that was way worse than I was told or imagined, and the ocean flooded my apartment building, and I couldn't return, had little money, and had been dealing with this for several days, wondering what was taking the help so long, and I sat with as many people as see the Twins play, but had to sleep on the chairs, had no phone, no electricity, was hungry, was tired, thought one of my kids might be dead, and watched the copter take 6 people or so at a time out of 50,000, I might be at least tempted to shoot in anger.

PureX
September 1st, 2005, 02:28 PM
Some Americans respond to everything they don't like by shouting "they should be shot!" Is it really any wonder that people are shooting at the emergency vehicles?

Ecumenicist
September 1st, 2005, 02:36 PM
Bush refused to sign the Kyoto treaty, global warming has worsened the intensity and
paths of hurricanes over the past couple years, Bush is to blame.

Hey, conservative Christians blamed gays for the 9/11 attack, I think that God is bringing
hurricanes on the US because we attached Iraq without any clear provocation. Bush, again,
is to blame for the hurricanes.

(just kidding! kinda...)

:chuckle:

GuySmiley
September 1st, 2005, 02:38 PM
O.K., well, I'd draw the line at going over shooting people for stealing T.V.'s that's a different matter. Stealing T.V.'s is wrong, but not on the same scale with shooting rescue helicopters. That's just unthinkable.
Well, no I don't think people ought to be shot for stealing a TV, but the fact that they are stealing a TV in the middle of that tragedy makes it worse to me than stealing otherwise. It just makes me mad that those people are in the midst of that tragedy, dead bodies all around, and they think "Hey, great opportunity for a free TV!" The decayed morality is disgusting. Stealing food and shoes I understand.

Now the people shooting at the helicopters: I stand by my original statement, they ought to be shot.

By the way, if I were Wal Mart, I'd make a public announcement that people in New Orleans can go into their store in New Orleans and take what they need. That way its not looting, but thats just what I'd do.

PureX
September 1st, 2005, 02:44 PM
Purex, I can see looting for food and meds, suntan lotion, mosiquito repellant, but stealing stereos and tennis shoes? If a person has digressed so far in their life that they shoot at helicopters going to help the needy, there's not much hope of them every being a productive member of society. I understand you are trying to put yourself in the other guys shoes, but sometimes I just can't identify with that kind of mindset.Imagine that you've never had crap all your life, and you know that you never will. Imagine that you believe the reason you're never going to have anything, is the racial prejudice of wealthy white people, against you. Now imagine that when the order was given to evacuate the city, all the rich white people who own everything got in their cars and drove away, leaving you and your family behind to face the disaster. Now imagine that the disaster has struck, and has destroyed the city, and you see other people looting the stores, first to steal necessities, then stealing the stuff that you've never been able to afford, and never will be able to afford. And you know that the stores are all insured, because the rich white people who own them make sure they're protected from such disasters.

Would you take some of that stuff? I bet that you would, and I bet so would many of the "judges" here on TOL.

As far as the shooting at emergency vehicles, I think that's the rage of desperation. When you and I have to face that kind of rage and desperation, then we'll see how we would respond, and can pass judgment on others. Until then, I think we ought to be humbled by the realization of how tenuous life and civilization can really be.

wickwoman
September 1st, 2005, 02:45 PM
By the way, if I were Wal Mart, I'd make a public announcement that people in New Orleans can go into their store in New Orleans and take what they need. That way its not looting, but thats just what I'd do.

I'm not expecting Walmart to do that, what with them paying poor people in China like 50 cents an hour or something, but I'd love for them to surprise me.

wickwoman
September 1st, 2005, 02:46 PM
No wait, it's Pat Robertson's fault. Yeah, that's the ticket.

wickwoman
September 1st, 2005, 02:48 PM
Purex, passing judgment or no, people shooting at rescue helicopters should be removed promptly from the gene pool. That's not judgment, that's pure logic.

beanieboy
September 1st, 2005, 02:50 PM
An interesting commentary on race and the storm.

http://www.slate.com/id/2124688/nav/tap2/

wickwoman
September 1st, 2005, 02:51 PM
Here's an example for you, Purex. My dad worked 2 jobs so my mom could stay home with me and my sister. She made these horrible homemade dresses for us to wear. They weren't stylish and they were ill fitting. And the kids at school made fun of me sometimes. But I never once thought I should beat up some other little girl or steal her clothes for myself. It never crossed my mind.

Crow
September 1st, 2005, 02:54 PM
As far as the shooting at emergency vehicles, I think that's the rage of desperation. When you and I have to face that kind of rage and desperation, then we'll see how we would respond, and can pass judgment on others. Until then, I think we ought to be humbled by the realization of how tenuous life and civilization can really be.

Everyone is angry and desperate in that situation. A few have decided to respond by hindering rescue efforts at best, and at worst putting rescue workers and other victim's lives at risk, possibly causing their deaths. I can understand the feelings of rage and desperation. But society cannot allow people's lives to be lost out of understanding of the feelings of the few who choose to act upon those feelings in an unlawful and unwarrented manner.

If someone is shooting at emergency vehicles and hindering the rescue efforts, then they should be stopped. If it takes shooting them to stop them, and I'm guessing that it will be necessary to avoid undue risk to rescue workers and law enforcement/ military in most of those situations, so be it.

PureX
September 1st, 2005, 03:02 PM
An interesting commentary on race and the storm.

http://www.slate.com/id/2124688/nav/tap2/The reason we won't be seeing any of those broadcasters asking why those black people are so poor to begin with is because they already know the answer, and they don't want to acknowledge it. They know that the reason those people are so poor is because they aren't.

wickwoman
September 1st, 2005, 03:04 PM
Exactly, Crow. It's not so much that these people deserve or don't deserve to be shot. But the fact is some 2 year old might spend another night being eaten alive by mosquitos while he waits on a rooftop with his family. And if shooting some looter who's hampering rescue efforts will get him to safety faster, then it's an unfortunate and ugly thing that has to be done. It's like a war, really. There are innocent people suffering and those who are hampering the end of their suffering should be stopped.

wickwoman
September 1st, 2005, 03:06 PM
The reason we won't be seeing any of those broadcasters asking why those black people are so poor to begin with is because they already know the answer, and they don't want to acknowledge it. They know that the reason those people are so poor is because they aren't.

How? Please explain.

Ecumenicist
September 1st, 2005, 03:10 PM
Well, no I don't think people ought to be shot for stealing a TV, but the fact that they are stealing a TV in the middle of that tragedy makes it worse to me than stealing otherwise. It just makes me mad that those people are in the midst of that tragedy, dead bodies all around, and they think "Hey, great opportunity for a free TV!" The decayed morality is disgusting. Stealing food and shoes I understand.



As long as they are not stealing cable, now that's wrong...

Seriously, one might consider information provided by a TV vital to survival in that
situation, knowing where food and water distribution points and emergency info.

Probably could get away with stealing radios, though.

Dave

Crow
September 1st, 2005, 03:10 PM
CNN was just talking about snipers firing on emergency vehicles taking people to a New Orleans hospital. I've been hearing this stuff since I turned the tube on a couple of hours ago. If a person is going to try to take the lives of others as they are being rescued, then that "sniper" should be killed if that's what it's going to take to preserve other lives.

And contrary to what some have expressed, few people respond to disaster by trying to thwart rescue efforts. But there are always a few sickos, and they cannot be permitted to cause others to suffer furthur.

PureX
September 1st, 2005, 03:10 PM
A man watches his wife or child die in his arms, while the emergency helicopters fly back and forth overhead all day long, ignoring his screams and jestures for help. He believes that they're ignoring him because he's poor and black, because all his life the people with the power to help him have been ignoring him because he's poor and black.This doesn't make his violent rage at the emergency workers right. But it does make it understandable. These are the kinds of things that are happening.

Crow
September 1st, 2005, 03:14 PM
A man watches his wife or child die in his arms, while the emergency helicopters fly back and forth overhead all day long, ignoring his screams and jestures for help. He believes that they're ignoring him because he's poor and black, because all his life the people with the power to help him have been ignoring him because he's poor and black.This doesn't make his violent response right. But it does make it understandable. These are the kinds of things that are happening.

It might be understandable, Purex, but that doesn't mean that he should not be shot if he's interfering with rescues. And precious few people are available, you can't take manpower away from rescue efforts which are already spread too thin to try to reason with people who are shooting at rescuers.

beanieboy
September 1st, 2005, 03:14 PM
Everyone is angry and desperate in that situation. A few have decided to respond by hindering rescue efforts at best, and at worst putting rescue workers and other victim's lives at risk, possibly causing their deaths. I can understand the feelings of rage and desperation. But society cannot allow people's lives to be lost out of understanding of the feelings of the few who choose to act upon those feelings in an unlawful and unwarrented manner.

If someone is shooting at emergency vehicles and hindering the rescue efforts, then they should be stopped. If it takes shooting them to stop them, and I'm guessing that it will be necessary to avoid undue risk to rescue workers and law enforcement/ military in most of those situations, so be it.

If someone started firing on rescue vehicles, they do need to be stopped. I agree.

What bothers me is that people are looking at it from a very different situation - one in which you are sitting comfortable in your office, typing on a computer because you have electricity, in no danger, have a place to live, food to eat, and a bed to sleep in, wondering why chaos has broken out to people that have none of that.

I don't excuse someone shooting at a rescue vehicle.
But people in panic mode do things they never thought that they would.

As I used in an example:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/iraq/hundreds-killed-in-baghdad-stampede/2005/09/01/1125302656200.html
"Most of the victims were women and children who drowned or were trampled."

These people were going to Mecca. Were you to ask someone who stepped on a child in panic if he would ever do such a thing, he would swear he wouldn't.

Even Peter, when he feared for his life, denied that he knew Jesus.

Panic and fear makes people do that opposite of what they think they would.

I simply wish that we would stop focussing on the few incidents of people who did something really stupid, like shoot at a rescue vehicle, and instead, focus on what we can do to help the victims.

wickwoman
September 1st, 2005, 03:16 PM
A man watches his wife or child die in his arms, while the emergency helicopters fly back and forth overhead all day long, ignoring his screams and jestures for help. He believes that they're ignoring him because he's poor and black, because all his life the people with the power to help him have been ignoring him because he's poor and black.This doesn't make his violent rage at the emergency workers right. But it does make it understandable. These are the kinds of things that are happening.

That man has suffered a terrible tragedy. But he is placing blame in the wrong place, again. And, if he causes other men to lose their wives and children, he should be stopped. Besides, there are no helicopter pilots with little color charts deciding which ones to pick up, that's ridiculous. "Hmmm, that one's mulatto, we'll get him later. Wait, that one's just really tan. Pick him up." And, if that's what he thinks it's all about, then he's been confused his whole life. Sad, really. You can't always find someone to blame. And you shouldn't try. It makes people into monsters. Bad stuff just happens. There's nobody you can blame for this tragedy.

PureX
September 1st, 2005, 03:18 PM
How? Please explain.Most of us don't believe in sharing the wealth. We believe in competing with each other to get as much as we can, and ignoring those who get left out by the struggle. But we don't like acknowledging the fact that this is really what we believe, and who we are, and what happens to other people as a result.

wickwoman
September 1st, 2005, 03:20 PM
Most of us don't believe in sharing the wealth. We believe in competing with each other to get as much as we can, and ignoring those who get left out by the struggle. But we don't like acknowledging the fact that this is really what we believe, and who we are, and what happens to other people as a result.

I'd like to think it's not "most of us," Purex, but I don't know. Maybe I'm just Polyanna.

PureX
September 1st, 2005, 03:22 PM
Bad stuff just happens. There's nobody you can blame for this tragedy.Yet look at all the people passing blame - including the people shooting at the emergency vehicles. Americans love to pass blame, and then shoot at the people they pass the blame onto. There are hundreds of threads on TOL passing blame onto other people and then calling for them to be shot. Are we really so surprised that people are shooting at the helicopters?

Crow
September 1st, 2005, 03:25 PM
If someone started firing on rescue vehicles, they do need to be stopped. I agree.

What bothers me is that people are looking at it from a very different situation - one in which you are sitting comfortable in your office, typing on a computer because you have electricity, in no danger, have a place to live, food to eat, and a bed to sleep in, wondering why chaos has broken out to people that have none of that.

I don't excuse someone shooting at a rescue vehicle.
But people in panic mode do things they never thought that they would.

As I used in an example:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/iraq/hundreds-killed-in-baghdad-stampede/2005/09/01/1125302656200.html
"Most of the victims were women and children who drowned or were trampled."

These people were going to Mecca. Were you to ask someone who stepped on a child in panic if he would ever do such a thing, he would swear he wouldn't.

Even Peter, when he feared for his life, denied that he knew Jesus.

Panic and fear makes people do that opposite of what they think they would.

I simply wish that we would stop focussing on the few incidents of people who did something really stupid, like shoot at a rescue vehicle, and instead, focus on what we can do to help the victims.



Beanie, there's a difference between a crowd trampling someone in a blind panic while they flee a perceived threat and getting out a firearm, loading it, taking up position, and deliberately taking aim and firing at a rescue vehicle.

The first is a normal flight reaction--flee from danger. It's not even a totally voluntary reaction--people do that instinctively. Most people will run from an immediate threat. Shooting rescue vehicles is a voluntary decision to attempt to harm or kill others.

Like it or not, helping the victims is going to be severely hindered until the "snipers" are stopped.

beanieboy
September 1st, 2005, 03:32 PM
:(

Yikes!
Snipers.

Ok. Take em out. :(
This is beyond desparation.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/01/katrina.hospital.sniper/index.html

I ask that everyone pray for these people.
"There are multiple people dying at the convention center," Lawrence said. "There was an old woman, dead in a wheelchair with a blanket draped over her, pushed up against a wall. Horrible, horrible conditions.

"We saw a man who went into a seizure, literally dying right in front of us."

In a statement Thursday, Nagin said that "the convention center is unsanitary and unsafe and we are running out of supplies for (15,000 to 20,000) people."

He said the city would allow people to march up the Crescent City Connection to the Westbank Expressway in an effort to find help.

People were "being forced to live like animals," Lawrence said, surrounded by piles of trash and feces.

He said thousands of people were just laying in the ground outside the building -- many old, or sick, or caring for infants and small children.

Crow
September 1st, 2005, 03:42 PM
I know. It's pretty horrible.

People are doing quite a bit to try to help. I've tried to donate via the Salvation Army all day. 5 servers, and I still can't get through so it looks like I'm stopping at Wally World on the way home--they are collecting for the Salvation Army effort and have kicked some money in as well.

GuySmiley
September 1st, 2005, 03:54 PM
I'm not expecting Walmart to do that, what with them paying poor people in China like 50 cents an hour or something, but I'd love for them to surprise me.
I don't expect them to either but I would if I were Sam Walton. I'm not sure if you thought I was being sarcastic or not, but I wasn't. I think Wal Mart should do that. It'd be good publicity besides being good humanitarians.

beanieboy
September 1st, 2005, 04:12 PM
Any one know of any ways to help?

BillyBob
September 1st, 2005, 04:15 PM
:(

Yikes!
Snipers.

Ok. Take em out. :(
This is beyond desparation.

Exactly what I've been saying! These people have gone crazy!

My initial question was "why are they predominately 'black'?"

Surr
September 1st, 2005, 04:17 PM
I know not everyone can do this, especially if you're not in the south, but:

www.Hurricane Housing.org


Hurricane Katrina has left hundreds of thousands of people homeless. But thousands of people throughout the region are stepping into the breach to offer free shelter to those in need.

BillyBob
September 1st, 2005, 04:21 PM
I'm not expecting Walmart to do that, what with them paying poor people in China like 50 cents an hour or something, but I'd love for them to surprise me.

Take a look.


August 31, 2005

New Orleans Police Station Attacked As Looters Rampage
http://crime.about.com/b/a/198295.htm

The areas hit hardest by Hurricane Katrina are unfortunately also those hardest hit by looters while the police trying to stop them in New Orleans came under attack when two men with AK-47s opened fire on their police station.

Fox News reporter Jeff Goldblatt said two men with automatic weapons opened fire on a downtown New Orleans police station late Tuesday in an apparent retaliation against an officer who tried to stop looters earlier in the day from carting off clothes and jewelry from stores in the area.

As conditions deteriorated on the Gulf Coast, with no electricity, no water, and rising flood waters, looters were running wild in the streets, first looting grocery stores and later pharmacies, clothing and jewelry stores.

"It's downtown Baghdad," a tourist in downtown New Orleans said. "It's insane. I've wanted to come here for 10 years. I thought this was a sophisticated city. I guess not."

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said looting would not be tolerated in his state and that looters would be dealt with "ruthlessly," but with no electricity in the areas hardest hit and communication systems down, police and National Guard units were hampered in their efforts to stop the lawlessness.

A Matter of Survival

But some of the "looting" was a matter of survival. One report said a manager of a Wal-Mart opened the doors of his store and told residents to take anything they needed.

At a drug store near the French Quarter in New Orleans, two police officers with shotguns stood guard as workers from the Ritz-Carlton Hotel across the street loaded large laundry bins full of medications, snack foods and bottled water.

"This is for the sick," Officer Jeff Jacob said. "We can commandeer whatever we see fit, whatever is necessary to maintain law." Officer D.J. Butler told the crowd standing around that they would leave as soon as they got the necessities. "I'm not saying you're welcome to it," the officer said. "This is the situation we're in. We have to make the best of it."

