Looting & Violence in Haiti: Rumors vs. Reality
Here’s how the story line usually goes for disasters: First, in the days immediately following the hurricane or quake or other calamity, reporters warn of a generalized “fear” that desperate survivors may turn to violence and looting. Then, sure enough, reporters tell stories of violence and looting. Some are eye witness accounts by credible observers. Most are not.
The thing is, in developed nations, we can say with some certainty that widespread, anti-social behavior almost never happens after a disaster. In fact, the opposite is true. People, like all animals, tend to form groups and show each other great courtesy in times of extreme shock and duress. People do this because it is in their interest. There was looting and some sporadic violence after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, but the mayhem never rose to a level that justified the amount of coverage. More people likely suffered because of the fear of looting and violence--due to delayed relief and search-and-rescue efforts and unnecessarily hostile encounters with police and armed, frightened civilians--than because of actual looting and violence.
That said, there are rare cases in which looting and violence can become widespread. Those cases have not been well-studied, partly because they are not very likely to occur at all anywhere. But one person who has studied this question in relative detail is Enrico Quarantelli, founding director of the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware and a sort of Godfather of disaster sociology.
I’ve interviewed Quarantelli several times over the years. At the moment, our conversation about looting and riots keeps coming back to me as I read the ominous headlines out of Haiti. After Hurricane Hugo in 1989, Quarantelli heard reports of rampant looting in St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. He didn’t believe it; after all, the research suggested that looting reports were almost always overblown after disasters. So he went to St. Croix three times to study the situation himself. In the end, he came up with a Theory of Looting. He speculated that widespread looting seemed to only happen when four different conditions were all present:
1. Dramatic disparity between rich and poor.
2. High levels of petty crime and gang activity. ("Gangs are almost always the leaders in any case of mass looting,” Quarantelli said.)
3. An ineffective and corrupt police force. ("A corrupt and ineffective police force doesn’t scare anyone,” he said.)
4. A massive catastrophe. (Hurricane Hugo destroyed or heavily damaged more than 90 percent of all homes in St. Croix--devastation on a comparable scale to the situation in Port-au-Prince.)
Notice that three of the four conditions are all pre-requisites, present before the actual disaster strikes. Another reminder that the health of a city after a disaster is directly related to the health before the disaster.
But anyway, the point is, all of these conditions are present in Haiti. And it’s clear that some looting and violence are happening. The question is, how much? That question is critical because it shapes the entire response effort, from the Americans’ decision of whether to air drop supplies to a Haitian police officer’s decision whether to enter a crowd with his gun drawn--or not.
So far, no one knows what the scale of the misbehavior is. But there have been a few voices urging people not to overreact:
“[O]ver the last two or three days we have seen instances of looting, but we can’t over-exaggerate that point. These are isolated incidents of looting in the commercial districts, where people are gaining access to warehouses that were largely destroyed anyway by the earthquake.
I’ve been in Haiti before with natural disasters, principally floods, and the food rioting and the looting has been much worse than I have seen in Port-au-Prince this time. There are still incidents, but we can still characterize that as isolated incidents, and if we listen to the doctors here and other humanitarian aid organizations, they say they need aid first, security second."--CNN’s Karl Penhaul, Jan. 19, 2010
“My assessment of the security situation is that it is calm at this time. There are incidents of violence. Those who live and work here in Haiti who have been here for years, both within our own embassy and the other international community, ... tell me that the level of violence that we see right now is below and at pre-earthquake levels."--US Lt. Gen. Ken Keen talking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Jan. 19, 2010
Two things to keep in mind in the coming days, particularly if you are covering the disaster or are involved in any way in the relief effort:
1. Watch out for classic reporter shortcuts. These are guaranteed red flags. When reporters don’t have the goods, they break out the passive voice and refer obliquely to “reports” of unnamed origin. In other words, they say things like this:
”Reports of isolated looting and violence intensified as night approached, and there were reports of Haitians streaming out of the capital."--"Officials Strain to Distribute Aid to Haiti as Violence Rises,” New York Times, Jan. 16, 2010 [I added the italics.]
