posted
WARNING: Some people may find the following comments offensive.
I am writing this in response to the comments I've seen concerning the death of Dale Earnhardt this past Saturday. I have seen his death characterized as a "tragic loss", as a "stunning blow", as a "terrible tragedy". It is none of these. Dale Earnhardt chose to participate in a dangerous sport, one which involves driving vehicles at extremely high speeds. A sport where the slightest miscalculation, the wrong assumption, someone else's error, equipment failure, track conditions, or other factors can cause a vehicle to crash, leading to driver injury or death. That is the nature of the sport; everyone who participates in this sport is aware of the danger.
I will repeat what I said this past summer in responding to the deaths of two young drivers on the NASCAR circuit: it is a shame when anyone dies before their time, it is painful to anyone who knew them personally, such as family and friends, but it is not a tragedy! The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie was a tragedy. The recent earthquakes in India and El Salvador are a tragedy. The genocide that has taken place in Kosovo and Rwanda is a tragedy. The death of a man, no matter how popular, who chose to participate in a dangerous sport, is not. Many people try to climb Mount Everest: some of them die. Are their deaths tragedies? Some people do base-jumping (not sure if that's the right term - I mean parachuting) off of bridges and buildings: if something goes wrong, they die. Is that a tragedy?
I am not saying that it is wrong to mourn the death of Dale Earnhardt. For those of you who follow racing, for those of you who were fans of his, for those of you who respected his ability as a race car driver, his death affects you. His loss affects the sport, since he was a highly visible figure within it. But death is a possible end result of the sport, one that every driver faces when they get behind the wheel of a car on a racetrack. So don't label his death a tragedy.
------------------ Jim Mac '98 Silver SS #108
Posts: 1907 | From: I hope I'm not repeating myself. Again. And Again. Stop picking on me! Waaahhh!! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I guess it is in your definition of a tragedy. Does a tragedy only occur when it is unexpected? There is risk, yes I agree. But we don't "expect" to see anyone get killed. We know it can happen. It is sad, still a shock even knowing it can happen, emotional, etc. I call that tragic. It hurts those of us who feel a connection. Let me put it in another way, there are many people that I call friends on these boards. Many drive agressively, on and off the track. Many are fathers, mothers brothers, sisters or friends. There is a risk that they could die in any noumber of ways. Some that they increased the risk (like driving at high speed. If they are lost to us, it is tragic. To me, losing Dale is much the same. So again, I understand your points completely and I cannot admit to "surprise" but it is al in how you define a word and the context you use it in.
Posts: 5946 | From: Litchfield, NH, USA | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
JIm Mac, I understand what you are saying, but your thesis on "tragedy" breaks down to a "deaths per whatever unit" type of analysis. If an activity is deemed "high risk" death is not tragic, if it is "low risk" then premature death is tragic.
What's the basis? Activities a life insurance company will specifically excluded from a policy? Death is a possible end result of any activity. By my understanding, and Webster's, of "tragic" and "tragedy", Dale Earnhardt's untimely death clearly meets the standard.
To expand what I'm saying ... If the president is assassinated ... is that a tragedy (let's skip the political jokes on this one) .. or because it has happened to others, is it just the nature of the office?
[This message has been edited by poSSum (edited 21 February 2001).]
Posts: 4222 | From: Winnipeg MB CA | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Here is the definition of tragic according to Merriam Webster.
