AIBU to not "get" mass public mourning?

[BabyMummy29]

Thinking of the sad case of the little boy in Edinburgh at the moment, but on so many occasions nowadays people leave flowers, toys etc when they didn't even know the person concerned,

Wouldn't they be better spending the money on a donation to a charity.

I just don't get it at all. Fair enough if you knew the person involved. but not otherwise.

I think in this case people feel a sense of collective sadness, almost guilt(?) that this little boy died in their community and that they couldn't stop it, or whatever went on his little life, from happening. The flowers are to do something for him, to acknowledge him. I don't think I would do it myself but I sort of get it. I would like to think that some of those people have also made a donation to a children's charity in his memory, if they are able to, or that they will be watchful for children in the community who may be at risk and take action on their behalf.

I always remember hearing how a local florist was able to shut shop and go and live abroad on the money she made from the much publicised murder of a local little boy , in her thirties. For about a month the area was a sea of flowers and she was the nearest, couldn't restock fast enough. Remember thinking it just seemed wrong somehow that someone should make such a 'windfall' out of tragedy. But I suppose it's only the same as tragedies increasing sales of newspapers etc.

We're talking about a cultural shift in expression of grief. As such, I do think that everyone's voice should be heard, even if it comes across as critical. Especially those whose preference is to grieve in private because, obviously, public grief - on facebook and the creation of shrines - is more visible.

Mostly, people can be tolerant of other people's preferences. But there's a problem when they clash. I was brought up in the tradition of silence equating with respect. When did the practice of clapping the hearse come in? I find that dreadfully jarring because it's the opposite of what I feel is appropriate.

I can also remember when widows wore veils to funerals - there's a famous picture of the royal family at the Duke of Windsor's funeral. This was to protect them from being the object of mawkish curiosity. But now the media seems to go out of its way to publish photos of griefstricken relatives in extremis. I'm thinking of the pictures of Lee Rigby's wife and girlfriend.

As to the current topic, I don't have a problem with the community getting together for mutual comfort an impromptu event. But I do feel uncomfortable at some of the footage where children were being pushed to the front as if to attract attention.

I also feel that the tweets, fb messages and cards attached to flowers come across as attention-seeking. Often rewarded by photos of same reproduced in the media. But then I'm from an older generation.

I used to live near Soham, when it was in the news for sad reasons. A few days after it was confirmed that H&J had died, I encountered a man who had travelled hundreds of miles with his toddler daughter to visit Soham to pay his respects. He had no connection to the area or to the families. I felt at the time that that was grief tourism.

I can see that for grieving families the sheer volume of tributes could be comforting. I'm sure they'd be more comforting the more connection they had to the lost person though?

I am oretty sure she couldn't have made THAT much money.

Can understand if it's folk who knew the family or lived nearby, same school etc and were more directly affected. But I know folk who travelled hours to London just for Diana's funeral - I find that a bit weird and ghoulish - like it was entertainment.

Manchesterhistorygirl actually most people are supporting the right of the community to grieve for someone in their community. What's less understandable is when it's someone far removed from your community. RTFT.

I think there's a difference between grief, suffered by those close to a tragedy, and respect, paid by others as a mark of compassion over a tragedy - the searchers over this poor child, and flowers laid at the scene of a traffic accident - and finally sentimentality, where people treat a tragedy exactly like it's a cinema trip to Titanic and an opportunity to feel tearful and emote over something that doesn't cause the sort of searing, ugly pain of true loss.

The last category is not fun to witness. Ask the locals in Soham, who at one point had to contend with tour buses full of grief tourists turning up to take photos of themselves in front of the flowers. They had to be asked to stay away, as it was making a hellish situation for locals considerably worse. God knows what it was like for the Wells and Chapman families, to have to contend with that.

