Getting serious again.
I left the following comment on this post of Brodie’s:
You’ve kind of snuck in in front of a post that’s been coalescing in my head for a couple of days:
I’ve been thinking about a lot of the politicking that’s going on, from politicals of every persuasion. To a lot of people it seems like a great opportunity to get some more digs in at George W, even on this side of the Atlantic. And there’s been this kind of incredulous response to the US asking for aid.
But it seems to me that, especially since the weekend, there seems to be a lot more vocal concern over the failings or otherwise of the US government than there has been over the fact that actually, there are still people in danger and/or suffering in that part of the world, don’t you know.
And just because much of the world of the world feels that America can (should?) look after herself, doesn’t mean we should leave them to do so, does it?
Let me expand a little.
This is not a time for politics. I have been known to engage in a little criticism of the current US government and it’s policies. Rather more than a little, actually. And I could make plenty of comment after the last week and a half. But I don’t want to.
The USA might be the last country you expect to appeal for aid. But that appeal has been made, and answered. Many will argue that they shouldn’t need to ask. That may be.
Many will argue that as one of the richest countries in the world, they could easily look after their own. I’ve had converstaions where people have been asking (pointedly) which recent expenditures have left them unable to meet their own need.
Maybe they could sort it out themselves. Does that mean we need to let them?
How about an incredibly mundane and simplistic example: you’ve got a friend who’s just moved into a new flat. They ask you for a hand painting the living room. Sure, they could do it themselves, but why do you need to let them?
No, I’m not comparing disaster relief for a devastated city with interior decoration, but could you really do one and not the other?
Grace will give help where it’s needed, and not get side-tracked by political mudslinging and faulty notions of ‘justice’.
Just a thought…
September 7th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
Of course if your friend asks you to come help paint the living room, and bring paint, because he’s just tipped whatever paint he DID have all over his (occasionally obnoxious) neighbour’s sofa.
But and however this isn’t about politics, or in fact about George Bush. You see Bush is, well technically, not in any danger whatsoever from the flood. Other people are. People who didn’t wage wars or spread hatred or do anything particularly odious at all… And they’re dying.
So yes, give aid. Lots of aid.
I did find the comment by a President of one of the tsunami countries amusing though - “When we had the tsunami no tourists were mugged, or killed, or threatened with violence. Yet we are not civilised.”
:D
September 7th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Interesting point Mark. Thought-provoking as always. My initial reaction to Katrina was that yes I should, and what’s more, I want to donate to the American Red Cross appeal. But at the back of my mind I still thought that hey, lots of Americans are very wealthy, and they are also very generous. They’ll look after themselves.
And then I started thinking, man they are making a balls of the rescue effort. Maybe my money wouldn’t get to the people who need it anyway.
Furthermore, after that I started thinking that maybe I only wanted to give in the first place because I am fascinated by America, or because I’ve been to New Orleans, or maybe even just because it is getting so much press coverage.
It was then that I realised I hadn’t donated to - or even really thought about - the Niger crisis yet. Shame on me.