|
||||
|
|
LETTERS | MAY 4, 1998 VOL. 151 NO. 18 |
|---|---|---|
Letters ARMED AND DANGEROUS
"Instead of debating if we should change laws to prosecute
children for adult actions, maybe we should be prosecuting the
parents."
Rarely has it been so clearly shown that the perpetrators of an
assault were also its victims [April 6]. The attack on
schoolmates by two Arkansas youngsters ended the lives of a
teacher and six children (the four who were killed and the two
who shot them). Whatever factors led Mitchell Johnson, 13, and
Andrew Golden, 11, to fire on their fellow students in
Jonesboro, Ark., they should be sought out and eliminated. The
death penalty is not the issue in this case. How do you deter an
anomaly?
The sight on your cover of a toddler with a rifle, real or fake,
in his little hands smacks of sensationalism. The little martyrs
of Jonesboro would have made a more fitting cover.
Unfortunately, seeing a toddler photographed bearing arms will
convince many foreigners that the American way of life is
depraved.
I am stunned that experts continue to blame television and the
media for playground massacres that involve youths and guns. Is
the National Rifle Association so powerful in the U.S. that
people are scared to admit that archaic gun laws are causing
young children to be killed?
The N.R.A. is not to blame for the aberration of Jonesboro. Gun
ownership in America preceded the N.R.A. In the community where
this tragedy happened, hunting has been a part of life for
centuries. The N.R.A.'s courses on gun safety, insistence on the
presence of adults whenever youngsters are hand-ling firearms,
and political activities to preserve responsibly a historical
right are worthwhile undertakings.
The Jonesboro tragedy represents an urgent call for the people
of the U.S. When two little boys are capable of committing such
a horrendous act, it is a sign that the roots supporting the
whole of American society are rotten.
In your story a seventh-grader in Jonesboro said, "Everybody at
Westside [school] knows how to shoot a gun." I'm sorry, but
someone who doesn't understand the difference between shooting a
deer and shooting a human being over a rebuff does not know how
to use a gun. Until the N.R.A. is ready to take on the
responsibility of making sure every gun user understands the
distinction, the gun lobbyists should shut up and let the U.S.
have some decent gun laws. It is too easy for irresponsible
people to get hold of the means of making a tragically permanent
change in the lives of too many people.
The young murderers were taught to drive a van and shoot a
weapon accurately. Their parents and grandparents bear a huge
responsibility for this unimaginable, evil killing.
It is hard to realize that some students thought the shooting
was "all fake" or drama students acting out a play. How could
such a sudden display of violence seem as fake as a Hollywood
production? But because violence and bloodshed are constantly
displayed on TV, they have been deprived of their meaning.
It is surprising that despite such incidents as the Jonesboro
shootings, the U.S. government refuses to ban weapons. In India
our forefathers would not allow a child even to pick up a toy
knife or gun in a shop or play cops and robbers. The idea was
that seeds of violence should never enter a child's mind.
We may never know why these young boys shot their classmates,
but to suggest that video games had a role is irresponsible. No
studies have ever shown a direct connection between violent
video games and violent behavior. Given the popularity of video
games over the past 25 years, we'd have seen the connection long
ago if it existed. Our hearts go out to the victims, and we
understand the desire to find a reason for a senseless act, but
to blame it on video games is wrong.
America, don't beat up on yourself over the killings in
Jonesboro. In Canada we also have violence and murder committed
by schoolchildren. The U.S. has almost 50 million school-age
youngsters. The acts of two or three should not be used to
condemn the entire country. AFRICA ON THE RISE
Thanks for your interesting article about President Clinton's
trip to Africa and conditions there [March 30]. In reading about
the positive aspects of Clinton's visit, people should not
forget that genocide took place in the heart of Africa, where a
million people lost their lives in a civil war. I didn't see
Clinton in Africa when that was happening. Now that big industry
smells a potential market in the "rising African countries,"
here is Clinton to pave the way.
