No Wonder?

What to make of this little piece of post-Katrina analysis from the UK-based Economist magazine:

Both sides are aware of the tensions that might accrue once short-term needs are met. The refugees will overwhelmingly be black, their hosts white; evacuees will come from a place that ranks last in most measures of civic health and social cohesion, and will end up in states that rank near the top in all of those measures. No wonder the survivors would rather stay closer to home.

How's that? You are black and poor and homeless, but the last thing you would want is to be offered shelter by rich, white folks? The story cites evacuees getting off the bus down south rather than heading for northern states, but surely that is more about staying close to home than avoiding contact with Da Man?

Another piece in the same magazine compares New Orleans with Babylon, an analogy which is only going to reinforce right-wing Christian prejudices which hint that somehow these poor black folk deserved what they got.

Am I being too PC here? I know, black-white issues are just as prone to hysteria as that whole "anti-Semite" thing. But there's a fine line between reporting on racial divides and exacerbating them:

Most of the richer white neighbourhoods lie on natural levees created over centuries. On lower ground are the poorest districts, whose residents are overwhelmingly black and, now, deeply resentful. Some rattled New Orleanians may never again feel safe after watching their city fall into anarchy.

These stories remind me of something else I read in The Economist recently, an article taking a supposedly critical look at the reform agenda of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. I read the article with some interest, keen to know exactly what Chavez was doing to deserve so much criticism. But the article was pretty short on actual details of Chavez's crimes. It seems the real problem was that Chavez thinks the government can do some things better than private industry.

And that - in today's world - is really, really, totally non-PC! I mean, even to suggest such a thing makes you a "Communist", doesn't it? But wait a minute...

Cuba’s own record of human survival during hurricanes provides eloquent testimony that there is another way.

Six hurricanes striking Cuba from 1996 to 2002 killed 16 people. Hurricane Georges (1998) killed 597 persons elsewhere, only four in Cuba. Michelle (2001), Cuba’s worst storm in almost 60 years, killed five. Ivan (2004) killed thousands in the Caribbean area, mainly in Haiti — but none in Cuba. In Charley (2004), the worst hurricane for Havana Province since 1915, four people died. This year, Hurricane Dennis unexpectedly caused at least 10 deaths.

UN disaster relief expert Salvano Briceno said last year, “Cuba must serve as an example.”

“The Cuban model,” he said, “could easily be applied to other countries.”

Cuban President Fidel Castro addressed the Cuban people on national television prior to Hurricane Charley last summer. “The number one thing is to protect lives,” he said. “You can rebuild everything, except for a life.”

“We shall measure the effectiveness of our preparation through the number of lives that are saved,” Castro said.

Hmmn... I may be a bit of an idealistic hippy at heart, but I aint no damn Commie-lover! I am not advocating centralized State control of everything in sight. But surely there has to be a middle path here? If tiny little ants with brains the size of pin-heads can get along in teeming colonies swarthing with bodies (black ones!), why can't we?