Tragedy

trag·e·dy

Noun: An event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe.

“Tragedy” is a word we seem to hear more and more often, these days.

Last month, singer and actress Whitney Houston died under suspicious circumstances. Her passing was labeled a “tragedy.”

And yet, when singer Davy Jones dies last week of an apparent heart attack, there was no mention of “tragedy.”

I’m left to wonder why that is.

What is it that defines a “tragedy?”

The definition shown above, from the Oxford English Dictionary, suggests that a tragedy is a very calamitous event. And yet there are other definitions that suggest that a tragedy need not be quite so severe: an event causing great suffering or sorrow.

Perhaps it is that last definition that explains why the death of a celebrity is considered a “tragedy.”

Certainly the family of anyone who dies suddenly considers their passing a tragedy. But why do complete strangers, albeit that they are fans, consider the passing of a celebrity to be more tragic than that of anyone else.

And yet, why was Whitney’s death considered to be a tragedy, but Davy’s wasn’t?

Perhaps part of the reason was their audience, their fan base.

Davy was a teen idol back in the 60s and 70s. The girls then screamed just as wildly for him as today’s teen girls scream for Justin Beiber. But Davy’s current fans have grown up and matured; they can appreciate his music without screaming and going weak in the knees.

By contrast Whitney’s fans, while many are adults, are younger, and from a generation that has not only elevated “celebrity” status higher than any previous generation, but has assumed an almost personal relationship with their favourite celebrities.

When this person, whom they may never have met but is nonetheless considered to be an important part of their lives, dies it is, for them, an occasion of great sorrow.

As I stated in my previous column, “the Media has become obsessed with not simply reporting the news as it happens, but with delivering the whole story almost within moments of it breaking.” Not only that, but simply reporting the news is not sufficient; it must be sensationalized.

The reason for this is mainly that news reporting is not a public service; it is a business. By sensationalizing a story, media outlets attempt to attract as many readers/viewers as possible, hopefully luring them from the competition.

Let’s be honest, TRAGEDY is a far more compelling headline than SOMETHING SAD HAPPENED.

My issue with the use of the word “tragedy” is not simply that of comparing the currency and popularity of one celebrity over another.

My issue is that there are events that are far more tragic than the death, sudden and unexpected though it may have been, of a celebrity.

Whitney Houston’s death and her subsequent funeral occupied the headlines of print media, and were the lead stories on television and internet news outlets for weeks, as well as getting mentioned on innumerable talk shows. In fact, Whitney still gets a few mentions a week.

Davy Jones had a few days’ worth of media attention, and even though he was still touring and very active, reports of his death evoked more nostalgic reminisces of a by-gone era than any sense of tragedy.

Meanwhile, a few days after the report of the death of Davy Jones, a cluster of tornadoes struck the American Midwest, completely obliterating two entire towns in southern Indiana.

Yes, this made the news. For a day or two.

Yesterday a tornado struck Ann Arbor, Michigan, and one hundred houses were destroyed. Film at eleven.

The word “tragedy” may have been used to describe these events, but reaction to this was not as wide-spread as to the death of Houston or Jones.

While it is true that most people in North America may not have ever heard of either Marysville or Henryville prior to their destruction, surely the devastation the tornadoes wrought was far more significant to the residents of these now former towns than the passing of a couple of celebrities, no matter how well known.

A year ago an earthquake in Tohoku, Japan, caused a tsunami that resulted in widespread flooding and several nuclear accidents. Residents have not yet been allowed to return to most affected areas.

The main island of Honshu was moved 2.4 m east.

Many of the events that do make the news aren’t necessarily tragedies in and of themselves. In many cases it is not the event that is a tragedy, although the result of that event may well be.

Case in point: the terrorist attack on the World trade Centre in September 2001. The attack itself was not a tragedy; it was a terrorist attack. The resulting death of nearly 3000 people – office workers and emergency personnel – was most certainly a tragedy.

There are real tragedies occurring daily that don’t make the news: children being diagnosed with a terminal disease, homeless people dying in the streets, famine, earthquakes, tornadoes, war.

It is all too easy to dismiss tragic events in far-flung corners of the globe as events that don’t really concern us. But they do.

Perhaps not immediately, but these events do affect us.

Depending on the scope of the tragedy, relief agencies may launch appeals, or the government may send aid – financial or personnel – to the stricken region.

What about closer to home?

I hear and read many comments about the “sort of people” who use foodbanks and soup kitchens: that they don’t really need the assistance, they’re just “lazy” or “scamming the system.”

While there likely are people who are abusing the generosity of others, the greater majority truly are dependent on this assistance.

For those who think that the poor are a drain on the system, that tax dollars spent providing social assistance could be better used elsewhere, I say, “Yes, you’re right.”

However, the solution is not to just cut-off social assistance.

The solution is to affect a change to our society, a change that recognizes the value of individuals and provides them with opportunities to make their own way in the world, and lead their lives with dignity.

We need a change that values justice, that recognizes that we are all neighbours within a community; a community that extends beyond the borders of our towns and cities, provinces, and countries.

We need to recognize that we are all interdependent on each other, and rely on one another.

Shortly after the passing of Davy Jones I was checking YouTube videos for Monkees performances, and stumbled across an interview with fellow Monkee Peter Tork.

This interview was conducted several years ago, and Peter was describing his views on Communism – not Soviet-style Communism, which we know does not work, but true Communism, where everyone has all they need.

He pointed out that when one person has more than they need, it follows that someone else will have to make do with less. Further, when a lot of people have a lot more than they need, a lot of people will have to make do with a lot less.

Whether you agree with Commuism or not, the validity of this point of view becomes obvious. Our western society is materialistic, and embraces consumerism with a religious fervor, where the greedy are rewarded and the needy neglected.

The real tragedy in all this that there are those who have no trouble saying, “Who cares?”

But… that’s just my opinion.