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.

66 comments:

Eddie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
PatCA said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ann Althouse said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ann Althouse said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
peter hoh said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Freeman Hunt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
PatCA said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
plain ol' random said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
D-Day said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ann Althouse said...

I'm terribly sorry. I really did screw up the link.

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.

plain ol' random said...

Oh, in that case!

I think it's perfectly fine, but I'm sure not everyone will think so. If they were being targeted based upon the color of their skin and were worried for their safety then yes they deserve the extra treatment.
It isn't as if they were moved from out of New Orleans on a special helicopter, just taken next door. When the tsunami in Asia hit, the American embassy and our country was doing everything it could to get our citizens out, and I believe that wasn't along a racial line.
This still though is mildly frightening and a terrifying example of the depths of human depravity once crisis comes in.

Pastor_Jeff 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.

Aaron said...

I grew up in a majority black city and went to majority black public schools. A number of folks there really believe they have a right to treat white folks any way they like for historical reasons or becasue some other white person pissed them off. There are not a lot of messages telling them how wacked this thinking is. A lot of dissaffected anger gets thrown onto whatever white people happen to be close. There are a ton of really great folks though who try and keep their fellows from being asses. The unfortunate thing is that the most constructive voices in the black community get very little support from the country as a whole. White folks are very leery of commenting in a critical way about the black community for obvious reasons. Don't know if this reticents is such a good thing over all.

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.

Freeman Hunt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Althouse Cohen said...

"When the tsunami in Asia hit, the American embassy and our country was doing everything it could to get our citizens out." That does not explain why just 50 people out of thousands were able to be specially rescued. The fact that any country (including the US) would always want security for its citizens does not explain it.

There's a lot of vague discussion in these comments about how some Britons might have been "targets." Does anyone have a source for that?

Freeman Hunt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
michael said...

There's a lot of vague discussion in these comments about how some Britons might have been "targets." Does anyone have a source for that?

From the article linked by Ann:
But Mr Trout's family said the group was escorted to a nearby hotel by the National Guard after the Britons were targeted by others in the shelter.

Pastor_Jeff 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.

John Althouse Cohen said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Althouse Cohen said...

Sorry, I obviously missed that...although the article barely gives a source either. It seems like all we know is that a few people had the subjective impression that they were in particularly bad conditions. I would imagine that a lot of the people there are worried about how they'll be treated by others. The article doesn't hide the fact that they were evacuated because of their nationality. I just can't get past the fact that everyone there is in a wretched situation. It seems wrong to come in and save a small group of them.

Pastor_Jeff 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?

StrangerInTheseParts said...

Aren't at least some of the national guardsman at the Superdome white? What about all the aid workers making their way to victims?

I'd like to hear more about how race is playing out between the victims and those trying to help now. If it's going well - there's some inspiration in that. If it's not - - that's a much larger story than the one about these hapless English folk.

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.

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.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Pastor Jeff wrote: "John, ... Would you feel differently if a black couple were helped to escape from hostile whites?"

I would feel the same whether the people who wanted special treatment were whites, blacks, Arabs, Jews, gays, disabled people, or anyone. I think the natural disaster is the overwhelming concern here, not people's personal conflicts. Ordinarily I would feel very sympathetic to anyone who's the victim of racial strife, but not in this situation. I don't understand the logic that says that out of thousands of people who are in mortal danger, the ones whose problems allegedly involve race or nationality should get top priority.

"Some people's lives were apparently threatened."

Yeah, I noticed.

Freeman Hunt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
lindsey said...

I wonder if this experience will break the genie out of the bottle and cause people to be more frank about some of these racial problems.

I suspect Mr. Cohen would feel differently about special treatment if he was getting the shit beaten out of him for being white.

Jack 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.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Lindsey: I can't imagine having to be in the situation any of these thousands of people are in. I'm sure that if I were one of the people in the Superdome, I would hope to be given top priority—that wouldn't make it right.

I don't know if your graphic characterization of what's going on is accurate. The descriptions in the article are very vague and seem to be largely based on the subjective reports of people who have been rescued. You're free to draw all your conclusions in favor of the Brits if you want, but I also have the right to be a little skeptical—loaded hypotheticals notwithstanding.

Freeman Hunt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
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.

Freeman Hunt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pastor_Jeff 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?

