Another twist in the apparent media bias treating the disasters of China compared to that of Myanmar is the current push to question the value of the 3 days of mourning called by the dictatorship for the losses of Cyclone Nargis. While it is true that it follows late, and is second to the 3 days called for the Sichuan earthquake, this amount of questioning was absent when the Chinese authorities made their announcement.

Official mourning in a way is a tool. It is something that in and of itself is neither good nor bad. It can be used to mark a before and an after, to hide under patriotic undertones critical voices, to rid the governments of actual responsibility, etc. But most importantly, it can offer a tool for mental healthcare, reconcile the pain of the losses, gather the strength for reconstruction, and for change. The effect of adequate public psychological procedures is often underestimated or totally overlooked. Adequate mourning is one of the many factors that can lessen the dissonance produced by disasters, including for instance the forgotten peak of violent crimes in the months following a relatively calm relief period.

Under the existing precedents it is highly unlikely that it will be used responsibly and in a meaningful manner in Myanmar. Now, why this critique is not extended to China is probably the essence of the question. The Chinese government even took the liberty to impose its interpretation of sorrow and public reconciliation in the whole population by censoring what it understood as all forms of public amusement, sealing websites, and censoring non-earthquake related news. In short: formally ordering people to mourn, which marks the extreme for what not to do in order to foster a positive process rather that an imposed and unquestioned burden.

Image by Zvi Kons