Late to the party

[danalwyn]

Earlier 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,

Comments

[silverjackal]

This is a really great point, excellently made. Thank you for linking to that other article as well. I don't have anything further to contribute, but I did want to express my appreciation for what you've said.

Is there somewhere in particular that you think would benefit from this kind of investment? I can think of multiple places that could use it, but that doesn't mean that they'd necessarily develop if given aid?

[ms_daisy_cutter]

Wow.

So much fail. Both you and Brooks.

Yeah, a country that's been ravaged by centuries of oppression and manipulation is going to have the resources to put up earthquake-resistant buildings.

Just unfuckingbelievable. And I'm sure you think you're being "reasonable" and "insightful" because you're saying everything in a polite tone.

[silverjackal]

...

Did I miss something? I don't think danalwyn is *blaming* Haiti for its' lack of disaster preparedness. I read this as "foreign aid should be given to help countries develop such that they're not in this position when disaster strikes". (I disagree strongly with the "paternalistic" bias and cultural chauvanism of the article linked, but I don't get that's what danalwyn is supporting.)

I know it has made me rethink where I put my dollar for help (well, outside the current crisis, where I've given what I can for immediate aid). This post (and other information like it have made me give thought to giving aid that helps economic development in disadvantaged countries as opposed to the other options that are available. I don't know what that might be yet (aside from projects like Kiva) that I already support, but it's an idea for a hopefully proactive approach. Just throwing aid at immediate problems is ineffective in the long run.

[ms_daisy_cutter]

In that article, Bobo is blaming Haiti for its troubles. He invokes bootstraps, he claims that Voudoun is fucking up their culture, he even claims they don't know how to raise their children right. It's about as racist as one can get away with in the New York Times. For now, anyway. Linking to that approvingly? What the hell? No. Just, no. It's not even a case of a broken clock being right twice a day. Bobo is regularly full of fail, but that was the shit icing on the failcake.

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

[silverjackal]

The "just throwing aid" comment was in general, not in reference to the current crisis. I'll continue to support rescue efforts (and rebuilding efforts) however I can. The scary thing is that I don't know that the world can do enough, fast enough. Or long enough, because this is going to take a long time to recover from and foreign aid has a way of losing interest and taking it's toys and going home long before the problem is actually fixed.

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

[lookingforwater]

Um.

Dude.

Haiti was not prepared for the quake because Haiti did not have the resources to prepare for the quake.

Haiti did not have the resources to prepare for the quake because it has been consistently fucked over by basically everyone and everything.

Check your privilege.

[danalwyn]

I'm pointing out that the reason Haiti didn't have those resources is because it has been fucked over by everyone and everything; if we want to prevent these sort of problems, we need to be prepared to help nations develop the kind of infrastructure they need to resist this affair, rather then simply come later to pick up the pieces.

[lookingforwater]

Brooks was really, really not saying that, and I don't know how you managed to read otherwise.

[danalwyn]

Brooks and I started from the same point, that poverty is the cause of disasters, not the other way around. However, you are correct that I do not agree with his endpoint, so I will remove the reference from my post with explanation.