ABSTRACT
When large-scale disasters occur, one response is to look for causes of the catastrophe, whether they lie in human error or the forces of nature, in order to assign praise or blame. Most often, of course, in events of great magnitude no single cause is determinable, making such assessments fraught with uncertainty and the tendency to scapegoat. A seemingly more positive response is to acknowledge that “there is enough blame to go around” and to argue that instead we should focus on the future so that similar events can be prevented. In the case of 2005’s Hurricane Katrina both of these responses became part of the public discourse, often seemingly to the exclusion of each other. Yet it is apparent that the two are not incompatible and in fact should form part of a total assessment. Without understanding why events occurred, it is difficult to see how much can be learned from them. If there is suspicion about assigning responsibility it therefore likely revolves around the motives of those who are doing the blaming. Perhaps they want to divert attention from themselves, want to score points against an opponent, or exhibit a sense of moral superiority.
