Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Baxter Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 05:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Doesn't anyone else get a really creepy feeling in their stomach watching this shit on the news, or is it just me? For starters, the gimmicky way the press has handled the whole thing. 'Tsunami' is a Japanese word, and I'm sure the Indians, Sri Lankans and Indonesians have their own words for it. 'Tsunami' is just a bit more catchy. Maybe I am picking at hairs a bit here, but this seems symbolic of the way the western, certainly the British, media has dealt with the whole thing. I mean, comparatively FUCK ALL money was raised for the Sudan, and the million dead in Rwanda didn't get this much international support. Am I wrong to feel disturbed by this? Why did this garner more emotional response from the West? My own guess is, the white tourists. I mean, over here they haven't stopped babbling about the trauma of shattered holidays! White people on the telly accusing the government of not adequately supporting them in their search for the remains of their loved ones. They had THREE minutes silence yesterday for the dead, which is one whole minute more than is had for the War-dead on remembrance day! WHAT THE FUCK!!! All it proves is how superficial public emotion really is. I'm sorry to say it: I welcome the day a major disaster -aritificiated or natural- strikes this fucking arrogant country and wakes it from it's self-imposed delusion of security and it's social obtusion. I mean, the money is absolutely vital, but it's all the ludicrous attitudes of the 'philanthropic' rich white noise-makers that goes with it which sickens me. It's the same patronising attitude that abbeted and travelled with the old colonial imperialists: we, the altruistic white people, will deign to save you, the inferior of the world; we understand your pain, your suffering. One racist attitude replaced with another. The gun is gone, and only the everlasting residiuous scar of ignorance remains. In the mean time, the general public will shed crocodile tears for whatever the media tells it to. (reply to this comment)

From You Prick Friday, January 07, 2005, 16:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Firstly, the word Tsunami is in common use and is the term used for the Pacific warning system for 29 nations, not just Japan. Second, you say that by picking a Japanese word (Asian), it's symbolic of how "western" media has dealt with the tragedy. Tsunami is the English word adopted from Japanese for waves caused by seismic activity under water, as opposed to a tidal wave, which is purely caused by the gravitational pull by the moon and other tidal factors. Any loss of innocent life is tragic, but when its caused by a natural disaster, there is less "blame" for it, so more people are likely to help. Most of the dead in Rwanda, Sudan and other parts of Africa are caused by militants and most of the aid that gets sent there is hijacked by the waring parties for their own purposes. That doesn't make the plight of the suffereing any less important, but it makes people much less willing to give for something like that, at least in my opinion. This on the other hand, it something that affected many nations at once, was sudden and terribly wide reaching. The fact that so many tourists were caught up in it helped get it in the media headlines, but they are not the ones receiving aid, its the people of the countries affected by the tragedy. There have been others and there will continue to be natural disasters of this scale, but it hasn't affected so many nations as this one, which is why there was such a huge and sustained reaction to it. And I think its disgusting you welcome such a random loss of life on people of all walks of life, even if you mean it for a rich nation that you dispise. You seem to be saying that though the money is needed, people are arrogant for giving it. Thats ridiculous. If you've been hanging in a tree eating nothing for 10 days, you wouldn't give a fuck what some arrogant prick was thinking when he gave the money. We are disgusted at some Christians?cult members attitudes that the destruction was good because those evil people deserved it, but go and say something stupid like that to the same effect.(reply to this comment)

From Shackled Friday, January 07, 2005, 23:47 (Agree/Disagree?) You might want to reread Baxter's post. The only thing he appears to be wrong on is the use of the word "tsunami". I'm not saying all of your points were wrong. But even the good ones had no relation to what Baxter was saying, basically because you misunderstood him. "The fact that so many tourists were caught up in it helped get it in the media headlines, but they are not the ones receiving aid, its the people of the countries affected by the tragedy." From what I've read and seen on the news it's quite the opposite. I heard alot of the current support and aid has been targeted towards the tourists. (reply to this comment)

