Every now and again things happen that change the world. And often they can be relatively minor. This thought occurred to me when I saw that Adam Walsh's case was solved. I lived in South Florida 2 years after his abduction became national news. In fact, I lived in Miramar, Fl, which borders or is at least very close to Hollywood, Fl, the place where the abduction happened. Whats more, I have been in that mall and the Sears where it happened. Of course, I was only about 8 years old at the time.
I didn't realize it at the time, but this abduction had a huge impact on our (my generations) parents, specifically moms. Our generations parents could be considered the safety first generation. Our parents created safety belt and helmet laws (bicycle and motorcycle), M.A.D.D. and our parents were probably the first ones to teach their children to be afraid of strangers. My mom freaked out about that abduction and literally drilled into my head what to do if someone tried to abduct me. I can remember her telling me to kick and scream and yell and bite and any number of the nastiest things an 8 year old boy can do to hurt and adult and/or attract attention. The attention drawn to abductions and child safety by John Walsh (Adam's father) has been an amazing help. His TV show, America's Most Wanted, has been shown to save over 1000 children from abduction alone. And I read that his association and the work they've done may have saved 100,000 children since the early 80s.
I could never question the benefits of such organizations and awareness. But lets remember that nothing comes without a price. What are the consequences of a generation that is taught as young as they can remember to never trust a stranger? It has to sow the seeds of cynicism, bitterness, and contempt for our neighbors. I wish I could have known my fathers world where a 10 year old boy could cruise around Niagara Falls, NY with a bus pass and his parents were never concerned. I'd love to live in a world where a parent could see some other adult spanking their child and assume that the child deserved it and actually apologize instead of launching right into litigation and possibly criminal actions.
What happened in the last 20 years that such horrible things can happen to children like Adam Walsh, which seem to be a minor occurrence before? But more importantly, even though most of your neighbors share your values and are generally good people why would you not trust them to discipline your children? And why don't we think that spanking is a good idea anymore?
This all may seem disjointed but there's a connection between all these things to what is happening to our economy and possibly our entire society and way of life these days. I think that one can look at all symptoms and draw many conclusions. One may be in favor of increased policy or no policy or smarter policy. However, at some level you can't legislate human behavior, but it can change. Is it possible that the economic meltdown isn't a financial issue at its heart but instead the chickens coming home to roost from years of f-d up values?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Interestingly enough, I grew up in a world very much opposite of yours. Living on a rural farm with no one around my parents let my siblings and I roam free for hours on end. If we didn't come home around dinner time my mother probably would have begun to worry, but otherwise, she assumed we were safe. I don't ever recall being told not to talk to strangers but when you're from a town of 500, there are no strangers.
My childhood is unique and I wouldn't exchange it for any other. I had freedom unlike most children.
I was also spanked as a kid, though not often.
I deserved it every single time.
I was actually spanked too. But not often, as you said. However, I doubt my mom would've not flipped out if someone else spanked me. Even though I did get spanked by the principal when i was in 2nd grade. Things were different when we moved back to Niagara Falls however, I was a bit older and the city a bit smaller. Plus, my family is from there so it was more comfortable. But in South Florida, there was always this tension and distrust of strangers. And I believe it stems primarily from the Adam Walsh case.
Are you saying that the Adam Walsh incident is responsible for this focus on safety (seat belts, MADD, etc.) in general or just the mistrust of strangers?
I would suggest an alternative. I think you can find that a rise in safety (with some arbitrary metric) usually corresponds to a rise in per capita income. Poorer people put up with more, richer people can afford to demand more. This probably continues to the point of absurdity though until there's pushback. Kind of like litigation. At one point it was beneficial to be able to sue manufacturers of products that kill/hurt kids. Now it's more often abused.
