Newtown kids v. Yemenis and Pakistanis: what explains the disparate reactions?
Numerous commentators have rightly lamented the difference in how these childrens’ deaths are perceived. What explains it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/19/newtown-drones-children-deaths
I commented earlier a bit on the Newtown tragedy where I attempted to emphasize that the real problem had nothing to do with guns and everything to do with our crappy ‘your on your own’ government. Well, the above article takes a completely different tact and looks at the wildly asymmetric reaction of Americans to the Newtown tragedy and compares and contrasts it with the yawning indifference to the ongoing tragedies that the US commits regularly in Muslim countries. It should be required reading for every citizen; I doubt, though, it will make any sort of impact. Ignorance is bliss and our government and our subservient media apparatus work to keep the populous (sheeple) in bliss.
Them terrorists really hate us for our freedom!
I don’t think it’s a simple matter. Our degree of involvement with a tragedy obviously determines our perceived magnitude of that tragedy. Frankly, the death of my son was far more tragic to me than the deaths of the babies in Newtown. They are, in turn, more tragic than the deaths of non-combatants due to drone strikes, which, in turn, are more tragic (to me) than the non-combatant deaths due to the atomic strikes on Japan.
There are factors such as nationalism, perceived value to society, and degree. I don’t remember any furore over the deaths of 14 illegal immigrants in a Texas vehicle accident (some of whom were children). Relative numbers, regardless of absolute magnitude, may determine whether or not something is a tragedy or merely a statistic.
Whether something is the result of the actions of a madman or a military leader or a careless driver or an act of God will also play a part in the perceived magnitude of the tragedy.
Further, the media aren’t the only ones determining the newsworthiness of an event. The rest of the populace buys into it and fans the flames. Otherwise, “if it bleeds it leads” wouldn’t be an effective policy.
I do agree that people giving a damn is always relative. The reason why kidnapped little blond haired, blue-eyed girls get so much press when the little black girls (or any boy) get almost none. In my mind, though, it reflects very poorly on our society and makes it look very hypocritical, so I like to point it out. Not that my efforts will have any more impact than the author’s.
I don’t think my points are hypocritical. Maybe that’s because I have an “adopted” granddaughter who is black. Maybe not. You’ll notice that my opinions had nothing to do with specific races or cultures, per se. They had to do with distance, numbers, and nationalism (which could be interpreted as cultural from the viewpoint of any specific culture).
The thing that makes the Newtown massacre horrible, to me, is that it was accomplished by a madman. There was no gain involved, however evil such a gain might have been. If the fellow craved notoriety, he gained it, but (from my point of view) didn’t live to profit by it or get to sit around for 10 years and say, heh, I’m famous, at last.
I am not a gun-control proponent (even though I currently own no firearms). Nevertheless, I do realize the guy managed to kill more people, in a shorter period of time, than he could have killed with a rock or a knife. I actually plan to move to a different area in the next couple of years and would like to acquire three firearms of distinctive varieties.
I don’t want this situation to result in a prohibition of my doing so. At the same time, I can’t perceive of a need to have a 30-round magazine. If you’re going to need 30 rounds you’re going to need 30,000 rounds. Even that won’t be enough in the long run.
But it’s stupid to ban “assault rifles.” That’s because the definition of “assault rifle” is incorrect. The definition of “assault rifle” in the minds of most uninformed people is “something that looks like an AR-15.” Hell, there are BB guns that look like that. I don’t know why it’s a popular look. Video games maybe. Personally, I’d rather have a semi, or even a bolt-action repeater, with a beautiful stock, a smooth action, and an ability to put meat on the table. I’m old; I guess that’s just me. If I had to take on an army, it wouldn’t matter what I had. I would survive (if at all) by wits, not weapons.
I wasn’t meaning it as a personal attack, sorry if it seemed that way. I am a misanthropist and figure there are already too damn many people and most of them are uselessly taking up space anyway. I don’t spend time thinking about taking them out, though, so simple detestation of the species isn’t enough to make someone want to off a bunch of kids. My objection is to the ‘high and mighty’ sheeple who, without making the tiniest bit of effort to investigate, remain convinced that the US is some benevolent government that does no harm to anyone, anywhere. Governments, naturally, lie about the evil things they do (as do most people), so I totally understand ours minimizing knowledge of its attacks on civilians (including some US citizens). The media, like you say, is in the business of making money by capturing eyeballs and is no more interested in ‘truth’ (whatever that is) than our government. My complaint is really that cows are being cows and I keep wishing they would stop being so and start being something else.
Even though the author of the post has a vastly wider audience than I do (I believe I average a whopping 10 visitors a day, I am sure Glen gets thousands, at least) I am quite certain his complaint boils down to ‘cows being cows’, same as me. Both of us are wrong to waste the effort, cows are just doing what they do best, we should let them be.