From I think I understood fine Saturday, January 08, 2005, 07:24 (Agree/Disagree?) I think you are having trouble matching the two together. I think what I said addresses his comments just fine. Of course if you share his views, then it would be difficult to persuade you otherwise... He said: comparatively FUCK ALL money was raised for the Sudan, and the million dead in Rwanda didn't get this much international support. to which I replied: Most of the dead in Rwanda, Sudan and other parts of Africa are caused by militants and most of the aid that gets sent there is hijacked by the waring parties for their own purposes. That doesn't make the plight of the suffereing any less important, but it makes people much less willing to give for something like that, at least in my opinion. ...trying to explain my understanding of why less aid gets to those places. He said: Why did this garner more emotional response from the West? My own guess is, the white tourists. I mean, over here they haven't stopped babbling about the trauma of shattered holidays! White people on the telly accusing the government of not adequately supporting them in their search for the remains of their loved ones. I replied: The fact that so many tourists were caught up in it helped get it in the media headlines, but they are not the ones receiving aid, its the people of the countries affected by the tragedy. There have been others and there will continue to be natural disasters of this scale, but it hasn't affected so many nations as this one, which is why there was such a huge and sustained reaction to it. Again, directly addressed his issue, but not agreeing with it. While there was a lot of "send the army to find my son" on the news, the vast majority of the media coverage I have seen is about the plight of the Indonesians, Sri-lankans, Thai's and Indians (who by the way, are insisting they have the resources to handle their own disaster relief). I haven't heard once of any talk of the money going to the families of the tourists lost, but all of it about getting it to rebuild the infrastructure lost, getting men on the ground to help, Australia sent 1000 troops to assist in water purification and field hospitals, the US sent 1500 troops to fly supplies by helicopter to remote villages. Many other nations are sending personnel over there for relief purposes. He says: I welcome the day a major disaster -aritificiated or natural- strikes this fucking arrogant country and wakes it from it's self-imposed delusion of security and it's social obtusion I said: I think its disgusting you welcome such a random loss of life on people of all walks of life, even if you mean it for a rich nation that you dispise He said: the money is absolutely vital, but it's all the ludicrous attitudes of the 'philanthropic' rich white noise-makers that goes with it which sickens me I said: You seem to be saying that though the money is needed, people are arrogant for giving it. Thats ridiculous. If you've been hanging in a tree eating nothing for 10 days, you wouldn't give a fuck what some arrogant prick was thinking when he gave the money. Just my 2 cents...(reply to this comment)

From j. Friday, January 07, 2005, 11:55 (Agree/Disagree?) interesting article on the subject... http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P105696.asp?GT1=5980(reply to this comment)

From hmm Friday, January 07, 2005, 10:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Refresh my memory... how much international money was pledged after 9-11 or the brutal hurricane season here in the south of the US, or the wild fires in california and colorado? the numbers seem to escape me... looks like some of the good ol' family training stuck, they've managed to churn out a whole crop of whining anti-american communists types(reply to this comment)

From steam Friday, January 07, 2005, 12:07 (Agree/Disagree?) It is not an issue of quid pro quo. Setting aside the humanitarian aspects of the situation it speaks to the issue of priorities which has very realpolitic consequences. The fact is (although my numbers may not be exact as I do not remember precisly, and they can vary a little depending on what people include) we spend @ 200 million dollars per day in Iraq. All that money is actually costing us the good will of the planet, and believe me whether you care what they think or not, in the end the worlds opinion have consequences to America especially in the fight against terrorism. On the other hand when the disaster first struck it was believed from the outset to have killed at least 37 thousand people and considering it's multi national devastation, if we had made a large gesture from the start of one day's worth of Iraq spending (200 million) it would have served us tremendously on the global scene. Since our initial response was so ridicoulously paltry (15 million) even in the initial assesment of the scope of the disaster we made the world feel all of our talk of concern for humanity in our actions in places like Iraq was bogus nonsense. Now we are spending a fortune (which I absolutely agree with) but getting very little comparitive credit (which is a shame) because of the small minded response of the Bush administration. In fact even now though we are only fourth in the list of government pledges, the American people are giving so much, this country will almost certainly, when all is said and done, be the ones who gave the most. Now that has a very real effect to the people suffering, so regardless of credit, I am very glad that it is occuring, however it burns me up that the small minded and callous initial response of the Bush administration, cost us a great opportunity to help the world get a better impression of us.(reply to this comment)