BillyBob
September 1st, 2005, 04:23 PM
I know not everyone can do this, especially if you're not in the south, but:

www.Hurricane Housing.org


I'd be willing to purchase a hotel room for a week for a refugee...

I'm not opening my house up to them, however.

beanieboy
September 1st, 2005, 04:24 PM
Exactly what I've been saying! These people have gone crazy!

My initial question was "why are they predominately 'black'?"

Did you read that link?
A better question is: why are most of the black people in New Orlean poor?
When asked by reporters why they didn't leave, one person said that they didn't have a car, another said that she barely made her bills, living paycheck to paycheck, and that they were told that it was going to be a level 3, when it was a level 4.

If you go to CNN, you will see that almost everyone is black or elderly - basically, the poor.
The reason that there are black looters, is because all of the people that are still there are black. The people that aren't looting are also black. The people that you see at the dome are all black. The people getting on the busses are all black.

It's a issue of class, as much as it is of race.

http://www.slate.com/id/2124688/nav/tap2/

GuySmiley
September 1st, 2005, 04:24 PM
A Matter of Survival

But some of the "looting" was a matter of survival. One report said a manager of a Wal-Mart opened the doors of his store and told residents to take anything they needed.

Hey they did it, cool!

BillyBob
September 1st, 2005, 04:27 PM
Did you read that link?
A better question is: why are most of the black people in New Orlean poor?
When asked by reporters why they didn't leave, one person said that they didn't have a car, another said that she barely made her bills, living paycheck to paycheck, and that they were told that it was going to be a level 3, when it was a level 4.

If you go to CNN, you will see that almost everyone is black or elderly - basically, the poor.
The reason that there are black looters, is because all of the people that are still there are black. The people that aren't looting are also black. The people that you see at the dome are all black. The people getting on the busses are all black.

It's a issue of class, as much as it is of race.

http://www.slate.com/id/2124688/nav/tap2/


I don't see white people looting and rioting.

BillyBob
September 1st, 2005, 04:29 PM
Hey they did it, cool!


You notice that the manager told them to 'take everything they need'......that doesn't include VCRs, TVs or electric toy cars.

And what about the jewelry stores that have been broken into, how badly do they need a new necklace?

[bling bling] :mrt:

Surr
September 1st, 2005, 04:30 PM
I'd be willing to purchase a hotel room for a week for a refugee...

I'm not opening my house up to them, however.


I don't think I'd want strangers in my house either. Seriously, if you could do that, that would be awesome.

I feel horrible that I'm not in the financial situation to help out right now. In a few weeks I will be.

anna
September 1st, 2005, 04:31 PM
Any one know of any ways to help?
Hi beanieboy,
One thing you could do is volunteer at the red cross and/or donate money to a charity of your choice that gives relief to flood victums or if you own a business, you could give discounts to refugees. I know in houston, the businesses are giving discounts to refugees..One resturant was giving away free gumbo. I was touched seeing that as I drove to get some groceries (I am from Mandeville,LA and I am part Cajun). It is times like this that I realize just how fortunate I am.

BillyBob
September 1st, 2005, 04:33 PM
I don't think I'd want strangers in my house either. Seriously, if you could do that, that would be awesome.

I feel horrible that I'm not in the financial situation to help out right now. In a few weeks I will be.


Your link didn't work.

Surr
September 1st, 2005, 04:34 PM
You notice that the manager told them to 'take everything they need'......that doesn't include VCRs, TVs or electric toy cars.

Looting for the fun of it, is wrong. If you're out there stealing TVs and microwaves and other things that aren't necessary for survival, then it's wrong. (Although my definition of necessity may differ from someone elses.)

But if it's a matter of taking some bread and milk to feed your kids, then it's a whole different picture.

Surr
September 1st, 2005, 04:35 PM
Sorry about that, here's the link:

http://www.hurricanehousing.org

BillyBob
September 1st, 2005, 04:38 PM
I was so close to pulling the trigger....then I realized it is sponsored by Moveon.org. :down:

Crow
September 1st, 2005, 04:48 PM
Looting for the fun of it, is wrong. If you're out there stealing TVs and microwaves and other things that aren't necessary for survival, then it's wrong. (Although my definition of necessity may differ from someone elses.)

But if it's a matter of taking some bread and milk to feed your kids, then it's a whole different picture.

And I agree that taking necessities for survival in such a situation is not wrong. And as BillyBob has pointed out, you don't need a trunk full of "bling" to survive until aid comes.

There's a difference between surviving and looting.

GuySmiley
September 1st, 2005, 04:51 PM
You notice that the manager told them to 'take everything they need'......that doesn't include VCRs, TVs or electric toy cars.

And what about the jewelry stores that have been broken into, how badly do they need a new necklace?

[bling bling] :mrt:
I pity the fool who doesn't have a new necklace! Forget the death and destruction all around, I'm going to look good!

Surr
September 1st, 2005, 04:53 PM
And I agree that taking necessities for survival in such a situation is not wrong. And as BillyBob has pointed out, you don't need a trunk full of "bling" to survive until aid comes.

There's a difference between surviving and looting.


Absolutely. I agree whole-heartedly.


I was so close to pulling the trigger....then I realized it is sponsored by Moveon.org.


I can respect that. That's how I feel about giving money towards organizations like the Salvation Army.

What you said about donating money for a family to stay in a hotel was an excellent idea though.

BillyBob
September 1st, 2005, 05:01 PM
And I agree that taking necessities for survival in such a situation is not wrong. And as BillyBob has pointed out, you don't need a trunk full of "bling" to survive until aid comes.

There's a difference between surviving and looting.

I just heard an interview with a person of authority in Louisiana who said that there is actually a law allowing the 'looting' of lifesaving essentials in times of emergency. I would like to read how that law is written....

She made it very clear that TV's and jewelry are not covered by that law.

Army of One
September 1st, 2005, 05:51 PM
Exactly what I've been saying! These people have gone crazy!

My initial question was "why are they predominately 'black'?"BB, from what I've seen on the news stations, I also noticed that the vast majority of people in general (including those waiting to be evacuated, and those locals that were helping to rescue others) were "black". Because it seems that most of the areas that were hit hardest are predominately "black" areas, it would make sense that the vast majority of the looters are "black" also. I'm disgusted by the behavior of those stealing unneeded item, regardless of what color they are.

BTW, WW and GuySmiley (and everyone else who agreed), I agree that the Police or National Guard should not hesitate in eliminating any idiot that would fire upon those who are trying to help the rescue effort.

PureX
September 1st, 2005, 08:26 PM
I'm puzzled why you all care so much about this looting. I mean given the whole picture, the looting seems pretty trivial, really.

Army of One
September 1st, 2005, 08:30 PM
I'm puzzled why you all care so much about this looting. I mean given the whole picture, the looting seems pretty trivial, really.Well, it's not really trivial, considering that the looting is obviously hindering the search and rescue operations, therefore putting more lives at risk. In addition to that, all this looting will eventually have to be payed for, so it is only adding to the financial problems that this area is going to face as a result of the natural disaster.

fool
September 1st, 2005, 08:41 PM
All those store owners are going to bang their insurance companies for the entire contents of their store any way. Not to mention all the goods are ruined. But, the fact remains that the people should be helping each other, not shooting at the helicopters, or standing around yelling at the TV cameras, they should be organized, and working towards the goal of order. From within.

BillyBob
September 1st, 2005, 08:54 PM
I'm puzzled why you all care so much about this looting. I mean given the whole picture, the looting seems pretty trivial, really.

You've got to be kidding!

Here we are in the middle of one of the worst natural disasters in US history and the first reaction of a selected group of people is to steal, pillage, plunder, riot, kill, rape, destroy property and shoot helicopters.

That seems trivial to you?

BillyBob
September 1st, 2005, 08:57 PM
All those store owners are going to bang their insurance companies for the entire contents of their store any way.

How do you know that?


Not to mention all the goods are ruined.

That depends on their policies and deductibles. And how long do you think it will be before they actually get a settlement? 2 months? 3 months? 6 months? Even if the insurance companies paid 100%, it doesn't excuse the behaviour of these animals.



But, the fact remains that the people should be helping each other, not shooting at the helicopters, or standing around yelling at the TV cameras, they should be organized, and working towards the goal of order. From within.

Just take a look at the looters and you will understand who you are dealing with. :mrt:

Yuan
September 1st, 2005, 08:57 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/national/30cnd-storm.html?hp&ex=1125374400&en=e30e846673ab272b&ei=5094&partner=homepage
NEW ORLEANS, Aug. 30 - The waters of swollen Lake Pontchartrain poured into this sunken city today through a gaping hole in a storm-damaged levee, as emergency workers labored to stanch the flow and used boats and helicopters to rescue hundreds of people stranded on rooftops. If Hurricane Katrina did not break the levies via winds/storm surge who/what did?


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/01/Katrina.superdome.ap/index.html
"We are out here like pure animals. We don't have help," the Rev. Issac Clark, 68, said outside the New Orleans Convention Center, where corpses lay in the open and evacuees complained that they were dropped off and given nothing..."They've been teasing us with buses for four days," Edwards said. Why is the government deliberately not rescuing people? Why are "thousands stranded?” How is it possible that Army troops can be moved into the city put victims are not evacuated? Aren't numerous "assets" available ....helicopters, amphibious craft and buses? Is the government trying to foster "ethnic unrest?”


http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/Chronology_Feb.html
1952- During a severe "nor’easter" off the New England coast, the T-2 tankers SS Fort Mercer and SS Pendleton broke in half. U .S. Coast Guard vessels, aircraft, and lifeboat stations, working under severe winter conditions, rescued and removed 62 persons from the foundering ships or from the water with a loss of only five lives. Five Coast Guardsmen earned the Gold Lifesaving Medal, four earned the Silver Lifesaving Medal, and 15 earned the Coast Guard Commendation Medal.

1990- Two Coast Guard Air Station Houston crews were the first to receive the Igor I. Sikorsky Award for Humanitarian Service. The award was presented by the Helicopter Association International at their Dallas convention. The crews were honored for their rescue of seven fishermen during Hurricane Chantal last year. They flew through driving rain, winds in excess of 65 miles-per-hour, thunderstorms and squalls to rescue the men from their capsized boat.

1960- A Coast Guard R5D aircraft from Honolulu dropped a pump to the Japanese training vessel Toyama Maru, which had radioed that it was taking on water and was in danger of sinking off Palmyra Island. The pump controlled flooding until the arrival of USCGC Bering Strait, whose crew made repairs to the Japanese vessel, using 2,500 pounds of sand and cement parachuted by a Honolulu-based SC-130B plane.

http://www.record-eagle.com/feech/storm/three.htm
....He's cruising at 300 feet beneath a heavy cloud cover, backing winds are pushing the aircraft into a 200-knot sprint and rain bands are swinging across his path like slamming doors.

http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/inflate.htm
Coast Guard statistics show fatality rates have dropped over the past 25 years due to, in part, the use of inherently buoyant PFDs.....:
Personal flotation devices are classified into various types based on the environment in which they are designed to perform and their intended use.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0121_040121_tvcoastguardrescue.html
Dangerous Rescues Are Part of Job for Coast Guard
If we can "land on Mars,” launch satellites, fight WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq.....certainly the government can move stranded people to safety, no matter the conditions! And repair broken levies regardless of the difficulty. I pray that our government will rescue its citizens...... but I guess the government has another agenda.

Army of One
September 1st, 2005, 09:01 PM
If Hurricane Katrina did not break the levies via winds/storm surge who/what did?

Why is the government deliberately not rescuing people? Why are "thousands stranded?” How is it possible that Army troops can be moved into the city put victims are not evacuated? Aren't numerous "assets" available ....helicopters, amphibious craft and buses? Is the government trying to foster "ethnic unrest?”


If we can "land on Mars,” launch satellites, fight WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq.....certainly the government can move stranded people to safety, no matter the conditions! And repair broken levies regardless of the difficulty. I pray that our government will rescue its citizens...... but I guess the government has another agenda. Huh? So, what is this other agenda that the government has?

Gaviidae
September 1st, 2005, 09:37 PM
I'm puzzled why you all care so much about this looting. I mean given the whole picture, the looting seems pretty trivial, really.

They had to shut down rescue operations because of "this looting". I don't think that's trivial. Those are precious hours.

I even heard on FOX or CNN that there have been 3 or 4 murders and 6 rapes inside the Superdome. Don't know if it's true. I know there are reports of armed "gangs" (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/01/katrina.impact/index.html) going around raping in the city. :madmad:

BillyBob
September 1st, 2005, 10:40 PM
:mrt:

Yuan
September 1st, 2005, 11:34 PM
They had to shut down rescue operations because of "this looting". I don't think that's trivial. Those are precious hours. There are gunshots in Baghdad probably daily but somehow this government appears to accomplish its objectives there. Hasn't martial law already been declared in New Orleans and the military there on patrol?

Gaviidae
September 1st, 2005, 11:42 PM
There are gunshots in Baghdad probably daily but somehow this government appears to accomplish its objectives there. Hasn't martial law already been declared in New Orleans and the military there on patrol?

The National Guard wasn't there yet when they had to stop rescue operations. And I think it's sad that they had to be called at all. At least called to stop the violence rather than called to plug the hole in the canal and transport people to safety.

Jujubee
September 1st, 2005, 11:49 PM
well what about the banks there, have people started robbing them yet?

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 05:59 AM
They had to shut down rescue operations because of "this looting".No they didn't. The looting had nothing to do with the rescue operations.

I even heard on FOX or CNN that there have been 3 or 4 murders and 6 rapes inside the Superdome. Don't know if it's true. Rumors will abound under such circumstances.

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 06:00 AM
You've got to be kidding!

Here we are in the middle of one of the worst natural disasters in US history and the first reaction of a selected group of people is to steal, pillage, plunder, riot, kill, rape, destroy property and shoot helicopters.

That seems trivial to you?I was asking about the looting, not murder. So what if some people are looting? Why do you care?

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 06:05 AM
If we can "land on Mars,” launch satellites, fight WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq.....certainly the government can move stranded people to safety, no matter the conditions! And repair broken levies regardless of the difficulty. I pray that our government will rescue its citizens...... but I guess the government has another agenda.Many of the resources that we would normally use in such a disaster are tied up in Iraq. The ugly truth is that our own people are dying because our military is busy fighting Bush's pointless war on Iraq.

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 06:08 AM
well what about the banks there, have people started robbing them yet?They won't be able to get into the vaults. Doing that takes planning and special resources and skills that would obviously not be available to the people doing this looting.

wickwoman
September 2nd, 2005, 06:36 AM
I don't expect them to either but I would if I were Sam Walton. I'm not sure if you thought I was being sarcastic or not, but I wasn't. I think Wal Mart should do that. It'd be good publicity besides being good humanitarians.

Oh, Sam Walton might have. But Walmart is a public corporation now. And their bottom line is the issue. I think it would be great too. And wonderful publicity. Heck, I might even start back shopping there. I boycotted Walmart quite some time ago.

wickwoman
September 2nd, 2005, 06:42 AM
But some of the "looting" was a matter of survival. One report said a manager of a Wal-Mart opened the doors of his store and told residents to take anything they needed.[/b]

This guy doesn't own the loot he's giving away. But if I were in his situation I'd do the same thing. He just a $25,000 - $30,000/year middle class guy working for a Walmart. Middle class people are often decent and generous. They work hard for what they get, but they don't mind sharing. And I doubt Walmart would force him to pay any penalty for it. But I also doubt any of the corporate big wigs make millions will have similar attacks of generosity. I'm sure they'll make a nice small donation for the sake of appearance. But nobody up top is going to lose any loot over it.

wickwoman
September 2nd, 2005, 06:45 AM
There are gunshots in Baghdad probably daily but somehow this government appears to accomplish its objectives there. Hasn't martial law already been declared in New Orleans and the military there on patrol?

That national guard has now been called in with orders to shoot looters shooting at police and other officials.

wickwoman
September 2nd, 2005, 06:47 AM
I think I heard about 40% to 60% of national guard troops are busy in Iraq. National Guard is for here, the "nation" is supposed to be "guarded" by them. They don't belong in Iraq.

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 06:54 AM
Oh, Sam Walton might have. But Walmart is a public corporation now. And their bottom line is the issue. I think it would be great too. And wonderful publicity. Heck, I might even start back shopping there. I boycotted Walmart quite some time ago.They aren't do anyone any favors, they'll just write it all off on insurance and taxes, anyway. So it's not like the money will be coming off their bottom line. Besides, the looters might take the stuff if they lock the stores up, so why not make themselves look good by "giving it away" before it's stolen?

Gaviidae
September 2nd, 2005, 07:03 AM
They had to shut down rescue operations because of "this looting".

No they didn't. The looting had nothing to do with the rescue operations.


Mayor C. Ray Nagin ordered the police to suspend search-and-rescue operations to concentrate on stopping widespread looting and violence (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/01/news/katrina.php)

and

Meanwhile, despite the dire situation in New Orleans, the mayor, Ray Nagin has ordered almost every one of the city's 1,500 police officers to leave their search-and-rescue mission Wednesday night and return to the streets to stop people from taking goods from stores and businesses. (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/01/146226)

wickwoman
September 2nd, 2005, 07:56 AM
I was just thinking about this situation some more. There is a time to make excuses for people and to try to understand where they are coming from. I do that a lot. I try to understand why a certain mindset was formed and what were the contributing causes of bad behavior. But at some point, making excuses for people makes us enablers. Many who have been involved with alcoholics or other addicts know what an enabler is. And if we make excuses for behavior like shooting at rescue helicopters we become enablers.

