HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 For some people, it might also be that Japan is a modern, industrialized country and these were videos of normal first world people being impacted, as opposed to the "resort towns" and "third world huts" we saw in 2004. Is this somehow a response to my post (below)? Are you trying to express disagreement with the premise that waves look more powerful knocking down modern buildings instead of huts? Or...? Both are really interesting-- thanks for posting them. Like HubbDave said, the Indonesian stuff is different-- and very powerful in its own way. But there's something about these videos from Sendai-- they really capture the tremendous scope of the destruction, while also revealing the ground-perspective details. And I think as a Westerner, I find the Japanese footage more awe-inspiring because these are not resorts and Third-World huts getting wiped out-- these are fairly modern, industrial cities, like the kind we're used to-- so the power somehow seems more apparent in these Japanese videos (at least to me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 For some people, it might also be that Japan is a modern, industrialized country and these were videos of normal first world people being impacted, as opposed to the resort towns and third world huts we saw in 2004. Yeah, that distinction doesn't really work for me...when I view those videos I don't really give it bonus points because they are more like us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I don't think anyone was being intentionally insensitive to people based on economic status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Not so much...I agree there is more dramatic footage from Japan, but the most dramatic footage still comes from 2004...that aceh stuff is insane (as would be expected from a tsunami that was 70-100 feet tall) As I've said, it's subjective. I think this is way more dramatic; you think the 2004 stuff is. We can have different responses to things-- no point in arguing. It's like trying to convince someone why blue is a better color than green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I don't think anyone was being intentionally insensitive to people based on economic status. Not at all. And if someone perceived any comments here to mean that, they have a reading-comprehension problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Yeah, that distinction doesn't really work for me...when I view those videos I don't really give it bonus points because they are more like us. I don't think it's the videos or bonus points so much, as it is that people in the West can emphathize with Japan a lot more than they can a third world country full of huts and resort towns (populated by snobby rich people and their servents). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I don't think anyone was being intentionally insensitive to people based on economic status. It is, however, sort of a natural bias. Post 2004 tsunami, almost all the documentaries I saw featured interviews mostly with Westerners. Mostly tourists. The only non-Caucasian I saw interviewed was a Sri Lankin woman back home from the US visiting family. So it could be the documentary directors were going for English language proficiency, and hence the apparent focus on European and American tourists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I don't think it's the videos or bonus points so much, as it is that people in the West can emphathize with Japan a lot more than they can a third world country full of huts and resort towns (populated by snobby rich people). You totally missed the point. My comment was simply that waves knocking over modern buildings look more powerful than waves knocking over huts. It has nothing to do with empathy, socioeconomics, or anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 As I've said, it's subjective. I think this is way more dramatic; you think the 2004 stuff is. We can have different responses to things-- no point in arguing. It's like trying to convince someone why blue is a better color than green. No doubt. I could be convinced to see your side of things if we had some better "on the ground" videos from the worst affected areas...I'm just not compelled by helicopter footage of fields being overwashed or angry ocean engulfing coastal buildings. Any decent tsunami will cause that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I don't think it's the videos or bonus points so much, as it is that people in the West can emphathize with Japan a lot more than they can a third world country full of huts and resort towns (populated by snobby rich people and their servents). Some people. I actually empathize more when the poor get hit...seeing as people in industrialized countries tend to make it out of these situations in better shape (relatively speaking). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Yeah, that distinction doesn't really work for me...when I view those videos I don't really give it bonus points because they are more like us. So watching waves knock over huts on the beach impresses you as much as seeing modern buildings collapse in waves? Well, that's a distinction that works for me when judging the water's power. So I suppose if those same huts get completely flattened by hurricane winds, they must be Cat-5 winds-- since there's no real distinction between those huts and modern buildings? OK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Some people. I actually empathize more when the poor get hit...seeing as people in industrialized countries tend to make it out of these situations in better shape (relatively speaking). How on earth did we get onto a discussion of human empathy? I thought we were judging which videos more graphically displayed the water's power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 So watching waves knock over huts on the beach impresses you as much as seeing modern buildings collapse in waves? Well, that's a distinction that works for me when judging the water's power. So I suppose if those same huts get completely flattened by hurricane winds, they must be Cat-5 winds-- since there's no real distinction between those huts and modern buildings? OK... I'm sorry, did I mention huts as the basis of my argument? And, you really don't want to get into this hurricane biz, because the logic could easily be turned on your position....was Hugo more impressive than 1935 because we have good footage of the former and none of the latter? Plus, building codes were better in the 80's than they were in the 30's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 How on earth did we get onto a discussion of human empathy? I thought we were judging which videos more graphically displayed the water's power. I have no clue how we made it there...it clearly has nothing to do with what you and I were originally discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 How on earth did we get onto a discussion of human empathy? I thought we were judging which videos more graphically displayed the water's power. Empathy would affect the impact the video has on the person watching it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 It is, however, sort of a natural bias. Post 2004 tsunami, almost all the documentaries I saw featured interviews mostly with Westerners. Mostly tourists. The only non-Caucasian I saw interviewed was a Sri Lankin woman back home from the US visiting family. So it could be the documentary directors were going for English language proficiency, and hence the apparent focus on European and American tourists I don't think this is a racial issue... last I checked, Japanese weren't Caucasian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 No doubt. I could be convinced to see your side of things if we had some better "on the ground" videos from the worst affected areas...I'm just not compelled by helicopter footage of fields being overwashed or angry ocean engulfing coastal buildings. Any decent tsunami will cause that. It wasn't just fields. There were buildings getting destroyed MILES inland in that footage. (At least it looked more than a mile). