This is Part 2 of a two-part series examining the way people are treating wealthy wildfire victims — and why it’s a problem. Part 1 disproved the assumption that the only victims of the LA fires are rich.
Rich people aren’t less deserving of comfort and compassion.
Apparently, this is a controversial take.
A distressingly large portion of the internet refuses to feel bad for rich wildfire victims because, as one X user so eloquently put it, “I care about the loss to the real people … Screw the rich.”
While I’m disappointed that the some on the internet don’t believe rich people are, in fact, real people, I can’t say I’m surprised. It’s become culturally normal for people to determine another person’s humanity based on external factors like wealth, skin color and education.
The calculus goes something like this: the better off you are at birth, the less you deserve comfort, sympathy or assistance when something bad happens to you.
Measuring “privilege” is a notoriously fickle science, made more imprecise by the fact that most of the people doing the measuring get their facts from social media. Case in point: A distressing number of social media users believe LA fire victims are rich because they live in wealthy zip codes.
As the Daily Citizen demonstrated in Part 1, this assumption is false.
The subjective nature of “privilege” is but one of many problems with using external factors to determine how cushy a person’s life is and, subsequently, how to treat them. One of the others is the incorrect conflation of suffering and facing material obstacles.
Most of the social media comments pooh-poohing the losses of rich fire victims are predicated on the idea that the rich people will recover faster. One X comment sarcastically sympathizes:
It’s true, wealthy people will likely face fewer obstacles following the fire than poor people. They will likely have more opportunities to seek temporary shelter. Many will be able to rebuild faster.
But facing fewer material obstacles does not make rich people immune from suffering.
Suffering is defined as “enduring death, pain or distress” or “sustaining loss or damage.” These feelings and experiences transcend the ease money can buy. In John 16:33, Jesus promises that everyone will experience it.
Natural disasters are perhaps the most equal distributors of suffering. Alisa Wolfson, a mom, journalist and Palisade native, told Business Insider of losing her home:
Money didn’t insulate Wolfson from the pain of losing home videos of her deceased father, whom her children never knew. Nor did money make it easier to mourn the family heirlooms and keepsakes lost in her mom’s house, which also burned down.
“People say, ‘You still have plenty of years left to start collecting,’” Wolfson remarks, “but it’s not the same as having your grandmother’s silver that was used at all of the family get togethers and celebrations.”
Wolfson’s well-aware of the vitriol wealthy people are receiving online. She responds with admirable magnanimity:
But that’s the problem — the Bible doesn’t demand believers treat people they “relate to” with compassion. We are to treat everyone suffering person with the same kindness God extends to us. 2 Corinthians 1:3-4 reads:
Romans 12:15 commands:
Galatians 6:2 instructs:
Suffering is universal. Our tender regard for other people’s suffering should be similarly universal, regardless of who they are and, in this case, how easy we perceive their lives to be.
Please pray peace and protections over all impacted by the LA fires and other natural disasters.
Additional Articles and Resources
California Wildfires: On Conditional Compassion…
California Wildfires and Our Search for God When Disaster Strikes
California Fires: Heartbreak, Questions and Few Good Answers
The post California Fires: On conditional compassion… (Part 2) appeared first on Daily Citizen.
Daily Citizen