Kaze Uta Budo Kai Forum Archive

I posted this on the Budo forum on the Karl Geis site as well. Wanted to post it here for folks who aren't registered there.

http://www.timesoftheinternet.com/1483.html

A man in Philadelphia was sleeping on the subway while wearing his iPod. A man gets on the subway with his son (a young child, maybe 5-8). Tells his son to sit down, puts down his tools, grabs a hammer and starts beating the sleeping guy.

The two eventually spill out of the subway car. We later see the man's son re-enter the subway car to grab his Dad's tools.

And not one person on the subway car did anything to stop it.

Comments?

That kid is very lucky he's alive. This kind of story is why I don't live in the Denver Metro any more and now own firearms. No offense meant, but this is exactly what we get for convincing a populace to never fight back. An entire train full of victims, too shocked to respond to force with force. Ah well, the world is brutal. So what else is new?

It's an interesting problem. As a society, we are somewhat immunized against violence by TV & video games. Yet, children in schools aren't allowed to defend themselves against a physical attack. So, in essence, we are instilling a "do not fight back" mentality in people from a very early age.

Then there's the whole legal system. As much as people are afraid of being harmed in a physical confrontation, I think fear of the legal system is even higher. Bystanders don't want to get involved for fear of becoming a victim, or repercussions in the legal venue.

Has anyone read the book "The Human Zoo" from Desmond Morris? His take on an event like this would be that it's symptomatic of a larger problem, namely that with increased urbanization and populating existing cities more densely, that humans are to some extant exhibiting very similar traits to other animals who are caged up.

His argument is that we are very much a tribal species and that events like the subway hammering are caused by the inability of many humans to function in our current impersonal cities. It goes against humans' very nature to be completely isolated with no tribe of some sort to belong to.

It's a very interesting read.

That's certainly something to consider. However, I think there's more to it that instills a general feeling of helplessness. If you look at crime statistics internationally, we out-do almost all major cities across the globe. While there is certainly some correlation between population density and violent crime, I don't think that's the determining factor. I think it has more to do with social support systems, or the lack thereof that creates a feeling of instability whether or not that feeling is supported by fact or not. In my mind it's that feeling of instability (of helplessness) that causes violence rather than an inability to relate emotionally. The desire to punish those who have made one an outcast from a group must be present before an actual encounter.

Look at youth gangs for support of this theory. They are quite literally tribal, and their function is to socially support those within the collective. Where their function is not crime specifically, their result usually is crime not because of the lack of social acceptance, but a feeling of helplessness that's present before joining that collective. It becomes a culture of survival. A simple analogy would be that of a family pet. If you have a dog and love him welll but beat him randomly, he'll become violent and uncontrollable. If you simply beat him every day, he'll become sullen and refuse to move. This is survival response vs. learned helplessness.

It's not that we live in a cage that makes us violent. It's that those who become violent have no percieved stability.

Let's take another recent news case as an example. An elderly man crossing the street is ran over... by two different cars. Pedestrians see this happen. The drivers don't stop, the pedestrians don't check on the man and he dies.

What is the issue with getting involved when there's nothing to lose? In the above case, all you would have to do is dial 9-1-1 from any phone, explain the scenario, done.

I think it goes back to the me-me-me, my-my-my, I-I-I society we live in. As a society we're more concerned about ourselves than anyone else, even when other people clearly need our help. Is that we're afraid of failure?

many years ago university researchers in psychology set up experiments to look at the non acting bystander phenon -- would they react to give aid to an stranger in trouble (sounds like a bad fall from ladder)? would they react if they themselves might be in danger(building may be on fire)? much depended on if the subjects were part of a crowd or not -- when in a crowd they all looked to others to get cues as to how to react and this feedback tended reinforce the subjects to remain nonreactive, even in the extreme case of an obvious danger to everyone (simulated building on fire) -- when the experiments were altered and the subjects were provided with someone to follow who was reactive (follow the leader), the crowds quickly mobilzed to address the problem -- in all cases if someone "broke the ice" of social inertia folks would get into action, investigate, render aid, save themselves etc. -- without someone stepping up, they tended toward mute stares, as they watched the room begin to fill with smoke--

Cristian Lamson wrote:Has anyone read the book "The Human Zoo" from Desmond Morris?

I have read about four books by Desmond Morris, Some of the best reading I did in college. Definitely takes The Origin of Species to a new level.

I agree with Morris when he talks about the tribal aspects of human society. One way to view it would be to think of a gazelle tribe being attack by a pack of lions out of no where. The tribe takes off and the slow, sick, and old are picked off. When this guy was attacked on the subway, the human tribe took off. This goes along with what Nick said. Someone broke the ice by running off the train. The main difference here is whether the person who breaks the ice is a bull protecting the heard (force meets force), or the gazelle trying to move as many people out of harms way as possible. (speed vs force)

The guy on the street is an entirely different matter in my opinion. This is more of a modern phenomena, not related to survival. More related to being anonamous and not taking on unnecessary responsibility. If you make the call, you are connected to the situation. If you're like me and late to wherever it is you are going, chances are good someone else made the call and everything will be fine. The main reason I feel this way is because I just don't want to be sued. If you could remove that one thing, I would probably make the call.

that experience was all to common while I lived in New York...this is one of the reasons I now live in Oklahoma and would never return to live there ever again...people are scared and don't want to get involved....the mindset is peace is where you ignore reality and the cries of other human beings in need....I have seen elderly folks get trampled and mugged in the middle of the day and no one extending a helping hand...it's predator vs the weak....I am so happy to be away from the lack of humanity that I experienced in New York....I have personally also been a victim of these ignorant and violent individuals and have lost close friends to that ignorance...I never felt I belonged there and I'm so happy to be here..... 😄

stephenjones wrote:This kind of story is why I don't live in the Denver Metro any more and now own firearms.

What do you mean about Denver? Colorado is a must-issue CCW state. Although City and County of Denver have some stupid gun laws, the courts have ruled the State laws supercede them. I'm from a semi-infamous part of Metro Denver and despite the actions of a few psychopaths, I found gun ownership no more restrictive there than here in Oklahoma. In fact, their CCW law is less restrictive.