Saturday, February 17, 2018

Are Tropes that Bad?

In Jewish life, anybody using the word 'trope' is likely talking about the system of chanting the readings from Tanach (Bible) in the synagogue.  The text has, in addition to the words and vowels, additional signs that are known as 'trope' or, in Hebrew, te'amim which help the reader by telling him or her what melody to apply to that word, where to accent it, and how to phrase out the verse.

In the greater world, 'trope' refers to a literary device, a figure of speech repeated again and again so that its meaning is immediately understood.

In civil life, one of the most oft-repeated tropes is "thoughts and prayers," as in, when some tragedy strikes, public figures - especially politicians - intone something like: "our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families."  There was probably a time in history when one would have said just "prayers," but now most public figures acknowledge the validity of not holding a religious faith, so it has become "thoughts and prayers."

Of course, this week after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, there were a lot of statements by public figures offering their "thoughts and Prayers."  President Trump used a slight variation; he offered his "prayers and condolences."

When somebody makes the statement concerning "thoughts and prayers" after a tragedy, it really means much more.  It means that the situation in question, simply beggars rational comment because of its enormity and immediacy.  So the "thoughts and prayers" statement is, in effect, an admission that there's nothing to say at this time of great tragedy, that will lessen the suffering of those affected.  The speaker invokes of "thoughts and prayers" simply to acknowledge his or her presence and attention to the situation, and to inform/remind those affected that he or she is, well, thinking of and/or praying for them.

The use of the trope "thoughts and prayers" is, to a certain extent, predicated upon the need by public figures to say something at such times.  If they are politicians, they are required to say something, even if they don't really have something to say.

This reminds me of the adage as to the difference between a wise man and a fool; a wise man always has something to say, whereas a fool always has to say something.  Not that I'm suggesting that all politicians fall into the latter category, although I'm sure more than a few do!

After a tragedy that includes gun violence on a mass scale, it has become normal for some to ridicule those who offer "thoughts and prayers." The Twittersphere has been aflame for the past few days with celebrity Tweeters lecturing us with differing degrees of venom, telling us that "thoughts and prayers" are inadequate in the face of such a tragedy, and that it is time for action - in the form of some serious "gun control."  Until last year, the chorus would have been led by our last, 'Rock Star' President, Barrack Obama, who had a habit of coming out before the cameras after such a tragedy, telling us in advance that some would criticize him for "politicizing" the tragedy, and then lecturing us that the valid response to it was to look at serious measures the country's lawmakers might take to avert such tragedies in the future.  And of course, the suggested shape of those measures was always some serious limitations on the public's access to firearms.

This is not really the time for a serious discussion of the Founding Fathers' intent on including the Second Amendment in the US Constitution, and trying to understand what it might mean for us today, and wondering what forms of gun control, if any, might offer the public some additional safety while not trampling on the citizen's basic rights.  The time for that will be a week, or perhaps two weeks from now.  I do harbor some very definite thoughts on the subject, which I will be happy to share at a more appropriate time.

Right now is also not the time to start impugning the FBI and law enforcement.  It appears that both the FBI and local Florida law enforcement agencies may have dropped the ball with this shooter, Nicolas Cruz; there is some information circulating that indicates he should have been on a number of radar screens.  But that, too, is of little utility at this moment when the funerals for the 14 students and three faculty members of Marjory Stone Douglas, are starting to take place.  There will be a time for serious inquiry as to whether some law enforcement agencies were negligent, bot not now.

For now, even though nobody asked me, I only wish to express my prayers and condolences - yes, I like the President's version - for all those currently grieving.  Yes, it is the repetition of a mere trope, but is that really a bad thing?  After all, "I love you" is also a trope.

A good week, all!

1 comment:

  1. I could not imagine a greater pain than the parents are now suffering. To be in care of a child’s wellbeing and safety, and have them tragically murdered under their watch. Burying a child has never been how it should be. But this... is! May all who are suffering this tragedy have comfort and support.
    However, If saving lives and preventing injuries from known causes, why did the laws on car safety equipment takes so long to implement? ABS braking or airbags or seatbelt pretensioners would have saved countless lives. Life changing injuries that number in the millions would also have been prevented. Perhaps, the masses would have revolted if new car prices rose by $1,500. Perhaps protestors would chant in chorus that their freedoms are being compromised or that big brother doesn’t trust their ability to drive safely. Now of course, laws have come into play, and most new cars have to meet a minimum standard of safety equipment levels. And lives are being saved.
    On gun control, and implementation of draconian uniform laws, the divide between yes and no control is much more complicated. I do know that eight million AR15s that are in American’s hands, today, were not fired in anger and did not kill any innocents. Did the fact of their existence, deter countless crimes and deaths? Logical pondering would lead one to answer in the affirmative. In respect to errant Governments, one only has to look at gun free Nations, and see that hostile governments did in fact usurp the freedoms of it’s own citizens.
    During the Pacific war, Japan was going to pound our cities before attempting any invasions. They were under the impression that “behind every blade of grass, an armed Australian was waiting for them” and so Australia was spared from occupation. Strict gun laws were implemented in 1996 on Australia and a million firearms were surrendered and destroyed. Would this have happened if the Australian Government knew that America was not in the background to save us? The answer is no. Trump is 100% right, many nations expect protection but contribute nothing to the costs of having such a “big brother “ that will come to their aid. Imagine a world were the US was unarmed and that every military asset and all personnel were removed from every part of the world and were only on US soil for defence purposes only. Scary, right??
    I for one, am eternally grateful for the high price that Americans pay on a daily basis to save billions of lives. I don’t want America to change, but I believe that most governments in the world need to pay their fair share of this financial burden that America’s pay. Not forgetting the innocent live that are lost.
    May GD bless America and GD bless all Americans. Thank you.
    Paul Corias.

    ReplyDelete