It won't be so vicarious if some new draconian limit on firearms is enacted at the federal level by those politicians who specialize in capitalizing on tragedy.
Posted on 04/20/2007 5:22:18 AM PDT by shrinkermd
...In modern America, there's always plenty of trauma to go around. Even if you knew no one involved in the shootings, have never been to Virginia and can't tell the difference between a Hokie and a Wahoo, there's no need for you to feel left out.
Did you feel sad when you heard the news? Did you ponder, however fleetingly, the mystery of mortality? If so, don't just go on with your ordinary life as if nothing has happened to disrupt it (even though nothing has happened to disrupt it). Honor your grief! Attend a candlelight vigil, post a poignant message on one of MySpace's Virginia Tech memorial pages and please, seek trauma counseling as soon as possible.
Convincing ourselves that we've been vicariously traumatized by the pain of strangers has become a cherished national pastime. Thus, the Washington Post this week accompanied online stories about the shooting with a clickable sidebar, "Where to Find Support" — apparently on the assumption that the mere experience of glancing at articles about the tragedy would be so emotionally devastating that readers would require trained therapists.
At the University of Buffalo, more than 500 miles from Virginia Tech, university counselors announced that they were "reaching out to students feeling affected by … the tragedy." In Dallas, area chaplains rushed (uninvited) to Blacksburg, Va., to "be part of the healing process."
Count me out. There's something fraudulent about this eagerness to latch onto the grief of others and embrace the idea that we, too, have been victimized. This trivializes the pain felt by those who have actually lost something and pathologizes normal reactions to tragedy. Empathy is good, but feeling shocked and saddened by the shootings doesn't make us traumatized or special — these feelings make us normal.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Yeah, that was weird. How can people deeply grieve for others that they didn't know personally? I've received multiple emails from people telling me to wear orange and maroon today and now they are talking about a national day of mourning. I feel terrible for these victims and I said a prayer for them but people die terrible deaths in this country every single day. Are their deaths any less tragic? My sense is that many just want to be part of this big tragedy.
It won't be so vicarious if some new draconian limit on firearms is enacted at the federal level by those politicians who specialize in capitalizing on tragedy.
“Count me out. There’s something fraudulent about this eagerness to latch onto the grief of others and embrace the idea that we, too, have been victimized”
This is so true.
People will quickly go back to their lives. Every now and then they will pause and reflect on the tragedy, but it won’t really change how they go about everyday business.
The parents of the dead don’t have this luxury.
Right now they are holding on for dear life and wondering how they’re going to make through the next hour.
They don’t want to consider a world without their child in it.
They don’t want to live their life without this beam of light on it.
There is no getting back to “normal” for them.
Eventually they will establish a new “normal” where they learn to function alongside their grief, but that process can take month, even years.
No...we are not all “Hokies”.
sheesh...make that “months”.
certainly it takes longer than a month
The Virginia Tech massacre was catastrophic for the victims and their loved ones, but, unlike war, it was not catastrophic for the nation. Yet President Bush — who refuses to attend the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq because that might "politicize" the war his administration started — ordered all federal flags at half-staff and rushed to Blacksburg to bemoan the "day of sadness for the entire nation." It's a good strategy.
From her bio:
Rosa Brooks is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times and a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. (She is currently on leave from Georgetown to serve as Special Counsel at the Open Society Institute in New York).
From 2001-2006, she was an associate professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. Before that, Brooks was a senior advisor at the US Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, a consultant for the Open Society Institute and Human Rights Watch, a fellow at the Carr Center at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, a board member of Amnesty International USA, and a lecturer at Yale Law School. She is a member of the Executive Council of the American Society of International Law and the Policy Committee of the National Security Network. Her government and NGO work has involved field research on issues ranging from transitional justice in Iraq, Indonesia and Kosovo to child soldiers in Uganda and Sierra Leone.
In addition to her popular writing, Brooks has written numerous scholarly articles on international law, failed states, post-conflict reconstruction and the rule of law, human rights, terrorism and the law of war. Her book, “Can Might Make Rights? The Rule of Law After Military Interventions” (with Jane Stromseth and David Wippman) was published in 2006 by Cambridge University Press.
Brooks received her A.B. from Harvard in 1991 (history and literature), followed by a master’s degree from Oxford in 1993 (social anthropology) and a law degree from Yale in 1996.
She is talking about the “therapeutic society”.
Personally, I’m sick of people turning every street corner where a relative was killed into some sort of miniature cemetery by leaving behind flowers, teddy bears, etc. This country has become a nation of wallowers in grief.
I ain't no damn Columbine, I've never been there. I ain't no Hokie either.
What I am is sick of this stupid-ass tinkly piano music that EVERY news outlet is using to show how emotional they all are, when you know behind the scenes they've been jumping for joy over this.
(/rant)
I believe this practice was imported from Latin America.
And, the problem is that we have become a society which values symbolism over substance. Many will freely participate in the wearing of the colors and yet give no thought to the underlying issues and problems associated with this event.
FReepers, yet AGAIN, will be debating the ideas, the issues, the conundrums exemplified by the events while the media and the bulk of the sheeple will wearing colors and move along. At all times it is a good thing, indeed, to be a FReeper.
http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=22765
Just terrible, a friend of ours told us about it the other day. Prayers and condolences...
You see this all over the highways and it is very distracting. People are driving 65+ mph and then slow down to look over at these white crosses, flowers, etc. I think it should be illegal.
No, just less sensational, and hence less newsworthy.
My sense is that many just want to be part of this big tragedy.
Those people are known as 'drama queens'.
***ANY tragedy creates a rush for people to be part of it... they have to go buy flowers for..um... some people over there.. so they can feel thay have ‘done something’****
Much like a certain strip club owner in Dallas who greived so much he closed his place and shot Lee Harvey Oswald.
For the rest of us..”You better learn to live with it!”
all these “vigils” (not just for VT) are worthless. Libs are great at them... crawl out, show “support”, crawl back.
______________
Don’t more than a handful of freepers maintain an ongoing vigil of support for the troops, in Olney MD. The News/Activism sidebar shows a handful of them. I don’t recall you posting your thoughts on any of those threads.
I think it would be better if we simply recognized that there is a difference between showing support and “becoming one with the victims”.
Just a thought.
It probably would not have been published by the LA Times unless it had some derogatory reference to Bush.
In fact, it would not surprise me at all if that little jab wasn't added by the editors after submission.
Yes, I saw the same thing, but I agree one can read this article and see her point. After all, we are arguing positions, policies and events—not people— when we assess what she wrote.
“In fact, it would not surprise me at all if that little jab wasn’t added by the editors after submission.”
Yeah, it didn’t really seem to fit in. It kinda just came out of nowhere and ruined an otherwise good article, which is something I would expect from the libtards at the LA Times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.