Haiti Earthquake: Concern via Prepositions
When someone shits in a landfill no one cares. The shit does not somehow negatively affect the functionality of the landfill, the aesthetics of the landfill, or the overall qualities of the landfill. A landfill is, fundamentally, a cesspool full of crap. Adding shit to crap does not somehow alter the status of the crap such that attention need be paid. The landfill was a pile of crap prior to the shit; after the shit the landfill is, still, a pile of crap.
Which is why I do not understand the attention being paid to the Haiti earthquake.
Prior to the earthquake Haitians were dying of malnutrition and exposure while lying atop their piles of crap. After the earthquake Haitians are dying of malnutrition and exposure while lying beneath their piles of crap. Somehow, magically, the change in the preposition from atop to beneath has sparked a wealth of concern such that everyone seems to care now.
Except for me. Because I recognize that the prepositional transition from "atop" to "beneath" need not incite concern.
I truly am stumped by this one. This is not a nation of productivity and international status which was somehow impaired in its functionality by the earthquake. This is not a titan of industry leading the way into the future which has been set back. This is fucking Haiti; the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. They were fucked prior to the earthquake; they are fucked after the earthquake. Haiti being hit by an earthquake is akin to someone with terminal cancer getting AIDS. Sure, they're worse off than they were before. But they were already pretty damned fucked. And even if their AIDS is cured they still have terminal cancer!
It's not as if a temporary, immediate outpouring of concern and supplies will really help the situation, either. If you've watched any of the news coverage you will have been treated to persons listing supplies needed by the Haitians: Food, Water, Medicine, etc. And, I mean, of course they need those things; they were hit by an earthquake. But, if you've been paying attention, THEY'VE NEEDED THAT SHIT FOR YEARS! Providing the Haitians with these supplies will not return them to a self-sustained state of being. Providing these supplies will ensure that the Haitians survive to...continue to live on handouts.
Moreover, it's not as if Haitians only need Food, Water, Medicine, etc. The Haitians do not merely require life-sustaining supplies for the present in order to return to normalcy. Some other things the Haitians require, which are left out of the handy-dandy lists provide via news networks, are:
- An Infrastructure
- An Economy
- A Functional, Stable Government
- A Functional, Reliable Police Force
- Natural Resources
- An Economy
The Haitian people were never one hot meal and a polio vaccine away from becoming a function, self-sustaining country. They inhabit a country which lives off of handouts which will never sustain itself via its own means. Which is fine and dandy. Except our pouring millions of dollars of time, resources, and effort won't transform Haiti into, say, the Dominican Republic. Haiti before the earthquake was a shithole. Haiti after the earthquake is a shithole which, after an investment of millions of dollars in time and effort, will, hopefully, become a slightly less shitty shithole.
So, yes, it is sad when someone with terminal cancer gets AIDS. It is tragic when a poverty-stricken country like Haiti is hit by a natural disaster. But come the fuck on, people. Why are we striving to return Haiti to its pre-earthquake state of normalcy when its pre-earthquake state of normalcy was really fucking shitty? If we return Haiti to its state of being prior to the earthquake? They will still have these same problems; Haitians will still die of malnutrition, exposure, and disease. Haitians will still need food, water, and medicine. If we cure the AIDS they still have terminal cancer!
Moreover, you did not care two weeks ago. So, why the fuck would you start caring now? Why were the Haitians dying of malnutrition and exposure who died prior to the earthquake not worth your concern, your attention, your money? Why did the children dying atop their filth not receive a special segment on Countdown when the children dying beneath their filth do? Why does a change in preposition make you care?
The only thing which has changed in Haiti is that the Haitians have transitioned from dying atop to dying beneath. The only reason why you would care about Haiti now is if your concern and empathy is based upon prepositions.
And that is fucking moronic.
18 comments:
It was wrong to do nothing before the earthquake. It is wrong to do nothing now. Sometimes the shift from inaction to action requires a cataclysmic event.
Hopefully this "wake up call" will help us to share a little more easily and help Haiti become a happier, healthier place.