Or this:
“Angry Haitians have reportedly been using corpses to set up roadblocks in Port-au-Prince to protest those delays."--FOX News, Jan. 15, 2010
Or this:
“UN Food Warehouses in Haiti Reportedly Looted: Looters have reportedly broken into UN food warehouses as tempers rise among the thousands of Haitians awaiting desperately needed emergency aid."--CBC News, Jan. 15, 2010
Beware. I was on a panel with a New Orleans Times-Picayune reporter after Katrina, and we were talking about how hard it is for reporters to get good info in disasters--particularly when, as happened in New Orleans, police and city officials are the ones giving you the false information. But the reporter said something that has always stayed with me: “It’s important to remember to use that old basic tool of reporting. Always ask, ‘How do you know that?‘“ Here’s an example where the reporter did not ask that question--or did not share the answer, in any event:
“There are thefts everywhere,” said Joel Querette, 23, a college student camped out at a park near the airport. “People have guns and knives, and they are stealing and looting the stores.”--"Looting Flares Where Authority Breaks Down,” New York Times, Jan. 16, 2010
Now, I don’t mean to belittle the challenge these reporters are up against. It is almost impossible to get good information in a disaster. But given what we DO know: that people tend to expect looting and violence after disasters and that people tend to be wrong, reporters should try to be extra diligent in conveying the limits of their knowledge--and the rest of us should consume media reports with an extra layer of scrutiny.
I had an editor at Time who chewed me out when I used the word, “reportedly,” in a story. I didn’t like it when it happened, and I remember pointing to other legitimate outlets that used the word all the time, but she was right. It’s bogus, and I hereby promise not to do it again. It’s a way to hedge an assertion, since you don’t really know if it is true, when in fact you should either say who is making these reports and how they know--or just resist the urge to trade in hearsay about something so important.
2. Remember that looting is often in the eye of the beholder. It may look like looting on CNN, but that doesn’t mean it is. If I were starving, and I came upon a stash of food in the midst of the rubble after a catastrophe, I’d probably take it and share it with my family. Wouldn’t you? Is that pure looting? Given the scale of the destruction, the bright line between survival behavior and old-fashioned stealing gets gray.
When Quarantelli went to St. Croix after Hurricane Hugo, he concluded that “there was massive looting, by any criteria one would use. Three of the four shopping centers were for all practical purposes totally looted. People even took the light fixtures off the walls.” And yet in other cases, what looked a lot like looting was not: “On the other hand, everyone also believed the Coca-Cola plant had been looted. But it turned out the manager had opened it up as a gesture of good will--’Come and take all the Coca-Cola you want!’”
A couple years from now, some earnest grad student will come out with a report about looting in Haiti after the 2010 quake. And no one will pay much attention. But by then, we will know more, I hope. Until then, we should err on the side of trust, realizing that it means taking risks.
For an idea of how confusing these situations are, even in cases where looting is clearly happening and people are getting hurt, check out this CNN video of Anderson Cooper trying to help a boy injured in the chaos. It is gripping, but at the end, it’s totally unclear what happened--at least to me. And I’m not sure, but I’d guess that if you were there with Anderson Cooper, you would still not have perfect clarity. That’s the nature of disasters. The more desperately you need good information, the less likely you are to find it.
Robert said on January 21, 2010 at 8:58 am
Amanda,
Great article. I was thinking the Delaware sociologist could add to his list of factors: the preexisting condition of looting in the effected country. We have to remember there is a reason 8,000 Brazilian and other multinational troops were already patroling in Haiti before the earthquake even hit. For me its the biggest reason I am surprised that after this tragedy the amount of looting and violence has been this low so far.
Amanda said on January 21, 2010 at 11:06 am
Thanks, Rob. That is a great point. It’s all relative. And since most of us have never been to Haiti, it is hard to put these images in perspective.
