Compared with New Orleans, no looting, no rapes, no murders, no police running away from work. Folks in the football stadium are organizing refugees, there are child care activities. But so many of you hate Watson for speaking the truth about racial differences.

the fires MUST be bush's fault..katrina was, global warming is, no health ins. free for everyone is, all war, injustice, etc..do you think any are natural occurrences?

o2: I'm sure you thought you were writing in English. Remember, diversity is our strength!

Not everything is GWB fault. But GWB is a major failure and has made many mistakes.

His policies on illegal immigration, the needless invasion of Iraq, the handling of the Iraq occupation, and the increase in the debt to name just a few.

You're all missing his point. He's saying that the multi-state disaster that decimated not only New Orleans, but cities for hundreds of miles around leaving them with no food, no clean water and no exit from the city was SO MUCH MORE catastrophic than the disaster of the San Diego wildfire (which is comparatively isolated, not affecting surrounding cities and already declared a national disaster) NOT because of the major differences in the events themselves, but BECAUSE THE PEOPLE IN NEW ORLEANS WERE.................

NEGROES.

Or have I mischaracterized your point, you lousy racist?

bib35,

You are a morron with a capital M. How can you compare a bunch of people who are dirt poor, living in ghettos to people living in Malibu and fancy districts of Orange County and San Diego?

Arguing with racists is as productive as arguing with the Pope about the failings of the Catholic faith.

Keep believing that the Katrina people were looting because they were black not because they felt helpless and most of them were not educated.

Don't let me stop you.

At one point during the Katrina coverage, they actually had the stones to show an extremely large number of school buses sitting parked with water starting to come up to the middle of the tires. If you can drive in, you can drive out. Its not rocket science. The people there, despite their level of pigmentation, failed to use the resources they had available to them. Should they have waited to get a call from GWB personally to tell them to "come out of the rain?" I don't think that falls under the job description of President.

Water down two different situations largely at the service of reaching your conclusion, which is never actually stated, just implied--somehow black folks are so different then white folks that the difference in how the two separate disasters unfolded in either an uncivilized or civilized way is largely based on the racial composition of the two areas.

Then mention the whole Watson thing. Yes, you're probably right, we're too afraid of the truth to take an unflinching look at objective views.

I'll grant you leeway. You don't have to explain how this comparison is bullet proof, account for the difference between New Orleans and 600 square miles, but tell me, if your conclusion is correct, what do you intend to do with it? If blacks really are inferior or just uncontrollable, inhuman animals, what is your solution? Perhaps reinstating segregation? The Marcus Garvey approach? Extermination camps?

Take it further. What do we do with other "races" that are genetically inferior on standardized tests. What about impoverished people?

Tell me how this doesn't become a justification for outright racism. And tell me truthfully that this is what you believed before you came upon "objective truth". I'm going to take a wild guess, that you already thought that there was just something fundamentally wrong with black folks.

mrsfoz5 & copyofcopy:

The fact that there are differences in intelligence & behavior among races is a given. Think about how the Japanese responded to the huge Kobe earthquake in 1994. Hundreds died & billions in property damage, but no looting, killing, rapes, just organized self-help. IQ isn't a perfect measure of intellegence but it does indicate problem-solving abilities.

These are the realities we must deal with. Under no circumstances should these facts be used to deny black citizens their basic human rights. And there may be nothing to "do" about it but acknowledge it and to adjust public policy so that we do not pretend all problems can be solved by government plan.

Thanks, I guess, but to clarify, I don't have any type of partiality for one race over another. I do, however, have strong feelings about anyone who would sit and do nothing for themselves while water is rising in the house, and only get their dead ass off the couch when the water got too high to see the TV. Then cry about no one bailing them out. I'm not a racist, I'm a stupidist. Self-preservation would have taken over for me long before that point. Just because those idiots happen to be black doesn't make me racist. Anyone who brings up race, when there are so many other reasons to dislike the way things went, I believe, they are the racists. Thinking that someone based on the color of their skin is entitled to something that others aren't is A RACIST. I'm saying, Black, purple yellow or green--Use your freakin' HEAD!

original argument and bibi,

none of this is articulated with a even a modicum of an attempt to make to make the issues at hand plain. why don't you compare these circumstances to the northridge earthquake in california? it would be at least within america, and actually, in california, so it links up to southern california at least geographically. I feel like we are extremely limited in our comparisons when we go to hurricanes and catastrophic floods in urban areas, to wildfires over ~600 square miles, to an earthquake in japan.

be specific. what specific circumstances lead you to draw this conclusion as a parallel that makes the difference between black and white people's responses so very different, and then lead to the conclusion that it is an inherent matter of race. Do you really know that much about the response in Kobe, or the plans in Japan to address natural disasters like earthquakes to make those similarities and end arguments clear?

These conclusions say more about the sentiment of the people making the argument. They're never about specifics, and they always literally leap across the globe and ignore context that informs educated opinions that provide us with access to greater meaning and evaluations that actually describe realities, instead of what our prior beliefs allow us to suppose.

you say that under no circumstances should this be a rationale for denying human rights, but without a proper context that is well articulated, none of the conclusions that are drawn can be approached without an appropriate amount of skepticism. They can't be defended adequately in the cursory format in which they are presented.

But the argument and conclusion are their own sort of situation. The extent of the meaning of what is intimated here is harsh, not well argued, and detrimental to any realistic understanding. These answers are satisfying, because when the truth is within grasp of those who "know" they are sitting right next to it, who needs to properly argue them? The implications against black folks is glib and I don't see it realized convincingly here.

