Last week, as we all know, there were ceremonies marking the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, and, for the first time, the international body that arose from the ashes of WW2 with a mandate to prevent future genocides saw fit to acknowlege and commemorate the Holocaust. Last week, as well, Sudan's airforce attacked a village in Darfur, a regioin where a genocide has been underway for some time, and the International Red Cross issued a statement confirming that the effort to raise funds for tsunami relief had been so successful, that, thank you very much, for the moment it had all the funds it needed.
These three disparate events prompted me to ponder this question: Why are we so quick to come together and open our hearts and wallets when a natural disaster occurs, but so reluctant to become involved when the disaster is man-made?
Look at our response to the tsunami. The tidal wave hit, the images appeared almost immediately afterwards on our television screens, and within hours, relief efforts were underway, and funds to help the victims began to pile up. A few days later, benefit concerts were organized, schoolchildren donated their allowances, and tsunami relief boxes sprung up like mushrooms in almost every store you visited. The outpouring of support was unprecedented, as organizations amassed so much money that some, like the Red Cross, had more than they could use in the short term.
This display of generosity was heartening. It demonstrated the best traits of mankind--our willingness, our inherent desire, to help those who have been felled by a natural catastrophe. While we could do nothing to help those unfortunate enough to be effaced by the giant wave, we could--and did--resolve to do everything possible to help those who remained behind. Thus, the people of South Asia benefitted from our sympathy and largesse.
Article comments