Jeremy Seabrook
wrote about the tsunami in today's Guardian. He highlighted the
strange (strained?) calculus through which 'western' lives matter more than other lives. In particular, he sees in the distinctions being drawn in the U.K. media between 'Westerners' and 'locals,' a reinscription of imperialism, where 'locals' serves as a euphemism for 'natives.'
It's a powerful article. It's worth reading in full. And it's uncomfortable reading.
For a whole bunch of reasons, this passage just struck home to me -- so I'm quoting it at length here.
"One of the most poignant sights of the past few days was that of westerners overcome with gratitude that they had been helped by the grace and mercy of those who had lost everything, but still regarded them as guests. When these same people appear in the west, they become the interloper, the unwanted migrant, the asylum seeker, who should go back to where they belong. A globalisation that permits the wealthy to pass effortlessly through borders confines the poor to eroded subsistence, overfished waters and an impoverishment that seems to have no end. People rarely say that poor countries are swamped by visitors, even though their money power pre-empts the best produce, the clean water and amenities unknown to the indigenous population."
What do you make of this passage?
For myself, I think the relative freedom of movement enjoyed by people from rich countries paired with the relative unfreedom of movement experienced by people from poor countries is one of the mechanisms that supports the idea that 'Western' lives matter more. And that's one of the reasons why I think that everybody's freedom of movement should matter -- not just that of people with cool and trendy passports.