That's ironic when the next argument is a nod to objective science without acknowledging that those conclusions are vulnerable to an exclamation of a kind of bias we know historically exists.

science requires an amount of specificity so that it can be insulated from the bias of those that perform the experiments and what they already believe when they decide to perform those experiments. Much different when you're running an experiment then when we draw conclusions based on them without recognizing the very human circumstances and histories that surround them and inform their actual meaning. This is not simple 1 plus 1 equals 2 work here. Just because someone might want something to do what they want it to do doesn't necessarily mean it will happen in science. That's why they have a section in formal papers labled "methods and procedures". We have to be specific and list our procedures. Listing prejudice isn't required in the blogosphere.

These arguments don't have a methods and procedures, just something that looks a lot like a justification for racism and a spurious conclusion.

I'm not pretending that this can be solved with a government plan, but I am arguing that making it inherently about a cultural idea like race without acknowledging that that distinction doesn't objectively exist without showing how that distinction is repeatable and without bias, is a mistake, and frankly, untenable if it's not argued correctly. Two short paragraphs doesn't really cut it for me, it's just satisfyingly convincing if I want to believe in the conclusions I've been offered (and in that case what I agree on depends more on what values I hold, but does nothing about convincing me otherwise, and we all know where to go or who to agree with when it mirrors our own values).

I don't think the conclusions or the comparisons are worth anything unless they are handled with more perspicacity. The brevity of the comments and conclusions leads me to believe more in the belief and intent of their author then the reasons backing them.

Just for everyone's info, at the time of the Kobe earthquake in 1995, Kobe was a city of approximately 1.5 million people, whereas New Orleans had approximately 500,000 people at the time of Hurricane Katrina. Wereas, 6,434 people died in the city of Kobe due to the 1995 earthquake, 1,836 died in Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Both disasters were quite costly. The Kobe disaster cost an estimated $200 billion in damages, whereas the Katrina disaster cost about $81.2 billion in damages. And, yes, the Kobe disaster was handled much more effeciently by both government and people.

Different cultures in our country and the world respond differently to things. If that response is negative both to themselves and others, than for the sake of all, an honest discussion needs to take place as to why. Now, I have always stressed the importance of unity, which requires focusing on our similarities while at the same time respecting our differences. That is why I completely disagree with the media and societal push for separatism and distrust of others. If you watch the news, everything is framed in the context of race, even when such a context cannot and does not exist. Can't we all just be human, US citizens. Responsible for our actions as humans. When a crime has been committed, regardless of the perpetrator, race should not be a factor, in verdict or sentencing. When applying for college or being accepted for government grants, it is absolutely racist for race to be a factor. Poverty level, yes, since that absolutely does impair one's ability to afford to go to school. However, isn't it racist to imply that there is something inherent in one's race that prevents one from affording school or gaining access to certain schools. I am all for completely, truly equal treatment. Why does every event, every crime, every discussion have to be about race? If we would all stop focusing on race so much and what divides/separates us, we just might all get along a whole lot better.

Finally, bibi, just a thought. I don't know if it is completely true, but it is my observation. I feel that many black people are indoctrinated with the message, both by media and culture, that they are on their own. That both the government and whites are against them. This may lead to a hurt and survivalist attitude in some. Perhaps some of the reason for the looting? Maybe they felt alone and like they had to care for themselves. Or maybe they were just criminals through and through. I don't know for sure. I'm just saying that nothing is black and white (no pun intended).

Biblereader said:

>>When applying for college or being accepted for government grants, it is absolutely racist for race to be a factor. Poverty level, yes, since that absolutely does impair one's ability to afford to go to school. However, isn't it racist to imply that there is something inherent in one's race that prevents one from affording school or gaining access to certain schools. I am all for completely, truly equal treatment.<<

You can make the case, I suppose, that Affirmative Action has run its course, that it is no longer applicable in modern US society. I understand that argument, but don't necessarily agree. I think quite often we look at problems of racism and slavery and segregation as problems from centuries ago. Black people were drinking from separate drinking fountains as late as the 1960s. If they weren't allowed into the same bathrooms as white folk, what makes you think they'd be allowed into the same jobs? That was 40 years ago. Not 150 years ago. We've changed alot in 40 years and that's great, but I don't think it's unreasonable to err on the side of caution when it comes to access to education and jobs.

>>I feel that many black people are indoctrinated with the message, both by media and culture, that they are on their own. That both the government and whites are against them.<<

That may be so, but you could certainly make the argument that 40 years ago both the government and whites WERE against them. Plenty of people still around from 40 years ago.

BibleReader: "Survivalist" strategy would have meant organizing workers & digging latrines instead of pooping on the Astroturf. Looting is just typical thug behavior. Again, all races are children of God & deserve respect as such, but if we acknowledge diversity, that must include diversity of behavior & capacity.

Copyofcopy: 2 paragraphs is never enough but nobody's gonna read 20 paras of pontificating. You hysterically brought up extermination camps, not me. Science, as Watson knows, before his craven back-track, is about the pursuit of truth, not about hurting someone's feelings. Again, See Lynn/Vanhanen, "IQ & Global Inequality."

So true bibi35, copyofcopy needs to learn to summarize or condense or ..... something. Geesh! Only the truly loyal will read the whole of a post that long!