DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 5, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 419--------------------------------------------------
#13: New Orleans and Katrina
By: TeacherRachel Date: March 5, 2019, 1:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here are the links to the readings:
Kelman:
HTML http://www.slate.com/id/2125346/
Baum:
HTML http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/21/060821fa_fact2
consider this question (but also go beyond it and have a great
discussion): Is there an expectation that Environmental History
will retrospectively dictate what's right and wrong? Why or Why
not?
#Post#: 420--------------------------------------------------
Re: #13: New Orleans and Katrina
By: nanaafiaba Date: March 5, 2019, 4:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow! What a dense but provoking reading! First, I want to flush
out the many questions I have generated throughout this reading.
Please feel free to either answer one or skip by them to read my
actual response.
What is an American idea?
Why do we continue to inhabit lands that are "inhabitable"?
Why were New Orleanians and Americans in general so shocked by
the "raggedness" of the people of the Lower Nine? Why do we
consider such poverty to be un-American? Why did Shepard Smith
call it a "Third World horror," instead of events that can
happen anywhere?
How has the United States come to have the freedom and rich
imagery it has now, despite many examples that disprove this
image?
How do you behave "like a race"? Why and how have we turned
races into behavior traits?
What does it mean to have equity?
Who gets to have "neighborhoods"?
At what point does the uninhabitable nature of a land stop
mattering and its emotional value come into play?
Is it possible for revitalization/urban planning to not have a
racial context?
Is it possible that New Orleans had the Army Corps of Engineers
built faulty and weak levees in the Lower Nine as a way to
racially cleanse the city?
I do believe that there is an expectation that environmental
history will dictate between what is right and what is wrong. In
"The Lost Year," Nagin states that his reasoning for his initial
opposition to rebuilding the Ninth Ward was due to that sliver
of the Ninth Ward that underwent serious damage and flooding.
For these reasons, he believes that it would inhumane to restore
those homes who, when the next storm (which is sure to come)
arrives, will be destroyed once more. Even in a previous reading
that I do not remember, an author said that people look to
environmental historians to give them an answer or to predict
the future but that is just not possible.
Moving on, New Orleans' situation is a complex one. On one hand,
the Lower Ninth Ward was practically in ruin even before
Katrina. Crime and poverty were rampant throughout the
community. And even though about 60 percent of residents owned
their homes, they struggled, much like Ernest Penns, to keep up
monthly payments. However, its inhabitants refuse to let this
overpower the emotional tie they have to the area. "Paula
Taylor, a public-housing resident, told the Gambit, a local
newspaper, in April... 'Do I want to see it better? Yes. Safe?
Yes. Clean and decent? Yes. But this is home'" (13). There is an
almost stubborn nature Lower Nine residents have to rebuild the
city. From my perspective, I feel as if they would be better off
if the city was renovated instead of replaced. However, I speak
as someone who has never had to experience their circumstances.
There is definitely a racial aspect that exists in New Orleans.
With the Lower Ninth Ward being so majority-black, of course,
there is a movement to simply replace it with green space. I do
not know if there is a right answer. This situation needs a bit
more consideration than what it is currently receiving.
#Post#: 421--------------------------------------------------
Re: #13: New Orleans and Katrina
By: jbass Date: March 5, 2019, 5:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is there an expectation that Environmental History will
retrospectively dictate what's right and wrong? Why or Why not?
I think there is a sense of right and wrong that is very clear
in environmental history. We see the different movement of land
between different owners and we see how much of a fight people
will put up in regards to land. I think that does mean that
environmental history will dictate what’s right and wrong
because the sense of morality that we have can be used when
looking at how many people struggled with land.
#Post#: 422--------------------------------------------------
Re: #13: New Orleans and Katrina
By: afreitag Date: March 5, 2019, 5:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Morality often becomes subjective in complicated situations like
that of Katrina in New Orleans. However, I was surprised to read
that many people in positions of power’s ideas of the moral
thing to do were blatantly racist solutions. Something I won’t
be able to forget is “We finally cleaned up public housing. We
couldn’t do it, but God did” - Richard Baker. I kept having to
remind myself that Hurricane Katrina wasn’t fifty years ago, it
was in my lifetime, even though I wish these blatantly racist
politicians were further in the past.
