The Morality of National and International Mourning

Good morning all, I hope this post finds all who read it in good health and spirits. But wait, shouldn't I be wishing good health and spirits to all? Well, of course I do. Am I a bad person for not stating it in this post? That's a good question.

The start of the post might not seem in line with the topic to start with, but it has a direct relevance for me after recent experiences I've had on social media several times in the past 24 hours. As we have all likely heard in the media, the city of Paris was attacked by gunmen on Friday night, leaving over a hundred people dead and several hundred injured. Many have posted messages of support and solidarity for Paris and France as a whole, mourning alongside our neighbours. I too joined in this show of solidarity, feeling genuine shock and empathy for all those affected by these events. However, there have been several seemingly angry posts from some stating that we should not just be mourning Paris. These people seek to remind us of the atrocities happening around the world all the time in Africa and the Middle East etc. They seemingly decry all those who have posted messages of support for Paris as ignorant or "following the herd".

I stand by the solidarity I expressed on social media, reasoning that I do care for all these other tragedies, but France is my neighbour and the biggest tragedy that has been brought to my attention recently. I liken this to anyone on my street having a house fire. I want to help, to let them know I'm here if they need me. If there's a fire across town and it's noone I know personally, do I think this is bad? Yes. Do I feel for the victims? Yes. Do I make a visit to their house to tell them how sorry I am that this has happened to them and offer my assistance? No. Why? Because I think we can spread ourselves too thin if we aim to behave as such. I have neither the time nor energy to visit every tragedy in my town and invest a piece of myself in the emotional turmoil. I trust that those on the street where it happened will already have expressed their sorrow and offered assistance to those in need. I simply feel the force around these events and send as many positive thoughts and feelings their way as I can muster. What if I'm not aware of the fire? How am I to know and offer my solidarity with the victims if the media and word of mouth don't bring the information to me? Am I to seek out all the tragedies to make sure I'm being fair and even in the distribution of my well wishing? This seems like madness and almost as though it defeats the object. A person who seeks out tragedy all the time would likely become very unhappy, very quickly. Do we blame the media for not reporting every tragedy to us? Again, I feel that they have a duty to bolster their pages with hope as well as bringing us the terrible events that unfold around us.

So, when it comes to social media, a global forum, do we suddenly have a responsibility to show our solidarity for all tragedies worldwide? Are we right to mourn and support those closer to us geographically, socially, historically and culturally over those further away? Should we simply not mention these events at all through this medium? My mind is clouded on this subject and I'm hoping that garnering the views of some of my wiser Jedi brothers and sisters will shed some light on the subject, or at least broaden my line of thinking. Thanks for reading this if you've got this far and have a wonderful rest of your day. As should everyone who hasn't read this post as well

Social media is tragic for its brevity, I wouldn't pay much attention to how people might judge and critique based on it alone. My thoughts are that we relate more to the stuff which is familiar to us, and so I'd say its natural to 'feel' more of a reaction to that stuff which we relate to. No-one can be familiar with everything, at least not at the same level... unless we traveled constantly perhaps.

I'd dare say that as the level of our attention to something increases on it, that reaction would normalize to some extent... as we viewed things in more universal terms - but there is always going to be different levels of association we internalize to our own experiences and so more emotions will be recruited in those more familiar examples, IMO. It's probably why France is such a big target - liberty and equality are foundations of western values, meaning the message is aimed at the western audience, and has the huge Islamic populations (1 in 6 I heard yesterday?) which can mask the movement of intransigents.

So it's not naive or ignorant I don't think, I'd say its natural. It's a good exercise to think about how it might work though!! The news outlets tend to ignore a lot of the actual stuff that goes on, but there is a lot of it so I guess they focus on that familiar stuff to try and focus on the most relevant material for their audience.

Thank you Adder, some of the cloud has cleared already

This is not as much of a 'new' problem as it seems. We notice it more now because social media is more rapid and much more accessible - everyone has it in their pocket -, but this conflict began for us with 'mass media'. Thus, we've had it now for nearly a hundred years. The “herd mentality” is also known as the 'capacity for imitation' which has allowed us to become (nearly) civilised. The downside is the Solomon Asch effect whereby we tend to imitate the wrong stuff ...

And yes - we get spread too thin. Our brains don't tell the difference between something that happens a few metres away and that which occurs on the other side of the planet. For 99,99... % of the period of our evolution, we only had to stress over immediate and imminent dangers. Then, with radio and television, we started importing it. Currently, with worldwide, instantaneous telecommunications, we carry all the ugliness of mankind (as well as much of its beauty, but we'll come back to that) around with us permanently, keeping our adrenaline and cortisol levels up and hence ourselves in a constant state of panic. Normally, you all wouldn't know about what happened in Paris for a week or two - if ever. It would still have been tragic, just not 'immediate and present'. We don't just run from the hungry bear, we have the bear on a lead - and s/he us - and we stay on the hamster wheel like that until we drop dead of fatigue. And you know what ? The bear doesn't eat our carcass ...

... there wasn't any bear.

