« Real Media Bias | Main | Where David Card Is »
December 07, 2006
"Exposure"
Speaking of bias, I loathe how, when people die because they lack shelter from the freezing cold, we call it "death by exposure." This case isn't that of a homeless man but a heroic father. Nevertheless, when the unsheltered die on an iced-over bench in the dead of winter, covered by classified sections and rags, we call that exposure. What they died from was poverty, and homelessness, and in many cases, mental illness and/or drug abuse. And they died in an excruciating fashion, slowly freezing to death, often all alone. But "exposure" is so much cleaner, so disconnected from root causes, so much easier to ignore. That's bias. It's bias towards our desire to avoid guilt, shame, regret, or communal culpability.
December 7, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Disagree entirely. Seems like the type of reasoning as used by those who insist on calling suicide bombers "homicide bombers." The person died of exposure; the reasons for exposure are various, but might be predominantly those you mention. And I'm not sure we care enough about the afflicted that we feel the need to deal with guilt.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Dec 7, 2006 11:24:50 AM
It's also a stretch to tie Kim's death - which really was about exposure to the elements and not poverty, in any sense - to this narrative. If you have examples of how the issue you cite is happening, cite those by all means, but Kim's tragic death is part of a different narrative, and it should be there, not here, really.
(And my point also is - I'm not sure there's as much of this "running away from the dangers homeless people face out in the cold" as you're suggesting here, so it would be good to show just where that's happening, if you see it.)
Posted by: weboy | Dec 7, 2006 11:41:54 AM
Here you go. Kim just reminded me of it.
Posted by: Ezra | Dec 7, 2006 11:53:31 AM
The person died of exposure; the reasons for exposure are various
And may make one more susceptible to death by exposure, so Ezra's not wrong. If someone is severely malnourished, has an untreated illness, doesn't have proper cold-weather clothing, it's not just death by exposure, but death by exposure due to poverty.
If someone dies of sepsis from an infected bullet wound, we generally believe the bullet had something to do with it.
Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Dec 7, 2006 12:15:59 PM
Right. And I'm not arguing this is malicious. It's just a name we give something so we don't have to think too hard about it.
Posted by: Ezra | Dec 7, 2006 12:21:35 PM
What can you do to help Karen Carter out? The corrupt racists are attacking her big time in order to keep cozy boy Bill Jefferson in power!
We need Democracy and we need people to be free to speak up against injustice if we are going to rebuild our communities!
Posted by: Tarrence Green | Dec 7, 2006 12:21:54 PM
Ezra has it right, we often use 'softening' words to hide our shame at being confronted with hard words that tell the truth.
Here's another set of words (related to each other) that do another form of truth hiding.
casualty
–noun, plural -ties. 1. Military. a. a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture, or because his or her whereabouts or condition cannot be determined.
b. casualties, loss in numerical strength through any cause, as death, wounds, sickness, capture, or desertion.
2. one who is injured or killed in an accident: There were no casualties in the traffic accident.
3. any person, group, thing, etc., that is harmed or destroyed as a result of some act or event: Their house was a casualty of the fire.
4. a serious accident, esp. one involving bodily injury or death.
compare with this:
casual
–adjective 1. happening by chance; fortuitous: a casual meeting.
2. without definite or serious intention; careless or offhand; passing: a casual remark.
3. seeming or tending to be indifferent to what is happening; apathetic; unconcerned: a casual, nonchalant air.
4. appropriate for wear or use on informal occasions; not dressy: casual clothes; casual wear.
5. irregular; occasional: a casual visitor.
6. accidental: a casual mishap.
7. Obsolete. uncertain.
–noun 8. a worker employed only irregularly.
9. a soldier temporarily at a station or other place of duty, and usually en route to another station.
Word-smithing to hide the truth isn't new to our discourse, but Bu$hCo has raised this to an art form. Supply your own examples: there are lots of them.
We now know from the ISG report that BushCo has consistently under-reported civilian 'casualties' in Iraq (by a factor of 10, quite likely), but adopting weird standards of what is a death due to the war, and then calling those who pass the screen: casualties.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Dec 7, 2006 12:26:22 PM
Actually, I don't view Kim's death as heroic. If he had done the smart thing - the thing that survival guides recommend - and stayed at the car with his wife and children he would be alive today.
