Seeing and not

[sabotabby]

I'm going to talk about the photo of the dead Syrian toddler. You've been warned. I won't show the picture itself, or the other ones like it, because you've all probably seen it by now and I want people who have chosen to not see it to read this entry.

But I'm going to start with a story that I've probably told before, and probably even told on this blog, about images. The year is 1990. My country, among other countries, goes to war with Iraq. Like a good peacenik child of peacenik parents, I am opposed, and am as outspoken about the issue as a precocious 11-year-old can be, which is to say that everyone in school thinks I'm weird. I have lived my entire life in the shadow of the atom bomb, with Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes ringing in my ears. I know what war does.

And yet I didn't. The images in the newspaper, on the television, were of sanitized battle, red dots and green night-vision like a video game, with nothing like the photos of the My Lai massacre to drive it home. One could be forgiven, watching the news, for thinking that smart bombs were so smart that they managed not to kill anyone at all.

As a teenager, I saw the images the news hadn't shown. Banned in Canada, the photo was of the charred corpse of an Iraqi soldier. You can Google that too. He was the enemy, a bad guy, the guys our brave soldiers had fought, and he spent last moments trying to escape a burning car, screaming in agony. This was why I'd opposed the war. I wondered, had those around me seen it, would they have opposed the war too? It's so easy to erase the identity of the enemy, of the Other, when you don't see his suffering.

As a country, we went to war meekly, unquestioningly, like we typically do. Today, I see kids watch those sanitized video game images, dream of going to war themselves. They play Call of Duty and watch drone footage of bombing and relish in the carnage. The victims, real and virtual, are not human to them.

Which brings me to Aylan Kurdi, age three.

Social media does what social media does. The leftists post about the crisis in Syria, washing up on Europe's shores. They cry out for someone to do something. Along comes a shocking photo that jolts everyone. Those previously uninvolved and unaware share it. Facebook bans the images. The discussion shifts from the tragedy to the image of the tragedy. The tone shifts. Everyone becomes a monster.

Sorry, I'll need to talk more about the image of the tragedy than about the tragedy itself. In this post, anyway. If you want to talk about ways to help, that's what the comment section is for, and I'll post any useful information I glean.

The first disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not anyone on either side of the debate.

The second disclaimer: Despite how ugly the tone has gotten online, we're all actually on the same side. Unless you voted Tory or UKIP or are secretly Donald Trump, you probably are pro-migrant justice. If you're not, please do the world a favour and DIAF.

The first strawman: No one on the pro-sharing-the-photo side is saying that anyone is a bad activist or too much of a sensitive special snowflake to look away.

The second strawman: No one actually wants to look at pictures of dead kids on their FB newsfeed, okay? No one wants to see this image. No one wants kids to die.

I managed to find the post with all of the dead kid pictures, remove the thumbnail, and share. It took me about ten minutes to decide whether I should and then figure out how to remove a thumbnail on FB's newest redesign. I personally believe these photos should be seen. I am also aware that they're horrible to look at, and I don't want to see them, and they make me cry. I don't want to trigger anyone.

I posted a second article from the photographer that included a thumbnail with a less graphic photo. That was all last night.

This morning several of my friends posted that they would unfriend anyone who posted the dead kid pictures. Okay. Several other of my friends posted the dead kid pictures. Statistically, if you're interested, 100% of the people I saw write against posting were white Canadians. All of them were parents. Many of the people who posted the photos were people I knew from migrant justice activism and a few of them are Syrian. One of the latter commented on the irony of white Westerners ignoring all the Syrian toddlers butchered by Assad, which is a fair point. Some were parents, some were not. All of the people in this discussion, on both sides, are people that I respect and whose opinions I respect.

(By this afternoon, everyone had moved on to talking about Canada's culpability; the children and their mother would be alive if the Tory government hadn't refused their application for refugee status. The social media cycle is short like that.)

For years, involved in Palestine solidarity and anti-war activism, I posted dead kid pictures, thinking that they would shock the apathetic into action. Then I stopped, because I felt it was disrespectful to the dead and their families, and because I think we get desensitized to pictures of dead bodies. I think the global reaction to the pictures of little Aylan Kurdi illustrates the importance of these images, no matter how horrible it is to look.

A few points of discussion:

Consent of the family: This is the single most important question. Until this afternoon, we didn't know whether Aylan's family wanted the photo of his corpse to be shown. Now we know. The father, who has suffered the worst a person can suffer, wants his child to be a symbol of the refugees' plight. He wants this to be seen.

