Journal Entry #3

Last week's journal entry went a bit off topic from the class discussions, but really, I don't want to write about Milgram's experiment for the dozenth time.  The article we read tangentially mentioned Adolf Eichmann, and, you know what, if you bother reading the journal, it explains it:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                I found it difficult to get excited about writing on Milgram or Zimbardo; the topics aren’t exactly new to me.  That’s not to say that I don’t think they’re important to talk about, I just couldn’t muster the ability to write on these from an angle that was new to me.

                Reading through Milgram’s article though, one line jumped out at me: “You can call yourself Eichmann”.  What a terrible thing for a spouse to say to his or her partner; it sounds like an outright condemnation.  Not only that, but I can’t imagine that anyone would be remotely pleased about this comparison.  What I mean by this is that for every person to commit terrible dictatorial acts (Hitler, Bin Laden, George W. Bush etc.), there is a fringe minority that secretly (or in some cases, publicly) wishes to draw comparisons between themselves and their perverse deity.  But I can’t fathom that any Anti-Semites would want to embody Eichmann.  He was too bureaucratic in his evil; hiding behind the “I was only following orders” bullshit that allows ‘The Banality of Evil’ – as writer Hannah Arendt describes it – to exist.  When I think about Eichmann, the only question I can ask is “Why?”  Following orders is an insufficient response, and it leaves me wondering “why?”  This is the most intriguing, important, and ultimately frustrating question in tragic situations.

                I’m no expert on Eichmann, and I won’t pretend to be for the purpose of this paper.  Rather, I’m going to examine another incident that leaves me asking “Why?” on a daily basis.

                I enjoy watching professional wrestling.  I don’t tell many people this; not because I find it something to be ashamed of, but because the moment one is told this, one invariably passes some sort of judgement.  As I said, I don’t feel the need to defend this pleasure; certainly no more so than someone who watches Survivor needs to defend that.  I mention that I enjoy watching pro wrestling only because it explains why I was watching it on June 25^th, 2007, and why I was impacted by the news I learned that day.

                When I turned the TV on to watch wrestling on June 25^th, the arena was empty and the owner of the company was in the middle of the ring.  This was striking for several reasons which I won’t outline here, but it broke established storyline.  What was announced next genuinely tore my heart apart: “Chris Benoit, his wife Nancy, and their son Daniel have been found dead in their home.  It appears that they were murdered last night.”

                My horror fueled interest as I sought out all the details.  A few days later, it was determined that Chris had murdered his wife and son, before killing himself.  Yes, Benoit, a man whom I admired for his wrestling abilities and for whom I had cried tears of grief just days before, had smothered his 7 year old son; had literally felt his son’s life leave his body, leaving me asking only “Why?”

                The common consensus now, years later, is that Benoit had sustained severe brain damage over the course of a career that saw him take regular bumps to the skull.  An analysis of his brain showed levels of dementia congruent with an 80 year old Alzheimer’s victim.  Benoit was 40 years old at the time.  Prior to this explanation, it was believed that he was suffering roid-rage, leading to the tragedy.  For no extended period of time was the notion that Chris was psychotic or intrinsically evil sustained.  Make no mistake, there is no debate as to whether he committed an evil act – he killed his family for Christ’s sake! - , but no one has tried to explain away his actions by labelling him evil.  To hear his peers talk about their memories of Chris, to listen to the way in which they cherish his memory (except the last one) and the difficulty they have comprehending his actions, it becomes clear that the act of labelling someone evil is merely an act of avoidance.  Like Eichmann, like the Abu Grahib situation, like Benoit, tagging a person as evil is just our way of ignoring the most difficult question: Why?

                Even the fact that Chris had severe brain damage doesn’t touch on the Why.  It makes a stab at the question “How could he have justified this?”, but does little to address why.  Seeing as Chris killed himself too before anyone discovered the bodies, the question cannot ever be answered.  What could have compelled a man who so many people loved like a brother, to murder his wife and son?  It’s such a troubling issue because it cannot be known.  There is a perverse, somewhat cynical conclusion as to the question of why, that I think can be applied to situations like Eichmann’s as well:  There is no answer to the question “why?” which means that it isn’t outside the realm of possibility to occur again. 

                June 25^th, 2007 was the day the seeds of cynicism were planted in my head.  But although this anecdote seems bleak, know that those seeds remain just that.  All around us are indications that these instances –Benoit and Eichmann – are the exceptions, not the rule.  Look at the disgust that these acts were met with.  And then, ask of that disgust “Why?”  I think you’ll find an incredibly tangible answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As always, if you leave feedback, I'll let you pick three topics which I will figure out a way to interconnect into a (hopefully) coherent post.  Enjoy the Superbowl, if that's your thing.  If it isn't enjoy drinking and snacking while pretending to watch football.

Journal Entry #2

Last week's journal entry for English was about the Stanley Cup Riot.  You know the one:

This one.

In particular though, it was about an article that ran in the Georgia Straight, that posits that group-think was the real culprit.  I find it honestly a bit insulting, seeing as I felt complete disgust and abject horror watching the news as the event was happening.  But at the same time, I recognize that, for all I know, if I had been downtown at the time, I might have been a part of the riot too.

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 15^th, 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 15^th 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).

** Also of Note**


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?

Save me from the Writing Center: Journal Project

Well I've been meaning to write an update for the past few days, and it's the damnedest thing, but schoolwork keeps you rather busy.  Who woulda thunk, eh?  Really though, I was writing a journal entry for my English class earlier tonight, lamenting the fact that I would have no time to pay my blog any attention, since I would have to start reading my Canadian Police Work textbook reading right after the journal was complete.

