To be annoyed with the "something must be done" attitude

[Flashbangandgone]

Another refugee crisis related one - sorry - but it really annoys me that:

1. Something catches the media's attention (e.g. dead boy washed up on shore, even though similar things have happenned countless times over the past few years) and a bandwagon begins

2. People quickly jump on the bandwagon proclaiming "something must be done"

3. The Government shows phoney concern at the outcry and gives a pathetic and seemingly cynical response (4,000 refugees a year from camps when those that are in real need are the thousands not lucky enough to be in camps)

4. The bandwagon is satisfied that "something has been done" without any real thought about what that "something" is, and move on, self-satisfied that their clamour has delivered results.

It's all so superficial and pathetic....

Agree. dons helmet and runs away

That's about it I think.

can I add sick of hearing about causes apparently being mutable exclusive?

voicing concern or sharing sympathy for one group of people doesn't mean you think that others aren't deserving.

a person wanting to help isn't responsible for pulling resources away from others.

can we just agree that ideally everyone who needs help should get it

mutually exclusive

Especially when there's no sense of irony when that bandwagon at odds with the bandwagon of the previous week (e.g. "migrants scrounge benefits" becomes "we must help migrants!")

And no sense of irony that they have never mentioned or shown concern for things yet all of a sudden one cause is more important than another and supporters are idiots.

but you never cared before. why now.

I think that you are right OP, and some people do jump on the bandwagon and are satisfied with a solution, even if it doesn't actually solve anything.

However I think that many people genuinely do care about the "bandwagon" cause, and something like the picture of poor little Aylan is obviously very upsetting, and stirs people into action. I think that we hear these dreadful things on the news everyday, but it all seems very distant and unreal, and it does take something very emotive like that brings it home for the vast majority of people. It looks like people are jumping on a bandwagon, but they may only be becoming aware of the scale of a crisis when these things show up in the media.

And I say that as someone who is involved with several humanitarian causes, and who previously struggled to understand how people, e.g. close friends and family, who I know are nice, empathetic people, don't engage with the problems on the same level.

I think people are generally in a little bubble of their own, looking after their family and their little world, and it stays that way until something can permeate the bubble.

Terry Pratchett, that well known great philosopher, once wrote something along the lines of "There are two types of people in this world. One, on saying "something must be done" is really thinking "someone else must do something". And the other, on saying "something must be done" means "I must do something". I haven't put it as eloquently as Mr. Pratchett but the gist is there.

I see nothing wrong with something like the picture of Aylan generating a realisation of exactly how appalling the Syrian situation is, and if that results in action being taken to help refugees that can only be beneficial. The tragedy is that the reality is that Syrian children have been dying for far too long and that that realisation didn't come home to people earlier.

However, I do agree that Cameron's response to the crisis is appallingly cynical: he has very clearly tried to calculate what is the minimum he can get away with and his sole motivation is what works best politically for himself and his friends. People need to realise that this will not realistically prevent more Aylans drowning.

I agree. Especially as we have been doing things for refugees for decades by way of financial assistance.

YANBU. The recent outcry is 99% sentimentalism and virtue-signalling with barely any grasp of context, geopolitics or any kind of practical or sustainable solution. Spiked wrote a good article about this just recently:

The hyper-moralism of the sad-for-refugees narrative wrenches this large-scale movement of people from its political, global context, meaning even some of the contributing authors to the exodus from Syria (Western governments), and those who have traditionally been cagey about migration (the Labour Party, tabloids, trade unions), can assume the role of humanitarian saviours. The bad-faith depiction of this swell of humanity as a kind of politics-free natural disaster, or something whose origins lie entirely Over There, means it can be casually moralised, turned into a platform for posturing by the concerned classes.

Such moral preening is now widespread. Indeed, the value of the refugees seems to lie in the extent to which, through playing dutiful humanitarian victims, they might help Western politicians assume the role of smiling saviour and in the process repair their flagging moral authority. It’s well known that sections of the hard right have a tendency to dehumanise asylum seekers, treating the complex human beings who cross borders as an amorphous threat. Over the past week we have seen that the other side in this discussion, those who pose as friends of migrants, also play the dehumanisation game. Where the right criminalises migrants, liberals infantilise them, reducing them from moral agents who have made a decision to migrate to childlike victims in need of rescue by virtuous Westerners. The much-shared, wept-over photo of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi spoke to the new Western view of the migrant: as hapless, helpless; pathetic; children requiring our care. The hard right juxtaposes itself to the threatening migrant; the pseudo-humanitarian left presents itself as lifesaver to the childish migrant. Both sides dehumanise them, for self-serving reasons.

