Ashley Explores The Arts

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/mexico-explains-decision-flood-poor-indigenous-areas-74233677?cid=clicksource_4380645_1_heads_hero_live_headlines_hed

The article I chose for this week is, “Mexico explains decision to flood poor, Indigenous areas” written by the Associated Press. In the article it discusses how the president of Mexico had to make the decision of letting a city with 350,000 people be flooded or poor areas of 83,000 people be flooded. The city was also home to the president and after days of heavy rain fall, their dam had reached its capacity. They had to let some water out and either into the city or divert it to flood the poor, indigenous areas.

I chose this article for class because this faces both an ethical and moral issue. The president obviously didn’t want to flood the smaller areas of indigenous people, but he didn’t want the bigger city flooded either. However, he says he cares about the poor people, but he had to make the tough decision to flood their homes to save the big city, a city he grew up in. I think that is where I find the issue. There were probably many other options than actually flooding towns/cities. The big issue can be seen as, he grew up in that city, it means a lot to him, he doesn’t want to harm it. The other issue, the areas he flooded, poor and indigenous people. Native people that he decided didn’t mean as much as the people in the city. Especially after they flood those areas, how are the poor supposed to rebuild? They are poor. Is the president going to help give them aid? I wasn’t a fan of this story, it bothered me, but I get he had to make a tough decision to affect more or less people. It’s hard to be a person in power sometimes and its hard for people to see the decisions they have to make.