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
