"Whataboutism" tends to follow in the wake of just about any unfortunate event. It tends to take the form of tweets and Facebook posts along the lines of "Yeah that's bad, but what about this?" As if the human capacity for sorrow was finite, and mourning any one particular event necessitated ignoring all others. Rest assured, the minute any one of those events are discussed, someone will whatabout them as well.
The fires of Notre Dame weren't even out before folks went whatabouting for more worthy objects of our attention. I don't mean those trolls in the atheist community who've adapted philistinism in the name of secularism; I mean people who came up with very real, legitimate points. One tweeter exhorted us to remember the burnt churches of Louisiana as well. Another admonished Catholics for caring more about a building than the Church's sex-abuse scandals. We've been reminded that First Nations sacred places are routinely desecrated, and more than a few folk have wondered why billionaires, who've suddenly proven very generous, can't be as generous with people as they are with buildings.
All very true. Unquestionably, true. People are dying. We face ecological catastrophe. We have the power to solve many problems, and choose not to. It is true. It is inarguable that no Cathedral is worth more than a single human life, and it's more than fair to ask why billionaires can't fork out even a fraction of this kind of cash to alleviate human suffering as opposed to replacing bricks and mortar.
All true, incontrovertibly true.
And yet, and yet. . .
Would you really though want to live in a world where we only solved problems? In which not an iota of human energy was spent making nice things - by which I mean, things with no inherent value besides being nice? In such a world, there would be no pyramids, no Stonehenge, no Taj-Mahal, no Sistine Chapel, no Eiffel Tower, no symphonies, no rock-albums, no Hamlet, no Game of Thrones. No music. No art. No movies. Would you choose to live in such a world?
Perhaps you would. Maybe you'd be right. But I don't think I would.People will always seek to create beauty, and things which will outlast them. When they succeed, they are celebrated. Dynamiting ancient statues of Buddha was not the Taliban's worst crime. But it showed a world-view that didn't allow for beauty or wonder. It was no surprise that people who made no allowances for human desire will care nothing for human life.
So, just as we recoil when vandals smash stained-glass windows or project vomit onto priceless paintings, we mourn the destruction of Notre Dame Cathedral. It does not mean we care for more important things any less.
 |
| Even if you don't believe. . .come on, that's pretty cool! |
I must clarify and emphasize: money and resources would be better spent alleviating human suffering. It would absolutely be better to feed starving children than to rebuild a church. But with trillions being spent on bombs and bullets each day, the purpose of which is to destroy both people and buildings, I don't see why we can't have both.
ReplyDeleteThis post was not meant to suggest people and poverty should not be our priority. Rather, it was directed against certain types who didn't seem to see the value of the Cathedral AT ALL. The chattering classes on the Twittersphere who asked "what's the big deal?" As if it were an affront to other causes or cultures to even take notice. Such folk would probably dynamite a few Buddhas of their own given half the chance. . .