Poor, black people start out in life with 2 strikes against them. And they often to fight that much harder than your average white person for every little thing they get. And I do identify with that, though I have no experience in that area. But neither my husband nor I have college degrees and we've both worked very hard for everything we have. And, we never expected anyone to give us anything. Now, granted, we didn't have to deal with racial prejudice. But my husband's family was very poor at times. And mine worked their way up to middle class. But my parents worked very hard and gave up a lot of luxuries to stay out of debt and feed and clothe me and my sister when we were little. And they didn't expect anything from anybody either.

I guess what I'm rambling about is that the expectation that you're owed something fosters a very bad attitude. And now, when tragedy strikes, a small minority (I hope) of these same people are just taking a very poor way of thinking about things one step further. They are taking by force, and they are doing it while stepping over the dead bodies of their own people. And, that's a shame. It's not a black thing. It's about being your own worst enemy. And many who live in poor neighbors will tell you the worst enemy of a poor person is the gang member living next door, not the mayor or the president or the white police man.

The majority of the police, heck, even the mayor in New Orleans is black. So it's not a black/white thing.

There are some contributing causes. And years of poverty and prejudice to contribute to such things. But I just can't put all the blame on discrimination, poor government and poverty. At some point I have to stop giving a pat on the back to people who have very destructive ways of thinking about things. Purex, you yourself, often criticize Christians for destructive beliefs. Christians inherit those bad beliefs you accuse them of from society and their parents the same way these black people inherit poverty and their idea that someone owes them something. This is the same situation now with these people. They are allowing a destructive way of thinking to be very harmful to others.

HisLight
September 2nd, 2005, 07:59 AM
I'm puzzled why you all care so much about this looting. I mean given the whole picture, the looting seems pretty trivial, really.

Looting is a sign of anarchy. Anarchy isn't trivial.

HisLight
September 2nd, 2005, 08:13 AM
Huh? So, what is this other agenda that the government has?


I thought this today as I watched the reports and thanked God that my family in that area survived and is safe.

It occured to me that the people that are stranded in New Orleans are predominantly poor. Who will speak out for them if aid doesn't arrive expeditiously? There are some here who would say these people are just a bunch of lazy slackers anyway. If they had been smart they would have listened and evacuated before the storm. Those too lazy to leave ought to get off their butts and work to get out.

I don't agree with any of that, but I am certain that there are some pragmatic bureaucrats who are thinking that. I am puzzled that so many can get in to do news coverage, but people are dying due to lack of water. I am puzzled that we are sending people to Texas only to find out once they are there that there is no room for them. I am puzzled that seeing the size and intensity of this storm that there were not resources heading in that direction even before the storm hit. I am truly puzzled that there is such a struggle over basic law and order.

I am truly shocked at the lack of prepardness and organization on the part of the local, state and federal governments. It has been 4 years since 911. It seems we have not done a lot to improve our ability to coordinate efforts or communicate after a disaster.

HisLight
September 2nd, 2005, 08:14 AM
I have NO idea how this happened....Move along people..nothing to see here.

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 08:15 AM
Mayor C. Ray Nagin ordered the police to suspend search-and-rescue operations to concentrate on stopping widespread looting and violence (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/01/news/katrina.php)

and

Meanwhile, despite the dire situation in New Orleans, the mayor, Ray Nagin has ordered almost every one of the city's 1,500 police officers to leave their search-and-rescue mission Wednesday night and return to the streets to stop people from taking goods from stores and businesses. (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/01/146226)So I guess the mayor is more interested in saving property than in saving people.

wickwoman
September 2nd, 2005, 08:23 AM
No, Purex, if looting and violence becomes rampant, Katrina will be nothing compared to the damage the life that will be done. There is a gang mentality that may begin here, and it has to be stopped early on before more damage to life is done. Nobody cares about water logged stereos. We are talking about a city in the U.S. of A. that is getting out of control. It has to be managed before something even more awful happens.

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 08:23 AM
No they didn't. The looting had nothing to do with the rescue operations.



Yes it did. I linked a story where a sniper was keeping people trapped in a nursing home.

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 08:27 AM
Sniper fire halts hospital evacuation
Gunmen fire at medical workers and patients at Charity Hospital

Thursday, September 1, 2005; Posted: 5:36 p.m. EDT (21:36 GMT)

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- The evacuation of patients from Charity Hospital was halted Thursday after the facility came under sniper fire twice.

A physician at the hospital said that despite the incidents staff members and patients were eager to get out after three days with no water and electricity and sparse food rations.

"A single sniper or two snipers shouldn't have to shut down a hospital evacuation for two hours now," Dr. Ruth Berggren told CNN. "I look outside, I'm not seeing any military." (See a video report on the sniper's attack -- 1:06 )

Berggren's husband, Dr. Tyler Curiel, witnessed both incidents.

"We were coming in from a parking deck at Tulane Medical Center, and a guy in a white shirt started firing at us," Curiel said. "The National Guard [troops], wearing flak jackets, tried to get a bead on this guy. "

The first incident happened around 11:30 a.m. (12:30 p.m. ET) as Curiel and his National Guard escorts headed back to the hospital after dropping off several patients at nearby Tulane Medical Center to be evacuated by helicopter.

Charity shares a helipad with Tulane Medical Center, which is across the street.

They were traveling in a convoy of amphibious vehicles, and Curiel said the vehicle behind him was targeted.

About an hour later, another gunman opened fire at the back of Charity Hospital.

"We got back to Charity Hospital with with food from Tulane and we said, 'OK the snipers are behind us, let's move on,' " Curiel said. "We started loading patients [for transport] and 20 minutes later, shots rang out."

The National Guard soldiers told staff to get away from the windows, and evacuations were halted.

Berggren, an infectious disease specialist at Charity Hospital, said that since then she had heard nothing about resuming evacuations.

She said about 200 patients still need to be evacuated. All of the patients in intensive care have been evacuated.

Charity Hospital has no electricity and no water, and the only food available is a couple of cans of vegetables and graham crackers.

Evacuations by boat were halted after armed looters threatened medics and overturned one of their boats.

Widespread looting and random gunfire have been reported across New Orleans. Police told CNN that groups of armed men roamed the streets overnight. (Full story)

Officers told CNN they lacked manpower and steady communications to properly do their jobs -- and that they needed help to prevent the widespread looting and violence now prevalent in the city.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/01/katrina.hospital.sniper/index.html

HisLight
September 2nd, 2005, 08:27 AM
So I guess the mayor is more interested in saving property than in saving people.

I think if you had heard the mayor's sound clips from a radio interview last night you may reconsider this. Clearly he was frustrated to near the breaking point.

Mr Nagin has had much of his force abandon their posts. To say that he has limited resources is an enormous understatement. This morning there were police officers working to "defend" a police station.

There are outside agencies there working to rescue people. The word is getting out to people that the evacuation process is underway and they are coming out to leave. I realize that there are some that are not abulatory, trapped and unable to get to help, but it isn't any more likely that the police will find them before the coast guard will.

On the other hand, there have been no reinforcements sent in to maintain/restore law and order. With the limited manpower he has, he is choosing to have police focus on law and order and let the other agencies push the search and rescue efforts.

It isn't property over lives, it's order over anarchy.

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 08:29 AM
Here are about 30 Katrina stories consolidated for your convenience.


http://www.glennbeck.com/page2/index.shtml

Gaviidae
September 2nd, 2005, 08:50 AM
So I guess the mayor is more interested in saving property than in saving people.

You have guessed incorrectly. As others have said there are snipers shooting at people and police. Having rescue workers killed is not saving people. They ignored the looting for as long as they could but it just kept escalating and now the police are outgunned.

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 09:00 AM
I was just thinking about this situation some more. There is a time to make excuses for people and to try to understand where they are coming from. I do that a lot. I try to understand why a certain mindset was formed and what were the contributing causes of bad behavior. But at some point, making excuses for people makes us enablers. Many who have been involved with alcoholics or other addicts know what an enabler is. And if we make excuses for behavior like shooting at rescue helicopters we become enablers.What I'm seeing in new Orleans is what I believe to be an endemic problem being brought to light by extraordinary circumstances. As long as all these poor people were tucked away in their run-down neighborhoods, mostly praying on each other, and willing to accept the pittance we give them in leu of a real job (that we will not give them) then we could pretty much pretend that they don't exist, and that they don't resent our laws and our police and our white faces and our whole social structure for what we've been doing to them. We can spew platitudes about pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps and all that and we can ignore the fact that we wouldn't even let them have the boots. We ignore the fact that our whole government and social system in this country is intent on helping the "right people" get rich, and stay rich, while just placating and exploiting everyone else.

Then something like this disaster comes, and strips away our pretty facade of freedom and justice and fairness, and we're forced to see what our system has really been doing to people, and what they have become as a result. And we REALLY don't want to be seeing this. We really don't want to see that the reason we have so much is because so many others have so little. And we really don't want to see that we're no more deserving of what we have then they are. So we do what we've always done. We hate them. We hate them for representing the fruits of our own greed. And we blame their suffering on them, so we can pretend it's not our fault. We even tell ourselves that it's good that they suffer, that it will teach them to be stonger and to become aggressive and greedy (we call it "hard-working") like us. But even when they do, we still don't like 'em. We still don't want them around. They still remind us of our own selfishness. This is especially true of people of color. Just their physical appearance reminds us of what an unfair advantage we've had, and how we don't really deserve to have so much more just because we're white.

The more we try to hide from what we've done to other people in this country and around the world through our greed, the more we want to eliminate them as the evidence against us. We hate the poor because we cause them. We hate the poor because they shove our greed and our guilt back in our faces just by their existing, and moreso by their suffering.

We hate those looters in New Orleans because we know that we helped create them. We know that they're stealing that stuff because they can't get any other way. And we hate them because we know that we're no better than they are. The only difference is that we get our loot by writing the laws and using them to our advantage, and to the disadvantage of the poor. And we hate them because we know that they know it.

I think it's good that America is finally getting to see it's own citizens wallowing in filth and greed and lawlessness. We usually keep this sort of thing pleasantly hidden behind corporate facades and locked away in "the projects". Thanks to a disasterous hurricane, our pretty facades have been stripped away, and we're seeing the reality of America. We're seeing the reality of our racism, and our greed, and love of violence.

Take a good look. I'm sure we'll be sweeping it under the rug just as soon as we can.

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 09:02 AM
You have guessed incorrectly. As others have said there are snipers shooting at people and police. Having rescue workers killed is not saving people. They ignored the looting for as long as they could but it just kept escalating and now the police are outgunned.The looting has nothing to do with the snipers. If the snipers are the problem, then the mayor should send the police in to stop the snipers. Why is he sending in the police to stop the looters?

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 09:03 AM
He's doing both.

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 09:10 AM
I think if you had heard the mayor's sound clips from a radio interview last night you may reconsider this. Clearly he was frustrated to near the breaking point.He should be. He was happily ignoring all these poor people and now the whole world is seeing what his city is really made of. Yeah, I bet he's frustrated. New Orleans has been projecting it's disneyland/marti-gras image to the tourists for years, and hiding all those poor people out of sight and out of the downtown and away from the mansions on St. Charles Ave. Now the jigs up, the facade's in ruins, and we're seeing the other side of a big american city.

I live in Chicago. You can't even imagine what would happen in this city if it's infrastructure were to collapse.

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 09:12 AM
I live in Chicago. You can't even imagine what would happen in this city if it's infrastructure were to collapse.

I can. The blacks would loot and riot. :mrt:

HisLight
September 2nd, 2005, 09:26 AM
He should be. He was happily ignoring all these poor people and now the whole world is seeing what his city is really made of. Yeah, I bet he's frustrated. New Orleans has been projecting it's disneyland/marti-gras image to the tourists for years, and hiding all those poor people out of sight and out of the downtown and away from the mansions on St. Charles Ave. Now the jigs up, the facade's in ruins, and we're seeing the other side of a big american city.

I live in Chicago. You can't even imagine what would happen in this city if it's infrastructure were to collapse.

The mayor of New Orleans has done no more or less than any mayor of an urban city to deal with the poor. New Orleans was not prepared for this catastrophe. No city in America is.

I live in the area that was affected by the three day power outage here in the midwest. Due to some unusual circumstances I knew within moments of the outage that we had a major problem and not a local outage. People behaved like animals over gasoline. People panicked over water. That was a minor inconvenience compared to what the people from New Orleans to Mobile are dealing with. I truly cannot imagine, nor do I want to.

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 09:37 AM
The mayor of New Orleans has done no more or less than any mayor of an urban city to deal with the poor. New Orleans was not prepared for this catastrophe. No city in America is.

I live in the area that was affected by the three day power outage here in the midwest. Due to some unusual circumstances I knew within moments of the outage that we had a major problem and not a local outage. People behaved like animals over gasoline. People panicked over water. That was a minor inconvenience compared to what the people from New Orleans to Mobile are dealing with. I truly cannot imagine, nor do I want to.I'm not claiming that the mayor of New Orleans is any different from any other mayor in America. And if such a disaster struck any other cities or towns, here, the result would be much the same. That's my point. This is what America is. And I think it's good that we get a good look at it, because we're usually hiding this stuff behind the BS facade of freedom and justice and commerce and fair play and the illusion that we're so much better than this.

Gaviidae
September 2nd, 2005, 09:46 AM
The looting has nothing to do with the snipers. If the snipers are the problem, then the mayor should send the police in to stop the snipers. Why is he sending in the police to stop the looters?

The looting does have to do with the snipers. And it isn't just the snipers but regular shooters as well that caused the problems.

1) The looters are stealing guns. Racks full of guns are being taken. That's how the police became overgunned.
2) The looters are creating a sense of lawlessness that incites riots and snipers.
3) The looters are doing actual shooting. Did you not hear about the cop that was shot in the head by looters?

beanieboy
September 2nd, 2005, 09:57 AM
The "looters" are not most people.
The police said that they are dealing with the same amount of criminals as they would be without the storm. However, in the first stages, the criminals that they usually dealt with took advantage of the situation. But as the flood waters poured in, they said people were taking food, not TVs.

They interviewed one policewoman. They asked about the looting, and she said, "What do you expect people to do? There are no people in the stores. They are no ATMS. There is no electricity. People are just taking what they can to live. People are taking food, not TVS. You call it looting. I call it survival."

They also pointed out that many stores had to give away food once they lost electricity, and that most stores were wiped out in terms of supplies.

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 09:57 AM
The looting does have to do with the snipers. And it isn't just the snipers but regular shooters as well that caused the problems.

1) The looters are stealing guns. Racks full of guns are being taken. That's how the police became overgunned.
2) The looters are creating a sense of lawlessness that incites riots and snipers.
3) The looters are doing actual shooting. Did you not hear about the cop that was shot in the head by looters?As of last night, there was no cop shot in the head. There was one cop with a self-inflicted accidental gunshot wound. I haven't seen the news today.

The situation has devolved into total anarchy, and looting is a minor aspect of the whole scenario. It will now take a massive show of force to restore order, I agree, and more people will die as a result. But it's all part of a whole. Everyone wants to single out looting, or the fact that the looters are mostly black, etc. But what you're seeing is the result of a whole set of causes that have been there all along. And you can even see these causes in the responses here on TOL, and in the responses of the mayor and the police.

I think we're so focussed on the looting and sniping because we really want to ignore all the other shocking realities that this situation is shoving in front of our faces.

servent101
September 2nd, 2005, 10:05 AM
PureX
to ignore all the other shocking realities that this situation is shoving in front of our faces.

Your welcome to expand here a little - enlighten us please, if you will.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 10:18 AM
As of last night, there was no cop shot in the head. There was one cop with a self-inflicted accidental gunshot wound. I haven't seen the news today.

The situation has devolved into total anarchy, and looting is a minor aspect of the whole scenario. It will now take a massive show of force to restore order, I agree, and more people will die as a result. But it's all part of a whole. Everyone wants to single out looting, or the fact that the looters are mostly black, etc. But what you're seeing is the result of a whole set of causes that have been there all along. And you can even see these causes in the responses here on TOL, and in the responses of the mayor and the police.

I think we're so focussed on the looting and sniping because we really want to ignore all the other shocking realities that this situation is shoving in front of our faces.

I guarantee you that when the Feds start shooting looters, the libs will be the ones mentioning that they shot blacks.

You watch.....

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 10:18 AM
PureX

Your welcome to expand here a little - enlighten us please, if you will.

With Christ's Love

Servent101see post #109 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=855158&postcount=109)

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 10:19 AM
I guarantee you that when the Feds start shooting looters, the libs will be the ones mentioning that they shot blacks.

You watch.....

:Grizzly: :mrt:

Gaviidae
September 2nd, 2005, 11:01 AM
As of last night, there was no cop shot in the head. There was one cop with a self-inflicted accidental gunshot wound. I haven't seen the news today.

The situation has devolved into total anarchy, and looting is a minor aspect of the whole scenario. It will now take a massive show of force to restore order, I agree, and more people will die as a result. But it's all part of a whole. Everyone wants to single out looting, or the fact that the looters are mostly black, etc. But what you're seeing is the result of a whole set of causes that have been there all along. And you can even see these causes in the responses here on TOL, and in the responses of the mayor and the police.

I think we're so focussed on the looting and sniping because we really want to ignore all the other shocking realities that this situation is shoving in front of our faces.

