Why we don't care about Pakistan's Victims
I was discussing the earthquake in Kashmir with a friend today and he asked some interesting questions that I can’t really answer.
Why is it that some disasters get more attention in the United States as opposed to others? Why was there an enormous effort to raise money by ordinary citizens in colleges, schools and churches when the tsunami hit last year, when Katrina hit but not when the earthquake hit Azad Kashmir and Pakistan?
One theory was that 500 deaths in the United States would make big news here, but for events to have the same impact to Americans over 100,000 would need to die overseas. It seems to make sense at first, but when you think more about it, it doesn’t seem so simple.
It seems to me that what affects our desire to help is governed by how emotionally impacted we are by the event. That is largely directed by the media; we would have been less moved if we didn’t see the pictures of the disaster constantly. For example, right now the victims of the Tsunami still need help, but are mostly forgotten.
So how does the media pick which events to prop up as mega disasters, and which ones to glaze over? Is the deaths formula still correct? I’d say no.
Although Katrina, the Tsunami, and the Kashmir earthquake would agree with the formula, other disasters do not. When 800,000+ Rwandans and 1 Million+ Sudanese died, the media was silent, but was ever present during the humanitarian disaster in Somalia, and the Kosovo violence where the total deaths were far less than 100,000.
So what is the answer? Does it have anything to do with the fact that Kashmiris and Pakistanis are mostly Muslim? If there is a anti-Islamic bias, then why cover Kosovo?
Maybe Kosovo is an exception to the rule since our military went there, and our media just followed. Maybe the reason Rwanda and Sudan received no coverage is because they were man-made disasters and dangerous, but wasn’t Somalia man-made and dangerous?
In conclusion, I have no clue why no one cares as much about Pakistanis and Kashmiris.
Why is it that some disasters get more attention in the United States as opposed to others? Why was there an enormous effort to raise money by ordinary citizens in colleges, schools and churches when the tsunami hit last year, when Katrina hit but not when the earthquake hit Azad Kashmir and Pakistan?
One theory was that 500 deaths in the United States would make big news here, but for events to have the same impact to Americans over 100,000 would need to die overseas. It seems to make sense at first, but when you think more about it, it doesn’t seem so simple.
It seems to me that what affects our desire to help is governed by how emotionally impacted we are by the event. That is largely directed by the media; we would have been less moved if we didn’t see the pictures of the disaster constantly. For example, right now the victims of the Tsunami still need help, but are mostly forgotten.
So how does the media pick which events to prop up as mega disasters, and which ones to glaze over? Is the deaths formula still correct? I’d say no.
Although Katrina, the Tsunami, and the Kashmir earthquake would agree with the formula, other disasters do not. When 800,000+ Rwandans and 1 Million+ Sudanese died, the media was silent, but was ever present during the humanitarian disaster in Somalia, and the Kosovo violence where the total deaths were far less than 100,000.
So what is the answer? Does it have anything to do with the fact that Kashmiris and Pakistanis are mostly Muslim? If there is a anti-Islamic bias, then why cover Kosovo?
Maybe Kosovo is an exception to the rule since our military went there, and our media just followed. Maybe the reason Rwanda and Sudan received no coverage is because they were man-made disasters and dangerous, but wasn’t Somalia man-made and dangerous?
In conclusion, I have no clue why no one cares as much about Pakistanis and Kashmiris.
posted by Punjabi Assassin at 10:41 PM
4 Comments:
I was pondering on the same question... But I am far from the cpmplexities of your knowledge of comparisons that you use to intricate any possible response:)
p.s.//i LOVED your pictures...must have watched 'em like 10 times (I hope not more :P)
Hehe, I just talk and talk til i get tired of talking :)
Great blogs. I like your thoughts. But, the reason I believe Pakistan didn't recieve the same attention as other large scale world disasters is because 1.) the event occurred soon after another larger and sensationalized disaster and 2.) was an earthquake--which is an unfortunate but ordinary event. It's not that people don't care... I cared, but the media is responsible for much of the world's news. If an event does not seem extraordinary enough, then it does not recieve much coverage.
I wish you the best,
Amy
Amy,
I guess I can accept that. Not like it, but accept it.
Post a Comment
<< Home