So--which side is right?

UPDATE:  A hearty welcome to visitors from the skwib and this week's Carnival of the Vanities!  Poke around a bit and see what you think.  Leave a comment or two.  And many thanks for the thoughts on this post that people are already leaving.

Ralph Bristol points us to a CNN/USA Today poll of 262 black Americans and 848 whites.  And this poll is unusual;  the question asked has a simple, yes-or-no, black-and-white answer, although the actual answer itself is far from clear.  In addition, the wording of the poll question cannot account for the stark contrast between the two possible answers.   In addition, it's highly informative to us all, unlike most such polls.

You don't have to believe this poll, but you ignore it at your own peril.  Worse, no one has an answer for the problem it reveals.

Well over half - six in ten - African Americans say they believe the fact that the majority of the people stranded in New Orleans were poor and black caused the federal response to the disaster to be slow, while nine out of 10 whites said those factors played no part.

...Even though race relations in the United States have improved dramatically in the past 50 years, there remains a grand canyon between the perceptions held by the two races.

This much is true and indisputable. Race and poverty either did or did not affect the federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina. It is impossible that both perceptions can be true or even partly true. This is a yes or no question. There is a huge chasm between the opinions held by blacks and whites on the question, and the two groups can't both be right or even partly right. One is right and one is wrong.

Either 90 percent of whites are wrong about the question or 60 percent of blacks are wrong. Can you grasp the weight of that fact? It's monumental.

Think about this for a few minutes.  There's no meeting in the middle, here.  Even if you say, "well, perhaps there isn't a lot of real racism involved, but just a little," then you are saying that the 60% of blacks are correct.  The question didn't address the issue of how much racism might be present, only whether there was any at all.

And be careful giving either side any benefit of the doubt.  Real, honest-to-goodness racism on the part of governmental agencies or agents is one blisteringly serious charge, one for which there should be real evidence, and I'm not talking about the anecdotal kind.  If you can't substantiate such a charge, you should not make it at all.

On the other hand, if it really is there, you would be seriously derelict in not pointing it out.

This issue doesn't give you any wiggle room.  There's no opportunity to be diplomatic.  And, unfortunately, the question itself makes no demands on those who answer it in the setting of a poll.  You can get away with a flippant remark because you aren't asked what evidence you have for your answer, and even if you offered some, there's no evaluation of the evidence you would give.  (Yes, I am making the case that some opinions, when based on faulty evidence, are invalid opinions.  Including mine.)

This isn't one of those issues where everyone is "entitled to their opinion" as this isn't a matter of opinion.  Either such discrimination exists, in some amount, or it does not.  You can make the case that, in most cases, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but no one has the right to his own facts.  Trouble is, this is a huge divide along racial lines, one that shouldn't exist at all.  The question of whether the government is racist should be well-known to everybody regardless of race--but it isn't.

You'll note that I haven't answered the question for myself, and that's because I don't know what the answer is.  In some ways, most of us may not even be in a position to know the answer.  (Boy, is that lunging for the safety of a cop-out, or what?)

I do know this:  there should not be such a stark divide between the races on this issue.  I would also expect that white leftists would side with the 60% of blacks to a greater degree than non-leftists, but politics can't account for the 90% figure.  This is truly stunning.

Having said that, how in blazes do we address the problem, and why don't we know the answer?

UPDATE:  Does no one have anything to say about this?  Anyone?

Technorati tags:  Katrina, racism.

Comments

[Kevin Baker]

Since no one else will, I'll put in my 2¢.

The question was, "Was the Federal response slow because of racism?"

The answer is "no." The 60% of blacks that believe it was are wrong. The reason they believe it to be so has more to do with the culture of victimhood that's been forced upon them, IMO, since the Welfare State was established. I believe that a further study will show that blacks who are recent immigrants to this country do not have the "victim mindset" that Louis Farrakhan, Jessie Jackson et al. depend on to support themselves. Their "success" at this is illustrated by that 60% figure.

Is there still racism? Absolutely, but on an individual basis, and practiced by both sides of the racial grand canyon. It is no longer institutionalized, at least not at the national level.

At the local level, you'd have to ask Ray Nagin.

[adam]

So if the culture of victimhood and the welfare state is at fault, answer this widespread hypothetical: If the hurricane would have hit Kennebunkport and all the citizens were trapped in a state of emergency, would Bush have stayed on vacation, would FEMA have taken 4 days to get there? It's a class issue, but when race=class as it does in many places in the south, I think it's a fair argument to say that race played a part in this catastrophe. "George Bush doesn't care about black people" isn't as accurate as "George Bush doesn't care about poor people", or even more accurately, "George Bush cares more about playing guitar with a country singer than he does about dying poor people".

[Kevin Baker]

Adam:

How long did it take FEMA to get to Miami after Andrew? There are towns in Mississippi that have yet to see a FEMA response, according to NPR's Talk of the Nation yesterday.

The citizens remaining in New Orleans somehow seemed to believe that FEMA was supposed to roll in the day after the storm. That's not FEMA's job. That's the job of the City and State governments, and they failed it.

The problem in New Orleans (though Bush has taken the blame for "poor response") isn't that FEMA responded too slowly, it's that expectations were too high. The welfare state mentality tells people that somebody else will take care of them and all their needs. They're shocked and angered when it doesn't happen, and seek someone to blame. The Federal government has been the teat so far. The Federal government must be at fault when the excrement hits the air-movement device.

[Obi-Wan]

If the hurricane would have hit Kennebunkport and all the citizens were trapped in a state of emergency, would Bush have stayed on vacation, would FEMA have taken 4 days to get there? It's a class issue, but when race=class as it does in many places in the south, I think it's a fair argument to say that race played a part in this catastrophe.

Race=class? I don't understand where you're getting that at all. It's as if you're saying that, particularly in the South, there aren't many poor white people. Right.

Yes, I think the president would have been just as phenominally stupid in his immediate response to the hurricane no matter where it struck. I'm no master politician, but even I know that leadership, or at least a good facsimile thereof, was needed badly right then, and while he can do anything while on "vacation" that he can do at the White House, it's people's perceptions that matter. Even if only in giving them a "warm feeling" of hope, he failed them then.

But why is it a "fair argument" to say that race played a part in anyone's response? What sort of evidence do you have that it did? What comparisons can you make between Katrina and other disasters?

I think it was Heinlein who said to never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

My MAIN point is this: there are some things the president can be fairly blamed for in the response to Katrina. But it's nearly impossible for me to take anyone's criticism of Bush seriously if they don't take Mayor Nagin (and Gov. Blanco) to task even more severely. Unlike the president, it was Nagin's job to evacuate the people in his town who couldn't get out on their own, and he didn't take that responsibility at all seriously--in fact, he may be guilty of negligent manslaughter. There was a plan already in place. It wasn't followed, and it may be that it was never intended to be followed.

If you can't hold him and the governor of LA responsible for the things that are spelled out, in black and white, as their responsibilities, then how can you blame the president?

Why is it not even more valid to say that Ray Nagin doesn't care about the poor people in his own city?

[Obi-Wan]

Oh--and I'm glad that people are thinking about this and responding here. That's a good thing. Thanks to everyone who came here via the Carnival of the Vanities.

[Obi-Wan]

At "Below the Beltway" we have Katrina vs. Rita: A Study in Contrasts. It's two photographs, one of Houston, the other of New Orleans.

No comments necessary.