Katrina Donation Redux
posted at 1:36 pm
on Sep. 12, 2005
Previous entry:
Real Estate Quiz: When does 1200=900? *
Next entry:
Hey, I’m in Singapore
I wrote a few days ago about my friends who weren’t going to donate to Katrina victims, and why. Several things have happened since then:
1) One them did donate. Not because he thought any of his original points were invalid or the situation changed. Instead, he said it was because he saw how much the issue meant to me, and didn’t want me to think that he was insensitive to that. I was touched. Ironically, that type of show of support and caring is one of the reasons I think Canadians ought to give to Katrina victims….
2) My piece was picked up with my permission and published in The Tyee, a growing and cool online newspaper here in Vancouver. I had meant to rewrite it a bit before it was re-published, but I didn’t, and I think it still holds up OK.
3) Someone from CKNW talk radio read my story in The Tyee and wanted me to join them for the afternoon show, “The World Today.” I was impressed with myself briefly, but turned down the invitation. I like to think my writing speaks for itself, and I didn’t know what more I would have been able to add to what I’ve already said, except that I can also see the other side of the issue and I say “um” a lot.
4) Another friend wrote to suggest that “the U.S. can afford to operate without a social-safety net (and ignore those in desperate poverty on their own soil) as long as private and parocial generosity makes up the gap. Not giving is harsh medicine that says the government of the richest country in the world can’t get away with pawning its responsibilities off on the private sector.”
As my father’s son, I am familiar with this argument. It’s the same argument that says that if I stay out too late on Friday, I need to be woken especially early on Saturday so I can appreciate the error of my ways and learn in the future to be more time-aware and less late to bed. Ask my friends how well that worked.
And in any case, showing compassion and charity to the victims does not mean we should or so absolve the U.S. government—or the citizens of Louisiana—for a shocking and long-building lack of social concern. If you are looking to “teach the gov’t a lesson,” letters, faxes, protests, and changing your consumer habits are all ways to do so without also penalizing those who, let’s face it, probably didn’t vote for George Bush in the first place (note: I didn’t look up this fact, so ignore it if necessary).
5) Several people brought up Iraq to me specifically: If the U.S. can afford a war in Iraq, they can afford to help those in Louisiana.
Who said they could afford a war in Iraq? 😉 Besides, Sri Lanka was having a civil war and many Canadians sent donations there. Does helping the victims mean you support the government? Nope.
6) Someone else posted in the fray on Darren’s site about Darfur, and how that country’s ongoing genocide is ignored while the U.S. gets all the ink.
I never said you shouldn’t support that crisis. In the face of additional suffering, it behoves you to do additional giving. I do wonder how many people have given to relief efforts in Darfur, or if it’s just a convenient counter-tragedy for argument’s sake.
7) Here’s another argument: Economically, donations wouldn’t have much effect and there’s unlikely to be a recession in the U.S.
In the medium term, he’s right, there’s a lot of economic stimulation caused by rebuilding. But I do know there’s no guarantee that the people directly hurt by this event will get back on their feet, even if the economy thrives.
8) Another friend said he was influenced by the inhumanity, looting and general mayhem of the aftermath, which made him feel less like donating.
On the other hand, doesn’t that merely magnify the inhumanity? Should those who have suffered at the hands of criminals now continue to suffer because we withhold aid?
For the record, and because several people asked, Susie and I gave to the U.S. Red Cross last week.
