check out a book called "Rising Tide, The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and how it changed America" written by an eminent scholar, John M. Barry
which provides historical context in which to place minister farrakhan's raising the idea of the levees being intentionally blown.
This book details the politics, economics, greed, and all the intimate details of the decision to blow the levees protecting black areas in 1927 in
order to save the "white" or business areas of new orleans.
Please find an article from "blackelectorate" website posted for your convenience. Regardless of what you may think of minister farrakhan, his
remarks on the levee are dead on.
Politics Mondays: The Intentional Destruction Of Levees in New Orleans – A Conspiracy Theory? Not In The Light Of History.
"There is no perspective," a friend of mine living outside of the United States wrote to me in an e-mail, a few weeks back. He was referring to the
American media coverage regarding Hurricane Katrina, as well as the reaction and thinking of many in response to the disaster. In that, and subsequent
e-mail exchanges he has placed emphasis on relevant examples, analogies, parallels and precedents from recorded history – all over the world, that
he believes help to place what happened in the Gulf Coast and across America over the last 40 days in perspective.
Three meanings of the word "perspective" according to yourdictionary.com are: 1) The relationship of aspects of a subject to each other and to a
whole 2) Subjective evaluation of relative significance; a point of view and 3) The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or
I often find that most people with deep emotional attachments to political ideologies, among other worldviews, lack "perspective", as the word is
defined in its first and third meanings above. One such influential group within the much larger body of those who ardently subscribe to political
ideologies, that many of us are familiar with, are political talk show hosts – on both cable and radio. The recent ‘explosion’ of conservative
talk radio, in particular, and its influence on public opinion and the decision-making of American elected officials is an interesting study, related
to this concept and word – perspective.
Recently, as it relates to the controversy that has erupted over Minister Louis Farrakhan’s suggestion and hypothesis that a levee breach, or
crevasse, in New Orleans was intentionally affected by an explosion; I have noted that much of the public discussion and ‘uproar’ over the
Minister’s publicly expressed thinking has been heavily influenced by opinion leading talk show hosts. Those, within that group that I have paid
closest attention to over the last two weeks are Mr. Sean Hannity and Mr. Larry Elder. I have listened periodically to both of their radio shows for
several years, and in terms of their profession, I see both of these men as talented, interesting, and successful. I do not consider them to be
journalists and I do realize that their public expressions take place as much in the context of entertainment and a broadcasting industry business
model, as they do in the spheres of ‘politics’ and ‘news.’ As a result of this, and their rigid attitudes and thinking, I expect them to be
selective in their research process and limited in how broad and deep of a context they provide in discussing current events. Although they frequently
speak truths accurately, as many of us do, I do not expect them or any of their peers to be purely motivated by a desire to a) search for facts b)
make proper interpretations; and c) draw accurate conclusions, that can be tested and verified by any reasonable and rational person.
However, for many, talk radio is often the first and only, if not most trusted source of news, information and analysis on current events and
politics. I have several associates and acquaintances who have impressed me with how deferential they are to what they hear on such programs. It is as
if they do no independent thinking outside of what they hear Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Larry Elder, Glen Beck, Michael Savage and Laura Ingram say.
For liberal or progressive ideologues, perhaps the same is becoming true of their relationship with National Public Radio (NPR), and Air America talk
I have been struck by this reality as it relates to the quality of the discussion, in not only talk radio, but all forms of media regarding Minister
Louis Farrakhan’s statements. To me, the most noticeable factor missing from this conversation and debate - other than a serious effort to get the
premise, motive and context of his actual remarks - is that of historical perspective.
Although Minister Farrakhan has mentioned historical information in all of the public statements he has given regarding his suggestion and hypothesis
regarding the levee breach; I have not heard a single talk show host; Sunday morning news program; or newspaper article that has addressed the
Minister’s view or that of other Blacks who share it - in part or full - deal with some of the historical information presented or alluded to by the
Minister in any of his talks in question. Nor have they, of their own, presented a relevant historical context in which to weigh his remarks.
Minister Farrakhan’s teacher, The Honorable Elijah Muhammad, wrote, in part, beginning in the 1930s, "Of all our studies history is the most
attractive and best qualified to reward our research, as it develops the springs and motives of human actions and displays the consequences of
circumstances which operates most powerfully on the destinies of human beings." His statement has been repeated over the years by many of his
students, perhaps most famously by Minister Malcolm X.
History takes us into the motivation of human beings and consequences of their thinking and action. It also provides perspective for events that take
place in the present, allowing us to weigh events, things, institutions, persons, ideas, and scenarios in relation to one another, across space and
time. It elevates our view of what we are currently looking at, above and beyond its "face" or most superficial aspects. With the light of history
we can deepen and sharpen our perception of an actual reality, and its relationship to the law of cause and effect.
Although it is hard to estimate and verify such things, I am convinced that the most referenced book utilized by the media since Hurricane Katrina is
the historical work, Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 And How It Changed America by John M. Barry. As a consequence, I also hold the
opinion that, thus far, Mr. Barry is the media’s most respected opinion leader on the wide impact, implications and ramifications of floods that
have hit the Gulf Coast region of the United States, over the last 100 years. He has been quoted extensively by journalists in mainstream and
alternative media and has been interviewed by a wide range of talk show hosts – from Tim Russert, on the respected mainstream political talk show,
"Meet The Press" to Matsimela Mapfumo and Dick Gregory on the popular Black talk radio show, "Make It Plain." Mr. Barry and his book, provide
historical perspective for those who would wish to better understand Hurricane Katrina, and think through its real and potential impact.
Yet and still, as widely referred to as Mr. Barry and his book are by members of the media, I have not read in print or heard on radio, a single
reference to a major, if not central theme of his book – the decision to intentionally destroy the levees in the Flood of 1927, in order to save one
part of New Orleans at the expense of another. I find it hard to imagine it possible for anyone who has read this book to miss this prominent subject.
And even for those who only skim, glance or glean, the book’s index even includes a section under the heading: "levees: the intentional destruction
of." It then lists the following page numbers as dealing with that particular subject: 168, 222, 227, 229, 231-232, 234, 238- 258, 339, 408. Under
the index heading of "Herbert Hoover" one finds a sub heading of "levee dynamiting and." The page numbers listed for this are 246, 252-253, 255,
340. (Even Minister Farrakhan makes an appearance in Rising Tide's index under, "Farrakhan, Louis, 128").
So why, in light of this subject’s prominence, in such a widely respected and referred to book, has it received so little attention in all forms of
media? More specifically, why have those who have spoken so apparently freely on the subject of Minister Farrakhan’s comments, not mentioned the
material in Rising Tide which describes not only the intentional destruction of levees, but also how the decision was made and who made it, in
chronological order? Is it a mere oversight or accident that not one person in the media to the best of my knowledge has explored a relationship to
what Minister Farrakhan is suggesting happened in 2005 with what is documented to have happened in 1927? .......... end of sample from from article
If you are interested in reading the rest of the article go to "Blackelectorate.com"
The truth is often ridiculed, scorned and hidden behind the appellation
"conspiracy theory". ........PStar19