Last week was rather tragic for those who lost their homes in the 16 major fires in California. In fact, the media compared their treatment in the midst of rescue and recovery with that of Hurricane Katrina, two years ago. There is one thing that sticks out in the comparison of these two disasters: that it was a matter of race.

I wonder if there was a "difference" between how the rich folks in San Diego, Malibu, Lake Arrowhead and elsewhere in Southern California were treated compared to the folks in Lousiana and the Gulf Coast.

Why do you think the President, FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security were more responsive this time?

And for anyone who had watched the coverage extensively, did anyone see white folks on their roofs at all during this crisis without any food or water?

Did any of the people in Qualcomm Stadium suffer last week? Why do you think that this is/ or isn't?

Also in the coverage, a lot was made on focusing on the tears of particular people who had:

1)Money to rebuild their houses

2)That they had fire-proof safes to protect their belongings

3)That their homes represented the "American dream" (I wonder what the homes in the 9th ward represented to the residents there?)

4)And that they were not considered a group that was receiving "handouts". Instead, they received "charity" and "donations" without any assumptions.

5)they received massages and accupuncture while staying there (while the folks in the Convention Center and the Superdome were mainly begging for food, water and air conditioning).

(However, there was a news report that when undocumented workers showed up to Qualcomm, ICE quickly went there and rounded them up).

What does one make of this?

__________________
Ceci's News and Views Forum

-We've gotten better at dealing with natural disasters since Katrina. Katrina was a learning experience and we'd be stupid to make the same mistakes after learning so much.

-People don't usually stand on their roof-tops when their house is on fire.

-More people decided it was a good idea to evacuate rather than stick around.

-Implying that this is a race issue is ridiculous.

How do you know what people might do? There were some who turned the hoses on their house to fight the fire themselves. But, there were firemen who bickered with them to leave their homes.

Secondly, it is not ridiculous to "imply" that this is a race issue. After all, the main people affected in the California disaster were white (although I believe there was a sizeable Latino population affected as well).

The main people affected in the Louisiana disaster were black.

And again, I ask, whether there would be anyone who would let the people in San Diego (the California hills are known to be enclaves of rich, Republican, white persons in gated or exclusive communities) burn?

Were there shotguns preventing the white folks to leave the San Diego area to get to safety?

(In New Orleans, there were rumors about the National Guard preventing some of the poor to leave the city, especially to get on some of the buses. In fact, they let the tourists leave first.).

I know that in a colorblind, PollyAnna world, this would not be the case. But unfortunately, there are some subtle differences here in the real world--a world in which social disparity based on race still exists.

Thank you for your answer.

__________________
Ceci's News and Views Forum

Because they were taking care of themselves . . . not waiting for government (federal, state or local) to do it. FEMA was not needed. The National Guard was not needed. There was no rampant looting, raping, violence or criminal activity at all (except for a few isolated looting incidents).

Is race a part of it ? probably. However what i would suggest is that the overiding issue is class. Correct me if i'm wrong but werent the people caught up in the fires mainly wealthy and New Orleans mainly poor ?

Class, yes, is a part of it. But, I also think that race was pretty much a part of this disaster. If anyone saw the pictures on the cable news shows comparing Hurricane Katrina to these wildfires (before and after this disaster) in California, not one person who was rescued was ever called a "refugee". Certainly, the reporters carefully used the word, "evacuee".

What people tend to forget is how quickly these services on the federal level came to help the people afflicted by the fires. Now, correct me if I am wrong. Isn't San Diego (La Jolla) a bastion of republicans (conservatives)? If I am correct, politicians like Duke Cunningham came from that neck of the woods.

Now, what if both Gov. Schwartzenegger and President Bush took very restful vacations while those mansions burned? How would those rich white folks have reacted? It would be bedlam, would it not?

The rich (white) people would be beside themselves that they were treated this shabbily. Then, some heads would really have to roll instead of that paltry wrist slapping of Michael "Brownie" Brown and Michael Chertoff.

There are some grand old families in Louisiana as well. What happened to the descendants of the plantation Masters and Mistresses? And what about the "captains of industry" in that area? They were there too. But they were able to get out while the poor languished and suffered due to class and race.

When the city was to be rebuilt, the areas that housed the upper middle class and the rich were started first (along with the French Quarter). Poor areas, like 9th ward, are still neglected for the most part. What does that say?

