So there was a lot to read/digest in both of those articles, and I won't try to speak to all of it...but to use Rachel's question as a starting point, I think environmental history is crucial to retrospection in general, if not right and wrong. The environmental history of N.O. shows that the residents of the lower ninth ward were closest to two major canals of water, and in the immediate threat of the hurricane/flooding. "Their residents—among the least able to evacuate, for want of cars and money—drowned in the oily brown floodwaters or hacked holes through attic ceilings and sat on scalding tar-paper roofs for days, waiting to be rescued."(new yorker) So considering what we know from enviro history, a part of the city that "only contained 3% of the population" (NY) and not most powerful part of the population in terms of class/finances/race, was overlooked in the oncoming hurricane, and continued to suffer in the chaos of reconstructing the city.
In retrospect, to consider the environment of N.O., I think the parts of the city closest to levees/canals should have had extra help in evacuation, despite race/class, spending whatever precautionary money necessary to remove citizens before the storm so that lives could have been spared. Unfortunately that was not the case, so after the storm when Nagin and other politicians were promising to rebuild New Orleans, the redistribution citizens would need to respect ninth wardian's close personal connection to "their city" and what was left of their ancestor's homes, while also making further effort to create a much safer space in terms of protection from natural disasters and, in particular, social neglect.
some questions to ponder: “We have this incredible, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reëngage and recalibrate this city in a way that, politically, you might never have been able to get to.” Joseph Canizaro called the city a “clean sheet.”
(New Yorker) Why was the city considered a "clean sheet" after a devastating natural disaster? What wasn't "clean" about it before, and do you think this new incentive to create a better city is enough to actually follow through? What would that look like?
This reading was difficult for me to comprehend for some reason, but I understood some points and interesting topics that it covered. I was most interested by the point made that Katrina did not simply destroy parts of the city physically, but it changed culture, and brought a stronger connection among those of different social classes and races. I'd like to mainly focus on Naya's point raised about Katrina making a "clean sheet" (according to Joseph Canizaro) of New Orleans. As said by Ray Manning, just before Joseph Canizaro's point, "We have this incredible, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reengage and recalibrate this city in a way that, politically, you might never have been able to get to." The idea of New Orleans being a "clean sheet" after Katrina means that the physical damage to the city created opportunities for better integration, socially and economically. It's definitely interesting to see that after a situation like Katrina, where so many people lose both family, friends, and property, a city can come together and relate like never before.
To answer Naya’s question, I believe the city was considered a “clean sheet” after a devastating natural disaster because it was able to get rid of social structure where poor, southern blacks lived. The ninth ward was place that was economically disadvantage due to the people who lived there and the land in which they settled on. Baum writes “The downriver side of New Orleans has always evoked strong emotions. The French avoided it, settling the high ground of a Mississippi River oxbow that would become the heart of the city.” However, many immigrants and other groups were forced to settle on this land. I disagree with the new incentive to create a better city. As the mayor planned to rebuild the city, he ignored the residents who once lived in the ninth ward area. In order to rebuild New Orleans, I think the mayor should have included the residents. Instead, he allowed contractors and other private owners to dictate the rebuilding of New Orleans.
Talking about Rachel's question “Is there an expectation that Environmental History will retrospectively dictate what's right and wrong? Why or Why not?” I believe environmental history absolutely shows us the mistakes and successes of the past. From the first sentence of City of Nature we can identify the context with which historians examine all crises: “In retrospect, the idea was so stupid...” Throughout this course I have learned that the job of environmental historians is a: to examine how any person or group of people have been impacted by their environment, and b: to identify how the people have impacted that environment. In doing so we must judge the actions of those in the past. We must see what worked and what didn't work, what had a negative impact on the civilization's environment and what had a positive one. The process of environmental history is judging the mistakes and success of human interaction with the area around them. Whether in The Lost Year or City of Nature the job of environmental historians is to identify what was “in retrospect” a stupid idea, what it's impact was on the people and the area they lived, and vise versa.
My question (although it most likely wont get answered since it looks like everyone took tonight off) is this: As an environmental historian why do you think New Orleans was founded in such a sub par place prone to natural disaster. Subsequently after the first few times why didn't the people simply move elsewhere. There is an incredible culture in N.O. right now that would be tragic to not rebuild after a hurricain, however, why didn't the people of the Missisipi develop that culture else ware?
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:51 pm Post subject:
I had difficulty to finish the reading. I did not really enjoy it. However, there are many points that worth talking and digesting.
