What Pictures of the Looters really may say (BARF)

I'm talking about television news footage of looters played over and over in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Looting occurs whenever law and order breaks down as a result of disasters natural or manmade. But since the advent of television, looting seems to be a black thing. From the Watts riots in the 1960s to today, you can count on pictures of black folk hightailing it away from some store with electronic appliances, jewelry and furniture.

So while reporters from 24-hour TV news channels poured into the area almost as fast as the rising waters, I didn't have long to wait for the looting story to flash on my television screen. And even though it was expected, I found myself a little sad. But mostly mad.

We journalists have a collective knee-jerk reaction in certain situations, disasters especially. We look for people, things, quotes that will convey what we want or need to convey. But overuse of this practice leads to cliche and stereotype.

In Iowa, where tornadoes are a summertime surety, reporters are always looking for someone to say that the barn-flattening winds sounded like a freight train. At my old newspaper, the first reporter to get that quote was treated to a beer after work.

For television reporters, shots of blacks looting are quick, easy and downright expected.

New Orleans is more than a party-time tourist destination. It's a city where two-thirds of the population is black, so I'm not surprised to see black people looting. Many are poor: The median income for whites is a low $31,971; for blacks it's a subterranean $11,332. Truth is, life in the Big Easy has never been that way for many.

My question is, are blacks really the only looters? Or are they the only ones deemed worthy of camera time? Does 30 seconds of tape, rewound and replayed, tell the whole story? If pictures of looters never made it onto the air, would viewers be deprived of crucial information? Do these images advance the story of the plight of people?

Yes, stealing for profit and personal gain is wrong. And I hope those who decided to take advantage of a disaster to haul off flat-screen televisions and DVD players find no way to profit from their theft.

But during a devastating disaster like this, good, law-abiding citizens may do things they would never do normally. On TV I saw people carrying what appeared to be groceries, water, and bags of ice. With no water, power, or way out of town, it looked to me that the "looters" were trying to survive rather than upgrade their stereo system.

Before you say "I would never," just remember that's pretty easy to say and believe as we sit in our comfortable, dry, air-conditioned homes with ice, water and food a few steps away. Hunger to us means we haven't eaten in a couple of hours.

Think about it: Water's at your knees, kids are hungry and thirsty. You'd call 911 if you had a phone and if someone would answer. How could I say that if this were my situation, I wouldn't be one of those people heading out of the Wal-Mart with things that could help my family survive?

So don't draw conclusions about the ways of black people from the few moments of "de rigueur" pictures of looters. Black citizens are also among the weary, the rescuers and the rescued, the resilient, the righteous... and the dead.

IMHO, a few words of advice from a simple infantry officer.

When one is faced with mob psychology, especially in any situation of societal breakdown, first identify the leaders and establish a simple, simple policy that any illegal activity will not be tolerated, let alone condoned.

An efficient public communications campaign and infrastructure really isn't required to promulgate these policies. The word is communicated very efficiently by executing with deadly force the first person who rebels against authority and the rule of law. This immediately reinforces the ideas within the brain housing group of every potential looter that a very real risk exists for improperly perceived behavior.

Please note that the same types of characters who allow faulty reasoning within their brain housing groups to procede unchecked, such as considering how they might benefit themselves during calamity by disobedience to lawful authority, are also the very same individuals who are the greatest threat to any assembly of persons or efforts to return social order to the scene. That element of society, which is very real and part of all societies, must be placed within bounds. Since limited physical controls exist at the hands of the legitimate authorities, one distinct advantage is to reinforce the element of risk to all illegal behavior.

Even after this occurs, there still will remain those who are rebellious in nature and will harden their hearts to any attmept of legitimate authority.

In situations such as the hurricane recovery in N.O., such persons also create situations where their greedy self-righteous behavior will deprive other innocent persons the basic fundamentals of life. The criminal mind and behavior will, in effect, behave in a fashion that may be understood as a use of deadly force, regardless of their comprehension of that consequence or not. This provides further justification of legitimate authority to employ deadly force in defense of those obedient to legitimate authority.

The arguments condoning looting for any cause, including water and food, beg the question that there do not exist any other legitimate authority,, including private owners or their representatives to provide the said resources by grace and compassion.

One aspect of condoning looting is that it removes the individual check and balance of personal dominion from persons within the society. Once removed, there is no element of criminality which will remain checked.

Those who will in the future consider rape, theft of rescue materials, murder, and every form of social criminal behavior will also have begun their reasoning from the aspect of relative social morals which included looting on the basis it provided the necessities of environment for their existence.

There will be an additional number of awkward situations simply caused by those who broke down and drank stagnant water, became delirious, and resort to any number of criminal behaviors when they lose control of their reasoning.

With this known by those with simple wherewithal, there is no excuse for leadership to condone looting, in any shape of form, especially early in a humanitarian rescue campaign.

Well, I think the short answer is, "yes".

I don't need to have a house in order to have food and water- that is, those things aren't built into the house, of course.

But I think that's why folks who have disaster supplies, like food and water, ought to store it in such a way that it's portable, like split over 3 or 4 bags, any one of which anyone in the family can hump. That way it's not only portable, but if any one bag gets stolen or lost, it's not a death sentence.

And I'm not talking about alot of weight here. I'm talking about enough to survive for as long as possible but retaining portability.

G

Okay, so,,

When we see black people looting, stealing clothing, jeans, t-shirts, electronics, they are just trying to survive! Oh, I get it. And when I see 3 semi-tractor trailers loaded with water turned away from the relief site, I'm can safely assume that the BLACK mayor of that town has the best interest of his citizens in mind. Perhaps if he were a little more eloquent, he would get more aid. You can catch more flies with honey...

So let's recap - when black people loot, they are just getting even with the MAN, right? But when white people loot, they are damaging the system. OKAY - got it.

Looting occurs whenever law and order breaks down as a result of disasters natural or manmade.

Only in places where a significant fraction of the populace consists of thugs

But since the advent of television, looting seems to be a black thing.

It IS a black thing

From the Watts riots in the 1960s to today, you can count on pictures of black folk hightailing it away from some store with electronic appliances, jewelry and furniture.

That's because it's what their wonderful black culture has for moral values.

I didn't have long to wait for the looting story to flash on my television screen.

That's because the looters didn't wait long to begin looting.

For television reporters, shots of blacks looting are quick, easy and downright expected.

Maybe because plenty of blacks were there looting to take pictures of

New Orleans is more than a party-time tourist destination. It's a city where two-thirds of the population is black, so I'm not surprised to see black people looting.

Were 1/3 of the looters white? I didn't see an equal representation. Is this grounds for an affirmative action lawsuit?

Many are poor: The median income for whites is a low $31,971; for blacks it's a subterranean $11,332.

So it's OK to steal if you don't make much money? How about if we all quit working and just steal everything we need. That should be OK with the little reporterette girl who wrote the piece of criminal loving drivel.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.