Eddie said...

I think this just shows that racism can go either way. I guess if I were a minority, I would probably also think it was prejudice to give them special treatment because they were white.

me said...

Noboby cared about the poor blacks before the storm hit; no one cares now.

I don't think anyone is intentionally trying to kill them.

However, the fact that no one thought of using trucks to get people to where there was clean water a few hours away, rather than forcing people to go to Houston, shows that the Government did not want black people in white communities.

It would have been handled differently if this involved a white majority.

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.

BoneUSA said...

I don't think there's much dispute here. If these Brits were in danger of physical harm from the others in the dome, then no one should have a problem with what the Natl Guardsmen did. While everyone there is in a wretched situation, being in a wretched situation objectively is preferable to being in a wretched situation while getting beaten by a mob.

On the other hand, if there was no threat of harm to these Brits and they received preferable treatment because of their skin color, then clearly the actions of the Guardsmen unfair and inappropriate.

Whether the Brits were in fact in danger is a question that cannot be resolved here.

Pastor_Jeff 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?

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.

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?

lindsey said...

"The National Guard moved them out into the basketball stadium next door where the very sick were being held."

From this line in the article, it seems the sick people were taken out first.

"You're free to draw all your conclusions in favor of the Brits if you want, but I also have the right to be a little skeptical—loaded hypotheticals notwithstanding."

I'm not drawing conclusions in favor of anyone. I'm basing my statement on what I was told in the article.

Pastor_Jeff 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.

mcg 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.

mcg said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
mcg 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.

Aaron said...

Ann,

There may be others who are in more dire need. There may be deep racial tensions. My instinct is to say that there are. It is anecdotal but my life experience has led me to believe that many who are poor and black suffer from a strong dose of paranoia mixed with a sense of collective guilt on the part of white people. Hell, I've met affluent white people who came to the same conclusions about race in America. It seems reasonable that white folks may have been targeted in ways that made for serious extra risks - I also think that the media is very uncomfortable about reporting black racism. The clips I have seen on CNN etc. where black people are angry about their treatment don't go as far as I have heard from blacks folks just bitching in general about America and their place in it. I would be willing to place money that if we got the raw footage - or heard the general comments if no camera was around that the rhetoric would go immensely farther than what we have seen on the news.

I don't know if removing white tourists from the forum was the right solution. It would only reinforce the idea that there is some double standard at work. If a riot broke out sparked by the presence of whites that would be awful. It is quite plausible sadly. In the long run it is probably better to trust fellow citizens and hope that no white people would be beaten. As someone who has been attacked just for being white in Philly I know how awful that can be. I have also been attacked for being a "nigger loving jew". People can suck. Despite knowing that I will be dissapointed sometimes - in the long haul you have to assume people will behave well or the whole system goes south.

three other quick points: 1) if the danger was imminent where they were getting shoved and you could see the writing on the wall then better to get 'em out. 2) uniformed whites and blacks and others are either green or blue depending on their uniform. A uniform masks race to some extent. 3) the others who are at risk are made safer to some extent if you lower the risk of more anarchy, violence, or riot.

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?)

John Althouse Cohen said...

Pete wrote: "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?"

You don't think we should even mention that as a possibility?! I think it's a pretty good inference that there must be many pregnant women, children, people with medical problems, etc. in the Superdome. Are you saying that out of the 23,000 people, you think they're all healthy adults? Or that everyone who deserved it got the same kind of treatment the British tourists got?

lindsey said...

I repeat:

"The National Guard moved them out into the basketball stadium next door where the very sick were being held."

From this line in the article, it seems the sick people were taken out first.

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.

Jack 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.

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..

PatCA 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.

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?

miklos rosza said...

This week is causing me to revisit scenes I guess I had suppressed or forgotten... but while working in ER I saw or was in the middle of three riots the theme of which was black vs white.

In one case, on a hot day in the summer, two white girls lost control of their car and went up onto the sidewalk in the black part of town where the car struck a black child of maybe 7 years old, breaking his leg.

So we received, by ambulance, the child at ER. But within 15-20 minutes we also received a large loud hostile crowd of black people who would not believe we were not hiding the white girls (whom we never saw -- if they were injured they were taken elsewhere). This crowd proceeded to storm in, fully intending to go room to room searching for the white drivers of the car. To kill them. Such at least was the announced plan.

