Why is it that earthquakes always hit so hard in the poorest areas?
The erudite New York Times columnist David Brooks reminds us that poverty means shakily constructed buildings, inadequate water, sewer and medical services even before the disaster strikes. He offers grisly evidence of how that plays out: The 1989 quake in the Bay Area and the recent one in Haiti were the same magnitude: 7.0. But while 63 people died in California, upwards of 50,000 are dead in Haiti.
The United States sends trillions in aid to poorer counties like Haiti, and it clearly hasn’t helped enough. Brooks raises our dismal record at bringing about economic growth around the globe. He cites the various reasons: We’re basically clumsy at this sort of thing; micro-aid, while important, is only one piece of the puzzle; and — most interesting to me — our concerns about cultural correctness.
Brooks, comparing Haiti’s poverty to the Dominican Republic’s progress, puts it this way:
“Haiti and the Dominican Republic share the same island and the same basic environment, yet the border between the two societies offers one of the starkest contrasts on earth — with trees and progress on one side, and deforestation and poverty and early death on the other.”
Haiti, he writes, has resisted progress for a number of reasons: the influence of voodoo religion that emphasizes life’s capriciousness; mistrust of authority; widespread neglect and abuse of children. (Who presumably do not grow up equipped to improve things.)
“We’re all supposed to politely respect each other’s cultures,” Brooks writes. “But some cultures are more progress-resistant than others, and a horrible tragedy was just exacerbated by one of them.”
The point here is not to hold back dollars to Haiti, but to use this nightmarish earthquake to take a hard look at how US aid can be used to help other countries grow out of poverty. We don’t have a great track record in this, but we do now have the right person in the White House to push the issue — someone who can speak plainly on the traditions and cultural behaviors that block progress. The rest of the world will listen to President Obama when he talks about culture, poverty and duty.
4 Comments
Here’s the issue with Mr. Brooks. While a very good rhetorician, he isn’t a very good cultural geographer. Maybe the religious and cultural proclivity toward the ephemeral developed as a coping mechanism to the destruction which had already befallen Haiti? I think there is a question of chicken and egg: Does Haitian culture keep them back or have other structural issues led them to develop a culture that allows them to persist amid tragedy? I think this is just another way white westerners blame the victim.
Provocative and useful idea/question. I do think any strong religion — as in, one that dominates a place so thoroughly — does grow up to keep people alive and with hope in horrible times/events. Good point I had not really considered. Maybe that is one of the things that religion does best. But it might, over time, play out in some of the ways Brooks cites. I am not in the know enough about Haiti to be sure if that is true here. My stronger interest was his point that we have a chance to look at how we spend aid/influence, and we need all the motivation we can get for Congress to do so, I’d say. Brooks is a pretty good cultural geographer when it comes to America, that’s for sure.
I don’t disagree a whit that there are too many ways white westerners blame the victim — in fact, it’s a thought I form pretty much daily while reading the news — but among my resolutions for coming year of writing/commentary is not to say it. I want to treat it like the law of gravity: I know it’s out there, but I’m more worried about shit falling on folks.
Keep on making me think — thanks.
Now Kirstof, he’s a good geographer… and an Oregonian: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/opinion/21kristof.html?ref=opinion
Excellent Kristof column. I posted it under “You Have to See This” on main page.