in the United States and it isn't even appearing in my Twitter feed for some reason. Have we really become so inured to these events that they no longer have any meaning at all?
That frightens me. When my goddaughter was young she was not permitted to watch the news. This wasn't a decision of her parents - although they concurred - it was a decision of the school she attended. It was a fee paying school with a lot of very wealthy families, the children of household names and more. Parents often appeared in news items and, until the girls reached the Senior school (at age eleven) the school asked that girls not be exposed to such news items on television. They were not isolated from the news but how it was presented was kept under control.
I know there are arguments for and against this stance but I do wonder how children really perceive such appalling events. Does it seem real? I know children get upset, very upset, when their teachers talk about issues like climate change and other more controversial topics. It is apparently desirable to teach the young about some things but not others - and to make sure they only get taught the "correct" way of thinking about them.
Do we shield children from knowing that there has been another mass shooting in a country a long way from here? Or do we tell them and try to make them understand that this is the reason we try to limit gun ownership in this country?
We aren't immune. There are those here who would do the same if they had access to similar weapons and something happened to set them off on that destructive path. I know someone who worked in a bank. There was a hold up in the bank and a gun was pointed directly at her. A shot was fired in the same hold up - although not at her. She never went back to work there. To this day she cannot enter a bank or a post office - both places where a similar incident might occur. Her life has never been the same.
We get "warned" about footage in the international news service I half watch. There is more than one reason to be doing something else while the news is being read. I have no desire to see the death and destruction which is all too common. For the most part I listen. If there are subtitles I might need to look up but, for the most part, I will guess at what is being said. (Those subtitles are often only an approximation anyway.)
The Senior Cat ceased to deliberately watch or listen to the news in the last few years of his life. He felt there was nothing he could do any more and such things distressed him. He would see or hear things in passing and was still concerned but he chose not to dwell on such things. He knew I sometimes had (and still have) no choice because my job involves helping those who have some of the most difficult and challenging jobs on the planet. That doesn't mean I need to dwell on issues I can do nothing about. It does mean that I must do what I can.
I can do nothing about the latest mass shooting in another country but I can be concerned for those involved. Is that enough? I will worry for myself if it ever comes to the point where I say, "This is nothing to do with me." It is always something to do with me.
1 comment:
"No man is an island . . " as the quotation goes. It is true, though, that we get to know a lot more of what is going on in the world than used to be the case. How many dreadful famines or nasty local wars happened without anyone but the nearest neighbours being aware?
Post a Comment