"Over There"

snowy · Sep 26, 2013

Sometimes I find Jian Ghomeshi a bit pompous, but I think he hit the nail on the head with this one.

from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/26/kenya-mall-meaning-globalisation

By now, we're told, the standoff at Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, is over. The country has entered an official period of mourning – though, at this writing, there's an air of caution about whether it's safe to enter.
The official toll is chilling. Among the dead: 61 civilians and six law enforcement officers, as well as five of the militants who had stormed the mall and turned it into a hostage zone that later became a battlefield. Nearly 250 casualties in all. Various reports have added anywhere from eight (the official government estimate) to 137 more dead, according to the hostage-takers.
It's an attack that has been difficult to look away from, and it has dominated news coverage of the past few days. Over that time, it must be said, terrorist activity in other parts of the world has also claimed many lives. There was a bombing on Sunday at an Anglican Church in Peshawar, Pakistan, that killed 85 people. And a rash of attacks at funerals in Iraq, killing dozens in a country where more than 5,000 people have died this year in similar acts of violence.
These events are an all-too-common occurrence in many places. And that is not to mention natural disasters, like the devastating earthquake that hit Pakistan Tuesday, killing at least 300 people, with the death toll rising. But the mall siege in Nairobi in particular captured our collective attention. Did you notice that?
Is it because we recognize the target – a shopping mall – as a place we, too, have gone with friends and family, and tried on clothes, and eaten fast food? A kind of "western" environment, and as much a symbol of freedom as the football stadium, or the office building? Maybe.
In essence, though, none of these attacks on innocent people really differ. That is to say … do they? How do we make sense of such horror? Is it easier to separate ourselves? And do we really need to draw distinctions between a bombing at a funeral in Iraq, and an attack on a mall in Kenya?
We have in the past. It's easier that way. We're not very honest when it comes to addressing deaths happening across the globe. Or maybe, we're scared; or in denial. You see, the violence we're talking about does have one thing in common: we like to think it happened "over there".
And it happens "over there" a lot. That interpretation is a problem. It's reductive and it's untrue. Increasingly, "over there" is a construct, a state of mind.
In a globalized world, where we enjoy the benefits of favourable trade relationships, where we draw the fuel to power our economies, where we can travel almost instantly and communicate with very little interruption around the globe, "over there" no longer legitimately applies. To be specific: these events in Kenya or Pakistan or Russia are happening here, in our world. We're part of it.
We cannot be selective about our desire to globalize. We cannot attach, say, economically, but detach when events aren't savoury or to our liking.
It's hard to imagine a solution to problems like extremism, and terrorist acts, and states with unstable or non-existent governments. But maybe, just maybe, we can begin by changing our minds about "here" and "over there".
We need to engender a sense of connection, not just in our commercial interests, but in our human community, too.
Click to expand...

I have a real problem with this idea of "over there." I think the news media buys into it and contributes to the problem by limiting coverage of events around the world. The funeral attacks and other attacks Ghomeshi mentions in this piece are often turned into lists on the nightly news--if they show up at all.

"Over there" is not limited in scope to nations outside of our own. "Over there" is a phenomenon that happens within the United States' own borders. Take Chicago. Lots of violence occurs in Chicago that people outside of that city never hear about, unless it's massive or follows closely on the heels of another violent event, like recently with the Cornell Park incident, which happened shortly after the Naval Yard shooting. The problem? It happens to people the media thinks about as the "other"--it happens to impoverished people of color.

"Over there" is sometimes in our own backyard. I see it here, too. Gang violence, drug related violence--that might get a small blurb in the paper when the police are finally successful in stopping some of it. Several years ago, there was a major bust here called "Icebreaker." The paper reported the event as if they had been covering the incidents leading up to this bust. They hadn't been. Why? Non-whites were involved, and therefore it was "over there," unless the police were involved.

Where do you see "over there" in the media? How do we stop thinking in these terms? I do know we have to have some kind of a filter for ourselves to stop from being overwhelmed by the world's violence, but there is so much beauty "over there" that doesn't get reported on, either. And why is it that we only hear about a place or a people when something horrible happens? The way the news reports things, we've been lead to think our country is more violent than it is. Actually, crime rates are down dramatically, but that's for another thread.
Finally, how do we hold the media accountable for reinforcing these kinds of barriers between people?

Cayvmann · Sep 26, 2013

What does including yourself in all these acts get you, other than an ulcer? Sure, I get that we're all one community of human beings, but there is a limited area in which we can effectively have any control over. You can only prepare yourself for so many things that might happen and limiting that to a more localized area will help you strategically. If it's all important then you will end up scouring every news source there is and spending all of your time wounding yourself over things that you cannot do anything about. What good is that?

Having a generalized empathy for people and situations similar to yours is just the default. You have more probability of taking action more locally. You can worry about each and every bad thing that happens all over the world, but then what are you going to do about it, other than worry?

I'm not saying that you should not expand your empathy to be as inclusive as possible, but there is only so much you can do, and only so much worry you can take. Sometimes 'over there' is just a little push back to things we can't do anything about, or have no way of understanding.

Baraka_Guru · Oct 3, 2013

When the Dalai Lama and some other Buddhist commentators respond to such acts of violence, they often do so by pointing out our interconnectedness. Especially with today's geopolitics, globalized economy, and social media, there are fewer and fewer opportunities to ignore or deny the fact that we depend on others and that we're all connected in this world.