Link

Totally agree with you, Flashbang

FWIW I'm one of those who believe we should help genuine refugees, but the most effective policy is usually that which has been carefully considered, rather than decided on the hoof in response to a media outcry

There's also a bit too much agenda-pushing for my taste, with some treating all migrants as some huge, unwanted mass and others insisting that the bastard bankers and others they perceive as having too much should have it confiscated, as if that would solve everything

Great link Manatee! Excellent thoughtful analysis. Thank you.

An aside, and another irony, is that the UK actually does punch well above its weight (relative to other countries) in terms of its commitment to overseas development, and has (I believe) contributed more to fund refugees camps in countries neighbouring Syria that than rest of the EU put together... Politically this is something I'm surprised much more isn't made more of by Cameron at a time like this.....

It's as though the media treats us a one-dimensional simpletons who can only grasp messages in soundbites....

Couldn't agree more OP. In one week the masses went from hysteria about swarms of immigrants invading Calais to outpourings of sympathy for the poor refugees. No doubt it will swing straight back again soon.

Totally agree with most of the posters here and I especially like the Terry Pratchett paraphrased quote.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the thread on here recently where lots of people said words to the effect of, "I would house a refugee - except I haven't got room.... or only if it's an individual woman or child". Has no one noticed the demographic of most of the people we're seeing crossing borders - and if they are so committed, why haven't they already gone to Calais to collect their token refugee? I'm also not sure that Social Services are going to hand out children either.

The UK does pull its weight. It's shocking how so many politicians across Europe have used this to their advantage whilst others (Arab League, I'm looking at you) have kept totally schtum.

OP, you are most certainly not being unreasonable. However - and I'm sad to say it - MN is now one of the main conduits of the 'something must be done' brigade.

The Daily Hate might well be the home of small-minded little-Englanders, but the core Mumsnet paradigm is equally unthinking. Instead it's the home of reactionary sentimentality; a Victorian fetishisation of childhood and motherhood; and a bastion of liberal conservatism not to mention lazy men bashing.

Whether it's smoking in pubs, paedo-paranoia, Tax Credit cuts, or the alleged gender pay-gap, MN not only acts as a repository for its readers' angst, but actively agitates and lobbies in the interest of the SMBD-brigade.

I miss the days of individual responsibility, childhood freedom and calculated risk. MN is as guilty as the Daily Heil for eroding all of these in recent years.

Well I think working with the UN to take people from camps is a good idea. As opposed to insisting they make the dangerous journey to Europe before we'll consider it. Nor do I blame anyone for thinking that growing up in a refugee camp isn't going to give their children a great start in life. Or for worrying that if they stay there they will still be there, forgotten, in 10 years time.

I don't agree. It's not possible for ordinary people to come out with fully formed policy proposals - that's why we need a civil service/other groups to do policy research and elected politicians to represent people's views. But it's fine and important for ordinary people to be engaged in the political process. If you think that people should only express a political opinion if they have a fully worked out solution to whatever problem they are interested in, you are essentially saying that no one beyond a tiny elite of politicians should be able to have an opinion.

I slightly disagree OP.

The sight of that little boy laying on the beach, the same age and position as my little boy does in bed every night to sleep, made me weep. For days.

I gave to the charity which saves people at sea. But I also regularly give to an African aid. So I can't be accused of favouring the hype.

I would expect anyone with a heart to make some sort of response, whether it's a "something has to change" or a donation of clothes.

You can't expect people to witness such tragedy and be untouched, and you can't expect people to be touched and not call for action. It makes no sense.

Well I think working with the UN to take people from camps is a good idea.

Perhaps it is part of the solution.... but it's not where the greatest need is (those in camps are in a better position than the many who aren't) and to accept 4,000 per year is a cynical bone of a soundbite to throw to the tabloid dogs.

I agree OP and it also demonstrates the immense power of the media. We seem to be slaves to whatever message it is they want to push on a given week. The previous weeks the media were all portraying them as scrounging benefit seekers that we should try to keep out.

I think I see what you mean but surely something is better than nothing?

Perhaps a few people have set up standing orders to RefugeeAid, maybe a few more have offered to mentor asylum seekers? There is a lot of clamour but hopefully there is something substantial, if small, underneath it.

I don't like the Spiked link, I find it overly-cynical.