I hadn't heard about the cop not being shot in the head but it doesn't really matter if it's fact or not. The authorities who made the decision thought it was fact.

I've read your post 109 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=855158&postcount=109) and it's a good post. I don't agree with all of it but for the most part it is correct. However, I think what you're doing by stating that the mayor cares more about property than people is doing harm to the problem. Normally, I would be on your side of this argument but because you've made the derogatory statement about the mayor and caring about property over lives I end up discounting your ideas.

If we can't be honest in our disagreements then we end up becoming polarized. And that doesn't help anyone.

Here (http://www.blacknewsweekly.com/news179.html) is a great example of a polarizing article.

wickwoman
September 2nd, 2005, 11:12 AM
C'mon. This is not a white/black, lib/conservative thing. Why are we making it into that? This is a very tragic situation. It has nothing to do with color of skin. The cause of looting is not skin color, the cause of slow response is not skin color.

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 11:13 AM
Here (http://www.blacknewsweekly.com/news179.html) is a great example of a polarizing article.

I predicted this exact response, not that it was hard to. :doh:

Thanks for the link G, now I can keep my eye on the toublemakers and keep track of what they are up to.

Gaviidae
September 2nd, 2005, 01:09 PM
C'mon. This is not a white/black, lib/conservative thing. Why are we making it into that? This is a very tragic situation. It has nothing to do with color of skin. The cause of looting is not skin color, the cause of slow response is not skin color.

You're right but unfortunately it has or at least will become one. Especially now that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have gotten involved.

It stuns me the amount of blacks that are involved in this. Not just the looting but the evacuation in general. Perhaps it's because I'm living in white America where there are almost no blacks and the few there are usually are upper income. So seeing that many blacks is foreign to me but I've tried to watch carefully and there are very few whites in the crowds.

New Orleans was 2/3 black. Which means that even if blacks are twice as likely to be poor whites should still make up 25% of the evacuees. Even if it's three times as likely it's still 17% would be white. The pictures I see do not show even 10% as white.

This isn't strictly about being poor. It has, unfortunately, something to do with race.

I don't know what that something is exactly or even if I'm just perceiving something that isn't really there. But it's what I see when I watch the news of down there.

But like you said, none of this matters at this time (or perhaps ever). It's simply a human tragedy.

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 02:54 PM
New Orleans was 2/3 black. Which means that even if blacks are twice as likely to be poor whites should still make up 25% of the evacuees. Even if it's three times as likely it's still 17% would be white. The pictures I see do not show even 10% as white.Then it would appear that blacks in New Orleans must be more than three times as likely to be poor, than whites. Do you think that racism could have something to do with this strikingly high percentage?

I've been to New Orleans several times. White people do live there. According to statistics, they make up a little less that a third of the population. But they make up the top third of the economic scale. And when the evacuation order was given, they were the most able to leave. They had cars, and they had the extra cash and credit cards to help them deal with an emergency. In fact, two thirds of the population of New Orleans left before the hurricane hit. And you can bet that the two thirds that left were the welthier two thirds of the economic scale. So what you're seeing on TV are the people who were left. You're seeing the poorest third of the population, which is overwhelmingly black.

How do we explain the fact that almost every poor person in the city of New Orleans is black, unless we say that it's the effect of racism? Can you think of any other explanation for such an overwhelming correlation between poverty and skin color? Do you think people with black skin are stupid, or lazy, and just don't want to work? Or do you think most black people are just as intelligent and willing to work as anyone else, but that they can't get the jobs? Why do you think they can't get the jobs?

I think every one of us knows exactly why all the poor people in New Orleans, and is so many other cities in America, are black. We're just trying really hard not to acknowledge it.

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 03:06 PM
How do we explain the fact that almost every poor person in the city of New Orleans is black, unless we say that it's the effect of racism?

The reason is liberalism, which is, in effect, racism.

Gaviidae
September 2nd, 2005, 03:30 PM
Then it would appear that blacks in New Orleans must be more than three times as likely to be poor, than whites. Do you think that racism could have something to do with this strikingly high percentage?

How do we explain the fact that almost every poor person in the city of New Orleans is black, unless we say that it's the effect of racism?

Is it a fact? Is almost every poor person in New Orleans black? The stats I can find show that blacks make half of what whites make per family and 1/3 per capita (meaning they have larger families).

With 2/3 of the city being black including the mayor it seems like a bit of a stretch to blame the situation all on racism.

Gaviidae
September 2nd, 2005, 03:39 PM
Then it would appear that blacks in New Orleans must be more than three times as likely to be poor, than whites. Do you think that racism could have something to do with this strikingly high percentage?

Reading some more, it would appear that 98% of the residents of the worst damaged area were blacks. That would certainly account for the lack of diversity amongst the evacuees, especially in the news footage. Certainly makes more sense than all poor people in New Orleans are black so the only people left behind were black.

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 03:42 PM
It doesn't excuse looting and rioting.

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 06:23 PM
Is it a fact? Is almost every poor person in New Orleans black? The stats I can find show that blacks make half of what whites make per family and 1/3 per capita (meaning they have larger families).

With 2/3 of the city being black including the mayor it seems like a bit of a stretch to blame the situation all on racism.So what are you blaming it on? Are you saying they make as much money as everyone else, but they have too many kids? Are you saying that the people we're seeing on TV that were stuck in New Orleans weren't poor, but were just too dumb to leave town? How do you explain that almost everyone who did not leave New Orleans before the storm was black, if you don't think the reason is that they were too poor to afford to get out?

The truth is right in front of your face. It was the poor that could not afford to leave. And they are overwhelmingly African American. How do we explain this except through racism? What other explanation is there for this overwhelming correlation?

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 06:25 PM
Reading some more, it would appear that 98% of the residents of the worst damaged area were blacks. That would certainly account for the lack of diversity amongst the evacuees, especially in the news footage. Certainly makes more sense than all poor people in New Orleans are black so the only people left behind were black.Right. Now, how do you explain the fact that 98% of the poorest people in New Orleans were black, when black people only make up 67% of the total population?

drbrumley
September 2nd, 2005, 06:28 PM
Right. Now, how do you explain the fact that 98% of the poorest people in New Orleans were black, when black people only make up 67% of the total population?
Liberals and there misguided philosophies.

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 06:44 PM
Liberals and there misguided philosophies.OK. Let's see you explin this idiotic comment, now .....

drbrumley
September 2nd, 2005, 07:07 PM
OK. Let's see you explin this idiotic comment, now .....
Liberals think nothing of spending more and more money of domestic issues – they see themselves as “providers” of the common good. Conseratives generally oppose more programs, large government and the concept of being “providers.” Its cute, and stresses this philosophic difference between the two sides. Conseratives believe in the adage, "Give a man a fish, and he has but one meal; teach him to fish, and he will eat forever." Liberals want to hand-feed people, making them slaves to the government's dole. Liberals love to pit one American against the other on issues of taxes, social security, health issues, diversity and crime. Liberals have played the class warfare card once too often, and we believe that most Americans are wising up to that divisive game.

Liberals could, if Liberals love blacks so much, move to any black ghetto today, this very minute. But they don't and they won't. Liberals talk the integration talk, but Liberals do not walk the integration walk. And, again,Liberals won't and never will.

This hypocrisy is typical of Liberal Americans whose housing patterns are almost perfectly apartheid.

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 07:19 PM
What does any of this have to do with the fact that virtually all the poor people in New Orleans, and in many other cities, are black? I've heard all this BS about giving men fishing poles and whatnot, before, and mostly it's just stupid platitudes and excuses. So what's the conservative solution ... give them nothing and let them starve, or join a fight that's rigged against them for a piece of the economic pie?

Get real.

There is plenty of greed and stupidity on both sides. This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives. It's about racism, and how racism translates into poverty. Let's see you address that.

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 07:25 PM
:cow:

Free enterprise is open to every American. The problem is that you libs perpetuate the concept that blacks are entitled to something beyond the range of freedom, free enterprise and the direct rewards of hard work.

If anybody is to blame for the looters, rioters, rapists and murdererous blacks, it's the Liberal demo-commies.

You guys are the scurge of America, freedom and all that is good.

drbrumley
September 2nd, 2005, 07:28 PM
Yes I addressed that. Most liberals are racist. They are the ones who came up with the idea to put them in ghettos. They are the ones who have hood winked the blacks to the lifestyle they have. They are the ones who say to the black community, "let us take care of you" These are all liberal ideas. BilltBob has a point. The blacks are different then whites. Whites, for the most part, dont need government handouts. They dont need the government to set up special places for them to live. One reason , maybe, is there are more of us then them, so its earier to round them up, just like the indians. Anyhow, you ask "What does any of this have to do with the fact that virtually all the poor people in New Orleans, and in many other cities, are black?" I just explained it.

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 07:28 PM
There is nothing free about enterprise in America. Especially when racism stacks the deck against you.

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 07:44 PM
There is nothing free about enterprise in America. Especially when racism stacks the deck against you.


:cow:

Typical liberal victimization. :yawn:

Tell that to the millions of successful black Americans, then get back to us........

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 07:46 PM
Yes I addressed that. Most liberals are racist. Just as many conservatives are racist as liberals. The truth is that most white people are racist. And although they won't admit it, it shows up in their actions all the time, and that includes the actions of politicans and city planners. Your whining about liberals is a pathetic attempt at avoiding the obvious.

BilltBob has a point. The blacks are different then whites. Whites, for the most part, dont need government handouts. They dont need the government to set up special places for them to live. One reason , maybe, is there are more of us then them, so its earier to round them up, just like the indians. BillyBob is a racist and a fool.

Whites need fewer handouts because they already own everything. They already have all the good jobs, and the valuable property, and the positions of power so they can write the laws in their own favor. Black people are mostly locked out of the economics game, and they know it. Oh, sure, if a black man or woman acts white enough and doesn't do anything to upset the white culture's comfort zone, then maybe one or two of them will be let into the race for the brass ring on an equal basis, but most black people won't acquesce like so many organ-grinder monkeys, and so they frighten the white power class, and they are resented and looked down on for it. In a word, they're resented because they won't play the "white way is the right way" game. And they're locked out of the system as a result. And everyone knows it. They're given the worst jobs if they're given any job at all. They're given the worst of everything if they're given anything at all. And then we blame it all on them, because they won't be white.

It's not about liberals and conservatives. It's all about racism.

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 07:50 PM
BillyBob is a racist and a fool.

I am neither. You, on the other hand are a liberal and a racist.




It's not about liberals and conservatives. It's all about racism.

Liberalism perpetuates racism! :doh:

drbrumley
September 2nd, 2005, 07:51 PM
Blacks dont act white enough? Put the crack pipe down. Whats the "white" way to act?

You talk about racist, your demonstrating it beautifully.

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 08:03 PM
Whats the "white" way to act?Any way that doesn't threaten the comfort zone of the white people in power. Mostly it means dress, talk, think, and act unthreateningly "like your white bosses want you to act". You know, like Colin Powell or Condi Rice. Most black people can't or won't do that, and we fear and resent them because of it.

drbrumley
September 2nd, 2005, 08:03 PM
[www.CapMag.com]

If you listened to the rhetoric of black politicians and civil rights leaders, dating back to the Reagan years, you would have been convinced that surely by now black Americans would be back on the plantation. According to them, President Reagan, and later Presidents Bush I and II, would turn back the clock on civil rights. They'd appoint "new racists" dressed in three-piece suits to act through the courts and administrative agencies to reverse black civil rights and economic gains. We can now recognize this rhetoric as the political equivalent of the "rope-a-dope."

As my colleague Tom Sowell pointed out in a recent column, "Liberals, Race and History," if the Democratic party's share of the black vote ever fell to even 70 percent, it's not likely that the Democrats would ever win the White House or Congress again. The strategy liberal Democrats have chosen, to prevent loss of the black vote, is to keep blacks paranoid and in a constant state of fear. But is it fear of racists, or being driven back to the plantation, that should be a top priority for blacks? Let's look at it.

Only 30 to 40 percent of black males graduate from high school.

Many of those who do graduate emerge with reading and math skills of a white seventh- or eighth-grader. This is true in cities where a black is mayor, a black is superintendent of schools and the majority of principals and teachers are black. It's also true in cities where the per pupil education expenditures are among the highest in the nation.

Across the U.S., black males represent up to 70 percent of prison populations. Are they in prison for crimes against whites? To the contrary, their victims are primarily other blacks. Department of Justice statistics for 2001 show that in nearly 80 percent of violent crimes against blacks, both the victim and the perpetrator were the same race. In other words, it's not Reaganites, Bush supporters, right-wing ideologues or the Klan causing blacks to live in fear of their lives and property and making their neighborhoods economic wastelands.

What about the decline of the black family? In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married.

Today, it's 56 percent. In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it's 70 percent. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925," "Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents." Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what's the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery -- a time of much greater discrimination and of much greater poverty? I think that a good part of the answer is there were no welfare and Great Society programs.

Since black politicians and the civil rights establishment preach victimhood to blacks, I'd prefer that they be more explicit when they appear in public fora. Were they to be so, saying racists are responsible for black illegitimacy, blacks preying on other blacks and black family breakdown, their victimhood message would be revealed as idiotic. But being so explicit is not as far-fetched as one might think. In a campaign speech before a predominantly black audience, in reference to so many blacks in prison, presidential candidate John Kerry said, "That's unacceptable, but it's not their fault."

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 08:07 PM
I am neither. I've seen at least six posts in the last 36 hours from you spouting off about how we should all notice that the looters are all black and how they should all be shot, while purposely and repeatedly ignoring every other aspect of the situation. Those were the posts of a fool and a racist.

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 08:12 PM
[www.CapMag.com] ... OK, so you can cut and paste essays about how liberals are racist. Now lets see you go find and paste an essay about how conservatives are racists.

Or maybe you don't believe that conservatives are ever racist. If not, then you're a fool, too.

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 08:17 PM
I've seen at least six posts in the last 36 hours from you spouting off about how we should all notice that the looters are all black

That happens to be the reality of the situation.


and how they should all be shot,

I would call for the shooting of any looter, regardless of race. That proves that I am not a racists. Of course, you are more interested in clouding the discussion with accusations of racism than dealing with reality.


while purposely and repeatedly ignoring every other aspect of the situation.

Such as WHAT?????


Those were the posts of a fool and a racist.

Pointing out the obvious to a liberal is going to be met with personal derision because reality does not support the liberal agenda. It's their only defense. :loser:

I'll wait for your apology...[but I don't expect it]

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 08:20 PM
Such as WHAT?????That willful ignorance works really well for you, doesn't it.

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 08:23 PM
That willful ignorance works really well for you, doesn't it.

I'll take that as a WIN! :banana:

truthteller86
September 2nd, 2005, 08:31 PM
:madmad: :bang: :madmad: - The Mayor of New Orleans in response to the lack of response !

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 08:32 PM
I'll take that as a WIN! :banana:

:darwinsm:

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 08:41 PM
:madmad: :bang: :madmad: - The Mayor of New Orleans in response to the lack of response !Yeah, I heard him earlier, today. He finally lost patience with bureaucratic incompetence. Who can blame him? We spent all this money on "homeland security" to help prepare us for emergencies and all it seems to have succeeded in doing was waste a lot of money and add another useless layer of bureaucracy to the response process.

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 08:44 PM
Yeah, I heard him earlier, today. He finally lost patience with bureaucratic incompetence. Who can blame him? We spent all this money on "homeland security" to help prepare us for emergencies and all it seems to have succeeded in doing was waste a lot of money and add another useless layer of bureaucracy to the response process.


:darwinsm:

Your partisan 'slip' is showing! :down:

And you call me a fool...:nono:

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 08:53 PM
Your partisan 'slip' is showing!Gettin' a little turned on, are ya'?


Actually, the whole homeland security thing would be just as big a useless bamboozle if it were instituted by democrats. Both parties think that making more government and wasting lots of money is the solution to everything.

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 08:57 PM
Gettin' a little turned on, are ya'?

:nono:




Actually, the whole homeland security thing would be just as big a useless bamboozle if it were instituted by democrats. Both parties think that making more government and wasting lots of money is the solution to everything.

Then why did you mention it?

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 09:01 PM
Then why did you mention it?Because it's the reason that the New Orleans mayor lost his temper on the radio, today. And it's why I don't blame him for doing it.

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 09:03 PM
Because it's the reason that the New Orleans mayor lost his temper on the radio, today. And it's why I don't blame him for doing it.


You're kidding?

PureX
September 2nd, 2005, 09:07 PM
This bantering is a waste of time. Have a good evening.

BillyBob
September 2nd, 2005, 09:11 PM
Good night, commie! :wave2:

I guess there is nothing to be gained by pointing out that you started it.

servent101
September 3rd, 2005, 08:45 AM
PureX
What I'm seeing in new Orleans is what I believe to be an endemic problem being brought to light by extraordinary circumstances. As long as all these poor people were tucked away in their run-down neighborhoods, mostly praying on each other, and willing to accept the pittance we give them in leu of a real job (that we will not give them) then we could pretty much pretend that they don't exist, and that they don't resent our laws and our police and our white faces and our whole social structure for what we've been doing to them.

How do you provide a job for people if they as you say are prone to
mostly praying on each other (I gather this means stealing and hurting one another to somehow get what they think they want)

And as far as
that they don't resent our laws and our police and our white faces and our whole social structure for what we've been doing to them.

Well they are free to read – and there are libraries, and there are people who crawl out of that lifestyle – both black and white.