The feelings of the community: How do these images represent the lives of people in the broader community? I'm not Syrian; when I posted the pictures, I was taking the lead from people more directly involved than I am.

On that note: A friend pointed out, rightly so, that we never see the bodies of dead white children. (I'm not sure if that's entirely true; we certainly did in the Sandy Hook massacre and the Oklahoma City bombing.) It's only black and brown bodies that are reduced to the moments of their deaths rather than to their lives.

The feelings of victims of trauma: The parent who's lost a child, for example, or the survivor of a war zone. That's why I don't think these photos should be forced on anyone (other than Tories, who deserved to have it shoved in their faces). LJ and Tumblr have mechanisms built in to prevent people from being triggered; FB is of course terrible at it. But this deserves consideration, of course.

Bottom line is that these images getting out has already had an impact. The atrocity stares you right in the face. It makes the Conservative politicians responsible duck for cover, at least for a few minutes. It shakes up the apathetic. Which is why I think they need to be seen. Otherwise, little Aylan is just another statistic; after all, don't brown kids always die in large numbers?

Images have power. I can't say why one has more than another—my Syrian friends have been posting horrific images of dead children for years, with little noise generated outside their community—why this one has the potential to topple governments and maybe even save lives.

This is why, personally, I can't look away.

Comments

[smhwpf.livejournal.com]

Similar sorts of feelings.

I am glad that it does seem to be changing minds - even changing the entire way the issue is being seen. But without wishing to be flippant, the Sun and Tory MPs and all the others who are suddenly discovering that they do have a shred of empathy after all, kind of remind me of Elmer Fudd. They'll quite happily sing "Kill the wabbit!", until they actually see the dead wabbit, whereupon they are all "Oh no! I killed the wabbit!" Well, except most of them are more, "Oh no! The wabbit is dead! This is tewwible! We have to do something!"

But better empathy awakened late than never.

[sabotabby]

Well, the Sun and the Tory MPs will always be like that. It's not their empathy that'll be awakened. They'll fake crocodile tears until it blows over.

Over here, though, it has the potential to help bring down the government. Chris Alexander was forced to suspend his re-election campaign for a few hours, supposedly to discuss the case, at least until someone tweeted a picture of his campaign office open again. Harper responded in a particularly atrocious faction, which was to call for more bombing of the region and castigating Ontario for some reason.

It all went over about as well as you'd think. One might hope the same for other Western countries; the possibility exists for people to say enough is enough and start agitating against anti-immigration policies. It won't help these dead kids but it might be fewer dead kids in the future.

[smhwpf.livejournal.com]

God, I hope that between this and the recession this is the end for Harper.

I think there's a good chance it'll lead to at least some sort of short-term change in policy in Europe in terms of accepting significantly more Syrian refugees. Whether it'll lead to a long-term shift in attitudes is another matter, but maybe a little.

I'm pleased to see that for the "Refugees are welcome" demo here on Sunday, the youth organizations of all the parties in Parliament, except the Fascists who weren't invited, have signed up in support. Not often you get Moderaterna and Left Party people at the same demo.

[sabotabby]

It's amazing that you actually have to shove pictures of dead toddlers to make Europeans and North Americans give a shit, but there you have it.

[marlowe1.livejournal.com]

Seriously, if everyone is going to look away and do nothing when peaceful demonstrations explode into full blown civil war, they can at least agree to take in the people who are trying to flee the mess they let happen.

I'm more hawkish than you - acknowledging that there are some conflicts that cannot be stabilized or solved (like Somalia in the 90s - and I am proud that my home state has welcomed Somali refugees - even though it's perplexing that they decided to come to a state where it's winter six months out of the year) and this has been driving me apeshit for years. The worst was when Assad was gassing people and there was just a sliver of hope that Western countries would get involved. And then everyone voted against it and Putin wrote his fucking New York Times editorial and all over FB people that I normally respect were praising Putin for being a PEACE ACTIVIST - like they didn't get that a dictator writing an editorial in support of the murderous regime that represents the last ally that Russia has in the region is pretty much the opposite of peace.

And then there was some bullshit agreement and everyone acted like it was the greatest thing in the world. And what was worse was that the actions being proposed were designed to keep anyone from sending troops. Like they can't impose a FUCKING NO-FLY ZONE???? Imposing a No-Fly Zone in order to minimize casualties is War Mongering and yet telling everyone to just stay out of a civil war that promises to spiral even further into blood and death is PACIFISM???

