Antecedents, Part III: Terrorism in the 1990s (Oklahoma City)
While reading the content for Part III, the text that stood out to me the most was the two chapters from Tourist of History by Martia Sturken. As I did not know much to anything of the bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995, the two chapters were very insightful. From chapter 2, I was educated on the concept of teddy bears being a way of comfort and hope to people of all ages, and not just in the the United States. Along with stuffed animals being used as cooping mechanisms, survivors, family and friends created the Oklahoma City memorial for those who were lost and those who survived on April 19, 1995. The memorial itself, through the texts in Sturken's book, seems to have been put together as a place for families, friends, and survivors to grief and find comfort. As I read the description of how the memorial is set up, with walking through the "Gates of Time" as in the minute before the attack happened and the minute after the attack happened, as to put the person walking through the memorial at the event itself as much as one could (Sturken, 111).
Timothy McVeigh, one of the men behind the bombing, was put to the death penalty with injection. Chapter 3 dicusses how some people, including some survivors and families of the dead, were for and against the death penalty. As stated on page 151, "The death penalty is often held up as a prime example of American hypocrisy because of the contrast between the U.S. discourse of human rights and the country's investment in a 'barbaric' practice that has been proven to be unjust." I can not express how much I believe this to be true. Even though McVeigh murdered and injured so many adults, toddlers, and babies--- one unborn---, the state should not have a say in his death or any other criminal. I believe the point of the prison system in the U.S. is for people to sit and think about what s/he have done, and in the case of someone getting life, that person should "rot" and die in the prison. This reasoning is because the death penalty is almost an escape/ freedom for the person, whereas, dying in prison the person's freedom was taken once the sentence was established. I understand the death penalty is a well-talked about subject, especially in chapter 3 of Sturken's book. Back to the feeling of comfort, for some the death penalty for McVeigh was not comforting knowing that the source of rage, was now gone forever and these people could not forgo closure (Sturken, 159).
The aftermath of the bombing caused a stir in Oklahoma City because some of the people killed in the attack were the source of income for families. Thus, over sixty families were in poverty. Even though money was donated to Oklahoma City, but not to the families and people that were affected. Along with rescue workers being diagnosed with PTSD and trying to escape by drinking excessively, among other things (Sturken, 162). This goes to show the people were not necessarily taken care of, besides for the memorial, in the way the bombing affected them in the long run.
Timothy McVeigh, one of the men behind the bombing, was put to the death penalty with injection. Chapter 3 dicusses how some people, including some survivors and families of the dead, were for and against the death penalty. As stated on page 151, "The death penalty is often held up as a prime example of American hypocrisy because of the contrast between the U.S. discourse of human rights and the country's investment in a 'barbaric' practice that has been proven to be unjust." I can not express how much I believe this to be true. Even though McVeigh murdered and injured so many adults, toddlers, and babies--- one unborn---, the state should not have a say in his death or any other criminal. I believe the point of the prison system in the U.S. is for people to sit and think about what s/he have done, and in the case of someone getting life, that person should "rot" and die in the prison. This reasoning is because the death penalty is almost an escape/ freedom for the person, whereas, dying in prison the person's freedom was taken once the sentence was established. I understand the death penalty is a well-talked about subject, especially in chapter 3 of Sturken's book. Back to the feeling of comfort, for some the death penalty for McVeigh was not comforting knowing that the source of rage, was now gone forever and these people could not forgo closure (Sturken, 159).
The aftermath of the bombing caused a stir in Oklahoma City because some of the people killed in the attack were the source of income for families. Thus, over sixty families were in poverty. Even though money was donated to Oklahoma City, but not to the families and people that were affected. Along with rescue workers being diagnosed with PTSD and trying to escape by drinking excessively, among other things (Sturken, 162). This goes to show the people were not necessarily taken care of, besides for the memorial, in the way the bombing affected them in the long run.
Good connection between the "comfort Culture" of the teddy bears and "Thank You For Your Service." Do you think that in both cases there is a shift away from the consideration of larger political issues, as Sturken suggests is the case in acts of consumer comfort around terrorism?
ReplyDelete