As I implied in my last post,
there seems to be a disconnect between perception and reality. The fact is
there is no such thing a person being a “child” at 13, or 14 or 15. Most at
this age are supposed to be capable of learning complex algebra, geometry,
biological and chemistry subjects. I remember when I was at that those ages, I
didn’t think of myself as a “child” or among “children.” I was fully capable of
thinking on my own (I ran away from home at 14 and had these fantastical ideas
about creating my forest empire, before my empire-building was brought to bay by
a neighbor who volunteered to look for me).
Young teens are certainly capable
of independent thought and making their own decisions—even if they happen to be
the wrong decisions or based on faulty analysis. They are as capable of compassion
as they are of cruelty, of wisdom as they are of foolishness, of respect for
civilized mores and of total contempt for the rights of others.
Too often we hear people in the
media and advocates of victimhood claiming that these people are merely
“innocent children” as if they are incapable of rationalizing their thinking.
Yes, young teens can be led astray by a devious adult who seeks to use or abuse
them, but usually this involves those who are vulnerable due to unstable homes
or unstable emotions (how often do we hear that girls are more “mature” than
boys—admittedly an impression due more to expertise in sarcasm and excessive
self-regard).
But too often a false assumption
is made that these young teens are completely lacking in self-awareness and
self-assertiveness, to be used to advance a political or social agenda. Some of
us remember how even the 17-year-old, six-foot Trayvon Martin was repeatedly
referred to as an “innocent child.”
Sometimes, as we learned in the
high school shooting in Marysville last week, making such false “assumptions” about
the capacities of teens of 14,15—or even 13-yeard-old—can lead to a “shocking”
lack of insight on the part of “adults.” I was listening to some of the
“non-stop” coverage of the event on a local news radio station, and I was
almost as disgusted by the breathlessly simulated emoting that filled interminable
minutes and hours, passed off as “information” as I was by the shooting itself.
But not to worry; by the following day, sheer exhaustion from keeping up the
pretension would bring this story to the usual end of all such incidents:
Forgotten until the next time it happens.
When the shooter, a freshman in
the high school, was identified there was “surprise” and “shock” that this was
a seemingly normal “child” just like your child. It was “shocking” that person
that age could actually conceive of, plan and execute such a deadly act. He
even had a “motive” that an adult might actually have—being on the losing end
of a “love triangle.” Can a “child” of 14 or 15 actually be old enough to have
“adult-like” emotional responses to heartbreak—especially when the person who
took his “love” was a cousin and “close friend”?
“Children” certainly have “grown
up” a lot in the social media age. Looking back when I was in the seventh and
eighth grade, girlfriend-boyfriend relationship was still very uncommon, and
even harder still to imagine how any could be serious enough to lead to a
shooting. I don’t remember hearing about any school shooting incident involving
students until recent years, but the Columbine shooting and the media publicity
it engendered changed society in ways that no one wants to take responsibility
for—especially the “adults” in the media responsible for allowing any variety
of murderous mayhem to viewed and disseminated unfiltered by any responsible
firewall.
Suddenly, “children” whose
interaction with the world consisted little more than their family and school
suddenly found the mayhem and dysfunction of the world right on their “smart”
phones and computers. They were told that these “children” had “understandable”
personal issues, and sometimes they were even “sympathized” with. For certain
their actions gain national publicity. They were no longer “ignored.” They were
“somebody.” The people who “hurt” them were themselves hurt—or at least their
proxies were.
We don’t live in an “innocent”
world anymore. “Children” are “growing up” faster than they should—and many of
them without proper guidance in the home. Access to guns has never been easier,
and wherewithal to use them doesn’t even seem “rare” anymore. We live in a
world where we may not even be safe from “children” even as they are being
called “innocent” and “naïve” victims by “adults” in the media.
We live in a world where reality
is no longer what was once understood. The Marysville shooter, Jaylen Fryberg
was a popular student, an athlete, voted the upcoming homecoming “prince,” who
this past summer promised to “love” a “darling angel” for “the rest of my
life.” Are “children” actually capable of such “adult” emotional
attachment—anymore than the implied threat of “I hate that I cannot live
without you” and “You’re not gonna like what happens next.” What did he mean a
few days before the shooting when he wrote “It won't last.... It'll never last....”
All the “training” by police and
faculty could not ascertain a potential threat of a “child” who was "fine
the day before. He was being sassy, as always, and good," according to a fellow
student—despite the fact that he had just returned to school after being
suspended for being involved in s fight with another student. He was still
sitting in class shortly before the shooting, according to one student,
seemingly lost in thought.
But not to “worry.” The police
had been “trained” to deal with a situation like this, where all the deaths and
injuries occurred before they showed up in their heavy-duty SWAT gear. This
story will soon pass into anecdote—until the next mass shooting occurs. This
kind of thing is never supposed to happen, because people always make the wrong
assumptions about the world we live in now. No one is truly “innocent.”
No comments:
Post a Comment