We can spew platitudes about pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps and all that and we can ignore the fact that we wouldn't even let them have the boots.

This is somewhat true – people need “something”… but to some degree it is the school of hard knocks that helps people to decide to find another “way” at looking at life and doing what they have done in the past.


We ignore the fact that our whole government and social system in this country is intent on helping the "right people" get rich, and stay rich, while just placating and exploiting everyone else. I do agree with you – that there are files kept on people by certain concealed groups – even making files on grade 3 students – but this is not the Government nor us. It is possible for a very small percent of the population to do a whole lot of social engineering – but it is not the government nor social system.


Then something like this disaster comes, and strips away our pretty facade of freedom and justice and fairness, and we're forced to see what our system has really been doing to people, and what they have become as a result. And we REALLY don't want to be seeing this. We really don't want to see that the reason we have so much is because so many others have so little.

yes there are a lot of people who have so little – but if you look at percentages – almost ¾ of the people in America have their own homes or are in the process of making mortgage payments …. As far as the looters –most likely less that ½ of 1% of the people will be doing the looting – but since there is a few million people there – that one half of one per-cent does seem to be a lot of people.


And we really don't want to see that we're no more deserving of what we have then they are. So we do what we've always done. We hate them. We hate them for representing the fruits of our own greed. And we blame their suffering on them, so we can pretend it's not our fault. We even tell ourselves that it's good that they suffer, that it will teach them to be stonger and to become aggressive and greedy (we call it "hard-working") like us. But even when they do, we still don't like 'em. We still don't want them around. They still remind us of our own selfishness. This is especially true of people of color. Just their physical appearance reminds us of what an unfair advantage we've had, and how we don't really deserve to have so much more just because we're white.

Just as there are those few who are looters there are those few who are as you say
They still remind us of our own selfishness. This is especially true of people of color. Just their physical appearance reminds us of what an unfair advantage we've had, and how we don't really deserve to have so much more just because we're white

So what you say is true… it is just not representing the majority of people – and for most people regardless of race or gender our worst enemies are ourselves. If we could only learn how to deal with our lives in some sort of cognitive positive self talk and gain a little wisdom and knowledge what barriers are ahead of us individually would be easily overcome.

Your comment here


I think it's good that America is finally getting to see it's own citizens wallowing in filth and greed and lawlessness. I think sums up your post – as it is you who is doing this wallowing in filth – and I hope you do not do as what you perceive your fellow citizens are going to do

Take a good look. I'm sure PureX will be sweeping it under the rug just as soon as he can.

PureX – as I told you before – we become what we perceive around us to a great extent – see the total picture, see the good in your fellow human beings… you were really wallowing in the mire there with that post. Snap out of it!

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

BillyBob
September 3rd, 2005, 09:50 AM
How do you [anyone defending the looters] explain the fact that Cops were looting? How do you explain the fact that the only cops seen looting were black?

PureX
September 3rd, 2005, 10:15 AM
PureX

How do you provide a job for people if they as you say are prone to: "mostly praying on each other" (I gather this means stealing and hurting one another to somehow get what they think they want)?Please understand that this problem is now endemic. We have created generations (ie: a whole sub-culture) of people who are convinced that they're locked out of the the nation's economy as a whole, for life. There will be no convincing many of them otherwise, at this point, and were we to have experienced what they've experienced we would be no different. And there will be no way of changing the violent and self-destructive response to this hopelessness that some have fallen into, either. What has been done has been done. But we can at least be honest enough to admit that much of what has been done, has been done by our own greed and prejudice as much as by the failing of others.

What we can do now, is stop supporting the conditions that have created the problem. We need to look inside ourselves, and recognize that we are greedy and prejudiced and frightened by anyone that looks "different" from us, and that because we are this way, we have created a sub-culture of anger, and resentment, and hopelessness and despair among African Americans. THEY ARE NOT IMAGINING OUR PREJUDICE, IT IS REAL. They may be using it as an excuse for not trying harder to overcome the obstacles that we're placing before them, but frankly, I think it's outrageous that we should accuse them of this when it's we who are presenting the obstacles in the first place.

The problem isn't just that we won't give them decent jobs, the problem is WHY we won't give them decent jobs. And that's where the solution has to begin - with why we will not give them decent jobs. Until we get honest about this, the problem will persist, and it will mostly be our own fault.


And as far as "... that they ... resent our laws and our police and our white faces and our whole social structure for what we've been doing to them". Well they are free to read – and there are libraries, and there are people who crawl out of that lifestyle – both black and white. Yes, there are. But we make it so ridiculously difficult that only a few will have the strength and determination and ability and luck to make it out. The rest will give up in the face of such constant negation, and they will fall pray to all the usual problems that come with chronic poverty. And all it's so unnecessary. It's the result of nothing but stupid, blind, fear and prejudice.

This is somewhat true – people need “something”… but to some degree it is the school of hard knocks that helps people to decide to find another “way” at looking at life and doing what they have done in the past.The "school of hard knocks" will inspire some to try harder, and to be tougher (which can have very bad effects of it's own later on) but it will also destroy many. This is not an abstract discussion, people suffer and die horribly every day in this country from grinding poverty. The "bootstrap school of hard knocks" platitudes are not changing this reality at all. In fact all they do is give the people who are responsible for much of this suffering a pathetic excuse to blame their victims; one that they latch onto tenaciously and reiterate over and over and over again, not surprisingly. Maybe if they say it enough times they'll even manage to convince themselves of it. But it's BS. And it always was.

I do agree with you – that there are files kept on people by certain concealed groups – even making files on grade 3 students – but this is not the Government nor us. It is possible for a very small percent of the population to do a whole lot of social engineering – but it is not the government nor social system. I wasn't referring to any secret conspiracies or covert social engineering. I was referring to how the people in power in business are of the same race, creed, and social classes as the people in government, and how every decision they make, consciously and unconsciously is designed to keep them in these positions of power, and to keep everyone else out. And the more "different" you are from "them", the more obstacles they will put between you and those positions of power. Skin color seems to weigh in heavily as a "difference", which is why so many European "outsiders" have eventually been let into the power elite while people of color remain locked out.

yes there are a lot of people who have so little – but if you look at percentages – almost ¾ of the people in America have their own homes or are in the process of making mortgage payments …. As far as the looters –most likely less that ½ of 1% of the people will be doing the looting – but since there is a few million people there – that one half of one per-cent does seem to be a lot of people.Of course it's the poor who are doing the looting. They have the most need, and the most resentment against the system that has helped to keep them poor all their lives, and they have the least respect for this system's laws - especially property laws. The rich don't loot because they already own everything they need, and they know they can always get more. The property laws are designed to help them keep what they already have. Why should someone who has nothing and knows that they never will have anything care about the protection of property? And the fact that so many of the poor are also black, is the evidence of American racism staring us all right in the face. And just look at us all squirming and blaming and making excuses; trying to ignore the obvious.

So what you say is true… it is just not representing the majority of people – and for most people regardless of race or gender our worst enemies are ourselves. If we could only learn how to deal with our lives in some sort of cognitive positive self talk and gain a little wisdom and knowledge what barriers are ahead of us individually would be easily overcome.I agree that we are our own worst enemies, but when we're also the power elite, our flaws destroy other people, instead of ourselves. So I'm not going to allow personal weakness as an excuse for people who hold the economic and political power. They wanted the power, they wanted the wealth, and they knew they didn't deserve it any more than anyone else. Yet they hoarded it and protected it for themselves, and shut everyone else out as best they could. They have no excuse for the harm they've done to others. And to the extent that we support them, we have no excuse, either.

This is what I want Americans to see in this disaster ... themselves. Those people suffering from this disaster are us. They are our responsibility, both good and bad. We created New Orleans. The hurricane just stripped away the pretty facade that's been hiding what we've been doing behind it.

servent101
September 4th, 2005, 11:34 AM
PureX
This is what I want Americans to see in this disaster ... themselves. Those people suffering from this disaster are us. They are our responsibility, both good and bad. We created New Orleans. The hurricane just stripped away the pretty facade that's been hiding what we've been doing behind it.

Again - it is not real - what you say is indicative of a very small per-cent of people and in such a large population this does add up to a large number... but what you post here
So I'm not going to allow personal weakness as an excuse for people who hold the economic and political power. They wanted the power, they wanted the wealth, and they knew they didn't deserve it any more than anyone else. Yet they hoarded it and protected it for themselves, and shut everyone else out as best they could. They have no excuse for the harm they've done to others. And to the extent that we support them, we have no excuse, either. is just a hog wash - black wash (the opposite of white washing something) of the actual reality - and unfortunately anyone who believes you is probably going to take this as career advice anyways - how to get ahead in life... and then they go out and do those dispicable acts to your credit - and to credit of people who spout the same synical perspectives.

And although you start the paragraph with
I agree that we are our own worst enemies you don't do anything to suggest how and what we as people, black white or yellow, can do to stop being our own worst enemies - instead you give a good example of what people who are their own worst enemies believe about society - they simply black wash everything, and yes some do white wash everything - but the truth is not as you "paint it". Yes there are some as you say - but they are few, and if someone believes the whole world is like that - they will subconsciously make their expectations come true. Their is something to be said for consistency in society - but in the 1900's this was more of a problem, but today we are becoming a more progressive society and concepts like your preach simply are not that predominant anymore. Yes there is "some" of what you say happening - but I disagree on the extent of the problem. The world is getting smaller and smaller and the sooner we start to realize how to make that 97% of the brain that we do not use work for us the better. These people who are Black are at an advantage... they know they have to be smarter, faster, wiser and knowledgeable than the ordinary person - but who tells them that? - Not you... you just make the matter worse by saying that there is no way out for most of the Black people. The more people like you they have in their corner - the worse they are off.

I do not deny that the problems Black people face exist - it is just that the reality is that they have to accept that they have to be smarter, faster and more wiser and knowledgeable than the "average Joe" to be successful. In a way to have to activate that subconscious part of our minds... as necessity is the mother of invention - these people have the need to find the means to succeed - in a way counting themselves blessed for their disadvantage is an out and out right lie - but in the telling of the lie - the truth is that this is what activates that part of our mind that will help with the solving of the problem... if you get my jist?

Anyways most Americans do not mean to discriminate against Black people... yes they do at times and it almost takes a month of school to lean how not too - but the onus is on the Black people to step up to the plate and overcome – and they can either be thankful for that or be persuaded by the kind of apathy you apply which in my view anyways simply does the Black people no service whatsoever.

And yes I know it is insanity to ask Black people to be thankful for what they have endured… but this does release the 97% of the brain that we normally do not use so that we find the inspiration to overcome our trials.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

anna
September 4th, 2005, 11:55 AM
Hey Y'all,
I just heard that there will be a website called rescueparty.org It's a site that will enable victums of Katrina and people who want to help them to communicate with each other. There is also a segment on 60minuates tonight ( I think)that will feature segments from the film "New Orleans: A Natural History" by Walter Williams( a native New Orleanean filmaker and creator of Mr. Bill).

:rain:

Gaviidae
September 5th, 2005, 02:53 PM
Reading some more, it would appear that 98% of the residents of the worst damaged area were blacks. That would certainly account for the lack of diversity amongst the evacuees, especially in the news footage. Certainly makes more sense than all poor people in New Orleans are black so the only people left behind were black.


Right. Now, how do you explain the fact that 98% of the poorest people in New Orleans were black, when black people only make up 67% of the total population?

What?!? :think: I said 98% of the people in the parish that was hit hardest by the flood were black. Please don't twist my words...

Gaviidae
September 5th, 2005, 03:00 PM
Any way that doesn't threaten the comfort zone of the white people in power. Mostly it means dress, talk, think, and act unthreateningly "like your white bosses want you to act". You know, like Colin Powell or Condi Rice. Most black people can't or won't do that, and we fear and resent them because of it.

But then you go and blame racism for their lack of upward mobility. This has nothing to do with race (at least not this particular issue). It's about culture. White's who tatoo their face and wear outrageously spiky hair or whatever noncomformist thing they choose also have limited avenues for monetary advancement.

It's not about race, it's about acting, as you say, "white" not about being born white.

When in Rome do as the Romans. When in corporate America do as the corporate Americans.

BillyBob
September 5th, 2005, 04:55 PM
Oh, so when you're in the ghetto, you must act like a......


:nono:

docrob57
September 5th, 2005, 04:56 PM
The looting part of this story is unbelievable.

So the question is, should they bother rebuilding New Orleans? It's just gonna happen again....and again....

Yeah gee, it's happened so many times before. Like . . . . . ?

Gaviidae
September 5th, 2005, 05:15 PM
Yeah gee, it's happened so many times before. Like . . . . . ?

Like in 1965. But more importantly, do you think this will never happen again? Hurricanes will no longer appear in the coast and the Mississippi will remain in it's banks?

Fact is, hurricanes that would have as much if not more destructive power to New Orleans come very close every decade. In the past, they've missed. Even Katrina actually missed. But someday one will hit just right. And that'll be nothing compared to Katrina.

Out here we have something you've probably heard of; Mt. St. Helens. It exploded 25 years ago. It happened last 3,000 years ago. Less time than the last time a hurrican blew through New Orleans. Yet, we have not built around the blast zone. Aruments like yours could say it's only happened once and we could build homes all over the blast zone. But luckily, there are people with more sense. It may be 3,000 more years before the next blast or it may be 3. But whatever it is, it will happen again and we shouldn't rebuild there.

I've heard it will cost $15+ billion to protect New Orleans. That's a lot of money for what has become a minor city.

BillyBob
September 5th, 2005, 06:36 PM
Yeah gee, it's happened so many times before. Like . . . . . ?

New Orleans has only been around for a couple hundred years.....the point is that Hurricanes will continue to hit and New Orleans is below sea level.....do the math.

How many more times should this happen before you agree that N.O. should be abandoned?

CrimsonHope
September 5th, 2005, 07:05 PM
Is anyone here going out to help anytime during this week over there? Or maybe a church nearby that is receiving help to sustain refugees? The reason I'm asking is because my girlfriend and I are interested in helping, just that she doesn't want to donate to organizations like the Red Cross because she thinks that maybe the money will not be used or spent some other way. (I truly doubt that that's true, but I can't move her from that position, LOL). So basically she wants to send the stuff directly, preferably in necessary items rather than money. Thanks guys.

anna
September 5th, 2005, 07:40 PM
I got this from the Berean Call website: :rain:

If you have good quality Bibles, please mail them directly to the address below.

Also, there is a good deal on KJV bibles at Christianbook.com. A case of 36 KJV Bibles is $54.99 (CBD Stock No: WW63325CS), or individual KJV Bibles are $1.99 (CBD Stock No: WW633253).

Have the Bibles shipped directly to:

Pastor Bruce Hollen
Calvary Chapel of the Woodlands
5 Silver Elm Place
The Woodlands, TX 77381

Jujubee
September 5th, 2005, 07:42 PM
Here is a link for Glenn Beck's website, he has quite a few articles [a couple dozen or so] on Katrine linked there. It's convenient.

There are articles about looting, suicides, transporting survivors to the Houston Astrodome, oil business etc.

http://www.glennbeck.com/page2/index.shtml

I am sorry who is Glenn Beck?

Army of One
September 5th, 2005, 07:52 PM
I am sorry who is Glenn Beck?:shocked: Actually I had no idea who he was until a co-worker told me about him about 6 months ago. He is a conservative radio talk show host. I've only listened to him briefly a few times, but he seems pretty entertaining.

Jujubee
September 5th, 2005, 07:56 PM
:shocked: Actually I had no idea who he was until a co-worker told me about him about 6 months ago. He is a conservative radio talk show host. I've only listened to him briefly a few times, but he seems pretty entertaining.

cool thanks... i am checking his website out!

wickwoman
September 6th, 2005, 07:16 AM
To respond to Purex's questioning of why black = poor in New Orleans. A large percentage of the black people in the south are poor because they are the descendants of a displaced African race used as slaves. Certainly, some of the blame can go to racism, but very much goes to the difficulty of going from a negative balance (being owned) to have nothing (being free but "equal") and then working your way up to having things and being able to support yourself. Only recently have equitable conditions given black people the opportunity to take advantage of things like education and a better life for themselves. But, still, their own cultural disadvantage is coming from a whole other culture and having the form a new culture for themselves through the hardships of slavery and then discrimination. It takes a very long time to pull yourself up from a negative balance. That's just mathematics. All of it cannot be blamed on racism. I think the majority of what you see now is the result of a displaced culture and the difficulties involved in forming a new way of relating to a foreign culture.

BillyBob
September 6th, 2005, 07:43 AM
:cow:

docrob57
September 6th, 2005, 08:15 AM
Like in 1965. But more importantly, do you think this will never happen again? Hurricanes will no longer appear in the coast and the Mississippi will remain in it's banks?

Fact is, hurricanes that would have as much if not more destructive power to New Orleans come very close every decade. In the past, they've missed. Even Katrina actually missed. But someday one will hit just right. And that'll be nothing compared to Katrina.

Out here we have something you've probably heard of; Mt. St. Helens. It exploded 25 years ago. It happened last 3,000 years ago. Less time than the last time a hurrican blew through New Orleans. Yet, we have not built around the blast zone. Aruments like yours could say it's only happened once and we could build homes all over the blast zone. But luckily, there are people with more sense. It may be 3,000 more years before the next blast or it may be 3. But whatever it is, it will happen again and we shouldn't rebuild there.

