URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       US Environmental History Class at CSW
  HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Mod 5, 2019
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 429--------------------------------------------------
       Re: #13: New Orleans and Katrina
       By: yzhu2020 Date: March 5, 2019, 8:47 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Is there an expectation that Environmental History will
       retrospectively dictate what's right and wrong? Why or Why not?
       I don't think one can say what is right or wrong about history
       because history has shaped our thoughts today. Our perspective
       of rights or wrong will change if history is not what it is now.
       So there is of right or wrong - meaning there is no expectation.
       Environmental history gives people the knowledge of how the
       world had become what it is now - it does not tell people
       whether or not an event is right or wrong.
       -----
       To be honest, before I never really understood when did the
       Ninth Ward suddenly get so much attention because it only stood
       for about three percent of the population; now I think that
       racial and living-condition issues had made the Ninth Ward
       "stand out". When hurricane Katrina came in, people started
       focusing their attention on getting people out of New Orleans,
       especially people who had great difficulties getting out - which
       is why the Ninth Ward had received the attention.
       Other than that aspect, this also made me think about why did
       New Orleans get built in the first place if people knew that the
       land condition is awful. The City of Nature reading answered my
       question which is to business. I was a bit surprised at first
       because I didn't know what types of businesses could be done but
       then I realized that the Mississippi River played a big role in
       the business part. The Mississippi River, "fronting New
       Orleans", opened a channel for trade which was highly
       significant back in the 18th century.
       #Post#: 430--------------------------------------------------
       Re: #13: New Orleans and Katrina
       By: amacdonald Date: March 5, 2019, 8:49 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       To Zach: I was also very surprised when I read about the
       challenges that the environment presents New Orleans. To answer
       your question, I think that people worked so hard to build up
       the city because of its proximity to the Mississippi River.
       "In an era before railways, good highways, and long before air
       travel, much of the interior of the nation’s commerce flowed
       along the Mississippi, fronting New Orleans. The river system’s
       inexorable downstream current swept cotton, grain, sugar, and an
       array of other commodities to New Orleans’ door."
       Even though the Mississippi provided a vital transportation
       network that flowed right past the city, I still cannot
       understand why a city would be built in a place that is so
       objectively dangerous to the residents of the city. As is
       mentioned in the article, "it is flood prone" and "it is located
       along a well-worn pathway that tropical storms travel from the
       Atlantic to the nation’s interior."
       My question: The landscape of the environment around New Orleans
       has been radically modified to help build up and protect the
       city. If leaving the local environment alone presents a threat
       to the people living there, is it justified to change the land
       in the name of safety?
       #Post#: 431--------------------------------------------------
       Re: #13: New Orleans and Katrina
       By: Annaliese Date: March 5, 2019, 9:47 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I do think that there is an expectation that environmental
       history will retrospectively dictate what is right and wrong.
       The attitude that I got from the reading was in terms of the
       flooding in New Orleans, whether areas were impacted the
       greatest was seen as determined completely by chance. I don't
       think anyone was really held accountable for the decision of
       which areas to send help to - because that is not determined by
       chance or by the environment, that is an ethical problem.
       Obviously some areas got a lot more support than others and that
       was seen as an environmental issue when I believe it was much
       more an ethical one. I believe deciding to build a city in such
       environmentally unstable areas regardless of whether it is a
       good idea or not is a form of shifting responsibility away from
       us (people who built the city) and blaming it on the effects of
       the environment. New Orleans was built prior to the residents
       gaining an understanding of the environmental dangers of
       building there, but I think when building new developments there
       needs to be a shift in how we think about building in unstable
       places. Not taking responsibility for the effects of the
       environment and building in places with a high potential for
       flooding or natural disasters feels very irresponsible.
       #Post#: 432--------------------------------------------------
       Re: #13: New Orleans and Katrina
       By: asantello Date: March 5, 2019, 9:50 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       So I originally passed, but after reading the responses I
       couldn't help doing the readings, so here are a few thoughts.
       Alex asked: If leaving the local environment alone presents a
       threat to the people living there, is it justified to change the
       land in the name of safety?
       - I think it depends on what the population looks like and what
       the alternate solutions are. For a city like New Orleans I think
       it would be justifiable because of the amount of people. I don't
       know what changes could be made, but I think at this point there
       are enough people that they come first.
       Like Alice the line “We finally cleaned up public housing. We
       couldn’t do it, but God did” - Richard Baker stood out to me in
       the worst way.
       It reminded me so much of when John Smith said “God had laid
       this country open for us, and slaine the most part of
       inhabitants by civil warres and moral diseases.” That parallel
       was so disgusting to realize and like Alice said this wasn't 50
       or 250 years ago, but in our lifetimes.
       Lastly what I was left thinking after The New Yorker article is
       how would people react and be affected if this happens again in
       New Orleans, since it seems like a very real possibility.
       #Post#: 433--------------------------------------------------
       Re: #13: New Orleans and Katrina
       By: Ahmed_A Date: March 5, 2019, 10:38 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I will be answering Sof's question about levees, which required
       a quick additional research from: https:
       //www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/levee/
       Levees are walls built along edges of rivers that have high
       chance of flooding. Artificial levees are from various types of
       materials: soil, rocks, wood, or sand. Levees are not
       invincible, however, which is evident by the many levees that
       were shattered by Hurricane Katrina.
       My question is: Through an environmental historian lenses, what
       will be the future of New Orleans?[font=georgia][/font]
       *****************************************************
   DIR Next Page