So sure, Virginia Tech is a tragedy, no doubt about it . . . I want that kind of thing to stay as far away from me and my family as is possible. But our reaction to it, in the media in particular, demonstrates the inequity of our concerns for human life. Christianity is supposed to be a global concern for the entire human race.This comment comes on the heels of a note concerning the proliferation of violent acts throughout the world on (nearly) a daily basis. The point (or, problem) noted is that such concern in the media for such things is only propagated when it effects us in this country.[1] From a secular source, this (selfish) one-sided perspective is understandable. From a Christian perspective, however, such a perspective is not excusable.
This morning, right before I started writing this blog, I was sitting my office at home finding what I could on the "new planet" that is possible habitable--though it is several trillion miles away. My wife, while preparing for the day, listens to the news on the TV in our bedroom. My ADD allows me to do things such as research this new planet stuff and listen to the the news at the same time. (It can be a blessing and a curse).
During one of the commercial breaks, there was a gentleman who came on to offer his condolences for the families who lost loved ones in the VT tragedy. That was not so much of a problem for me. What was a problem was a particular statement made right near the end of his little speech. He said (roughly):
It's hard to believe that such senseless acts of violence could happen in such a civilized nation.[2]The underlying implication of this statement is deeply troubling. The implication is that violent acts are only deemed "senseless" when they occur in "civilized" nations, which produces the secondary implication that such acts are not "senseless" when they occur in "uncivilized" nations. In other words, violent acts emotionally trouble those who are members of an advanced, educated, civilized society. What this does is allow those who say such things to turn their heads from the tragedies that occur (daily) in cultures that are not advanced, educated, and/or civilized.
If we are going to offer condolences to tragedies that effect us in our immediate context, we cannot offer such things in a way that belittles the emotionally devastating effects of violent acts in other contexts--even if they seem to be uncivilized. Human life is human life regardless of where it can be found. When that life is violently taken, it affects everyone who was connected with that life; and it does matter if that life is taken in VT or a tribe in middle Africa. The pain runs just as deep in all cultures.
___________________________________________
[1] A possible exception to this would be the media's attention on bombings in the Middle East; yet, a case could be made that such announcements are given because they affect our troops, which is to say it affects us in this country. But the question must be asked: how many such acts of violence existed prior to this war; and why were such acts not explicitly noted then? (. . .oh, it's because it only affect them and not us).
[2] I believe this was the exact wording; I tried to write it down the moment I heard it, which ultimately prompted this blog.
2 comments:
Good post Carl - I agree that we should be just as horrified about the enormous death toll in Iraq (and NOT just to our own troops) and the more than 300,000 dead in Darfur as we are by what happened at Virginia Tech. Sometimes our perspective in America is awfully small - we're often not good global citizens, and our attitudes can communicate that non-American lives (and at the least, non-western lives) are cheap, and that is to our shame.
I wonder, though, if you're being just a little unfair to the gentleman on TV. Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with his statement, and I do agree that it contributes to exactly what you are arguing against in this post. However, I would offer a third interpretation of his statement: not that violence in "non-civilized" countries (whatever that means) is not senseless; instead, I took it to mean that such senseless acts of violence are expected more in those contexts. Perhaps there is truth in this statement, if that's what he was getting at - regardless, I do agree that his statement implies that it is more problematic when it occurs in a "civilized" society (again, how do we define that term). While it may shock us more when it occurs here, I would submit that it is because it is closer to us, and not because we are in some way more civilized. And your point is well-taken - violence is just as shocking and damaging in other cultures to the people who experience it. And no matter what, we should abhor such violence, pray for those whose lives are affected by it, and work in whatever way we can to keep it from happening.
Jake,
Thanks for your comment. As I mentioned to you earlier, I had a feeling you would raise the concern you did. :-)
My focus was simply on the implications of his comment. I agree with you that there is another possible interpretation--most likely the one you suggested--and it is one that I certainly considered when I posted.
The problem remains, however, that his implied logic of: "that kind of thing is expected in less civilized areas" still seems to belittle the situation. It still suggests that, because it is "expected", their tragedy is not as tragic as ours--even though ours is comparatively (dare I say) "smaller". That, to me, was the overal implication of his comment; and that is what bothered me.
Again, thanks for your comment. I do truly value your opinion.
Post a Comment