Does Disaster Bring Positive Social Change?
anonymous Critique #1- Does disaster bring positive social change?
Chapter 14- The environment
Word count- 513 In his argument, Samuel Henry Prince states that disasters bring about positive social change, for eg-rebuilding in New Orleans has tended to benefit the society at large. I think even putting the words “disaster” and “positive” together in the same sentence is unimaginable. I don’t think that an improvement in one’s physical surroundings can account to a better future for a given individual, the loss of your loved ones leaves a void in your heart that can never be filled. Also mental health is a major aspect of social life.
Natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, etc can cause immense upheaval in one’s life. My family friends were subjected to the tsunami that hit Sri Lanka in 2004. They had been there for over a month and were going to head back to Kolkata when the tragedy took place. My ‘aunt’ (we call everyone we know “auntie” in our culture) was unable to carry out normal daily functions for over 2 years after the incident, not because she was handicapped but because of post traumatic stress. She was too afraid to even move out of her house. Now she is better but still has nightmares, sleep issues, anxiety problems and frequent blackouts. She says that she felt like there was no meaning to her life after the tsunami, having lost her family she couldn’t get herself to do anything at all. She felt vulnerable and a prey to nature. She now says that when an incident like that occurs, you either let it define you (which she did for a while) or you try and move forward. And seeing an entirely new city, doesn’t help one get there faster, in fact you end up feeling sorry for yourself. All in all, its great to see the place of destruction rebuilt and new, but that is only one aspect, it can be a positive social change only when you consider all or most aspects.
The point I want to make here is that the society is made up of individuals, and
Chapter 14- The environment
Word count- 513 In his argument, Samuel Henry Prince states that disasters bring about positive social change, for eg-rebuilding in New Orleans has tended to benefit the society at large. I think even putting the words “disaster” and “positive” together in the same sentence is unimaginable. I don’t think that an improvement in one’s physical surroundings can account to a better future for a given individual, the loss of your loved ones leaves a void in your heart that can never be filled. Also mental health is a major aspect of social life.
Natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, etc can cause immense upheaval in one’s life. My family friends were subjected to the tsunami that hit Sri Lanka in 2004. They had been there for over a month and were going to head back to Kolkata when the tragedy took place. My ‘aunt’ (we call everyone we know “auntie” in our culture) was unable to carry out normal daily functions for over 2 years after the incident, not because she was handicapped but because of post traumatic stress. She was too afraid to even move out of her house. Now she is better but still has nightmares, sleep issues, anxiety problems and frequent blackouts. She says that she felt like there was no meaning to her life after the tsunami, having lost her family she couldn’t get herself to do anything at all. She felt vulnerable and a prey to nature. She now says that when an incident like that occurs, you either let it define you (which she did for a while) or you try and move forward. And seeing an entirely new city, doesn’t help one get there faster, in fact you end up feeling sorry for yourself. All in all, its great to see the place of destruction rebuilt and new, but that is only one aspect, it can be a positive social change only when you consider all or most aspects.
The point I want to make here is that the society is made up of individuals, and