Live and Let Live

My title first speaks to the recent Sri Lankan bombings, but also every other tragedy in recent and not so recent history. More than 300 people killed and 500 injured. Never mind that it was conducted on a holy day, Easter Sunday, because when it comes to preserving human life everyday is sacred. Never mind that the attacks targeted churches and hotels, places that people should feel the safest, because people should have the right to be safe wherever they are. Never mind that Christians were primarily in the crosshairs because bombs kill indiscriminately, Muslims and others are now fearing a backlash, and all lives must matter equally.

These attacks are abominable. I condemn the violence. I denounce the actions of the perpetrators but recognise the complexities that might have motivated the behavior which, I believe, goes beyond the official ISIS claims it is in retaliation for the NZ attacks. I cry for the dead and with those who mourn. Live and let live.

This is not a post on extremism. Perhaps I shall pen one another day. No, my mind wanders back to a week ago when the Notre Dame burned but so did the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, and not ignoring any other event that might be of personal significance. Both a devastating blow to historical culture, national pride, and the pious. In the days that followed, around $1 billion has been raised to rebuilt the Notre Dame. Undisclosed donations have also been made to rebuild the Al-Aqsa Mosque. My comments are a praise to the increased political dialogue but a criticism of the manner in which this occurs. My point is that we should be less quick to judge and have more empathy.

So let's talk about the elephant in the room, or rather elephants.

#1 The Notre Dame received much more publicity as compared to Al-Aqsa Mosque.

This requires a definition of publicity. If publicity is defined by the number of news outlets covering each incident, this might or might not be true. I admit I have not done a count. If publicity is defined by screen time and reputation of the news outlets, then the statement is definitely true. Notre Dame received much more publicity. On the back of this, there has been a backlash. Almost accusing (predominantly) Western or even international news outlets of showing preference to the Notre Dame, a sentiment extended to donors and those emotionally invested in Notre Dame.

#2 There has been an incredulous volume of donations in response to the burning of Notre Dame

There is no denying this fact. The numbers speak clearly. It is perhaps remarkable the speed and magnitude to which aid has been mobilized. Then comes the criticisms. Greta Thunberg, youth climate activist who is doing a remarkable work, rightly "urge[d] global leaders to save the planet in the same way they are pledging to rebuild Notre-Dame after fire gutted the cathedral". Others call for the Catholic church to rebuild the cathedral using its own funds while many too express displeasure toward private donors for not supporting other causes such as hurricane relief or other humanitarian action.

These accusations, born from what I believe is good intent, might not be entirely justified. In the case of press coverage, it is only logical behavior for a profit-making news agency to cater to the demands of its viewers. The same case can easily be made for any non-profit organisation. Demands are then determined partially by proximity that also affects personal experience and emotional attachment. Well, if you want news on Singapore, read The Straits Times. If you want news on China, perhaps South China Morning Post. Their reporting focusses predominantly on what its local consumers desire. For example, I do not ever expect, or desire The Straits Times to provide an in-depth analysis into each of the 19 confirmed U.S. Democratic Presidential candidates. To blame news agencies for reporting in a manner that best utilizes their resources is perhaps a stretch too far. I am not saying that such a determinant of self-interest is acceptable. Indeed one should have concern for the well-being of the human race regardless of location or context but such is the nature of things. Indeed more holistic reporting that can help develop knowledge different from what we possess and compassion for others far from where we reside is key.

More pressing, however, is the way political dialogue is conducted. It almost became a viral statement to post how news medias blatantly ignored the mosque fire. Should the mosque fire have been reported? Definitely. And it was. Should it have received the same magnitude of coverage as the Notre Dame? I am not sure. I say this not because a mosque is less deserving of press than a cathedral. Such a thought would never cross my mind. I say this because the magnitude of the fire and damage was different to begin with. There was no significant damage to the mosque, despite it being a risk, and firemen were able to quickly control the fire. Again, I am not saying that people should not know about the mosque fire or that it was any less important than Notre Dame. It is as important and we should know about it. What I am saying is that blanket statements of condemnation are counter productive if the specifics are glossed over.

The bigger bone is with the donations. Criticism toward the donation to Notre Dame guilt and shame participants for their contribution to the cathedral rather than to another cause as demonstrated by memes like this below:

And so my response. Donate to developing countries if you will, and please do. But any amount of donations will be wasted without a radical change in our foreign policy because it is our foreign policy (among other factors) that is perpetuating a systemic obstacle to the development of these countries, a structural problem that cannot be solved by pumping in more cash.

How about environmental or other social issues? The assumption made by naysayers is that private individuals, or donors to the Notre Dame do not also donate to other causes. Catholic Charities donates over $4 billion a year, just from its US wing. If you add other Catholic groups such as universities and hospitals, we get around $30 billion a year in the US. LMVH and the Arnault family that donated $200 million to reconstruct Notre Dame have a foundation which supports a grassroots effort to make art accessible to all, not just in France.

And so, three quick points. First, people often donate and they contribute to their strengths. Now I wouldn't trust LMVH to know how to invest in renewable energy but I would trust them to help redesign and curate work for the Notre Dame. Other companies likewise have foundations and B-Corps work to better a very specific social wrong. The nature of finite resources but infinite problems mean that we have to prioritise what we choose to work on. In fact, corporate giving specialists find that when companies donate to causes completely unrelated to their area of business, the money is often disbursed inefficiently. Specialisation, in my eyes, is not only good, it is necessary. The rule of geographical and emotional proximity that guides news reporting also determines personal giving. This affected donations received in the wake of Hurricane Maria. There is nothing wrong with donating based on emotional or geographical proximity, but we should not ignore other urgent problems of our day.

Second, one time donations always appear more dramatic. The $1 billion raised to rebuild Notre Dame does not eclipse the money spent by many a charities and foundations yearly. But it is a huge amount. Other charities and causes do not, however, receive a paltry sum. For example, the World Wildlife Fund raises a pretty consistent sum of over $200 million each year. The American Red Cross over $3 billion. Of course there are many other NGOs that are not funded to the same magnitude but combine the dollar amount received by cause and the sum is not insignificant either. Again, funding for NGOs is usually consistent via monthly giving programs, a trend across all age groups. Now there is more that we can do. Indeed Greta Thunberg and others are right to insist that we require a greater urgency to solve the world's pressing challenges.

Last, never criticise the way people serve, but inspire them to better service. Here I reintroduce the need to live and let live. Society tends toward a hasty demonization that is encouraged via social media. A campaign of catchy slogans and attention grabbing memes does not a valid argument make. What I am saying is there should be less finger pointing. It is wrong that any individual moved by compassion to donate to any cause should be made to feel unworthy because it is not the cause you think most important. No, life is hardly ever one of pure dichotomies. A person could have donated to Notre Dame but as well to other causes, as well as contribute in non-financial ways. The FT reports how preservation of culture used to be spearheaded by the government but is now led by private individuals and businesses, a good shift in my opinion. Look at other ways in which we, and others, can and have been contributing to other causes apart from pure financial donations. Encourage increased engagement in social issues. Build people up instead of tearing them down. My point is we need to exercise more empathy and make that the first step in our response, not judgement. People have the right to live as they see fit. Live and let live.