I've heard it will cost $15+ billion to protect New Orleans. That's a lot of money for what has become a minor city.

Hurricane Betsy did lots of damage, but it was nothing like this. In the coming months, I am afraid you will learn how minor the city in terms of the port, the energy industry, etc.

PureX
September 6th, 2005, 08:35 AM
It's not about race, it's about acting, as you say, "white" not about being born white.Wouldn't that essentially describe racism? It doesn't matter how a black man got black. What matters is that he is a black man and he acts like a black man. Yet he acts like a black man because he's black, and because white people have been oppressing people with black skin for a very long time. So long in fact that the man's actions (his un-white behavior) are in large part the result of this oppression. His identinty and personality becomes the identity and personality of a socially and economically oppressed man.

So it becomes a double edged sword. Black people have been oppressed so hard and for so long that they have actually developed their own sub-culture based on their having to live with these oppressive conditions. And then they are oppressed further because they have developed this sub-culture. So they get blamed for conditions that they did not create, and then this blame is used to justify perpetuating those same conditions. It's a self-sustaining cycle being imposed on them, that's very, very hard to escape. Meanwhile, one (white) immagrint group after another comes to the U.S., is first oppressed, and then accepted into the culture proper, while most blacks remain locked out even after centuries.

It's pretty hard to call this anything but blatent racism.


When in Rome do as the Romans. When in corporate America do as the corporate Americans.They were brought to "Rome" as slaves - they were NOT ALLOWED to do as the "Romans" were doing. And then because they were not "like the Romans" (how could they be?), they were denied full access even after they were supposedly "allowed" to become Romans. And they are being denied even today.

We "Romans" are racists, and our racism is insidious.

BillyBob
September 6th, 2005, 08:39 AM
If what you say is true, there would be no succesful blacks in this country.


Blacks have the same freedoms that whites do, bottom line.

PureX
September 6th, 2005, 08:43 AM
To respond to Purex's questioning of why black = poor in New Orleans. A large percentage of the black people in the south are poor because they are the descendants of a displaced African race used as slaves. Certainly, some of the blame can go to racism, but very much goes to the difficulty of going from a negative balance (being owned) to have nothing (being free but "equal") and then working your way up to having things and being able to support yourself. Only recently have equitable conditions given black people the opportunity to take advantage of things like education and a better life for themselves. But, still, their own cultural disadvantage is coming from a whole other culture and having the form a new culture for themselves through the hardships of slavery and then discrimination. It takes a very long time to pull yourself up from a negative balance. That's just mathematics. All of it cannot be blamed on racism. I think the majority of what you see now is the result of a displaced culture and the difficulties involved in forming a new way of relating to a foreign culture.Lots of white people came to the U.S. as indentured servants (slaves by a prettier name, but with a limited duration of enslavement), and they managed to work their way out of this "negative balance" within a generation or two. Sometimes they did so in a single lifetime. I think you're way underestimating the strength and pervasiveness of racism in this country.

PureX
September 6th, 2005, 08:46 AM
If what you say is true, there would be no succesful blacks in this country.That's just a stupid appeal to irrational extremism. When we're talking about many millions of people over hundreds of years, there will obviously be plenty of exceptions.

Blacks have the same freedoms that whites do, bottom line.Then how do you explain the fact that most of the poor people in America are black? Do you believe they want to be poor?

BillyBob
September 6th, 2005, 09:03 AM
That's just a stupid appeal to irrational extremism.

No, it's an observation which destroys your premise.



When we're talking about many millions of people over hundreds of years, there will obviously be plenty of exceptions.

Which again demonstrates that your premise is about as solid as the land New Orleans was built upon.



Then how do you explain the fact that most of the poor people in America are black?

It's part racial, part cultural and predominately lack of leadership.




Do you believe they want to be poor?

I believe plenty of them are unwilling to do what it takes NOT to be poor.

PureX
September 6th, 2005, 09:12 AM
I believe plenty of them are unwilling to do what it takes NOT to be poor.... Act like hand puppets for rich white people? Like Colin and Condi?

BillyBob
September 6th, 2005, 09:17 AM
... Act like hand puppets for rich white people? Like Colin and Condi?

See, it is people like you [lefties] who discourage self reliance and prosperity and reinforce dependency on the government. If any one reason were to be indentified as to why blacks are impoverished, it would be the liberal ideology that has been forced down their throats for the past hundred years.

:sozo: You guys are the culprits!!!!!

wickwoman
September 6th, 2005, 09:27 AM
It's not the liberal ideology exclusively. I will say, in part, that the whole idea that arose in the 60s and 70s among the psychological community which was to blame someone for your problems - your mother, your father, etc., is partially to blame. It's the same mentality that causes too many frivilous lawsuits. Too much time is spent looking for someone to blame than actually changing your circumstance. It's the idea that money makes a bad situation better, when it doesn't. It's the idea that descendants of slaves who have never been slaves deserve an apology from people who never enslaved them. It's unwillingness to live in the present. Some of the black people who work in places like McDonalds, Hardees, etc., around here have terrible attitudes. They are rude and hateful for no reason. People in the south get very tired of bad attitudes like that. And it only makes the situation worse. The idea that somebody owes you something just because your skin is a certain color is undermining.

Gaviidae
September 6th, 2005, 09:58 AM
Wouldn't that essentially describe racism?

Not by any definition of racism that I or the dictionary know. Racism is claiming that race accounts for the differences in us. My statement had nothing to do with race. It had to do with actions not genetics.

Gaviidae
September 6th, 2005, 10:08 AM
In the coming months, I am afraid you will learn how minor the city in terms of the port, the energy industry, etc.

I meant minor in the future, it was definitely a major city in the past. I just don't see New Orleans returning to anywhere near it's former power. Even best case scenario the city will be quite a bit smaller than pre-Katrina.

PureX
September 6th, 2005, 11:06 AM
Not by any definition of racism that I or the dictionary know. Racism is claiming that race accounts for the differences in us. My statement had nothing to do with race. It had to do with actions not genetics.I think racism is an irrational prejiduce against a person or group because of their race. And this is how I was using the word.

PureX
September 6th, 2005, 11:16 AM
Some of the black people who work in places like McDonalds, Hardees, etc., around here have terrible attitudes.Maybe that's because working there sucks, and they know that no one will hire them anywhere else.

They are rude and hateful for no reason.Oh, I think there's probably a reason. I think they're rude because they hate their jobs and they can't afford to quit, nor can they get anything better. So they're trapped and angry.

People in the south get very tired of bad attitudes like that.Well, these are the same people that have helped create a society in which people are forced to work at jobs that they hate (and that you would hate, too, if you had to do it for the restr of your life). So maybe they're partly responsible for the bad attitudes they encounter. In fact, I'm betting that's why it bothers them so much.

And it only makes the situation worse.It's meant to. Don't you think those people with the "bad attitudes" intend ruin your day? I do. I think they're miserable and they're trying to make us miserable, too. I think they're blaming us for their mysery. And to some degree, they're right.
The idea that somebody owes you something just because your skin is a certain color is undermining.And yet white people just keep giving themselves all the advantages, anyway.

BillyBob
September 6th, 2005, 11:49 AM
Maybe that's because working there sucks, and they [black people] know that no one will hire them anywhere else.

Talk about a racist statement! :doh:

So PureX, you are saying that the only jobs black people have are the ones proveded by McDonalds?

:darwinsm:






Oh, I think there's probably a reason. I think they're rude because they hate their jobs and they can't afford to quit, nor can they get anything better.

:darwinsm:


So they're trapped and angry.

No, they are not trapped. However, I agree that they are angry.



And yet white people just keep giving themselves all the advantages, anyway.

Tell that to Jesse Jackson.

Gaviidae
September 6th, 2005, 11:59 AM
I think racism is an irrational prejiduce against a person or group because of their race. And this is how I was using the word.

But my statement had nothing to do with their race.

It was also not irrational. There is nothing irrational about preferring to spend time with people who act like you do.

wickwoman
September 6th, 2005, 12:11 PM
Purex, I have nothing to do with the bad attitude of a person at McDonalds. I have never discriminated against any black person in the workplace or otherwise to my knowledge. And who would hire a rude person with a bad attitude somewhere else? So sure, they do have to work there, and that's their own fault.

When I go to Chik Fil A, I see happy smiling faces, with very friendly attitudes, black and white people. So, what they do at some of the small businesses around here, is ruin the businesses of people who are trying to make their lives better by running off customers with a bad attitude. If these people don't like working at Hardees, there are a number of organizations that help black people get technical training and/or college degrees. And I am all for education. As I've said in the past, I'd be willing to pay even more taxes to educate the poor. But I will not feel guilty about racism that I've never committed. And I don't appreciate being treated rudely by people who know nothing about me. Some people are their own worst enemy and "the man" is not whose keeping them down. They are often keeping themself down with a very poor attitude.

One of my husband's best friends is a black man. When my husband takes him to the country club in a nearby small southern town, some of my husband's friends give him dirty looks. That's never once made him think his friend shouldn't be there. That same friend has worked hard and made good money all his life with little or no education and nobody to bail him out when he gets into trouble. He's 70 years old, taking care of his sorry daughter's abandoned child. Only last year did he retire. Before that, he was still working outside in the heat doing manual labor. But, whenever you see him he offers you a polite hello and a warm, friendly handshake. He doesn't expect anybody to give him anything. He earns what he gets.

BillyBob
September 6th, 2005, 01:04 PM
One of my husband's best friends is a black man.

I have been waiting for someone to say that. Not that there is anything wrong with it, it was just inevitable that a white person qualify themself buy saying something along those lines......

PureX
September 6th, 2005, 01:45 PM
Purex, I have nothing to do with the bad attitude of a person at McDonalds. I have never discriminated against any black person in the workplace or otherwise to my knowledge. And who would hire a rude person with a bad attitude somewhere else? So sure, they do have to work there, and that's their own fault.I understand all of this, but you don't seem to be understanding my point.

We've force a specific group of people to do all the worst jobs, first by outright slavery, then through violent social intimidation, then through unfair laws and hiring practices, and then through unspoken mutual exclusion, and we've done this now for generations. The result is that we've created a permanent underclass of people with a culture based on those difficult and unfair conditions. The result of being one of these permanent underclass people is a poor education, an angry and cynical view of the rest of society, and very little chance or likelihood of getting out of this permanent underclass no matter what one does, how hard one works, or who's butt one kisses. And everyone in this underclass knows it.

So it's not really all that surprising that you encounter such negative attitudes, and in truth it is the same society that makes life for you so much easier that's making life for them so hard. So even though you haven't directly oppressed anyone, you are supporting, and are being supported by, a society that is. So to them, you become a representative of that oppression whether you've personally oppressed anyone or not, and therefor you become the focus of their anger and resentment, too, if you happen to be standing in front of them when their anger wells up. Can you understand this? Can you understand why the last thing such a person is going to be willing to do is try to be acceptable (and pleasant) to a people and a system that has continuously denied and oppressed them for generations? Would you really react any differently if you were in their shoes?

koban
September 6th, 2005, 01:51 PM
Why would you want to buy prepared food from somebody who is surly and angry and resentful at you, the customer, just because of your skin color? Wouldn't you wonder how it was prepared? :shocked:


Is there any way (in your estimation Purex) for people in this situation that you have described to overcome their bitterness and escape the chains of poverty within the current system that will allow them to succeed?

PureX
September 6th, 2005, 02:47 PM
Is there any way (in your estimation Purex) for people in this situation that you have described to overcome their bitterness and escape the chains of poverty within the current system that will allow them to succeed?That's the problem. "Overcoming their bitterness" very often does nothing to help them escape the endemic oppression that has caused their bitterness in the first place. They did not cause this situation, and they don't control the system that did, yet time and time again we blame the situation on them and we expect them to change to accomodate us. And even when they do, our system STILL shuts them out most of the time. This is not going to change until WE change. And we aren't going to change until we begin to accept responsibility for what we (collectively) have done, and are still doing to them.

This is why I am pleased that America is getting a chance to see what it has been doing to so many people through it's endemic racism, and how real people suffer as a result.

BillyBob
September 6th, 2005, 02:54 PM
:cow:

BillyBob
September 6th, 2005, 03:07 PM
Here's that link again, there are dozens of new articles relating to Katrina and all the topics we have been discussing.

http://www.glennbeck.com/page2/index.shtml

wickwoman
September 6th, 2005, 03:13 PM
So, Purex, how do you suggest I fix this problem I've caused by my whiteness?

BillyBob
September 6th, 2005, 03:14 PM
Start listening to Rap.......

koban
September 6th, 2005, 04:53 PM
That's the problem. "Overcoming their bitterness" very often does nothing to help them escape the endemic oppression that has caused their bitterness in the first place. They did not cause this situation, and they don't control the system that did, yet time and time again we blame the situation on them and we expect them to change to accomodate us. And even when they do, our system STILL shuts them out most of the time.


Not in my experience. I was raised in a comfortable suburban setting, went through school including university during a period of a relatively strong local economy and have worked in several settings. The blacks I have known and encountered in my school and career have fallen in two categories, with no sharp division between them - those that took advantage of the opportunities with which they were presented and flourished, and those that wasted the opportunities before them. As a matter of fact, in this they were little different than the whites I have known in those same settings.

I have known black classmates, team members, friends, lab partners, coworkers and bosses. I have also known (less well) blacks who would avoid whites and group together exclusively. Those who overcame whatever resistance they must have felt inegrating into what was in effect a "white" school or business setting were accepted on their merits and expected to perform.





This is not going to change until WE change. And we aren't going to change until we begin to accept responsibility for what we (collectively) have done, and are still doing to them.



What steps would you propose that would alleviate the situation?

PureX
September 6th, 2005, 05:14 PM
So, Purex, how do you suggest I fix this problem I've caused by my whiteness?It wasn't caused by your whiteness. It was caused by the collective greed, ignorance, and prejudice of white people in America, and it has caused a lot of very real suffering. Maybe the first thing you could do would be to learn to respect that suffering, and to accept that like it or not, you have benefitted from it, and you're still benefitting from it. Maybe you could keep this in mind the next time you catch yourself passing negative judgments on black people because they happen not to be behaving the way that best suits you. I also think it doesn't hurt to speak out in opposition to other white people when you hear them blaming black people for their own poverty. We are all somewhat responsible for our own circumstances, but we don't all have to face the same obstacles. The obstacles that poor blacks have had to face are far more insidious and intractable than our own.

Zimfan
September 6th, 2005, 05:23 PM
Start listening to Rap.......

Does listening to the Gorillaz count? Only about half of it is rap... ;)

Gaviidae
September 6th, 2005, 05:33 PM
It was caused by the collective greed, ignorance, and prejudice of white people in America...

Isn't this a very racist statement?

You claim to be upset about racism but then you promote your own version of racism. :bang:

BillyBob
September 6th, 2005, 07:43 PM
Bingo!

PureX
September 6th, 2005, 09:02 PM
Isn't this a very racist statement?

You claim to be upset about racism but then you promote your own version of racism. :bang:"Nuh-huh! You did!"

C'mon, that's just stupid.

Delmar
September 7th, 2005, 05:42 AM
See, it is people like you [lefties] who discourage self reliance and prosperity and reinforce dependency on the government. If any one reason were to be indentified as to why blacks are impoverished, it would be the liberal ideology that has been forced down their throats for the past hundred years.

:sozo: You guys are the culprits!!!!!but sooo well meaning.

wickwoman
September 7th, 2005, 09:42 AM
It wasn't caused by your whiteness. It was caused by the collective greed, ignorance, and prejudice of white people in America, and it has caused a lot of very real suffering. Maybe the first thing you could do would be to learn to respect that suffering, and to accept that like it or not, you have benefitted from it, and you're still benefitting from it. Maybe you could keep this in mind the next time you catch yourself passing negative judgments on black people because they happen not to be behaving the way that best suits you. I also think it doesn't hurt to speak out in opposition to other white people when you hear them blaming black people for their own poverty. We are all somewhat responsible for our own circumstances, but we don't all have to face the same obstacles. The obstacles that poor blacks have had to face are far more insidious and intractable than our own.

I do not blame black people for anything.

I always speak out against rudeness no matter what color it is.

I am aware of suffering and do what I can to ease it.

It looks like what you really want me to do is be ashamed of what little I do have and enjoy. And that won't happen because it was acquired through hard work and discipline.

servent101
September 7th, 2005, 09:51 AM
Wickwoman
To respond to Purex's questioning of why black = poor in New Orleans. A large percentage of the black people in the south are poor because they are the descendants of a displaced African race used as slaves. Certainly, some of the blame can go to racism, but very much goes to the difficulty of going from a negative balance (being owned) to have nothing (being free but "equal") and then working your way up to having things and being able to support yourself. Only recently have equitable conditions given black people the opportunity to take advantage of things like education and a better life for themselves. But, still, their own cultural disadvantage is coming from a whole other culture and having the form a new culture for themselves through the hardships of slavery and then discrimination. It takes a very long time to pull yourself up from a negative balance. That's just mathematics. All of it cannot be blamed on racism. I think the majority of what you see now is the result of a displaced culture and the difficulties involved in forming a new way of relating to a foreign culture.

Good post - good reasoning, well thought out. There is a reality that the majority of the Black people face - and they will be able to overcome their dificulties.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

PureX
September 7th, 2005, 10:35 AM
It looks like what you really want me to do is be ashamed of what little I do have and enjoy. And that won't happen because it was acquired through hard work and discipline.I'm not picking on you. And I'm not saying that you shouldn't have what you have. I'm using our discussion to point out to all of us that we have some responsibility for the fact that most of the poor people in America are black, and that this IS the result of racial prejiduce against them.

