IMAGINARY PATS ON THE BACK

When westerners come to third-world countries attempting to do what they think is good, and noble, and riteous, it is, instead, the worst form of ego-massage imaginable -- thinking that our mere presence is going to improve the lives of those who never asked for it to begin with.


True? False?

I don't know.

I'm asking because I watched the Oscar-winning documentary Born Into Brothels last night, and it depicts the lives of the children of prosititutes in Calcutta, the streets ofwhich looked not unlike Phnom Penh (from the little I saw of it in the film). These children are given the gift of cameras by a white Western woman, and they learn about art, each other, themselves. They shoot the world around them for our entertainment, so we can ooh and ahh and cry at their misery before seeing who's on Letterman.

Nice, right? Humanistic, in the best sense of the word?

I think so.

Although there's some criticism of the film for it's somewhat paternalistic (maternalistic?) nature: I, the western white man/woman, will come and help you, the poor, brown, helpless Asian. And you will thank me for it, and I will feel good.

That's what happens, and it's true -- you do feel good for helping those who need it.

Is that wrong?

I don't think so, necessarily, but I can see why detractors might think so. Are we just getting off on other's misery, and redeeming ourselves by doing what we think might help, imaginary pats on the backs all the way home?

There's no easy answer, I guess. Anytime anyone helps anybody else, there's always accusations of selfishness, which seem to me to be pretty much beside the point, anyways. Everything we do is selfish, even the goodwill we offer to others; in the end, we're looking to fulfill what we feel needs to fulfilled within ourselves. If others benefit, and we feel good, it's a two-for-the-price-of-one deal.

Perhaps it is only a movie designed for our entertainment and our own guilt. (That's the harsh, cynical way of approaching the subject -- not the way I particularly want to view it, but a valid view, I admit.) But by watching it you are able to enter a new round of empathy; and perhaps that same empathy, actualized, can benefit those around you. All art may be exploitive, but this kind of art could, if deeply felt, lead to action. And that can only be a good thing.

And yet, the anxieties linger. Most of the world is in a desperately wretched condition, poor and getting poorer, yet somehow still filled to bursting with the goodwill and generosity exhibited by the kids in the documentary, the kids I see on the streets every day, the kids who have nothing to give, but who still, more often than you'd think, offer even that to a passing stranger.

If we match our goodwill (backed with money, and resources, and expertise) with their goodwill (backed by only their honest intentions), then both sides gain, even if the inital intentions have more to do with our own internal needs than those we are helping. No?

THE FENCE STILL NEEDS PAINT, REGARDLESS

Identical twin brothers are taking a break from painting their father's fence. On the radio is another report about the latest clean-up efforts related to the tsunami.


ATHEIST: Further proof.

BELIEVER: What is?

ATHEIST: That there's no God.

BELIEVER: What's further proof?

ATHEIST: The radio. The tsunami. The, what is it now, two hundred thousand dead?

BELIEVER: So?

ATHEIST: What do you mean, 'so'? You honestly think, if there was a God, He'd let this happen?

BELIEVER: First of all, there is a God, and he didn't let anything happen. It happened. Period. End of story.

ATHEIST: Okay. Let's say you're right, God exists, He's a good guy, the whole deal. You're saying he didn't let this happen?

BELIEVER: Of course not.

ATHEIST: If he didn't, who did, then?

BELIEVER: Nobody. Weather's weather.

ATHEIST: God doesn't control the weather?

BELIEVER: No.

ATHEIST: Well, he made weather, didn't He?

BELIEVER: Of course.

ATHEIST: But he doesn't control it.

BELIEVER: No. You made your daughter, didn't you? Do you control everything she does?

A pause.

ATHEIST: You're pretty sure about all of this.

BELIEVER: I'm not, actually, but I have faith.

ATHEIST. Right. 'Faith'. Forgot about that. (Takes a swig of Coke). And where did you get that from again?

BELIEVER: My father. My family. The Bible.

ATHEIST: And how do you know the Bible tells the truth?

BELIEVER: Because it's the divine word of God, transcribed by man.

ATHEIST: So, God says it, man writes it.

BELIEVER: Not quite like that, but close enough.

ATHEIST: And how do you know this book is 'divine'?

BELIEVER: Because the Bible says it is.

ATHEIST: Wait. The Bible is the word of God. How do we know? Because the Bible says it is. Isn't that a kind of circular logic?

BELIEVER: Not at all. It's called faith.

ATHEIST: In other words, you've made a leap of faith that what the book says is true?

BELIEVER: Right.

ATHEIST: Even though there's no way to verify its' truth.

BELIEVER: Right.

ATHEIST: So I could say that I found a document that says a teapot is the centre of the universe, the creator of life, and, when questioned by non-believers, I can say: Hey, it may sound kooky, but it's a leap of faith.

BELIEVER: Well, I guess so, but I think you've been reading too much Richard Dawkins.

ATHEIST: You know Dawkins?

BELIEVER: Of course. Famous evolutionist. The Blind Watchmaker, amongst others.

ATHEIST: So you believe in evolution.

BELIEVER: Of course not.

ATHEIST: Why not?

BELIEVER: Well, I haven't dismissed it entirely. Proof of intelligent design, perhaps.

ATHEIST: So God designed everything, which is why almost 99 % of species that have ever lived have died out. Nice design job. Good job with the oceans, too.

BELIEVER: If you blame God for the tsunami, as I think you're still trying to do, you might as well blame Him for the door that you stubbed your toe against this morning.

ATHEIST: I do, actually. Or would, if I believed in Him.

BELIEVER: Why do YOU think I believe in God?

ATHEIST: I think it's because you were raised in a culture and family that stressed this belief. If you were in the Middle East, you'd probably be a Muslim. If you were in Cambodia, you'd be a Buddhist. Religion is geography and tradition, nothing more.

BELIEVER: As opposed to non-belief, which isn't influenced by geography or tradition at all, right? But let me ask you this: Don't you think atheism, as a 'theism', is a kind of belief system in and of itself?

ATHEIST: Yes. It's a belief in non-belief.

BELIEVER: That's a contradiction. So you think when we die, we die?

ATHEIST: Yes.

BELIEVER: There's nothing more?

ATHEIST: Right. I think the afterlife is something we've devised to get us through this life in one piece. Something that people could hang onto when they're own lives went awry. Like all the slaves in the American south, hanging onto heaven because they knew there would be no justice in this life.

BELIEVER: You don't think of heaven as a real place, then?

ATHEIST: Of course I do. I just think it's here, on earth. Everything is here, on earth. The slaves did find heaven, and it was called 'Canada'. You ever read a 'A Place Called Heaven', by Cecil Foster? African-Canadian writer. The Underground railroad took those slaves to heaven, and their God was Harriet Tubman. This is all we've got, the here and now, so we might as well just get on with it.

BELIEVER: You think Canada's heaven? You ever read about what happened to Japanese-Canadians in WWII? And did you know that Harriet Tubman lived for many years in St.Catharines, Ontario, the hometown of the dude who's writing this post?

ATHEIST: What do you mean, 'post'?

BELIEVER: You think we're conducting this conversation of our own free will? You think nobody up above is having a hand in what we're saying?

ATHEIST: I still don't get what you mean by 'post'.

BELIEVER: Forget it. Whether there is a God, or whether there isn't, our break time's over, and that fence still needs to be painted. Let's get to work.