PDA

View Full Version : Katrina - why did they stay?


Judy G. Russell
September 4th, 2005, 09:37 AM
One thing I've heard, over and over, is that the people of New Orleans should have left in the evacuation. It's their fault that they didn't. For those who've said that -- and those who may be thinking that -- here's a piece from the Washington Post that really answers that:

Living Paycheck to Paycheck Made Leaving Impossible

By Wil Haygood
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 4, 2005; Page A33

NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 3 -- To those who wonder why so many stayed behind when push came to water's mighty shove here, those who were trapped have a simple explanation: Their nickels and dimes and dollar bills simply didn't add up to stage a quick evacuation mission.

"Me and my wife, we were living paycheck to paycheck, like most everybody else in New Orleans," Eric Dunbar, 54, said Saturday.

He was standing on wobbly, thin legs in the bowels of the semi-darkened Louis Armstrong Airport, where he had been delivered with many others after having been plucked by rescuers from a roadway.

He offered a mini-tutorial in the economic reality of his life.

"I don't own a car. Me and my wife, we travel by bus, public transportation. The most money I ever have on me is $400. And that goes to pay the rent. And that $400 is between me and my wife." Her name is Dorth Dunbar; she was trying to get some rest after days of peril.

Dunbar estimated his annual income to be about $20,000, which comes from doing graphic design work when he can get it. Before the storm, when he and his wife estimated how much money they needed to flee the city, he was saddened by the reality that he could not come up with anywhere near the several thousand dollars he might need for a rental car and airfare.

"If I took my wife out to dinner, it was once a month," he said, sounding as if even those modest good times had come to an abrupt end. "We'd go to Piccadilly's. Never any movies. Really, it's a simple life. I go to work, come home, talk to my wife, go to bed, then back to work again. A basic existence."

He was rolling two quarters around in his hand, short 50 cents to make a long-distance call to his son. As his eyes began to water, he repeated himself: "Just a basic existence."

The two smooth-faced boys on the floor, sitting on their backpacks, looked more energetic than most. Corey Wise, 17, and Jermaine Wise, 18, were once residents of New Orleans's 17th Ward.

"Our family was already in a financially depressive situation before the hurricane," Jermaine said.

He calculated where the family -- their mother, Marie, is divorced -- stood financially before the wind, water and destruction.

"We had $300 between us," he said, nodding toward his brother. "Mom had about $225 worth of savings. That was our emergency savings for anything. And that was a blessing."

Their home was in a New Orleans neighborhood called Holly Grove.

"A lot of drugs and violence in our neighborhood," Corey said.

"It's hard to just get up and go when you don't have anything," Jermaine said. "Besides, everything we know is in New Orleans."

They went on their way in tandem in search of their mother, somewhere upstairs in the terminal.

A 47-year-old grandmother was rocking a grandchild.

"These people look at us and wonder why we stayed behind," said Carmita Stephens. "Well, would they leave their grandparents and children behind? Look around and say, 'See you later'?" She gave a roll of the eyes behind the raised voice.

"We had one vehicle. A truck. I wanted my family to be together. They all couldn't fit in the truck. We had to decide on leaving family members -- or staying."

She shifted the grandchild in her arms. "I'm living paycheck to paycheck. My mother passed away this year. I was helping take care of her. My real job was as a private-duty caregiver. I had one patient. He died two weeks after my mother passed, on May 6." She calculated that the family made a little more than $2,500 a month -- but that included help from her son Jamel's job. "He's missing now," she added. "So is Eric Stephens, my husband."

They were soon to be Texas-bound. "And I don't even like Texas," she said.

All morning, they kept arriving, walking as if through a morbid dream.

"I got $3.00 on me now," said John West, 39, formerly a resident of the Sixth Ward here. "I'm serious."

He said he has never had a savings account in his life. "I make $340 a month," he said. "I stay with my mother. I give her about $150 of that. His income is from a disability check. His hands got badly burned in a 1993 fire. "I lost a little nephew, but I saved two kids," he said.

West said he has never owned a credit card -- not even before the fire. He said he figures $500 was the most money he could have come up with on such short notice, with the hurricane bearing down.

"And that would have come from my daddy. But he's always been skeptical about giving me any money. And his people got money! He could have given me $1,000, and it wouldn't have hurt him."

So he did not even ask, instead lowering his economic aim by simply wishing he could get his $340 monthly check.