I am so glad that Nanaafia made the point, “Even in a previous
reading that I do not remember, an author said that people look
to environmental historians to give them an answer or to predict
the future but that is just not possible”. Honestly, I had
completely forgotten about this but it applies to the question
“I there an expectation that environmental history will
retrospectively dictate what’s right and wrong?” The author of
the previous forgotten article talks extensively about people
interpreting environmental history as mainly a way to predict
what will happen in the future and what to do about it, when
environmental history in reality is all analyzing the past, not
reaching to make assumptions about the future. That totally
falls in line with Rachel’s question asking about
“RETROSPECTIVELY” the idea of right and wrong.
Once again, morality is subjective and everyone will interpret
things differently even if it’s a past event that has a
seemingly obvious answer. It’s like that horrible man Richard
Baker and others who looked at Hurricane Katrina as a force of
morality, cleansing NOLA (but it was really ethnic cleansing
they were talking about).
I keep having to go back to the question because I feel like I
get off track with every sentence, so I hope this is at least a
little coherent.
There is no way to dictate what is right and what is wrong, but
people do look at natural events and how they affect people to
make of it what they will. There’s an expectation that people
will try and use environmental history to shape their own ideas.
And I don’t have an answer.
Here are my questions
How much of the politician’s arguments about how to proceed as a
city are based on environmental history (for them the only just
passed Hurricane Katrina)? How many of those arguments try to
disguise their racist ideas through environmental history,
intentionally or not?
#Post#: 423--------------------------------------------------
Re: #13: New Orleans and Katrina
By: ngood Date: March 5, 2019, 6:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In response to Alice’s q: “How much of the politician’s
arguments about how to proceed as a city are based on
environmental history (for them the only just passed Hurricane
Katrina)? How many of those arguments try to disguise their
racist ideas through environmental history, intentionally or
not?”
I think many of the attempts made to make meaning of Katrina
through an environmental lense were absolutely tied to race
rather than accurate analysis of topography, as Baum makes
clear. The focus placed on the Lower Ninth Ward disregarded data
and geography and instead focused on race and class. Mayor Nagin
said “inaccurately, ‘I don’t think [the Lower Ninth Ward] can
ever be what it was, because it’s the lowest lying area’” (Baum
2). Much of the racially-charged (and often outright racist and
classist) emphasis on the Lower Ninth Ward (particularly from
people who wanted to see New Orleans “cleansed”) was barely
disguised by environmental concerns, though, as Baum points out,
“nobody seriously proposed ditching Lakeview, an upscale white
neighborhood that had borne the brunt of another breach, that of
the Seventeenth Street Canal, and lay under even deeper water”
(Baum 2).
My question/prompt:
How does architecture shape culture? How does this relate to the
proposals (which were rejected) to rebuild/reconfigure New
Orleans?
#Post#: 424--------------------------------------------------
Re: #13: New Orleans and Katrina
By: samfarley Date: March 5, 2019, 7:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hurricane Katrina was unlike any other natural disaster that has
taken place in the U.S., not because of the storm itself but
because of the response afterwards. I can’t think of any other
event like this in America where instead of the usual country
rallying around (or pretending to) the affected area, people
instead suggest total abandonment of the area.
As Ali and Natalie referenced, people both with and without
positions of leadership used the topography and geography itself
as an excuse to do so. They claimed that it would be inhumane to
let these people rebuild only to be hit again by the next storm,
but where was the humanitarian concern directly after this
hurricane, or towards these people at all before it even
occurred?
I think Nana Afia poses an interesting question about
neighborhoods, what they mean, and who gets to have them. The
nature of this question first lead me to believe that
neighborhoods are only something people with class or status can
have, but the story of New Orleans and the Lower Ninth Ward
disproves this in a way. Clearly, the rest of the city looked
down on them, and really the only thing that held them together
and gave them an identity in the face of bureaucracy and racism
was their neighborhood. They culture and pride stemmed from
their neighborhood, and is what they rallied around as they
fought to preserve what was left of their neighborhood, which
was basically just the land itself at that point.