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Empathy would affect the impact the video has on the person watching it. Not if you are viewing it from a detached perspective like Josh. He just notices the quality of construction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 It wasn't just fields. There were buildings getting destroyed MILES inland in that footage. (At least it looked more than a mile). I've seen the same footage of the same field over and over and over...it's great footage, no doubt, and there is some quality building destruction going on, but at the end of the day that footage is about a 8/10 as far as tsunami footage goes. The best footage is that one of the town being washed out. As far as I am concerned, that's the only footage that I found to be truly shocking. I bet any video from Minamisanriku would probably shut me up, though Edit: anyways, last post in a while...I don't want to derail the thread too much with my perspective, which clearly many of you disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIPPYVALLEY Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 It's interesting only if you find stupidity interesting. It amazes me that in this day and age where we have huge amounts of scientific data to prove these crazy fantasies are just that..fantasies, that so many people still buy into it. People are extremely gullible that's for sure. For anyone who doesn't want to play in the land of fantasy and stick with this thing we call reality, here is a decent article debunking this nonsense. http://blogs.discove...ese-earthquake/ Stupidity is not looking at all options and then deciding what makes the most sense based on your belief systems whether they be scientific or esoteric. I was only commenting on the original post and link with an opinion statement why some may be led to follow the belief that the planets exert an influence on earthly events. edit: thanks for the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Not if you are viewing it from a detached perspective like Josh. He just notices the quality of construction. I'll let you two be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoarfrostHubb Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 kush made a good point about the 70-100 ft tsunami being jaw dropping. The videos of the people on the beach just watching it and having no idea they were going to die was heart wrenching... I am sure that more "close up" videos of this event will surface and it will be devastating to see, but the beach stuff from '04 was insane. Meanwhile, Godzilla has been spotted on his way to Tokyo... He is pissed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 kush made a good point about the 70-100 ft tsunami being jaw dropping. The videos of the people on the beach just watching it and having no idea they were going to die was heart wrenching... I will agree with this. That one guy that just stood there and watched the wave come get him... that was crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojitodd Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 The resort footage is really powerful, but i was referring to this sequence from banda aceh: (starts at about 1 min mark)not the broad helicopter footage of fields being flooded, but the human element of it is what takes it over the top I kind of agree-and that area was in central Banda Aceh-two miles inland-all of that debris was from the parts between the seafront and the central area that had been wiped out. Aerial footage of the tsunami coming into Banda Aceh would have been at least as stunning, if not more so, than the aerial videos from Japan imo. Although I agree about the pic of the town in Japan that you posted (the one with 9500 people 'unaccounted for") -that video would have been something else. The place looks like a mini Hiroshima-just a few multistory concrete buildings left, and nothing else. *also notice the schools perched about on the hillsides above the town-I think the senior, junior, and elementary school are all visible in that shot-all at a safe elevation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I don't think this is a racial issue... last I checked, Japanese weren't Caucasian. The apartheid government of South Africa declared the Japanese to be "Honorary Whites", and not subject to the apartheid laws that applied to other "Asians". Not exactly a racial issue, but Japan is essentally first world, in a similar economic class as the US and Western Europe, and the rest of Asia is only now catching up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIPPYVALLEY Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 It's been fascinating to watch peoples reactions to this event. Because it effected a developed "western" (lol) nation the "could've been us" feeling elicits a more empathetic response then what we saw in the quakes in Chile, Haiti or Indonesia. All just perspective because the quakes in those other countries were just as bad for those that were in them. If one were to take a more callous economic view this will no doubt effect the entire world through the financial markets. Monday will be an interesting day on Wall St. and beyond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 It's been fascinating to watch peoples reactions to this event. Because it effected a developed "western" (lol) nation the "could've been us" feeling elicits a more empathetic response then what we saw in the quakes in Chile, Haiti or Indonesia. All just perspective because the quakes in those other countries were just as bad for those that were in them. If one were to take a more callous economic view this will no doubt effect the entire world through the financial markets. Monday will be an interesting day on Wall St. and beyond. Chile and Argentina are more developed than the rest of Latin America. People don't know it in this country, but they are closer to 'First World' than 'Third World'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 The apartheid government of South Africa declared the Japanese to be "Honorary Whites", and not subject to the apartheid laws that applied to other "Asians". Not exactly a racial issue, but Japan is essentally first world, in a similar economic class as the US and Western Europe, and the rest of Asia is only now catching up. I had no idea the apartheid government had made such a proclamation. Fascinating. I don't disagree that Japan is first world. Hell, they might have a leg up over us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIPPYVALLEY Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Chile and Argentina are more developed than the rest of Latin America. People don't know it in this country, but they are closer to 'First World' than 'Third World'. Oh' I agree. People in this country are relatively clueless about anything outside of their backyards. I would rank Chile, Argentina and Brazil as "baby" 'first world' countries for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Chile and Argentina are more developed than the rest of Latin America. People don't know it in this country, but they are closer to 'First World' than 'Third World'. I think the earthquake in Chile last year? made that clear, considering the (relative) lack of deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.