Limbaugh blames flood victims

We frequently hear complaints about Indian reservations vs. non-Indian towns and neighborhoods. Even though right-wing pundits may claim the situations are similar, they often aren't.

Here we have Tim Wise comparing the reactions to the recent floods in Iowa and 2005's Katrina-induced floods in New Orleans. Although the comparison doesn't involve Indians, it's relevant to the debate. Wise shows how Rush Limbaugh, and by extension most Americans, are operating on false analogies. It's a classic case of blaming the victim for the problem.

The Ugly Side of Disaster:  Racism and the Calculus of Comparative SufferingThis week, as Iowans and some in Illinois watched flood waters rise ever higher, Limbaugh took to the air to contrast these supposedly good and decent people who have joined forces to help each other, with the presumably evil, lazy and violent folks of New Orleans, who we are told, did nothing but foment criminality and wait for the government to save them during flooding there in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Thus, we have his statement of a few days ago, in which he noted that in the midst of the devastation in the Midwest:

'I see people working together. I see people trying to save their property...I don't see a bunch of people running around waving guns at helicopters. I don't see a bunch of people running shooting cops. I don't see a bunch of people raping people on the street...I see the heartland of America. When I look at Iowa and when I look at Illinois, I see the backbone of America.'Some differences between Iowa and New Orleans:In New Orleans, residents were kept from escaping, literally forced back
into the city by armed police from a neighboring community. Nothing like this has happened in Iowa.

In New Orleans, relief agencies like the Red Cross were prohibited from entering the city, thanks to an order from the Department of Homeland Security, which feared that the provision of relief would delay evacuation. In other words, the suffering was heightened deliberately by government order, as noted on the Red Cross website, as early as September 2, 2005. Nothing like this has happened in Iowa.

In New Orleans, those stuck in the flood zone (tens of thousands in all) were herded into the Superdome and Convention Center, where there was no air conditioning (at the hottest time of the year in that city), no food, and little or no water. When those who were trapped (and who would wait for three full days before any serious assistance arrived) tried to get to the food in the pantries of the Convention Center (food that would have gone bad or been written off anyway), they were met by guns, pointed at them by members of the National Guard, who warned them to 'step away from the food or we'll blow your fucking heads off.' Nothing like this has happened in Iowa.Some similarities between Iowa and New Orleans:Then of course have been the suggestions, especially common in the e-blasts and blog postings to the effect that Iowans, unlike New Orleanians, have helped themselves, because while the latter had grown dependent on government to solve their problems, Midwesterners in the 'heart of America' still value the importance of self-reliance. But the fact is, Iowans are no less likely to receive government assistance than those in New Orleans were prior to Hurricane Katrina, according to the Census Bureau's American Community Surveys, taken in 2006 (the most recent year available) and 2004 (the last data collected for New Orleans before the flooding of that city).

In hard-hit Linn County Iowa, 2400 households receive cash public assistance, out of 85,000 total households, meaning that 2.8 percent of all households in the County receive cash welfare. In New Orleans, prior to Katrina, and contrary to popular belief, only 2.6 percent of households received cash welfare (4600 households out of 180,000). So in truth, a slightly higher percentage of Linn Countians were on the dole than New Orleanians. In Black Hawk County (also hard hit by the recent deluge), 2.5 percent of all households receive cash assistance: again, suggesting no real difference between the mostly white and rural folks there, and the mostly black and urban folks in Orleans Parish at the time of Katrina.Comment:  We could do similar comparisons between reservations and their non-reservation neighbors. A reservation may be lacking decent schools, affordable health care, adequate law enforcement, phone service and the Internet, etc.--through no fault of the Indians themselves. Unless the non-rez areas are also lacking these things, the comparisons are unfair.

Many rural towns are drying up and blowing away, with few opportunities for people to flourish. Why should it be surprising if reservations are in similar straits? In both cases the best and brightest people often leave for better opportunities, leaving the rest to languish.

For more on the subject, see Should Indians Cling to Reservations? and The Myth of American Self-Reliance.

P.S. I've said it before: Everything Tim Wise writes is worth reading. If you want to know what I consider ideal, it's a Tim Wise article.