Late to the party
Jan. 15th, 2010 01:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danalwynEarlier I linked to a David Brooks column in the NYTimes of Jan 15, 2010 as a direct part of this post. However, it's been pointed out to me that even though we start at the same point, his final conclusions are sufficiently objectionable that attempting to relate the two arguments causes confusion. To that end, I have removed the reference, since it is irrelevant to the final post I made. I am leaving the rest of the post as-is to preserve the original source of the argument, although I am putting it under an LJ-cut since this is getting long. I should repeat that this affray was entirely my fault for not making myself clear.
The Chinese sometimes had an odd theory about their emperors, the idea that in the time of bad emperors, those who focused on their own pleasures rather then running their country, the divine mandate of heaven would fall. And as the Emperors fell from favor, China would suffer from increased crime, lawlessness, and worst of all, natural disasters that would level entire provinces. Most of us no longer believe that every natural disaster is a direct message from God, but there may be truth behind what it says about government.
Haiti was just devastated by a quake that registered a 7.0 on the Richter scale. Like many thousands of other Americans, I have experienced, and survived, a 7.0 quake, in my case the 1989 Loma Prieta quake. The Loma Prieta quake struck in the middle of the heavily populated San Francisco Bay Area, the Haitian quake next to the heavily populated city of Port-au-Prince. The Loma Prieta quake killed 63 people, the Haitian quake and its after-effects will be lucky if it only kills 63,000. Despite the huge bridges, the overpasses, the dangerous coastline, the high-rise buildings, the Loma Prieta quake hit a first-world country, with modern building codes enforced by city agencies, with clear streets and well-mapped utilities, where emergency services were standing by, where people had been trained what to do, and where heavy equipment was on hand only minutes away from disaster zones. Port-au-Prince had a sky high population density with none of the benefits, a disaster waiting to happen. The Bay Area was capable of getting on with its business in days, Port-au-Prince may be destroyed for years to come.
And this should remind us of one thing. Earthquakes are preventable disasters. You can't stop the earthquake, but there's no reason that an earthquake should be anything other then a moderate inconvenience. If you want to stop tragedies like this, don't invest so much in the disaster relief teams that come by later to clean up the mess. Invest in the countries vulnerable to them. Earthquakes, like fires, floods, famines, hurricanes, plagues, and all other natural disasters, can be handled by competent, efficient governments with much reduced loss of life. Haiti doesn't need hundreds of millions of dollars worth of disaster relief now, it needed just millions of dollars to nurture a stable and capable government before the earthquake happened. Remember that when you look at where disaster might strike next.
ETA: Since it's not clear, I wrote this as an indictment of the US, and the first world's, foreign aid policy. Several generations of short-term planning, along with that particular US conservative bent, have changed things to follow the same idea as conservative health care - no preventative care, only disaster relief. The point is that we need to send millions to Haiti now, but what we really should have done was send millions to Haiti earlier, and they might not need this level of relief. I'm hoping that this whole incident will serve as a warning for the future, and for how we deal with foreign aid to other nations.
The Chinese sometimes had an odd theory about their emperors, the idea that in the time of bad emperors, those who focused on their own pleasures rather then running their country, the divine mandate of heaven would fall. And as the Emperors fell from favor, China would suffer from increased crime, lawlessness, and worst of all, natural disasters that would level entire provinces. Most of us no longer believe that every natural disaster is a direct message from God, but there may be truth behind what it says about government.
Haiti was just devastated by a quake that registered a 7.0 on the Richter scale. Like many thousands of other Americans, I have experienced, and survived, a 7.0 quake, in my case the 1989 Loma Prieta quake. The Loma Prieta quake struck in the middle of the heavily populated San Francisco Bay Area, the Haitian quake next to the heavily populated city of Port-au-Prince. The Loma Prieta quake killed 63 people, the Haitian quake and its after-effects will be lucky if it only kills 63,000. Despite the huge bridges, the overpasses, the dangerous coastline, the high-rise buildings, the Loma Prieta quake hit a first-world country, with modern building codes enforced by city agencies, with clear streets and well-mapped utilities, where emergency services were standing by, where people had been trained what to do, and where heavy equipment was on hand only minutes away from disaster zones. Port-au-Prince had a sky high population density with none of the benefits, a disaster waiting to happen. The Bay Area was capable of getting on with its business in days, Port-au-Prince may be destroyed for years to come.
And this should remind us of one thing. Earthquakes are preventable disasters. You can't stop the earthquake, but there's no reason that an earthquake should be anything other then a moderate inconvenience. If you want to stop tragedies like this, don't invest so much in the disaster relief teams that come by later to clean up the mess. Invest in the countries vulnerable to them. Earthquakes, like fires, floods, famines, hurricanes, plagues, and all other natural disasters, can be handled by competent, efficient governments with much reduced loss of life. Haiti doesn't need hundreds of millions of dollars worth of disaster relief now, it needed just millions of dollars to nurture a stable and capable government before the earthquake happened. Remember that when you look at where disaster might strike next.
