where the writers are
Haiti, Backlash, and the Call to Inaction

With a backlash, we’re responding to that which rides a surge of undeserved popularity.  An obscenely lauded sports team we’re certain got lucky at the eleventh hour.  An actor collecting one too many awards, his shoulders practiced in a false shrug of humility.  The resulting backlash is our collective smackdown, a way of putting the successful entity on watch.  We see the world rewarding you unjustly, and we’re going to do our best to turn the tide of your success.  We’re going to spread the word that you’re overhyped and overpaid, a phony garbed in an emperor’s new clothes, until the private ill will in our hearts and minds becomes a self-generating force all its own, offering some kind of just equilibrium.

Perhaps our tendency to create a backlash is a good thing under certain circumstances.  It’s a turning away from the siren’s call of popularity, a return to the safe harbor of reason, pragmatism.  A no bullshit zone.

Yet whatever the merits of a backlash, however one stretches the word to accommodate their personal loyalties, it is utterly unthinkable in conjunction with the human disaster in Haiti.  

What, then, explains this Facebook status update?

Shame on you America: the only country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, and mentally ill without treatment - yet we have a benefit for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations. 99% of people won't have the guts to copy and repost this. I did.

I admit I was stunned.  Of course, it wasn’t the first ignorant, erroneous, inflammatory posting I’d seen.  If you’re on Facebook and you have “friends” positioned at various points along the political spectrum, you’re definitely familiar with this kind of posturing.  Some people do it because the pre-packaged words of zealots strike a chord in their small, atrophied hearts.  Others are pot stirrers, people who enjoy tossing in bitter remarks and watching political factions go at each other in the scalding stew.

I didn’t want anything to do with it.  I knew the drill. Ignore it unless it’s on your page, and when it gets to be too much, make the friend invisible in your news feed.  Worst case scenario – something I have never done – de-friend the person.  But wasn’t that a sign that one lacked (dare I say?) the “guts” for debate, for dissenting opinions?  If there’s no honest exchange of thoughts, however diametrically opposed, isn’t there a problem? 

But I went back to the posting.  It didn’t represent honest thought; instead, it displayed, for all the Facebook world to re-post, a dishonest assertion. Or, generously, an error.  (Did I really need to point out that America is far from the only country to neglect its homeless, elderly, and mentally ill?) And in advocating that we ignore Haiti, isn’t that also advocating apathy?

So I took the bait.  I “commented,” quoting from the U.N.’s 2009 report measuring quality of life in 182 countries.  Norway scored the highest.  The U.S. ranked 13th out of 182 in an index of life expectancy, literacy, shelter, hunger, and school enrollment, among other criteria.  Truthfully, 13th was kind of shocking, though it was far from the lowest ranking countries. Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, and Niger took those honors.

So, no.  America isn’t the only country with shameful problems.  And no, as one of the richest nations - our dubious honor - we don’t have the right to ignore the ongoing catastrophic conditions in Haiti.  After I posted, I was relieved to notice that someone else had voiced objections to the FB status as well.

The next morning, however, a smear of comments had accumulated.  First there were strident calls for inaction, the “government corruption” bogeyman.  The Haitian government is corrupt, no one is getting the aid.  Why donate millions when they’re not going to get it?  Somewhere on the road to apathy, everyone took a mean turn into partisan politics land. 

“People don’t stand a chance unless they have a strong faith in God and that’s what will get them thru...”

“It is hard to feel compassion for people who in Pat Robertson’s words ‘made a pact with the devil.’  They chose their voodoo over God and they are paying a price for it now. Notice their Christian neighbors didn’t suffer any damage..”

“Didn’t anyone notice that during Catrina [sic] the only help we received was from our own?”

*Author’s note: According to an April 2007 report in the Washington Post, $854 million in aid was offered by foreign countries in the wake of hurricane Katrina.  Those countries included Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, and China, among myriad others.

After this, the debate devolved into a series of ad hominem attacks, punctuated with the stale standby, “Maybe you should read your Bible.”

I thought about jumping back in, fighting, at the very least, against inertia.  Yes, there’s always government corruption and yes, inefficiency often plagues aid operations.   But did they know that according to the Red Cross website, “More than 430 Red Cross and Red Crescent workers from at least 30 countries are in the country supporting thousands of local volunteers... More than 100 represent the American Red Cross, including a group of Creole interpreters on board the USNS Comfort. The relief operation in Haiti is already the largest single-country personnel deployment in global Red Cross history”?  Did they care?

Perhaps they were simply disillusioned by reports of thwarted aid attempts, or of the“Haiti” text scams, or that Facebook would contribute to relief efforts in exchange for specific postings.  Maybe they felt hopeless.  Frustration was understandable, but still.

What about UNICEF, with this January 16th report on their website: “Another plane loaded with UNICEF emergency relief supplies arrived in Port-au-Prince this morning, carrying urgently needed water and sanitation supplies. This is the second load of water and sanitation materials to arrive in Haiti in the past 24 hours. The shipment contained additional oral rehydration salts, water purification tablets and jerry cans. Two experts in water and sanitation were also on the flight.  Providing access to clean water and sanitation is essential in the immediate aftermath of disasters, to avoid a second wave of deaths…Two more UNICEF planeloads, loaded with some 70 metric tons of tents, tarpaulin, and medicines, are currently awaiting clearance to fly to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.”

Do facts matter?  Can solid evidence of aid workers on the ground combat this apathy?  Or is that not the problem at all?  Has Haiti, God forbid, become a partisan issue?