Tom Birkland said on January 21, 2010 at 11:50 am
Amanda--Thanks for writing this! I would have written some sort of critical piece on coverage of this disaster for an academic journal, but this covers the bases a lot better than I could, and it’s great to see a journalist offer a critique of the news we’ve seen thus far.
Robert: I think Henry Quarantelli would argue that most people in most disasters behave in a “pro-social” way, regardless of whether there are good cops, foreign troops, or whatnot in the area. Even when we see more than the “usual” amount of disorder, it’s still not the dominant category of behavior. The obsession with security over providing rapid aid is what condemned several more people--as many as 200--to die after Katrina, as the authorities chased rumors and myths instead of sticking to the delivery of relief.
Giovanni said on January 21, 2010 at 2:22 pm
“Remember that looting is often in the eye of the beholder. It may look like looting on CNN, but that doesn’t mean it is. If I were starving, and I came upon a stash of food in the midst of the rubble after a catastrophe, I’d probably take it and share it with my family. Wouldn’t you?”
Thank you for writing this article - hope that others will consider these points when they rush to break dramatic news to the masses.
Kathy said on January 24, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Thank you for reinforcing the need for objectivity and caution in interpreting the coverage of these events. I would like to add some personal comments/reactions to the discussion:
I found it odd that Anderson Cooper’s shirt remained blood-free, although showing signs of sweat, after dragging that young man free from the ruckus. I’ve found it odd in general how immaculate persons reporting--as well as the victims they present--are remaining in a water-deprived, chaotic environment, and that persons with the knowledge to use gloves in blood contact, like Sanjay Gupta, are not, when it would be de riguer in the US for any health personnel. Haiti once had one of the worst HIV infection rates in the world, but has undergone a dramatic reversal (from 50% to less than 3%)--to a good extent due to education (as well as a faster and higher death rate of infected persons and eventual provision of pharmaceuticals). Either Gupta was placing PR over intelligent medical behavior--and being a p-poor role model--or the blood itself was suspect. (I can’t believe he was stupid enough to go to Haiti without bringing some cheap Latex gloves with him.)
I think the relative merit of the coverage of looting after Katrina is debatable. A friend of mine (a 6’4” male who also does mercy missions to Haiti) was in New Orleans as an ER nurse and they were under fire trying to get from a medical transport vehicle into the infamous public hospital to treat patients. Snipers were shooting at the doc’s and nurses from the roof as looters helped themselves to the drugs, etc., in the hospital. I personally think the incredible lack of humanity of this is not some minor example of random violence whose coverage should be minimized. These looters were not desperate drug addicts but the same type of persons stealing TVs-not food--in Haiti right now--looters for profit. (In fact, they might be the same persons, given the large Haitian population of New Orleans. ) Looting for food is totally understandable--the other is stealing the livelihood of people equally devasted. (When I was growing up there were race riots in NJ, and my white, middle-class brother joined in the looting of a TV store, which I will never forget. The looting stopped when the National Guard moved in.) The coverage of looting when not for immediate survival needs shows a great deal about the mentality of the population at the moment and the prioritizaton of alloting aid v. security.
From what I can glean internationally, the US media has done its best to downplay the violence in Haiti in order to promote support for the victims, perhaps to the point of staged photo ops.
Kathy said on January 24, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Amanda, please accept my apologies and retraction of my post if possible. I did not review your credentials--indicating your on-site and extensive participation in disaster response. My own observations come from a far less knowledgeable position.
I’m appreciative that you have made so much helpful information on-line. What I’ve read so far is consistent with my own experience in life-or-death situations, and is very valuable for anyone who may need to survive one. A very sincere thank you.
Randy R Cox said on January 25, 2010 at 12:23 am
If the camera catches them running from a source with a bag of rice, it looks like looting. If they wait a day and catch them handing out food to a crowd, it would be an act of benevolence.
