More than a dozen celebrities – musicians of all types, shapes and genres – came together recently to recreate Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie’s famous song “We are the World." The emotionally charged ditty was written several years ago as a collaborative effort among superstars in the music business to funnel money into “Africa.”
Now, the sequel version (same title; different people) has been utilized to inject feelings of hope and goodwill into wealthier nations in the spirit of “helping” Haiti, the small Caribbean nation that was destroyed by a devastating earthquake in January (Translation: apparently we saved “Africa” so let’s move on to our next victim of unquestioned, unconditional charity).
At this point, you may be wondering why I use quotations for words with which we are all familiar and do not often render controversial, such as “Africa” and “to help.”
Firstly, Africa is an entirely separate story on its own, but to summarize quickly, I find it disturbing when we talk about one of the largest, most diverse, culturally pluralistic continents in this world as one homogenized place – a mass of land where we assume one form of lifestyle takes place in a particularly specific fashion and all governments are inherently corrupt as citizens wallow in self-pity and poverty. Trust me, that is a very different, much longer, even more complex narrative – one I’m still trying to figure out myself. So that’s for another time.
Let’s get back to that second, more loaded word: help. What does it mean to help? Does a song that yearns to connect us to the rest of the world truly afford the full perspective we need to understand Haiti’s current situation? Can we even entirely fathom the Haitian experience without the cultural and political tools necessary to access authentic comprehension?
Well, no, we can’t. However, even if we cannot holistically witness the devastation, damage and outright horror Haiti’s inhabitants incurred, we can try to understand – and critique – our own nation’s response to the “natural” disaster.
Historically speaking, we should have learned by now that intrusive invasions, even if supposedly welcomed for “humanitarian” relief, are often capable of exacerbating intact conflicts and do not often operate in the most reasonable manner.
In fact, the whole concept that Haiti needs us (U.S.) to help rebuild and revitalize an area that was mostly economically and culturally marginalized to such an extent because of wealthier nations’ exportation of capitalism and “democracy” is dauntingly overwhelming and hedonistic, to say the least.
Why is that every time a disaster occurs in a country, we find it our duty to lead a helping hand? Is alleged altruism as noble as we often perceive it? What’s morally obligatory about aid dependency and red-tape soaked non-profit groups that promote the title of their organization over efficient assistance?
The answer lies in the way in which we perceive ourselves. While we sing songs of hope and shove three wrinkled $50 bills into an envelope, we relax with a sense of self-imposed happiness. We feel we have made a difference, helped the Other who has had a less fortunate time than we have had. Truthfully, we have experienced sadistic sentiments at their most cleverly subtle stage.
In other, less dramatic words, rather than allowing Haiti to grow internally and proactively, and to take advantage of this undesirable situation as a means to increase national growth and a spirit of local ownership, the United States and America-friendly countries invade with medical supplies and nonperishable food items to maintain some false sense of heroism and eradicate any opportunities for Haitians to self-govern development, change and sustainable management.
Furthermore, do we really think our generous donations are going to supplant the economic framework necessary for survival in the modernized world (albeit it a negative reality, in my opinion)?
Understandably, Haiti needs help. But didn’t it before an earthquake with the magnitude of a giant? News reports from corporate media networks like CNN continue to emphasize that Haiti was one of the poorest countries in the Caribbean.
However, I have two responses to such guilt-trip techniques:
A) The perspective of what constitutes a weak economy is only established and supported by Western economic theories that pervade the globe.
B) Haiti needed the same supplies and items we’re gushing to provide immediately before now, so
What’s the difference?
The difference is we discovered Haiti for a moment. The news graced us with coverage of a nation that we typically wouldn’t otherwise recognize because its economic contributions to the globalized world are minimal, and we temporarily acknowledged it as a salient issue among all fractions of government, culture and human beings themselves.
In truth, you probably don’t really care about Haiti. Your money probably won’t do much of anything under the conditions of economic and global constructions preventing Haiti from the kind of stance you may imagine it has in store for the future. Until economic motivations and applications are re-rooted, Haiti will remain in its current place - absent from the maps in our self-designed geographic perspectives, voiceless in global politics, less useful in an extensive and expanded capitalist society than other nations, and low on our list of priorities.
Today, Haiti is still in ruins of all kinds, and although some of us may feign interest to support our façade of a caring nature, most of us have moved on to Tiger Wood’s licentious addictions, plane crashes in Austin for which the media has refrained from using the word "terrorism" because the perpetrator is white and non-Muslim, and health care summits where the ever-dualistic Democratic and Republican parties can debate an issue they will never resolve with necessary, concrete action.
Thus, my last question (I know, I have many but I've never understood the rhetorical taboo behind a plethora of questions) stems from the end of this song - “We are the World” – the last few lines, which are repeated, include: “Haiti needs us. They need us. They need us.”
Do they?
