Sometimes I do not have a clue what to write about. Sometimes it is because I really am clueless but sometimes it is because I am a bit uncomfortable still. The tsunami reaction is somewhere between the two for me and I do not know why.
Beyond the inevitable fraudsters, this morning on the CBC radio news as I was waking I heard a US official use the phrase that something was an "economic tsunami" waiting to happen. I thought it was a bit soon to be tasteless. I also heard on the report before that there are areas where there is too much aid, doctors standing around, people realizing what is really needed now are builders as those who have survived in some areas have survived largely intact. Apparently a national day of mourning was held in Canada on Saturday which I only learned about when at noon there was a radio broadcast from an event where 400 members of the public attended rather than the expected 15,000. Supposedly important people are showing up in some of the disaster zone in such numbers that aid is being slowed.
All this is not to say that something wrong is occuring in the reaction but there is something in the reaction which is confused. Maybe this is normal or at least to be expected as the reaction not been normal. Normally the world ignores places and people who are caught up in disaster as we have with the Congo and Sudan for years, as we did with Bosnia, Rwanda and Cambodia before. But collectively deciding we are going to do the right thing in this instance maybe all that is happening is we are showing that we are not used to doing the right thing.
Comments
David - January 10, 2005 10:09 AM
Colby Cosh had an interesting post this morning about the public mourning event, which I agree with in many points. In particular, why should we be expected to participate in this "Princess Di" style public wailing and hair-rending events. If some needs to mourn, can't we do it in the privacy of our own homes rather than being asked to do it in an orchastrated event?
Alan - January 10, 2005 10:37 AM
I think that is a very good point but the error was one of a well-meaning misplaced point, a mistaking of the public mood, which is perhaps inevitable in light of such a perceived-to-be unique event and a clearly new form of individual reaction. It is all as if we are trying ernestly to do the right thing that there is little perspective. John Howard in Australia is making this such a huge part of the honour of that country, natural we take given the proximity to Indonesia. That is clearly a new thing and may spark a great opening in relations between a western and Muslim nation. But is that will sustainable?
Arthur - January 10, 2005 11:28 AM
If some needs to mourn, can't we do it in the privacy of our own homes rather than being asked to do it in an orchastrated event?
I so totally agree. Lets get rid of all state-orchestrated mourning events, including the 9-11 one!
David - January 11, 2005 7:24 AM
Ummm ... the last 9-11 one was, what, three years ago?
I doubt there'll be any long term reproachment (sp?) between the West and the Muslim world because of this. It's too useful to have a Great Satan around to blame why everything goes wrong (also cf. Danny Williams)
Arthur - January 11, 2005 3:33 PM
Ummm ... the last 9-11 one was, what, three years ago?
Is that a rhetoric question, David?