The Boondocks

When I first watched the episode of the Boondocks I was, at first, a little offended. I thought it was insensetive to portray the New Orleans victims as lazy, stupid, beligerant and greedy. A few minutes later I remembered that I am an English major and should never ever take anything literally. The entire episode is obviously a metaphor for how the majority of the nation saw the Katrina victims. Grandpa represents the behavior of the majority of Americans non affected by the storm, especially in the beginning of the program when he is talking about the storm, saying how much he wants to help only to declare a few minutes later "WE'RE NOT HERE." I think that behavior is the typical reaction most Americans get when they see or hear bad news, "Oh, that's a shame. Wish I could help them. I wonder what else is on." When it comes down to actually doing something to help we generally write it off as an inconvenience.
What initially bothered me about the program was how the victims were portrayed. At first, I thought the writers were taking jabs at the behavior of the victims following the storm, about how they were lazily waiting around taking advantage of everyone's hospitality while they waited for their FEMA checks to come in. But then I realized what the writers were really doing, as far as I can guess, was putting a microscope on to what we, the non-victims, were scrutinizing about the real victims from our safe dry homes. For example, the character with the dreadlocks that keep taking stuff from the house is a sort of symbol of what we assumed New Orleans looters were like. As he saunters around with his hands in his pockets going saying "Y'all got some real nice stuff up in here" as he picks up vases and PSPs and white baseball hats. I think that when we heard that people were looting from houses in New Orleans we all kind of assumed that it was like that, people walking in taking gaming systems and jewelry and walking out, when it reality it was more like most people were just panicking in the chaos. Granted, I imagine for some people it was just a matter of people grabbing stuff while no one was looking, like the man that tried to steal Chris Rose's bicycle, but I find it hard to believe that the majority of people were wading through the ruined aftermath looking for nintendos.
The other major symbolic character, the patriarch of the New Orleans clan, is another negative symbol. The man that just wants to wait for his FEMA handout so he doesn't have to work. When it becomes necassary for him to start working, he re-emphasizes his victimhood so that he will continue being waited on.
And the actions of the family served as a representative symbol. When hearing about an approaching hurricane they destroy the ceilng and go up on the roof. I think the reason that the writers created this ludicrously rude, lazy, obnoxious and clearly lacking in common sense family was not to poke fun at the victims but to poke fun at our perception of the victims.
Like, really America? This is what you think is going on? Look at these people you have created in your minds. They are stupid, lazy, rude and selfish. There is absolutely no way that people like that actually exist.
But I also think that the writers managed to squeeze in one fairly accurate portrayal of a real Katrina victim among all the negative stereotypes and that was the little girl with the pigtails sitting mournfully on the roof wondering when exactly she could go back hom.

I'm so sorry this is so late....I promise I won't make this a regular thing.

The two columns I found similar in Chris Rose's 1 Dead in Attic were "Despair" and "Good-Bye." At first the only to things I found in common with these two articles were that they both affected me deeply to the point where I was wiping tears from my eyes as I read them. Then there is the very obvious fact that they both deal with the horror of the aftermath in a way that tugs at the heartstrings and makes you realize just how devastating the losses of Katrina were. In both passages the primary focus is the impact the hurricane had on families.
Both passages deal with death and chronicle death in a raw, emotional format.
In the first one entitled "Despair" Rose chronicles the tragedy of a couple that were happily engaged in New Orleans before the storm. The woman refuses to leave New Orleans because "she is a New Orleans girl and New Orleans girls never live anywehre else and even if they do, they always come back" (61). After the storm they struggle at their attempt to live happily among the ruins of the city. They decide it is too much for them, and the man kills himself. This story is especially troubling because unlike the majority of the tragedies this one is not a case of an accidental death due to the storm but instead tries to depict how hard it was to live after the storm. It is as if surviving Katrina itself wasn't enough but living with the memory and in the wake of Katrina was just as challenging. In other words it shows how much it takes to survive a tragedy not only physically but psychologically as well.
The passage entitled "Good-Bye" delves into some similar themes, specifically on how the hurricane impacted familial relationships. This passage does a particularly good job of elaborating on how difficult it was to explain what had happened to his children. They, being so young can only relate it to how it affects them directly, what happened to their stuff their friends etc. While trying to explain what is happening Rose struggles ot phrase the tragedy in a way that will make them understand but won't truamatize them. When he explains that some of their friends are gone. While he doesn't explain the fates of his childrens friends directly it is heavily implied that they died in the hurricane.
While there are a great deal of differenes within the situations in the two passages the most prevalent similarity is that they explore the psychological damages during the aftermath. They also explore the theme of love and how sometimes it isn't enough. In the case of the first passage the love between the couple was not enough to help them through Katrina, not because they did not love each other but because there was only so love can do. In the second passage it seems that Rose's love for his kids is helping him cope with the tragedy. By using protecting his kids it seems he is almost helping to protect his own psyche.
The one recurring theme throughout the book is the constantly looming question how do we move past this? How do we get over it? The general answer seems to be; we don't, we just move forward. And even though the outcomes within the two passages are drastically different, one ends in tragedy and one ends with hope, they both deal with progression in the aftermath.

I never know what to put in these things

Hi everyone.
My name is Danielle but I often go by Dani. I'm a Senior English major/Film minor at UNH. I'm originally from a tiny coastal town in Maine. Right now the water is warm there and the waves are huge and I am here in NH and without my surfboard, which depresses me to no end.
Yay school.