Riding The Wave?
It's horrible what has happened in the Indian Ocean. Completely and utterly horrible.
And yes, it's great to see this global response to help aid an economically and physically ravaged region. Canadians, Americans, and other Westerners are suddenly reaching into their pockets to help--and appealing to others to do the same.
But my question is this: Why do people only help when the media machine tells us to? Twenty years ago, Ethiopia was the hot topic--Live Aid, an onslaught of commericals, massive appeals to donate--and people responded. But look at Africa now--it's perhaps even worse. And it's like we all just..forgot.
It's so easy to swipe a credit card and send some dollars and pat yourself on the back. Isn't it? Why not go volunteer a few hours at a foodbank? Doesn't cost a thing.
If people found the cash like they have now for a variety of ongoing, neverending problems in the world--HIV medicine in Africa, poverty, countries that *still* have live land mines, homeless people in your city--they'd be done with.
By the way--do you ever wonder how all those images get to us? There are crews and crews of TV and media people all over the region...some have estimated there are 1-2 media people to each 5 relief workers...
Why does Sandra Bullock issue a press release when she donates a million dollars?
Why does everyone email each other, or post on their sites (whether personal or business) where one can donate to the Red Cross, Unicef, wherever?
Sure, keep supporting, keep helping--it's an (as we are constantly told) unprecendented tragedy, and requires an unprecedented response.
But we must ask the question: Whom are we donating for--for them, or for ourselves?
And yes, it's great to see this global response to help aid an economically and physically ravaged region. Canadians, Americans, and other Westerners are suddenly reaching into their pockets to help--and appealing to others to do the same.
But my question is this: Why do people only help when the media machine tells us to? Twenty years ago, Ethiopia was the hot topic--Live Aid, an onslaught of commericals, massive appeals to donate--and people responded. But look at Africa now--it's perhaps even worse. And it's like we all just..forgot.
It's so easy to swipe a credit card and send some dollars and pat yourself on the back. Isn't it? Why not go volunteer a few hours at a foodbank? Doesn't cost a thing.
If people found the cash like they have now for a variety of ongoing, neverending problems in the world--HIV medicine in Africa, poverty, countries that *still* have live land mines, homeless people in your city--they'd be done with.
By the way--do you ever wonder how all those images get to us? There are crews and crews of TV and media people all over the region...some have estimated there are 1-2 media people to each 5 relief workers...
Why does Sandra Bullock issue a press release when she donates a million dollars?
Why does everyone email each other, or post on their sites (whether personal or business) where one can donate to the Red Cross, Unicef, wherever?
Sure, keep supporting, keep helping--it's an (as we are constantly told) unprecendented tragedy, and requires an unprecedented response.
But we must ask the question: Whom are we donating for--for them, or for ourselves?
6 Comments:
I wonder how much global warming (that western society has caused) is responsible for the tsunamis?
It IS a great thing that so many people are donating their money towards this massive natural disaster. However, that is the nature of the human animal -- it is not a PROACTIVE species, we are REACTIVE.
Thus, we sluff around doing our day-to-day activities until something jolts us into a response. Now every costal city, town, hamlet is screaming for tsunami warning systems. Oh dear. Where was this urgency the day prior to the disaster?
Yes, there is both a negative and positive slant with the media blitz. It urges people to give more than a simple newspaper article would (we are visual beasts, after all). We are being drowned in all these images, giving us a personal connection to the suffering people, BUT, we have no possible way of actually connecting to them, creating a huge gap of disconnectedness.
And, in good ol' N.America, we must remember what rules, The Cult of Personality. P.Diddy, Bullock, Jet Li, blah blah blah. I guess if it gets their followers to donate, it can't be all that bad... this time around.
Sure we can give money out the wazzoo, but so what. Big deal. As Matt said, swipe the card, pat the back. It works for some, it gives me an queasy feeling.
So maybe we should all remember the venerable saying, "Think globally, act locally." Send $100 half-way across the world, volunteer downtown for an hour.
By the way, global warming had zero to do with the tsunami. Shifting plates = earthquake = bad news.
Matthew wrote:
"...If people found the cash like they have now for a variety of ongoing, neverending problems in the world--HIV medicine in Africa, poverty, countries that *still* have live land mines, homeless people in your city--they'd be done with."
This is the fallacy that throwing money at a problem solves it. It is so easy to see how false this is by examining the success of the "Great Society" and the number of problems that the trillions of dollars spent on it have solved.
That's an excellent point and I don't want my words to be miunderstood. I don't believe cash is king in solving most of the world's problems--certainly not. I do believe that there are some "causes" which could use cash--but rather, the human cost--labour, support, volunteering--is what might "solve" problems. Ultimately though, problems like famine, poverty, medicine, etc. etc, are, in my view part of a structural problem.
Touching upon the structural issues. Most of our so-called natural disasters are a function of two very important factors. The first is geography, is a particular region susceptible to natural events like tsunamis, floods, earthquakes etc.
The second factor, and the one most important for us when considering natural disasters, is adaptive capacity. Adaptive capacity is the ability of a society to cope with an event, be proactively, with damns, warning systems, building codes, etc, or after the fact with access to capital, hospitals, etc.
What you will discover is that in most natural disasters the smaller the adaptive capacity of a society the more vulnerable it is to major disasters.
It is no coincidence that hurricanes and tornadoes always seem to hit trailer parks. Really, they do not; it is just that the adaptive capacity of a trailer is less than that of a well-built expensive suburb therefore the disaster is magnified.
Therefore, here is my point:
Whether its, neo-colonialism, neo-liberalism, or neo-whatever, buying your jeans at the GAP, in the end reduces the adaptive capacity of some country the periphery, because you exploit these region a create poverty.
My twenty bucks to the Red Cross is going to help people going through a horrible ordeal. However, my twenty bucks to Monsanto last year might have put someone in a tin shack that was swept away.
Pinder
Potato, potahto.
Post a Comment
<< Home