Yes, that is what I was wondering. This is such a simple type of attack, I wonder why it doesn’t happen everyday around the world. It would leave cities in chaos after a couple weeks.
I don’t know if it’s apathy, so much as a deliberately cultivated world view. As the article I posted up there noted, we’re presented with more empathetical and individualized accounts of victims in one place and not the other. What would be the reason for that, given the disparity in pure numbers? Is there really something to the notion that people in London are more like us than people in Kabul? Shouldn’t the fact that we’re waging a war in one country and not the other also come into our thinking? Aren’t we more culpable for the deaths of one set of people then the other, in the sense that our military is actively engaging in one place? If we held Paris or London at the same distance we hold Kabul, wouldn’t likewise skim over those deaths? So how much of this is down to the structures of how our news media covers these attacks vs the wars in the Middle East, Afghanistan/Pakistan, and in some places in Africa?
I suggest a “criminal conspiracy to commit mass murder” lacks the dark political overtones.
Oh, I agree. That’s what governments like to call it. But I think they shouldn’t, because by calling it that, they are essentially agreeing with the perpetrators that people should feel unduly terrorized by it. I don’t think that’s a useful or healthy response. Sure, when we read or hear about it, or experience it, we are justly horrified (which has a slightly different connotation) on a personal level, but calling it “terrorism” and making such a big deal of it nation-wide is not good policy, IMO. Unless there is an ulterior motive, that is – e.g., to keep citizens cowed and under the thumb of politicians.
Let’s not get into the pedantry of what to call it. It was a heinous act against innocents and, given the reports of hoax weapons of mass destruction, very likely intended to cause terror and panic. The rest is just window dressing.
Is it still okay to point out that Blowback is just good or better than Terror?
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/manchester-bombing-covert-proxy-wars
OK, I’ll stop now.
We are still in exactly the same spot here.
What I’m trying to say is that it is what it is (whatever it’s called). The ethnicities of the perpetrators don’t have any impact on what it is
I think it is a bit of both. Like I said, we already have only so much we can care about, I am sure our biases against people and places etc make it much easier to be apathetic about Kabul than it is London. Certainly ones prejudices and biases shape ones world view.
The difference in reporting I thinks is because the media is reflecting back what the average US persons’ interest it. Why waste time and energy with Kabul first hand accounts when not nearly as many people care? Plus there are probably 30 times more resources in London with more people passionate about London putting things together. I imagine Al Jazeera has much more empathetic reporting on Kabul.
There are western media sources that do much more in-depth reporting, and you end up seeing snippets of it on the national nightly news maybe. Or some times those longer special reports or online reports. The documentary type ones. But they simply don’t have the draw. The media is obsessed with eyeballs. They run with what is the most popular.
Personally I think the media is shaped by the audiences interests mainly, though I agree there is some of the opposite going on. The pessimist in my doesn’t think more exposure will make a lot more people care. A sort of “lead a horse to water” thing. Even if they are now aware of the bad things, will they actually care?
Yes, and your other points are true too. But that only comes into play if one takes the time to THINK about it. Which most people aren’t.
Honestly I have the same sense of loss for both London and Kabul - which is low - but I am told I am broken. Rationally we should pray and empathize with both groups of victims equally - heck - probably more so for Kabul because of our involvement and their much, much more violent recent history.
But, like I said, when it comes to this stuff, we aren’t using logic. Often times we rationalize away things that we couldn’t actually honestly defend if pressed. And too often we ignore it. That’s how a boat load of Jewish kids got rejected by the US and other places early in WWII and other bad things.
I remember going to Somalia because people were starving and oppressed there. There was nothing but empathy for the people there. I don’t think distance has much to do with it.
They have a different culture, different values and different ideas of life. With, say, a librarian from Wellington, I know I will most likely arrive at a shared basic understanding of reality, social obligations and human place in the universe. I don’t think that is at all guaranteed with an Iraqi farmer. That doesn’t make them less human but it makes them more distant, in every way.
I’m not saying it’s inevitable. But it is empirically widespread and fairly consistent; Something people are naturally inclined to. After all, if you wish to relate to some people more closely, the price for that is relegating others to a more distant category. I think Jesus and a couple of bodhisatvas may have overcome this limitation and achieved universal undifferentiated love for all - but that’s a pretty high bar to clear for most.
Then its no longer within the taxonomy of terror but life during wartime. People get accustomed to that fairly quickly it seems.
Taxonomy does matter though.
As a general rule? Of course it does. In terms of how one reacts to this specific attack? Not at all. What matters is whether or not they were their own group, part of a larger org, or state-sponsored, because that affects the response.
so two eyes, a nose, a mouth, eyebrows, a forehead, cheeks, ears, clothing. frankly, all i see are similarities so what’s your point with the photos?
i get it now, the one from london is different because he’s wearing glasses. is it your assertion then that london was attacked because they wear glasses?
It seems to me that actually we agree except that for the reasons you stated, even in this specific case it matters how the attack is classified.
I’d also say motive matters. But then again lately I’ve been reading far too much on the general subject of understanding war (which does include terrorism).
You might be on to something about the glasses. Using the stringent and well-thought-out precedent established earlier, I present the evidence:
Sydney:
London:
Kabul:
Germany may have to tighten up security, based on this photo of a couple of potential German victims:
What matters is preventing more attacks. Or at least that is what matters to me. I think many of our “leaders” are more concerned with the potential problem that large numbers of people might decide that their governments lack the will or ability to protect their families.
But if we care about prevention, we have to ask questions about what is motivating people to carry out attacks, and what preventative measures we can realistically take. And we have to take a hard look at whether we should expect the frequency and amplitude of such attacks to continue to increase. And what the world will look like if we wait before taking action.
I have a hat like that. Its a bit small, but its supposed to just sort of sit on top.
It doesn’t matter if you find ways to compare and contrast and find examples of similarities and differences. If you analyze it you come to the conclusion we are all the same.
That isn’t how we work, though. We form these biases in our head based on our life experiences. Putting aside racism differences of culture, language, and religion, a lot of it also has to do with familiarity.
I’ve been to London, and I am hardly a world traveler. Even if I haven’t ever been there, I could “experience” it with the tons of TV and movies that take place in London. Most people are familiar with some of the basic landmarks of London. We share the same language, listen to their musical artists, even drink the same beer. You probably have met someone from London or at least the UK.
Turn that around to Kabul. If you are familiar with Kabul from media, odds are it wasn’t from a light hearted comedy or slick spy thriller. Most in the US don’t share the same language, religion, or really anything. They might listen to US made music, but their music and culture is almost unknown to the average American.
If you plopped me down in London today, I’d feel at home and wouldn’t have any trouble surviving for a few days. Drop in Kabul and I’d be a fish out of water, completely lost, and at the mercy of the kindness of strangers.
So if one is having trouble with why someone has less interest or empathy with Kabul it is because, first, they don’t think about it. And second, the reason they don’t think about it is that they don’t know it, understand it, relate to it, nor have direct or even indirect contact with it. It is foriegn to them, thus forgettable.
One doesn’t have to go halfway around the world for this sort of thing. Some people in the US have a similar knowledge and apathy for people they don’t know or understand - poor minorities “in the ghetto”, “hillbillies” in Appalachia, Indians on reservations, groups of immigrants in immigrant towns (i.e. Chinatown), country bumpkins in rural America. Depending where you live and what you do, you probably have never really met some of these people, have a sort of amalgamate in your head of what they are all about, and probably don’t really care about their problems, you have your own problems.
