- Joined
- Dec 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,897
- Reaction score
- 3,905
I want to preface this by saying that the situation in the Ukraine is tragic, and civilians looking to leave the country should be welcomed by others who have the capacity to take them in.
With that being said, the Ukrainian crisis has highlighted the disparate response by the western world in how it perceives and treats refugees. Some people have been very blunt in their assessment of the situation
"These are not refugees from Syria, these are from Ukraine, they are Christians, they are white, they look very similar to us."
“It’s really emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blonde hair being killed…”
There are dozens of examples of this, but you get my point - the humanitarian response to the Ukrainian crisis has been overwhelming, with millions of dollars being donated to help provide aide, countries opening their borders to welcome displaced people. Canada is even offering immediate work permits and access to social services, while some of our universities are eliminating tuition for foreign students from the Ukraine.
I am not principally opposed to any of these things - I think that when you have the ability to help, you should help. I am more interested in hearing your thoughts as to why there is a double standard - the notion of a "good refugee" and a "bad refugee". Is it something as simple as race, or are their dimensions of the Ukrainian conflict that make the world more sympathetic to their displacement?
Personally, I think there are three primary drivers:
1) The most obvious one being race and to a lesser degree, religion. Given that Ukrainian's "look like us" and their culture and values are seemingly more compatible and relatable to the average Westerner.
2) Ukraine enjoyed a (relative) degree of affluence and development relative to other countries prone to conflict, and their displacement is seen as something that nobody would have expected. If it could happen there, it could happen here.
3) There are broader global implications associated with the conflict and Russia being seen as a growing aggressor. As a result, we want to support Ukraine and its people, in a demonstration to show countries like Russia and China that the world will not tolerate bullies.
I do however find it somewhat perverse that we are able to generate hundreds of millions of dollars to support Ukraine and it's people, but the world balks at providing meaningful aid to war torn countries where children are literally starving to death. When Syrian refugees were fleeing the Putin backed Assad regime, they were turned away at gun point or faced razor wire fences. There are numerous stories of families who walked hundreds of kilometers to flee gang violence in Central America, only to be turned away by American border agents.
This is a topic that hits closer to home, as I once worked on a project in Yemen (Kharaz refugee camp) and witnessed saw what the ravages of civil war could do to displaced people.
If we have room for one, but not the other, what should the guiding criteria be? What makes a good refugee, and why do we have sympathy for some, but not all?
For the record, this isn't some sort of race baiting topic, I am genuinely curious - every country should have the right decide who they let in, using whatever criteria they want.
With that being said, the Ukrainian crisis has highlighted the disparate response by the western world in how it perceives and treats refugees. Some people have been very blunt in their assessment of the situation
"These are not refugees from Syria, these are from Ukraine, they are Christians, they are white, they look very similar to us."
“It’s really emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blonde hair being killed…”
There are dozens of examples of this, but you get my point - the humanitarian response to the Ukrainian crisis has been overwhelming, with millions of dollars being donated to help provide aide, countries opening their borders to welcome displaced people. Canada is even offering immediate work permits and access to social services, while some of our universities are eliminating tuition for foreign students from the Ukraine.
I am not principally opposed to any of these things - I think that when you have the ability to help, you should help. I am more interested in hearing your thoughts as to why there is a double standard - the notion of a "good refugee" and a "bad refugee". Is it something as simple as race, or are their dimensions of the Ukrainian conflict that make the world more sympathetic to their displacement?
Personally, I think there are three primary drivers:
1) The most obvious one being race and to a lesser degree, religion. Given that Ukrainian's "look like us" and their culture and values are seemingly more compatible and relatable to the average Westerner.
2) Ukraine enjoyed a (relative) degree of affluence and development relative to other countries prone to conflict, and their displacement is seen as something that nobody would have expected. If it could happen there, it could happen here.
3) There are broader global implications associated with the conflict and Russia being seen as a growing aggressor. As a result, we want to support Ukraine and its people, in a demonstration to show countries like Russia and China that the world will not tolerate bullies.
I do however find it somewhat perverse that we are able to generate hundreds of millions of dollars to support Ukraine and it's people, but the world balks at providing meaningful aid to war torn countries where children are literally starving to death. When Syrian refugees were fleeing the Putin backed Assad regime, they were turned away at gun point or faced razor wire fences. There are numerous stories of families who walked hundreds of kilometers to flee gang violence in Central America, only to be turned away by American border agents.
This is a topic that hits closer to home, as I once worked on a project in Yemen (Kharaz refugee camp) and witnessed saw what the ravages of civil war could do to displaced people.
If we have room for one, but not the other, what should the guiding criteria be? What makes a good refugee, and why do we have sympathy for some, but not all?
For the record, this isn't some sort of race baiting topic, I am genuinely curious - every country should have the right decide who they let in, using whatever criteria they want.
