Why don't people speak up sooner when they realize that mass brutality, manipulation, and subterfuge is going on in various of the lesser-well-known corners of the world?
When we, living in the U.S or Europe, hear of some geographically distant conflict of enormous scope, we tend to not do much about it. Maybe this is because we don't feel any part of it; it is too distant, and many times we never see any part of it as well. "Vava Tampa is the founder of Save the Congo, a London-based campaign", and one of his theories is that "no Western interests or ally is endangered by it", and so we don't instinctively care, and we cannot grasp the implications. This effect mirrors the familial protectiveness that many of us feel; we are looking out for our family first and foremost, and then we can begin to care about others. We have to be, in physical and mental and financial senses, taken care of and rested in our own body first, in order to to be able to with any meaningful energy and purpose focus our energy on somewhere literally across the globe. The distance involved between areas is a large part of the lack of response.
A valid point is: why is it up to us to solve every other countries' problems? Who is taking care of ours? I believe in the U.N--and through them NATO--can intervene as a coalition of countries, but beyond that I don't think the U.S.A should be taking these judgement calls and acting independently. Our country isn't in any fit shape to be expending ourselves like this, as we are 16 trillion dollars in debt currently and have many other failings and shortcomings besides.
Maybe we don't speak up because we are actually benefiting from these wars in that the minerals and other raw materials being fought over in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo are ending up here, and if we helped to stop the conflict then the resources would stay there.
Also, there are so many conflicts and wars constantly raging around the world (Syria, Pakistan-Israel, Tunisia) that we become numb to stories of atrocities. We physically couldn't do something if we tried to help remedy each situation, and this can turn into apathy. In far-off corners of the world, there are also added roadblocks to publicizing and getting help for a situation because they simply don't have the technology and the means to get the word out there.
I had trouble reading your blog post, I had to highlight the whole thing just to see it. Having said that I liked your opinions on why "we" don't care about other places conflicts. I would disagree with your statement on lack of media coverage using the example of Syria. The conflict there has been well documented but to me it seems the issue isn't that no one cares, the issue is that we cannot predict the consequences of Western intervention.
ReplyDeleteMatt, I will concede the point about technology bringing these issues to light, I agree that modern technology has enabled this. I like your point about our unintended consequences of Western intervention, I fully agree with that, and it is because we have totally different values, morals, and customs than the countries we 'help'.
DeleteIt was a bit hard to read your post but when I was finally able to, I was impressed by what you wrote. I was hit by your analysis that included us not caring about these problems because we are benefiting from it. I felt like you answered the question and your examples made a lot of sense.
ReplyDeleteI was very impressed by your analysis. You gave multiple reasons as do why we may not care about global atrocities and provided some specifics (i.e. our trillions of dollars of debt). I agree that part of the reason we are numb to conflicts is that we are geographically not close enough. It creates a sort of wall between us and the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteI fixed the viewing issues, thanks for bringing them up.
ReplyDeleteGood!
DeleteI agree with what others have said and I agree with much of your logic. I like that you brought up the familial aspect. One thing I would argue though: you say we don't have the kind of money to interfere, that didn't stop us from going into Iraq or Afghanistan or any of the bajiliion military bases around the world. I'm sorry Nick, but I feel that money is a copout.
ReplyDeleteEverest, just because we aren't afraid to go so far into debt, doesn't mean we should. It only shows us our own irresponsibility and lack of future planning.
DeleteNevertheless when judging the financial actions of the US we must look at it from the precedent created by the US. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the US's financial decisions, but it is probably accurate to assume these trends will continue. By the way, my name is E.
DeleteThis is a terrific analysis. I feel like looking out for oneself before all others is definitely something humans are hardwired to do and is further emphasized by the American mentality.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely!! We are definitely looking out for the most important and we view ourselves as the most important. However, if we were not in debt, then do you believe that we should intervene? Is it not our duty and responsibility as a powerful nation to help other people who are of the same importance as you and me?
ReplyDeleteIf we were not in debt, then yes, we could devote more resources for NATO's use. But, even as a powerful Western nation, we cannot go 'helping' every other nation as we see fit, because with our Western bias and points of view we end up many times harming more than we help.
DeleteTrue, however should we allow disgusting crimes to continue being committed?
DeleteI believe that is crucial for extreme atrocities to be halted in foreign nations, regardless of any debt situations. Also, though it is definitely not America's responsibility solely to intervene, other influential nations should step up as well.
DeleteThis is a very delicate issue, and each should be handled uniquely. Maybe we should create multi-national committees to deliberate over actions for each situation.
Delete