As tzb and others have pointed out, rotten things happen in the World all the time. We don't pay too much attention to them when it happens to "those people" - or when it's "us good guys" who are doing it. Much depends on perspective. "Democratising" and "peace keeping" (sic) is different from "terrorism" how exactly ??? "You MUST be free", "You MUST be democratic" at the point of many guns in the ground zero of remotely delivered bombs is just as terrifying and just as deadly as sneak attacks and suicide bombings. Neither Sharia Law nor Western Imperialism have a moral advantage one over the other. Neither is more ethical, both kill mostly innocent people just trying to get on with their lives in the same ways we all do ...

So, let's feel the compassion that we would for anyone who suffers – maybe knowing that we ourselves shall suffer – without pressuring one another to do something particular for those suffering far away. We would not, after all, begrudge anyone from far away for not coming to alleviate our suffering here … we would hope that someone standing right next to us would.

And that is where it has to start, social media, mass media notwithstanding. A smile, a friendly gesture, a helping hand proffered to those with whom we live – intimate or stranger. Compassion, understanding and acceptance for those different, perhaps even vulgar, to us – that is where peace begins. That is as much help and support as we can possibly provide, no matter what everyone is displaying on their Facebook page.

Like Campbell said :

CAMPBELL: That is in fact what we had better do. But my notion of the real horror today is what you see in Beirut. There you have the three great Western religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- and because the three of them have three different names for the same biblical god, they can't get on together. They are stuck with their metaphor and don't realize its reference. They haven't allowed the circle that surrounds them to open. It is a closed circle. Each group says, "We are the chosen group, and we have God."

Look at Ireland. A group of Protestants was moved to Ireland in the seventeenth
century by Cromwell, and it never has opened up to the Catholic majority there. The Catholics and Protestants represent two totally different social systems, two different ideals.

MOYERS: Each needs a new myth.

CAMPBELL: Each needs its own myth, all the way. Love thine enemy. Open up. Don't judge. All things are Buddha things. It is there in the myth. It is already there.*

* Emphasis mine

Plenty of deep thought to be had on this now, more clouds clearing. Thank you

I can only provide myriad speculation as to something like this, and in cases both mindsets I mention will be present. Please don't mistake my generalizations here for truth, as I call out groups of few, and even then, few that are the way they are purely in my own perception.

Now, it seems to me that the social media thing is largely not intended to be helpful. People share the news to be seen themselves, not to help with the situation. On social media, at least.

There are others who see this and share links to donate to the local relief efforts, the international Red Cross, and others.

There are those who gave out the phone numbers of the French embassies for every nation, for those concerned about their loved ones. I mean, the NY Times removed their paywall so that people can keep up with the current events.

Now, as wrong as I obviously perceive the first response to be (I've just been flooded with simple, strange, even dogmatic posts across all social media, and none of the people who did this [I know for a fact] did anything to help Paris), is the second response more appropriate? Well, if you make a recurring donation to the Red Cross, you are making a difference for every event that happens world wide, as the donation goes to a nonprofit whom helps the world, and that is something great... But then you walk the fine line of becoming uncaring about these events, because many are proud to show that they helped more than that they are empathetic of victims. Conversely, if you make donations to the direct relief effort, you'll find yourself torn in many directions if you attempt to donate to each one that occurs.

Basically, to summarize, my opinion is that donations to the Red Cross are the best way to help the world if one is expected to react to all these things. However, one cannot be expected to do so. Media coverage, as you noted yourself, only shows us so much, and anyone getting angry that we as a group are not talking about certain events are ignorant of the truth that people do not seek out pain, be it near or far.

I concur. My own personal goal is to limit the amount of "media" that comes into my home. I try as much as possible to unplug. It takes effort and planning and a lot of taming the ol curiosity but that's part of responsibility. I stand with knowledeseeker. Try not to spread your self to thin brother, some days there is not enough bread for the butter, but be glad friend. when you find yourself sad or down, find ways to find not only to see the bad, but also find some good. If we look, we will find... keep track of your heart friend, build it up. Yes , feel , oh friend , my wife and i hurt. Hurt is real, pain is real. but if you took time to feel the hurt then take time to feel the help as well and the good and the happy. Its your focus that is what you can control.

May the Living Force grant what you and every one seeking strength in times like this, find it. IT =IS= THERE.

Carlos

i like to promote the idea that WE are the media too

OB1Shinobi wrote: i like to promote the idea that WE are the media too

Well, yes, OB1 ... we communicate, so we are 'media' for things we transmit to others.

The lot of us are the "masses" ... and we talk to one another.

We just aren't "mass media" until one or two or a few thousand media get to transmitting to everyone. That's where it gets dekcuf up. :S

When your dealing with the problems of almost 4 billion people, as it happens, I have found it better to act on a smaller scale.

Sure, you can be compassionate, express sorrow, etc, but my influence does not extend to Paris.

I do what I can within my reach, and while I try to extend my reach, the media is giving your the worlds problems, and i will never promote ignorance, but neither will I become pessimistic, nor let my gaze become so unfocused.

No one person, group, country, is equipped to deal with the problems of 4 billion people, make the mall happy, agree, be peaceful, etc.

Hell, many cannot even manage that within there own families, social circles, workplaces, etc.

So, while you can be compassionate, and keep an eye on the world, be conscious of your reach and grasp, and where it extends to and make your own sphere a better place.