"My mother and father don't even know if I'm alive or dead."

There were a few lucky souls yesterday sitting at the Shoney's restaurant on State Highway 30 in Gonzales. Karen Lavalais, 37, and a friend, Patricia Jones, 39, and various relatives.

"I only work part time at a janitorial service," Jones said. "I make $6.00 an hour. If I didn't have my mama, I'd be one of those victims still trapped in New Orleans."

She works 17 hours a week.

"I had $80 when I got out of New Orleans," Jones said. "And I wouldn't have had that if payday hadn't been that Friday. Eighty dollars with two children."

Lavalais, who formerly lived in the 10th Ward, said that when the hurricane struck she had a total of $94 in the bank, which constituted her life savings.

"And I couldn't even get to that," she said. "So thank goodness I had some gas in my car."

Peter Creasey
September 4th, 2005, 10:22 AM
It has been said that some of the people who stayed were the prisoners who were freed due to there being no local planning for the tragedy. _Supposedly_ this is one of the various reasons there was so much looting.

Judy G. Russell
September 4th, 2005, 12:17 PM
The official word is that not one single prisoner was freed from local, state or federal custody.

Peter Creasey
September 4th, 2005, 01:01 PM
>> The official word is that not one single prisoner was freed from local, state or federal custody. <<

Judy, As I understand it, after Katrina the people in NO reacted very much in ways that were totally unexpected, one example being the extensiveness of the looting. Yes, looting is always a problem but the scale of the problem in NO was reportedly unprecedented by a very large degree.

The explanation I have heard is that this is _somewhat_ attributable to the fact that some of the prisoners were freed because the local authorities had no plan for handling them. However, I don't believe what I've heard about the prisoners being released has any _official_ authentication.

Judy G. Russell
September 4th, 2005, 02:33 PM
I think the looting (not the foraging as in necessities, but looting as in TVs) is more attributable to the fact that there is always a bad apple (or bunch of bad apples) anywhere -- and a crisis like this is always going to bring out the best in good people, and the worst in the thugs among us.

In addition, I do think a lot of what was described as looting was in truth foraging. I don't consider it looting, not for one minute, when somebody in a situation like what those folks faced in NO breaks into a store and gets diapers or clothes or shoes or water or food or medicine or first aid supplies or...

Lindsey
September 4th, 2005, 10:34 PM
The official word is that not one single prisoner was freed from local, state or federal custody.
The prisoners were evacuated from the jails, but I am quite sure that you were right that they were not freed. I think one of the photos I saw on the NYT web site was of a group of prisoners, still in custody, but in the process of being bused out.

New Orleans has a fairly substantial drug problem; one speculation I remember hearing in the past week was that at least some of the looting (as well as the violence) may have been the work of drug addicts desperate for a fix.

But I think you're also right that crises bring out the worst in some people.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 4th, 2005, 10:39 PM
Yes, looting is always a problem but the scale of the problem in NO was reportedly unprecedented by a very large degree.
The scale of the disaster is also unprecedented, Peter, and so is the inadequacy of the early response to it.

The vast majority of the reports I have heard have said that the vast majority of what has been reported as looting was just people desperate for food, water, and other necessities. I'm not going to blame hungry and thirsty people for breaking into stores for the things they need when there is no way for them to obtain those things any other way. You can't tell people who haven't eaten in three days just to be patient until help arrives.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
September 5th, 2005, 12:06 AM
I think you're also right that crises bring out the worst in some people.
No doubt about it: some people rise to the occasion, others sink to it.

Dick K
September 5th, 2005, 01:45 AM
The explanation I have heard is that this is _somewhat_ attributable to the fact that some of the prisoners were freed because the local authorities had no plan for handling them. However, I don't believe what I've heard about the prisoners being released has any _official_ authentication.I have a hunch (and I emphasize that it is no more than a hunch) that this story may be a garble of the reports that many of the looters whose activities were interrupted by the police were initially released (after surrendering their booty) because the police had nowhere to put them.

Judy G. Russell
September 5th, 2005, 08:55 AM
I have a hunch (and I emphasize that it is no more than a hunch) that this story may be a garble of the reports that many of the looters whose activities were interrupted by the police were initially released (after surrendering their booty) because the police had nowhere to put them.
Now that makes perfect sense.