From hmm Friday, January 07, 2005, 10:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Refresh my memory... how much international money was pledged after 9-11 or the brutal hurricane season here in the south of the US, or the wild fires in california and colorado? the numbers seem to escape me... looks like some of the good ol' family training stuck, they've managed to churn out a whole crop of whining anti-american comunists(reply to this comment)

From good points Thursday, January 06, 2005, 11:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Good points, Baxter -- your rants are quite insightful. On the topic of relief aid -- it will be interesting to see how much money actually makes its way to the victims. Last year's earthquake in Iran, which killed 30,000 people, brought in pledges of about $1 billion. So far, 17 million has been spent. (reply to this comment)

From Haunted Thursday, January 06, 2005, 11:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually what happened is that $1 billion was pledged and only $17 miliion was ever received by the organizations it was pledged to. This is quite a common problem for relief work organizations. (reply to this comment)

From A Canadian Thursday, January 06, 2005, 22:34 (Agree/Disagree?) On the general subject of the politics of aid, I just read a distrubing clip on the CBC web site. As concerns Canadian government food aid, government policy requires that 90% of funds destined for food aid be used to purchase Canadian food. This is causing aid agencies to refuse Canadian $ and use the remaining 10% to buy local foods that can be trucked quickly to where they are needed. Canadian food can take up to three months to arrive, and probably costs a lot more. This kind of callous politicking really pisses me off. They are so pious in their public pronouncements, and so self-serving in their policies and practices. (reply to this comment)

From bullwinkle Thursday, January 06, 2005, 23:07 (Agree/Disagree?) One the other hand, on CBC tv news tonight I saw a story about individual Canadians in India, Sri Lanka, and Thailand organizing efforts to get aid directly to people in need. The grassroots efforts, at least at this stage, seem to be as effective, if not more, than those of governments and institutions. Another good example of that kind of direct aid was a story about a small Canadian town deciding to adopt an affected village in Asia. They are developing both short and long term plans to completely restore a village of 250 people. (reply to this comment)

From live_fast-die_young Friday, January 07, 2005, 05:47 (Agree/Disagree?) BRILLIANT! I love this idea!(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Thursday, January 06, 2005, 10:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Baxter, I think 'tsunami' is the generally accepted term throughout the english speaking world. : ) And yes, of course mass hysteria and/or emotionalism is annoying - Can anyone forget Princess Diana's death and the way the general public dealt with that?! I remember being appalled at the sight of all the thousands of bouquets piled up outside Kensington Palace, and thinking that if people wanted to honour her memory for some screwy reason, they could have better given the money spent as a donation to one of the charities she patronised, instead of wasting it on useless flowers. But such is the nature of many a human mind - They'd rather leave a beautiful but useless token of adoration than do something that would actually benefit someone. And the media... Well! When do we ever see the media do anything but latch on to public opinion in the face of this sort of event? They did it with Diana too - They hounded her every day of her life and as soon as she was dead they all but proclaimed her a saint. Crazy. I think there are several reasons why this disaster has caused the reaction you describe. First of all, it happened on Boxing day, the day after most of Britain, and a great many western nations, gorged on obscene amounts of food and drink as well as giving and receiving more material possessions to add to the abundance of things we already have and don't need. So immediately the guilt, and a psychological need for some kind of ritual of atonement, sets in. Add to that the fact that Christmas is supposed to be a time for getting back to family and friendships and the things that really matter, and a lot of us find ourselves in a reflective mood at this time of year, lending itself to greater displays of generosity. Secondly, it happened suddenly, and that is always more harrowing than a disaster that unfolds over months and years. People are hit once again with the realisation that it can all be gone in an instant, and this jolts them into an overly emotional reaction. The great number of fatalities is another aspect. I guess I'm not really surprised, after all we've seen this before. I think a prime example is the Twin Towers tragedy - People were outraged at the notion that so many people were killed and it created an enormous outcry, yet few seem to care much about the casualties of the subsequent war, which far outnumber those who died on 9/11. As for myself, yes, of course I was profoundly touched by the extent of the tragic loss of life and my heart goes out to those individuals whose lives will never be the same in the aftermath of this horrific event. However, where a year or two ago I would have been completely overwhelmed with grief and deeply, deeply affected, I have instead maintained a degree of detachment. I have made a conscious decision to distance myself from the pain that hundreds of thousands of people are feeling, because I feel strongly that to allow myself to connect with the intensity of grief that so many must surely be experiencing is wrong somehow. I want to allow those who have reason to suffer to do so in peace, without profitting emotionally from their pain. To all those who perished, Rest in Peace. And may those who live on find strength within themselves in the dark days to come.(reply to this comment)

