Haïti

Haïti, as I'm sure every human being on the planet is aware, suffered a catastrophic earthquake that destroyed what little infrastructure kept the country from complete chaos. One cannot deny the depth and gravity of the human suffering there, and the generosity of average Canadians is truly humbling. However, three things have come to the surface of my thought as the coverage of the crisis continued.

Firstly, North Americans have developed an unpleasant fascination with the suffering of others, especially if they quite frankly are a visible minority. Since the current iteration of human society values non-violent and humane virtues, there seems to be a new and repugnant need for spectacle. It is considered too barbarous to display an appreciation for combat (can you imagine university professors discussing the last UFC fight?) therefore, we have sought a new arena to be seen doing something "impressive". Charity has in effect become a spectacle. During the crisis, we were inundated with footage of starving, filthy Haïtians. The commercial breaks were almost entirely the perversely sympathetic works of World Vision, and the like. Some argue that the visceral imagery is needed to shock people to action. If this were true, why do we need to see new footage every year? Simply stating that the problem remains would do. It strikes me as particularly self-centred, culturally speaking, that CNN had reporters on the ground in Haïti before the US Marines could begin deploying food aid. I assure you, the US Marines are almost as good as our DART at delivering aid, and they have more, bigger, and faster ways of getting it there. It speaks ill of our society that we are so desperate to see the suffering of others that we are better at getting footage of them starving than we are at feeding them.



Secondly, the pious preaching of celebrities in this "time of crisis" further irritated me. Bono and his gang are always on hand to tell us to give generously, as we have much and others have so little. Though I do not practice the Roman Catholic religion as assiduously as I once did, even the most hardened atheist can admit the value of "have much, give much, have little, give little". The last time I checked, Canadians had given in excess of 60 million dollars. According to Wikipedia, Angelina Jolie's net worth is 175 million. Assuming she takes a poor investment strategy and only earns 5% interest a year, Angelina alone could give 8.75 million dollars and still be rich enough to buy what's left of Port au Prince. Do I expect the rich to give everything they have to every cause that comes along? Of course not; as a libertarian I believe the rich have earned their right to live high on the hog. Just don't expect me to tolerate self-righteous sermonizing with good grace. Bill Gates, however, remains exempt from my wrath. His business savvy and humanitarian instincts have created a fine charitable foundation. People could learn a lot from him.

Finally, we are not addressing the fundamental problem. In a harsh, and obviously hyperbolic, twitter post, RightGirl on January 15th said "News report says Haiti "teeters on the brink of anarchy". How the [REDACTED] is that a change from LAST Friday??" I can't say I approve of her tone, but she raises an interesting point. Haïti has been at the mercy of the "global community" since the Americans stopped invading to protect their interests. The UN and who knows how many NGOs have been permanently working to improve the lot of Haïtians for a couple of decades now. What did we get for it? A country, built on a geologically unstable island, that hadn't the most basic of building codes. Even the Presidential Palace collapsed. In a country famous for corrupt, embezzling presidents. Not to be snide, but you would think if you were soaking your entire country for years, and at risk of violent overthrow, you would build a more solid palace. I think African despots will have a hard time taking Caribbean seriously after this. So for all the millions we pour into this country, what are we going to get? The Dominican Republic is on the same island, and hasn't gone begging. They're hardly wealthy, and yet they are dealing with the fallout themselves. I don't know enough about the region to tell you what the difference is, but it is worth investigating.

What I do know is this; if the residents of a country ravaged by an earthquake, and on the verge of total social collapse, complain about the speed at which international largesse is distributed, they have clearly become too dependent on others doing their work for them. It may be cliché, but I think it's time we stop giving them fish and hand them the nets.