It’s all about timing.
Kathy said on January 25, 2010 at 1:59 am
I don’t think most observers, unless irretrievably brain dead, would consider taking food in a desperate situation as ‘looting.’ Taking it from the actual hands of starving persons would be considered something worse than looting. On the other hand, hauling off large TVs, especially, when the sympathy plea contains lack of water and electricity would likely appear as ‘looting’, independently of ‘timing’.
Specifically relating to Haiti, all of the photos I have seen indicating looting have related to the latter, unless I missed something???
If we were friends, I might add another comment, but without your knowing it was meant as teasing, I’ll stop here....
Kathy said on January 25, 2010 at 2:01 am
Please omit comma after especially, I can’t see without my glasses, aaargh.
Kathy said on January 25, 2010 at 2:59 am
In reconsidering your timing comment: it is totally illogical. You presented two totally different scenarios--so timing of the camera shot is completely irrevelant. The camera could have just as easily caught him one day shooting an infant in the head and the next day feeding a child. So what has the timing to do with perception? The feeding of the child should mitigate the previous action? You present someone running from a source with some rice (in a situation most people who not consider looting to begin with), and an entirely different scenario in the second situation. Timing has nothing to do with anything. They are separate and different actions.
In regards to Haiti, I personally consider the emptying of UN warehouses of food clearly intended to be distributed to the needy, by gangs armed with machetes, to fit the definition of ‘looting’ and a far cry from a single unarmed person running with a bag of rice, and even if these armed gangs actually redistributed the food--instead of demanding payment for it--it would not change the perception of the original behavior. Not witnessing the events described, I’m not saying that looting actually occurred, just that what was reported meets the definition as I understand it.
Although context may not always be clear, especially in photos, the ability to plan, etc., is dependent on making judgments based on prior experience, knowledge, and probabilities, and the more adept one is at making accurate assessments, given past and current information,the greater one’s likelihood of survival, for the most part. We are not born anew from moment to moment and timing does not recreate all. Perspective may change over time, but not in the way you’ve described..
Please tell me you’re very young....
N.S. Ugezene said on March 30, 2010 at 6:02 pm
When it comes to looting I feel like you cannot try to make people out as criminals when they have lost their means of living and shelter. Sure it is desperation but the people have nothing. They need to have something to be safe in some way. I do not think they need to stand there and let life beat them up or down. Of course, there are people who see it some other way. The Hurricane Katrina victims were ridiculed. I mean come on! The people who weren’t suffering have no right to poke fun at anyone who has been victimized.
Kathy said on March 31, 2010 at 3:53 am
To N.S. Ugezene: Who, other than Bush and his cronies has ridiculed Katrina victims? Everyone I was in contact with at the time, and to this day, has expressed great sympathy, including my friend who was shot at and emailed his wife, also a nurse, “take the worse day you’ve ever experienced in the hospital and multiply it by a thousand and I don’t think you would still know how awful this is”, regarding his experience helping at the public hospital. (I was out of work, not receiving unemployment, and donated much more than I could afford. I also tried to go down there to help but was told that without prior certification in certain areas they would have no use for me. ) I don’t know who you associate with, and I haven’t been hanging out with the Bush crew--who didn’t literally ridicule the victims themselves, but certainly acted as if the tragedy was a major joke enabling them to rebuild a place more to their liking--but I have not seen anyone ever ridicule the Katrina victims.
I don’t know if you were referring to anything I’ve written but ridicule is too mild a word for what I feel about the snipers and drug looters preventing the care of critically injured and persons in terrific pain. The real victims were the patients in the hospitals, not those whose greed prevented their treatment. The real victims were everywhere, and a minority of the residents of New Orleans happened to be criminals taking advantage of them in an unconscionable way, just as has happened in Haiti, although as noted in AR’s article, less than might have been expected, given prior conditions.
