Althouse: Special treatment?

September 2, 2005

Special treatment?

What is your opinion of the racial dimension of this story? Think carefully before answering.

UPDATE: Sorry I had the link wrong. This is a specific story about how British tourists at the Superdome were treated. NOTE: I'm deleting the comments that unfortunately addressed the wrong question.

40 comments:

Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/2/05, 11:59 AM
Ann Althouse said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/2/05, 12:00 PM
Ann Althouse said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/2/05, 12:01 PM
Peter Hoh said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/2/05, 12:09 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/2/05, 12:11 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/2/05, 12:14 PM
d-day said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/2/05, 12:27 PM
Ann Althouse said...: I'm terribly sorry. I really did screw up the link.; 9/2/05, 12:29 PM
Ann Althouse said...: The story I meant to link, on BBC.com, is about British tourists at the Superdome were given a special escort out of the place. The argument is made that they needed special help because they were being targeted for abuse because they were the only white people there.; 9/2/05, 12:30 PM
P_J said...: Ann,

Seems like there are several intersting things to talk about:

1. The British couple was removed from the Dome because their race made them targets. I don't doubt they felt threatened. Were they actually more threatened than other people? Very possible, simply based on the terrible conditions bringing out the worst in some people, crowd mentality, and the need to blame someone different.

2. Why weren't other victims removed (perhaps they were)? These people were apparently targeted solely because of their race.

3. If the situation were reversed, would they have evacuated a lone black couple being threatened by an all-white crowd? I would sure heop so.; 9/2/05, 12:46 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Pastor Jeff, yes, other especially vunerable people were removed from the Superdome to the nearby arena.

Among the many other sources of shame in this situation, the treatment of tourists bothers me. They were not exactly turned away from hotels as the storm approached. Many rode out the storms, only to be kicked out with no place to go once the storms were over.; 9/2/05, 12:57 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/2/05, 12:59 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/2/05, 1:27 PM
P_J said...: Aaron,

Yes, I agree. For a lot of reasons, I think there is seething anger towards whites among a minority of blacks. Add the NO incidents to the Rodney King and O.J. trials as reminders of the deep-seated and lingering racial problems which we are afraid to confront as a society.

On the positive side, I live in a very integrated part of a racially divided metropolis, and there are tons of wonderful people who don't care about your skin color. While I have problems with the public school system, at least ours are doing a pretty good job of combatting racism in very common sense ways.; 9/2/05, 1:31 PM
P_J said...: John,

Eveyone is in a wretched situation, but some people's lives were apparently threatened. It's a matter of triage. Anyone in immediate danger should be helped. Would you feel differently if a black couple were helped to escape from hostile whites?; 9/2/05, 1:56 PM
amy said...: "Perhaps now is not the time to get marred in racial divisions and we should focus on the rescue and treatment of a destroyed city, but there is no doubt in my mind that serious questions should be asked and answered (I point to just about everyone no matter the party line) as to why blacks seem to be put in the lowest paying jobs and the least likely places for advancement? We talk about our lack of dependence on the Government and how we shouldn't need big brother, I agree but its really hard for the person making 7.50 at a Wal-Mart with a family to not look to the Government for a little help."

I just had to respond to this. You make it sound like these people were living at the whim of some sort of Big Brother. Are you telling me these people bare no responsibility for their current situation? Were they not provided with public education like the rest of the country? No one, to my knowledge, was ever FORCED to work at WalMart as opposed to a bank or construction job. I'm sure there are many cases of people doing the best they could, but you cannot blame the entirity of the situation on some vague TheMan(tm) figure.; 9/2/05, 2:10 PM
Shane said...: While I believe the same would be done for a black couple surrounded by white people, a number of whom are hostile towards them, it's hard not to feel resentment when a white person receives preferential treatment.

Also, some young women are being targeted for rapes. Should we then prioritize evacuations for attractive young women? It's pretty much a no-win situation no matter what we do.; 9/2/05, 2:13 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/2/05, 2:34 PM
JackOfClubs said...: "Also, some young women are being targeted for rapes. Should we then prioritize evacuations for attractive young women?"

Hell, yes, although your assumption that only attractive women are at risk of rape doesn't seem supported by any evidence. But certainly women, children and the elderly should be given a higher priority. We can worry about the lawsuits when the crisis is over.

