It sincerely bothers me when people sandwich mourning of some young people with comments on brightness or talent and that they “had a bright future ahead of” them while completely overlooking others. It’s right up there with using only a certain caliber of young person as an example that those…
I disagree…kind of. I don’t think the problem is with people commenting on how bright of a future someone could have had, or how pretty or popular someone was. The problem is you’re assuming it isn’t said for everyone. Even though “pretty” or “popular” is something that is generally accepted as superficial, it’s still simply a celebration of who that person was (or was perceived as). I think it matters so much more that people would have thought about how someone looked/acted/was received, than to avoid that conversation because it seems to discriminate against others who don’t share those characteristics. I feel as though when someone dies, you should say whatever positive thoughts you have about them, rather than avoid it out of concern for less ‘high achieving’, “pretty”, or “popular” peers. The way you wrote about this seems to assume that other great, positive, and presumably more unique comments are not said when others are lost, and I just don’t think that’s true.
I appreciate the response, and to some extent agree. My issue is mostly when this appears in a news article or public forum, when even a brief mention could be given to multiple students, and when they only highlight one with these qualifiers. That’s what concerns me. The way that the public is given information about these things — the way that they’re covered — is such that the more “valuable” people are featured front and center, whereas someone who is “average” is often ignored. I know that we cannot necessarily mention every person and some special quality about them — or that those qualities would be appreciated. But I think that in the case that spurred these thoughts, more effort could have been given to try.
One year in my own high school, two students died. One died because he took a medication that he usually took, but did so while he had been drinking with friends. He was incredibly popular, a very sweet person, on the football team, lots of friends, very much an All American image. There was press for days, weeks. People missed him.
Another was from the alternative crowd, and lurked in the corridors and the courtyard with a tight group of friends. She lived in a difficult situation. She bullied (myself included), but the people who knew her said she was a good person with dreams and a plan. She was out one night walking to a local 24-hour snack stop and hangout spot by the school — she lived nearby — and was hit by a car. The press was minimal — two articles and then occasional updates in the back of the paper about progress finding who did it. Most of it questioned why she was out when she was, and made it seem like it was her own fault. Very few things were said about her, about her hopes or her friends or her future, because many people just assumed that she had none.
That’s the treatment that I’m talking about, that attitude that people take which permeates the approach and then solidifies the attitudes. It concerns me. It isn’t fair. But it’s something we see again and again, manifested in a number of ways.
I hope that made some sense. I’m not sure if I said it well. It’s a moving subject for me.
