These are the the links to two articles that discuss this topic.
Wired- Archeaologist Saving Miami's History Link
CIty Lab- Why Historic Preservation Needs to Be Part of Disaster Planning
Photo by: MADISON MCVEIGH/CITYLAB
When disaster strikes, the influx of medical support can oftentimes represent what we prioritize. People want to help people, so support looks like boxes of food and basic health care, but many of the things that are destroyed are things that are overlooked. One thing that is oftentimes overlooked is historical preservation, a lesson learned when many of the historic districts of Louisiana were destroyed and faultily fixed after Hurricane Katrina. Not only can this destruction take the form of natural disasters, but can also be slower destruction, like the rising of sea levels or the changing of our climate. One of the areas hit by rising water levels is Miami, and the Miami-Dade area is currently struggling with maintaining their historical areas in response to more virulent, more frequent natural disasters. In this piece, they focus on the natural areas and the tactics they are trying to use. One portion that I found interesting is that the native people would rather have a natural area ravaged by storm than taken to a more protective place. The choice to allow nature to act according to its own will rather than encase the historical areas creates unique dialogue between the owners of those lands and the archaeologists trying to protect it. There was also a link to another article, which spoke on the responsibility that FEMA has in treating preservation the same way it would treat other facilities that should be up and running. This article shows the disaster can be a way of ranking priorities, and it shows that historical preservation falls pretty low when disaster strikes.
Questions:
These article focus heavily on the slow destruction in Miami caused by rising sea levels and the destruction in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. What are other instances where the natural world and historical world have had conflict? Should FEMA be obligated to treat places with Historical Significance as a higher priority than those that don't? Do you agree that we should leave some places as is, even if they are at risk for environmental catastrophe?
FEMA should first and foremost prioritize places with more people, more damage, and areas with fewer resources. The question of historically significant sites should, like archeologist Sara Ayers-Rigsby argues in the first article, come second to people in all cases. However, if the community closest to the remains (such as the Seminole Tribe) wants a preservation plan, one should be put in place. If those with some claim to the artifacts do not want them moved or preserved, then those artifacts will be lost because of climate change. As long as it's an educated decision, this is fine. This is yet another consequence of industrialization in the past few decades, and though it is unfortunate, resources that could be used elsewhere should not be used on objects that should be left undisturbed.
ReplyDeleteThe point that disasters often demonstrate where society's priorities lie is extremely intriguing, as I believe that this is very accurate. The fact that history is often overlooked as a priority is concerning, and I think that your discussion of this is wonderful. The question of whether FEMA should treat these historical sites as more important than others is difficult. From a certain perspective, history is priceless, and should be preserved no matter the cost, as it tells of how cultures came to be and discusses the underlying humanity connecting many societies. On the other hand, however, prioritizing historical sites over areas in which people need assistance would mean that great numbers of people in need may be left without the resources that they require. For this reason, I, like Tara, believe that history should come second to the people who live in these disaster-stricken areas.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Dr. Appler from the second article that to keep both the historical and modern work in mind when planning for natural disaster prevention is wise, I think it is important to remember to keep the big picture of history in mind. For example, the Roman Colosseum would not have as great of a historic value and appearance as it does today had it been preserved diligently through the past two thousand years. What makes the colosseum so presentably historical is that the arena has disintegrated and the walls are crumbling down. When Mounts Vesuvius exploded in 79 AD, it destroyed much of Pompeii, leaving its victims' bodies and towns buried under the rubble. But that tragedy is what allows archeologists to learn about Pompeii's past today. It's important to remember that ancient Greeks and Romans did not have many tools to preserve their sites, and they have survived thousands of years. Thus, I think places should be left as they are, unless they are on their last leg of stability, and our and the FEMA's focus should be on taking care of our homes today.
ReplyDelete