From live_fast-die_young Thursday, January 06, 2005, 10:06 (Agree/Disagree?) I for one am very grateful for the fact that "white" tourists, albeit a relatively small percentage of the total, were killed in the tsunamis. Sounds cold-blooded but FOR SURE that's the reason there's been such a stong response from wealthier Western countries. You can see how the donations are larger from countries such as Sweden, Britain & Japan--in direct correlation to the number of deaths from those countries. I was there in Thailand during the whole disaster & I saw the shattered lives & livelihoods of all those people. And yet the good-hearted nature of the Thai people is such that they were going out of their way to help the screaming hysterical tourists find their way to safety, while their own families were still missing, their own homes washed away. I lost 2 friends who had gone diving on that day. I had considered joining them to spend my New Years on an island that now barely exists but in the end opted to visit the other side of Thailand---my beloved islands of KohPhangan & KohTao---and so was very lucky. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, January 06, 2005, 15:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually, the aid campaign in the UK was begun by the Sri Lankan immigrant community for their homeland. While I don't doubt that the fact that Brits lost their lives has added to the British public's generousity, I really couldn't attribute - even just the majority of - the £100m that has been raised in the past 10 days to the couple hundred holidaymakers who died in the tsunami. The fact of the matter is that this is the largest single tragedy in living memory, and the world community is responding likewise.(reply to this comment)

From ack Thursday, January 06, 2005, 13:04 (Agree/Disagree?) It's too bad. I don't think it's right to be glad anybody at all died. are you going to allow your political sentiment of current anti-Americanism, cause you to actually "feel grateful" than random white people are dead? Strange. But here it moves from strange to sick, you blatantly wish for more. I've got news for you. Those white people were there dumping a lot of money. That's right, spending lots of welcome dollars and Eeros on tourist stands, hotels, restaurants, and whatever the Thai are reputed to sell. (and you know what I mean) . Let me ask you, did you stand around measuring the percentages of white people freaking out (tsunami remember?), against the number of natives? sounds like you did. ahhck(reply to this comment)

From live_fast-die_young Friday, January 07, 2005, 05:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Ack, where did you get the idea I have anti-American sentiments? I also fail to see where in the post I *blatantly wish for more*. What I DID say was that I was grateful there were foreign tourists involved in the catastrophe which helped garner much media attention in Western nations--thereby INVOLVING said countries in suplying aid to the devastated areas. And what I stood around to see was not *percentages* or *white people* (A term I never used as many of the tourists killed in the area I was in, including two close friends, were Japanese.) but rather the overwhelming kindness of the Thai people towards the dazed and shaken tourists. I have a question: what exactly would "current anti-Americanism" be when in context of a personal sentiment? Can I have a sentiment of antiquated anti-Americanism then? Or perhaps one could even harbour future anti-Americanism?(reply to this comment)

From live_fast-die_young Thursday, January 06, 2005, 10:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Had an odd conversation with this guy last night--he was telling me that the earthquake was indirectly caused by the US's neclear tests under the seabed of that area. Basically he said that the testing has destabalized the continental shelf & the result was this earthquake. Any thoughts?(reply to this comment)

From ack Thursday, January 06, 2005, 13:21 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.eresonant.com/pages/earthquakes/quake-how.html (reply to this comment)

From Nick Thursday, January 06, 2005, 10:27 (Agree/Disagree?) No no no, it was the Brain! My cat is really good friends with Pinky and he told him, confidentially offcourse, that himself and the brain planed this as part of his plan for global domination! (reply to this comment)

From Nick Thursday, January 06, 2005, 10:27 (Agree/Disagree?) No no no, it was the Brain! My cat is really good friends with Pinky and he told him, confidentially offcourse, that himself and the brain planed this as part of his plan for global domination! (reply to this comment)