Lots of people have asked "so what do we do?". Yet when I suggest that the first thing we can do is accept the reality of the situation and take responsibility for it everyone wants to argue. Which is of course how we got into this situation in the first place. All I'm asking for is acknowledgment. Because once we take that step, I think we will have already begun to change.

shilohproject
September 7th, 2005, 10:44 AM
Yet when I suggest that the first thing we can do is accept the reality of the situation and take responsibility for it everyone wants to argue. Which is of course how we got into this situation in the first place. All I'm asking for is acknowledgment.
Fair, but difficult for many. A distinctive defensiveness often appears when historical liability comes into the equation. There are so many aggressive examples within the black community, that often the haves often miss the causes because of the results.:think:

wickwoman
September 7th, 2005, 11:29 AM
I'm not picking on you. And I'm not saying that you shouldn't have what you have. I'm using our discussion to point out to all of us that we have some responsibility for the fact that most of the poor people in America are black, and that this IS the result of racial prejiduce against them.

Lots of people have asked "so what do we do?". Yet when I suggest that the first thing we can do is accept the reality of the situation and take responsibility for it everyone wants to argue. Which is of course how we got into this situation in the first place. All I'm asking for is acknowledgment. Because once we take that step, I think we will have already begun to change.

There are some problems related to racial prejudice. I am willing to acknowledge it. But what started us down this road is snipers shooting at rescue helicopters. And this cannot be excused by racial prejudice. We cannot excuse very bad behavior. It only encourages a mindset of blame that is counter productive.

All I see is that you want us to accept blame. Asking "so what do we do" is indicating we'd like an activity that could be helpful to poor black people. That would be productive. Blame is counterproductive. That's the attitude behind the circle of poverty sometimes. It's the idea that you are owed something and that you shouldn't have to work as hard as everyone else.

Gaviidae
September 7th, 2005, 11:51 AM
I'm not picking on you. And I'm not saying that you shouldn't have what you have. I'm using our discussion to point out to all of us that we have some responsibility for the fact that most of the poor people in America are black, and that this IS the result of racial prejiduce against them.

Lots of people have asked "so what do we do?". Yet when I suggest that the first thing we can do is accept the reality of the situation and take responsibility for it everyone wants to argue. Which is of course how we got into this situation in the first place. All I'm asking for is acknowledgment. Because once we take that step, I think we will have already begun to change.

First off, there are twice as many whites who are poor as there are blacks. If you'd stick to the facts this would be a lot easier.

Secondly, when you answered the question what do we do you came back with a racist statement. That I (and the rest of my race) was guilty of past crimes simply because of the color of my skin. My family was living in Europe during the time of slavery, I am an active Republican the party who freed the slaves, and my family has always lived in "free states" (or now a state that entered after the Civil War). I even have Native American blood in me (1/16th). So to blame me for slavery is a bit much when my only sin is being born white. In other words, don't use racism to blame me.

Thirdly, most people I know recognize the blame. There's even a term for it, liberal white guilt. We passed affirmative action. Trent Lott lost his job as majority leader because he made an oral gaffe that accidentally minimized the sins of the past.

Acknowledgement has happened. We can't change the past. Blacks are stuck here (though they're free to return to Africa), it no longer matters how they got here we can't change that. We also can't change the way people are and make them comfortable around people who don't act like them.

Gaviidae
September 7th, 2005, 11:55 AM
There are some problems related to racial prejudice. I am willing to acknowledge it. But what started us down this road is snipers shooting at rescue helicopters. And this cannot be excused by racial prejudice. We cannot excuse very bad behavior. It only encourages a mindset of blame that is counter productive.

All I see is that you want us to accept blame. Asking "so what do we do" is indicating we'd like an activity that could be helpful to poor black people. That would be productive. Blame is counterproductive. That's the attitude behind the circle of poverty sometimes. It's the idea that you are owed something and that you shouldn't have to work as hard as everyone else.

Well said. Reminds me of Who Moved My Cheese. We can focus on the past or move on.

One day, the foursome finds cheese in Cheese Station C. It's probably one of those researchers putting it there, but we don't know. Maybe fate or an accident has placed it there. Anyway, they all like it. They return day-after-day to eat cheese.

The mice always explore their surroundings and are looking for change. They weren't completely surprised when one day the cheese disappeared. They noticed the supply had been dwindling.

Or, even if they were surprised, when it was gone, it was gone. Sniff lifted his nose and decided upon a direction. Scurry took off in the same direction. The mice went looking for new cheese in the maze. They didn't try to hold on to a past that no longer existed.

The mice didn't analyze things too much. Change happens. They knew they had to deal with it.

The little people were different. They had come to view Cheese Station C as their home. They bragged about it. They felt it was theirs. They were outraged, shocked, scared, and befuddled when the cheese disappeared. In their comfort, they didn't notice the cheese supply had been dwindling, nor that it had become old and smelly. They had become complacent.

Hem and Haw felt the situation was unfair. It was their cheese, and now it was gone. Hem and Haw remained in Cheese Station C hoping the cheese would return and wondering where it had gone.

One day, Haw decided that waiting for the cheese to return wasn't working. He was getting weaker the longer he remained, and so, he moved into the maze looking for new cheese. He felt too old and tired to seek new cheese, and he was afraid. Afraid of the unknown, and afraid he wouldn't find new cheese, but he pressed on.

As fate would have it, Haw did find new cheese (it would be a pretty weak self-help book if he didn't!) On his cheese-seeking quest, Haw kept writing life lessons on the wall of the maze like:

"Change Happens. They keep moving the Cheese."
"Anticipate Change. Get ready for the cheese to move."
&
"Enjoy Change. Savor the adventure and enjoy the taste of the new cheese!"

(Will Haw become another self-help mouse writer?)

Hem was hemmed in by his old ideas. We don't know if he ever left Cheese Station C. He may have starved, as the longer he stayed in the cheeseless station, the weaker he would become. link (http://www.bainvestor.com/Who-Moved-My-Cheese.html)

wickwoman
September 7th, 2005, 12:01 PM
:ha: I like the cheese story.

koban
September 7th, 2005, 12:05 PM
Can I get that with :spam: ?






And can I have Hem for Thirsty?

wickwoman
September 7th, 2005, 12:08 PM
And can I have Hem for Thirsty?

I'm not prejudiced but I'm against that.

koban
September 7th, 2005, 12:27 PM
:shocked:




I meant for a snack :doh:

wickwoman
September 7th, 2005, 12:49 PM
:shocked:




I meant for a snack :doh:

Oh, I'm against that too.

koban
September 7th, 2005, 12:55 PM
Even if he's dead?

What do think's been in the sandwiches at the Redneck's Club? :chuckle:

PureX
September 7th, 2005, 01:04 PM
There are some problems related to racial prejudice. I am willing to acknowledge it. But what started us down this road is snipers shooting at rescue helicopters. And this cannot be excused by racial prejudice. We cannot excuse very bad behavior. It only encourages a mindset of blame that is counter productive.

All I see is that you want us to accept blame. Asking "so what do we do" is indicating we'd like an activity that could be helpful to poor black people. That would be productive. Blame is counterproductive. That's the attitude behind the circle of poverty sometimes. It's the idea that you are owed something and that you shouldn't have to work as hard as everyone else.I'm not interested in blame, I'm interested in people taking responsibility. The problem persists because white people continue to treat black people badly because they're black. We excuse and justify this behavior by focussing all our attention on those black people we feel deserve to be treated badly. And while we're doing this, we conveniently ignore all the instances in which black people are treated badly, unfairly. And we also conveniently ignore the fact that much of the behavior that we deem "deserving" of our indignation is itself the result of our own bad behavior.

The only way to begin to deal with this self-perpetuating system of socio-economic ostricism is to face the reality that it begins within our own selves. It begins with our wanting to avoid people that make us uncomfortable because we're better off than they are economically, or because they're a different skin color than we are, or because they have different cultural mannerisms. We need to make ourselves look past our own comfort zone to the reality that when we collectively ignore and ostricise people for such silly reasons, and we do so multiplied by hundreds of millions of us, and by many decades, the accumulation of this collective oscticism has a powerful and very hurtful effect on a lot of people. It's a big reason why we have so many poor people in this country, and why poor people tend to stay poor, and why so many of the poor people in America are black.

It's not that the white people in America got together and decided to shut black people out of the upper classes and power bases in America. It's more subconscious and automatic than that. Yet the effect is somewhat the same. And the only way to counter it is for white people to make a conscious effort to stop it. And that's what I agitating for an admition of "guilt". Because that's where I think we need to begin changing the way we think and act toward the "underclasses" that we have created through our selfishness and ignorance.

wickwoman
September 7th, 2005, 01:58 PM
I just don't identify with any of that you posted, Purex, so perhaps you are just preaching to the choir. This is probably the first time I've found myself on this side of the racism argument. But, at some point, we have to stop making excuses. I'm all for understanding. But I have no reason to feel guilty as far as I can see in this matter. If I did, I remedied it long ago.

Gaviidae
September 7th, 2005, 02:34 PM
I'm not interested in blame, I'm interested in people taking responsibility. The problem persists because white people continue to treat black people badly because they're black.

Hmmm...I'm a white person. I do not and have never treated black people (or people of any other color) badly because they're black.


It begins with our wanting to avoid people that make us uncomfortable because we're better off than they are economically ...or because they have different cultural mannerisms.

I have actually tried to mingle with people of different economic classes and it has not worked. We're too different and I've found myself forced to avoid intermingling with them more and more. :(

As far as avoiding people with different cultural mannerisms why would I not want to avoid them? For example, I used to take the bus into Seattle every weekday. I did not like when a group of people got on the bus and were very loud. That was their cultural mannerism. They liked to be loud. Why would I not want to avoid them? I'm not saying ostracize them, I'm just saying if I have the choice between two bus routes, one has more loud people on it I'll chose the one with fewer loud people. Yet you would call me wrong for doing that?

Gaviidae
September 7th, 2005, 02:35 PM
I find this discussion on race interesting but it seems to no longer have anything to do with this thread. Should we start a new thread? Is there any interest in actually discussing this further?

PureX
September 7th, 2005, 04:36 PM
Hmmm...I'm a white person. I do not and have never treated black people (or people of any other color) badly because they're black.

I have actually tried to mingle with people of different economic classes and it has not worked. We're too different and I've found myself forced to avoid intermingling with them more and more. :(

As far as avoiding people with different cultural mannerisms why would I not want to avoid them? For example, I used to take the bus into Seattle every weekday. I did not like when a group of people got on the bus and were very loud. That was their cultural mannerism. They liked to be loud. Why would I not want to avoid them? I'm not saying ostracize them, I'm just saying if I have the choice between two bus routes, one has more loud people on it I'll chose the one with fewer loud people. Yet you would call me wrong for doing that?This is a common response. Instead of accepting responsibility for being part of a collective culture that has and does practice racism, we ignore the collective all together and focus only on ourselves. WE aren't racists. WE haven't oppressed anyone.

Yet we are part of a collective culture. And we have benefitted from that culture's racism because the racial prejiduce that it practices favors our race and oppresses others. We didn't ask for this, perhaps, and we didn't actively support it, but we also didn't refuse the advantages it gave us, and we also didn't speak out against it when it denied these advantages to others. And the result of our complacency is the real suffering of others.

PureX
September 7th, 2005, 04:40 PM
But, at some point, we have to stop making excuses. I'm all for understanding. But I have no reason to feel guilty as far as I can see in this matter. If I did, I remedied it long ago.I'm not really interested in anyone feeling guilty, just in making them aware of their own complicity. That alone will begin the ball rolling toward change.

Gaviidae
September 7th, 2005, 05:17 PM
Yet we are part of a collective culture. And we have benefitted from that culture's racism because the racial prejiduce that it practices favors our race and oppresses others. We didn't ask for this, perhaps, and we didn't actively support it, but we also didn't refuse the advantages it gave us, and we also didn't speak out against it when it denied these advantages to others. And the result of our complacency is the real suffering of others.

We being Americans? Or we being who?

Perhaps you don't speak out against racial prejudice but I do. And perhaps you have received advantages because of it but I have not. In fact, I could argue that because of affirmative action I have received disadvantages because of my race.

It still seems odd to me that the only people that you think need to change to help blacks who act "black" is other people.

Perhaps this is a regional difference. We have few blacks out here in Washington state. Other minorities (Indian, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic) make up most of the non-white population here. And I've seen them succeed despite the racial differences.

PureX
September 8th, 2005, 06:24 AM
Things have gotten better, yet the facts of racism remain for all to see. All the white people in America insist that it's not THEM that's racist, that it must be the other white people. And yet the facts of racism remain for all to see. If you ask me it's the squirming and blaming itself that tells the tale. "Me thinks thou (we) do'st protest too much!"

BillyBob
September 8th, 2005, 06:28 AM
Things have gotten better, yet the facts of racism remain for all to see.

What facts?


All the white people in America insist that it's not THEM that's racist,

Not so, there are plenty who openly admit their racism.


that it must be the other white people. And yet the facts of racism remain for all to see.

What facts?


If you ask me it's the squirming and blaming itself that tells the tale. "Me thinks thou (we) do'st protest too much!"

I see, so when we get falsely accused, we are not supposed to respond? :doh:

koban
September 8th, 2005, 08:24 AM
Things have gotten better, yet the facts of racism remain for all to see. All the white people in America insist that it's not THEM that's racist, that it must be the other white people. And yet the facts of racism remain for all to see. If you ask me it's the squirming and blaming itself that tells the tale. "Me thinks thou (we) do'st protest too much!"



Let's get our terms straight, shall we?

I had always understood racism to mean an established, institutionalized system of opression. If you're claiming that such a system is still in place, please clarify.

It sounds to me that what your talking about here is what I have always heard called prejudice.

If that's the case, and you're asking us to admit our own prejudices, than I freely will. But you better make sure that the same faults are being recognized by those on the other side of the argument.

PureX
September 8th, 2005, 09:21 AM
Let's get our terms straight, shall we?

I had always understood racism to mean an established, institutionalized system of opression. If you're claiming that such a system is still in place, please clarify.Prejudice based on race is called racial prejudice, or "racism" for short.

Also, I think it's important to understand that systematic oppression often does not require that there be some secret meeting where the power elite get together and consciously decide to overtly or covertly oppress some other group. I don't believe that this sort of thing happens, anymore, as I believe it once did in America.

What happens, instead, is racial oppression as the result of a cumulative, unspoken, and even unconscious prejudice being practiced by a lot of members of the racial majority against a racial minority. The fact of the matter is that all other conditions being equal (which never actually happens) a white man will hire a white man over a black man, and he will not be aware that he's practicing a prejudice. Instead, he'll take the discomfort he feels with the black man simply because the black man is "different" and he'll interpret this discomfort as his intuiting some hidden flaw that justifies his judging the black man a lesser candidate. This sort of prejudice is subtle, and easy for us to hide from ourselves, yet the cumulative effect of it across millions of job interviews is a lot of lost job opportunities for a lot of black applicants. And a lot of white applicants (who of course believe that they were the better candidates for the job) getting those opportunities unfairly, without realizing it.

This is why white people never believe that they practice prejudice as individuals, or that they've ever gotten any breaks because of racial prejudice, while the effect of our racial prejudice remains evident for anyone who's willing to look at it. Most poor people are black, and most black people are poor, and unless you believe that either blacks want to be poor, or that they are inherently inferior in some way, then the only explanation for their being in this position decade after decade is racial oppression.

If that's the case, and you're asking us to admit our own prejudices, than I freely will. But you better make sure that the same faults are being recognized by those on the other side of the argument.What I'm asking is that we not only admit our prejudice, but admit the EFFECT that that our prejudice has had on those we are prejudiced against. Their suffering IS the result of our prejudice, while they prejudice against us is the result of our causing them to suffer. This is what I'm asking, and this is what so many of us are trying really, really hard to deny, obscure, obfuscate, and otherwise ignore any way we can.

koban
September 8th, 2005, 09:39 AM
Prejudice based on race is called racial prejudice, or "racism" for short.

Also, I think it's important to understand that systematic oppression often does not require that there be some secret meeting where the power elite get together and consciously decide to overtly or covertly oppress some other group. I don't believe that this sort of thing happens, anymore, as I believe it once did in America.


Good, I was hoping you weren't going to argue that it still does.




What happens, instead, is racial oppression as the result of a cumulative, unspoken, and even unconscious prejudice being practiced by a lot of members of the racial majority against a racial minority. The fact of the matter is that all other conditions being equal (which never actually happens) a white man will hire a white man over a black man


Not in any job environment I've worked in. My past employers have been so eager to get a qualified black to meet their racial quotas that some unfortunate choices in hiring have been made.




, and he will not be aware that he's practicing a prejudice. Instead, he'll take the discomfort he feels with the black man simply because the black man is "different" and he'll interpret this discomfort as his intuiting some hidden flaw that justifies his judging the black man a lesser candidate. This sort of prejudice is subtle, and easy for us to hide from ourselves, yet the cumulative effect of it across millions of job interviews is a lot of lost job opportunities for a lot of black applicants. And a lot of white applicants (who of course believe that they were the better candidates for the job) getting those opportunities unfairly, without realizing it.

