Now I could care less if they think I’m some socialist that hates America. But what really bothered me was that after my comment the classroom seemed to split into three groups:
1= Those for local help only.
2= Those for global help only.
3= And those that just didn’t care.
This really bothered me. Somehow in showing support for the help of those that are starving 9200 miles away, I discounted those starving just around the corner. I can’t lie, I was a little taken back…how did they take that out of what I said?
Then I realized that this is a extremely common belief… So many of us think that in some way one is more important than the other.
The Nationalists would say, “There are people here that need help. Take care of OURS before someone else.”
The more Globally minded would say, “NO WAY! There is plenty of help here for those that want it. We must focus on those that don’t have this luxury.”
Both arguments each hold some merit…and I must admit that upon returning from Africa, I was very much a member of the last group for quite some time. But I would like to raise the question. Why does one life have to be more important than the other? Why can’t the drunk under the American overpass be just as important as the orphan? Regardless of your citizenship or location, isn’t life just as precious?
I just wanted to throw this idea out there and ask each of you who somehow stumble upon it to think about where you stand on the issue. Think about if you harbor some sort of favoritism towards a group of people in need. But I beg you to see that they are BOTH in need, and we (humanity) are responsible. Either way, I would rather you have some active opinion on the issue than be the group in the back of the classroom that just doesn’t care.
