I decided I had to do my last spring break right. I’m finally 21, finally have a car and am finally graduating. So, of course, the only thing to do was go on a road trip with my best friend — destination New Orleans. Our only purpose was to have a good time and to take advantage of the lack of open container policy, the cute Southern boys, the good weather and the general recklessness that comes with being on vacation.

Yet whenever I tell people I went to New Orleans for spring break, they ask if I witnessed the devastation of Hurricane Katrina before they even ask if I had a good time. Or they immediately assume that my choice of city meant I was part of a community service project, which makes me feel awkward when I reiterate I only went to get drunk and eat good food. Do you have to be a do-gooder to go to New Orleans? I like to think I did my part to revitalize the economy with the amount of money I spent on daiquiris.

My point is this: I was on vacation. So no, I didn’t go out of my way to witness the ravaged sections of the city (although some areas are unavoidable). If you knew someone who had recently visited New York City, would “did you see ground zero?” be the first thing you asked them? Somehow, I think you might inquire about the Statue of Liberty, a Broadway play or the Empire State Building before going straight to the ruins.

I don’t feel that my New Orleans experience was lacking because I did not observe poor souls still living in shambles. Nor do I think that my visit would have been enriched by beholding firsthand the effects of a lackluster relief program. I certainly would not consider myself an uncharitable person; I gave extensively to various Katrina funds when the hurricane happened in 2005. And to be honest, I have never seen such an obvious disparity of wealth in such a small place. Where we stayed it was all Southern mansions and blooming yards, but four blocks over the houses were ramshackle. Even though these sights raised proper indignation in me, I was not suddenly overcome with the desire to sacrifice the rest of my trip to help build a house. Does the state of certain sections mean that nobody should take advantage of the beauty and entertainment of functional neighborhoods?

If we should feel anything about the destruction done by Katrina, it should be pure and simple anger that the disadvantaged sections are still struggling with the injuries the government should have healed by now. But I’m done feeling sorry for New Orleans. It’s in a ridiculous place, considering the sea level and effects of global warming on the hurricane belt, and originally after Katrina I was against rebuilding it all. You can call me insensitive if you like, but I believe that nobody understands the plight of New Orleans better than New Yorkers, who dealt with the surprise mutilation of part of their city. While we’re all still very sad about it, you’ll notice that the moratorium on destroying NYC in the movies is over now and that 9/11 jokes have become a market in Europe.

It’s time for New Orleans to get back on its feet, and that cannot happen if the rest of the nation is constantly associating it only with dilapidated buildings and the risk of more damage. New Orleans is essentially Amsterdam for the American set, and has much more to offer than the risk of flooding. Really helping out would be by participating in the debauchery of Bourbon Street or eating crawfish. It’s a lot more life-affirming than driving around the ghetto just so that you feel politically correct.