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

[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

[ms_daisy_cutter]

The "just throwing aid" comment was in general, not in reference to the current crisis.

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 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

[silverjackal]

I'm actually seeing people making that argument for why Haiti shouldn't receive any earthquake relief at all.

... 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

[ms_daisy_cutter]

... I'm... I can't even begin to address this. It's inhuman, subhuman

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.

[danalwyn]

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.

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.

[silverjackal]

Pardon, please, the double reply, but I found that the article I was looking for in der Spiegel is in fact available in English (and it was linked in the blog post I linked above -- it was silly of me not to check). I thought you and danalwyn might find it interesting. There is also another related article, and some very worrying news which is exactly counter to what would help.

My apologies if you've seen these before, but I thought you might find them helpful.

[ms_daisy_cutter]

I hadn't seen that article, no (and thanks), but the "new colonialism" has been going on for quite some time. Google "'johann hari' coltan".

[silverjackal]

This is entirely new to me. Thank you again!

[danalwyn]

I'd like to argue that we should forgive Haiti's debt, and then we should make it clear that we're in this for the long haul. I want to have a firm commitment from the US that we will continue to attempt to provide aid and support for all developing countries in our "sphere of influence" (whatever the hell that is today), in order to allow those same countries to resist the effects of natural disasters. We have deliberately made Haiti poor (and in some cases, done it without even noticing), and this needs to stop, but not just for Haiti. I want Port-au-Prince to be able to afford to have modern building standards because they are a growing, prosperous nation.

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.

[danalwyn]

You are correct, and I'm thankful you managed to read through my bad writing to see my point. I did express myself badly, and I felt that I needed to link to David Brooks, because we have the same starting point (both in analogy and in assuming the cause of poverty). I'm sorry to dump you in the middle of an argument that was entirely of my making.

[silverjackal]

No no, no apologies please. I am relieved that I did understand what you meant properly, but that's my usual issue with comprehension (particularly when I am tired, which I am at the moment) and nothing to do with your intention. As far as argument, this has been an interesting and rewarding discussion, and I am grateful to be given the opportunity to participate. :)

[danalwyn]

I think your comprehension is usually very good, although perhaps it says something that you were able to comprehend me when I was being incomprehensible.

[silverjackal]

perhaps it says something that you were able to comprehend me when I was being incomprehensible.

This is a bit of an embarrassing confession to make, but when I'm tired my ability to focus is not so good, yes? What happens with language comprehension at such time is that I read without seeing the details. (Somewhat like that little study that went around showing that as long as the first and last letters in a word were in the correct order people could still read the sentence even thought the rest was scrambled. It only works for certain languages of course.)

So instead of reading a sentence and translating it mentally (because I don't think in English when I'm tired or otherwise stressed) I sort of "apprehend" the meaning, all in a block. It's usually completely accurate, ironically, as it was in this case where I "knew" what you meant. It was only when I saw ms_daisy_cutter's reaction that I stopped and asked myself "what did I miss, surely it's not just the condescending nonsense from that fellow in the linked article". It's true that I