![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jamesqTwo topics in this one, only tangentially related to each other.
One of my acquaintances is the (SCA) Principality Constable - security in the same way the Chirurgeon is first aid. We were discussing the problems he was having training replacements. You need to be certified to do the training and he isn't - basically he needs to take the teaching constable course first. The people qualified to teach him how to teach all live in Kingdom Core (The Greater Seattle area) and we're in Montengarde (Calgary) - the perils of living in a kingdom that takes two days to drive across.
How hard could it be, I asked. Pretty hard it seems, because most of the Knowne Worlde is in the United States, where SCA security is hard and takes a lot of manpower to accomplish at all. As the constable said, he has a "reportable incident" about once a year and that's typical for Avacal. In the states they average about three "reportable incidents" per event.
Later, I heard from another acquaintance who was talking about Estrella (one of the premier multi-kingdom events down in the states. I think only Pennsic is larger). I've been to neither, so YMMV.
A couple jackasses decided to blow off some fireworks in the middle of the night. Allegedly, this triggered flashbacks in three different Vietnam vets on site, who had to be restrained by friends from engaging in some unspecified violence.
Obviously, the fireworks shouldn't have been shot off. I can think of three good reasons right off the bat why: 1) it's against the law. 2) It's a fire hazard. 3) It's fucking rude.
However, every time I hear this (possibly urban legendish) tale - and I've heard it from three different people so far - the reason given for why it was bad is because it was insensitive to 'nam vets. WTF?
Two points: First, you can't live your life worrying about how some random stranger might wig out. Frankly, they could go nuts for any reason whatsoever, including you not doing something. it's a recipe for personal anxiety.
Second, it's been over thirty years, isn't it about time they got over it?
*** late addition ***
When I've made these two points in conversation, I've been accused of being insensitive to vets - of not understanding what they've gone through. I'll be the first to say that post traumatic stress syndrom is a terrible thing that I'm happy to have never experienced, but I have had bouts of mental illness in my life, and I've made the effort to deal with them.
It's true that the powers that be have not done their duty with these folks and gotten them treatment, but there comes a point where it's time to take responsibility for it yourself. I submit that thirty years is well past that time.
On the other hand, assuming this story is true (and I have big suspicions that it isn't), I doubt that these guys really did have flashbacks. I suspect it actually woke some guy up in the middle night, and he went looking for a fight. When told to knock it off, he said "I'm a Vietnam vet and this is exactly the sort of thing that can trigger a flashback". In the retelling, it stopped being about a pissed off vet and turned into a vet who was having flashbacks. Finally, it got multiplied to three 'Nam vets, and that's the story I heard.
One of my acquaintances is the (SCA) Principality Constable - security in the same way the Chirurgeon is first aid. We were discussing the problems he was having training replacements. You need to be certified to do the training and he isn't - basically he needs to take the teaching constable course first. The people qualified to teach him how to teach all live in Kingdom Core (The Greater Seattle area) and we're in Montengarde (Calgary) - the perils of living in a kingdom that takes two days to drive across.
How hard could it be, I asked. Pretty hard it seems, because most of the Knowne Worlde is in the United States, where SCA security is hard and takes a lot of manpower to accomplish at all. As the constable said, he has a "reportable incident" about once a year and that's typical for Avacal. In the states they average about three "reportable incidents" per event.
Later, I heard from another acquaintance who was talking about Estrella (one of the premier multi-kingdom events down in the states. I think only Pennsic is larger). I've been to neither, so YMMV.
A couple jackasses decided to blow off some fireworks in the middle of the night. Allegedly, this triggered flashbacks in three different Vietnam vets on site, who had to be restrained by friends from engaging in some unspecified violence.
Obviously, the fireworks shouldn't have been shot off. I can think of three good reasons right off the bat why: 1) it's against the law. 2) It's a fire hazard. 3) It's fucking rude.
However, every time I hear this (possibly urban legendish) tale - and I've heard it from three different people so far - the reason given for why it was bad is because it was insensitive to 'nam vets. WTF?
Two points: First, you can't live your life worrying about how some random stranger might wig out. Frankly, they could go nuts for any reason whatsoever, including you not doing something. it's a recipe for personal anxiety.
Second, it's been over thirty years, isn't it about time they got over it?
*** late addition ***
This is not to say that flashbacks are something someone simply gets over. However, after thirty years it should be clear to anybody so affected that they have a problem that needs dealing with - especially if fireworks cause them to be a danger to themselves and others. "Dealing with" the problem can include therapy or it can be simple avoidence - obviously therapy is the better option, but it's not the only one. My objection is how people make it everyone else's problem when it really is something the vets needs to deal with themselves.*** end addition ***
Hopefully this will help explain my hot-button flip comment in a way that everyone can understand. That's the beauty of writing in LJ - I have time to reconsider and explain.
When I've made these two points in conversation, I've been accused of being insensitive to vets - of not understanding what they've gone through. I'll be the first to say that post traumatic stress syndrom is a terrible thing that I'm happy to have never experienced, but I have had bouts of mental illness in my life, and I've made the effort to deal with them.