It was quite an experience to be in the center of this hysteria. Until the cops came and made one or two token arrests and quieted things down.

My point is that I'm not going to 2nd-guess any on-site triage personnel. One can get a sense pretty quickly of when there is real danger and when there is not. People who have not worked in these situations and speak as civilians just haven't a clue.

There's so much more I could say about all this but I don't want to relive it all right now.

There's nothing good about what has gone on this week. Nada. Rien.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Jack writes: "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 giving birth or more elderly." (Emphasis added.)

First, I never suggested, nor do I believe, that they should favor blacks. I have no more or less interest in the black victims of this catastrophe than in any other victims. There should be no racial preferences one way or another.

Second, your argument is akin to Zeno's paradox, which says that physical motion is impossible because before a thing moves a certain distance it must first move half that distance. I am not proposing that the National Guard get bogged down in a search for the very most sick or most pregnant among tens of thousands of people. I'm just questioning the choice to evacuate a small group of tourists rather than other kinds of people, e.g. children, who could have been quickly spotted.

lindsey said...

"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."

The majority of citizens in New Orleans are black. Some 65 or 67%. Most of the black people there actually seem to have gotten out before the storm started.

There are more reports in the press of white people being targeted in the dome. Here's one. Another.


Valenti and her husband, two of very few white people in the almost exclusively black refugee camp, said she and other whites were threatened with murder on Thursday.

"They hated us. Four young black men told us the buses were going to come last night and pick up the elderly so they were going to kill us," she said, sobbing. "They were plotting to murder us and then they sent the buses away because we would all be killed if the buses came -- that's what the people in charge told us this morning."

Other survivors recounted horrific cases of sexual assault and murder.

Sitting with her daughter and other relatives, Trolkyn Joseph, 37, said men had wandered the cavernous convention center in recent nights raping and murdering children.

She said she found a dead 14-year old girl at 5 a.m. on Friday morning, four hours after the young girl went missing from her parents inside the convention center.

"She was raped for four hours until she was dead," Joseph said through tears. "Another child, a seven-year old boy was found raped and murdered in the kitchen freezer last night."

Several others interviewed by Reuters told similar stories of the abuse and murder of children, but they could not be independently verified."

Jack 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.

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?

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..

lindsey said...

"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."

The Reuters article claims at the end of my quote that they were told other tales of rape and murder but could not substantiate them. I'm assuming that since there were tales they couldn't substantiate that the ones relayed in the article are tales they could substantiate. Does that make sense?

TopCat said...

I had a taste of black mob violence many years ago when Diana Ross had a free concert in Central Park. We can quible around the PC arguments all we want, but black people are taught from a very early age in this country that they are not accountable to the same standards of the majority because of historical wrongs.

The Scoopster said...

I am disgusted that some people here would rather second-guess the Brits than admit the unthinkable (unthinkable to white liberals): I.e., that underclass blacks have a higher propensity to commit hate crimes due to an establishment that re-enforces a victim mentality.

If you have any sincere doubts about whether or not white people were actually attacked, you should read some of my blog posts with news items from legit Anglosphere outlets:

(1)Australians rescued from Superdome after being attacked by black street gangs:
http://scoopster.typepad.com/scoopster/2005/09/think_tribally_.html

(2)White man's beaten body carried out of the Superdome; NBCs Kerry Sander's interviews two men whose friend was beaten to death at the Superdome:

http://scoopster.typepad.com/scoopster/2005/09/hate_crimes_at_.html

(3) Racist violence forces Australian evacuation from Superdome:

http://scoopster.typepad.com/scoopster/2005/09/liberal_press_e.html

I had no idea that white liberals in the US were that much in denial. I suppose cognitive dissonance is a painful thing to confront.

The Scoopster said...

Prof Althouse, you should be ashamed of yourself:

Apparently, if we do anything to protect a white minority that is being targeted that is wrong. This bleeding heart wonders why the National Guard didn't rescuse black targets. Is she that obtuse? To use a phrase beloved of multiculturalists, the whites constituted a "visible minority". In short, they were the targets of hate crimes.

I suspect that white liberals don't really believe hate crime laws apply to whites.

Moreover, I suspect white liberals are freaking out about how middle America is going to interpret the explosion of black criminality in New Orleans.