Instead, relying on some concept of manhood that demands action even if it is wrongheaded, he went off and died alone, leaving his wife to struggle to raise two children as a single parent.
Posted by: fiat lux | Dec 7, 2006 12:33:48 PM
Actually, I don't view Kim's death as heroic. If he had done the smart thing - the thing that survival guides recommend - and stayed at the car with his wife and children he would be alive today.
Wow, fiat, you just don't get how the game is played here. Personal responsibility is not valued. Every tragedy is everyone else's fault.
Get with the program, will ya'?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 7, 2006 12:52:48 PM
Kim died of exposure. You rant against the reasons people die of exposure, which is legitimate, but nonetheless Kim and a homeless person will have died due to the same unfortunate circumstances.
Many persons die from gunshots, some in unjust wars, some from suicide, some from murder, some by accident. All are regretable for different reasons, but all died of gunshots.
Posted by: Mudge | Dec 7, 2006 12:52:50 PM
What about those homeless who refuse help(be it from craziness or would rather smoke crack than get a hot meal and a cot, whatever), should we characterize their deaths as self inflicted hypothermia, or self imposed exposure to the elements?
As far as Kim's death being heroic, maybe he wasn't up on his survival manual.
Imagine sitting in a car for 5 days, watching your wife and kids struggle to stay warm and the only food for the kids coming from your wife's breast milk, and each time she feeds them, she is that much more depleted. 5 days and no sign anyone is coming.
Some of you liberals are just nasty people. I guess it is only sad or heroic if a poor person dies due to the elements. If it is an affluent, successful person who did what most people would have done, he is a scumbag.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Dec 7, 2006 1:06:27 PM
I have to say, that I can easily see why Kim's tragic death would make one think about the homeless who live out in those same elements. Also, I find it ironic that Kim died not terribly far from my new home town of Portland, one of the most homeless friendly cities in the U.S.
I am in the unfortunate position of not being able to do very much for the homeless in my area, but I found one small way to help. As I said, Portland is a very homeless friendly town. One of the ways it is so friendly is the blanket drives. The problem is that the blankets get wet and/or dirty - then they're abandonded. I have taken to collecting them when I see them, washing them and leaving a stack on my porch - taking the rest to one of the regular distribution spots. I should add that a lot of people in Portland do the same.
I also go to the Goodwill that sells junk by the pound to buy work clothes quite regularly. A couple people in my nieghborhood contribute, so I can buy stacks of blankets and coats to give away. My son and I have a wonderfull time going to some of the good "dry" spots, to give away coats and blankets. We can usually get the neighborhood co-op to donate "deli" type snack foods that are about to or have just hit on their date. They always give us really tasty vegan cookies to give to the kids we come across.
I would love to see the day when public policy makes much of this anachronism. But until then, I will appreciate the opportunity to make my child aware, not just of those who have much more than we do, or the same, but of those who have much less - and our responsability to help them. Certainly, it is very exciting when my son thinks up new ways we can help our homeless friends (although, I nixed his idea to buy our homeless friends a keg of beer - he saw a stack of them outside a party store, after I explained what they were, his eyes lit up and he thought our friends would love it if we brought them one).
Posted by: DuWayne | Dec 7, 2006 1:07:54 PM
I think Kim knew he was risking his own life by leaving the car, but his wife was able to feed their children and signal for help on her own. Staying with the car probably wouldn't have increased his family's chances of survival, but striking out on his own would somewhat increase the chances that he could get help and rescue them. It was much more likely that he would die -- and he did -- but I think he was willing to make that sacrifice for his family.
Yes, if he had stayed, he would be alive now. But that's hindsight.
Posted by: Mary | Dec 7, 2006 1:40:48 PM
Fred and Captain Toke- Kim's death is tragic and no one will argue with that, heroic is another matter.
As for -"Imagine sitting in a car for 5 days, watching your wife and kids struggle to stay warm and the only food for the kids coming from your wife's breast milk, and each time she feeds them, she is that much more depleted. 5 days and no sign anyone is coming." That makes him sound like he was running away from a bad situation rather than trying, mistakenly, to find help. What they needed was better information and maybe we should insist that all off-road vehicles come with a survival guide and emergency kit so that, when people do go off-road, they are prepared.