From live_fast-die_young Thursday, January 06, 2005, 10:40 (Agree/Disagree?) My response wasn't much diff. At first I thought he was saying that the earthquake was DIRECTLY caused by an explosion & I laughed long & loud as it would take an improbably massive amount of TNT (or whatever they're using these days) to cause a 9.0 richter scale quake. And wouldn't there be dead fish washing up on every shore from Sumatra to Sicily? But I do admit to having my suspicions about the Brain's recent activities... (reply to this comment)

From Nick Thursday, January 06, 2005, 11:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, I just conferred with my kitty and according to his source, Pinky, apparently the Brain had help. Help in the form of a very evil and dangerous beast! The kind of person that would stop at nothing in his quest for global domination. I have a link to this beasts pic. Note the evil demeanor! Scary! http://www.funnyjunk.com/p/killer_dog-jpg.html(reply to this comment)

From live_fast-die_young Friday, January 07, 2005, 05:48 (Agree/Disagree?) :-)(reply to this comment)

From Right.. Thursday, January 06, 2005, 07:38 (Agree/Disagree?) "we, the altruistic white people"??? If I recall, your not white....(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Thursday, January 06, 2005, 10:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Umm, I don't think you quite got what Baxter was saying! Note the reference to the Colonial Imperialists directly preceding the statement you refer to.(reply to this comment)

From kats Thursday, January 06, 2005, 06:42 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with u, there is way too much emphasis on the western tourist when the priority should be the people most affected by this tragedy. And the only reason why there is so much media attention is because its one of the west’s favourite tourist attractions, if it had happened somewhere else we probably wouldn’t hear as much about it. (reply to this comment)

from Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 14:45 (Agree/Disagree?) I donated to UNICEF..... (reply to this comment)

from Samuel Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 17:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Send it to the Family Care Foundation. LOL! Seriously, you should check out TheFamily.org today though. It's so creepy and strange and wrong on so many levels how they put on the front page they are helping with disaster relief for the tsunami victims. "Our heart goes out to the tsunami victims...blah blah...yada yada yada" Yes, and I remember them saying the same thing about the 9-11 victims. That of course was followed by articles about how terrible America is... and this is God's judgement on them... America is horrible, but Gadhaffi is really good in bed... blah blah blah blah. Then "Dad" spoke from the grave and said the attack could not possibly have been done by Osama BinLaden. Shut up, you dirty old man- You're dead! "Our missionary communities in or around the affected region are already mobilized and helping with the disaster relief efforts" What exactly are they going to do, sing the victims a song? Sing "Jesus The Light" or "You Gotta Be A Baby" in every language they can think of? I remember when Hurricane Andrew hit Miami, my parents and I drove down to "help out". We ended up doing little or nothing- in fact I personally cannot remember doing anything to help the hurricane victims there. We taped for a few minutes the disaster in Homestead, but that was about all I can remember. I would say you can send it to just about any charity and it will do some good. You probably want someone who's already on the ground there but by now, I'm sure just about everyone is. You could give it to the American Red Cross, but I would not recommend the International Red Cross because I think they are corrupt- I'll just leave it at that. I sent mine to CBN.org just because I want to know that Christians will be doing the disaster relief. You can give to disaster relief and charity in general (Operation Blessing) or there is a link on the front page where you can designate that gift specifically for the tsunami victims. One final tip, if someone calls you asking you to donate money- chances are it's not the charity itself but someone else calling on their behalf. They can collect up to 30% commission on your gift- which I don't think is what you had in mind. Come to think of it, I wonder if that's what The Family's missionaries around the world are doing right now to raise funds and "help the tsunami victims", lol. Best of luck. Samuel Mercuri (reply to this comment)

from Jules Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 08:32 (Agree/Disagree?) An organization I would recommend is Save the Children. I know a number of people who work for this organization and it is one of the best, respected and most effective charities. http://www.savethechildren.net/alliance/index.html (reply to this comment)

From night_raver Wednesday, January 05, 2005, 06:06 (Agree/Disagree?) I'd recomend them as well, I know a number of people who work there, as well as volunteers. (reply to this comment)

from Baxter Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 03:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Frankly, you can trust them all or none at all. Most ofthose organisations will be, as far as i understand it, staffed predominantly with sincere, altruistic people, either foreign or indegenous. The corruption factor is more likely to be an external factor, and your donation may just as likely end up rounding off a bribe as doing any direct good. (reply to this comment)