There's a lot to consider here. In neither of the articles does the mother state the daughter requested this photo be put on her gravestone. She just sats it was one of the daughter's favorite pictures. It may express the daughter's feelings about dying at a young age, but it definitely reflects the mother's anger at something she had no control over. She wanted the gravestone to get noticed. As I responded to yesterday's Tweet, if she really didn't want to stir up controversy, she would have used a black and white version of the photo. That would have been more aesthetically prudent. (It wouldn't surprise me if the monument maker, who would know more about cemetary decorum, made this suggestion.) I support her keeping the picture on, but she shouldn't be surprised if someone who has a family member buried complains that they can't avoid looking at it.

...but it definitely reflects the mother's anger at something she had no control over. ~ Fayd at November 21, 2020 7:39 AM

I can only imagine the rage one would feel at losing child. As for the offended party, when you see the dates on the gravestone and see that a child died so close to her 14th birthday, wouldn't you feel a little bit of sympathy for the parents who had to bury her? And, perhaps, understand this one final defiant gesture?

I'm with the Council on this one. That vulgarity among the graves is an affront to the rest of the community. If the parents feel it shows their daughter's spirit, why would they choose to have her lying eternally side by side with a bunch of stiffs?
They had other options.

" That vulgarity among the graves is an affront to the rest of the community. "

Won't somebody PLEASE think about the children?

Gog,
Your dismissal is shallow, reactionary, and ripe with cosmopolitan arrogance.
Here's a quote we should all be familiar with:

"We all just suck it up every day. You leave the house for a latte and somebody'll flip you the bird on your way and force their loud cellphone conversation on you once you're there.
It doesn't have to be that way, . . ."

"Your dismissal is shallow, reactionary, and ripe with cosmopolitan arrogance. "

Thanks Karen!

Seems to me there's a big difference between putting the photo on an online memorial and putting it in a PUBLIC cemetery for all time.

Don't we have enough people looking for excuses to tear down the classic rules of taste and decorum, whether in or out of a cemetery? Such as the rules that say no biking, loud music, picnicking, etc., even in those cities where there are no other grassy places to have a picnic? When are people going to grow up?

I don't see that it matters how terrible and senseless anyone's death is. There's a time and place for everything, and this isn't it. Again, it could have been put online.

This also reminds me of two other cases involving tragic deaths. One was the case of the Army soldier Kimberly Walker, murdered by her boyfriend, who had a SpongeBob tombstone. It was removed - but a compromise was reached in 2014.

https://www.wlwt.com/article/family-cemetery-reinstall-spongebob-headstones-but-with-changes/3539583#

Quote:

"The original monuments were reinstalled Friday but full granite slabs were also erected to shield the headstones from passersby."

And then there was the case of Ollie Jones, who died of a rare disease at age 4, in 2018. Since he loved Spider-Man, his parents wanted Disney's permission to have that image on his tombstone. The city council said they couldn't without permission from Marvel/Disney. Not surprisingly, Disney refused - and everyone tried to make a bad guy out of Disney. Ridiculous.

As someone said: "I'm wondering if the town was trying to be kind to the family by citing copyright laws instead of just rejecting the tombstone outright."

> Your dismissal is shallow,
> reactionary, and ripe with
> cosmopolitan arrogance.

You must be talking about Gog! We love that guy! He's been coming here for years, offering thoughtful commentary. He was right about the comet, and he and his brother have been serving Hooker, Heater, Hellmouth, and the low desert area for as long as anyone can remember.

Specifically,

HE TAKES THE PISS OUT OF THE WITLESS, SANCTIMONIOUS PRISSES WHO SHOW UP HERE FROM TIME TO TIME.

I don't know about this young woman and her family, but personally, I swear in this moment in front of God in Heaven that I DO NOT promise you "taste and decorum," without regard to "time and place." Not while alive, and I CERTAINLY make no promise to assuage your prim neediness in the hereafter.

Some of us are sincerely offended by Christianity's often gauche graveside statuary, even when it's our own heritage.

Nonetheless — We KNOW BETTER THAN TO TRY AND POLICE GRAVEYARDS. If clucking in such venues is your impulse, you might have missed the point.

Gog himself was concise and incisive, but that was fun to type

> And, perhaps, understand this
> one final defiant gesture?

✔

It's graveyard, a yard of graves, burial ground. If you're offended, you can console yourself in the trite resentment which yet abides — infectiously — in your heart… As it's more likely to persist in our culture than a moment of petty sarcasm from a doomed teenager.

" a moment of petty sarcasm from a doomed teenager." Ah, but it wasn't the girl. Her mother made that choice.
Crid, you do a good imitation of Hunter Thompson. But in this case you just look like a splayed jackass with your nuts dragging in the dirt. Hell, where do you draw the line? If Mom would squeeze out a turd on top of the grave and arrange the links in a swastika, would you speak up?

