Haiti versus the Tsunami of 2004. Of course, there is no competition here. We have two horrendous acts of nature that have ravaged the lives of so many human beings. Yet, there is important difference between the Tsunami of 2004 and the earthquake in Haiti of 2010, namely that, increasingly, people think that corruption is so great that it is perhaps a mistake to send money to those who are desperately in need of help. Why? Because the thought on the part of many nowadays is that so much of the money will never reach the people who so very much in need of assistance.
In reading a discussion board of French people regarding whether or not individuals could be counted upon to offer any monetary assistance to the people of Haiti, I was struck by the number of people who said “No,” simply because they believe that so very much of the money would fail to reach the Haitian people. And they cite as evidence the Tsunami of 2004. Way too much of the money that people gave—and so very many people gave—failed to reach the victims of the Tsunami.
This extremely poignant truth bears considering. For the observation here is not about Muslim being terrorists or Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being defiant, or North Korea making some insane move. No, the observation decisively points a finger at the level of corruption that prevails throughout the world—a level of corruption so great that it prevents those desperately in need owing to a catastrophe from receiving the help that others have sacrificed so that in need could have some measure of sustenance.
What is more, the charge is not that the Left is corrupt, but not the Right. Or that the Right is corrupt but not the Left. A very general point is being made, namely that corruption prevails across the board, from politicians to associations whose very purpose, supposedly, is that helping those in need.
It is one thing to look the other way when an intoxicated individual asks for food. It is quite another to refrain from helping those who clearly have been struck by a major natural disaster.
When associations and governments cannot be counted to help people struck by a natural disaster, then it is very, very clear that we have crisis in the world. For there cannot be a more well-defined moment for people to set aside their differences and greed than in a situation when people have been struck by a major natural disaster.
So the depth of corruption in the face of tragedy tells us something most disturbing about the moral fiber of so many people in the world.
The question that we might naturally ask is: How did this happen? The answer to that question might come from a Millard Fillmore cartoon that I received from a Mr. Plesser. The cartoon as an elderly lady making the following remark:
I am finally starting to understand global interdependence. When young Muslim men try to blow up airplanes . . . . I get stripped search.
In general, we have become so interested in appeasing those who might call us bigoted that we defy common sense in doing so. Give me a society in which common sense flounders—and flounders mightily—and I will give you a society in which greed and corruption will manifest themselves in the face of the most horrific natural disasters.
It will be remembered that in the aftermath of Katrina looting was common. Imagine how utterly and completely ineffective the Civil Rights marches would have been had looting been commonplace during that era. Huge crowds of people came together and marched through streets; and yet not a store was looted.
A defining feature of common sense consists in being able to speak forthrightly—not to be confused with speaking maliciously. Thus, common sense entailed being able to make criticisms: moral criticisms in some instances; intellectual criticisms in other instances. Modernity has become increasingly reluctant to make either moral or intellectual criticisms—at least moral or intellectual criticisms that have any credibility.
Common sense was the back bone of a moral climate. There were moral expectations that people had of one another and people were allowed to be public about those expectations. There were moral criticisms that people rightly made of one another; accordingly, people understand the importance of making amends. An example that illustrates both points at once would be the old value of a young man giving his place to an elderly woman. People expected a young man to do so; and a young man who did not so behave could in fact be criticized. Not nowadays, of course.
Needless to say, the absence of a moral climate constitutes the very fertile soil in which greed and corruption may take hold.
The Tsunami of 2004 stands as a watershed event. We saw the greed and corruption there; and that affirmed what so many of already knew but did not want to believe, namely that nothing is off limits any more. We now believe it.
Alas, the point of this essay is simple that greed that we saw in the midst of horrific natural disaster that was the Tsunami of 2004 had its genesis in a world that has lost common sense and so is therefore without a moral climate to speak of. Six years later, in 2010, it is no longer possible to doubt this very simple truth.
Perhaps in this blog-entry I am merely capturing a reality that is personal: For both the Tsunami of 2004 and Katrina, I was immediately moved to give. While I shall no doubt give in this instance as well, I am profoundly struck by the reality that the occurrence of horrible natural disaster in Haiti does not have the same emotional tug for me. Nor do I sense it in those around me.
