About that "Katrina Blog" thread that was closed

For those seeking additional information about the source and credibility of the "Katrina volunteer blog" from the recently closed thread, check out Snopes

http://www.snopes.com/katrina/personal/volunteer.asp

 

Pretty much what I thought. The blog was almost certainly "real" -- i.e. based on real expression of real experiences -- it's just told from a viewpoint warped by prejudice. Interesting application of the Rashomon effect.

 

Hey QvAtlanta! Didn't your degree progress display show you further along a few weeks ago? I seem to recall 43% at one time..... What gives?

 

I didn't bother to read through all that crap again but I fail to see how you've come to the conclusion that this was "real" and that it was based on "real experiences" simply because it was posted to some other website. Help me with this.
Jack

 

OK. I put "real" in quotes because this is the internet, and without a team of private detectives and hackers there's not much point in making definitive statements about who people really are. But I see four options here concerning the "reality" of the post.

1. Someone who was not there at all, and created the account as propaganda which they themselves did not believe in.

2. Someone who was not there at all, and created the account as propaganda which they themselves believed in. The actual experience would be fictional, but the viewpoint expressed would be true, i.e. "If I was there, this is exactly how I know it would have happened..."

3. Someone who was actually a volunteer, and created the account as propaganda which they themselves did not believe in. In other words, they did not represent their experience as they actually lived through it.

4. Someone who was actually a volunteer, and created the account as propaganda which they themselves believed in.

Evidence surrounding the presentation of the original post led me to believe that number 4 was the highest probability. It looked like a typical myspace.com blog with typical comments. 1, 2 or 3 just didn't seem any more likely than 4, which is kind of the default level of truth. Then it got confused because as snopes.com mentioned the original account was emailed out under a completely different name and context. In that case it became more of a number 1 or 2 scenario from the standpoint of the distributor (but not the original writer, who remains at a putative number 4 level).

There's also a mini-analysis on snopes.com of what people want to believe about other people. Some is racist, some is sort of race-neutral and some is anti-racist. There's actually several layers of this going on.

-- the original writer wanted to believe something about black people before he volunteered. He made his experience fit that belief.

-- people who read the emailed account did not believe it could have possibly been written by someone who was actually a volunteer, out of 1) a positive belief in the ability to be a disinterested observer 2) a rational comparison with many other accounts and news stories that directly contradicted the account

-- the people who forwarded the account, including the original doctor and including the person who first posted it here on the bulletin board, did so perhaps because they weren't sure what to believe but wanted to ask other people. Snopes.com does suggest, in a very damning way, that part of the appeal of the account is that it confirms some very negative and frankly racist tendencies that people have. However, part of its "appeal" is also that it raises some issues and complexities about not so much race, but racism. People would also have been forwarding and distributing it for that purpose as well. Or maybe both purposes together, even.

 

No....

People believe the blog because they have actually seen hurricane victims on TV saying the very same things the guy in the blog said. I have and not all of them were black so ditch the racist crud. But there were people on TV complaining about the food and having to stand in line to get their $2000 and then using it to rent limo's to go shopping and drinking. All of it was shown on TV in living color for the world to see.

However, I have also seen a lot of victims on TV saying the exact opposite. They are grateful and using the opportunity to make changes in their life. Their getting jobs and getting out on their own. It is a new start for them and their family and they say how grateful they are for the opportunity.

What was wrong with the blog was he/she/it made it sound like everyone was like that and by no means is everyone or even most everyone. Some are, in every society there are the bad apples, and it is those bad apples that people remember. Especially, since we have a "it leads if it bleeds" mentality in our press...

 

Re: No....

So that was the ONLY thing wrong with the blog?

 

Re: Re: No....

Can you read any more into what I wrote? The blog was about a guy accusing the refugees of being a bunch of ungrateful whiners. I pointed out they weren't. You must be one of those people running around looking for a reason to be offended. Give me a break....

 

So that was the only thing wrong with the blog in your opinion... his racist slurs were OK, I guess. No, I'm not going to give you a break. You might have read over them and missed them... oh wait a second, THEY WERE IN ALL CAPS LIKE THIS.

 

Let me keep this simple for you....

Apparently, you have a problem reading. Look at the first line of my post instead of cherry picking the parts you choose to be offended by. The question was why would someone believe the blog. I said because people had often seen some of this same behaviour on the news. This guy tried taking that and using it to demonstrate all or most of the refugees were like that. I said that they werenn't because I have also seen the exact opposite behaviour on other media.

I never said that was the only thing wrong with the blog, you did. I wasn't even addressing the blogs validity, only the question as to why people would believe it. Personally, I think the blog is a fake. Someone as racist as the blogger indicates he/she/it is would not volunteer their time to help. Racist are generally not generous to anyone much less to those they hold bias against. The likelihood of someone like that voluntering to help is low to nil.

Maybe you should bone up on some basic reading comprehension before you try to attack another's post. People like you are as much a problem in race relations as the guy who posted the blog. Oh, the give me a break was meant as SARCASM for your self congratulatory post which was based on total inability to read what someone wrote.

Here it is again,

GIVE ME A BREAK (sarcasm emphasized)..........

 

Write the Author

I have sent an E-mail to the web-host of the article.

I have requested information for verification of the Katrina account.

I will share that information with all of you if I receive any updates.

I'm as curious as all of you are about this account.

 

Who gives a sh**? Why does it matter whether or not the article is true? If it's factual, it's one person's account of what he/she experienced. If it's made-up... BIG DEAL!

Everyone is so concerned because the guy used a racial slur.
Newsflash - He's not the first person who's ever done that, and I'm pretty sure this is not the first time any of us have heard (read) it.

What are you gonna do, track down the auther and ban him from Degreeinfo?

Let it go!

 

On some level I agree with you. However, if it's untrue, and I believe that is, then its entire purpose is to propagate its central racist message. In this case I do not believe that such material has a place on this forum. Because of this I have locked this thread.
Jack