Dignity

I thought away from the main London thread, I should air my views, because I hope to stop people from getting caught up in something a little unpleasant.

When princess Diana died in the UK the whole nation was caught up in a huge pantomime of grief showing. There was mountains of flowers. There were tears from everyone. But most people, the vast majority, didn't know her at all. Still if you criticized the hysterical crying, you were 'heartless'.

However the major newspapers of the nation did themselves revisit that day, some three or so years later, and actually ask, why did the nation respond to the death in such a way? It seems that humans are, for a large part, followers. If you tell them they should act a certain way, they do. If you tell them they should feel a certain way, they do.

It began to transpire people had almost fed off the death of Diana like vultures, using it as an excuse for drama and over emphasised crying, weeping, gnashing of teeth, public shows of overwhelming sadness.

I think that's a bit sick really, a kind of cry for attention, feeding off one unfortunate event to get attention. Like a vulture eating a carcass.

I feel distinctly uncomfortable that I'm getting the same vibe off one or two people on these forums. I literally mean one or two, I'm not getting that vibe of any more than two people at most, I just don't name names.

I just want to say, if you don't know the name, or gender, or age of the 49 people who died in London, really, how can you be THAT distressed about it. It IS a bad thing that some bombs went off in London, but I appeal to your sense of rationale. There are people that were in the next carriage when the bombs blew that today (Friday 08th July) have picked themselves up and gone back to work.

Do we really need to chew over and over this event and do body counts and gory detail updates, and say how we are so upset about the dead? It's like Ulrika said in another post, why are we not many times more saddened by the deaths of people in Iraq? Thousands have died there compared to the mere 49 in London.

If your brother or mother or father died I'd accept your need to grieve. But feeding off the carcasses of those people in London to feed your own kind of attention circus is kind of sick, and it makes me quite angry which is why I did this post.

Give the dead their dignity. Shut up, leave them in peace, move on. Shut up about needing to grieve. Grieve for who? Give me one name, one gender, one age. This is not about grieving those people who do the body counts and updates, this is about getting attention.

Now let me be clear: Those people who said "I'm sorry to hear people died in London" or words to that effect, I have no problem with that. That's just kind. Those people who insist on chewing over and over the events of the day, and doing body counts, and insisting they are grieving for those they never knew anything about, that's what I don't like.

I don't want people picking over the corpses. I want the corpses buried, and I want everyone to clear out and leave just the families to weep over their families graves. Messages of general condolence are fine but please no fake grieving and body counts.

You're right, it is kind of difficult to voice an opinion like that, especially at times such as these. You're also right over Princess Diana - that reached a level that shocked me and made me feel uncomfortable. As you say Britain had a period of introspection over that, analysing the mass grief, the outpouring of emotion, and mulling over why it happened.

A possible reason only really occured to me today, as I was talking to somebody about the events in London. News is instant and vast in its quantity, detail, visuals and analysis these days, and it seems to be increasingly so. We have major events such as 9/11, Beslan, the tsunami, rail disasters, terrorism, bombs, plane crashes, and a multitude of other large and small scale events with one overriding theme - death. Every single day we are bombarded with pictures, words and sounds showing, or analysing, the death of individuals or multitudes. Much of the media sensationalises, much of the media fixates on body counts and just "how" injured the others are. It is nigh-on inescapable. In addition the news is becoming much more personal, and hence more real. We saw live images on 9/11 I don't think any of us thought we ever would. We saw pictures and videos taken by people just like you and me of the tsunami. And yesterday, in many places there were in-depth, and numerous, eye-witness accounts, camera phone pictures etc. available. It makes the impact much more, as it personalises. And that is only going to increase in volume, and because it hits home hard, the media will increasingly use it. Emergency services personnel receive training before and counselling after the traumatic things they see, because of the impact that can have on them. How do you think seeing some of these graphic things affects the rest of the population, as we see increasingly detailed coverage?

With that in mind is it any wonder that people sometimes have a seemingly disproportionate outpouring of grief, upset or anger over a major event. Don't treat one event as a single however, treat it as the straw that breaks the camel's back after weeks of hearing about a steady stream of death and destruction. It's the safety valve - eventually a point is reached and, for some, it becomes too much and the steam is released. It builds up and something major releases it.

To be honest, although I don't like to show too much emotion in public over events such as yesterday's, I know that inside me these things compound. I try to keep it in proportion but I find it difficult not to get upset because of the constant media barage. I don't feel the upset for attention, I don't feel the upset because I need or want to grieve. I don't feel that upset over body counts. I feel that upset because of empathy. I feel that upset because the news, which is all around us, personalises events more than ever before and hightens the experience and, for me at least, heightens my empathy through that.