Maybe that’s an extreme leap to take from a Facebook status update.  After all, the original poster finally fired back, making it clear this wasn’t really about Haiti, poverty, or politics at all.  It was about her.  “People should be used to the fact that I voice my own opinion.  Right or wrong.”  She went on to apologize somewhat facetiously for “offending people.”  As if she had merely suggested someone’s football team sucked.

Maybe I’m just letting myself get distracted here.  People around the world are helping in Haiti.  Miracles – not the kind generated by a vengeful God but rather those created by doctors, aid workers, and volunteers – are happening every day, and Haitians will endure.

But it still bothers me.  Somewhere in a dark corner of the Facebook world, someone is writing hateful, fallacious postings.  Some people will copy and re-post them.  99%, that seemingly constant number, won’t, will you?  Many will believe it, and of those, many will spread it. Who are these people?  And how does it benefit them to equate hate with having guts?

When the noise dies down, Haitians will still be trapped under the rubble, they will still have nothing, but we’ll have our posturing.  We will argue about Facebook postings and politics.  We’ll find a place in ourselves where we can sweep away the facts and the suffering, and proudly take ownership, once and for all, of our own self-righteous right to be wrong. 

That scares me.  And yes, it offends me too.

Comments
6 Comment count
Comment Bubble Tip

Thanks, Elizabeth.

Thanks for answering foolishness with kind and true infomration on Facebook, and thanks for this blog. The ignorant and hateful we will always have with us unfortunately. I just answered a remark on FB yesterday in reply to someone questioning President Obama's citizenship. I was already upset by a distant relative's email that was even more nonsenseical and tried to send him the Snopes report with a request that he not forward me any more dishonest emails. I told him I was glad to get news about his family from him but not ugly forwards. Somehow my email to him did not go through from Snopes, so I will probably keep getting junk from him. I have just started deleting him until I have time to write him another explanation and how I feel about his lack of patriotism and his disregard for truth. He is not a dumb man, so I think he knew when he sent the email that it was a lie. (He already knew from a telephone call he made to me that I supported President Obama in the election. If he had sent me honest debate and criticism, I would not have been offended.) I do not know how some people live with themselves.

Thank God for all the kind folk that are donating and especially for the medical folk who have risked their very lives going down there amidst the rubble, disease, rotting bodies, and aftershocks. And thank you for your repulsion to selfishness and dishonesty.

Comment Bubble Tip

Thank you

Looks like my reply just disappeared! 

Just wanted to say thank you, Sue, for your kind remarks.  I admire you for not taking the easy route of ignoring these statements -- and also for having enough faith in people to keep the conversation going.

Comment Bubble Tip

I find it interesting that,

I find it interesting that, according to the author of that Facebook update, responding to the catastrophe in Haiti and caring for those in our own community are apparently mutually exclusive possibilities.

When ever I see this kind of perverse twisted logic I wonder, are we to believe that those who give to international causes are proportionately remiss in caring for their own? Are those who rationalise their own refusal to help thereby in a better position to give liberally to the mentally ill and homeless in their own back yard? And more to the point, do they do so? The original update seems to imply that. I wonder.

We used to take off our hats and stand silently in the street as a funeral procession passed. Perhaps, confronted by mortality, we understood the need for respect of a life ending, and also the inadequacy of our own opinions and theories. But it seems, looking at some of those comments, that moment of silence is rather fleeting for some. I honestly hope that the likes of Pat Robertson are not lying somewhere one day in need of help and find themselves surrounded instead by people pontificating as to the nature of the sin that put them in their current predicament.

You know, I wonder what are the true attitudes underlying our inability often to care for those in our own back yard? Since when did giving to anyone in need become something of which we should feel "shame"? Good on you for standing up to it Elizabeth. Good blog.

Comment Bubble Tip

Thank you

Thanks, David. Wonderful points, and I completely agree with you about the insanity of suggesting that kind of mutual exclusivity.
It seems that for the people behind these statements, it's not about helping people at all, regardless of their country. It's simply about making a political point.

Comment Bubble Tip

Another take...

I got this on my page yesterday from a young woman (40ish) who lived in our community when she was a child. She has been thrilled to connect with people from her childhood, and she is the last person I would want to hurt. I did not comment because as I read the comments after the post, I realized that many evidently do not read things carefully or think as logically as maybe writers do. Because the comments were seemingly saying we should help the the homeless, mentally ill, etc. better in our own country AS WELL AS HAITI. On some level they meant more what David was saying--that helping abroad is good but we should not neglect local folk.

I used to be completly dumfuzzled by emails that wanted me to forward something to l0 people and BACK TO THEM when they had just sent it to me. I finally caught on that they did not mean that at all. They just thoughtlessly forwarded something someone else had forwarded to them and did not change it to make sense. They really did not want l0 copies back of the email they had just sent.

I think SOME--not all of those who do this ugly status post--don't mean what it says. I hope so. I still love your blog, Elizabeth, and wish many would read it.

Comment Bubble Tip

Thank you, Sue

Thank you for your comments, and so sorry for the tardy response!  

I agree that many of the people who post these things don't think them (or read them) through.  I certainly applaud the person's concern about the homeless and mentally ill in the United States, though of course there's absolutely no reason to denigrate the earthquake victims in the process.  I also think some of the people who re-post these "canned" statements are decent human beings who are influenced by others with questionable motives. What shocks me is the anger behind the message, and the anger in the subsequent comments.  When voicing that unfocused anger becomes more important than concern for human life in either country, then I start to worry.  Would that we could all be careful about the words we throw around, on Facebook or elsewhere.