But shit happens all the time. Like all the time. Like so much bad stuff happens in the world.
And you're insensitive because you don't cry over something bad happening in another first-world country.
Like, okay, I get that it's scary to see things fall to shit in first-world countries, because hey, if the rich, powerful countries are losing their grip, a) what's going to become of the lesser countries, and b) ARE THE TERRORISTS GOING TO WIN?!??!!11 And, of course, my fellow non-immigrant* first-worlders are probably more likely to have friends in a fellow first-world country as opposed to a country with no internet connection, so of course you're scared for your friends.
But while nothing excuses stupidity like the rioters in London, objectively, we should feel sorrier for, like, the people in Somalia dying of starvation than we do for the people in London who have lost their businesses.
Make no mistake, I do feel incredibly sorry for people whose homes, businesses, communities have been burned and looted. And while I can't blame the rioters for being angry, nothing short of gigantic, miserable excuses for human beings would participate in the riots right now. Looting and burning is not productive or a way to make yourself heard; it's not even a protest; it's selfishness and stupidity and just bad. Lots of bad.
Still, there are thousands of people being robbed or kidnapped or enslaved or raped or murdered or killed by disease or driven to starvation daily.
And what do we focus on instead?
We feel outraged when a mother apparently gets away with killing her daughter. We devote news broadcast after news broadcast to finding missing children. News outlets run what feel like 24 hour tribute reels when celebrities die. When we don't especially care about all of that, we're apparently being 'insensitive.'
Excuse me, I can't hear you over the deafening sound of Other World Suck.
Excuse me, I can't hear you over the deafening sound of Other World Suck.
*We're all immigrants, yes yes, but I mean, like, the recent immigrants.
4 comments:
Hell to the yes, Vita.
I get so angry that I have to fully detach myself from conversations in which dogs dying is treated like the height of inhumanity. Maybe this is a bit farther away from what you're talking about but really? Treating cancer in dogs when millions of children die from preventable diseases every year? Horrible.
With all sympathy for the epileptic raccoons and diabetic dalmatians out there, I've think we've got to societally re-prioritize.
Just reread that and realized I sounded really harsh. I'm not trying to judge owners of diabetic dogs (and in similar situations). I just think a new value system is in order.
Kthnksbai.
I think it has something to do with the way human empathy works, for better or for worse. Like, not everyone in middle-class America personally knows someone who has been enslaved, raped, etc. And most people are more empathetic to things and causes they can associate with someone who is close to them (ie, pets who are diseased, relatives with cancer, etc.). Unless one is heavily exposed to unbiased (lol) news media (at least sources where all global crises are presented equally and accurately)--and this is not a ton of average people--they tend to hear statistics with no context, and thus the faceless masses of starving Somalis matter less than the things with context, whether that context be that they like Amy Winehouse's music, or that their tumor-ridden dog still hobbles to the door to lick their face every day, or mothers who look at their kids every day and can't imagine harming them, or that London is *like us* and we can interact with regular people over the internet who can voice their fear.
So, yes, ideally our priorities should be different as a society. But I don't think you can blame people for being human and reacting emotionally to what they know more about. Ideally people should use their penchant for emotional connection to learn more about third world countries and feel for them the way they do other things, but the world isn't ideal.
I suppose my frustration is primarily aimed at the news. Most TV news programs especially barely even try to be unbiased anymore (no one can ever be totally unbiased, but you can get close), or they completely pander to the audience. Yes, they're businesses; they have to keep viewers and make money. But if they're informing most of the public, they have a responsibility to actually do their jobs correctly. Besides, if every news organization was better, people would be better informed by default and could then decide for themselves what to care about, rather than getting all hysterical because all they see is flames in one city for hours on end.
It's like the Casey Anthony case; once I stopped and thought about it, I felt ashamed for getting so caught up in it. That's not how our justice system works and although it's very sad that that little girl died, it was NOT worth that much attention. That kind of press attention is nothing but info-tainment and it pisses me off.
Post a Comment