I see this reading has a lot of similarity with my film paper reading. They both talk about “‘running the city like a business’” (The New Yorker, p.7). That moment, I knew there would be many issues involve at New Orleans.
When men began to go against the nature, many issues slowly appear. In one of the shorter reading, it says that most of the land in New Orleans is lower than the sea level. To prevent water coming into the city, New Orleans has a strong construction that would block the water away, but if the water somehow finds its way into the city, the water will also has difficulty coming out of the city. And, that is what happened when Katrina hit New Orleans.
Destruction was not the only issue, but also race and class when men going against the nature. After Katrina, most of the Lower Ninth Ward was destroyed. However, that part of the city usually had poorer black people living there. When the government began to clean up the mess after Katrina, it was based on what those richer people’s point of view and how to make it a “better city.” Relating back to Naya’s question about the “clean sheet”, I think the way the politicians used the word was just to make them look better and gave them excuse to get rid of the poor black people.
My question is: After reading this article, do you think destruction caused by New Orleans crossing the middle ground area between nature and human?
I looooved those! Especially the "City of Nature" by Ari Kelman. I thought he just forced his opinion down your throat. It was awesome. He COMPLETELY blamed the people and city structure for the devastation, which I guess, when you think about it for long enough, seems pretty valid. It DOES seem like a pretty... naive idea to make a large city in an unsafe environment, expecting nothing to happen. So in a way, it is the fault of the people. We should've prepared better. "New Orleans' dysfunctional relationship with its environment may make it the nation's most improbable metropolis." He even says it in such a blunt manner. I really really enjoy this. He also mentions "It is cursed with a fertile disease environment." which I talked a lot about in my essay; how in I believe it was 1853, the Yellow Fever completely ravaged the entire city and killed thousands of people in a matter of weeks. The climate is warm, humid, and the people live close together.
Disastrous.
I'm going to try to respond to this, "As an environmental historian why do you think New Orleans was founded in such a sub par place prone to natural disaster. Subsequently after the first few times why didn't the people simply move elsewhere. There is an incredible culture in N.O. right now that would be tragic to not rebuild after a hurricain, however, why didn't the people of the Missisipi develop that culture else ware?"
New Orleans is where it is because it was an excellent place for importing and exporting people and goods off of trade ships. The dangers of the location were never really a super large problem. Plus, they did things like building the levee system, which was a great idea and all, but obviously not good enough when it was overwhelmed and flooded. The city kept growing because of the convenience and cultural mix. Also, many people simply *couldn't* leave because of poverty. It kept growing, and you can't really move a large and significant city somewhere else... that is a HUGE job. Massive. More than massive.
I'd like to disagree with a point made in this forum.
Quote:
Katrina did not simply destroy parts of the city physically, but it changed culture, and brought a stronger connection among those of different social classes and races.
I feel that in fact, Katrina did quite the opposite. I feel that race was not so much a factor in, even after the election though Nagin received a high number of black voters, there was still considerable backlash from blacks that considered him a "white man in black skin."
A Quote that stuck out to me: "Some people don't understand that an equal number of black and white isn't the same as equity."
"One storm, we have a while new playing field" said Bollinger, who believed that Nagin's commission should have dealt with with syphoning the city's blighted neighborhoods off the map. I found it interesting when it was said that "we do ourselves a disservice if we end with the concentrated poverty as it was?” Ulitmately, Operation rebirth would mix the poor and middle class residents of blighted neighborhoods into a new housing development with a new rail system.
When asked what residents most loved about their city, they often referred to the intimacy of their neighborhoods. They enjoyed the closeness of one another, and I found it extremely interesting how that was attributed by the physical presence of the environment. The way many of the houses were designed, were meant to provide good breezes throughout the house, but keep families and community close together. By changing this, you not only change the very fabric that keeps communities together, but you withold an progress from taking place.
Though the President didn’t want the government in the real estate business, said Powell more than two hundred thousand Louisiana homes that Katrina had destroyed, the federal government would only pay to rebuild a tenth of what was destroyed. Similar to Cathedral Pines and Pollens view that if you are not going to completely restore the wilderness, then one should not even try to do it, and they should figure out something else. This can compare to all bureaucracy, which is a big reason why when problems arise in our environment, humans don’t know how to address it most effectively within a certain time frame.
There are a few thing I want to talk about in class, such as whether or not property rights were better protected for affluent whites in comparison to disenfranchised blacks. I also want to talk about the role gov’t plays in helping people return to their enviornment, or continue to have in the way that was original and theirs.
This is also my last post ever in a history class. It’s been a great pleasure CSW.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
