The fury of Mother Earth sure is putting a strain on our wallets this year. Between the Indian Ocean tsunami last winter and Hurricane Katrina this summer, donors are simply tapped out, or so officials at the United Nations speculate, as they try to figure out why the earthquake that devastated Pakistan nine days ago is garnering so little aid and attention compared to the last two major disasters.
The quake, which killed around 40,000 people so far, injured at least 62,000 and left 2.5 million people homeless in a country already filled with refugees, has proven itself around 40 times more destructive than Hurricane Katrina. Yet the American Red Cross has only been able to raise $1.6 million for survivors of the quake, compared to $1.2 billion for survivors of Katrina.
That's twice the amount raised by the Red Cross for survivors of the tsunami (unarguably the largest disaster of the three), proving that scale is not the determining factor in how much money we are willing to donate during a disaster.
As for us being "tapped out," well, I haven't met anyone yet who went bankrupt from disaster relief donations. And with reports that alcohol-related incidents have gone up this semester, I think it's safe to say we still have money for beer.
More likely, we're just choosy about which disasters we invest our money in.
From that perspective, Hurricane Katrina would naturally be the most attractive disaster to donors. Having New Orleans under water does screw up spring break plans for thousands of students, after all. Besides, it's a cheaper vacation destination than Asia, with less traveling time.
There was even an episode of "Reba" dedicated to it.
The survivors of the Indian Ocean tsunami, on the other hand (in second place, with about half as many Red Cross donations as Hurricane Katrina), just had the bad luck of being a third-world country -- oh wait, I mean 11 third-world countries. Fortunately, though, there were enough Western vacationers sunbathing on their shores at the time of the disaster to ensure plenty of worldwide publicity.
That does leave Pakistan at a disadvantage. Besides being a third-world country, it's inconveniently placed in between Afghanistan, whose "liberated" populations no longer warrant our attention, and India, whose rich culture begs to be exploited and, naturally, attracts cultureless Americans like free oil attracts certain world leaders.
This brings me to another one of their disadvantages: few, if any, exploitable resources. Then there's its largely Muslim population which, by itself, still manages to make good, God-fearing Americans shudder with indignation.
But maybe there's still hope a primetime sitcom will dedicate an episode to the survivors of the quake. It could make poor comedy out of a less-than-hilarious situation and wrap it up, like "Reba," with the main character reading out of her Bible. Then, the leading actress could get paid a million dollars, and people could still be dying.
Maybe I'm wrong about all of this, or just out of line. It's probably over-cynical of me to paint ASU students (and Americans) as self-serving, misguided, apathetic xenophobes. But whether I am or not, don't prove me right by shrugging your shoulders at the end of this article, tossing your paper and heading to Starbucks to spend your last $5.
Instead, prove me horribly wrong by logging onto redcross.org right now and donating any amount to survivors of the quake.
Catherine Traywick is a journalism and English literature junior. Reach her at catherine.traywick@asu.edu.