My question is to compare the earlier incidents of fires in Malibu, the Simi Valley, as well as other parts of Southern California to the Hurricane Katrina disaster as well. Tell me, are the rich (white) persons in those areas ever abandoned?

__________________
Ceci's News and Views Forum

I assume your in a better position to judge than me. I dont know the racial demographics or the extent of tensions that exist.

I just believe that racism is stoked up by the ruling elite as a way to divide the working and poor people of all races. It's their way of getting poor white people to turn against poor black people and vice versa. This means they forget they have have a common enemy - those who make them wage slaves. My guess was that if the areas of the fires is as wealthy as i believe then these people are the common enemy (i still dont want their homes burnt down though) along with the government. What they do in the media is play up the racial differences in each disaster rather than the class nature. This makes minorities think the government is just out to help white people rather than show that it is the wealthy they are out to represent.

Again my point is simply theoritical and not based on experience. And i would be liar if i said i didn't think race had some part to play in how things have unfolded. I just thought this thread was a chance to promote my commy agenda

I believe in talking about issues of diversity with other people, yes.

I understand what you are saying. And partially, I agree. I think that there is a powerful elite who does use race in order to suit their agenda while they make money from all of our backs.

But, I think that issues of "race" or "racism" doesn't escape the poor or the rich. It is an equal-opportunity aspect of life.

Just because one is poor doesn't mean that they aren't racist. They can be racist and poor.

Or else, how would such extremist groups like the Klan or the white citizen councils in the South (in the Jim Crow era) thrive? Poor white folks join those groups too. And in the present day, there are other associations out there like that which speak to some who feel that their interests are not being addressed. That is very sad, but a fact of life.

You see, poor people (and the bourgeousie as well) have had a hand in racism because their interests (social and economic) were also being played with by the elites. And when it comes to capitalism, it isn't just the rich. It is also the merchant class that is at play to get what they can get. That's why I think the rich aren't the ones to fear.

The middle class are the ones to fear when it comes to racism and social disparity because their needs are at stake every day. Furthermore, the "God-fearing" folk who believe that they are righteous and moral are the ones who are venting and acting on their prejudices without being caught for it.

So, I must have to disagree with you a little bit.

I agree in the fact that everyone who is poor has a common enemy. Now that is a "classist" argument, but not necessarily a "racial" one because I still believe that race is a problem that causes more social disparity than money.

And yes, I do not want anyone's house burnt down. What I am concerned about is the treatment that happened when comparing the two situations.



Not only the media demonstrates this.

But, yes, I believe that the media does its part to play up these differences solely because it is guided by one mindset: one that espouses white middle class values.

Thank you for sharing your ideas. I enjoyed responding to them. It certainly beats some the responses that I usually get.

Keep on developing your theories.

__________________
Ceci's News and Views Forum

I totally agree on this. Where we may differ is on what causes it. My suggestion is that it's society's capitalist institutions that send out messages (mainly through the media and juidicial system) that create it. They'll talk about immigrants stealing peoples jobs. They will tell you there are more black people in prison (but dont tell you that figure for the overall poor is probably higher). They will say there are more minorities on welfare but there are obviously a higher number of working class on it. This all makes poor white people hate/dislike/distrust black people, instead of realising their common bond.

Again i think the same aregument can be applied to these people - i dont think they are somehow born naturally racist. It's just that many of them benefit from the capitalist system and so buy into its values more easily.

Likewise It's always refreshing to speak to an American who doesn't call me a Stalinist

I agree. In fact, I mentioned earlier that a lot of the Latino population were affected by the fires. However, from the coverage that I have watched didn't truly focus on that as much except for a small bit.

That is also true. And that the US Army Corps of Engineers were to blame for the shoddy construction and repair of the levees. This too, has to be taken into consideration.

However, one of my contentions has to be with who populated what neighborhood. That too has to be taken as part of the reason as well.

The question is then:

1)Why the population of poor to middle class folks (but mostly poor) are still in those FEMA trailers?

2)For those who have left, why haven't they come back? I think that there are two reasons for this: a)politically to make Louisiana over into a Republican state; b) to "gentrify" the state and kick out a mostly Democratic and multi-racial population that has been there for centuries before the Louisiana Purchase.

__________________
Ceci's News and Views Forum