Four incorrect thoughts after the bombs in Paris
One: geographical and cultural proximity is decisive to determine how much we feel affected by this kind of tragedies. But, is that right?
Leave aside your gut feelings, and the fact that you once attended a gig in the Bataclan or that you have strolled so often next to Stade de France: why are we so much more concerned about these deaths, compared to similar unexpected attacks in other parts of the world, in other times? All the immediate expressions of shock, sorrow, rage and perplexity we saw on social media, all the changed avatars, all the people who told us they could not sleep that night — isn’t all that also a sign of ethnocentrism and chauvinism? I am not blaming the French; it’s a European/Western thing. The bombings in Madrid, London, Oslo, created reactions that were far bigger and quicker than similar massacres in Colombia, Mexico, India, countries of Africa. Is that rational? Is it fair?
Someone told me that France is a democratic, developed country that is not at war, and that it’s supposed to be a safe place. It’s a country were you can be very confident you will not die unexpectedly because someone immolates next to you. According to this person, that is what makes this tragedy more relevant, more meaningful. I think that is a factor, certainly. But I’m not referring to the rational analysis of the practical consequences of this attack in the context of geopolitics, or even day-to-day life. I’m talking about feeling worse, or about shouting your anger louder in Twitter.

