By Nic G
One of the greatest outcomes of virtual globes, specifically Google Earth, is the awareness raised about global crises. Google Earth is a virtual, online 3D globe composed of satellite and aerial imagery, layered with geographic information. The virtual globe has been able to assist in promoting awareness of global problems such as Hurricane Katrina, the war in Iraq, and the genocide in Darfur. However, Google Earth has been accused of being part of conflict branding and “disaster capitalism” (Parks, 2009, 542). Conflict branding is Google’s use of world crises as a way to promote their label. It is a part of disaster capitalism, which, in addition to marketing, includes “orchestrated raids on the public sphere in the wake of catastrophic events” (Parks, 2009, 542). Although Google may be using disasters as marketing opportunities, this is not where the focus needs to be. Google Earth is undoubtedly magnifying its name, but the amount of awareness generated outweighs the marketing involved.
Google Earth has developed in depth layers that allow users to view pictures, geographic information, and read stories. There is a layer Crisis in Darfur, which allows users to see updates of the situation. See this YouTube clip for a detailed tour of the Crisis in Darfur layer. Included in the layer is a “what can I do?” option that links users to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) website. According to Michael Graham, coordinator of the Genocide Prevention Mapping Initiative for the USHMM, “more than a million people have downloaded layers and more than 100,000 have at least visited the “what can I do?” page” (Graham, 2007, Impact of Crisis in Darfur). Publicity about the layer has brought people to use the USHMM’s website. Clearly, Google Earth is succeeding in developing awareness of the events in Darfur. Despite the publicity Google is gaining from putting its name on layers, is it still successfully sharing information about global disasters.
Moreover, Google Earth is not only assisting in the promotion and encouragement of assistance in world crisis, but it has also designed a more organized system in order to help non-profits and government agencies to help in more productive ways. Specifically, Google Earth has helped the USHMM to “organize and present information in a compelling and timely way” (Graham, 2007, Para. 5). It has proved to be more effective in that it quickly reaches the public and informs them about the situation in Darfur. In 2007, according the Michael Graham, the amount of visitors to the USHMM layer on Darfur from outside the United States went from 25% to 46% two months after the release of the USHMM website in 2007, which is linked to Google Earth. In the layer, it is possible to view the latest photos, along with finding links to articles, videos, and even directions of how to help. Again, regardless of how much Google markets itself, the genocide in Darfur is being exposed and is encouraging people to go to Darfur themselves to help.
In conclusion, Google Earth has been a key helper in humanitarian efforts in Darfur by providing organized, updated information. The use of layers by Google Earth is not only notifying internet users, but it is also offering more organized systems so that the government and non-government organizations can organize their information. Perhaps Google’s name is being promoted, but more importantly, the company is effectively getting the word out in hope to help the victims of genocide.
References
Crisis in Darfur layer in Google Earth (Layers/Global Awareness)
Graham, M. (2010). United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Crisis in Darfur. Retrieved from http://earth.google.com/outreach/cs_darfur.html
Klein, N. (2005, May 2). The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050502/klein
Parks, L. (2009). Digging into Google Earth: An analysis of Crisis in Darfur. Geoforum 40, 535-545.
In the body of the paper, you do a great job explaining how the Crisis in Darfur layer promotes increased awareness of the genocide. You include various interesting facts. I think this paper would be strengthened if, in your introduction, you were to expand and clarify the definition of disaster capitalism. Further, the introduction does not make clear what the paper will to argue: whether Google is or is not guilty of disaster capitalism. Only in last sentence of the second paragraph is your claim obvious: that Google Earth’s humanitarian mission is successful because of its ability to promote increased awareness. Thus, the thesis should be more specific and clearer. In addition, the penultimate paragraph would be strengthened if you were to elaborate on your statement that Google Earth helps non-profits and government agencies operate more efficiently. You never address this point. Finally, in the first sentence of your conclusion, you say that Google “indirectly” helps the crisis. I think the word “indirectly” is ambiguous and, without further explanation, detracts from your message.
The first thing I noticed upon reading your blog is that you did an excellent job of writing to an educated but unfamiliar audience by defining key terms. Your argument, that regardless of the publicity Google is receiving as a result of Google Earth and the humanitarian layers, it is still propagating information and generating awareness, is clear and well thought through. However, I think you can expand upon your supporting arguments. One approach is to describe the counter-arguments, such as though made by Lisa Parks, and refute them. Another route would be to provide an example about someone or some organization who used this layer to begin a humanitarian effort. My last suggestion is that perhaps you could include an image to help emphasize what people see when they go on the layer, and how powerful the images can be.
Nic I think you did a great job of conveying the point that although Google may be enjoying public promotion through their involvement in Darfur the fact that it is raising awareness negates any downsides. Although this sentiment is felt throughout your paper I think that you could strengthen your claim (which I thought was the last sentence of your first paragraph) by maybe rewording the last part to show that the costs of Google promoting itself are outweighed by the benefits of increased awareness. I also thought you did a really good job of incorporating evidence from the reading throughout your paper. You were able to create a very convincing argument and back it up with solid facts. I agree with your claim and think that Google has done a great job of promoting awareness about the violence in Darfur.
As an economist, the idea of disaster capitalism as a negative force is odd. Google Earth’s business is to provide information and conveying information about humanitarian crises is a legitimate part of that mission. My local newspaper, a for-profit company, covers murders and we accept that coverage as appropriate for a newspaper. Attorneys represent their clients in situations where interests conflict, and participating in the conflict is in-line with their core business.
If Google did not address humanitarian crises and if the local newspaper banned coverage of crimes and if attorneys did not zealously represent their client’s interests, their value to their customers would be diminished and they would be open to accusations of whitewashing reality. Should Google Earth cover only daisies sprouting?
Writing comments: The first sentence of your concluding paragraph is “Conclusively, Google Earth has done nothing with its efforts in Darfur but indirectly help.” The word “conclusively” is aggressive in that it suggests that a reader who does not agree with your statement is mistaken. I’d have used “In conclusion,” which signals that your essay is drawing to a close but does not assert that the conclusion is incontrovertible. I would have written the sentence more directly:
In conclusion, Google Earth has helped humanitarian efforts in Darfur by providing information and facilitating donations to aid agencies there.
You wrote, “The use of layers by Google Earth is not only notifying the masses…”. “The masses” can be emotionally charged. Who are “the masses”? What country do they reside in? Do they have Internet access? By Internet standards, 1 million downloads is hardly widespread distribution. I prefer more neutral writing.