On the original point, I think you could make a case for evacuating all non-residents first, since they presumably have homes to return to and would be less of a burden on ongoing relief efforts.; 9/2/05, 3:06 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/2/05, 3:40 PM
Ann Althouse said...: If you were going to make rules about whom to save first of those people in the Superdome, what would your list look like? Would first place go to white tourists who heard racial insults? How about people who have actually been attacked and have physical injuries that need medical treatment? How about sick babies? Dying old diabetics? Pregnant women? Think comprehensively about all the kinds of people and their conditions and then explain why you think the tourists properly got ahead of everyone else.; 9/2/05, 3:47 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/2/05, 3:55 PM
P_J said...: Ann,

I think we all agree on the priority list. Being white (or any color) should have nothing to do with it. But being in immediate life-threatening danger would be at the top. The question is whether that was the case or whether panicky Brits felt threatened (and perhaps exacerbated racial tensions). Are you assuming they weren't in danger?; 9/2/05, 4:01 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Pastor Jeff: Everyone in the place felt threatened! The issue is whether their feeling of being threatened counted more. 50 tourists were escorted out because they were white, it would seem.; 9/2/05, 4:07 PM
P_J said...: Ann,

I never said their feeling threatened counted for anything. Go back and reread my post. It's possible that they were in danger, it's possible they only felt threatened.

If they were escorted out because they were white, that's wrong. If they were escorted out because they were in danger for being white, that's arguably the right thing to do.

It sounds like you're assuming they were in no danger and were shown favoritism. That's despicable if true. But it's also possible they were actually in danger. Everything we've heard from NO is anarchy, chaos and violence. Mob mentality can get ugly and violent fast. Do you think they couldn't have been in immediate danger, or just that it was very unlikely and only their subjective feeling?; 9/2/05, 4:18 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Bone: I can imagine a scenario in which the 50 tourists deserved to be escorted away, but the article does not seem to describe that.; 9/2/05, 4:20 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Jeff: There were lots of fights going on. Many people were threatened. I'm assuming those who felt threatened really were threatened. But why should people whose threat centered on their race get out before injured and dying people? There are children and sick and elderly people there. Everyone wants out. Why were these 50 people escorted out? It looks like racial preference, doesn't it?; 9/2/05, 4:25 PM
P_J said...: Ann,

Yes, it does sadly sound like that. I just hope it isn't true. Do we know that they were evacuated ahead of infants and ill people, though? Surely they've been evacuating critical cases.

Communications systems are destroyed. I would guess this story got told because the people got out and their tale had an angle to it. Evacuating infants and the ill isn't considered "newsworthy".

The only other justification would be if Guardsmen on the scene thought removing them would reduce racial tensions and the likelihood of mob violence.; 9/2/05, 4:44 PM
Unknown said...: Perhaps it wasn't that they were being targeted because they were white in the specific. Rather, they were being targeted because the were outsiders---and the color of their skin was simply one of the determining factors.

I wonder what would have happened if they were black Britons, but due to their dress, accent, belongings, and so forth, were still quite obviously foreign tourists.; 9/2/05, 4:47 PM
Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/2/05, 4:48 PM
Unknown said...: Oops, I need to finish my thought. My theory here is that outsiders would genuinely be more threatened in a dire situation as was present in the Superdom. If that theory is correct, then it stands to reason they merit being bumped up a rung or two on the triage ladder.; 9/2/05, 4:50 PM
Pete said...: Race was definitely a factor, for both those doing the harassing and doing the rescuing, but so what? We can play games all day about whether these people were justifiably threatened compared to those other poor people in the same dire conditions, but the call was made, and correctly so, in my opinion. As mentioned above, if the situation was reversed, if a small group of black people were placed in the midst of thousands of whites and were being threatened, then the correct action would be to remove the source of conflict. Obviously, the thousands of threatening people can't be removed but the group being threatened can. And there wouldn't be even a hint of preferential treatment because of race.

(And there's no indication in the story that these 50 took the place of other, more deserving people. Why is that possibility being entertained in this discussion?); 9/2/05, 5:17 PM
Ann Althouse said...: The "very sick." We will eventually see what the treatment of different kinds of people really was. I don't purport to know.; 9/2/05, 7:16 PM
JackOfClubs said...: John: I think your question can be clarified by answering Ann's earlier one, "If you were going to make rules about whom to save first of those people in the Superdome, what would your list look like?"

I would say that in emergency situations like this, you have to help the people that have the most immediately solvable problems, not necessarily those with the most deserving ones. Obviously if you are confronted with two competing claims, you can select based on the criteria you mention: "pregnant women, children, people with medical problems, etc." But you seem to be suggesting that these Brits should have been denied help while the guardsmen went and sought out those sorts of people. On that theory, you could never begin to help anyone, since even if you found a sick-pregnant-elderly-black-woman, there might be another somewhere that was sicker, closer to givning birth or more elderly. But the guardsmen should be given some benefit of the doubt here, since they seem to have seen a problem, determined that it had a relatively easy solution, and acted upon it. That is what they are supposed to do.

Further, the first necessity in these circumstances is not justice but order. As Freeman says above, there may be good reason to difuse a potential conflict because it will make easier the task of rescuing those with actual needs. The suggestion that they were "only" being insulted, not threatened is not convincing. People at the scene made the determination that there was a threat, and I don't see any evidence that they were mistaken. Again, I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the folks that are trying to do their job under pressure.

