Demographics for a given city should be approached with caution; much depends on where the city limits line (or parish line, or county line) is drawn. How much "suburban" area is incorporated into a given city? I would surmise that the lines are close-in in New Orleans, and that the city contains relatively little suburban-type territory. Like Washington and Atlanta, also unable to annex suburban areas, New Orleans is a black-majority city, but with a high income, highly educated white minority. What's largely missing, in New Orleans, Atlanta, Washington, and other centercities is middle-class areas.
So, New Orleans (within the city limits, not the metro area) is two-thirds black. Why, then, does it seem that 99% of the SuperDome refugees; 99% of the looters; 99% of the armed, roving gang members; 99% of the people on roofs and bridges are black? Several reasons suggest themselves. Economics, of course: the mostly upper-income whites either lived on higher ground, and/or had the means to leave. But, to be politically incorrect, it should be noted that even under "normal" circumstances, crime rates among blacks are exponentially higher than crime rates among whites. Let me be blunt: if New Orleans had been a white-majority city, the instances of looting, murder, and rape would have been far lower.
None of this is to suggest that the folks in New Orleans should be left to their own. Heroic efforts to save them, both public and private, continue. But the race baiters and the poverty pimps are out in force, even among the Fox News anchors. And that's a shame. Any suggestion that responses are slower in black areas than in white areas is unfounded.
AND, 99% of everyone "interviewed" by "reporters" (i.e. trotted-out to perform in front of the cameras).
Intelligent posts are always so interesting to read.
So are posts with facts.
THX for your excellent input.