I cried watching images of people jumping out of buildings on 9/11. I cried watching people who'd lost generations of their family because of the tsunami. I cried because of what happened to the children at Beslan. I shed a tear last night as well.

I don't enjoy grief. I don't feel a constant need to grieve. But there are times when I feel such anger and sadness over the experiences of others that I cannot fail but be upset by that. That's not me feeding on the death. That's me having compassion. And that comes from having such vivid imagery and descriptions of the suffering there in front of me, from where ever in the world it may be. It cares not one jot that I don't know their names. It only matters that they're human.

Anyway, that's my opinion on why I think it happens. I guess only part of that response was in relation to your initial question, so sorry if I went off on a tangent.

I agree for the most part. My Aunt who by the way is in Chicago IL USA born and raised, cryed for a day over her death. Before she died my Aunt had little Diana dolls and what not. I even asked why, we fought a war so we didn’t have to look up at royal asses. In the end she lost some one in her life, was it some one like me who talks to her? No, but still some one she looked up to, some one that is a way was a guide for her, a poor one in my book but that is her thing. This has nothing to do with 7/7.


Do you know for a fack that the two people just want you to be all nice and want to be what I call a psychic vampire?



Yes some have, BBC News (I have had it on all day) has said about 1/16th of the people have been coming in to the City as normal. Some people have started to work at home, but yet they are working and moving on with there life like they should. The fact is every one deals differently. Some may right now be home crying and we don’t know about them. Some may just be drunk and going to stay drunk till they get help one day. What happened on 7/7 was something that should shock us all. We all can relate to the fact that we take trains or busses or our friends and family do. This is something all us are likely to have happen to us. Part of what they are grieving is not the death of the 49 (+ the ones they have not gotten too) people but for the death of there safety. Did they really have the safty? No but they thought they did. 9/11 told the US we were not safe……..if we were in a big City at a big main building. 7/7 told us you are not safe any place. If something should be mourned is that.


Why chew over and over? Why the count? Because for some it is a way to deal with shock. Not Shock of death but shock of realization they are no longer safe. Like I said in Ulrika post it’s not about How many died, it’s were and how. Iraq is nothing to people in the US just one place in the desert in a war, war being a place for death. The UK is not a place of war. We take trains. We take Busses. What if that was here? Could it happen here? Could that be me?


Yet your post to tell them how bad is not feeding your ego? (I know posting back to you is the same and I accept that). Your idea of what should or should not be grieved your idea of how to do so is YOUR WAY not every ones. Your attack is really down right rude. It would be one thing in a week or two but a day or two, come one.


Whant a Name? Safty! Peace of mind. They both died for many people. Maybe your from the UK were the IRA use to bomb people, but the US does not under stand that. This was a action of a group that would also like to do it to the US not just the UK. When it was IRA hay it will not happen here there fight was not with the USA. Now it is this it is with the US and it could happen to us. Peace and Safety should be greaved, and you are a real ass to tell some one they can’t.


I never posted a body count here (other then this one post). I did send body counts to my wife. We did go over it. But I have a life and a wife. Some people here may just be lonely and needing some comfort and you are just telling them to get over it. Not very companionate of you is it?


What is real grieving and why education do you have to say what is or is not real grieving? Why is body counts so bad and wrong?

Moopf, you're OK in my book.

I think grieving is absolutely necessary to one's individual and society's collective mental health. Whether or not any of us personally knew the victims, we all share a common humanity. If we have even an ounce of compassion, then collective grieving after a terrorist attack is an absolutely logical reaction.

Terrorism's ultimate goal is to make us fearful in our daily routines. When public transit is the target of terrorism, nearly every human can relate to the possibility that it might someday be their city under siege. Why, then, should it surprise us when there is mass grieving for an event like this one?

Lastly, I have done a number of studies on human wellness. Those humans who live the longest most fulfilled lives know how to "process out" the toxins, whether chemical or psychological. Grief is the exit mechanism for psychological toxins. Let people grieve as they need to.

And, BTW, I am not British, but I privately cried when Diana was killed. Does that make me an attention seeker in your eyes?

I think too...and gack, I'm going to express this badly, but I hope the gist of it gets across.

I think sometimes, we as humans, need to "practice" grief. Sounds funny doesn't it? But I know a lot of people who have sat there and visualized the death of someone close and actually gotten worked up over it.

I think sometimes, some people (and I accept other theories as valid too, because I think in times of public tragedy there are a variety of reasons for the public mourning), get too involved in grieving _because_ of a subconscious need to try it out. To get practice coping with it.

That said, I think sometimes people get wrapped up in it because it gives them a sense of belonging, and purpose. I saw this a lot after 9/11 when people were ready to move on and some people actually kept attempting to keep up the grieving, the shock, the outrage etc. etc.