Your post doesn’t distinguish between persons who are trying to obtain the necessities of life, to survive, and those who roam the streets with machetes, taking non-necessities from the owners who worked to acquire them. Both exist, but if you think it’s a matter of desperation that justifies the machete’d hoods stealing from their starving neighbors, you’re entitled to your opinion. I think there’s a difference. Recognizing that difference does not diminish sympathy for those who are suffering. (Personally, I have worked and socialized with Haitians from various backgrounds in the US, and am not naive to Haitian culture and social conditions.)
Jenna said on April 22, 2010 at 9:22 am
I think Henry Quarantelli would argue that most people in most disasters behave in a “pro-social” way, regardless of whether there are good cops, foreign troops, or whatnot in the area.
terrific said on June 19, 2010 at 5:07 pm
I don’t know if you were referring to anything I’ve written but ridicule is too mild a word for what I feel about the snipers and drug looters preventing the care of critically injured and persons in terrific pain.
auto trafficavalanche said on August 17, 2010 at 11:45 pm
I can’t stand the violence and looting that goes on after such tragedy. It sickens me.
Chicago movers said on August 24, 2010 at 5:16 am
Usually looting occurs when there is not sufficient thing for the people who are looting.
Kathy said on August 24, 2010 at 1:27 pm
“Usually looting occurs when there is not sufficient thing for the people who are looting. “ I defy you to support that with evidence. I mentioned in an earlier post that my middle-class brother--who was not properly socialized--looted in Plainfield, NJ decades ago. Looting occurs when people who need the threat of legal reprisal no longer have that to force them to behave with respect for the possessions of others. They are taking other persons’ possessions by force because that person is unable to protect them in a time of duress. What one group of people may perceive as ‘not sufficient thing’ may have nothing to do with what is necessary to sustain life’ only what the looters perceive with resentment is less than what some other persons around them have. When they feel they can take that away by force without consequences they proceed to loot. Looting is by definition :"1a : to plunder or sack in war b : to rob especially on a large scale and usually by violence or corruption
2: to seize and carry away by force especially in war
intransitive verb
: to engage in robbing or plundering especially in war”. Looting occurs in poorer areas of the US highly populated by persons who are already engaging in anti-social illegal activities on a more covert level who use the excuse of the mayhem of a catastrophe or civil disturbance to take things they formerly had to work a little harder to steal. There is an unlying sense of entitlement that since other persons, who have struggled and worked to get their small businesses going, have goods that they don’t have, the looters have a right to walk in and carry away TVs, etc. I realize the Nazis looting the priceless art works of the Jews and other citizens they looted during WWII didn’t have Rembrandts and Van Goghs in their living rooms, and yes, they didn’t have ‘sufficient thing’ in comparison, so this no doubt justified their looting. The looters in Haiti were not looting for food to survive--they were carrying away TVs and large appliances, and stealing large amounts of rice via machete-armed thugs, rice that was being distributed by the UN to feed the people.
I just love it that people who try to justify this as you have might be my neighbor in the time of a disaster. I’m barely surviving right now and need food stamps to eat, but no doubt you’d find a reason to come in my house and take whatever I’ve worked for decades for, because you don’t have it and don’t ‘have sufficient thing’. Luckily, that’s what .38s are for. (This from a ‘liberal Democrat’.) The persons who looted in New Orleans, many Haitian natives, had the opportunity here to better themselves and get ‘sufficient thing’ through work--which admittedly, requires delayed gratification, not a strong point among persons who’d rather just take things by force. I truly doubt most people with common sense buy this ‘they didn’t have enough and that’s why these normally gentle decent people are roaming the streets with machetes stealing food from the huddled women and children not privileged enough to own their own machetes.’
Nissan Xterra Supercharger said on August 27, 2010 at 9:33 am
I watched all the Chile “looting” footage I could find yesterday. It was hard to know what I was looking at, as it always is when you are watching disasters from afar--and often even when you are right there.....Nissan Xterra Supercharger