You provided a well-needed dose of good news about a region
ignored by a self-absorbed world. I hope it won't take another
presidential trip to provoke a similar, positive focus on other
revived regions. If your story inspired one African youth to run
for elected office or encouraged one foreign investor to
consider Africa, then it did a great service to an almost
forgotten continent.
The forces of change have been at work in Africa. The years of
war, hunger and poverty have, at least, left Africans with
survival skills. There is hope.
Clinton need not apologize for the existence of slavery [April
6] because he cannot be held responsible for that terrible page
in history. What he should apologize for is the inequality
between blacks and whites that still exists in America,
something he is responsible for.
It is ironic that African Americans who come to Africa seeking
their roots thank their lucky stars that their ancestors were
traded as slaves. If their forebears had remained, those same
African Americans could be residing in a shack eking out a
subsistence living. Better to ask the ancestors who engaged in
the slave trade to apologize, but, of course, they do not have
the means to compensate for the pain and suffering. MALI'S STRONG SOCIAL CAPITAL
In the segment of your article on Africa that focused on Mali
[March 30], you quoted me as saying the government here
"understands human capital." To be precise, I was referring to
Mali's strong social capital: "something" that makes some
societies function or heal themselves better than others.
Harvard professor Robert Putnam first developed the idea in the
late 1980s, when comparing northern and southern Italy. Social
capital is rather like the dark (missing) matter of the
universe: we know it's there because we can see its
consequences, but it is hard to get hold of and examine. The
U.N. Development Program in Mali is researching this question
with the government's encouragement. MINDS THAT ARE TOO OPEN
I'm shocked by the response of Americans to President Clinton's
numerous alleged affairs [March 30]. His popularity ratings have
risen, even with the publicity and scandal. What have we come to
when we applaud an immoral life-style? Are our minds so open
that we no longer have any morals? As a 16-year-old U.S.
citizen, I am scared by what lies ahead of me. Whom do I have to
look up to now? TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE
Re your article "A Repentance, sort of," on the Vatican's
statement on the Holocaust [March 30]: no one knows better than
the present Pope that Pope Pius XII failed to act positively
during the period of the Holocaust. This is just one of many
papal failures through the ages. If the Vatican had gone public
with this sort of statement in the 1950s, there would have been
condemnation of the church. To come out with this document 55
years after the event is smart. Not many living persons can
rebut it. WHO IS TURNING A BLIND EYE?
Although the Kurds have illegally entered Italy and Greece
[March 30], they have the status of refugees. The vast majority
are helpless victims of an unfair war. They cannot be considered
"terrorists" just because the U.S. and Turkey call them so.
People have ended up accusing Greece for its efforts to give
shelter to suffering refugees instead of condemning Turkey for
yet another act of "ethnic cleansing" and genocide during this
century. It's not Greece that is "turning a blind eye" to
terrorism but the global community that is ignoring a very
serious humanitarian issue. CORRECTION Our story "Romancing the Widow?" [March 30] inaccurately stated that on the television show 60 Minutes Kathleen Willey accused Maryland real estate developer Nathan Landow of trying to get her to deny an alleged sexual advance by President Clinton. CBS correspondent Ed Bradley asked Willey about an FBI investigation into charges that Landow had pressured her to keep quiet. Willey said only that she and Landow had "extensively" discussed her encounter with Clinton. She declined to elaborate, citing ongoing investigations. TIME regrets the error.
WHY DID IT HAPPEN? Many young people wrote trying to answer the question of why kids would kill [April 6]. Daisy B., an 18-year-old from New Jersey, pointed to the problems for young people in a stressful world. "Folks don't understand the problem of teenage angst," she said. "Violent television programs do not make teenagers go out and shoot classmates. Stress and self-hate in high schools push already delicate teens to act out." Some students looked at other factors. Marisa Jaffe, 15, from Massachusetts felt that "adults seem to think children are impetuous, irresponsible and uncaring. I wonder how they think we got that way?" 15-year-old Canadian Michael Kennedy of British Columbia analyzed: "These boys killed because of a mixture of poor guidance, poor parenting and bad judgment." But, he added, "the parents are at fault for not realizing that kids and guns don't mix."
|
||
time-webmaster@pathfinder.com |
||