![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've heard reports that the National Guard are stopping people (even volunteers/Red Cross) from going into New Orleans in order to completely evacuate the city. I know that there has been a lot of discussion on the matter, but it doesn't seem like a bad decision to me.
When the Guard get to people they are often being told that they don't want to leave because they have stayed this far and they have supplies enough to last or will wait until more supplies come in. A lot of people don't want to go to shelters. Even more don't want to give up what little security there is in being in familiar surroundings... no matter how bad those surroundings are.
While I understand all those feelings, New Orleans is covered in contaminated and disease-laced water. The dead need to be picked up. The buildings need to be checked over. The water needs to be pumped... somewhere. None of that can be done with refugees living among the debris. It certainly can't be done with snipers and looters working over the city. It looks harsh, not letting volunteers in... it is harsh. But people need to be moved out because it is not safe in the city. The relief efforts need to take place outside the danger zones.
I'm sure it's going to be an unpopular decision. That doesn't make it a wrong one.
As Americans, we like to think of ourselves as above such things. We believe that being powerful and rich, we can somehow escape the very horrible aftermath that disasters bring. We are totally unprepared to deal with the very real complications that come from such events and we don't like to believe that, with all the technology and where-with-all that we have, a little thing like a hurricane can stop us. Suffering after natural disasters, well, that's got to be for all those less developed countries. We're better than that.
Like hell we are. In fact, I'd lay you odds that all those people in the "poor, under developed countries" are much better at dealing with this sort of thing than we are. Why? Because they have dealt with it. They understand that nature doesn't check for wealth or technology when it gets rough. Also? They aren't in a city where everything they need requires technology and electricity. That's why the smaller communities and farm country are handling this better than New Orleans -- and, yes, there are a hell of a lot more people affected by this than just New Orleans.
Only New Orleans is getting all the press because they are the least capable of dealing with this, because it is a tragedy in progress. In that city, there is no place for people to go and no support for them when they get there. There are limited ways of bringing in help and what can get in has to be spent on stemming the tide of more destruction. There are too many people in such a small area with no natural resources for them to use and a complete dependency on the infrastructure of the city that is no longer there.
Keep that in mind: there is no infrastructure in the city. No electricity, no phone, no water, no sewer. There are, at the very least, hundreds of bodies breeding disease and scavengers and bugs that bring even more disease. People can not stay there. Any effort that goes into helping the people who are getting sick and dying will make rebuilding the city's infrastructure more difficult. Those are not safe conditions to live in. Not to mention there are no stores, no work, no schools... There are no central locations for the people there. All of that is best, most efficiently done outside the city.
There is also the fact that with people in the city you will need to use the limited city infrastructure in two ways (help/support and rebuilding) rather than just reclaiming the city from the ocean. There is also the precedent that such conditions lead to desperation and that can lead to people with guns and getting desperate who may choose to open fire on the odd person trying to work on the rebuilding. With people living in the wreckage there is also the probable resistance (from anyone stubborn enough to stay behind) to any improvements or rebuilding that are needed. This is especially true if people consider the place to be their home.
Even if the *basic* infrastructure is up, there is still no fire, no police -- and with more than half the N.O. police force gone, that is likely to remain a problem. There will be no hospitals, no emergency personnel. Even if the buildings are checked out as livable, the storm, flooding and looting would have ruined or removed the stock in the stores and the belongings in houses.
The people will have to be let in again, but not for a while. As Americans we don't want to use the word "refugee" because that somehow belongs to those who just aren't smart enough to avoid the problem. There are some problems, that no matter how much money, education or technology you have, can't be avoided.
When the Guard get to people they are often being told that they don't want to leave because they have stayed this far and they have supplies enough to last or will wait until more supplies come in. A lot of people don't want to go to shelters. Even more don't want to give up what little security there is in being in familiar surroundings... no matter how bad those surroundings are.
While I understand all those feelings, New Orleans is covered in contaminated and disease-laced water. The dead need to be picked up. The buildings need to be checked over. The water needs to be pumped... somewhere. None of that can be done with refugees living among the debris. It certainly can't be done with snipers and looters working over the city. It looks harsh, not letting volunteers in... it is harsh. But people need to be moved out because it is not safe in the city. The relief efforts need to take place outside the danger zones.
I'm sure it's going to be an unpopular decision. That doesn't make it a wrong one.
As Americans, we like to think of ourselves as above such things. We believe that being powerful and rich, we can somehow escape the very horrible aftermath that disasters bring. We are totally unprepared to deal with the very real complications that come from such events and we don't like to believe that, with all the technology and where-with-all that we have, a little thing like a hurricane can stop us. Suffering after natural disasters, well, that's got to be for all those less developed countries. We're better than that.
Like hell we are. In fact, I'd lay you odds that all those people in the "poor, under developed countries" are much better at dealing with this sort of thing than we are. Why? Because they have dealt with it. They understand that nature doesn't check for wealth or technology when it gets rough. Also? They aren't in a city where everything they need requires technology and electricity. That's why the smaller communities and farm country are handling this better than New Orleans -- and, yes, there are a hell of a lot more people affected by this than just New Orleans.
Only New Orleans is getting all the press because they are the least capable of dealing with this, because it is a tragedy in progress. In that city, there is no place for people to go and no support for them when they get there. There are limited ways of bringing in help and what can get in has to be spent on stemming the tide of more destruction. There are too many people in such a small area with no natural resources for them to use and a complete dependency on the infrastructure of the city that is no longer there.
Keep that in mind: there is no infrastructure in the city. No electricity, no phone, no water, no sewer. There are, at the very least, hundreds of bodies breeding disease and scavengers and bugs that bring even more disease. People can not stay there. Any effort that goes into helping the people who are getting sick and dying will make rebuilding the city's infrastructure more difficult. Those are not safe conditions to live in. Not to mention there are no stores, no work, no schools... There are no central locations for the people there. All of that is best, most efficiently done outside the city.
There is also the fact that with people in the city you will need to use the limited city infrastructure in two ways (help/support and rebuilding) rather than just reclaiming the city from the ocean. There is also the precedent that such conditions lead to desperation and that can lead to people with guns and getting desperate who may choose to open fire on the odd person trying to work on the rebuilding. With people living in the wreckage there is also the probable resistance (from anyone stubborn enough to stay behind) to any improvements or rebuilding that are needed. This is especially true if people consider the place to be their home.
Even if the *basic* infrastructure is up, there is still no fire, no police -- and with more than half the N.O. police force gone, that is likely to remain a problem. There will be no hospitals, no emergency personnel. Even if the buildings are checked out as livable, the storm, flooding and looting would have ruined or removed the stock in the stores and the belongings in houses.
The people will have to be let in again, but not for a while. As Americans we don't want to use the word "refugee" because that somehow belongs to those who just aren't smart enough to avoid the problem. There are some problems, that no matter how much money, education or technology you have, can't be avoided.
