Interesting that huge issues in both Katrina and the Iraq War was virtal anarchy immediately after the event. For both of these the Bush administration has received huge criticisms. Clinton didn't have calamities were he was presented with challenges like this, neither did papa Bush. Papa Bush pulled the hell out of Iraq before he had to put that country on life support. Not old enough to remember Reagan's administration.

Also, wonder why race isn't made a huge issue of in this article? After I've seen so much about how the poor blacks had to suffer largely because they are black. Anybody would be surprised if this weren't largely a white community?

I've got to figure out that today.reuters.com site you linked to Phlog. Haven't figured out how to search their archives for stories older than a couple of days. Maybe they don't let you. You have so many sources you use, I assume you just use Google News as a portal and surf around.

My parents in South Africa and my rugby friends in Australia said the media reports we were getting here in America had heavily downplayed the violence, looting, pilaging, rape and group muggings that they were watching on their TV's. They were shocked and appalled that this would go on in an American city. They also commented that all the crime reported was being committed by black people and that no other ethnic groups seemed to be involved.

I wondered why our OWN media would downplay this so much? Don't we deserve to know the reality of what is happening in our own country?

My only guess is that it was downplayed purely to avoid the obvious embarrassment that our nation would feel watching the behaviour of our fellow Americans in New Orleans. What do you guys think?

Grant! Nice to see you on the board.


Unfortunately, since about 1960 many - possibly most - major American cities have experienced riots. Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, and just a few years ago Cincinatti immediately come to mind. These riots were extremely destructive and violent, and were intensely racial in nature. Specifically, these riots featured predominantly Black mobs looting and committing arson against White and - in the case of Los Angeles - Korean businesses, plus random beatings of motorists whenever possible. I have many opinions on these riots, and I'll share a few to help enlighten someone who may not be a battle-hardened veteran of contemporary American history and racial politics.


First, why did these riots occur? Many reasons can be assigned, but many people, particularly those on the left and in the news and entertainment media, like to blame it all on "racism". Really? Then let them explain this: Why did these riots become more frequent as American society became less racist. Most of these riots occured after LBJ's "Great Society" scheme, the Warren court, the 1964 civil rights act, the end of "Jim Crow law", the abolition of prohibitions on interracial marriage, affirmative action, etc, etc...ad nauseum. If "racism" were the culprit, the trend would be far different.


My theory? I blame appeasement. None of these riots were greeted with harsh retaliation by police, mass arrests and imprisonment, gunfire to disperse mobs of rampaging criminals, or pretty much anything consequential. The primary response of the government was to fire mid-level officials, typically a police chief, and replace them with tokens designed to appease rioters. (Think Daryl Gates being replaced with Willie Williams in Los Angeles.) Local governments and businesses would also be compelled to appease, in the forms of affirmative-action programs, "set-asides", and increased spending (tribute) into the communities that were looting and pillaging just a short time before. In addition to getting all sorts of new looted electronics and luxury items, the rioters got increased standing in the world of government and politics. People do what they get paid to do.


As for the media? Take a look at their typical party affiliation and what party the rioters tend to vote for. You'll get your answer in part. Also, the media believes that racism is purely a white heterosexual male attribute, and other classes of people who engage in racially-driven brutality and violence are idealists revolting against a fundamentally wrong and perversely bigoted and evil country. Any journalists who deviate from this thinking will face Jesse Jackson and his travelling riot, which would be bad for business and the media conglomerate's shareholders. If it weren't for the internet, old media would have fully suppressed the true nature of NOLA's rioting.


Thankfully, the truth can be found. Check my post history to find a NOLA thread I did, where I posted several foreign articles about the wholesale rape and murder in the superdome. You have some interesting reading ahead of you.

Drive, I don't think you're reading tea leaves at all .....i think you are right on the money! All i can think is that this country will inevitably pay a price for sweeping the truth under the carpet .....since we are simply allowing an evil trend to grow ....like a slow cancer. One day it'll be a problem we can NO longer deny ....like that plant in "The Little Shop of Horrors"!!!

Phlog, thanks for helping me understand American society/media a little better ....even if i don't like the answers!

Drive's new theory, RE: Why the American media would be pussy's about covering American violence.

Look at all the touchy feely programs we have on daytime television. Oprah's made an empire about making housewives feel all warm and glowy. You'd think she'd do a favor to men and talk more about sex, but anyway...

Am guessing the American media just figures nobody'll watch if they are too depressing. Notice how they have attractive looking males standing in front of the disaster areas? You gotta show strength and some kind of courage in these stories if you want Americans to watch.

It's like how I've heard that happy endings are way more common in American movies than in European movies. I think the American media just babies Americans and so we can't handle it.

Those big catastrophies are ratings bonanza's for news outlets. They interrupt everything else they're doing to give way too much coverage to them. Thereby, I think admitting most of what they do day-in day-out is pointless. If they were to put a bunch of shit up there the average American wouldn't watch, they'd be stabbing themselves in the back.

I've already posted this link to FOX covering the New Orleans convention center before any aid was brought there. But, how many average dundered-headed Americans do you think would keep watching if the news were more consistently like this:

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2678976?htv=12&htv=12

I think the average American would just change the channel and watch a re-run of Friends or something like that.