Solidarity? Really?
Right, so . . . Virginia Tech.
I’m reluctant to write anything about this story at all, lest I fan the flames of disasterbation* fueled by the 24-hour news networks and their constant rehashing of what was he thinking and oh what a tragedy and if only we had no guns if only we all had guns watch the victims mourn let’s interview them all about their mourning and do they miss their friends and weren’t they great people and no one ever thought this could happen here and let’s look at those photos of him with the guns again and here’s his third grade teacher and yes I think the murderer totally deserves to be famous so let’s play this video he made and they say he was a loner and do you know any loners and how do we deal with mentally ill people and could we have stopped it can we stop it again how would we know remember columbine it’s a horrible tragedy all those innocent lives DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR CHILDREN ARE?
For some reason this is now a national phenomenon. I can understand a mass-murder being national news, I guess, but do we need to stand in solidarity *as a nation*? Do we need to hold candlelight vigils and wear certain colors in remembrance of people we didn’t know?
Certainly if individuals want to do these things, that’s fine by me. If groups of like-minded people want to get together and pray or wear ribbons, I have no problem with that. I haven’t been pressured to do any of these things, and so far I don’t feel that anyone would judge me or look down on me for not participating, so I’m not shaking my fist at anyone. I just don’t understand.
Yes, people died. Innocent people, for no good reason. That’s sad. Tragic, even. But innocent people die for no good reason all the time, all around the world. How many people were senselessly murdered today in Iraq? In Darfur? Elsewhere in the US? If we devoted the same time and energy to all the murders in the world, we’d be in constant mourning.
What’s the difference? Is it because they’re American? Because they’re young? Those students’ deaths sadden me because *any* death saddens me. No man is an island, yada yada. But I don’t feel any more connected to a random Virginia Tech student than I do to a random Iraqi or a random victim of domestic abuse.
Most justifications of “solidarity” I’ve seen so far have been about showing the victims’ friends and families that we support them, to help them through their grief. That’s admirable, and I’m sure they need support, as all grieving people do, but why them? Why now? Many many people need support in their grief—that’s what friends are for.
I think I’m most frustrated by the news media’s pounding the tragedy into our eyes and ears everywhere we turn. If I had a TV, I’m sure I’d have thrown a brick through it by now.
What finally prompted me to write this post (though I don’t yet know if I’ll publish it) was this headline blurb on CNN.com:
From the horror and heroism of Monday’s campus massacre, stories emerge of 32 extraordinary lives ended on a spring day at Virginia Tech. In this special report, families, friends, colleagues and classmates share poignant memories of the victims of the deadliest shooting in U.S. history. The people these stories speak of were characterized by great promise and outstanding achievement.
Extraordinary? I thought the frightening thing about all this was the very ordinariness of the victims. They’re not strangers in a far-off land, or terminally-ill patients, or gang members—that could’ve been you, or your son, or your sister, or your friend. Did the killer pick out students and faculty of exceptional promise and achievement?
I don’t mean to poke fun at the victims or speak ill of the dead. It is right and good and appropriate to celebrate their lives . . . at their memorial services, on webpages dedicated to them, in Facebook groups, in local papers, among their family and friends. I find *national* mourning somewhat inappropriate and confusing. Should it really be national headline news that So-and-So, who died Monday, liked to play the flute and eat Doritos and was always friendly and generous?
On a related note, if on Monday a tornado had blown through Virginia Tech and killed the same 32 people, would we still be hearing about it on every newscast? Would there be candlelight vigils around the nation? Would the victims’ faces and stories be splashed across the front pages? If a mentally-ill person has reached the end of his rope (no pun intended) and decided to take his own life, he can shoot himself alone in his room . . . or he can mow down his classmates and go out in a blaze of infamy, ensured that his name, picture, life story, and video manifesto will saturate the airwaves. Why encourage the latter?
I’m sorry if this post offends anyone; that was not my intention. Feel free to flame away. Perhaps cynicism is inappropriate at “a time like this.” I’ve only talked to a couple of people about the killings, so I’m not sure if most people feel the way I do, or if everyone really does feel a national solidarity with Virginia Tech. Am I attacking a straw man? Do people really feel the solidarity and national togetherness the news keeps telling us we feel? Obviously I’m skeptical, but maybe you do feel that way, and maybe I’m a cold-hearted robot.
