3 ms·
> Americans gave nearly $1 billion more to the approximately 3,000 victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks than they gave to victims of the South Asian
by notyourwork 10y ago
> Americans gave nearly $1 billion more to the approximately 3,000 victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks than they gave to victims of the South Asian tsunami three years later, even though the latter tragedy killed more than a quarter of a million people
Does anyone else find this conclusion unfair? I am not trying to down play what happened in Asia but American's uniting for their country isn't able to be compared to American's supporting crisis in other parts of the world. I suspect their conclusion is true but suggesting American's give less because of how much they donated to 9/11 versus a storm on the other side of the world isn't a fair comparison.
- jaggederest 10y agoObjectively, a tragedy that killed 83 times as many people is deserving of at least the same funding as a local tragedy, I would hope. That said, locality bias is a strong thing, and to some degree what makes us human. I don't find it to be critical, merely descriptive of the way people work.
- enraged_camel 10y agoIt's not about locality but about identity. An American in San Diego is much more likely to contribute funding to aid disaster victims in New York than in Tijuana (which is only 20 miles away, but across the border).
- foofoo55 10y agoIt's fair in the context of her statement: > We give more easily to the people and causes we see All she is saying is that the amount of giving is correlated to the proximity, which you seem to agree with. It's just a statement, not a judgement.
- briandear 10y agoI agree. How many rich Thais gave money to Katrina victims?