Monday, May 6, 2013

Bringing Out the Best

Perhaps I am just a negative person. I do try, when I remember, to "always look on the bwight side of life," sometimes even mentally singing that Monty Python song, but still I think I would describe my world view as "cautiously pessimistic."

At any rate, I am feeling very much the contrarian recently. After pondering the matter for a few days, I think what I react negatively to is jingoistic optimism. You know the proclamations in the print and broadcast media about how disasters like 9/11 or the Boston bombing, although I am loathe to equate them, bring out "the best" in people. And, of course, they absolutely do to a certain extent. But they also bring out all of our crazy cousins we'd like to keep in the closet. The activities of the first group are reported and a national goodness is generalized from them. The activities of the second are reported as aberrations.

After 9/11 people all  over the country forgot their long-held antipathies; in solidarity, everyone was a New Yorker. People from all over the country flocked to NYC to contribute whatever assistance they could. Similarly, after the Boston bombings, we read of runners who, instead of stopping at the finish line, continued  on for another two miles to the closest hospital in order to give blood. And Facebook patrons all over the country kept Boston "in our prayers," for crissakes.

On the flip side, within hours of 9/11 strangers whose only fault was that they looked different were assaulted all around the country, even if they were Hindus or Sikhs who were second generation Americans. More importantly, the sense of community, that "we are all New Yorkers," had a really short shelf life. Witness the legislative difficulties a couple of years ago in getting governmental assistance to the first responders who are now suffering life-threatening illnesses, if they haven't already died, that are almost certainly related to the atmosphere that existed at ground zero during those first hours and days.

There is a story in the NY Times about the fact that the dead brother from the Boston bombings hasn't been buried yet because the family can't find a cemetery to accept his body. The funeral home that has the body is being picketed by people with signs such as “Bury this terrorist on US soil and we will unbury him.”

My point is this: the laudable and the detestable are both part of the national character. To pretend that one is more definitive of who we are than the other is phony.

And don't get me started on how much you love Christmas because it brings out the best in people. I'm prepared to match your evidence item by item.

2 comments:

Diane Betts said...

You are right about the laudable and detestable character existing simultaneously in American society. What motivates people to fluctuate between those two extremes fascinates me. Most of the time, it is their use of "black and white" or "all or nothing" thinking instead of a more rational evaluation.

When people don't don't assume the responsibly for thinking for themselves and acting in accordance with their own conclusions and consciences, that often carries severe consequences. For example, on yesterday's evening news, 25 high school students stood by and watched another female high school student attack and severely beat one of their female classmates. The victim ended up being hospitalized with a fractured skull and other serious injuries. The students in the group just stood by and did nothing to stop the violence. Maybe they feared they would be singled out next, if they sought help or intervened to stop the beating. I wonder how much self respect they have for themselves now. How easy it is to be misled.

Gerald Martin said...

Diane-Love your comment. I couldn't agree more about the tendency to see things as either black or white. We even have the popular expression that there are two sides to every question. To which I like to say that's nonsense;there are probably seventeen sides to every question.

Within the last year, I read about some research which showed that people are much more likely to intervene in situations like the one you describe if they are alone than if they are in a group. There are a number of speculations about why that is the case.