Darfur, Sudan, spring of 2007. Civil war has been devastating the land for 4 years; citizens keep dying and leaving their homes. Despair reigns. But rest assured, Sudanese people: Google is here to save you! Google Earth, free software that helps you find your home on the digital 3D model of Earth, launches “Crisis in Darfur” project. It will expose the world to all the most terrifying pictures of starving black kids and stories from the war victims. Everyone will get shocked, Americans will donate dollars, someone will do something and everything will be OK again. Sounds promising, but at least two women are left unsatisfied: Lisa Parks and Naomi Klein both have something to tell us about Google`s intentions.
Lisa reasonably complains that Google would better provide some recent HD satellite imagery of the site rather than just exposing pictures 
of death and devastation which “should have been intervened” (Parks, 2009, para. 22). Unlike pictures of starving kids, more reliable imagery could actually be helpful in predicting villages that can be attacked next and hence preventing the attack. Google`s executives, being smart by definition, apparently realize that but still prefer scary pictures. The reason is that an average person is more interested in viewing shocking photos rather than analyzing boring maps (compare revenues of horror/action moviesvs. documentaries). It means that scary pictures return more user traffic than new expensive maps, therefore further promoting the brand of Google, which appears on every piece of data throughout the project (Parks, 2009). Interestingly, Amnesty International, within a related “All eyes on Darfur project”, did invest into new satellite images of Darfur and helpful software that analyzes them. But, compared to Google`s project, the traffic was very small, and Amnesty International didn`t receive “nearly as much publicity as Crisis in Darfur” (Parks, 2009, para. 22). Google got profit without actually helping, and everyone started to love it even more for being so “generous and caring”.
Naomi`s claim is even more global. According to her book, “the Shock Doctrine”, corporations make money by forcing nation-wide disasters to 
receive as much publicity as possible. Typical scenario: tsunami destroys half of Thailand, NGO offers money to the help but requires that coastal areas are being privatized for tourism; desperate Thailand government is forced, by need, to accept the deal. Consequently, a number of hotels is built where previously Thai people lived, and CEO of NGO has one more gorgeous resort to spend summer. For Thailand, the Gross National Product is reduced and people have no place to live. Such subtle colonization is called the “Disaster Capitalism” (Klein, 2005). Sometimes privatized objects are as vital as country`s electricity sector or oil deposits. Drawing public attention to the disaster is crucial because it helps NGOs to keep their dirty deeds unnoticed: “Tsunami killed that little boy, why would I care about some privativization?!” Similarly, Google might want to make people aware of dying kids in Darfur because some Google`s fellow NGO wants to privatize its land. But the theory about promoting the brand makes more sense to me because there is not much to privatize in Sudan.
If I were Google, I would find a way to draw public attention to the “Disaster Capitalism” itself. Everyone will be talking about a Google Earth layer that shows all the huge villas and hotels build where people used to live before tsunami, or images of American oil rigs build next to the devastated villages. Not only will Google make money out of the immense traffic on their branded maps, but also both Lisa and Naomi will rest satisfied. Explicit RickRoll.
Reference:
Klein, N., 2005, The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.
Parks, L., 2009, Digging into Google Earth: An analysis of “Crisis in Darfur”.
This paper does a very thorough jog of making its claim known. There is no doubt at all about the intention or direction of the essay. However, while this paper strongly argues one side of the argument, it completely ignores the other side. You attempted to bring up the other side of the issue in the introduction, but the satirical tone completely denounces any arguments that may have been made. While it is always beneficial to make your claim known, I feel that you undermine your argument by being so one-sided. This paper would greatly benefit if you seriously brought up the other side of the issue then refuted it with your own argument.
Google Earth, “Don’t be Evil”
I find this post interesting in that it stresses the fact that graphic imagery displayed by Google Earth has a captivating power on it’s audience and that Google also seems to take part in a form of “Disaster Capitalism”. Google’s brand is promoted when it displays data of the Darfur genocide for instance. However, I do not believe that Google intentionally calculated to gain – in a profit sense – from publishing the tragic imagery of burnt villages and mass graveyards. One must not forget that Google’s motto is “Don’t be evil”, a slogan that they seem to have lived up to by not giving in to censorship as proposed by the Chinese Government for instance.