With all due respect Lupo, with the UK having been through the 80's and 90's where there was a lot of bombing from the IRA, we are kind of used to this to a certain extent. I myself was in the center of Manchester in 1996 when the IRA bombed it, I know many others who had been in the City of London when that was bombed in 1993. And they are just two examples.

One thing I should also point out is that since 9/11 politicians in the UK have always said that it's not a matter of if something like this happening, but when. To be honest I think many of us were suprised it took so long to happen. We knew it was always a possibility. We knew it was only a matter of time.

Those people grieving are not doing so because all of a sudden they don't feel safe. We've been through enough decades of bombings to realise that we're not safe and that it was only a matter of time before it happened again. Sure many people will avoid London for a while, that is only to be expected, but the vast majority will not live in fear because it might happen again - to do so would be paralysing because it does not matter that this was a tube or a bus - it would be just as easy for them to have been standing on a street corner or walking through a busy store, detonating their bombs. When that is realised, you have to let go of the fear, because there is no other option. I guess, unfortunately, we've had more practice in getting used to that in the UK.

Hear hear! bravo, etc.


A fine post. Being English I too was impressed with the phlegmatic, "let's get back to work" attitude of those poeple I saw in the midst of it on TV. If this had happened in the US you would hear lots of war cries I think, whereas the Brits are more concerned with just weathering the storm.


.

I don't know. I think it depends on where you are in the United States. Also, the ones that get the attention are the brow beaters.

I'm in the Midwest, and either because there are a lot of farming descendants, or something, that tends to be the attitude here. "Well, that was horrible, but I have work to do".

The problem is, reporters never find the people going about their business that interesting. Much more exciting to find the screamers and ranters *grin*

One way to look at it is this: In a global struggle to end violence and insure stability and the ability of human beings to pursue satisfaction and dignity, Britain is a relatively secure place, and Iraq is not. It saddens me to see this happen in Britain because it's a step backward into chaos. It saddens me to see this happen in Iraq for a different reason: because there is so far to go to give everyone the conditions they deserve to live in.

Phew, I thought I'd just get insulted, I never thought I'd get so many replies that have ALL been so well thought out. And most of them I agree with in parts. I'm going to reply in quotes to some of them cause some of the things people said were totally new ideas to me, which I found informative, useful and interesting...

I'd never thought about the effects of constant saturation of news of death... For me I think it is largely white noise I block out. I don't know, it's the world I grew up in. But it's a new factor I never really thought about before. That's a smart comment I will be thinking about in the back of my mind for probably some time to come.

Sounds kind of cynical, but I tend to agree with you, those who put on the best pantomime for the papers do make the front pages.

Maybe there is a cultural difference over the pond. I know about us Brits being more reserved, and keeping ourselves (our feelings) more closed up and stuff (we'd never "see a shrink" but you could be right, maybe also us Brits are more weather worn and more used to disasters.

Yeah, I think the Diana grieving was too much going on for too long. I know it wasn't really genuine, but I fail to understand why it took place... This could be an interesting possibility. It would be interesting to have a map to the human mind

I think you and I see this differently. I see that 49 men and women's lives came to their conclusion, maybe before their time. You seem to see this as an 'event'. I just see it as 49 people have passed away.

Phew I'm going to stop cause I don't want the entire thread to be just my responses, but thanks everyone for really thinking about what you said and not taking the opportunity for bashing me for having a non mainstream thought

I think that the initial reaction of people to tragic events vary a lot. I remember crying when the space shuttle exploded. Christa McAuliffe was like a hero to me - I actually applied to be a crew member but I was so admiring of her for having been choosen. It was a matter of empathy.

When 911 happened, I think that I was in more a state of shock and abject horror than actual empathy.

I have to say that I absolutely cringe every time I hear a politician bring the 911 incident up in one of their speeches or I hear someone one use the incident to further their agenda (whatever their agenda is). It makes me feel queasy, it cheapens the memory of those that died when it happened. The worse would be to see a television movie that re-enacted the incident. Not only would it make me nauseous, it would make me angry.

Oddly enough, because I know more people individually in London than I do in New York, I felt a lot more anxiety over the incident in London than I did when 911 happened. This is because many of my friends and co-workers work and/or live in London and I go there a couple of times a year myself.

Though as Moof said, I too, felt myself crying when I saw pictures of people holding hands and jumping out of the towers to their death - though this was a much delayed reaction, it was nevertheless, a visceral empathy.

In a way, I consider the post mortem that is done by the press to be akin to someone who refuses to bury their dead relative. First you are sad and morn, that's legitimate, then they begin to smell and you think someone should really bury them and then they mummify or rot depending on the climate.

Sorry to draw such an analogy and in light of the discussion, I hope it does not offend anyone, it is sincerely not meant to. It's just that when the press gets ahold of something tragic they just don't seem to know when to bury it with dignity. I believe that this affects our reactions as a whole to the situation as well.