And this was just as FSA was losing all hope of victory or even dominance of rebels. It was also before ISIS showed just how fucking crazy the war could get.

Of course, for even more dickish behavior, there were the super Zionists who suddenly discovered that there was a civil war going on in Syria just as Israel and Hamas went at it again. Defending Israel with rhetoric in that conflict is one thing (I did it quite a bit mostly based on limited options for Israel) but using "LOOK! Over there! There's something much worse!" is ridiculous and more than a little evil (of course, I blocked the assholes whose take on the Syrian civil war was "fuck it, they're Muslims" whether or not they were friends)

[sabotabby]

Oh, I am far from a pacifist and think some conflicts require force to resolve.

The worst is a little while ago Canada was openly discussing an allegiance with Assad against ISIS. It's like no one ever learns lessons. Well, it's not; it's willful stupid geopolitics and the part of the West. We care when we want to, when it's useful for us. And it was not convenient or strategically advantageous to do anything, I guess.

[franklanguage.livejournal.com]

Another reason I'm glad I'm not on FB; I haven't seen this image.

[sabotabby]

Whatever you're envisioning, it's probably worse.

[caudelac.livejournal.com]

My reaction would have been much different before I had a child. I am non-white, and a parent, and I find that image incredibly triggering. Now, I want to help-- and did, before that picture showed up in my inbox. I get the importance of it. But the picture itself-- the one in the surf-- I can feel the panic attack coming when I so much as glimpse it. I can deal with it from the remove of thinking about it, but actually seeing it... It is instinctive how not ok it is. I hope that it shocks people out of their xenophobia and disgusting jingoism. But I can't deal, myself.

[sabotabby]

Totally understandable. I don't get and will never get what it's like to be a parent. I am horrified, as a person, and particularly as a person who works with kids, but I don't get the visceral reaction of not being able to see it at all.

[pofflewomp.livejournal.com]

I had it before being a parent, due to having half brought up toddler little brother (now grown up). So I don't think it is a parent thing so much as an attachment thing. There is something about toddlers, I think, more than any other age, that is intensely visceral and unbearably painful. I actually feel it less with my own child than I did with my brother as there simply isn't the time to think or feel when you are on 18 hour non stop days! But I can't possibly look at the picture. I shared it by mistake (using my phone as usual) and deleted it afterwards.

[princealberic.livejournal.com]

I always like your posts.

I think that these are all good points. Did pictures from Sandy Hook actually become very widespread in the media? It does feel like images of violence against black and brown bodies are more frequent in the media, and then it's kind of a double-sided thing, because it's important for people to be aware, but they can also get desensitised. It's also kind of random what the public opinion will finally care about or not. We've been seeing images of crowded boats and drowned people for years, but it's only recently that discussion about anti-immigration laws has intensified.

I can understand why people might not want to see this image, and I think that it's possible that many of the people who don't want to see it already care. I understand not wanting to see it, because I don't think I will (at least, not today) since I never know when my brain is going to act up and I don't think that will be helpful to anyone. However, I think that the people who don't want to see the image or any other graphic images should absolutely try to learn more about what happened, the context, and what they can do.

I'm having a hard time articulating what I'd like to say because I'm tired and stressed out, but I hope this comment isn't a complete mess.

[sabotabby]

Well, I think violence against black and brown bodies is far more common, but in those rare cases where it's a white child who's a victim of violence, you typically see a smiling school picture and not a corpse. I remember pictures from Sandy Hook but I don't think they were on the front page the way this one was. Oklahoma City was a different story—there were rubble-covered little bodies on every newspaper, but it was also a different time.

it's kind of a double-sided thing, because it's important for people to be aware, but they can also get desensitised

Yeah. It's strange how hundreds of pictures of dead kids don't get the reaction that one picture of one dead kid does.

I'm having a hard time articulating what I'd like to say because I'm tired and stressed out, but I hope this comment isn't a complete mess.

It's not, don't worry.

[mistersmearcase.livejournal.com]

I ended up seeing them anyway, because social media does what social media does. Same the other day for the couple that got gunned down here, got to see photos of the woman looking terrified as she realized someone was about to snuff out her life. Hooray, and thanks as usual, Gawker. I mean, whatever, it's fine, and it's what happens when you spend time on the internet, but there's so much posturing, it gets up around my neck a little. I already kvetched at you about the guy who originally posted the dead kid pictures who said, more or less, "SOME people don't like seeing these pictures. What ***I*** don't like is that people kill children." It's like a parody of internet discourse.

