The first thing that we learned in class today was that all natural disasters are due to humans not nature. It was defined as a consequence when a natural calamity affects humans and the built environment. This means that when natural disasters occur anywhere in the world, the resulting losses depend on the human ability to resist the disaster and their resilience. An example of this would include Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and how unprepared they were for this event, which led to a high death toll and high damages to infer structure. We also learned the very important lesson that if humans can act before the strike of hazards properly in order to prevent the hazard from becoming a disaster.
I found that the most influential and interesting fact that I heard in class tonight was about the situation that happened in Japan. I thought it was insane that they were so well prepared for any earthquakes due to their resilient building structure, however many of the living areas were below sea level causing them to be ill prepared for high winds and flooding of a tsunami. As one of the classmates said tonight, Japan was destroyed by this series of events considering the fact that the initial earthquake took out all the power and following that the tsunami destroyed the back-up generators.
After class I found an interesting video that has to do with Osama Bin Laden and Humanitarianism. The title of the video is Al-Qaeda's Suspect Humanitarianism and the link is as follows:
This video talks about how Bin Laden released a tape sometime after 2001 when Americans believed that he was dead in order to create a new relief body in order to help with the summer floods in Pakistan. Shortly into the video speaks of his real motifs which were to make the government look like they are being uncaring in order to bring more followers to his terrorist cause. I felt that this was an interesting video considering the content we are going over in class.
The conclusion I came to at the end of class tonight was that humanitarian aid can prolong and fuel conflicts, thus undermining its ultimate goal of saving lives. It is everyone's sole choice to determine whether humanitarianism is helping or hurting everyone and if this practice should continue or not. Let me know what you guys think and comment on my blog post?
Jesse- Like you, before this class I had a slight idea of what humanitarianism was, but after class on Monday night I had a better idea of what was going on around the world with humanitarian organizations around the world. It is interesting that non-profit organizations provide help to civilians and prisoners of war in war zones and hostile areas.
ReplyDeleteIt is crazy to think natural disaster are due to humans and not nature. Hopefully people will research and learn from disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. Maybe people will learn from this lesson and act before the strike of the hazard. This way people will be prepared and not absorb as much of an impact as New Orleans did with Hurricane Katrina.
My blog had the same approach as your about Japan and how they ignored the warning signs and built communities below the sea level in flood zones. This example contributes to the fact that disasters are actually “human-made”
The video you posted is crazy, it is amazing how he used media to turn people against America and our beliefs. It’s amazing that he helped to fund money to help Pakistan, at the same time, he is a huge terrorist.
Jesse, I found myself in the same situation during last class. I thought I knew a good amount of information about humanitarianism, but I was wrong. Last class was a big eye opener when it comes to how different agents carry out humanitarian aid. Learning about the current humanitarian system made me very frustrated and it showed how much the current system is not very helpful in times of crisis. The communication between the multiple agencies is just a bunch of political play in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe point made in class about natural disasters being caused by humans and not nature had me very interested in the topic from the start. The definition clears that up because humans cannot control nature, we cannot just tell a hurricane not to run over New Orleans and tell the Earth’s crust cause earthquakes, but a natural calamity affects humans.
This can be proven because the earthquake that had its epicenter in Mineral, VA of my knowledge did not kill anyone and to me doesn’t make it a natural disaster. The example you used of Hurricane Katrina being a natural disaster is a great example of humanity being affected by a natural calamity. If the people around New Orleans were forewarned of Hurricane Katrina I still believe it would have been labeled a natural disaster because those people who would have fled the cities limits would not have had a home to live in. This would have left many people homeless until aid could arrive in the area to help. If humans can act quick enough to try to prevent as much damage as possible it would certainly limit how catastrophic a natural calamity could be.
For a society that is on an ecological hotspot for earthquakes, they would have to invest large amounts of money into making sure buildings are able to withstand a large earthquake. The west coast of the United States is on a ecological hotspot too, they too have building codes in place to make sure buildings withstand an earthquake of a certain magnitude. So, these two different countries and societies both have prepared for a natural event like an earthquake. As for the tsunami that destroyed much of Japan, there were literally warning signs for the low lying parts not to build below this line because of the risk of a tsunami. However, people built below these stones that had warnings on them and now they are paying the price. I believe Japan should learn from history and listen to those very old stones and enforce building zoning codes for the low lying areas not to built on to help prevent future natural disasters.
