Virginia Tech and the New Isolationism

In the wake of the killing-spree at the Virginia Tech campus (which I must say, though a horrible tragedy just as any murder of innocent people is, is not particularly unusual), we must ask ourselves what kind of culture could produce the kind of reaction many people in this country have had.

We are living in what, if it is not the most violent century our world has known, is certainly no less bloody than the preceding eras. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, suicide bombings, Israeli and Palestinian tensions, student riots in Paris, Mexican immigrants, Sudanese starvation, Kim-Jong Ill's regime in North Korea (notice how no one hears about that unless he does something to make interesting news?)...the list could go on. Although we are generally more comfortable and generally more protected from diseases and unsanitary conditions on most levels (though only in some parts of the world), the world is still a dangerous place, and fixes to remain so for a long while, barring a miracle.

Throughout history, that the world is a dangerous place has been recognized, whether explicitly or implicitly, by nearly every nation and culture that I can think of. The Romans carved out their empire by force of arms. Men in medieval times kept armed retainers in their castles, and peasants no doubt knew how to use their tools for more than just farming when the neighboring lord took a fancy to their land. Young boys began learning the arts of war and knighthood at about seven, if I recall aright. One of the central ideas of being a man meant being prepared to fight. Even women in medieval times could often take over the command of a castle if the menfolk were away.

In the nineteenth century, although pacifism was on the rise in some groups, it seems at least from my research that murderous criminals and other domestic dangers were endured as the unfortunate trappings of any society in this fallen world, not some surprise boulder out of the sky that shatters our carefully constructed, but very thin, ice. Perhaps I am wrong, and the roots of this problem were plainly evident further back than I imagine. Be that as it may, however, I think it is safe to guess that the reaction we have seen from many of the most vocal and influential people in this country, not to mention, I am sure, a great number of the equally important but less noticed people who are the 'ordinary citizens,' is a fairly unique phenomenon in the history of the world.

A man walks into a college campus and shoots 32 people dead. What is our reaction? Rome would have beheaded him. Ancient Israel would have stoned him (and in modern Israel he would have been shot dead almost before he aimed at his first victim). Communist Russia, depending on which side he was on, might arguably have condoned him. But America is probably the first nation to pretend that others like him can be stopped by simply ignoring the things that drive them to do what they do, and the means to stop them from doing it when they take that deadly step.

Others have belabored the issue of gun control, but I shall a little nonetheless. It is certainly obvious to me, and should be to everyone else, that even five or six students with semi-automatic pistols or revolvers with even a rudimentary knowledge of their use could have downed Cho Seung-Hui in seconds. He might have shot a few people first, but perhaps only eight or ten students would have died rather than 32. Arguably Seung-Hui could have gone on killing had he not committed suicide, at least until the police arrived. That is a sickening thought--the police are not omnipotent, and to think that so many of our citizens not only depend solely on them for armed protection (which usually means they die waiting for it), but they also frequently complain that the police are over reactive or, when they do shoot, shoot excessively, is fairly frightening. There is a book out called More Guns, Less Crime: the title speaks for itself. I have not personally read the book (I should soon), but my mother has and would definitely recommend it. The book provides, I believe, some hard statistics about how concealed carry reduces crime.

Now, moving on from gun control, I come to the main point of my post, which was mainly inspired by an April 22 post by Mark Steyn called Let's be Realistic About Reality (linked here). Steyn's basic point is that Americans have isolated themselves from reality. I will quote him: "To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish. Like the new Yale props department policy, it signals to everyone that you're not in the real world." This, I think, is a very compelling case for what is wrong with the general liberal worldview. It is well-meaning and often, no doubt, arises from principles with which I would not disagree (for instance, that violence against the innocent is wrong, that we should strive for peace, that the earth is precious, etc.) The problem is that many of them believe we live in a world where these things are possible by just talking it out. That is why we have bumper stickers like "give peace a chance." I seriously doubt that those who use those bumper stickers realize what it means to give peace a chance. "Giving something a chance" means cultivating conditions in which something can take place or exist. To give dodos a chance we would have had to not hunt them or take steps to protect their habitat.

But giving peace a chance is a rather different matter, because dodos, as well as I can guess, probably did not actively fight against being saved from extinction. Peace, however, is a very different thing from the existence of dodos, because the maintenance of peace depends on both parties in whatever interaction may be taking place. It demands the mutual consent of both people or groups of people. Here's the problem: people like the Palestinian government and the Iraqi and Afghani suicide bombers--and Cho Seung-Hui--don't want to make peace. Their ideologies, or their mental problems, demand total war and destruction. It's like trying to add two negatives and always getting a positive number. One part peace plus one part aggression equals two parts war. The only difference is that one side doesn't fight back. Do you know what happens then? Of course you do. The aggressive guy wins because he has the guns, the guts, the reason for fighting, and the knowledge that the other chap won't shoot back.

There is only one way to make peace in this situation (unless God should intervene in a special way): defend yourself. It is a sad but basically irrefutable truth that the best way to peace with a determined, fanatical enemy is to make war with him.

Now, I will admit that that way of handling things isn't fun, and we Americans are pretty fond of fun things. What is the end result? Well, many people have noted how childhood seems to be encroaching more and more on our culture as the attitudes and learning-levels associated with adolescence never seem to disappear. In this case many of us have acted just like the child who hears the scary noises outside and buries his head under the covers. In the child's case, we know his fears are unfounded, and tell him so: they are just monsters in his head. His fear is genuine but needless. He does not need to bury his head under the covers, but neither does he need to sleep with a gun under his covers. In our case, the scary noises outside are not crickets or tree branches rubbing against the window. They are real monsters, and we still have our heads under the covers. Of course we know why: it's dark and comfortable in there, and it sure seems like nothing can get past that blanket. One can simply imagine the monster was part of his imagination, or will grow bored and leave. But if one knew the first thing about monsters, he'll know they aren't fooled by blankets.

Americans need to take the covers off their heads and starting thinking realistically. Our problems will not go away by ignoring them, and recognizing their existence is the first step. We need to stop pretending that violent crime or suicidal attacks are so "shocking," which is the media's favorite term for events like the shootings at Virginia Tech. Terrible, yes; sinful, yes; heartrending, yes. But shocking? Apparently we have forgotten 9/11, Columbine, and the murder of the Amish girls last year. Not only that, but people had plenty of advanced notice that Seung-Hui was mentally disturbed and had a dangerous attraction for brutal and grotesque violence. Why was Virginia Tech "shocked"? Because they preferred to hide under the blankets and pretend that such a thing could never happen. Imagine what a child would feel like if a green, clawed hand actually poked a hole in his blanket! No doubt he would be shocked. But if he were tagging along behind his father, hunting the monsters outside, the interposition of a clawed and green hand might be frightening and might not be pretty, but it would never be unexpected.

Every creature, whether animal or man, naturally seeks the weakest things as prey. Lions, hyenas, carjackers, and disturbed college students alike know that the old, the sickly, and the unprepared are prime targets. I doubt that lions hesitate for a second to hunt gazelle, because gazelle have absolutely no natural defenses except speed that can arm them against a creature as strong and well-built for attack as a lion. But it would be a singular occurrence, possibly a non-existence occurrence, when you would see a lion taking on an adult bull elephant, except perhaps in times of literal starvation. Why? Bull elephants are big, tough, and armed with long tusks, and they charge when threatened. Maybe if we took our cue from the elephants, the lions at home and abroad might change their tune. And even if one of those times or starvation come around and the criminals and terrorists get desperate, remember: the elephant usually wins.