.

I wouldn't question people's grief, or their empathy, or try to ascribe motivations to it beyond the simple . . . grief and empathy.

Grief knows no measuring stick. Often a person surprises himself over the depth of grieving they will do over someone. Or - you can be strangely unaffected, though you feel you should be. What doesn't work is to take the measure of one's own grief, and feel that if others aren't the same, they must somehow be insincere.

Any time we start making grief over human tragedy something that a person is supposed to suppress, for whatever reason, or not feel, or be expected to apologize for, we deny another bit of our own humanity.

To say that a horrible human tragedy should be put behind us as soon as possible, while going on with business as usual, only leaves one open to the old adage, "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

Compassion shouldn't be considered a sign of weakness, or self-serving in any manner. Quite the opposite, by its very definition.

coco

Are you saying then, that we need to keep talking about the bomb blasts for a few more months, saying how terrible it was, filling the news with it, rehashing it, going over it... I totally agree with the other people who said leaving this out in public for too long is like leaving a corpse to rot.

That's the picture I got in my head when I saw your Queen visiting the injured in hospital, wearing a smirk and a diamond the size of Belgium.

Sorry, I lost track of this thread, and just now found it. No, I don't believe that is what I am saying.

News tends to last for however long news lasts.

coco

My thought was it would have been better if she'd showed up the afternoon before, dressed in jeans, boots, and a sweatshirt, with leather gloves and a shovel in hand.

But then I remembered that the Windsors are rather inept, and she was probably doing what she could. And - she has to "coordinate" with the government on everything public she does, besides - which is a nice way of saying "ask permission".

I don't know... Having seen the queen going about her business for some years now, she tends to be a more normal person than that... I remember when Diana died the queen was in her house, and some members of the "all must mourn" mob had a go at her on the news calling her heartless cause she wasn't at her window pouring out buckets. It made the palace issue an official statement saying yes of course the queen is sad to hear of the passing of Diana.

It's a sign that although when people die the families are sad, there are a few bad actors in the bunch that firstly put on big, public, fake displays of mourning to get attention, and then have a go at whoever doesn't fall into line with them. It's the manipulation of the situation of a high profile death into an opportunity for some well placed mourning that leaves the bad taste in my mouth.

I feel the queen probably would rather be somewhere else than out visiting all the injured of the country when something like this kicks off, but that's a whole can of worms. One thing I like about her is she takes her duty as Queen of the country very seriously, and she'd never shirk something that is the responsibility of the monarch. I'll support (and pay for through taxes) a royal family as long as she's head of it. If prince Charles got to be king charles, I'd say scrap it. I'm still making my mind up about prince Wiliam.

I saw the Queen give her special speech about Diana. I know that the business-as-usual thing she was doing made a lot of people mad in England and elsewhere, and I knew that the stiff-upper-lip thing was part of it, but that that couldn't be all, or the British themselves wouldn't be getting sp angry.

But what I also knew was that of COURSE the queen was deeply saddened. Problems with Diana aside, the Queen would have to be totally heartless not to be saddened at the untimely loss of such a young and beautiful and vibrant life, not to mention Diana was the good mother of the Queen's grandsons and future king.

So yeah, I wondered and sort of waited for a statement, and watched the criticism mount. But I never felt the queen was cold about it or anything, but was grieving in her own way, the limited amount she naturally would (which would be of course not anything close to the way William and Harry would be affected). And Charles grieved, too. They just aren't very good at taking the public's pulse.

Then, when she came on television to make her statement, you could see that yes, of course she grieved Diana's death. Maybe others didn't see it, but I saw it. The Queen may be kinda weird and all (who wouldn't be, being queen, lol), but heartless she isn't. Ditto for Charles. If NOTHING else, they would never wish that heartache on the boys. But their grief went beyond that.

Many, many people loved Diana as much as anyone can love a person they don't know, from a total distance, and that is quite a bit of love. People also loved watching her life. She was a very flawed but nonetheless incredible person, beautiful in ways beyond the physical, and very, very loved by many. The grief at her death was genuine. You don't have to know a person personally to be grieved at their loss. Look at when Kennedy was assassinated, for instance.

coco

P.S. I'm not still making up my mind about William. I think he's going to be just fine. Seems to have a real good head on his shoulders, and seems to be a kind and fairly easy-going person to boot.

I see that 49 people died. That is sad, but nothing can be done for them now. We can only support there family and friends. We also should look at what it means to us, our freedom, our safety. This is not a 'event' as NY Eve is or something like that. This is a 'event' like 9/11 or Purl Harbor. This is something that will change the world and be a historic day our kids and our great grand kids will learn about in school.