search
top

Blaming the Object Rather Than the Individual

It’s spelled D-e-o-d-a-n-d, and before the Normans invaded and gave us all those fancy French and Latin words, the Angles and Saxons called them banes. We’re not really any more enlightened as a society than the people who invented the concept in the first millennium, no matter how much we might want to kid ourselves or pat ourselves on the back for our modern sophistication.

15 Responses to “Blaming the Object Rather Than the Individual”

  1. Jeremiah says:

    I think this type of request is sometimes escapism. It doesn’t do anything, other than destroy property. Let the owner decide. If you have a problem with it, you need counseling.

    We are more sophisticated- we do the same things, just faster and with electricity. I am amazed people think we are somehow “different” than those who came before. I don’t think ancient history is much different than modern history. The weaponry is just updated.

  2. Beatbox says:

    I don’t blame them at all. I’d want to tear it down as well. It’s not blaming an object, it’s moving on without a daily in your face reminder.

  3. Beatbox says:

    Also, you don’t want it becoming some sort of ghoulish tourist destination.

  4. Robb Allen says:

    But the land beneath it will still be tainted, no? Should we salt that earth as well? Pave over it?

    I *do* understand it being somewhat cathartic, and honestly I’m not quite as against the idea if whoever owns the property is cool with it because I can see where some people might find a bit of closure in the event. Where it goes awry is when people NOT affected by the event feel the need to ‘cleanse’ the world of objects.

    For example, guns. People who want to destroy guns because they are ‘bad’ rather than ‘this particular gun was used in a crime that affected me personally’ is where the whole ‘deodand’ thing goes off the rails.

    And I suspect there’s a bit of that playing out here as well.

    • beatbox says:

      Agree to disagree. This is getting rid of a daily reminder of something terrible. I don’t think the gun analogy holds. No one is saying that knocking down a building will prevent it from happening again.

    • beatbox says:

      Agree to disagree. This is getting rid of a daily reminder of something terrible. I don’t think the gun analogy holds. No one is saying that knocking down a building will prevent it from happening again. LIke tearing the school and the Columbine library.

      Having said that, you need to respect the property owners rights.

      • Robb Allen says:

        I don’t think we’re disagreeing at all. As long as the people asking for this are the ones affected by it & the property owners are fine with it, bulldoze away. Emotions are not always rational, so sometimes you have to do irrational things.

  5. RAH says:

    The property probably reverted to the divorced husband or the other son. I think the value of the property is mostly composed of the house and not the land. Personally I would object to razing the house to satisfy other peoples emotional angst. If I were the son I would be upset that my mother was murdered there. But considering how many people get killed in their homes that would be a lot of destroyed homes if we all did this.

  6. SLC says:

    If they’re wanting to purge bad memories it would make more sense to tear down the school rather than the shooter’s house.

  7. Will says:

    I’m pretty sure you have to advise all potential buyers about this sort of thing. Generally kills the resale value of a home. Not sure how insurance may effect this decision to demolish.

top