Main Entry: trag·ic Pronunciation: 'tra-jik Variant(s): also trag·i·cal /-ji-k&l/ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Latin tragicus, from Greek tragikos, irregular from tragOidia tragedy Date: 15th century 1 : of, marked by, or expressive of tragedy 2 a : dealing with or treated in tragedy b : appropriate to or typical of tragedy 3 a : regrettably serious or unpleasant : DEPLORABLE, LAMENTABLE b : marked by a sense of tragedy - trag·i·cal·ly /-ji-k(&-)lE/ adverb
…the word HERO means different things to different people. I personally don't consider DE a hero, or any racecar driver or entertainer or sports athlete for that matter…I didn't consider Elvis a hero, and I didn't think that Princess Di was a heroine. Many people, however, do consider these people their heroes, and it's surely not for me to dictate who they award that distinction to. To me a hero is someone who champions a worthy cause. Or who goes above and beyond the call of duty to aid his fellow man…whether that be by an act of bravery, unselfishness, or giving of oneself to help make someone else's life better. As far as it being a tragedy, I'm sure it is to a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons. It surely is a tragedy to his family and loved ones, it's a monetary tragedy for those who marketed DE, and for those who were employed by his enterprise…it's a PR tragedy for NASCAR, and it's a very personal tragedy for those who did consider him their hero…for whatever reasons. So for those reason, I'm not going to get nit picky with semantics on the issue…
As far as the public outcry for NASCAR to make things safer for the drivers and quit thinking about their wallet…HELLOOO!!! THIS IS STOCK CAR RACING FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD PEOPLE!!! I hate it whenever people knee-jerk react to "tragedies". Virtually every single thing that can be done to minimize injuries in a certain type of accident or in a certain situation can also work in the exact opposite direction in certain other situations. Take seat belts, airbags and helmets for example. Although they have undoubtedly save many lives or minimized many injuries, there have also been instances where the person was more severely injured or killed because of them. There is no magic fix. Hell…how many people die each year from running their cars into utility poles…should we run out and replace them all with NERF poles so people won't be killed when they hit them. In a lot of cases it's just a matter of economics…and people never want to hear that…but how many times have you heard the cliché "if it saves just one life it's worth it". Well people, let me tell you…air travel could be made a whole lot safer…however, at a great expense to the airline industry. The airline industry has determined it's far more economical to pay claims to those injured or the survivors of those killed in accidents than to implement them. Cars could be made a lot safer, but the same thing goes…someone has determined that it's more economical not to make that fix and handle the fallout later. In some cases, the wrong decision was made…i.e. the Pinto, the Ford Explorer, and the latest Firestone fiasco…then the walls come tumbling down. Try to even imagine how many other "time-bombs" there are ticking away out there…all justified away by that same logic. In a perfect world, the preservation of life and limb would be a numero uno priority…cost be damned.
On 18 February 2001, while racing for fame and fortune, Dale Earnhardt died in the last lap of the Daytona 500. It was surely a tragedy for his family, friends and fans. He was 49 years old with grown children, one, which was in the race. I am new to the NASCAR culture so much of what I know has come from the newspaper and TV. He was a winner and earned everything he had. This included more than $41 million in winnings and ten times that from endorsements and souvenir sales?. He had a beautiful home and a private jet. He drove the most sophisticated cars allowed and every part was inspected and replaced as soon as there was any evidence of wear. This is normally fully funded by the car and team sponsors. Today, there is no TV station that does not constantly remind us of his tragic end and the radio already has a song of tribute to this winning driver. Nothing should be taken away from this man, he was a professional and the best in his profession. He was in a very dangerous business but the rewards were great.
Two weeks ago seven U.S. Army soldiers died in a training accident when two UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters collided during night maneuvers in Hawaii. The soldiers were all in their twenties, pilots, crew chiefs and infantrymen. Most of them lived in sub-standard housing. If you add their actual duty hours (in the field, deployed) they probably earn something close to minimum wage. The aircraft they were in were between 15 and 20 years old. Many times parts were not available to keep them in good shape due to funding. They were involved in the extremely dangerous business of flying in the Kuhuku mountains at night. It only gets worse when the weather moves in as it did that night. Most times no one is there with a yellow or red flag to slow things down when it gets critical. Their children where mostly toddlers who will lose all memory of who ?Daddy? was as they grow up. They died training to defend our freedom.
I take nothing away from Dale Earnhardt but ask you to perform this simple test. Ask any of your friends if they know who was the NASCAR driver killed on 18 February 2001. Then ask them if they can name one of the seven soldiers who died in Hawaii two weeks ago. 18 February 2001, Dale Earnhardt died driving for fame and glory at the Daytona 500. The nation mourns. Seven soldiers died training to protect our freedom. No one can remember their names and most don't even remember the incident.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
