In the past, people didn't die in the Southern California fires because they weren't ignorant enough to try to live in a carpet bomb.
-
-
Replying to @aurabogado
Zero homes burned down because, again, people weren't entitled enough to think they could build a home in the middle of fireland.
1 reply 52 retweets 184 likes -
Replying to @aurabogado
But over time (maybe spurred by fear of black/brown neighbors), rich people somehow thought it a good idea to build homes in the mountains.
3 replies 61 retweets 195 likes -
-
Replying to @aurabogado
And, because rich people wield incredible influence, federal, state, and local authorities came to try to eliminate wildfires.
1 reply 41 retweets 114 likes -
Replying to @aurabogado
Like... they're actually called wildfires. They're wild. And we somehow think we can tame them? Nah.
3 replies 43 retweets 167 likes -
Replying to @aurabogado
totally agree- so. california is + was a desert, very dry region. aren't low income communities also losing homes to fires tho?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aurabogado
You asked a good question about low-income communities; a lot of these places are very rich, like Santa Monica Mountains, Topanga
@Kfaragon1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @aurabogado
Other more isolated communities, like Lake Arrowhead, do have more low-income communities now — workers to service the rich
@Kfaragon1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes
Also, diff consequences: low-income residents are unable to afford insurance, can literally lose everything; rich residents don't @Kfaragon
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.