Skip to main content

View Diary: FUBAR: The Rest of New Orleans is Going Under. (255 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Exactly... (none)
    Since by all accounts absolutely everything in New Orleans is destroyed and will need to be rebuilt anyway, rebuilding it nearby, on higher ground, is a reasonable proposition, I'd think.  FEMA has even been hiting at this earlier today, with their comments about "don't expect to necessarily rebuild where you used to live".

    New Orleans isn't a place, so much as it's a group of people, an attitude, and a way of life. :D You could move the city to a field in North Dakota, and it'd still be New Orleans (or New New Orleans), just with fewer scantily-clad women...

    •  "New 'New Orleans'" (none)
      Let's hope they keep the scantily clad women.

      (And hey, why not add scantily clad men too? *Grin*)

      The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

      by Shapeshifter on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 11:42:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Now isn't the time (none)
      to get into an argument over this.

      But a "New Orleans" built in North Dakota would no more be New Orleans than that Statue of Liberty in Las Vegas is the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty can only carry the meaning it does because it looks out across New York Harbor.

      Place matters. History matters.

      Napoleon, and the Spaniards, and Lafitte the Pirate, and Marie Laveau, and the fever plagues, and the French Market, and the Mississippi, and the swamps and bayous, and the alligators and the mosquitoes, the heat, the rain, the above-ground cemeteries, the ghosts, the slaves, the murders, the dark past, Huey Long, krewes, masks, chickens, jazz funerals...

      New Orleans is what it is -- unique, irreplaceable -- because it is where it is.

      Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

      by Canadian Reader on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 12:10:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But it's not going to be built in North Dakota (none)
        I'm sure a reasonable location fairly nearby could be found.  

        In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

        by Asak on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 12:35:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Redpin suggested it could be. (none)
          And it couldn't.

          It couldn't be built in Baton Rouge, either, though that is the nearest high ground. Baton Rouge already occupies Baton Rouge. Despite 300 years of proximity, Baton Rouge has never been anything like New Orleans.

          Fact is, the sharp awareness of living on borrowed time, the hovering potential of death rendering life more precious... has made New Orleans what it is. Being surrounded on three and a half sides by water, knowing that this kind of flood could happen any year now... has made New Orleans what it is.

          I don't know what will emerge after this. Different. Yes. But continuity, underneath the difference.

          And it will be built in as close to the same place as they can manage. Count on it. If you don't understand why, then you don't understand New Orleans.

          Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

          by Canadian Reader on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 01:25:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  But it IS the highest ground nearby, (none)

          SOCIAL SECURITY: Invented by Democrats yesterday, Protected by Democrats today

          by mollyd on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 01:27:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site