I should explain the journal project.  In my English class (English 2233 at Langara if you're interested), we have a whole bunch of readings to do, which are then discussed in class.  Each week, we are then to write a first draft essay (can be any sort of essay; argumentative, formal, literary etc.) about something that ties in an aspect from that week's readings and/or discussions.  My instructor then wants us to at some point go to the Writing Center to go over the journal entries, make revisions, and at the end of March submit all the entries (drafts along with revised copies).

Here's the thing though: the Writing Center is intimidating.  Don't ask me why I think that, I don't have a good answer.  I mean, the majority of the people who work there are students themselves - I even know several of them, so they're not even strangers - and I do consider myself to be quite capable of doing good writing.  So from a logical standpoint, there's absolutely no reason for me to harbour any aversion to going there, yet I imagine it would be something like this:

That's the entrance to Hell in case that wasn't clear.  The girl is probably a peer tutor who works in the Writing Center.  Now do you see why I don't want to go there?

 Anyways, while writing, I had a flash of brilliance.  Okay, maybe brilliance is a little too strong of a word; genius will suffice (On a side note, does anyone know which of those two words implies more intelligence in this context?  I feel as if there's a terrible irony if I got them mixed up...).  I can put the journal entries up here!  After all, that way I'm updating my blog, and I did say I would put actual writing up here to counteract the hoards of rambling words I pass off as proper blog entries.  And you guys can feel free to give feedback, advice, or words of derision, depending on how good/mediocre/bad each entry is.  Please do so!  Save me from the scary people of the Writing Center!!!

The first journal entry is below.  If you should need, here are links to Genesis I and to the... Hmmm, can't find a link to the Nootka creation myth I reference.  I'll give a quick overview:  Raven eats some berries that give him (her?) diarrhea, and he (she?) effectively creates the Earth with the ensuing.... Use your imagination.

Wow, that was a very brief overview that really doesn't paint the Nootka belief system in a very positive light.  For that I apologize to my Nootka readers (Of which I assume I have many).  ANYWAY, getting sidetracked again, here we go:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          What motivates mankind’s fascination with creation myths?  Is it an innate curiosity within us that compels us to search for an answer to the question “Where do we come from?” just as adopted children are expected to be at least somewhat curious about who their parents are?  So it would seem, as nearly every culture has its own take on the creation of mankind. 

                The most influential creation myth in Western culture is that of the Christian faith, Genesis, in which God creates the Earth and all that is in it.  Man is created “in [God’s] image” with the intention that the Earth is ours to rule.  The Nootka creation myth is much different in its relative simplicity and its lack of apparent hierarchy.  What I mean by this is that Raven populates the Earth entirely by accident, and mankind is simply a by-product of that accident.  This difference highlights a big difference between the two cultures’ mentalities; the Christian faith chooses to believe that man is superior to the other races on Earth, whereas the Nootka tribe is of the belief that we (that is to say, mankind and the other animals of Earth) are all equals, and should treat other animals with greater respect.

                The questions posed at the beginning of this essay were not meant to be rhetorical so as to merely introduce the topic of creation myths; I really am asking.  I’m asking because I don’t find creation myths to have any great importance.  My problem with Genesis is that it’s too perfect; that is to say, deciding that God one day chose to bring us all into existence isn’t really an answer to the questions of where we came from at all.  Rather, it explains it away by simply decreeing that “God saw that it was good”.  Further, it implies that mankind should not be held responsible for any acts of cruelty to other animals, since the Earth is ours to do with as we please.  By this pattern of thought, our disrupting natural habitats so as to landscape them and build over is entirely within our rights. 

                On the other side of this particular discussion, the Nootka myth ties in closer with what I am willing to believe.  Note the presence of the word ‘willing’ there; it will be of importance soon.  The Nootka creation story, to me, illustrates an example of the First Cause Theory (FCT).  To give a brief explanation, FCT surmises that the universe could not have come into existence without the actions – intentional or not – of some being.  In the Nootka case, that being is Raven.  An important aspect of FCT though, is that this being, who we shall refer to henceforth as a god, may not have the ability to have any further impact on the universe.  I will freely admit that my knowledge of the Nootka belief system is limited at best, but to my knowledge, Raven has a resume that encompasses more than “I created the Earth”, which to be fair, is quite outstanding already.  It is here that I and the Nootka people arrive at an impasse. 

                I am absolutely willing to believe that a god created the universe.  I see no reason not to; logic dictates that something must have started the universe in motion and by the same logic, that something could not have previously been a part of the universe, seeing as it did not yet exist.  Therefore we can conclude that something is or was capable of existing outside of our universe.  I dub that something a god.  But here’s the thing: the universe has now been set in motion by a god, and the universe’s rules (physics for example) must be observed.  This means that the god cannot have any subsequent effect on how the universe unfolds.  I am willing to believe that.  But does that belief hold any meaning?  The answer is no.  I have no interest in giving special attention to a god that had only tangential effect on the universe billions of years ago, just as I have no interest in giving special interest to the notion of a God, since His actions would sometimes not agree with the rules of logic that I believe in. 

                I suppose I can see the place of creation myths: they’re stories.  They’re akin to the back stories that some adopted people fabricate about their genetic parents being incredibly wealthy people, hoping that their children find their way back to them (does this really happen, or just on bad television programs?); not necessarily harmful, but also not based in fact.  I on the other hand, choose to fully embrace my adopted family, the human race of the 21^st century, and to be thankful that they’re happy to have me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Give it a read, leave feedback.  Please.  Save me from the Writing Center and it's scary inhabitants.  Don't make me go see the people I know there; they're scary enough as it is.  If you do, I'll incorporate a picture of your choice (or sentence; your pick) into my next post.  That applies for each journal entry.  There we go, now you have actual reason to give me free editing aid.  Aren't I awesome?  Yes, the answer is yes.