I don't have strong feelings about how much or little it accomplishes. And I don't have some strong feeling that I had a right not to see this stuff. I just...life is sad, I have no influence on a lot of things, and if I got to choose, I would do without seeing extra horror and being told it's good for me.

[sabotabby]

I accidentally saw the video of the journalists getting gunned down. As in it was on a news site with fucking autoplay. I'm not sure that was necessary. It didn't change my opinion of gun violence or anything, plus it happened in the US and there's not a lot I can do about it. I think the dead kid picture has changed a lot of people's complacency with refugees, and given that my country is directly at fault and mid-election, it's important that people see.

[tweedisgood.livejournal.com]

News: some people [I have a particular non-famous person in mind whom I know, not me, I don't vote Tory] who voted Tory, and are even members of the Conservative party, are "pro migrant justice". It's unhelpful and simplistic to assume otherwise.

[sabotabby]

If they were really pro-migrant justice, they should strongly consider changing allegiances to a party less vile, vicious, and anti-human.

[tweedisgood.livejournal.com]

No-one [well, I've never met anyone of any party who did, including MPs] agrees with everything their party does and your characterisation of an entire party, which is comprised, like others, of individuals with individual viewpoints, is also simplistic and unhelpful - makes you feel suitably righteous, no doubt, but sheds little light and a lot of heat. Blair took us into Iraq, remember? Same govt employed *^%£" ATOS. Not assuming you are a Blairite, btw, it's just a point

[sabotabby]

I'm not a Blairite—not a Brit, actually; we have Tories here too. I tend to hate the lot of them to varying degrees and feel slightly dirty whenever I get involved in electoral politics. But at least with other parties there are possibly some reasons why a rational person might support them. With the Tories—both there and here—I can see nothing in their platform to redeem them or suggest why a rational person might support them.

[princealberic.livejournal.com]

But surely, if an issue is important enough to you, it's going to be a big factor in deciding whether to vote for a party or not. I wouldn't support a political party that agreed with me on 99 things out of 100 if the remaining 1 thing actually mattered to me. Maybe these "some people" don't care as much about "pro migrant justice" as you think and it's only a secondary issue for them.

[pofflewomp.livejournal.com]

I don't associate with New Labourites for those very reasons. I don't want anything to do with people who support culling disabled people.

[luckweaver.livejournal.com]

I don't trust myself to remain calm discussing the topic, but this is a very good rant. I mean, terrible topic, but good points.

[sabotabby]

Thanks. Yeah, I am not feeling all that level-headed myself.

It helps that there's a few concrete things I can do about it in the next little while—trying to fuel some rage into action and the like.

[karinmollberg.livejournal.com]

Oh, after only having posted about this for a couple of years now, I'm not surprised just a tad more bored than before by how it takes a napalm image to make everyone who couldn't have cared less a few days ago shed tears in abundance. Couldn't care less, wherefrom they are or pretend to be...

[sabotabby]

I do get it—I'm more responsive to a strong image or a well-chosen turn of phrase than to news story after news story. But it makes me hate humanity a bit.

[karinmollberg.livejournal.com]

Most of us are (like that). It's what, to quote Vonnegut of all people scares the beejeezes out of one. Too human.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

I know it has a strong grain of truth, but I get quite cynical about the whole "people have to be surprised with graphic images in order to shock them into change" narrative, because when my mother was active in pro-life politics, that was exactly the line of thinking. She argued against it quite strongly, but I still grew up in a house full of pictures of aborted foetuses, watching videos of later-term abortions. It's initially shocking, then it's just desensitising.

[sabotabby]

I was going to mention that (anti-abortion tactics, not your mom in particular). I don't have any real formulated thoughts on it, but it's an interesting parallel. The pro-life movement politically is about controlling women's bodies, but on a personal level, people are horrified at the idea of killing something they view as a child, and it's an inherently compassionate (if hugely destructive and wrongheaded) impulse.

In terms of desensitization; well, see icon. It doesn't work.

I think one of the big differences with the photo in question vs. the usual dead-kids-in-war-zones is that the child is recognizable as a child. There's no gore. People see it and are saddened rather than disgusted. I think ultimately everyone will become desensitized to this too (already I'm seeing a vast reduction of posts about it in favour of posts about Kim Davis) but maybe it did a little.