A friend called the other night to share his sense of helplessness in the face of the earthquake in Haiti. Because he is not in a position to help in any direct way, I suggested that he send money and turn off his television, at least for the night. Many of us are in the same situation, the exceptions being people like the V.I. Medical and Relief Trip and other groups of responders with valued skills.
Like all else, as the hours, days and weeks pass, Haiti will recede from our consciousness, except for those who are physically present. Given that reality, it is useful to try to make sense of this tragedy, even as it continues to unfold.
The Scale of the tragedy: Early estimates of death and destruction in disasters often overstate the numbers. That is not going to happen here. As it has been throughout much of its history, the deck is stacked against Haiti. Absent anything else, Port-au-Prince’s density, poverty, lack of infrastructure and shoddy construction will drive the numbers of dead and maimed to stratospheric heights.
To provide some context, the number of deaths is now projected at between 50,000 and 150,000 people. So the dead may equal the entire population of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Many Americans view the attacks of September 11, 2001 as one of the great calamities in the history of the world. The death toll was approximately 3,000 people. Hurricane Katrina claimed about 4,000 lives. If there is a comparable event, it may be the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, which claimed somewhere between 60,000 and 150,000 lives.
The Soviet dictator, Josef Stalin, once said that “One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are a statistic.” Stalin was a monster, but he was not a fool. If we are to make the best of this tragic situation, step one is almost certainly making sure that we do not lose sight of the fact that these numbers represent the lives of mothers, fathers and children—people who, whatever their level of poverty, are human beings with lives and value.
Bringing out the best in people: As the Virgin Islander Susan Hancock said, “People need to feel that they have done something to help.” It is times like these that show humans at their best. It is this instinct to help, especially when coupled with important skills, that provides hope in situations that might otherwise seem hopeless. It is important to acknowledge that there are a lot of good and generous people in the world.
America’s shining moment: As the Great Recession drags on and the bitterness in American politics intensifies, it will be easy for people to lose sight of the shameful legacy of the past decade. The election of President Obama helped erase some of that legacy across the world. It is likely that our leadership and generosity in Haiti, despite the enormous challenges involved, will be a shining moment for the United States. And that we, as a people, will again be seen in the world as a significant force for good.
Some part of this will be a result of political leadership and a commitment to an impoverished and now shattered country. But a larger part will be a reflection of our enormous military capability and our capacity to move things and organize on a scale that is beyond the rest of the world. Once organized, the application of these resources, even in the chaotic reality that is Haiti, will produce wondrous positive results.
In the early days and weeks, the impact of our capabilities will not be so clear. There are enormous logistical and communications challenges. And it will take time to figure out who is in charge of what. Finally, this effort will be made to look bad by television reporting that reflexively focuses on disorder and screw-ups. But the core reality will be that our capabilities and our ability to organize things are unrivaled and will save and restore countless lives. They are an ideal fit for dealing with such a tragedy.
Television: 100 years ago, an earthquake of this magnitude in Haiti would have been reported in newspapers some days after the event. Its magnitude would have been unclear, and ordinary citizens would have remained uninvolved.
Television has changed all of that. Within an hour, we knew that something horrific had happened. And within several hours, we had a sense of the scale of the calamity. This knowledge had several results. First, by seeing what happened, we assume some responsibility to help. If you don’t think about helping, the disaster becomes just another form of entertainment.
Second, television, especially in our times, trivializes major events. This is mostly an outcome of the banality and superficiality of television news. If someone is stupid, they do not become smart just because the event they are covering is an enormous one. And behind the unnaturally white teeth and glib styles, there is a lot of stupidity, willful ignorance and shallowness. There appears to be an entire generation of television news people who are totally lacking in substance and empathy for anyone who does not look like them. Sadly for us, one does not see much of this when watching news coverage from other countries.
Finally, there is the effect of going from scenes of devastation and suffering to a commercial for a new car, a prescription drug that should not be taken if you are pregnant, or “It’s better in the Bahamas.” Whatever the effect of these constant shifts on our brains and our souls, it cannot be good. Unfortunately, our society is now so commercialized, that few seem to notice much anymore.
