sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2007-04-17 02:44 pm
sophiaserpentia) wrote2007-04-17 02:44 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
Yesterday, a gunman at the campus of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, identified by the police as student Cho Seung-Hui, shot 32 people dead and injured many others before killing himself.
I've seen this described in numerous places as a "tragedy." I do not personally believe that "tragedy" is an appropriate word to describe this. Nor would i approve of "calamity," "catastrophe," or "disaster."
Atrocity, yes. Monstrous, cruel, heinous, vicious, villainous, ruthless, brutal, bloodthirsty, yes.
But my objection to words like "tragedy" is that this serves to bury the fact that this was an intentional act, an act of deliberate and malicious harm of one human being against others. Words like "tragedy", "calamity," "catastrophe" and "disaster" all imply the workings of fate, or accident, or the gods, or evil stars, or some other great external overwhelming force -- not a human being. They imply that what we need is catharsis and closure, not examination and scrutiny. In fact i'm already seeing hostility towards those who might ask why this happened, as if it is not our place to wonder.
I think what causes this reaction is that events like this traumatize us, and our first instinct as survivors is to appease, to not stir trouble.
Violence is not caused by a great external overwhelming force, not even violence on an unimaginable scale. It is caused by something that we (most of us) have the power and will to overcome. Examining violence with the goal of understanding it and lessening it will not bring on the wrath of the gods; it is something we must do. And there is no better time than the present, because there is violence right now, everywhere, in your community, in mine.
This isn't to pick on anyone in particular, FWIW. It's the media that sets the tone for things like this, and they are plastering the word "tragedy" all over the place.
I've seen this described in numerous places as a "tragedy." I do not personally believe that "tragedy" is an appropriate word to describe this. Nor would i approve of "calamity," "catastrophe," or "disaster."
Atrocity, yes. Monstrous, cruel, heinous, vicious, villainous, ruthless, brutal, bloodthirsty, yes.
But my objection to words like "tragedy" is that this serves to bury the fact that this was an intentional act, an act of deliberate and malicious harm of one human being against others. Words like "tragedy", "calamity," "catastrophe" and "disaster" all imply the workings of fate, or accident, or the gods, or evil stars, or some other great external overwhelming force -- not a human being. They imply that what we need is catharsis and closure, not examination and scrutiny. In fact i'm already seeing hostility towards those who might ask why this happened, as if it is not our place to wonder.
I think what causes this reaction is that events like this traumatize us, and our first instinct as survivors is to appease, to not stir trouble.
Violence is not caused by a great external overwhelming force, not even violence on an unimaginable scale. It is caused by something that we (most of us) have the power and will to overcome. Examining violence with the goal of understanding it and lessening it will not bring on the wrath of the gods; it is something we must do. And there is no better time than the present, because there is violence right now, everywhere, in your community, in mine.
This isn't to pick on anyone in particular, FWIW. It's the media that sets the tone for things like this, and they are plastering the word "tragedy" all over the place.
no subject
I think that's entirely accurate.
no subject
no subject
Context did make a difference, though. For instance, on this morning's Today Show, Meredith Viera used the word "tragedy" when she spoke to friends and classmates of those who died. But when she reported on the shootings, she used "murder" "horror", "vicious", "brutal", "mass-killing" and "senseless". She called the dead what they were -- victims, and made it quite clear that they were innocents who had been murdered, not abstractions. I haven't ever really thought of her as a particularly "deep" journalist, (and it's not as if "Today" is particularly hard-hitting,) but she earned my respect and admiration this morning.
By contrast, many of the talking heads on MSNBC and FoxNews made it sound as if this were an act of G-d.