Reporters just can't understand it
In several reports, reporters have felt the need to editorialize on the fact that some residents of New Orleans are still insisting on staying with their properties.
One Fox News reporter said that he'd "like to kick their butts", as he waited to pounce on a man approaching in a rowboat. This reporter was angry because, he said, rescue workers were spending time stopping to try to convince these people to leave when they could be helping others in neeed.
The man finally arrived and revealed that he was just coming out to try to find a phone that worked so he could try to locate some people and let them know he was ok. He said he had an elderly neighbor who either hadn't been rescued or didn't want to leave, he didn't specify.
The reporter tried to attack him for not leaving, and the guy stated simply that he wasn't going to leave his neighbor behind for anything.
When the reporter repeated his odd claim that the stragglers were taking up valuable time when the coast guard and others were coming around, the guy just calmly stated that nobody had come around, period. So it's hard to apply this reporter's peculiar reason for being angry with those who choose to stay.
Several times, I've heard people express their bewilderment verging on anger against people who refuse to leave their homes.
This strikes me as very small-minded.
You have a home which is your biggest possession, and it's filled with everything you own. You have enough supplies to survive for a long time. Though the situation is dire, I'm sure some of these people simply feel that they'll wait it out until at least the water is drained.
And a main concern is that they naturally don't want to abandon what little they own to be at the mercy of looters. And many are no doubt convinced, perhaps rightly, that once they leave, they'll never see their home again and may actually lose it completely.
They also could reasonably not want to get shuffled off to God knows where, several hundred miles away with no chance or ability to return for a very long time, perhaps forever.
Once they are evacuated, their fates are no longer in their control.
This alone seems to be a rational reason for refusing to leave.
At the bottom of this is the simple, and easily understood, desire to protect their home and possessions.
Why this seems to baffle media figures and others is beyond me.
Staying with their homes may not be the smartest thing to do, especially in light of the water-borne disease present, but I still don't have any problem understanding why they want to stay.
Now those on the right want to get tough on them, including Sen. Rick Santorum suggesting that the victims who stay should be heavily fined. (How do you fine a person with nothing??!! An idiotic proposal on so many levels.)
Mayor Nagin has authorized the stragglers to be removed by force. As he famously said the other day, "Some of these diehards are going to die hard." This ought to set up an interesting scenario, with people who would rather die than abandon their homes to fate being dragged kicking and screaming from their homes. A few committed residents will likely try to defend their homes with guns. Not good.
What are you feelings on the matter?
posted by The Inside Dope @ 9/07/2005
2 comments
2 Comments:
As you laid out with a bunch of good points, its natural to want to stay in your own home if you feel you can make it. But you also have to ask yourself this. If your neighborhood was being evacuated, and one person wanted to stay, would you trust him with your house sitting empty and no one around?
QCI... that depends on the person of course, but likely no. That brings up another factor, that people were probably even less likely to leave if they knew others were staying.
They just has a woman on MSNBC whose house and neighborhood is high and dry, they have running water and plenty of food and water stocked up. She was arguing focefully that to force her to evacuate made no sense to her.
The bottom line is that to many people, their "place" is the most important things in their lives. It's what they've worked their entire lives for, and in many cases, it's been "home" for generations of their family.
While it's indisutable that the conditions are bad to say the least, and that there is indeed a health risk due to the water, it's also a fact that some may indeed be able to make it through safely until the water is gone and the enormous task of cleanup is started.
If there are stores, restaurants, bars, etc. that are able to be put back in business, even in a rudimentary way, then that would be good, and there will need to be people to gradually bring such things back to the city. (there's already at least two bars up and running in the quarter, even without electricity)
If the town is abandoned, then these efforts will be delayed considerably.
Forcing people to leave their homes is certainly a dicy proposition, since the rights of property is sacrosanct in the U.S.
It's a tough call, and as QCI pointed out, unless you can force EVERYONE out, which would be next to impossible, it makes others less likely to leave.
I think the people that remain don't have any desire to be obstructions to relief and rescue efforts, and will gladly go along with any rational order, but they simply want to be there to do it themselves, not leave it to strangers as to how their property and homes are dealt with.
And... this is a long subject... there is also the matter of pets. Pets are not allowed to be taken with their owners when they are evacuated. And many people, understandably, simply can't imagine leaving their pets behind to starve to death or worse.
Post a Comment
<< Home