ETA: Since it's not clear, I wrote this as an indictment of the US, and the first world's, foreign aid policy. Several generations of short-term planning, along with that particular US conservative bent, have changed things to follow the same idea as conservative health care - no preventative care, only disaster relief. The point is that we need to send millions to Haiti now, but what we really should have done was send millions to Haiti earlier, and they might not need this level of relief. I'm hoping that this whole incident will serve as a warning for the future, and for how we deal with foreign aid to other nations.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 01:56 am (UTC)You know why Haiti's fucked up? Centuries of slavery, followed by punitive economic practices by rich countries, such as France demanding that Haiti pay them reparations for lost slave labor. Then refusal to trade with them. Then invasions and other machinations. In just the last few decades, the U.S. propped up the Duvaliers and ousted Aristide.
Before anybody starts declaiming "dispassionately" and "logically" and "reasonably" about how the Haitians don't stand up to help themselves, how about other countries get their boots off the Haitians' necks?
And, I'm sorry, but to lambaste a country that poor — a country deliberately made that poor — for not building the way San Francisco Bay Area does? That takes some truly oblivious privilege, not to see the giant elephant of history and politics in the room.
Just throwing aid at immediate problems is ineffective in the long run.
They're still digging people out of the rubble. I think it's a little premature to kvetch about how one's dollars are going to be spent. And I'm certainly not going to call up Doctors Without Borders for an audit of how they spent my donation.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 02:08 am (UTC)how about other countries get their boots off the Haitians' necks?
Agreed, entirely. This is also part of the article I linked -- apologies but I don't know if the original (which is in a German language news magazine) comes in English. The question is how to give aid such that the aid really helps people in the affected countries, instead of deliberately sabotaging them and keeping them dependent to feed First World greed or First World ego.
First things first, and the world has to help Haiti, yes? But once the immediate crisis is past then what? Haiti needs help to rebuild herself as a strong, self sufficient nation in the way her citizens would want -- not be kept dependent on foreign condescension, or dictated to by foreign value sets. I don't know what the answer to this is.
Thank you also for clarifying about the writer of the original article. I'm not familiar with him, and don't feel I'm missing out by this!
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 02:21 am (UTC)Gotcha. Sorry I misinterpreted; I'm actually seeing people making that argument for why Haiti shouldn't receive any earthquake relief at all.
The scary thing is that I don't know that the world can do enough, fast enough.
Tragically, they can't, if only because the airport and seaport were so damaged by the quake that people traveling into the country are bottlenecked. If that weren't the case, then perhaps there'd be some hope, but the logistics don't favor the Haitian survivors. :(
The question is how to give aid such that the aid really helps people in the affected countries, instead of deliberately sabotaging them and keeping them dependent to feed First World greed or First World ego.
Grameen (http://www.grameen-info.org/) has the right idea, as does Kiva, to which you linked. Giving money and other resources to women tends to have the optimal effect, because, as most of them are responsible for children, they will use it to better their family prospects. The men tend more often to spend it on drink and gambling.
I'm not familiar with him, and don't feel I'm missing out by this!
No, you're really not. Another recent gem: American-style capitalism "leads to more exciting lives." (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/27749.html) Yeah, I suppose you can say that unemployment, lack of health insurance, and worrying about eviction and whether you can afford groceries can be quite... stimulating.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 02:50 am (UTC)... I'm... I can't even begin to address this. It's inhuman, subhuman, I'm not even certain of the English (German has a better word for it: Unmenschlich). It's one thing when there is nothing that can be done to help, but where aid can be given to deny it is... I don't know. I can't articulate it.
The other article you linked made me laugh.
"I came away convinced that the American model is in fact better, but it was useless to try to persuade continental Europeans of this fact."
No kidding, yes? Other nations actually place value on quality of life, not just on acquisition of wealth. I know this is difficult for some people to grasp, and most particularly citizens of the United States who think everyone should do things their way because it works for them! In re: exciting lives, this fellow should really have to live as a self-sustaining hunter gatherer for a bit. He would have a far better grasp of how exciting it is to live or die by one's own efforts, and the vagaries of an entirely unsympathetic world.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:47 am (UTC)Yes. "Sociopathic" would be another good term. Welcome to the United States circa... well, forever, really. Not that other countries don't have such individuals, but we nurture 'em really well here. And it's not simply anonymice on the internet, but quasi-"respectable" media figures. (Of course, our media sucks.)
this fellow should really have to live as a self-sustaining hunter gatherer for a bit.
I hate reality TV but I'd watch that. I'd pay to watch it, in fact.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:44 am (UTC)I've been crunching the numbers on that all day, and I keep coming up with very grim pictures of the situation. There just aren't enough assets that are transportable, and with the amphibious ships not arriving on day one, you're basically hosed. I'm hoping more sealift capability will allow them to land the heavy vehicles soon, but I feel that at this point they're just going to show up in time for trucking supplies, not pulling people out of the rubble. The people can come in from the air, but the heavy equipment is going to need to come in by sea, and it just won't make it in time.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:50 am (UTC)My apologies if you've seen these before, but I thought you might find them helpful.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 04:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:29 am (UTC)In the long run, I don't want to have to deploy massive foreign aid efforts to other nations in the wake of disasters, because I don't want them to need it. I donated on the day of the disaster here, because we have not fulfilled our end of our duties.