As for the mistrust of strangers, I also was told the whole Adam Walsh story except my parents changed the details so that it happened at our local mall. Thanks folks. But I think the general trend is probably more due to over-individualism. Kind of like that book Bowling Alone. Less interaction with neighbors, more focus on self-advancement, suburbs with gated communities and fences with unused sidewalks and shopping centers and business parks so you can go from house to car to shop and back home with minimal human interaction. And THEN you can relate that to the economic news. It's those darn kids I tells ya.
I doubt that its directly related to M.A.D.D or helmets, but I do think its the primary cause for the "not talking to strangers" phenomena. But M.A.D.D. and helmet laws come about similarly, reaction and sometimes overreaction to accidents. What I just said, I realize, can generate a nasty backlash. MADD particularly, has saved countless lives. Helmet laws less so. I'm just remarking that one, horrible, popularized event can lead to decades of altered policy.
I also don't think that "don't talk to strangers" has anything directly to do with an economic meltdown. That would be a stretch, even for someone like me who revels in stretches. But more its part of a whole set of changes that have happened over the past 20-30 years. Absolutely included in that is the move to the suburbs. Its easy to screw over a number, a bit more difficult to screw over your buddy next door that you talk to every day. In fact, my immediate next door neighbor's political views are likely the polar opposite of mine. If I read something he wrote and never met him, I'd probably hate him, or at least, have little respect for him. But b/c I know him personally, it buffers any vitriol that could come from severe disagreement. Your point about the gated communities is well taken. But I think you can agree that the Walsh incident and the growth of gated communities and exurbs do have some common roots, mainly exiling yourself from anything in the world you can't control.
I definitely agree on your last point. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with suburbs like all the kids who grew up in the suburbs and moved into the city now do. It's expensive living downtown - although the lights are much brighter there and you can forget all your troubles, forget all your cares. It's definitely expensive if you want to raise a family. But most people, especially new families, would probably say that they don't live in the city because it's dangerous. Hence gated communities and sprawl.
But it's not necessarily true. First, statistically, you're more likely to die in a car accident than get murdered. In 2007, 16,929 people were murdered in the U.S. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html) In the same year there were 37,248 fatal traffic crashes. (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx). Second, you're more likely to spend more time in a car in suburbia because you can't walk anywhere. Third, even if we expand the data to include violent crime in general (assault, rape, etc.) we can also expand the data to include traffic accidents in general (I believe it's over 6 million per year). Fourth, if you argue that more murders happen in cities, we can also say that more people live there, plus more fatalities (over 90% I believe) happen on highways and non-urban streets. Factoring in locational differences in city crime (the "hood" vs. Georgetown), it is at least not a clear cut argument that the suburbs are "safer." I think I'm a lot safer walking to the grocery store, to school, to work, or to a bar than I would be if driving.
But like I said, suburbs don't have to be bad. Effective planning can maximize land use, minimize environmental impacts, and still encourage community and social interaction. A good book on it is Suburban Nation. But it doesn't happen this way, I would argue, because of this obsession with "security."
It's ironic that a lot of people in the burbs are so unhappy. They want security and space and convenience but are unsatisfied with the results. B/c it's boring! You can take someone and drop them in any suburb or "town" and there wouldn't be any distinguishing feature other than license plates to tell them where they're at. I think the majority of the population lives outside of cities in sprawl, but every movie I see is always set either in the big city or in some quaint rural town made up of hard-working individual farmers that don't exist anymore. The only movies made about suburbs usually involve repressed spouses, teenage drug use, or school violence. I'm with Petula Clark on this one
Look, I am not going to come to your blog and pretend to post profound thoughts. The fact of the matter is helmets for kids riding their bikes around the neighborhood is absurd. Helmets are for pussies for riding their bike around a neighborhood. It just leads to the pussification of America. Those kids that needed to be so protected are now growing up and they can do jack shit. Well, they can now wear their girlfriend's jeans, wear eyeliner, and be extremely effeminate. That is what being over protected gets you. A generation of pussies.
Post a Comment