Show us a case where the mother of a girl dead from CF does such a thing, and we'll let you know if it's "vulgar." Meanwhile, you don't seem equipped to tell others how to grieve.

"speak up"

No. Not "show us a case." We're trying to find your baseline for cemetery decorum. A barely pubescent teenager flipping off the community that took care of her during her illness is okay by you. No?
I think we've asked enough questions to figure out the answer.

> We're trying to find your baseline
> for cemetery decorum.

Why? Why should I care what you think of my 'base' whatnot?

> I think we've asked enough
> questions to

And I think you sound like a delusionally self-important little snot. Vulgarity! Affront! Options! You're demanding answers to questions nobody's asking.

You're eager to charge into the tenderest hour of the lives of people you've never met and take command of their response, and the commemoration of their loss.

Why, exactly, oughtn't they tell you to go blow a giraffe?

Deal! — Pull down every graven piece of bearded-Kenny-Loggins-as-Jesus statuary from that same Scotland cemetery, and we'll schedule a meeting about the tragically deceased teenage girl you so pretentiously despise. (The agenda might feature questions about your needy-busybody inclinations.)

"Speak up," Spidey! Don't let them ignore you!

Shining pretty brightly today, Crid!

For the rest of you, repeat out loud what you mean:

”You must conform, even unto death and beyond.”

The Homeowners’ Association has spoken.
Next on the agenda- making all the stones the same. We don’t want any of the “Participant” trophy kids to see inequality of outcome! As if!

But relax. A) the “offensive” picture will fade B) YOUR reason to be at the cemetery will fade C) somebody will come out and deface it, which will let you cluck about the vandal while being secretly pleased, because life should unfold as you wish.

Rad, you do know, don't you, that there's bad conformity and then there's good conformity?

Example: Good manners require a lot of practice, but even impatient little kids soon learn that what goes around, comes around. It's all part of the golden rule, which is a good thing no matter what your age. But blindly following a fashionable guru or politician just so you can be "one of the crowd" is mindless, lazy and dangerous - again, no matter what your age. (Of course, the same goes for popular "social" activities like skipping school, alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc., no matter how lonely you are.) Yes, it's hard to build up your own civilized identity instead of jumping off a bridge like everyone else, but at least you'll have a more admirable reputation in the long run - and fewer permanent embarrassments in your online record.

And any teacher will tell you that being rude and obnoxious just to make yourself memorable is just plain childish - and lazy.

"Shining pretty brightly" If that's brilliance, give me coal instead.
Over and over I read complaints here about the lowering of standards. Or does that concern only apply when it involves one particular race?

Crid never gets involved in those discussions. If he ever confessed to having principles and one of them went out of style, it might make a stain on his ego.

People may grieve as they are guided. It's no business of mine. But getting back to the "latte, the bird, and loud phone conversations" theme; those are temporary. The image on the gravestone is a permanent fuck-you to people carrying their own grief.
I read the article from the original post. If I was Kayla Carle ( I know it's were, but I don't want to sound delusionally self-important. Grammar and shit, you know), I'd like to see the picture of me smiling with my sisters. The thrill of naughtiness wears off quickly, for some.

It's my day off. See you on Monday.

The image on the gravestone is a permanent fuck-you to people carrying their own grief. ~ Spiderfall at November 22, 2020 8:32 AM

Is it really permanent?

In addition, it's a small picture. Can people across the cemetery really be offended by a glance at it? Or is this a case of manufactured outrage?

While I think pictures of people flipping the bird are overdone and tacky, I'll give the parents some leeway in having lost a daughter to a horrible disease at an early age and so close to her birthday.

With any luck they'll rethink having their daughter's legacy be a little girl flipping off the world and substitute another picture.

> The Homeowners’ Association
> has spoken.

Exactly, exactly. But until we hear from the residents who can authentically claim a share of ownership, the mewling busybodies cannot affirm a quorum… And the venue is remarkably quiet.

> Over and over I read complaints
> here about the lowering of
> standards

With so many to choose from, perhaps you might have cited a few, so their implicit inconsistency with our present topic could be gauged.

> Crid never gets involved
> in those discussions

Again, you're being really cryptic (so to speak)…

(Everybody saw that, right? Har!)

…I can't imagine what discussions your talking about. I take a piece of 'em all; I'm a total Buttinski! Ask around!

> those are temporary. The image
> on the gravestone is a permanent

If walking through a burial ground inflates your certitude in matters of permanence, you might be taking the wrong meaning… Or responding with uncomplicated fear to the obvious one.

> If I was Kayla Carle…
> I'd like to see the
> picture of me smiling

That's preposterous. You have no idea what was going on in head of this teenager an ocean and a culture away, unknown to you but for a squib on a web page, and who is now dead. You have zero authority to speak on her behalf. You're welcome to have an opinion, but meddlesome, quarrelsome intruder is not your best play here.

