 |
| This one. |
I'd certainly like to believe that I wouldn't have been, but we can't really know how a situation would have unfolded unless we literally experience it. I could go on about this dissonance between how we perceive ourselves and how we would actually behave when presented a situation, but I was trying to just introduce the topic of my essay. Which is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the end of the reading on Evolutionary Biology, article author Charlie Smith tells the reader to ask themselves “who is responsible for these kids going on a rampage?” Based on the rest of the article, it is clear that Smith is posing the question rhetorically; giving his opinion that the city officials in charge of planning the Stanley Cup Finals’ viewing events should be held more responsible. While not entirely blameless, they shouldn’t be the ones shouldering this burden though.
The police were undermanned and underprepared seems to be the majority’s opinion. Dozens, if not hundreds, of Vancouverites raised the call of “They should have been better prepared!”, but nowhere is there a concrete example of how their preparation model could have been improved upon. Were they undermanned? The answer is no. Although police critics would have you believe that the force was neglectful in this, the fact of the matter is that the majority of the VPD was on duty on June 15th, with a significant portion of officers deployed to the downtown area. RCMO officers were also contracted to Vancouver for the occasion. Their presence was there, and as Smith reports in his article, it was anticipated that 1% of venue attendees were looking for trouble; that presence should have been enough to contend with troublemakers. The police were overwhelmed due to the other 20% of viewers who decided to riot as well.
Smith takes a curious stance in attempting to exonerate the youths involved in the riot, pointing to the psychological dehumanization at play, while simultaneously humanizing the individuals who were a part of the riot. If we are to take psychiatrist Dr. Elizabeth Zoffmann’s hypothesis that perhaps riots should be considered “normal” in some situations, then the characters of Nathan Kotylak, Tim Kwong, or any other rioters should be a factor. Perhaps if this were normal behaviour for persons with under-developed pre-frontal cortexes, then the city is at fault for not instigating a “NO PERSONS UNDER 25” policy. That is, of course, a ridiculous notion that would be met with the most cantankerous of uproars from the public; in other words, not an option. In fact, the public showed during the Olympics that similar conditions don’t automatically lead to chaos, which means that there were discernible differences between the Gold Medal game, and Game 7.
To address the most obvious difference, in 2010, the good guys won. When we look back further, to 1994, again we find that a riot accompanied a loss. This, however, does not mean that we can make the assumption that there is causation present. If there were, then the Canucks would be partially responsible for the riot. Yes, many a Vancouverite wished bodily harm would befall Brad Marchand, but those feeling were separate from the acts of vandalism that occurred. The only connection to hockey was that several rioters were clad in Canucks colours and that the riot immediately succeeded the conclusion of the game.
A more interesting difference between 2010 and 2011 is the social diversity that was present during the Olympics. Yes, this theory flies directly in the face of what Dr. Zoffmann surmises, but can we perhaps consider that Vancouverites, or Canadians in general (look to Montreal, who have also had riots follow hockey losses), are more socially likely to resort to acts of mob violence? In 2010, the rest of the world came for a visit, diluting the concentration of Vancouverites per square meter in the downtown district. Yes, this seems to imply that Canadians are barbaric creatures, incapable of cognitive processes, and for that, I apologize. I don’t really mean that to be considered a serious explanation for the riot; only an attempt to highlight for farfetched some ideas can be when people look too hard for an explanation. That isn’t to say though that it couldn’t have played a viable role.
Consider the crowds present during the Olympic Gold Medal game, versus Game 7. In the Olympics, yes, the vast majority of viewers were Canadian, but they weren’t alone. The rest of the world was represented, some clad in our colours for the occasion, and some still decked out in their native colours. Heck, even the Americans were given fair representation. But take a gander at Game 7; if you were in black and gold, you could expect to be beaten black and blue. If you weren’t a Canucks supporter, you weren’t welcome. Present in the latter situation is a much more potent mob mentality, and all it can take, as Dr. Zoffmann and Smith rightly point out, is a couple of people in that mob to get out of hand before the whole group gets worked up.
So is the mob mentality then a plausible defense for the rioters, which would leave the city officials as the guilty party? Well, it could be, if we are to ignore one very important fact: a mob is made up of individuals. When we break the situation right down to the heart of the matter, these atrocious acts were committed by hundreds of individual people, who committed vandalism, and in some cases, assault. Intoxication was present, but is in no way an excuse; if anything, that should be condemned more so. We punish people for drinking and then putting themselves in a dangerous position such as driving; if intoxication can lead to rioting, then it too should be a socially condemnable act. Dr. Zoffmann argues that the mob mentality could be a latent evolutionary trait; one that once served a purpose, but no longer is needed. Well, the same has been thought about why some males are physically abusive to their girlfriends. What Dr. Zoffmann (or Charlie Smith, who is the one using her words to create his thesis; I don’t wish to wrongly accuse Dr. Zoffmann of something that she doesn’t believe) fails to realize is that an explanation is not always an excuse.
The answer to Smith’s question “who is responsible for these kids going on a rampage” is far simpler than it seems. It’s not a question of whether the city failed situationally; it’s not a question of if humans are innately violent. It’s a matter of knowing that the only one who can ultimately make a decision for you is yourself. At the end of the day, every other factor present on June 15th was peripheral; the answer is quite simply: the kids who went on a rampage.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few thoughts that are pertinent to this, but wouldn't have fit an essay:
- I mention some people by name. They are also named in the article, which is why I included them. It is in no way meant to judge them as people, and I feel it would be neglectful to somewhere mention the fact that they did express what seemed to be genuine remorse for their actions. Tim Kwong, for example, turned himself in at noon the very next day after being identified.
- I wonder if there would have been a riot if the Canucks had won? (Again, this is an impossible hypothetical to answer since we can't alter time) I suspect there would have been though.
- I want to point out the wonderful things that Vancouverites did in the days following the riot. People were voluntarily cleaning up the streets, writing apologies to the city on the boarded up windows, and there was even a police car found, covered in sticky notes that read "I'm sorry". These are the acts that helped restore my faith in people that was in jeopardy while watching the riot unfold.
 |
| Even though it's heartwarming, I can't help but be disappointed that someone thought the correct spelling was "hulligans" (Third row, second column; at the bottom in black). |
I said in my first Journal Entry post that anyone who commented with feedback on the essay could choose a photo or sentience for me to include in a subsequent post. There have been no comments as of yet (probably unsurprisingly, seeing as there's likely a maximum of twenty people reading this), but I remain undeterred. Instead, I'm upping the ante: Leave me a comment of criticism or feedback, and I will ask you for three topics of your choice. Those three topics will then be spun into beautiful prose by moi and will be the topical basis of the next post. That's right, an entire post, influenced by you! What are you waiting for?
No comments:
Post a Comment