The topless parade. Pride or Shame?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I don't really grasp Cassius's point to be honest. Humanity is a sentimental beast, and almost all social reformers throughout history have used the image of the poor dead, destitute or dying child as a symbol for their cause - the Victorian middle-classes of course being a prime example for almost sickly depictions of the innocent child being destroyed by the wickedness of social ills (Dickens being the master of course). We don't like children dying or losing their innocence; and the idea of a photo of a drowned child not plucking our heartstrings seems baffling. After all, the public opinion before the photo was decidedly negative towards the refugees; so people almost want to atone for their own failings. (Just like Victorian philanprophists fell over themselves to "give back to society" once they were sufficiently shamed by Tiny Tim being a mawkish fool). A dead child can only represent a victim, and we are emphatic enough to link the face of the dead boy with the own children we have in our families. Is such a reaction a bad thing? Maybe it's hypocritical (and a bit bandwagonish) but I find it comforting, that even in these uncertain times people still have not lost that emphatic touch. Maybe when we are all automatons we will be able to freely gaze on the death of children and think "well that's sad and all, but part of the real world". But we aren't at that point in society yet, and (apologies to disagree with Cassius) I will be very sad when that day comes.