Simply sharing shocking images of a little boy that had drowned, actually reinforces the divide between us, westerners, and our privileges, and them, refugees, and their hard-wrought plights. It won't bring us any nearer to the solution. I hadn't read the article linked into the Vox one about the white-saviour industrial complex but it definitely complements and deepens that line of thought. Also, as Hans Rosling pointed out, it also is another opportunity for media and politicians alike to present Africa and the Middle East as places of pure horror and chaos, whereas tremendous improvements in peoples' lives have been occuring too and there are many positive stories to be told as well. By depicting them as victims you deprive them of their capacity to contribute to society and be part of positive change.
In case you were wondering why refugees pay so much money to risk their lives in shabby rubber boats instead of buying a much cheaper plane ride
Lest we forget, there is much more to all those people fleeing than just war or conflicts. There are often many reasons why that conflict has come about, and most of them involve us, consumers, or our governments, in multiple ways. (Think climate change; arms trade; resource-linked foreign policies; business interest trumping human rights; to name but a few.)
Rather than discussing the height of barbed-wired fences or the pros and cons of a EU-wide quota system, one of the debates to be had is how to implement the Refugee Convention that our nations have subscribed, more in particular, what to do once the countries of origin do no longer pose a threat to the lives of those we have hosted as refugees. Unfortunately, many of those countries of origin are bound to be in upheaval for many years to come. Refugee children will be born here and will grow up in our societies. Do we simply ship them back, as Tanzania did with hundreds of thousands of Burundese families after ten, twenty or in some cases even thirty years, or do we already think of how to integrate them as of today? Is the latter option practically, not to mention politically, feasible?
All this is not to say that we should not help those thousands of refugees marching through in search of a safe haven. Of course we should. But, leave the relief support to professionals. All those citizen-led initiatives inspired by the inaction and incapacity of our governments in hosting this sudden influx of people are no doubt well-intentioned, but good intentions can sometimes have horrible consequences. Already many stories are to be heard of donated clothes that have to be thrown away because they're dirty or wet or too big; that there is not enough space for all the food to be stored; etc. The only effect this will have is that, in two-three months from now, people won't be there anymore to provide warm clothes or other supplies, because they were turned down today for lack of storage capacity. You want to do something now? Ask professional relief organisations (such as the Red Cross or established refugee organisations) what you can do. And beware that most often it will be by simply donating money, even though that may not be as gratifying as feeding a hungry person yourself.
