Tranblemanntè v. Terremoto

I just have one quick thing to say about the recent Chilean earthquake. Well, probably more than one and probably not so quick. First, as I've been reminiscing a lot lately, I spent a really wonderful six months in Santiago. It wasn't wonderful because of the 70s architecture or the esmog (do I miss blowing my nose black every night? Um, not really...) but it was a time of little responsibility, where I came as close I ever have to "speaking" spanish and where I spent some great time with people who remain some of my favorite Americans. Perhaps not the cross-cultural exchange Wesleyan had in mind... but those people are still my good friends. So that counts.
But this has nothing to do with that. Someone retweeted something on Twitter on Monday about how Haiti v. Chile was a good example of "good government".... and it pissed me off. I didn't respond because, well, folks rarely retweet expecting a total diatribe in 140 character intervals. And also... I was busy. But anyway. Shockingly, like everything else in life, this is so much more complicated than that. I can speak to it because I was a Latin American Studies major and half a Latin American Studies master, right? Riiiight...
Chile and Haiti have nothing in common. From vastly distinct colonial histories to vastly distinct modern histories, these countries evolved in opposite directions. Haiti is dirt poor, we know this. We know rebuilding isn't really "re"-anything, it's creating systems and infrastructure for the first time. Chile is usually the most prosperous Latin American country with that 70s style modern architecture in Santiago and with total poverty in the campo. Not, like, Haitian poverty... but poverty. But Chile doesn't want to deal with it's poverty because that's not the Chilean image of itself. Much of Chile's economic success comes from the foundations laid by Pinochet and the neo-cons during his reign, which was also brutally repressive. The country remains divided between those who emerged from the Pinochet-era disgusted by what had happened to their country and a strong 1/3 of the population who believe that certain "excesses" were worth it because the economy did so well. And Chile continues to enjoy overall economic success because of the foundation laid during that period. "Good" government, Pinochet?
Resources alone do not dictate how a government will respond to disaster. Um, Katrina? But they do dictate how well a country can prepare through zoning, building codes and emergency channels. And how well a country can respond through emergency responders and so on. There are legitimate gripes with the way Preval handled things in Haiti. Michele Bachelet seems to have done a better job (because she could) but is also faulted with saying Chile could do it themselves.... resulting in fewer international donations. Text CHILE to 901901? I don't think so...
It's a natural comparison because they're the same kind of disaster happening to countries somewhere south of us. But it's irrelevant. It's like comparing the way France and Somalia respond to disaster. I suppose you could say France would fare better because of "good" government. But it's kind of silly and obviously incomplete. And really just feeds into blaming developing nations for their own underdevelopment without even considering that the developed world got that way at their expense. It's all terribly more complicated, I know. But please, the take home is... be careful what you re-tweet, because it could very well be setting off a firestorm in Flagstaff.