Moreover, I agree that ethically “Disaster Capitalism” seems wrong. For some reason, we as humans can’t help to feel bitter when we find out that someone is befitting from our loss or suffering. This said, would it be better to leave a starving and devastated population to it’s own mercy. “Disaster Capitalism” is morally wrong and has many perverse social and economic consequences, however it does bring in an inflow of money and aid, crucial to the reconstruction and return to stability of a country hit by a great natural disaster.
As regards to the NGOs unnoticed “dirty deeds”, I have difficulty believing that they actually exist, and if so are not a significant threat. NGOs don’t always manage to do the best possible thing during a disaster. They are often in need of more resources and have very little political influence. If big firms capitalize over a natural disaster or political turmoil one cannot blame the NGOs.
Finally, I believe that Google is not a bias organization and that it does not exist to support the interest of multinationals or of any private party whatsoever. In fact, I argue that Google does “draw public attention to the “Disaster Capitalism” itself” when it shows oil spills in the Nigerian delta caused by the unscrupulous and reckless behavior of firms such as Shell. Google as a whole seems to be a more objective source in a way and far from being a source of evil.
“People keep dying and leaving their homes”? Most of us are incapacitated by death, rendering us unable to leave home. There has to be a better way to express your thought. Consider
A deliberate reign of terror kills innocents and leads citizens to relocate to the refugee camps…..
The crisis has killed and produced refugees living in refugee camps….
This post right from the start does not subtly state its point, and I think it’s great that you feel so strongly about your subject. You’re right: if corruption is allowed to continue driving the disaster relief effort in struggling countries, Google may just get sucked into the game. The title is a great way to begin and I was instantly hooked. However, I do agree with rlh29 – it is an accepted strategy to make your argument and then follow up by refuting the opposing argument, which does nothing but strengthen your point. I’m also a little skeptical about your concern over dirty deeds being committed by organizations helping out struggling companies, or at the very least I think you should provide further exemplification of said corporate misdeeds in such places. I think your 7th sentence is the best, just a great sarcastic summation of all “help the cause” movements. One thing to consider, though: not all people know for what NGO stands, so perhaps simply defining the acronym wouldn’t hurt. And, of course, a RickRoll never hurts…
I think you do a great job making your claim known, your skepticism of Google Earth’s promising effects. I like the fact that you use satire because it certainly makes it a lot more entertaining to read than what we would normally expect. I think you could do a better job with your definition of Google Earth at the beginning. Describing Google Earth’s main feature as being able to find your home in 3D isn’t all that descriptive. I would say that you could tone down the sarcasm a bit and instead focus on the other side of the issue instead of just completely throwing Google under the bus.
It is great how passionate you are about your argument, but at the same time this comes off a little too harsh. You include nothing from the other point of view and put Google Earth in an extremely bad light. Although you make your point strongly and this is important, there are some benefits of Google Earth’s “Crisis in Darfur” layer, such as an attempt to raise awareness. So whether this truly made a difference with the conditions in Darfur is of course up for debate, but the other side of the argument should be presented as well…and then argued against.
One other quick thing to keep in mind is your audience: it is supposed to be educated people, but not already educated about Google Earth. While your intro is strong and captivating, don’t forget the necessary background information.
Very good your post, very informative and researched.
woah.
that picture is instense.
Hello there, fair-minded became conscious of your blog through Google, and inaugurate that it’s really informative. I am contemporary to take note abroad in compensation brussels. I settle upon be thankful if you persist in this in future. Numerous people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
I like the valuable dope you take precautions in your articles. I’ll bookmark your blog and slow again here regularly. I am absolutely confident I’ll learn lots of callow spirit licit here! Proper chances looking for the next!
Hello there, just became alert to your blogging site as a result of Google, and identified that it’s truly informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I’ll appreciate if you continue this in future. Lots of people is going to be benefited from your producing. Cheers!
I continuously wanted to write on my website one thing like that. can i implement a fraction of your post to my site?