Social Puzzle

—

A versão em português deste Post pode ser lida aqui:

Quebra-cabeça Social (50)

—

This parable is, unfortunately, based on real events.

Once, in a food court of a shopping center during the busiest hours, several local families frequent regularly and during meals the little children befriended and played with each other, running between the tables. There was also a man who could often be seen wandering among the tables, into and out of the toiletries and sometimes simply standing still in the middle of the food court. Due to its unpleasant appearance, gestures and facial expressions (from one who suffered some kind of paralysis or maybe Parkinson’s), children constantly frightened with him, running behind the legs of the parents afraid of that unusual man.

Over time, these parents, taking the side of the children began to feel uncomfortable with the presence of that man, making constant complaints to the merchants and information desk.

More time passes and a meeting happen between the mall Administration and the retailers, among other topics, retailers pressured the Administration to take action about this man who was embarrassing the clientele.

Bowing to pressure, the administrator contacts the mall security and asks for them to solve the problem. The guards then came to prevent the entry of this man, and when he escaped the sight, they escorted him out. However, the man has always found a way to enter again and the cycle of complaints continued.

The administrator then, already irritated with all the pressure he suffered because of this situation, contacts the security guards again and this time, in the midst of a heated argument, command them to “solve the problem once and for all.”

The guards then take the man into an alley behind the mall and beat him violently. Soon after, they notice that the poor man was unconscious and nearly half dead, so they decide to take him to a hospital. When they arrived, they stopped the car and quickly draw the man out throwing him in a corner of the Emergency entrance.

People enter and leave the hospital … Patients, doctors and nurses go through the man leaning in the corner and simply ignore him. So there the man comes to die unattended.

The question that is asked here is: who is to blame for the death of this man?

It is the children who were frightened? Or maybe on the education they received to fear “strangers”? Or is the parent’s fault whose prejudice was translated into pressure on retailers? Or were the merchants who for profit have strongly advocated claims from its customers? Or does the fault lies on the Administration, which gave an implicit order to the crime? Or would be the security guards who dirtied their hands to truly solve the issue? Or is the fault of the healthcare professionals who have neglected an injured patient in the hospital entrance?

To find the guilty one is useful to try to identify who is a murderer. It’s who neglected that something wrong was happening? Who was fulfilling a beating order? Or the one who gave the order? And if so, who gave the order, the one which pronounces or who commands the one that pronounces?

What changes from one engagement to another is not just the attitude itself, but also the justification of this. The attitude of a soldier is no different from that of a murderer, is sometimes actually worse, what changes is the justification for their actions.

This implies to think that any of the involved above have an justification: “I was attending the other patients and did not saw him there in the corner”; “I was fulfilling an order so I would not lose my job”; “I never gave such orders, I was only attending the demand from retailers”; ” we never gave this order, we only advocate for our clients best interest “; ” we just complain in favor of greater safety for our children”; ” the man was ugly and I was afraid of him.”.

If, like what happens with the soldiers, a “good” justification absolves someone from guilt, then nobody is guilty over that man’s death. But now I bring the focus to U.S. foreign policy… Matching the roles: the untouchable children are to the “holy things”; the insecure parents are to American society; retailers, of course, are to the private sector; the administration is to the government; security guards are to the military and the blind nurses, one can say are to the press. I think it’s clear who is to the man who was killed in this analogy.

And since the comparison is a very good window for reflection, one wonders: why is it that for nurse’s negligence is a crime but not to the press? Why, in equal measure, for security guards, the act of violence is a crime but not for the military? Why the mastermind of a crime goes to jail but not a president who starts a war? Why it is that a merchant could be indicted for complicity but not the businessmen of large corporation? Why the prejudicial and insecure parents could be prosecuted but not a prejudicial and coward society? And what is that frightful children have of so untouchable and sacred in their education that cannot be changed?

Again I ask the reader: who is to blame for the murders committed every day by American weapons? And what is this “good” justification that absolves these people from guilt?

I leave these questions open for those who wish to comment, but it is worth remembering that when we look at the whole picture is often difficult to point the finger at someone. How to find the culprit when everybody is right? Or when everybody is wrong? On the other hand, it is easy to judge when you only know part of the story. The discussions usually arise when different people know and defend different parts of a story.

by Ulisses Morais

Tags:culpa, Estados Unidos, guerra, guilt, injustiça, injustice, justiça social, política, puzzle, quebra-cabeça, social justice, sociedade, society, U.S. foreign policy, war