Roland realized that he knew far more about the 1953 flood in Holland than the 2005 Katrina flood in New Orleans. Of course he was born and raised in Holland so could identify very well with the culture, history, and language of Holland. He probably has preconceived ideas which he may not be aware of. As he delved into reviewing the 1953 flood, he realized that he could identify very easily with the different aspects, even if in unwritten form. He could not do that with the Katrina flood details. Would he have to go back even to the days of slavery to get a picture of the history in context with that flood? Would he give more credence to what happened in 1953 than the 2005 Katrina flood?
If Roland had lived all his life just in Holland that might have been the case, but as a youth he lived in Indonesia and Venezuela. He finished high school and college back in Holland and spent several years in Bangladesh as an engineer. It is also a delta like Holland and Alabama. Roland had a pretty good idea how to balance the consequences of flooding and the cultural plus historical differences.
Bangladesh is a country riddled with side arms of the Brahmaputra and Ganges rivers.
It is low-lying and thus very accessible to flooding.
When we read books about certain states and countries, or subjects, we assume the author is familiar with those areas geographically and historically, which may not necessarily be true. An author can write much more elaborate about areas or subjects he or she knows very well, but leave out details when writing about other areas on the same subject. Thus it might appear that one area is more attractive or better prepared for conditions such as flooding, just from the description. That in turn can result in cynicism, and an “us” and “them” way of thinking. “We” can do it better than “they”.
The Dutch knew very well where the weak spots were, in 1953. They were much more concerned about Rotterdam getting flooded, than The Hague or Amsterdam. They had predictions as to which dikes could break and not worry about it because the water had to go somewhere, and which were the important dikes to save. Same with the New Orleans flood. The National Geographic ran an article about two years before the flood, suggesting what could happen and where, in the event of a hurricane. It happened exactly as predicted! (Swain, Christopher. "Then & There." National Geographic Adventure (September 2002), 42-3.)
Each of us comes with a set of assumptions and prejudices, some of which we may not be aware. From there the challenge when comparing topics among different countries. Who is the author? What might he / she favor in one country over another?
Can you relate to something you read and assumed the author had a balanced view point?