Ezra is right, words matter and how we describe a situation makes a difference. The least any of us can do is not diminish a bad situation for either the educated and well-off or the poor and disadvantaged.
Posted by: Hawise | Dec 7, 2006 1:44:18 PM
This is interesting. The first connotation of "exposure" I think of is: lost in the wilderness - can't find shelter. The juxtaposition of this sense with "New York City" is pretty jarring. Someone dies alone without shelter in a place that is basically nothing but people and shelter? There is a visceral reaction that resonates with the root causes in a way that a paragraph on poverty and mental illness can't.
Posted by: apm | Dec 7, 2006 1:51:55 PM
Mary- the first thing found by searchers is usually the car. If he had stayed with his family and taken on all other non-food related tasks he would have extended all their chances considerably. She is burning 500-1000 calories each time she feeds the children and losing a litre of fluid. If he maintains the fire, melts snow for water and searches the immediate area for fuel and things that may attract notice from the air then he extends their life expectancy significantly.
I am too practical to have much use for the terms heroic and sacrifice. Neither one is a survival trait.
Posted by: Hawise | Dec 7, 2006 1:57:45 PM
I just can't imagine how anyone can think that this from Mudge isn't correct:
Many persons die from gunshots, some in unjust wars, some from suicide, some from murder, some by accident. All are regretable for different reasons, but all died of gunshots.
I can think of several types of death that might have poverty as an important causal factor: exposure, crack, neighborhood violence, lack of health care. Would we really be better off if the newspapers described those people simply as having been killed by poverty? Would people suffering from poverty?
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Dec 7, 2006 1:58:47 PM
"A man was discovered dead today. He died because this heartless capitalist system which values profits over people's lives, left him out in the cold to suffer because our wall street corporatist profit society has no patience & nothing but contempt for those that lose in our heartless dog eat dog system through no fault of their own. As he was slowly dying he no doubt thought long and hard about how awful it was to be born in such a system that has such disrespect for his life and probably wondered how we, so culpable in his death could live with the blood so obviously dripping from our cold, corporatist hands. Officials say the elements may have been involved."
Posted by: DRR | Dec 7, 2006 3:04:19 PM
toke - i don't think ezra ever called kim a scumbag. and personally, i think sometimes these threads tend to get a little out of control and people begin to debate things that weren't really the point of the original comment (which i understand is part of the interest in blogging), but i have to say that i believe ezra was saying it brought to mind all those who suffer - nameless and faceless - in our society.
(sorry ezra if that is misconstruing your original comment).
Posted by: jrav | Dec 7, 2006 3:20:21 PM
jrav,
read fiat lux's comment. He/she/it doesn't come out and call Kim a scumbag, but he/she/it implies it is his fault his wife is raising the kids alone rather than the truth: he tried to do the best thing for his wife and kids, he died.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Dec 7, 2006 3:39:28 PM
i hate to see this stuff spewed across the internet, and what particularly caused me to remark was your condescending tone when you addressed "you liberals." i guess I'm glad you preface it with "some," but still - I don't like it when people jump on others in these threads and put words in other people's threads... (i.e. scumbag).
and yes, everything i heard said he did know quite a bit about outdoor survival.
do i blame him? no. should anyone really have the right to comment on what this man did after such extreme and dire circumstances? nope. i don't believe so.
Posted by: Jennifer Ravey | Dec 7, 2006 4:05:17 PM
do i blame him? no
There's a shift key on the lower corners of your keyboard. It allows you to access the capital letters.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 7, 2006 4:58:42 PM
no need to be tacky. i'm a master's student in english. i know where it is and how to use it.
Posted by: jrav | Dec 7, 2006 5:05:10 PM
jrav,
You would be better off not trying to reason with either Toke or Fred Jones; it only encourages more unsupported, inane bilge from them.
Posted by: jmack | Dec 7, 2006 7:39:09 PM
i'm a master's student in english.
For God's sake, use it.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 7, 2006 8:52:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
