![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lady_t_220Bowling for Columbine... well, what can you say, really? Alternately fascinating and unutterably disturbing. I think it raises a lot of good points. About fear and consumption, paranoia, failure, blame... It's interesting, I note, that the gun-related death figure for the UK that year was only 68, and yet on C4 this week it's *guns and gangs week* the terror of guns on our streets. The point about so many forms of media making everyone constantly afraid is shamefully true, though I will admit the way it affects people has more to do with national mindset than the media specifically.
I know from an outside view America is often perceived as intensely reactionary and paranoid. Full of people that scream and cry and jump around and make empassioned declarations at the drop of a hat. You're all some bizarre combination of Oprah and the cast of Friends, so it seems, with a bit of that guy who voices World's Scariest Police Chases thrown in just for good measure.
I know individually that it's not true, but then a national mindset is not something you can trace down a reason for, it's just an entity that evolves.
Trying to figure out why one country reacts differently than another to the exact same scenario is always going to be an excercise in impossibility. What makes the British so British? What makes America so American? What is the indefinieable thing that makes Germany QUITE so German...?
It's often said that the IQ of a group is the IQ of its dumbest member, divided by the number of people in that group. Emotive intensity I feel may have a similar way of being shared. It's no one individual, it's the strongest, most reactionary parts, squashed together and condensed down. In any given snapshot it's the very fisrt part you see. It's in your literature, your TV screens, your supermarkets, it's in the fact that every cliche has a basis SOMEWHERE in reality. It's not real people and it's not real life, it's a charecature of all of them.
On a side note though, I'm sure There's people out there who remember the shooting that took place in a school in the UK. Several years ago now, it was an incident that led to the banning of handguns in this country. Previously guns had been limited to certified shooting clubs and highly specific storage restrictions, but an outright ban was swiftly and (with only moderate complaining) brought into play.
I remember thinking at the time how bizarre it was that in America such a ban would be fought bloodily, kicking and screaming all the way.
Over here the majority of people only complained when they realised that, without handguns, we wouldn't be able to host the Commonwealth Games any more.
Now, I know there's a difference because for starters we don't have it written in a constitution, but there's a part of me that always thought that was a good thing.
Because the moment you set something down in stone that way you split it into two seperate entities.
The letter of the law and the meaning of the law.
The letter gives you the right to bear arms. OK, that's what it says. Fine. I'm not totally convinced the founding fathers quite meant that it'd be ok to sleep with a Glock under your pillow but maybe that's just me.
I always figured the meaning of it was giving you the right to protect yourself. To protect your home and your family. That's not exactly the same thing.
I guess it's sort of like religious dogma, the meaning gets skewed as the language changes. The meaning behind the words gets lost and a sentence intended to be one thing becomes something else entirely. How dressing modestly becomes wrapping yourself up in a burkah, how love thy neighbour somehow winds up killing thousands on a crusade.
But then like I said... it's not my constitution, and it's not my country. My perception of it is pretty much meaningless because it just don't aply to me.
I will say one thing though, and that is that out of all the people interviewed the one that came off the best was Marilyn Manson. By a God damned mile. Like a bizarrely dressed sea of rationality. Charlton Heston just came off as a serious jerk.
I have to admit though, that I find it fascinating how the Canadians can have so many guns and NOT kill each other. But then Canada is most often referred to as a country of maiden aunts. She's more likely to worry about the silt levels in her salmon than the grease in her gun. But then this takes you right on back ot national personality again, and the indefineable things that make each country's mindset so different.
So I can't say what causes your fervour. I can't say what makes you different. I can only guess the little cartoon bit in the middle was right and blame it all on those paranoid pilgrims, cause darnit there was a reason we shipped 'em all out to the new world...
I know from an outside view America is often perceived as intensely reactionary and paranoid. Full of people that scream and cry and jump around and make empassioned declarations at the drop of a hat. You're all some bizarre combination of Oprah and the cast of Friends, so it seems, with a bit of that guy who voices World's Scariest Police Chases thrown in just for good measure.
I know individually that it's not true, but then a national mindset is not something you can trace down a reason for, it's just an entity that evolves.
Trying to figure out why one country reacts differently than another to the exact same scenario is always going to be an excercise in impossibility. What makes the British so British? What makes America so American? What is the indefinieable thing that makes Germany QUITE so German...?
It's often said that the IQ of a group is the IQ of its dumbest member, divided by the number of people in that group. Emotive intensity I feel may have a similar way of being shared. It's no one individual, it's the strongest, most reactionary parts, squashed together and condensed down. In any given snapshot it's the very fisrt part you see. It's in your literature, your TV screens, your supermarkets, it's in the fact that every cliche has a basis SOMEWHERE in reality. It's not real people and it's not real life, it's a charecature of all of them.
On a side note though, I'm sure There's people out there who remember the shooting that took place in a school in the UK. Several years ago now, it was an incident that led to the banning of handguns in this country. Previously guns had been limited to certified shooting clubs and highly specific storage restrictions, but an outright ban was swiftly and (with only moderate complaining) brought into play.
I remember thinking at the time how bizarre it was that in America such a ban would be fought bloodily, kicking and screaming all the way.
Over here the majority of people only complained when they realised that, without handguns, we wouldn't be able to host the Commonwealth Games any more.
Now, I know there's a difference because for starters we don't have it written in a constitution, but there's a part of me that always thought that was a good thing.
Because the moment you set something down in stone that way you split it into two seperate entities.
The letter of the law and the meaning of the law.
The letter gives you the right to bear arms. OK, that's what it says. Fine. I'm not totally convinced the founding fathers quite meant that it'd be ok to sleep with a Glock under your pillow but maybe that's just me.
I always figured the meaning of it was giving you the right to protect yourself. To protect your home and your family. That's not exactly the same thing.
I guess it's sort of like religious dogma, the meaning gets skewed as the language changes. The meaning behind the words gets lost and a sentence intended to be one thing becomes something else entirely. How dressing modestly becomes wrapping yourself up in a burkah, how love thy neighbour somehow winds up killing thousands on a crusade.
But then like I said... it's not my constitution, and it's not my country. My perception of it is pretty much meaningless because it just don't aply to me.
I will say one thing though, and that is that out of all the people interviewed the one that came off the best was Marilyn Manson. By a God damned mile. Like a bizarrely dressed sea of rationality. Charlton Heston just came off as a serious jerk.
I have to admit though, that I find it fascinating how the Canadians can have so many guns and NOT kill each other. But then Canada is most often referred to as a country of maiden aunts. She's more likely to worry about the silt levels in her salmon than the grease in her gun. But then this takes you right on back ot national personality again, and the indefineable things that make each country's mindset so different.
So I can't say what causes your fervour. I can't say what makes you different. I can only guess the little cartoon bit in the middle was right and blame it all on those paranoid pilgrims, cause darnit there was a reason we shipped 'em all out to the new world...