This is why white people never believe that they practice prejudice as individuals, or that they've ever gotten any breaks because of racial prejudice, while the effect of our racial prejudice remains evident for anyone who's willing to look at it. Most poor people are black


I doubt it




, and most black people are poor, and unless you believe that either blacks want to be poor, or that they are inherently inferior in some way, then the only explanation for their being in this position decade after decade is racial oppression.



There's a third possibilty. They're lazy.

Now, before you get all up in arms, let me qualify that by stating it's human nature to be lazy. I'm lazy, you're lazy, all God's chilluns is lazy.

I'm hard working, I'm sure you are too. But I always look for the easiest way to do a task.

And, like it or not, most blacks aren't going to be successful unless they can integrate into the main society, which is overwhelmingly white. And that's hard, it requires overcoming resentments and entering situations that will be incomfortable.




What I'm asking is that we not only admit our prejudice, but admit the EFFECT that that our prejudice has had on those we are prejudiced against. Their suffering IS the result of our prejudice, while they prejudice against us is the result of our causing them to suffer. This is what I'm asking, and this is what so many of us are trying really, really hard to deny, obscure, obfuscate, and otherwise ignore any way we can.


I will not admit to being prejudiced against blacks. Too many of my friends and associates who are rural are prejudiced for me not to recognize it. I will admit to being prejudiced against people of any color who dress or act like they don't respect themselves (and thus can't be expected to respect others)

Gaviidae
September 8th, 2005, 10:24 AM
Not in any job environment I've worked in. My past employers have been so eager to get a qualified black to meet their racial quotas that some unfortunate choices in hiring have been made.

Which unfortunately, just reinforces the stereotype that blacks are bad workers. :(

We saw it in school. When you had to pick lab partners you never wanted to team up with a minority. You couldn't tell if they were affirmative action students or just regular students. Even the non-affirmative action minorities did this. Unfortunately, what happens is that this reinforces to the whites the notion to stick with people like them and when they get stuck with an affirmative action minority that minorities are dumber. And to minorities it reinforces that they are prejudiced against because of their skin.

PureX
September 8th, 2005, 04:13 PM
Not in any job environment I've worked in. My past employers have been so eager to get a qualified black to meet their racial quotas that some unfortunate choices in hiring have been made.Well, I don't know what line of work you're in, but it's not the norm. Very few businesses are required to meet racial quotas.

There's a third possibilty. They're lazy.

Now, before you get all up in arms, let me qualify that by stating it's human nature to be lazy. I'm lazy, you're lazy, all God's chilluns is lazy.

I'm hard working, I'm sure you are too. But I always look for the easiest way to do a task.

And, like it or not, most blacks aren't going to be successful unless they can integrate into the main society, which is overwhelmingly white. And that's hard, it requires overcoming resentments and entering situations that will be incomfortable.So you're saying that black people are lazy because they won't do all the work of overcoming white people's social prejudices? Why should they have to overcome the prejudice of others? And how can they possibly do this, anyway?

I'm surprised that you would post something this racially prejudiced while you're so sure that you aren't racially prejudiced.

I will not admit to being prejudiced against blacks. Too many of my friends and associates who are rural are prejudiced for me not to recognize it. I will admit to being prejudiced against people of any color who dress or act like they don't respect themselves (and thus can't be expected to respect others)Amazing. "It's not their skin color, it's the way they dress and talk and act!" hahaha

BillyBob
September 8th, 2005, 04:16 PM
Prejudice based on race is called racial prejudice, or "racism" for short.

It's also called 'Affirmative Action'.

koban
September 8th, 2005, 04:49 PM
Well, I don't know what line of work you're in, but it's not the norm. Very few businesses are required to meet racial quotas.


Major university, then Fortune 500 company






So you're saying that black people are lazy because they won't do all the work of overcoming white people's social prejudices?



No, I'm saying that it's human nature to take the easier path. And for all too many of the dis-enfranchised, be they white, yellow, brown or black, it's easier to hang with your homeys in the hood and gripe about how the system's stacked against you.




Why should they have to overcome the prejudice of others?


:doh:


Why indeed? Perhaps to integrate into the greater society where there are greater chances for success?





And how can they possibly do this, anyway?


In my experience - by working their butts off to prove their competence. Then they will be accepted on their own merits. Just like everybody else. I never walked into a job and was told "Hey - you're white. Don't bother trying to do a good job, we're just glad to have you here."





I'm surprised that you would post something this racially prejudiced while you're so sure that you aren't racially prejudiced.


I can only respond with an anecdote. Years ago I was talking to one of my rural friends (Canadian, as it happens). This fellow was in his seventies, a retired farmer, small town all his life. We were talking about living in the city, which I was at the time. He asked me if I knew any blacks and my first response was that no, I didn't. After I left I was mulling it over and started laughing. My boss, who was a good friend was black. Two co-workers that I had worked alongside for two years were black. My next door neighbor was black. But I didn't think of them as "black". They were Patrick and Ramona and Bettie and John to me.




Amazing. "It's not their skin color, it's the way they dress and talk and act!" hahaha


Really Purex, I expect better of you.

If I see a group of rowdy kids hanging out on the corner with 40 ouncers getting high I don't care what color their skin is, I'm going to give them a wide berth. And if they come to a job interview looking slovenly and sullen, again, I don't care what their skin color is, I'm not hiring them.

PureX
September 8th, 2005, 05:58 PM
No, I'm saying that it's human nature to take the easier path. And for all too many of the dis-enfranchised, be they white, yellow, brown or black, it's easier to hang with your homeys in the hood and gripe about how the system's stacked against you.Then why are the poor overwhelmingly non-white? Are you saying that non-whites are more lazy than whites, and that's why they prefer to "hang our with their homeys" while white people are busy working hard and getting ahead? You're claiming that poor people are poor because they're lazy. But you're trying not to say that people of color are more lazy than white people. Yet poor people are mostly people of color in this country, so if you're saying that poor people are lazy, then you're also saying that people of color are lazy, which is untrue and racist.

Why indeed? Perhaps to integrate into the greater society where there are greater chances for success?And you really don't think that people are being locked out of this "integration" regardless of their efforts? How do you explain that one white immigrant group after another has come to America as unwanted aliens, and integrated themselves within one or two generations while black people have been here for many generations and still have not been integrated. Do you really believe that this is all their fault?

In my experience - by working their butts off to prove their competence. Then they will be accepted on their own merits. Just like everybody else. I never walked into a job and was told "Hey - you're white. Don't bother trying to do a good job, we're just glad to have you here."No, they thought; "you're white, we know you'll be able meet our expectations" while they thought "he's black, he'll have to work his butt off to prove to us that he can live up to our expectations, and if he slips up in any way, it'll prove that he is inferior, just as I already suspect him to be". In fact, the black man is expected to fail, which is why he has to prove himself, while the white man is expected to succeed, which is why he'll get the job first and have to prove he's a failure to lose it.

The expectations are grossly biased, which makes a person of color have to work unfairly hard to overcome expectations that are biased against him. And ultimately, he will never overcome the expectations of a bigot, no matter what he does, because the bigot will always see what he expects to see - the inferiority of the "other". Yet the bigot will never realize that he's a bigot, and that he'll remain biased against people of color no matter how hard they try to overcome his bias. Person "A" can never overcome the bias of person "B" because it's not person "A"s bias. We can't reach into the minds and hearts of others and change them. And only a fool would try, or expect other people to try.

I can only respond with an anecdote. Years ago I was talking to one of my rural friends (Canadian, as it happens). This fellow was in his seventies, a retired farmer, small town all his life. We were talking about living in the city, which I was at the time. He asked me if I knew any blacks and my first response was that no, I didn't. After I left I was mulling it over and started laughing. My boss, who was a good friend was black. Two co-workers that I had worked alongside for two years were black. My next door neighbor was black. But I didn't think of them as "black". They were Patrick and Ramona and Bettie and John to me.And yet you still seem to think it's perfectly natural that they should have to work their butts off to meet the expectation of biased white people even though that's unfair and ultimately impossible. What a good friend you are.

If I see a group of rowdy kids hanging out on the corner with 40 ouncers getting high I don't care what color their skin is, I'm going to give them a wide berth. And if they come to a job interview looking slovenly and sullen, again, I don't care what their skin color is, I'm not hiring them.How safety minded of you.

BillyBob
September 8th, 2005, 06:18 PM
Then why are the poor overwhelmingly non-white?

Is that a racist question?


Are you saying that non-whites are more lazy than whites,

You tell me!


and that's why they prefer to "hang our with their homeys"

White people don't have 'homeys'.


while white people are busy working hard and getting ahead?

Wow, it seems that you are grasping the situation better today than you did last week.


You're claiming that poor people are poor because they're lazy.

Yes. But now you need to ask why they are lazy. :think:


But you're trying not to say that people of color are more lazy than white people.

Oh, I'll say it. It is what it is. But again, you need to ask why it is that they often choose a life of sloth over a life of prosperity. You see, PureX, they have a choice, the proof is all the successful black men and women who live and prosper in our great nation.


Yet poor people are mostly people of color in this country, so if you're saying that poor people are lazy, then you're also saying that people of color are lazy, which is untrue and racist.

I see, so making an observation is the same thing as being racist? :darwinsm:



And you really don't think that people are being locked out of this "integration" regardless of their efforts?

Nope. The proof is all the successful black men and women who live and prosper in our great nation.




How do you explain that one white immigrant group after another has come to America as unwanted aliens, and integrated themselves within one or two generations while black people have been here for many generations and still have not been integrated.

There are plenty of prosperous blacks in the US.


Do you really believe that this is all their fault?

Absolutely!




No, they thought; "you're white, we know you'll be able meet our expectations" while they thought "he's black, he'll have to work his butt off to prove to us that he can live up to our expectations, and if he slips up in any way, it'll prove that he is inferior, just as I already suspect him to be".

:cow:


In fact, the black man is expected to fail,

Says who?


which is why he has to prove himself, while the white man is expected to succeed, which is why he'll get the job first and have to prove he's a failure to lose it.

:cow:




The expectations are grossly biased, which makes a person of color have to work unfairly hard to overcome expectations that are biased against him.

Ah, even if that were the case, US citizens have the opportunity to do just that! Some blacks choose not to.


And ultimately, he will never overcome the expectations of a bigot, no matter what he does, because the bigot will always see what he expects to see - the inferiority of the "other".

I will not deny that there are bigoted people in the US or anywhere else in the world, but you make it sound as if bigotry is the norm. To which I reply: :cow:


Yet the bigot will never realize that he's a bigot, and that he'll remain biased against people of color no matter how hard they try to overcome his bias. Person "A" can never overcome the bias of person "B" because it's not person "A"s bias. We can't reach into the minds and hearts of others and change them. And only a fool would try, or expect other people to try.
And yet you still seem to think it's perfectly natural that they should have to work their butts off to meet the expectation of biased white people even though that's unfair and ultimately impossible. What a good friend you are.
How safety minded of you.

Pure, unadulterated :cow:

koban
September 8th, 2005, 07:20 PM
[QUOTE=PureX]Then why are the poor overwhelmingly non-white?


From 2004 US Census data:
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/pov/new01_100.htm


Total number of White only below the poverty level = 25,301,000
Total number of Black only below the poverty level = 9,000,000



Are you saying that non-whites are more lazy than whites, and that's why they prefer to "hang our with their homeys" while white people are busy working hard and getting ahead?


Nope - I'm saying (again) that it's harder to integrate into a predominatley white society for non-whites.



You're claiming that poor people are poor because they're lazy. But you're trying not to say that people of color are more lazy than white people. Yet poor people are mostly people of color in this country, so if you're saying that poor people are lazy, then you're also saying that people of color are lazy, which is untrue and racist.

See statistics above.


I really hesitated to bring the term "lazy" into this discussion and did so only by trying to explain my meaning. Apparently I've failed.




And you really don't think that people are being locked out of this "integration" regardless of their efforts?


No, I haven't experienced this.



How do you explain that one white immigrant group after another has come to America as unwanted aliens, and integrated themselves within one or two generations while black people have been here for many generations and still have not been integrated. Do you really believe that this is all their fault?


I'm not trying to explain it, I'm trying to explain why I refuse to take blame for it.




BTW - how do you explain the relative success of Asian immigrants, who also face prejudicial attitudes and resistance to integration?





No, they thought; "you're white, we know you'll be able meet our expectations" while they thought "he's black, he'll have to work his butt off to prove to us that he can live up to our expectations, and if he slips up in any way, it'll prove that he is inferior, just as I already suspect him to be". In fact, the black man is expected to fail, which is why he has to prove himself, while the white man is expected to succeed, which is why he'll get the job first and have to prove he's a failure to lose it.



Again, not in my experience. I have been fortunate to work in a diverse work environment, mostly educated at college level or beyond. I have never seen the type of stereotyping you describe. My city celebrates the heritage of Frederick Douglass. It was a terminus of the underground railroad. Every school child in this area is aware of the earliest efforts by whites and blacks to avoid the types of treatment you describe.




The expectations are grossly biased, which makes a person of color have to work unfairly hard to overcome expectations that are biased against him. And ultimately, he will never overcome the expectations of a bigot, no matter what he does, because the bigot will always see what he expects to see - the inferiority of the "other". Yet the bigot will never realize that he's a bigot, and that he'll remain biased against people of color no matter how hard they try to overcome his bias.


Human nature being what it is, I don't disagree.



Person "A" can never overcome the bias of person "B" because it's not person "A"s bias. We can't reach into the minds and hearts of others and change them. And only a fool would try, or expect other people to try. .



And yet, that seems to be what you're proposing :think:



And yet you still seem to think it's perfectly natural that they should have to work their butts off to meet the expectation of biased white people even though that's unfair and ultimately impossible. What a good friend you are.


Actually, since they were there before me, the expectation was that I perform up to their level.



How safety minded of you.


Thanks.

PureX
September 8th, 2005, 07:36 PM
I notice that you ignored the ratio. According to your numbers, black people make up 25% of the nation's poor. But you've ignored what percentage of the nation's population is black. My guess is that it's far less than 25%. that would mean that a much higher percentage of the poor are black as compared to the percentage of Americans who are black. You also ignored how many of America's poor are other non-whites, which will further increase the ratio of non-white people to poor people.

You seem like a smart enough person to have realized that it's the ratio that tells the tale. So why'd you leave it out?

koban
September 8th, 2005, 07:46 PM
I notice that you ignored the ratio. According to your numbers, black people make up 25% of the nation's poor. But you've ignored what percentage of the nation's population is black. My guess is that it's far less than 25%. that would mean that a much higher percentage of the poor are black as compared to the percentage of Americans who are black. You also ignored how many of America's poor are other non-whites, which will further increase the ratio of non-white people to poor people.

You seem like a smart enough person to have realized that it's the ratio that tells the tale. So why'd you leave it out?


Because you weren't talking about ratios.


How do you explain the disparity between the Black only data and the Asian only data?

PureX
September 8th, 2005, 07:57 PM
Because you weren't talking about ratios.Of course I was talking about ratios. This whole discussion is about why so many people of color (particularly black people) in America are poor as compared to white people. You know this is what the discussion has been about, yet you purposely posted some misleading data to distract us by ignoring the ratio. Why'd you do
How do you explain the disparity between the Black only data and the Asian only data?What disparity are you referring to?

Gaviidae
September 8th, 2005, 07:59 PM
I notice that you ignored the ratio. According to your numbers, black people make up 25% of the nation's poor. But you've ignored what percentage of the nation's population is black. My guess is that it's far less than 25%. that would mean that a much higher percentage of the poor are black as compared to the percentage of Americans who are black. You also ignored how many of America's poor are other non-whites, which will further increase the ratio of non-white people to poor people.

You seem like a smart enough person to have realized that it's the ratio that tells the tale. So why'd you leave it out?

Probably for the same reason I did earlier. Because you make claims that aren't based on ratios. Aren't you a smart enough person to know ratios tell the tale?

FWIW - Blacks make up about 12% of the population. About 25% of blacks are in poverty compared with 11% of whites, 10% of Asians and 22% of Hispanics.

Gaviidae
September 8th, 2005, 08:00 PM
What disparity are you referring to?

25% of blacks are in poverty but only 10% of Asians (less than whites)

koban
September 8th, 2005, 08:06 PM
Of course I was talking about ratios.



Then why are the poor overwhelmingly non-white?



I would think that 25.3MM would overwhelm 9MM








This whole discussion is about why so many people of color (particularly black people) in America are poor as compared to white people. You know this is what the discussion has been about, yet you purposely posted some misleading data to distract us by ignoring the ratio. Why'd you do


Because I was answering your post. If you want to discuss why a greater percentage of blacks is poor, go at it!

I'm here to refute your claim that I should feel guilty about it.




What disparity are you referring to?


thank you Gaviidae

koban
September 8th, 2005, 08:08 PM
Probably for the same reason I did earlier. Because you make claims that aren't based on ratios. Aren't you a smart enough person to know ratios tell the tale?

FWIW - Blacks make up about 12% of the population. About 25% of blacks are in poverty compared with 11% of whites, 10% of Asians and 22% of Hispanics.



Haven't seen that one before.

FWIW ?

From what I wemember?

From what I wead?





Who are you , Barbra Walters? :chuckle:

Gaviidae
September 8th, 2005, 08:14 PM
Haven't seen that one before.

FWIW ?

From what I wemember?

From what I wead?

For What It's Worth (http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?String=exact&Acronym=fwiw&Find=Find)