Peter Creasey
September 5th, 2005, 12:43 PM
>> I do think a lot of what was described as looting was in truth foraging. <<

Judy, Here's another "first hand" experience. The mother of a friend here went to the Astrodome to volunteer. As she was walking up to the Dome, an evacuee ran up, grabbed her purse, and ran away with it.

The dynamics of the looting in the aftermath in NO are off the charts as compared to what would be expected or what has happened in the past.

I don't know who Robert Tracinski is but here is his analysis:

http://tiadaily.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1026

Dick K
September 5th, 2005, 02:20 PM
I don't know who Robert Tracinski is but here is his analysis:

http://tiadaily.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1026Tracinski is an "Objectivist" (aka an Ayn Rand apologist), and although I am not surprised that he blames the breakdown of law and order in New Orleans on "the Welfare State," I find his arguments to be incredibly simplistic, callous, insensitive, and borderline racist.

Peter Creasey
September 5th, 2005, 05:43 PM
>> Tracinski is an "Objectivist" <<

Dick, I am not aware of what it means to be an objectivist. Nor do I have any knowledge about who Robert Tracinski is.

There does need to be dialogue about what might have led to the un-American looting of TVs, merchandise, wine, jewelry, Nike shoes, etc., etc. in the aftermath of Katrina.

Besides the looting, there is the wide disrespect for the community. They are having to impose an 11 PM curfew in the Astrodome because the 25,000 people are being disturbed by drunken rowdy people who are returning late and carouse and wake everyone up. There are confirmed reports of rape and attacks in the Astrodome.

In the past, with tragedies, there has always been a preponderence of citizens banding together to cope and help each other and very little of the unsavory stuff. This tragedy has been different in certain respects.

There has to be reasons and they should be discussed.

Dick K
September 5th, 2005, 05:54 PM
Dick, I am not aware of what it means to be an objectivist. Nor do I have any knowledge about who Robert Tracinski is.Tracinski, by his own admission, is the editor of an Objectivist newsletter. Objectivism is the apogee of libertarianism and laissez-faire capitalism. Its founder and chief guru, the novelist Ayn Rand, held that acting selfishly (or "in one's own interest," to use a less emotionally charged term) was the most rational form of behavior. She scorned altruism as being unnatural and a perversion. My guess is that she would have condemned Mother Teresa for acting contrary to nature. Here are Ayn Rand's own words when she was asked to summarize her philosophy:

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:



Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
Note this line in paragraph 3: "He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself." In other words, if you are trudging through the muck in New Orleans and you come upon someone writhing in agony in your path, you should not step on him, but it is perfectly acceptable (and recommended) to step over him and continue on your way. No thanks.

Peter Creasey
September 5th, 2005, 08:24 PM
Dick, Thanks for the informative followup.

Do you have any thoughts as to why the criminal actions have been more rampant after Katrina as compared to the historic (and expected) norm?

Dick K
September 6th, 2005, 01:29 AM
Do you have any thoughts as to why the criminal actions have been more rampant after Katrina as compared to the historic (and expected) norm?Well, I am not sure what the "historic (and expected) norm" would be, but that is a good question. I'm not a sociologist, but my guess--and it is only a guess--is that every concentration of population in this country includes a number of people inclined toward crime and violence. Normally, the behavior of these people is damped by several factors: dilution of the "criminal element" by the law-abiding segments of society, the glare of the public spotlight, a police presence, and various legal (or at least tolerated) outlets which can range from pro football to cockfights. Remove the damping factors (as happened in New Orleans during and after the hurricane), and you remove the lid from the boling kettle.

Obviously one finds criminals in all segments of society, and I do not wish to imply that poverty=criminality, but it cannot be denied that "street crime" (as opposed to, say, embezzlement or stock manipulation) is more commonly found at the lower end of the economic ladder. And that is precisely the group that was left behind when New Orleans was evacuated just before the hurricane. By definition, it is the people at the bottom of the economic heap who are the most likely recipients of welfare. In other words, these two segments will probably have a large area of overlap. But just because there were a lot of welfare recipients left in New Orleans when law and order collapsed does not mean, as Tracinski would have us believe, that receiving welfare is the cause of criminality; to take such a point of view is to fall into the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc; a more extreme example would be to note that New Orleans was flooded after I went to the movies and to conclude that my going to the movies had therefore brought about the flood.

Peter Creasey
September 6th, 2005, 08:28 AM
Dick, Thanks again for your thoughtful reply and for responding to the issues rather than attacking the author of the article.

I would have to know more about the sociological data before I could argue either side.