But are we really "helping Haiti become a happier, healthier place" if we only do so much to return Haiti to its previous state of subsisting on mudcakes? Over farming and draining all of the nutrients out of the soil (Haiti is a prime example why land should NOT be abused with stupid agricultural practicies) have made it so that Haiti cannot physically sustain itself through agriculture. It will take years to "fix" the soil (that is, make topsoil for shit to grow in). In order for Haiti TO be self-sustaining, _J_ is right, and Haiti NEEDS a government. More importantly, Haiti NEEDS a government that actually cares to function as a government for the people, not just to "make a buck" for the 4 or so people who don't live off of mudcakes.
The "wake up call" urging us to "share a little more easily" won't actually do much in the immediate sense. Haiti has to this point in time survived off of countries "sharing." "Sharing" has not helped Haiti get food and clean water. Maybe improvement could occur if that "sharing" was coupled with government take-over, a police force, and serious moves to repair the damage done to the land. However, we run into problems with us not wanting to be seen as taking-over yet another government, so we give them their own, appointed-by-us government that may or may not do what we want them to -such as giving resources to the people instead of hoarding them for the select few. Further, we get into the questions surrounding when/if ever it is appropriate for one country to "take over" another country, and if the answer is "for their own good," or "to make country X a happier place," well...how is that determined and decided upon? Whose rules win in the end?
Jesus H. Christ, J, that was cold.
I'm certain that I understand the "if you didn't give a damn, it is inconsistent for you to give a damn now; QED you're a moron" argument.
Does it suffice to excuse the masses if I point out that their hearts merely bleed for the tragedy of disaster victims--not the Haitians themselves? Do you not recall the solidarity vigils and relief fundraisers following that Tsunami in India, Earthquake in China, or Hurricane of New Orleans? Same stuff as it appears to me.
"Do you not recall the solidarity vigils and relief fundraisers following that Tsunami in India, Earthquake in China, or Hurricane of New Orleans?"
Of course this is that same sort of thing with regard to the actions of the viewers. They see "natural disaster" and so think "must give $10 to help those poor people".
The difference is that with regard to at least China and New Orleans (not sure about India) the state of being to which the victims are being restored is a self-sustained, functional state of being. New Orleans did not require donations and aid prior to the hurricane. New Orleans was functional, then hit with natural disaster, then slowly returned to a semblance of that functionality.
Haiti does not have that. Haiti is not a nation of nine-to-five workers who have been briefly set back. It is not as if we just need to give Haiti a little boost so they can rebuild their Starbucks. To return Haiti to its previous state is to return it to a state wherein it still needs help.
For example, the upper crust Haitians live in cement rectangles which lack any sort of foundation or steel-reinforcement. Does it really make sense for us to rebuild those cement rectangles and they say, "There you go. good as new!" I contend that it does not. Because leaving the Haitians with cement rectangles is kind of a dick move. Even if we rebuild the cement rectangle that is still a really fucking shitty way to live.
That is one of the many problems with this whole situation: What does the end-game look like? Does it really make sense to ship supplies down to Haiti, return it to the way it was two weeks ago, and the pull out? Because if we do that they will still die of hunger and exposure and disease.
So, what? We keep giving more food, more water, more medicine? Either we continue to provide aid forever or at some point we cease to provide aid and then the Haitians all starve to death.
The usual empathetic compulsion is to say "that person is in trouble; I shall help them". That is fine and dandy. Except the presumption of that sentiment is that the individual who is in trouble can cease to be in trouble; my assistance alleviates their trouble.
We cannot alleviate the troubles of Haiti. This is not "Here is $10 to get you back on your feet." Haitians have no metaphorical feet. Our helping Haiti, if it is to be likened to our helping India, China, New Orleans, is to return Haiti to its state of living in cement rectangles and eating either mudcakes or nothing.
That, to me, indicates a problem.
"Hopefully this "wake up call" will help us to share a little more easily and help Haiti become a happier, healthier place."
While this obviously sounds good I maintain that absent the intervention of fairies it is outside of the realm of possibilities for Haiti to be "happy" or "healthy". That shit ain't gonna happen.
