Funding for the digitization of this title was provided by Roman Catholic Diocese of Savannah.
About Southern cross. (Savannah, Ga.) 1963-2021 | View Entire Issue (Sept. 14, 2017)
i‘* * k jjt'..- Southern Cross, Page 14 Commentary Care for each other weather or not Thursday, September 14, 2017 S cenes of the devastation in Houston and its surrounding area have served as an opportunity for Americans, regard less of their political affiliations, to unite. We are always at our best as a country when responding to a crisis. Victims of Hurricane Harvey include members of every social class, race, ethnicity, and gender. At least for now we are united in our attempts to help them in their long, grueling, and expensive recovery. At this time the horror we witnessed at Charlottesville is overshadowed by the heroic rescues and sacrifices of first responders, generous individuals, and neighbors looking out for each other. Cruelty and terror were replaced in our national consciousness with kindness and compassion. What mattered in Texas was protecting each individual life, not the lives of a select group. What mattered in Texas was generosity, not selfishness. What mattered in Texas was cooperation and coordination, not individual survival and public discord. But I would be overly optimistic to suggest that Harvey washed away the division in this country. It lingers. Even a highly dysfunctional family can respond to an immediate crisis with a united front. If we could learn lessons from our most recent natural disaster, we may come away with these: We can take care e of each other. We can seek the com mon good. All of us. Rescuers included everyone from the National Guard, to the “Cajun Navy” to first responders, and to those who are not native to this country. One young DACA recipient, Alonso Guillen, perished as he struggled to res cue victims. So how can we allow these lessons to inform our national consciousness? The answer is simple, and yet it is painfully difficult to implement. We must stop being cruel. For this column, I looked up the dic tionary definition of the word. The first two Webster definitions are as follows: “callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.” “Behavior that causes pain or suffering to a person or animal.” I don’t know many people who would fit the category of someone who takes pleasure inflicting pain on others. I’ve heard people make statements that sug gest they would enjoy harming someone else: statements about taking pleasure in revenge against an individual or state ments about bombing or “wiping out” perceived enemies. But when people make such statements, I’m inclined to believe that, were they faced with the actual experience, witnessing the actual horror they say they wish to perpetrate, they would back down. The reality of the suffering would give them pause, I hope. But many of us, even those who are not inclined toward revenge, can be “callously indifferent” to the suffering of another. Sometimes that suffering is remote, and we either know little about it or don’t feel as if the people suffering are enough like us to warrant our attention. (Take for example, the suffering occur ring in Yemen or the suffering resulting from the monsoons in South Asia.) Sometimes we justify our “callous indifference” because we marginalize the people who are suffering. For example, we describe them in language that makes them seem less than human. People are described as “illegals,” “thugs,” “losers,” “pansies,” and “criminals.” When we fail to see humanity in another person, we disregard and downplay their suffering. Psychologists have studied what makes people cruel, not just indifferently cal lous, but willing to inflict pain on anoth er. Research has shown that people are more likely to be cruel when someone in authority condones the cruelty. From a micro level, we can see this in a family. If a parent is cruel, a child will likely be cruel because cruelty has been modeled and taught. On a social level, if a popular teenager or corporate executive condones cruelty in school hallways or in the workplace, many followers will contribute to the toxic environment. For example, when hazing or sexual harassment are con doned by leaders, they are more likely to thrive. In social media, when people com ment cruelly and they are not called out for it, they persist. Some to the point of harassment. From a national perspective, if government leaders deride and target groups of people, their authority and messages resonate with those who might otherwise not be cruel. “Good people” become capable of atrocity. Yet not all people will go along with cruelty. Some of us will stand up to the bully. Some of us will not perpetuate a family’s cycle of abuse. Some of us will be whistleblowers when a corporate environment diminishes and harms its workers. Some of us will resist an envi ronment, social or political, that encour ages cruelty. Included among those who refuse to accept cruelty should be every person who calls himself or herself a Christian. We Christians have a leader who is described as the Prince of Peace. We have a leader who never condemned, yet who harshly reprimanded those who would condemn and those who would be cruel. We have a leader who forgave with his last breath. We have a leader who broke stereotypes and bridged divi sions. We have a leader who sought out the marginalized and disenfranchised and comforted them. Status had no bear ing on Jesus’ love and care for people. Unlike the authorities of his time, Jesus was never indifferent to their suffering. If we claim to be his followers, we can be and do no less. Mary Hood Hart is a freelance writer AND EDUCATOR LIVING IN PlTTSBORO, NC. SHE CAN BE REACHED AT MARYHOODHART@GMAIL.COM. DARKMeSS CWMOT DRIVE OUT DARKNESS; ONLY . LIGHT CAR DO THAT rate mm DRWE 1 OUT RATE; Cm m CAN DOW v -MMN UnftERKlN6 Jr. \ex&z}ciu.cm
