The following is a quote from today’s episode of Meet The Press
How in the hell does Amerikkkan media manage to interject this nation into another country’s misfortune? Maybe I should I ask why. I didn’t really want to type anything in regards to what happened this past Friday. I don’t have anything insightful or new to add. But, here I am…typing about this shit. I personally feel like it was an extreme act of violence more-so than terrorism. But, for the sake of this entry, I won’t rock that boat. Merriam-Webster defines terror as violence that is committed by a person, group, or government in order to frighten people and achieve a political goal or a very strong feeling of fear. It defines terrorism as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. I’m going to run with that, as getting into the etymology of terror will take me very far off course. Friday’s incident was an act of acute terror. I came across the theory of acute acts of violence in this book titled Mind Fist. It was speaking on acute bullying. It also spoke on chronic bullying. Acute and chronic — the former being brief, and the latter being long standing. If Friday’s incident was acute terrorism, then are there acts of chronic terrorism?
I live in Baltimore. The 301st homicide was recorded last night. What that last sentence doesn’t include is the non-fatal shootings/stabbings/assaults. It also doesn’t include that crazy shit that doesn’t get reported to the police and/or (occasionally) by local news stations. I’m not exaggerating when I say that living in a city like this can invoke terror — terror of the chronic kind. People can become numb to chronic pains though. People live with chronic injuries everyday, right? So chronic acts of terror tend to be treated as an extreme nuisance, at best. It’s especially true when the chronic terror is happening to the ignored, underappreciated, (sometimes) unwanted members of society — both locally and globally. There was, and will be, no nationally televised week long “how do we recover from this” mourning period for McKenzie Elliot, the 3 year old girl killed in North Baltimore last year. Nor will there be one for Tyshawn Lee, the 9 year old boy killed due to modern day tribalism in Chicago. Yet, a random act of (extreme) violence happens in the post-happy hour hustle and bustle of a prosperous metropolis, and the entire world gasps at the horror for 168 straight hours. Then the usual follow-up of what-ifs, who done its, how can we prevents and whys. If we were to judge by the amount of coverage these incidents receive, compassion would seem to be a conditional thing in today’s world. I don’t say that to “downgrade” what happened in France. My intent is the opposite. But is it psychologically feasible to process every violent death the same? Why does the quantity, and quality, of the life taken still seem to factor into where the world’s compassion lays, and for how long? Remember the almost 150 people murdered at Garissa University College back in April? Yeah, I didn’t either. Is the fact that it happened in the African nation of Kenya — a place people consider 3rd world — the reason it was so quickly forgotten? I feel safe in saying I think most Amerikkkans think all of Africa is either fucking war-torn or a jungle, and any violence that happens is just their way of life. Chronic terror. Trivializing death here because it happens more than it does there doesn’t make the death here more bearable and less tragic.
Don’t put chronic pains in the back of your mind. Every “ouch” deserves the same amount of attention. Take care of your body. Take care of every body.