Perhaps the proper solution would have been to remove the people hurling the insults rather than those being insulted, but I can't see that they would be more "deserving". It would, of course, remove the suggestion of racism, but rewarding bad behavior in order to avoid appearing racist is hardly a useful moral guideline. Especially since the Brits "were helping the medical teams overnight". I would be much more inclined to help people who are willing to pitch in and help others than those "shouting racial abuse". Maybe you disagree?

I agree that the possibility of racism is worth considering, but I'm not convinced that such speculation can lead anywhere given the limited evidence. We don't even know the race of the guardsmen who made the decision.; 9/2/05, 7:42 PM
ploopusgirl said...: I agree that the possibility of racism is worth considering, but I'm not convinced that such speculation can lead anywhere given the limited evidence.

Of course not, Jack, because America is just so PC now, and the race card is so played out. I love the way white people completely dismiss the possibility of racism in the 2000s as if it's been entirely eliminated. It is extremely evident with regard to Katrina if only from the fact that the majority of people who couldn't make it out of New Orleans were poor and black. I sincerely doubt that this is entirely coincidental: there's a serious socioeconomic flaw. Dismissing the possibility of racism today is nearly as offensive as outright racism itself. At least outright racists are honest..; 9/2/05, 9:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, now that I've read the article, I will say it's not possible to judge whether they "deserved" the treatment or not. EVery big city is full of racial hatred, and gangstas hate everybody. We don't drive to LA any more at night because of the shootings or the morbid fear of a flat tire in the wrong place.

I believe that they were threatened but whether or not they actually were we'll never know. Remember that in most big cities whites are now the minority.

It's a war zone. People are getting out by any means possible. I don't blame them at all.; 9/2/05, 10:00 PM
amba said...: Just a couple of comments in response to a couple of the comments:

To Pastor Jeff,

I bet there's seething anger toward whites from more than a small minority of blacks. However, only a small minority express it violently or even express it out loud at all.

And to all those who've commented about the "specially vulnerable" being removed: What about the women and children (black too) who became victims of rape just because they could easily be physically overcome?; 9/2/05, 11:17 PM
JackOfClubs said...: John: I didn't mean to suggest that you were advocating preferential treatment, just that helping such a victim would seemingly be beyond criticism, yet still not completely beyond. It was indeed a reductio ad absurdam, but it illustrates the principle that in emergencies it is often necessary to do what you can in order to clear the way to do what you ought. You may not be proposing that the Nat'l Guard get bogged down, but I think the effect of your analysis would tend to bog them down in second guessing themselves.

One small quibble: you say they were evacuated, but in fact they were simply moved to a different location. As someone quoted in the article suggests, this may mean they are evacuated later than other people, since they are now further from the bus loading zone. This probably doesn't undermine your argument much, since I take it you would still begrudge the time spent escorting them which could have been used more fruitfully. I don't agree, but that is probably obvious.

@Lindsey: Thanks for offering those statistics on the demographics of New Orleans. I was going to mention them as well, but I generally don't like to get involved with trolls. People who so blatantly miss the point of a discussion are usually not worth arguing with. But don't you think the story you quote is a bit too lurid to be really credible? I have heard of only one arrest for rape (the 7 year old) and even that is a third-person account of someone telling a reporter that they had heard that the police had made the arrest. I am not suggesting that rapes and murders have not occured, but these stories don't quite disprove the subjectivity thesis that John mentioned earlier.; 9/3/05, 4:34 AM
Pete said...: This topic may have run its course but John Althouse Cohen was courteous enough to ask a question about my post that I should have the courtesy to respond to.

Ann’s original question was about the racial dimension of the story she linked to and so I’m limiting myself to that story and the information it contains. My point was why speculate about what might have been? The question I think Ann was asking was were these people given preferential treatment because of their race? What we can infer from the story is that those people you mention – “the pregnant, the children, the people with medical problems, etc.” – were taken care of, to the best they could be taken care of, from the part of the story Lindsey quotes above. And yet there was room for 50 more. So I would further infer that those in charge decided that of those remaining, these 50 were deemed in greater need than the others. There’s no indication these 50 took the last 50 slots available. Possibly more were rescued later, possibly not, but I see that kind of speculation as an endless exercise. Yes, out of 23,000 people, there’s the possibility that others more deserving were not chosen to be rescued. And, yes, out of 23,000 people, there’s the possibility that others less deserving were rescued ahead of these 50. All kinds of possibilities exist, I suppose but what exactly is the point of this kind of exercise?; 9/3/05, 7:07 AM
ploopusgirl said...: How was I trolling, exactly, Jack? Where did I personally attack anyone here and how was my comment entirely irrelevant and ignorant of the person to whom I was responding? You're comment is more irrelevant than anything I wrote..; 9/3/05, 10:43 AM