It's true that the powers that be have not done their duty with these folks and gotten them treatment, but there comes a point where it's time to take responsibility for it yourself. I submit that thirty years is well past that time.
On the other hand, assuming this story is true (and I have big suspicions that it isn't), I doubt that these guys really did have flashbacks. I suspect it actually woke some guy up in the middle night, and he went looking for a fight. When told to knock it off, he said "I'm a Vietnam vet and this is exactly the sort of thing that can trigger a flashback". In the retelling, it stopped being about a pissed off vet and turned into a vet who was having flashbacks. Finally, it got multiplied to three 'Nam vets, and that's the story I heard.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I follow, mostly.
Date: 2006-03-18 07:26 am (UTC)Second, it's been over thirty years, isn't it about time they got over it?
These kinds of things are never going to be the same for anyone, nor can it be classified as something like a personal anxiety attack. I agree it is probably an urban legend, but this comment does kind of indicate an oversimplification of somethine you nor I can truly understand.
Nor should we ever really want to understand it from a first hand point of view.
It is not too much to ask to respect some people's feelings (the Vets and general population) and not discuss something we can never truly understand, no matter how many well written books we read. You will always be labelled as an armchair critic or unfeeling or uncaring person. If you want to avoid the labels, avoid making a comment that leads to them.
Re: I follow, mostly.
Date: 2006-03-18 08:24 am (UTC)To say that people can never understand without experience is to say that nobody can ever comment on another persons experience ever. We are all unique, after all. It disregards the possibility of sympathy, empathy, imagination, deduction and the ability to learn from another's mistakes. It assumes that we all start at square one and must learn everything anew. It assumes that commonality of experience is impossible.
The evidence of human history shows that we can learn from, and build on, other's experiences. We see farther then our ancestors not because we are giants ourselves, but because we stand on the shoulders of giants.
One of the great problems of our society is the false equivalence of criticism and lack of respect - the idea that by making a criticism, we somehow don't respect (or understand) someone. I can respect a veteran for the personal sacrifice they made. I can also suggest that if they have a mental problem so acute that it is still causing them to be a danger to themselves and those around them after thirty years, that maybe they should do something about it. These two statements are not contradictory.
If treatment is not available/possible, then it's their responsibility to remove themselves from situations where they might be a danger. It is certainly not everyone else's responsibility to walk on eggshells on the off chance that they might encounter one of these poor souls and set them off.
I talk about plenty of things I don't have personal experience of. Abortion, politics, Mormonism are just a few recent examples. If people want to discount my opinions based on the fact that I'm observing the subject at some distance, and not the inside, that's there prerogative. But asking me to keep quiet about it is simply not going to accomplish anything.
A better tactic would be to point out why I'm out to lunch on this particular topic. I am eager to learn from my mistakes. But if I make them, you should tell me where the mistake lies so that I can correct it, not tell me to never visit the subject again.
Re: I follow, mostly.
Date: 2006-03-18 05:10 pm (UTC)point one. People have disagreed with some of the things you have said and how you said them to the point that they no longer talk to you.
Point two. This bothers you and has probably led to some of the stuff you mentioned you have suffered from in the past. Depression, anxiety, etc.
Point three. To avoid point two, avoid point one.
You push buttons, people avoid you. If society as a whole disagrees with a comment, perhaps it is the wrong comment to make. Saying a person who suffers from a mental flashback should 'get over it' assumes they are able to, when perhaps they cannot.
I thought you were better than that comment, James. I really did. Assuming people should let you have the final say just because yourr opinion matters the most generally means their opinion matters less. In an open discussion one has to understand that some stuff might be taboo and may lead to ostracizing if it happens too mcuh.
What is your goal with the comment? To push a button? To get a reaction? To put one view forward at the expense of all others? To make people dislike you?
Re: I follow, mostly.
Date: 2006-03-18 06:09 pm (UTC)Clearly my post pushed one of your buttons. Given that you're an intelligent man and I still don't think I said anything so objectionable as to warrant this kind of response, I must have not explained myself sufficiently in the original post. I have therefore edited the original to make my point more clear. Have a look. If you still think there are topics so taboo that I shouldn't be able to talk about them, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Re: I follow, mostly.
Date: 2006-03-18 11:05 pm (UTC)I guess it just goes to show that the wording of apoint being made has as much merit as the point itself. If people take one small word or phrase wrong, they will remember that more than anything else you have said.
Re: I follow, mostly.
Date: 2006-03-19 05:17 pm (UTC)Re: I follow, mostly.
Date: 2006-03-19 11:41 pm (UTC)If you, the person saying something, don't choose your words to get your real point across (in this case, that people who suffered thirty yyears ago ahould have all their problems dealt with) by saying something that can be considered crass and indifferent to the people you are talking to, they will remember the fact that you said something crass and insensitive.
it's human nature for people to misunderstand your intentions if you don't choose your words properly.
In a debate, if you want to get people to understand what it is you are saying, don't say something they will focus on and ignore the point you are trying to make.
If you assume they will understand what you are trying to say by condensing your point to a shortened comment that people can misinterpret, then the speaker should have been more clear.
People will always hear what they want to hear, it's up to the talker to make them hear what they should by being clear.