If no one except the shooter was responsible, Then the reporters question about "anger at the shooter's family" is devoid of significance. The shooter is dead. There is no history of violence or grievance between the victims' and the perpetrator's surviving relatives. So the only forgiveness that has any relevance at this point, is the slow, middle of the night, agonizing personal journey kind. So how can you explain the idea that forgiveness transcended tragedy?
What was all the hew and cry over forgiveness about, if how the media portrayed it had no rational relevance to what was actually happening?
Was the reporter's question, "Have you already forgiven them?" akin to rape, because of how inappropriate and violently intrusive it was to the Amish grandfather?
In "Amish Grace" The authors illustrate the development of a culture by comparing it to a musician's repertoire.
A repertoire is a set of musical pieces that a performer knows especially well
from frequent practice. It reflects an artist's background and training, and
serves a performer in a situation when there is no time to learn something new.
Using this analogy, is it safe to assume that the Amish grandfather was unprepared in several key areas?
No.1 Having his granddaughters slaughtered.
No.2 Being interviewed at 5:30 in the morning by a TV news crew.
No.3 Being questioned on camera about a crucial component of his faith and whether he is complying to its dictum's.
Number three is the kicker. For her to question whether he is living up to the expectations of his faith, at that moment, is about as vile and offensive as any scenario I can fathom. But she does it under the guise of the newsworthiness of what he's purportedly capable of doing, revealing and epic misjudgment in cultural sensitivity. Amish faith is first and foremost "walking humbly with their God", asking this grief stricken man to exhibit, what seemed to all the world like a special trick, was asking him to defile the essence of what his faith is about.
An excerpt from "Amish Grace"
For the Amish, genuine spirituality is quiet, reserved, and clothed in humility,
expressing itself in actions rather than words.
Since her question had no relevance, not only was she creating something that didn't exist for her own selfish needs, she defiled his faith by asking him to put it "on display".
3 comments:
First, this comment goes back through all the posts to Feb. 5, the beginning of the current series of posts about Nickel Mines.
I see two separate, but intertwined issues. First the behavior of the media--reprehensible at times, feeding a public addiction to prurient satisfaction of morbid curiosity at others. Unable to resist the escalation of sensationalizing and ever-aware of the short attention span of the viewer/reader/listener. Unfortunately, some of the sins of the reporters, the "have you already forgiven them?" violation, for instance cannot be malicious, merely ill-informed. The reporter, from the English world, couldn't know she was probing the very tenets of the faith. The faith simply isn't that well understood.
The second, and in my view, vastly more important, issue you raise is the seemingly unwitting collaboration of the Amish in their own corruption. The threat is in the violation of the separation, rather than the violation of the particular question asked. As you point out, it began with the call to the police and continued with each of the acts that then became relentlessly public. The interviews, the temptation of spending just a brief time in the world's gaze, and the surrender of the interpretation of their actions to a world without a basis for interpretation. (I'm not qualified to comment on the interpretations supplied by Kraybill, the main identified authority, but your point about the absence of a peer group stands out as a glaring flaw in the icing spread over this story.)
I think your second point is the missing voice in this and the other issues confronting the Amish/English interface. Hearing that voice may be key to the health and indeed the survival of the Amish community.
It's the media, Stupid (nothing personal -- it's a play on an old campaign slogan). This moron's career depends on having a "story" at 5:30 a.m. Surely we're all bright enough to understand that what we see, hear and read is not the news, it's ratings and sensationalism -- "If it bleeds, it leads" -- and, if I may be so paranoid, manipulation and clarification, since none of us are possibly capable of comprehending, let alone interpreting, events on our own.
Another example along the same lines. In June, 2006, I watched as Michael Berg, the father of Nicholas Berg, the young man who was beheaded on tape, allegedly by Al-Zarqawi, was interviewed. He calmly and rationally made his case, not just for peace, but for forgiveness and acceptance and pacifism. I watched as he pleaded for the cycle of revenge to stop. I cringed as reporters asked him the same stupid questions over and over. And, I was absolutely floored at the power of the government to control the media. Early in the morning I saw a live interview between Mr. Berg and one of those perky cable can’t-tell-them-apart newsreaders. She went absolutely blank (not much of a stretch) when he said he felt no joy in the death of another human being, then recovered and asked again if he didn’t feel some satisfaction that his son’s murderer had been killed. Mr. Berg began to say something along the lines of “the only event which would bring me any joy would be if impeachment proceedings were begun against Bush today,” when he was quickly and abruptly cut off. I never saw that comment again. Amazing.
"Unfortunately, some of the sins of the reporters, the "have you already forgiven them?" violation, for instance cannot be malicious, merely ill-informed. The reporter, from the English world, couldn't know she was probing the very tenets of the faith. The faith simply isn't that well understood."
If the reporter is "merely ill-informed", Shouldn't one expect her to start from the basis of what she does understand? ie; her own culture. If she wouldn't ask this question of someone in her own culture, why is she asking the Amish guy?
If forgiveness had relevance to the story, then her question would be legitamate. If, as I suggest, it had no relevance, then her malice is in interjecting it, inspite of how inappropriate such an interjection would be in her own culture.
What I see in her actions is the acting out of the idea that, the Amish can be mistreated and there are no repercussions.
Post a Comment