Slog - Comments on Was Katrina Too Black?

Comment by thehim

thehim — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:54:38 -0800

Yeah, and I just saw The Last King of Scotland too. There were like, maybe 3-4 white people in that whole movie - and all of the extras were black until the very end at the airport. What the hell?

Comment by DOUG.

DOUG. — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:54:43 -0800

Wow! Hearsay on the internet. Must be true. (And what's an "anectdote"?)

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:24:23 -0800

Well, that is in fact the most important question about the government's response to Katrina (not the film). Why IS it so black? Why do so many black people live without resources or the possibility of resources in the most vulnerable below-sea-level areas of New Orleans? New Orleans is not a normal city, although much of the government's response assumed that it was -- and much of the failure is attributable to (a) not understanding the special conditions of New Orleans, and (b) not really giving a shit. Which gets back to black people. Poor blacks living in New Orleans, in the view of the Bush Administration, would be best off if they all died or went away.

Comment by OR Matt

OR Matt — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:26:33 -0800

"Where all the white women at?"

I had to laugh out loud when I read this post.

Comment by Seth

Seth — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:42:13 -0800

That's not a completely groundless question--plenty of whites were made homeless by Hurricane Katrina--it didn't just hit New Orleans...Biloxi, for example, which is 70% white, and lost 90% of buildings along the coast; Katrina killed 53 people there.

There's nothing wrong with focusing on one community, whether that community is majority white or majority black or whatever...

But I can imagine that if the roles were reversed--if the filmmakers had chosen to focus on a majority white city instead of a majority black one--people might call racism about that, too.

Comment by K

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:19:09 -0800

Motion picture distributors don't care about black people.

Comment by Hello

Hello — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:30:20 -0800

Seth, you missed the fucking point. This film is not getting distributed not because they find it inaccurate and one-sided, but because white people like to see white faces on a screen. (Historically, the exceptions have been when the black faces are on white people or the black faces on black people have a grin and thems feets is shufflin'

Comment by Mike of Renton

Mike of Renton — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:36:11 -0800

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that someone would ask that question in Utah.

Comment by M

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:05:48 -0800

@ 7 - AMEN

Comment by chris in new orleans

chris in new orleans — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:42:17 -0800

I'm white and I lost everything in Katrina. I was ABLE to get out unlike most. The face of Katrina is black, but for every black there is probably a white (in the non-urban/rural areas) that was affected. I guess the difference was our ability (both vehicle-wise and monetarily) to leave. I certainly don't blame the "blacks," but understand whites were also affected.

Comment by annie

annie — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:12:49 -0800

Just so y'all know: It's a first-person doc primarily constructed from video shot by a survivor who stayed through the levee breach and flooding. It's not an objective overview designed to tell the stories of absolutely everyone who was affected.

Comment by KeeKee

KeeKee — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:13:37 -0800

@7:
More current historical references please!