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.