January 8, 2005

The Sympathy Gap

The Sympathy Gap; Victims of Natural Disasters Vs. Victims of Unnatural Disasters

When more than 100,000 people have been killed, and thousands of others are in danger, the international community has a moral obligation to do what it can to limit the damage and reduce the suffering of survivors.

So why is it that the international community so rarely even tries? Oh yes, an unprecedented relief effort is taking place now in the areas of South Asia struck by last month's tsunami. That's laudable.

But when, in 1987-88, more than 100,000 people were killed in the Kurdish areas of Iraq, the international community turned a blind eye.

Those Kurdish victims were overcome not by waves of water but in some cases by waves of poison gas. Why should sympathy for those drowned on a beach be so much greater than for those choked in the streets of their village? More to the point, why should an act of God elicit more empathy than an act of man? The man in question, of course, was then-Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Having slaughtered the Kurds with impunity, two years later he attempted to wipe Kuwait off the map

[...]

World leaders, led by the United Nations, also shirked their moral duty in Rwanda in 1994, when more than 800,000 people were murdered.

And more recently, in the Sudanese region of Darfur, Arab Muslims have been slaughtering and raping African Muslims. As many as 80,000 people have been killed and at least 1 million have been driven from their homes. Hundreds of thousands remain in danger.

An international effort to stop the carnage and provide relief for the survivors is under way - but it pales in comparison with the effort being made on behalf of Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

Posted by Ithildin at January 8, 2005 12:54 PM | PROCURE FINE OLD WORLD ABSINTHE

hi,

i have read about the bad things that are going on in Darfur; that's horrible. sometimes i can't help but think about the people suffering there. please check out this new blog site i opened:

*--- www.blogladder.com ---*

thanks,
ryan

Posted by: ryan at January 8, 2005 1:19 PM

I hate to say it but I sense a bit of racism here. I'm not normally one to thinkt aht way but, you know, "those primitive brown people are always killing each other" kind of thing. [shudder]

Posted by: Dean Esmay at January 9, 2005 1:51 AM

Like Dean, I agree that it's a little racially motivated, if subconsciously. The world seems to turn a blind eye to most horrific plights in Africa.

Posted by: jen at January 9, 2005 5:30 AM

I think it's more "what's in it for me" than a racial issue, unfortunately. Wars fought for social reasons rather than political or economic ones are not popular with governments. Once they can rationalize a war with political statements, then it seems ok. Until our government (and others) find a political or economic reason to help these African nations, it probably won't happen. I HATE that- we should help if we can, even if there isn't a political or economic reason to. So often I feel that we ignored Saddam's tyranny because our government couldn't find a good enough reason to oppose him- we needed their oil and friends in the Middle East, so they looked past the atrocities. It's shameful.

Posted by: sister at January 10, 2005 9:28 AM

And after the tsunami, it's like all of a sudden the media has discovered the child se x trade in that part of the world. I keep wondering where all the attention's been all these years when you hardly ever heard the subject brought up.

Posted by: Ith at January 10, 2005 9:48 AM

I see it a bit differently. I don't consider myself afflicted with the European mental state of 'undeserving savages' and 'our little brown brothers' as a US President once called Filipinos, but I won't support my government going to every nation on Earth to clean up everyone else's problems. If we had a hand in them, or they are natural (IE tsunami), then that's fine. If we know that there are crimes being commited (geonocide, Saddam, suicide bombing) that is fine as well.

However, I don't consider it my 'duty' as an American to make everyone else's country as peaceful and prosperous as the US. If they request our help, we should supply it. Too many times in Africa, and Asia, we've attempted to help to have our aid handed over to war lords (Ethiopia) or be told we're not being 'sensitive' to the local population. If you wish us to help you, then you must help out. It is not our country, we don't have any truly vested interests in it (the US is no more interested in oil than our European, Russian, Chinese....counterparts, so I don't buy the 'all for the oil' crap).

Basically, I view world politcs as 'fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice shame on me'. I don't trust most African cries for help, because of the sheer number of times the dictators have been kept in power, and the war lords helped, by the people.

While I think we should have helped in Rwanda and Uganda before we did, that isn't common. We have proved we're up to the task, if they're willing to work with us. I also think we should have supplied aid, or atleast some form of escape, for those fighting for freedom in Tienanmen Square. I just don't support another Viet Nam where Americans do the dirty work and the people won't help with their own nation.

Call me callous, I don't really care. My husband's life is worth more to me (as are our friends' lives) than some piddly tin-pot dictatorship that wants to buy its population off (and its population supports the usage) with tales of horrible Americans, all while taking US aid in the form of money, technology, and food.

Posted by: Rhianna at January 10, 2005 12:01 PM

Rhianna, thanks for your comment. For me personally, I wasn't really thinking along the lines of any sort of military intervention, I was more interested in just the sheer public interest in this particular disaster as opposed to the seeming lack of interest in others.

(Not sure if that makes sense or not)

Posted by: Ith at January 10, 2005 12:11 PM

Rhianna,
I like your point about the citizens of the country asking for help- as long as they are involved in the fight/effort too, and have asked for our help, we should give it.

Posted by: sister at January 10, 2005 12:46 PM

Ith,

I'm sorry, I went off on a little tangent with that comment. I viewed your post as something different than waht you seem to have meant. My appologies.

I'm a 'bleeding heart' for most human suffering. While I appreciate the news showing what has happened in the tsunami zone, I'm still somewhat angry about all the other suffering that is ignored by the MSM. I can't say the public lacks interest in other areas, it is just what gets shown on the news, or in the papers. What someone else chooses to publicise, basically.

Posted by: Rhianna at January 11, 2005 1:34 AM

Rhianna, no problem :) Tangents are always welcome. And you can't be blamed for not being able to divine my intention since my post was more of a "throw the link out there and see what transpires" as opposed to opinion from me. I understand totally. One example, the treatment of women under the Taliban, or female infanticide in countries like China and India, all things that for years were something I could never understand why the media never seemed to 'care'.

Anyway, your tangents are always welcome in my comments :)

Posted by: Ith at January 11, 2005 8:37 AM