Im ayn ani li mi?

In looking around the blogosphere, I noticed several people wondering why the devastation of the tsunami didn’t get more coverage in the US media (specifically compared to 9/11, when all other stories disappeared from the news for days) and/or complaining that the news focused on the experience of Americans or Europeans, rather than the vast majority of the victims, who were Thai, Indian, Sri Lankan or Indonesian.  (Sorry, didn’t note the URLs and I can’t seem to find the posts again.)

I actually think it’s gotten a lot of media coverage compared to the "typical" third world natural disaster.  The sheer number of people killed and displaced is just mindboggling, but I don’t think that’s the primary reason it’s captured so many people’s imagination.  There’s something about the nature of a tsunami — both the way it comes without warning, and the way that its horror is unevenly distributed — so that there are survivors who witnessed its full fury, even as the people they were sitting with were killed.

Plus, the wide geographic distribution of its effects — and the many nationalities of the victims — means that a very large share of the world feels identified with some or all of the victims.  Someone I know online from Norway wrote recently that in a country of 4.5 million residents, there are about 500 Norwegians missing or known dead from the tsunami (Thailand is apparently a popular vacation destination), so everyone is no more than two degrees of separation away from someone affected.  That’s how New Yorkers felt after 9/11.

I’m horrified by the effects of the tsunami.  But I don’t think it makes me a terrible person to admit that I suspect I’d be more deeply affected if 130,000 people had been killed off the coast of New Jersey.  There’s a natural human tendency to be more affected by that which is closer.  When I visited India as a tourist several years ago, I was deeply disturbed by the huge contrasts of wealth and poverty.  And I found myself angry at well-off Indians for accepting it, because on some level I consider them more responsible for the well-being of their countrymen and women than I do well-off Americans.

I find myself circling back to Rabbi Hillel’s famous questions:

Im ayn ani li, mi li? If I am not for myself, who will be for me?

U’chseani latzmi, ma ani? If I am only for myself, what am I?

V’im lo achshav, eymatai? If not now, when?

4 Responses to “Im ayn ani li mi?”

  1. Elise Says:

    I often find myself nodding in agreement as I read your posts, and this was definitely one of those. I have been somewhat dismayed by some of the posts I’ve read on blogs where people castigate the US media for its coverage of the disaster. Some people say there is too much coverage, others say not enough. I think perhaps what they are really saying is that media coverage of news events in this country has gotten out of control and they’re really not doing it right anymore.
    I am still in such shock about the whole thing I can’t sit and watch more images of it. I can’t get my mind around it at all.

  2. Elise Says:

    I have to post again, because I was just on the BBC’s homepage and discovered one of their leading headlines about the tsunami was “British deaths believed to number 199” or something to that effect. I think people are incorrect when they characterize just the US media as interested in highlighting deaths from their own country. I suspect the media outlets in most countries probably do that, and I think it is more about finding a local angle than about implying that those lives are somehow more important than lives of other countries’ citizens.

  3. Elizabeth Says:

    One more thought — apparently the outwelling of contributions has been so great that Doctors Without Borders has announced that they have enough for their anticipated tsunami relief needs, and asked that donations be channeled to their general emergency relief fund so they can be used in other places of need.
    http://www.doctorswithoutborders-usa.org/donate/.

  4. Jen Says:

    It is sometimes the case that a single sentence or thought in a blog can provoke more of a reaction (for an individual reader) than the rest. Not that your tsunami info wasn’t relevant. In this case, I found myself ruminating about Hillel’s three questions for the last week and a half. I hadn’t heard these before, but they neatly encapsulate some of the major issues in my life: reasoned self-interest, balanced altruism, and impetus for positive change. Thank you!

Leave a Reply


two × = 6