Let's focus instead on the primary assertion (also echoed in Andrea Harris' comments): that what we witnessed in Virginia Tech was evidence of some sort of societal breakdown whereby an "older ideal" of self-defence and self-reliance has not just fallen out of favour, but actually been determinedly bred out of the populace. In short, "Europeanization", as Derbyshire would have it. (We can note in passing that it's not the mass murder itself which is taken as evidence of some anomaly by Derbyshire and Steyn, but the reaction to it.)
Fine. This assertion assumes that at some point in the past, red-blooded American males would never have reacted in the "passive" manner seen at Virginia Tech. A "cultural change" has occurred - so we should be able to identify a point prior to the change, where these ideals were manifest. (emphasis added)
...then proceed to list numerous instances where crowds of otherwise red-blooded American men were reduced to pant-peeing weenies in the face of a crazed lunatic. You have just proved that the wussification of western society is nothing more than a fallacy. An elaborate myth, concocted by the gun-happy neocons to eliminate English lit classes and turn everyone into cowboys (of course, I'm paraphrasing...) All because some of us dared to question why so many students laid down, like lambs to the slaughter, in the face of indiscriminate murderous rage. How dare we "blame the victims"?
Except...this is not about blaming the victims. It never was. As well, none that I have seen has ever posited that "at some point in the past, red-blooded American males would never have reacted in the "passive" manner seen at Virginia Tech." What we have been saying is that there was a point in time when this fatal passivity was an anomaly. A reaction that ran contrary to the principles of survival ingrained within the societal fabric...principles that have since been replaced with feel-good false esteem and enforced mediocrity.
Even worse than the slow erosion of these principles, is the subsequent embrasure of a far more insidious malaise -- the adoption of suffering as a virtue. Acceptance of the idea that each person's value is measured by his level of suffering, either by his own hands or at the hands of others. Along with the simple rule that victimization is an impenetrable armor which shields one from criticism or scrutiny. Buying into this attitude is what has muddled Bob's understanding of the larger issue here. The victims of this crime did not fail themselves as much as we failed them.
Those who have been charged with teaching our children the principles of self-reliance, independent thought and the exaltation of excellence, have instead opted to teach self-sacrifice, dogmatic consensus-building and ambiguous participation awards. The concepts of self-preservation and justice are rejected, and those of us who continue to adhere to them are vilified.
It was a monstrous injustice that these hapless students were mowed down in a place where they should have had some assurance of security. But the greatest injustice was inflicted upon those souls, long before any loser with a gun showed up. It occurred the very first time they were told to not fight back to a bully. It was reinforced every time they were encouraged to aspire to be less, lest they make a weaker child feel bad and it came full circle when a mindless bureaucrat decided an imaginary gun-free bubble was enough deterrence for a psychopath bent on going out in a blaze of glory.
The question shouldn't be "when did American men stop being red-blooded cowboys who would rush the gunman"...what we should be asking instead is, when did apathy and victim hood become the default protective impulses? And when did it become a crime to ask that?
Comments