V is for Violence
We’ve noticed what appears to be an uptick in violence lately. We haven’t quantified it. It’s more of a general sense than anything, and we’ve had that sense periodically, so I’m not sure what conclusions, if any, to draw from it. More shootings. More assaults. More “hard” fouls in NBA games. What has become the usual carnage of NHL hockey. The NFL Saints bounty program. S.L. Viehl wrote a book called Shockball a few years ago. It may or may not have been a commentary about the physical destructiveness found in professional sports.
Some of you may have seen the “excessive celebration” by Metta World Peace (the athlete formerly known as Ron Artest) on Sunday afternoon in the Lakers – Thunder game. It didn’t see it live, but I’ve seen it ad nauseum in replays. Bruce Bowen summed it up well with this Tweet, “That elbow by Meta World Peace just erased all the good things he’s done the past 3 years. Not called for, and DESERVES DISCIPLINARY actions.” When I looked at the replay, it appeared obvious to me that “World Peace” knew someone was there — his arm swung out as if gauging the distance, then his lifted his arm, cocked his elbow in front on his body and with full force and effort, swung his elbow backward into the side of James Hardin’s head. There was no indication of surprise or remorse afterward. In my mind, it was vicious and deliberate with enough forethought for him not to be surprised at the effectiveness of the hit.
In discussing punishment, I’ve heard a range of ideas, some extending to games through this post season and into next season. I have to wonder if, given his violent history in the game, banning him from playing in the NBA might not be the most appropriate measure. The NBA selected seven games without pay. I guess that’s reasonable. I would have preferred to see an indefinite suspension and then the seven games after James Hardin returned to be able to play for Oklahoma City — even if it would up being the same.
What do you think? Is there more violence in the world right now, or is the level relatively constant and perception may be varying?
Hard to say. Even compared to when I was a kid, there’s more notice, more coverage, cameras and digital connection and cell phones. Something that might have been overlooked before is now documented better than the entire first five years of my life. 😛 I don’t think that athletes used to be as deliberately violent — but I wonder how much might have been swept under with a “boys will be boys” mentality.
I think the 24 hour news cycle certainly opens the door for more coverage. And all the “I-reporters” with cell phones makes a huge difference. So the question becomes, is there more violence, or is it just more visible? Or, does the exposure “encourage” more?
I don’t know. I do know that if you look at statistics, there are actually fewer violent crimes (including murder) than there were in the 70s.* Fewer total, larger population. This could mean that people are becoming inured to it and not reporting it, or it could mean that people are letting off more steam in other ways and we’re only seeing the exceptions. (The vast majority of people who play Grand Theft Auto will never steal a car, fire a gun, or kill a hooker, for example.)
* The exception would be domestic violence, where more cases are reported because people are learning it’s something they don’t have to put up with.
I think it’s just more visible — at least partly because we have the technology for it, and partly because people realized that censoring (of violence, language, and to some extent sex) didn’t actually make it go away.
That’s an interesting point about people reporting things like domestic violence more. For so many years, people thought it was just the way things were. They didn’t realize there was anything wrong with it. Well, I think they realized there was something wrong with it, but, as you say, they thought they had to put up with it.