Rather than rehash much of what they say, below is a pertinent excerpt from the Dalai Lama's website regarding world peace. It is rather in line with what other Buddhist scholars/monks will discuss when it come to these issues. This includes both war and the acts of "violent non-state actors":

[...]

All this calls for a new approach to global problems. The world is becoming smaller and smaller - and more and more interdependent - as a result of rapid technological advances and international trade as well as increasing trans-national relations. We now depend very much on each other. In ancient times problems were mostly family-size, and they were naturally tackled at the family level, but the situation has changed. Today we are so interdependent, so closely interconnected with each other, that without a sense of universal responsibility, a feeling of universal brotherhood and sisterhood, and an understanding and belief that we really are part of one big human family, we cannot hope to overcome the dangers to our very existence - let alone bring about peace and happiness.

One nation's problems can no longer be satisfactorily solved by itself alone; too much depends on the interest, attitude, and cooperation of other nations. A universal humanitarian approach to world problems seems the only sound basis for world peace. What does this mean? We begin from the recognition mentioned previously that all beings cherish happiness and do not want suffering. It then becomes both morally wrong and pragmatically unwise to pursue only one's own happiness oblivious to the feelings and aspirations of all others who surround us as members of the same human family. The wiser course is to think of others also when pursuing our own happiness. This will lead to what I call 'wise self-interest', which hopefully will transform itself into 'compromised self-interest', or better still, 'mutual interest'.

Although the increasing interdependence among nations might be expected to generate more sympathetic cooperation, it is difficult to achieve a spirit of genuine cooperation as long as people remain indifferent to the feelings and happiness of others. When people are motivated mostly by greed and jealousy, it is not possible for them to live in harmony. A spiritual approach may not solve all the political problems that have been caused by the existing self-centered approach, but in the long run it will overcome the very basis of the problems that we face today.

[...]
Click to expand...

A Human Approach to World Peace | The Office of His Holiness The Dalai Lama
--- merged: Sep 26, 2013 at 10:11 AM ---

Cayvmann said: ↑

I'm not saying that you should not expand your empathy to be as inclusive as possible, but there is only so much you can do, and only so much worry you can take. Sometimes 'over there' is just a little push back to things we can't do anything about, or have no way of understanding.
Click to expand...

In light of what I've posted, it's not so much about what you can do directly. At the same time, I don't think going the route "ignorance is bliss" is a good option if it's only to make one feel better. Yes, there is a lot of shitty things going on in the world, but when we lose compassion, despite our ability to do anything about it, I think it takes away an essential part of our humanity.

Life isn't about avoiding suffering, pushing it away and calling others' problems things that are "over there." Life is about knowing how to deal with suffering. We shouldn't have to trick ourselves into thinking this stuff isn't going on. At the same time, we shouldn't foolishly get ourselves worked up over something we have no control over. I think a balanced approach is important. It's remaining aware of what goes on in the world and thinking about why these things happen and what can be done to alleviate them.

What can you do?

You could get into activism, but that's not for everyone. You could instead support organizations that do good work. In other words, you don't need to do the work yourself, but you can enable others to.

You could write letters to the politicians in your constituency. Some consider this a useless gesture, but you may be surprised about the response you get. Trust me, not everyone does this, which means doing so could get the attention of certain politicians who may decide that if people are going to the trouble to communicate an issue, then it's an issue worth taking up.

You could limit the consumption of certain products you think cause global strife. You could boycott certain products made by companies you think cause global strife. You could tell people why you do so—spread the word.

(etc.)

Ultimately, even if you do nothing, I think it would be a shame to limit your compassion by thinking you are completely helpless.

Cayvmann · Sep 26, 2013

I'm not advocating ignorance. It is hard to actually be ignorant that these things are going on. The fact that we aren't given each and every atrocity by the media doesn't cover up the known facts that more is happening than we know about specifically.

"At the same time, we shouldn't foolishly get ourselves worked up over something we have no control over. I think a balanced approach is important. It's remaining aware of what goes on in the world and thinking about why these things happen and what can be done to alleviate them." BG

Yep. I also don't advocate doing nothing, by the way. Certainly do what you can.

I have noticed, and read an article about this yesterday (if I can find it, I'll link), that some people are so outwardly focused that their own backyards are falling apart while they rail on and on about the atrocities in the places "over there". The woman so worried about the problems in Africa from Bleak House comes to mind here. Her family was starving for attention and food, while she spent here time raising awareness and money for the people 'over there'. (I can't remember all the details of the book, I've only read it once, but thought it was interesting.)

curiousbear · Sep 27, 2013

I have two observations here.

Firstly unlike few evolved souls, the masses always have a NEED to RELATE to someone or something to feel or react/respond. The reaction and response is very high only when people can put themselves in that situation and relate to the event. In India the Delhi student rape got so much attention but the same day an other kid (yes kid) was raped brutally and died. It was just a small box news. The reason the youth marched was IMHO they were able to relate to the Delhi student. They could have been that victim!

Secondly it is amazing how Dalai Lama teaches from what he has learnt from mother nature, many at times, from insects and birds etc. He gets right to the BASICS. And some how his life, fleeing his country, living in hiding, etc is pretty close to what happened to Jesus, Krishna and even Buddha.

Log in or Sign up

"Over There"

snowy so kawaii Staff Member

Cayvmann Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Cayvmann Very Tilted

curiousbear Terse & Bizarre

Log in or Sign up

"Over There"

snowy so kawaii Staff Member

Cayvmann Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Cayvmann Very Tilted

curiousbear Terse & Bizarre

Useful Searches