Hernandez, Adilene
Sociology 4 #0533
April 22, 2016
Graffiti on the Great Plains “A social reaction to the Red River Valley Flood 1997”
Graffiti is mostly never associated with natural disasters but in this case it was, graffiti
became a lot popular after the red river valley flood. This happened in Grand Forks, North
Dakota, East Grand Forks and Minnesota in 1997. The print media have recorded isolated
examples of graffiti following natural disasters, yet there is little systematic examination in the
scholarly literature, sociological or otherwise, that specifically addresses the phenomena.
The graffiti on the upper Great Plains that followed the RRV flood provided a functional
symbolic cue to demarcate flood-damaged property. For some, the initial tagging of property was
an act of conformity, meant to appease requests by public officials by identifying contaminated
property for community proposal. In this case graffiti served as a medium of communication.
The Red River valley flood was not like other flood. The river would rise slowly until it
past the flood stage even though there were people volunteering day and night putting up sand
bags it wasn’t enough, Houses were being damaged and people had to evacuate their homes. The
people had no warnings about the flood it was completely unexpected. Second, this flood is
unusual in that there is no loss of life directly related to this disaster. Third the flood ultimately
affected every resident in Grand Forks and East Forks and nearly everyone in the city limits was
evacuated. Indeed, this was, one of the largest mass evacuations of any U.S. city (University of
North Dakota Alumni Review 1997.)
People were feeling stressed after the flood because they had nowhere to live, most
homes were destroyed. People began to vandalize the walls to get their thoughts out, to
communicate with the media, that is the only way they would be able to get there word out. They
would tag up the walls with bright colors where no one who was around the area would miss it.
The reason they would do that is because they wanted to have a voice.
Some graffiti phrases were somehow sarcastic and had humor to them. According to the
article there were houses that were severally damaged and had written on one of the walls “next
time the party is at your house”. This was humorous in a sort of way but at the same time it had a
message the house was messed up and its obvious they could not have a party there. Another
example was “home sweet home” this was written on a lot of the damaged houses and also sends
and very clear message. “The The That’s all folks,” the finale to many of Warner Brother’s
cartoons, appeared on headboard of the bed while “sight free zone” was on a large piece of peg
board propped up against a streetlight. Although its humor it is interpreted in another way.
Satire is form of humored that relies on irony or sarcasm to expose human foibles. It is
also used to ridicule or discredit others. Graffiti of satirical form was often directed at
government agencies and their personnel, but it was primarily directed to those involved in the
flood prediction.
Instead of announcing there was going to be a flood they said it was just going to be
spring rainy days, the weathers of spring. Even though the government had people evacuate they
never said there would be so much damage. I say “so much” because it was 3.5 billion dollars
worth of damage especially from just the normal rains of spring that ended up being a dangerous
flood.
In the study of prolonged trauma following the flood in Logan County, West Virginia,
Erickson (1976) noted that some situations are simply too pressing to allow for objectivity, at
least early on pressing to allow for objectivity, at alerts early on in a research project. He argued
that “the traditional methods of sociology do not really equip one to study discrete moments in
the flow of human expiernce” (Erickson, 1976 p. 13). This study was basically the reaction of
people during brief periods of time or after disasters. Graffiti was a social situation that’s going
on.
Basically the article is about the reactions people had after the Red River Valley which
was a social problem. The social problem was graffiti it was the reaction people were having to
natural disaster. It was also a way for the people to have a voice.