We are in Bolivia… they are in Christchurch after the quake: Wednesday 08 September

After I got over my irritation surrounding (a) The Heralds over-reporting on the earthquake (what do sales figures do after a national disaster?) (b) John Keys demagogic rhetoric about staying in New Zealand instead of going to Europe (why was this even a question) (c) the Save National Radio Facebook groups sanctimonious comment that it is “times like this that people realize what a national treasure this service is and that it must be protected from the tinkering ideologues” (and I love the National Radio) and (d) somnolent articles that assert that “researchers” have figured out that the timing of the earthquake and the level of poverty in Haiti led it to be a much “deadlier” earthquake (thanks for the insight The Researchers) I finally got to wondering about this whole deal.

OK, on that last one I am still irked. A more bald fact could not be present in this situation. I do not see why I should have to accept such shallow reportage on something so serious.

In Bolivia both Sarah and I have been surprised about how many people have asked us about the quake and, of course, if any of our family has been affected. A fair question to ask. Our reaction: on the one hand we both have an unearned sense of pride that someone is asking about our own country and on the other we are unable to fully appreciate the reality of the disaster and therefore give a solid answer with a fitting tone. What is unique about this situation is our distance; figuratively and literally. While Sarah has family in Christchurch we know that they are OK so there is only a moderate level of concern for their wellbeing.

In actuality this event reminds me that we are disconnected. Sarah and I are not part of the day-to-day national discourse about the recovery effort or the sharing of stories of family and friends whose lives have been forever changed by this. We did not grow up or spend “special times” in that part of the world to link us to the place. Consequently, when someone asks us about the quake we are only able to give dry answers with little feeling or context. We are part of the periphery on this one with the rest of the world.

Being on the periphery has been interesting (in no way do I say “interesting” to trivialize the suffering of real people in Canterbury). People are checking the papers from their home towns or cities and reporting back to us what they have read about New Zealand and we in turn are doing the same. Our discourse about the quake relates to that of what other foreigners ask and know. The only advantage we have is that we can also refer to Facebook ‘status updates’ to get an edge on what people are experiencing.

It is this last point that genuinely pleases me. Facebook gets a lot of (warranted) flack. On this occasion I have welcomed seeing status updates from the whole gamut. Like the girl I worked with five years ago who is having a cupcake sale to raise money. Or hearing from people who live in Christchurch casually refer to aftershocks without the heavy-handed emotional style that I would have endured on the six o’clock news. The media is never going to be democratic or egalitarian but at least these days we don’t have to only listen to the Herald for a view on what is happening on the ground level.