Tomorrow the entire nation is supposed to wear maroon and orange, I’ve heard. I haven’t yet decided if I will. I don’t want to be openly defiant—I’m not angry at anyone—but I don’t see the point. It would feel fake. But then again, I’m a sheep. Baaaaaa. And I *do* have a penchant for dressing up under exacting restrictions**.
———
* I’ve seen this term recently, but I forget where. Upon Googling, I find that it has two more common meanings, both unrelated to the public’s obsession with watching/hearing/discussing tragedies relentlessly for weeks on end. I still like the word, though I’m not sure if its better spelled with an ‘e’ or a ‘u’.
** I’ve missed Go Texan Day twice in a row now. This makes me sad. The one day a year when my boots aren’t just an affectation, and I’ve blown it. Boo.
Tags: miscellany
April 20th, 2007 at 6:38 am
The headline on GMA right this second is: Should Media Stop Covering VT?
April 20th, 2007 at 7:44 am
NPR ran a similar story yesterday afternoon on All Things Considered, between stories about the killer and the mourners.
Maybe someday the news media will just make all their own stories and then report on themselves, to each other.
April 20th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I have not really spent a lot of time thinking about this, but in general I agree with what you are saying. Why don’t we pay more attention to the people who are dying all over the world for reasons that are preventable (illness, hunger) or probably should not be happening (war)? Why do we make a spectacle out of disaster and make a celebrity out of killers?
April 21st, 2007 at 9:29 am
I have seen it on the news as well . What is disturbing me most is that they don’t think about the fact why this guy did it and that it is a matter of a changing society, growing individualism , failing social system and growing differences between rich and poor.
We had a school shooting here as well and we have a very restrictive gunlaw. The thing is that the society and social system in the usa is creating too much people who have nothing to loose.
I mean my thoughts go of course to the victims
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:49 am
I agree with the post, but I think of it as a special case of the “Franco is still dead†phenomenon. When Spanish dictator Francisco Franco died, the story remained in the headlines for several days with various pieces about Franco’s life and the implications of his death. SNL (at the time the L was still in parentheses, I think, and “Saturday Night Live†was a different show – a variety show with Howard Cosell) parodied the general tendency by running “Franco is still dead†as the lead story on Weekend Update several weeks in a row. The VT story is particularly newsworthy because it’s an unusual event (whereas another massacre in Iraq or Darfur is barely worth mentioning). When the press gets their hands on a story that works for them like that, they won’t let go of it until they’ve squeezed out every last ounce of…whatever it is that one squeezes out of a news story.
(Oops, since you’re a grammar Nazi, you’re going to object to the fact that the singular press becomes plural in the rest of the sentence. But it doesn’t sound right if I use the neuter singular pronoun. Consider “the press gets†to be shorthand for “the ladies and gentlemen of the press get,†which sounds even more awkward.)
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:05 pm
KUDOS to anyone who knows the grammar Nazi so well (a grammar Nazalie for those who like puns)!!!!!! and can explain their own grammar oddities. . .as another grammar fiend, I would like to add that group nouns often take a singular verb in English, so for your sentence replace “the press” with “the team” or “the committee” and you’d instinctively use the same verb form. . .
I think that grammar discussion helped to clear up my cold!!!
BTW I really appreciate that WordPress checks my spelling
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:22 pm
While pondering the question of what one might squeeze out of a news story, my mind of course leapt to “disasterbation” and the associated possibilities, but as this is a family website (i.e., my parents read it), I will refrain from alluding to such tasteless . . . oops.
I dislike group nouns for that very reason and avoid them whenever possible. (Note the careful use of “24-hour news networks” and “news media,” both grammatically as well as sensibly plural, though
neitheronly one of the latter’s sentences disambiguates its number.) Is it really acceptable (prescriptively) to use group nouns with singular verbs and pronouns? Is it preferred, even?“Grammar Nazalie”? That calls for some massively awkward pronunciation. Even those who LIKE puns just smacked their own foreheads, I bet. =P