Haitian Earthquake: over 200,000 casualties..
the American government, French government, Red Cross Society, the UN... an alphabet soup of organizations pour in aid.

But, does this aid in actuality help or hinder?

Every time a catastrophe happens in a third world country, the US is usually one of the first countries to jump in and throw in some aid.  Some even alluded to making Haiti a 51st, considering its vicintiy.  These decades have seen a rise in the "American's burden" and consequently, modern imperialism--from taking over Iraq and now Haiti?  It is to a certain degree understandable that being in a superpower position prompts one to have a sense of call of duty to provide help when unfortunate events happen, however, in the long-run, is it really help? How can one stand up and stay up on its own when aid pours in almost immediately when a catastrophe occurs? Countries grow and become efficient and effective relative to their own contexts, often from these times of catastrophe, when they can really reflect on themselves as a country, rebuild, and make improvements from within. 

I absolutely understand that wanting to provide immediate help when tragedies happen is almost part of human nature.  It's almost out of a sense of guilt--as if we feel "sinful" to be living luxuriously while thousands upon thousands are suffering.  We throw out aid to buy a sense of peace of mind for ourselves.  Or even in the ideal situations where all the intentions are purely good, less-than-good results can result for the so-called third world countries.

Throwing aid at Haiti creates a relationship of dependency--arguably analogous to imperialism.  It makes the country perpetually weak and dependent on foreign help whenever there is trouble. 

How can one stand up and stay up on its own if not given the opportunity to?

Today, someone told me that I was un-chill.  It was one of those everyday comments that your friends casually make, but actually contains a lot of wisdom to it.  It was one of those random moments of enlightenment. 

He is right.  Although I claim that the ideal state of mind is one of perfect neutrality and nothingness (in common terms, possibly described as being 'chill'), I barely behave up to my ideals.  I can often be overwhelmed with frustration and get uptight about things.  I have always thought that the invention of the clock was one that brought about the demise of humanity's spirituality.  Instead of 'just chillin' as some may put it, we are constantly calibrated to the clock--needing to go to work at 8, attend a meeting at 12, spend time with friends at 5, etc.  Not just work, but free time/down time to socialize with friends, etc. has to be booked in advance.  In this 'post-modern' era, our agendas have become more and more filled, with barely any room left for spontaneity. 

Although a routine can help us organize ourselves and establish a regularity that lowers anxieties and stress, routines are also very easy to get caught up in.  Once we get caught up in a routinized life, what difference is it from living a life like a robot?  We become so task oriented that we are completely at a spiritual loss and the true sense of our human to human connectedness/community is cast aside.  We tend to get caught up and forget about what's truly more meaningful and important.

What is Society?  Society is a congregation of humans.  Humans are social creatures.  What do social creatures do?  Congregate and form groups.  Hence, when you put a group of eager and anxious 18 year-olds together, what do you get?—groups of students who are eager to call one another family and then the stranded wanders who don’t seem to belong.  Those who are most attempt at forming groups and becoming a part of society are those who are best at being superficial.  A “civilized” and “cultured” society is one that is built upon superficialities and buried insecurities. 

To form groups, people conform.  Conformity is the most desired quality of society, while particular “unique” characteristics are worshipped as saints.  This is like when the gay person is oftentimes automatically popular.  Others gravitate to these people because they make an appearance of freedom (having come out of the closet, etc.).  Freedom is something that we all secretly seek while under the pressures of conformity.  Gays are almost like beacons of light, they are protectors and pursuers of a freedom that many are afraid to attempt but secretly yearn for. 

When a group comes together, they consider members those who wish to participate.  Those who wish participate are usually average human beings who are social creatures and desire to be a part of a larger whole.  As social creatures, we largely identify ourselves by our group or classification—whether it be a nationality, religious belief, social standing, or some sort of membership in a group.  It is precisely this need to belong to something to identify with that, fraternities and sororities and the such, spring up on college campuses.  As a result of these insecurities, people conform to the established societal values to feel included.  Often, the concept of inclusion, comes with it, exclusion.  Forming group identity often includes designating outcasts and “out-groups” and to feel the sense of community and inclusion, members are often not hesitant to disown and renounce these outcasts.  It is all a façade.