- No Infrastructure
- No Economy
- No Functional Government
Read the Wikipedia page on Economy of Haiti and then tell me that "happy" and "healthy" exist within the realm of possibilities for the nation.
Absent the intervention of fairies.
"Jesus H. Christ, J, that was cold."
But correct.
I guess I'm not sure whether we should see the opposing sides as "mudcakes or nothing" and "shoddily-built buildings or Starbucks." The economy of Haiti page you linked, _J_, indicates a lot of people get by on subsistence farming. If this way of life makes them happy, I don't see any reason to try and change it. It would probably take fairies to make the Haitian people into a first world country, but I'm not suggesting we could or should do that.
What we can do, though, is teach them better building strategies that help their domiciles survive natural disasters. Perhaps we can couple this training with efforts by the Carter Center to set up more legitimate elections.
I propose that moments of human suffering should not be evaluated economically, or through a cost-benefit analysis. When I see my fellow-humans unable to have their most basic needs met--and by this I mean food, water, and not much else--I should be ready to throw as much money and aid at them as I am able. This is especially the case when this money is coming directly from (relatively) wealthy people instead of through the government.
These people are not fools, as _J_ suggests. Rather, they're fellow-humans who recognize that to ignore human suffering while living in such prosperity is a deplorable thing.
Rather, they're fellow-humans who recognize that to ignore human suffering while living in such prosperity is a deplorable thing.
You completely missed the argument he is making. He is arguing that people have been doing exactly that (ignoring human suffering) since Haiti was established.
"Our helping Haiti, if it is to be likened to our helping India, China, New Orleans, is to return Haiti to its state of living in cement rectangles and eating either mudcakes or nothing."
You're trying to temper disaster fetishism and the US's messiah complex with economical reason. Sure, a strategy would be nice and a plan marvelous, but that's just not the way people do things. This is the losing battle you've been fighting since before I knew you.
Kyle Brown,
I didn't miss the point he was making; rather, I was attempting to extend my earlier point that "it was wrong to do nothing before the earthquake. It is wrong to do nothing now."
"These people are not fools, as _J_ suggests. Rather, they're fellow-humans who recognize that to ignore human suffering while living in such prosperity is a deplorable thing."
Go back and read that statement that you made, and tell me how that doesn't miss the point of _J_'s argument.
Rightness and wrongness aside, the people who are donating money to Haiti now that had not been doing so earlier will have completely forgotten about Haiti by the Superbowl and will continue to live their lives as if nothing happened. The fact that they are willing to donate money do to alarmist reactions to natural disasters, makes them out to be fools.
*due to alarmist reactions... typo, sorry.
Right, SM!
You were just talking past the points of others--the actual topic at hand--and sharing with us a banal expansion of your previous worthless comment. Awesome on you; you don't even need us to talk to, so why not just go elsewhere and make yourself magically happier and healthier?
There's no need to be mean to SM.
My problem is this sort of notion:
"If this way of life makes them happy, I don't see any reason to try and change it."
That is a pretty big "if". My contention would be that Haitians are not happy and would prefer to not starve to death or die due to lack of access to medicine.
Haiti is not a quaint little country of lush green meadows and golden fields of grain. It is mostly, entirely incapable of sustaining the population absent economic / medicinal / food handouts from other nations.
So, yes, if the Haitians are happy then we just need to rebuild their cement rectangles and let them be. But you don't get on an inflatible life raft and paddle your way from Haiti to Florida because things are keen in Haiti.
"I propose that moments of human suffering should not be evaluated economically, or through a cost-benefit analysis."
Why not?
It ignores the three most important questions: How many people died? How close are they to us? How white are they?
Hundreds of thousands of brown people die in a different hemisphere and some college kids make some signs. A few million white people die in a different hemisphere and we build a museum. A few thousand white people die in new york and it changes the very course of the fucking earth.
Also, money is essentially an abstraction. It's possible to define a real thing in terms of the abstraction, but that doesn't mean that there is an actual link between reality and abstraction.
Of course, since we all use money and people are talking about donating it to help people, my vague opinion is that the best money to be donated is in birth control products and education on the subject.
You have really great taste on catch article titles, even when you are not interested in this topic you push to read it
Post a Comment