Jesse, as an English freak I feel obligated to tell you that in your last sentence you should’ve used a period instead of a question mark being as you are inviting people to respond, not asking a question. :) Now that I have that out of the way, in general I do agree with the conclusion you came to at the end of our class on humanitarianism and humanitarian aid/relief efforts. You stated that: “humanitarian aid can prolong and fuel conflicts, thus undermining its ultimate goal of saving lives,” and I most definitely agree and have a few things to add to your point. Giving humanitarian aid and relief efforts to an area of people who are deprived of basic human necessities can be, and often is, a very dangerous thing. By giving the deprived peoples things that they need, individuals working for humanitarian agencies for relief and aid efforts often come under attack because, although, they are getting the necessities they need to life, they are also getting a good that is potentially worth more than their lives to other people in that area, thus humanitarian workers give people something to fight over. This becomes deadly is areas where there is little control over the general population, since little can be done to effectively prevent these scenarios from occurring completely. Under the Geneva Conventions, if you have a red cross on yourself, your equipment, and your means of transportation, you are not allowed to be engaged by any country on the planet; this however, is not a rule of war for rebels and privately hired security forces who do not belong to any country.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I would like to explore more is the video that you posted in your blog, Bin Laden’s “humanitarian” actions directed at creating a relief network to help with the summer flooding in Pakistan, can also be similarly seen in gangs who do community service to improve standings within their own communities. This behavior, on both international and local levels, can be considered humanitarian because of the actions taken by these people, not because of who they are. However, if you do take into consideration who they are, what their motives are for giving aid, any rational individuals perceptions of the situation would change. Bin Laden is an internationally known, and now dead, terrorist whose orders carried out by his followers killed thousands of people. What could he have to gain by giving humanitarian aid to people in Pakistan? Good status with the locals in order to sway their beliefs about the organization that he stands for. If people are more likely to view Al-Qaeda as an organization that helps locals who are in need, then they are more likely to join that organization.
I believe that a lot of people had the same insight as you when it came to humanitarianism. In my opinion most people know what it is, but do not know what they actually do or everything that they actually do. Before this class, I was one of those people. For example, like when you brought up what they Red Cross does, before this class I had no idea how much stuff they actually did. Like, I had no idea that they supply doctors, food, water and other help for both countries in the state of war. Furthermore, I thought that the Red Cross was just an American based organization that just helped people and or businesses out after a natural disaster or something along those lines. So, for me to learn that they did a lot more then that really caught my attention and peaked my interest. I can honestly say that in this class I learned more then in most of my other classes. I am not talking about just this one class period, but as the class as a whole. I can say that honestly because I am commenting on this post late and towards the end of the semester so at this point now, all we have left is our final project.
ReplyDeleteI too was taken back by what we talked about in class about the Earthquake in Japan. It was amazing to hear how prepared they were for an event like this, and yet they still got wiped out. Was it because of ignorance, or just extreme bad luck that they got hit with an earthquake and then a tsunami to top it all off? And of course some landscape being below sea level did not help the situation at all. All in all, great class and great post
I'll agree that I was unaware of the full scope and history and it is nice that this class was able to quickly remedy this and provide a solid contextual background with which to move forward. While I had heard some of the stories about neutral organizations providing aid during conflicts, I had no idea that they first took this difficult stance during some of the most polarizing world conflicts.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that natural disasters have little to actually do with nature is a bit of a difficult concept for me, but certainly one I've become increasingly willing to accept as the class has progressed. It is true that most natural disasters are something that cannot be forecast like the weather, but there are locations that are prone or susceptible to specific and general disasters and should plan accordingly. Katrina, as you mentioned, posed a threat that New Orleans was blatantly aware of but chose to ignore, thus causing greater damage and a high cost of life. While I can't completely fault governments and people for not being fully prepared for disasters, I can understand that they fail basic capacity building practices when they choose to ignore the risks, thus causing the "disaster" in natural disaster.