Racism: In addition to those who feel a need to help, there is another group in American society. They represent some sizable portion of the population, are almost entirely white and are represented by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. These are the voices of America’s white nationalism. Their reaction to the tragedy in Haiti has often been repulsive and frightening.
Limbaugh urged his listeners not to contribute to Haitian relief because President Obama would hijack the money and use the disaster to burnish his reputation with “the light-skinned and dark-skinned black community.”
Fox News, whose audience is 95 percent white, gave the earthquake less coverage than any of the other cable news networks. And when it did, it emphasized disorder and the futility of sending money for relief because, as Bill O’Reillly said, it probably won’t get to “the folks.” Beyond these things, there was something less definable. At the risk of sounding sexist, it was a quality that the Fox News blonde anchors displayed, a lack of humanity. It was as if this were no different than covering the Tiger Woods scandal. In their reporting, the primary victims were often white missionaries in Haiti, and black Haitians were a large undifferentiated mass.
We have seen this before in Katrina, but we had a white right-wing President then. In the current environment, there is a subtext of white people needing to band together in the face of a threat to their existence, or, at least, their primacy. While mainstream television commentators dismiss many of these racist remarks as “silly” or comments of the “crazies,” they are anything but. They reflect the views of a sizable portion of the population, a group which would leave Haiti and its people to their own devices and use aid as just another club with which to bash President Obama.
Institutions and why they are important: Almost anyone who has spent time in Haiti comments on it. Haiti lacks almost all of the institutions that define a successful society. Many of these are government entities, such as functioning ministries of health, justice or public safety. A range of international non-governmental agencies have tried to fill the gap, but, in the long run, it doesn’t work. This is why, in the cruel language of the advanced world, Haiti has been known as a "basket case.” It doesn’t have institutions.
America’s historic success can be largely attributed to our institutions and the respect and trust that they have commanded. These institutions cut across the public, business and non-profit sectors. Sadly, it is difficult to name an institution whose stature has not been diminished in recent decades.
Respected and trusted institutions are valuable in good times and critical in bad times. They provide much of the social cohesion that holds things together when there are all kinds of pressures to rip them apart. Haiti has few of these institutions. We have many, and it may be time to take stock and discuss the impact of the processes that are systematically undermining them.
Seeing the World as it is: Even before food and water had reached many victims, people were talking about “rebuilding” Haiti. It is big talk, and we have heard it before, most recently in the aftermath of Katrina. In situations like this, it is important to see the world as it is, rather than as we would like it to be. Or as we pretend it can be.
In recent years, a significant international investment was made in Haiti. It may have the best government that it has ever had. Gains have been made. Secretary of State Clinton said that Haiti had “turned a corner.” This is not true. Haiti has not turned a corner, and the harsh reality is that its core problems are probably insoluble. Its environmental degradation is too far advanced to support a population of eight million people. Its institutions are too weak. And its predatory elite is too entrenched to allow for the changes that would be needed to build a viable society and lift a majority of Haitians out of the dire poverty in which they now live.
It would appear that the world, and especially the United States, needs to make a different and far more difficult commitment. Haiti cannot support a population of eight million people and will not be able to do so in the future, even if the most ambitious reconstruction effort is made. And the likelihood of such an effort is very small, given what we know about events after the cameras are gone.
Those living in Port-au-Prince have particularly dire prospects. The commitment that is truly needed is for different countries to accept possibly three million Haitians for an indeterminate period, and to do so during a period of economic hardship. Not easy and maybe not politically possible. Steve King, an extremist Congressman from Iowa, has suggested deporting Haitians already here back to Haiti to clean up the rubble. Who knows what portion of public opinion he represents?
The logical recipient countries would be the United States, France, Canada and possibly Brazil and some other smaller countries with histories of generosity.
Can it happen? It is doubtful, but the idea of “rebuilding” Haiti seems wildly improbable. There is a need to begin thinking about the long-term before public attention shifts to the next big thing. The key questions are: what is realistically achievable? And what are people willing to commit to in a difficult political and economic climate? How much do we really care about the fate of the Haitian people?