Is it possible to destroy a place that is already in pieces? Apparently, resoundingly, unbelievably...yes.
For someone who is prone to being chided for knowing too much about the news, I've turned a strangely blind eye to Haiti over the past couple of days. I didn't even hear about the earthquake until last night, and even then, I didn't turn on the news until today. I've been asking myself why, but I think the simple and probably most accurate answer is that I just didn't want to know.
Ever since I started paying attention a few hours ago, I haven't been able to take my eyes off of the post-apocalyptic scenes flashing through the news media. In some ways it's like the train wreck that you just can't stop watching. Like 9/11, the Asian tsunami, Katrina, or any other breathtaking disaster, my disbelief that something so horrendous can really happen - that this is not just a product of Hollywood - keeps me riveted. I can't help but think that this might be the worst thing I have ever seen. The president of Haiti is homeless tonight. The president. CNN interviewed him as he was trying to create some sort of workspace at the airport (where he was told, by the way, that he couldn't stay - who tells the president that he can't stay?). In any case, the president was asked if he had a place to sleep tonight. He answered that both of his homes had been destroyed and that his first priority was to organize search and rescue efforts. Then, "Finding a bed tonight is not an issue," he said. Finding a bed tonight - whether or not it actually is an issue for the president is not the issue - it's the fact that he has been reduced to finding one at all. Have you ever heard of anything like that - or even imagined it?
But aside from being glued to the horror of the situation in Haiti, I've realized that I am most attracted to witnessing the tremendous humanity that emerges in these worst of disasters. Under such dire circumstances, we're capable of putting aside all of the petty differences between us for the sake of our shared bond. The world races to help those in desperate need - we donate money we don't really have to those who have even less, we risk our lives for people we don't know and will probably never see again, we stop being a journalist and help move veterans to the top floor of a flooding hospital or treat a 15-day-old baby with a head injury. The Dominican Republic and Haiti have historically been at sometimes devastating odds with each other, and while things have gotten slightly better over the past few decades, it still gives me chills to hear that the D.R. was first on the scene to help Haiti. Bush II and Clinton are issuing joint statements. Then there was the Icelandic search and rescue man being interviewed by CNN. He'd just reported that the location of a woman who'd been trapped under rubble for 48 hours had been positively identified and thus the rescue effort could begin. "That's GREAT!" replied the CNN reporter. "No," said the man from Iceland, "it's more than that. It's BRILLIANT!" Iceland and Haiti. The only time I'd ever associated the two in my head until now was alphabetically. During these instances, all I can think is yes, Anne Frank, men are really good at heart.
But then, of course, CNN breaks from its Haiti coverage for a few minutes to report on what's going on in the rest of the world. Al Qaeda has issued another threat, many U.S. troops are unable to assist in Haiti because they're in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress is fighting over taxing banks. Then there are the local commercials - the candidates for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat trading nasty partisan blows. Then there is the inescapable fact that Haiti is so decimated by this earthquake because it was teetering on the edge of devastation in the first place - and that's our fault, too. If there were an earthquake in Washington, DC, and the White House were destroyed, President Obama would not be looking for a bed. No, Anne, you're wrong, men are ugly at heart.
How are we capable of such extremes? Neither Anne nor I are close to being the first person to ask this question, and I certainly won't be the last. But it's a question I think we have to keep asking ourselves. What disturbs me most in this situation is that one of my first thoughts upon hearing about the earthquake was, "Well, at least this will draw attention to Haiti." Maybe this was God's way of waking us all up to the horrors that already existed in Haiti. If so, how utterly tragic that things would have to get so much worse before they could inch toward getting better. Even if we're good at heart, we're guilty of extreme apathy. I'd like to think that even after the dust has-quite literally-settled, we'll still be in Haiti, rebuilding an infrastructure that might better survive another earthquake, strengthening the government, bolstering what has been a heroic but resource-scarce effort at improving public health. If that ends up being the case, then at least some lasting good can result from this tragedy. I'm just not so sure it will be. Our attention is focused, but short.
All of that said, my first hope, of course, is for those who are still injured and awaiting rescue. My prayers are with those sleeping on the streets of Port-au-Prince, those who have lost friends and family members, those who have yet to hear from their loved ones. I only wish, like so many, that I had the capacity to be on the ground and helping in Haiti. While I know that's currently impossible, it's events like this that remind me of why I want to go into human, and especially, medical services. I just hope that, as for the world, I can sustain my attention. God bless Haiti.