Locals who helped search for that little boy are paying respect, and that's very heartwarming, I think. But the woman who wrote The Lovely Bones, Alice Sebold, tells a story about visiting the town where, as a student, she'd been brutally raped by a stranger in an underpass, an event which eventually led her to write the novel. Apparently someone she met there earnestly explained that the victim had been her best friend. Alice Sebold had never seen her before in her life. And she said that was just one example of people sort of trying to co-opt the dramatic elements of what had happened to her, because variants happened all the time. And that has nothing to do with compassion.

It's weird, but a lot of people do want to sort of connect themselves to terrible events. There was a very odd bloke at my mother's religious community who always wanted to "help the bereaved" after something like Dunblane, or to "spiritually counsel" the Bulgers. He was always angling to be a prison visitor, too. I'm sorry, but that sort of behaviour is self-seeking and narcissistic in nature, and while there are lovely people who just want to convey their genuine sadness that others are suffering, it isn't wrong to question motivations, when some get some sort of vicarious emotional buzz from the very real traumas of others. That's not empathy or compassion.

Horatia, x post. (I lived near at the time, too.)

Thymeout - clapping the hearse - urgh
Also hate the creation of shrines - I find myself spotting them at the side of the completely straight and not particularly dangerous road and thinking

I hate shrines too. If I lost a loved one at a roadside, I'd dismantle and dispose of any attempt to make one as my family would hate it too.

perfectstorm

Agree LyingWitch I'd do the same

if any fecker does a virtual candle for me I will haunt them

perfectstorm great comment - The Lovely Bones has some really good things about people trying to co-opt public grief. It reminds me a bit of people making a big deal about Andy Murray having been at the school where the Dunblane massacre happened, even though Murray himself has publicly said that he was too young to understand what was happening and does not want to talk about it.

I think even on this thread, the atmosphere of 'you must display your grief publicly and loudly or you are not really grieving' is really dangerous. Lots of groupthink. It's that kind of attitude that's lead to suspicion of parents whose children have gone missing or died, because they don't look 'sad enough' .

Pigsus yes, worrying I agree. My own mum doesn't think I've been sad enough over my Dad's death

I remember attending my nana's funeral when I was 9 and being TOLD to cry. I couldn't cry because I was 9 and couldn't process death as a concept beyond being glad my nana didn't have to suffer any more.

My sister whispered the wittiest remark at my grans open coffin - it was just so her we burst into giggles, but pretended we were crying.

Witchway, my exmil thought I wasn't sad enough about Diana .

I think Perfectstorm has put it all really well. And Pigsus. There is nothing wrong in community grief and displays of support. It has and does spill over into grief tourism though and that is just sick.

Well you need to tell us now.

My family often laugh at funerals.

sinister I agree - emotions at funerals are kind of either hysterical crying or hysterical laughter

thats why you need a drink afterwards !

That was to Sal

Couldn't tell as it would be too long and boring a set up but I suppose it was genuine emotion. I guess that's what this whole thread is about, really.

At my grandad's funeral (other side of the family to my nana), my cousin had her 2-week-old baby there and we were all looking at old photos (we had a memory board where we had the wake). Lots of laughing at the baby and some of the pictures, as well as lots of crying. I think being able to be natural about your grief is the healthiest option.

just hope nothing tragic happens to any of you

you may then feel comforted, in thd thought, that total strangers have given you and your family a passing thought of empathy, respect and wanted to display that

until any of you have been in this position, you wont understand

mark of respect paid to a 3yr old lil lad that was tragically killed and you dont get it

words fail me what selfish, unempathetic ppl are out in this world

^^^ this

I had this conversation the other day about a well known actor that had just passed. He just could not understand why people were so upset when they didn't know them.

I don't like or post things in facebook or put fluffy bears at shrines but I am allowed to feel sadness at tragedies .

Watching the maimed children in war torn news reels stay with me for days, I cried at one child that had been shot in the face. The only person I spoke to it about was dp.

I have never been to a funeral if I didn't know them personally and hate professional funeral goers.

The majority want to show empathy a very few just want to be apart of something .