I think this is a fascinating question. I really liked Nicholas Kristof's discussion of the psychological studies around the impact of masses vs. individuals in his article "Save the Darfur Puppy" - http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/opinion/10kristof.html?_r=1
"In one experiment, psychologists asked ordinary citizens to contribute $5 to alleviate hunger abroad. In one version, the money would go to a particular girl, Rokia, a 7-year-old in Mali; in another, to 21 million hungry Africans; in a third, to Rokia - but she was presented as a victim of a larger tapestry of global hunger.
Not surprisingly, people were less likely to give to anonymous millions than to Rokia. But they were also less willing to give in the third scenario, in which Rokia's suffering was presented as part of a broader pattern."
That last part poses the biggest challenge to us - because, of course, genocide IS the broader pattern.
The funniest commentary on this comes from Stephen Colbert:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/217927/february-04-2009/yahweh-or-no-way---the-super-bowl (at minute 3).
"The Bishop believes that there's enough proof that 2,000 years ago a man rose from the dead but not enough proof that 60 years ago the Nazis were pretty bad"
UNAMID is the United Nations peackeeping force in Darfur. For more info you can check out the UN's Department of Peackeeping Operation's official website for the mission: http://www.un.org/depts/dpko/missions/unamid/
If you missed the opportunity to 'spam-fax', don't forget you can ensure Darfur is a priority for the new administration by voting for the idea "End the Genocide in Darfur".
PLEASE vote!
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_genocide_in_darfur
|
7 Actions
2 Recruits
|
2 Actions
|
|
2 Actions
|
|