I am curious as to how the neighborhood of the Lower Ninth Ward
persevered the way it did: nearly everything physical that made
it up was destroyed, but the spirit seemed to remain. My
question is how much of a place’s identity is based in thought
and impression as opposed to the physical land and
buildings/structures itself? Do these things even matter?
#Post#: 425--------------------------------------------------
Re: #13: New Orleans and Katrina
By: smartins2019 Date: March 5, 2019, 7:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure I really understand the question, so here are some
questions/ thoughts that I thought of while reading:
“Only fourteen thousand people lived in the Lower Ninth Ward at
the time of Katrina—fewer than three per cent of the city’s
population” (new yorker) That’s insane! Until reading this, I
had pretty much no grasp of Louisiana population.
“New Orleans had a tradition of intermarriage going back to the
French period,” Intermarriage between who and who? French
settlers and? Between races? Or different classes/ social
statuses?
Yes Ruby Bridges!!! (I learned a lot about her and always read
stories about her growing up)
After Nagin was reelected and made the speech about how New
Orleans needs to rebuild their city and have it become a
“chocolate New Orleans” and everyone was outraged… thats so
ridiculous. He faced a lot of backlash from white people in
positions of power, but powerful white people basically always
try to make EVERYTHING ALL WHITE… it’s almost funny how
threatened white people are by the unification of black people
(especially ones in position of power)!
Shotgun houses!! A few years ago I did an independent study on
black artists and learned about an art collective run out of a
street of shotgun houses!
How are levees built/ designed?
#Post#: 426--------------------------------------------------
Re: #13: New Orleans and Katrina
By: ebartel2020 Date: March 5, 2019, 8:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is there an expectation that Environmental History will
retrospectively dictate what's right and wrong? Why or Why not?
I think yes, seeing what has happened in history so far, we can
see how it has hurt or benefited us. Therefore, history will
dictate what happens in the future. I also think this is a hard
question because everyone's definition of right and wrong is
different which leads to a bigger question of how can we agree
on certain topics. But on the flip side, I also think it may not
always dictate what right and wrong because looking back at
history can be depressing and we do not want to recreate it so I
think people will also be looking for new ways to do things. I
am not sure if this will make sense to anyone but just my brain
dump!!
#Post#: 427--------------------------------------------------
Re: #13: New Orleans and Katrina
By: asantello Date: March 5, 2019, 8:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Using my pass
#Post#: 428--------------------------------------------------
Re: #13: New Orleans and Katrina
By: zwalker2020 Date: March 5, 2019, 8:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Some thoughts:
It kind of really shocks me how and why New Orleans was built in
the place it was, and how it was able to develop over such a
long time... to me it kind of seems like common sense to not
build directly on a delta below sea level, especially in a place
where hurricanes are so common. But it happened anyway. The
reading is pretty accurate in describing the city, as someone
who's been to New Orleans twice I don't remember ever actually
seeing the river besides when driving over it on a bridge (maybe
it's because I wasn't specifically looking for it, but you can't
really miss the Charles in Boston. Also the Mississippi is a
really major river... I expected to see it from almost anywhere
in the city but I didn't). Draining the city to this day is a
really huge challenge, and it seems kind of illogical to have
such a huge city when you have that challenge. Building all
those levies probably took a lot of time too.
To Sofia: I think they meant intermarriage between races since
it references skin color right after. Can't be completely sure
though.
Also, I think Environmental History definitely retrospectively
dictates what's "right" and what's "wrong". If there's any sort
of politically based debate, putting environmental benefits into
whatever argument you have makes it look much stronger to
everyone. The vast majority of people agree that the environment
is important to all of us.
My question: The first reading talks about how the issue of New
Orleans' location, "an almost imaginably bad site", was solved
by "people [working] endlessly to overcome the hazards". Why do
you think people had the motivation to do this instead of just
give up? Could it be because of their unique culture, their
pride in their city, or for some other reason?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page