Amy's opinion is spot on: "Taking Offense Shouldn't Be A Source Of Power"

It's important to be clear about this, Spidey: I sincerely regard you and your cluckers-in-arms as the source of irritation.

> It's my day off.

Apparently not

Just waiting for the day coming soon when a devout Muslim succeeds in strong arming a cemetery into removing all the crosses, based on the same reasoning displayed here.
Community standards and all.

> removing all the crosses

I offered Spidey that same example, but he/she wouldn't bite.

Haspel had a good one today, as if composed for those enamored of their own "taste and decorum."

Other examples of bad conformity are wallowing in screen time, especially when you're young or when you're already short on real-life friends and contacts in general. While it's time-consuming, of course, to build friendships, you never know when you're going to NEED real friends who will rush over to help - or at least allow you to call them directly when you need a shoulder to cry on.

Not to mention that it's a vicious circle of anti-intellectualism for society when you stop reading books and newspapers just because the few friends you have spend all their time on screen time or sports instead - and therefore, the only way you'd be able to DISCUSS books and real journalism with real people is to make more friends with people you hardly know - like maybe your neighbors.

Another example - and easily a more serious one - is when the majority of PARENTS allow their kids to wallow in screen time.

First of all, any pediatrician will tell you that kids under a certain age should not be watching screens at all, for multiple reasons.

Second, it IS possible to make a game out of chores, with toddlers, at least. Even though that will make the chores last longer, of course, at least the kids will slowly learn how to do them - and more importantly, they will learn that they are NOT entitled to passive entertainment of any kind when the parents are slaving away and no playmate is available that day.

Third, if they're over a certain age, there are many rainy-day activities they can do by themselves - and many library books on such crafts.

Fourth, parents who refuse to take that advice (often because the kids scream bloody murder when screens are taken away) are abdicating their role of disciplinarian - and allowing kids not to self-discipline as well. This creates another grim, vicious circle, which causes kids to misbehave - and large numbers of parents to believe that it's better to claim that some outside force is to blame. Even when the "treatments" cost plenty, and parental discipline wouldn't cost anything! This leads to mass denial, defensiveness and hostility, on top of everything else.

From last week:

https://www.djournal.com/lifestyle/living/john-rosemond-recent-column-causes-discord-between-parent-grandparents/article_266f4c68-c7f4-5046-bc50-a5120a540f80.html

Q: "We sent our daughter a recent article of yours hoping it might cause her to rethink her approach to raising our grandson. It was not well-received and she is no longer speaking to us. The child, age 4, is quite ill-behaved. Our daughter makes one excuse after another for him: He was premature, he was hospitalized at age 3 and now has PTSD, he might have a biochemical imbalance, and so on. We feel that his real and only problem is lack of discipline. For example, when he’s with us, he’s perfectly well behaved. We love our grandson, but don’t like being around him when his parents are running the show. What should we do now?"

(Click to see his answer. Personally, I think that while it was pretty good - especially the part about emotional maturity - he should have said something about how it's not WHAT you say to a frustrated parent, it's HOW you say it. In other words, instead of sending the mother the older article - whatever it was - they should have conveyed the ideas in it to her via casual conversation, and gentle hints, since that would have felt more subtle and less critical. Once she started responding positively, only THEN would it be a good idea to admit where the ideas came from.)

Isab, I don't follow.

Aren't there supposed to be cemeteries that are ALREADY all one religion or another (Jewish, for example), while others are mixed, and anyone who doesn't want a relative buried in the latter kind can choose the former?

Apples and oranges. Religion isn't the same as decorum.

Btw, there are/were burial grounds where people aren't even legally allowed to walk around. Maybe because the tombstones are too old and fragile - I don't know. (I heard of them via a book from the 1960s.)

I've also heard of cemeteries that were all one nationality - a Russian cemetery just south of Paris, for example.

I'm not seeing what screen time has to do with this.

Religion and decorum are as often intimately engaged and savagely at odds.

“Religion isn't the same as decorum.”

It is exactly the same. A set of rules agreed upon. Community standards.

Unless, y'know, you don't care.

Or perhaps I misunderstood: Exactly how much decorum will you allow for Allah? His adherents will insist on quite a bit. From you. And they're watching closely. A lady lawyer? With a gun?

What I meant (and I thought this was obvious) was that

1. Religious symbols have never been considered a breach of decorum in cemeteries, to my knowledge.

2. The families whose relatives were buried there FIRST tend to set the rules, such as whether it's going to be a mixed cemetery or not. If there's really a law in Islam that says that mixed cemeteries are OK so long as Muslims are the only ones who get to use religious symbols, they could only impose that rule if they were there first. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just create their own cemetery?

Also, I've never heard of, say, the officials of a heavily (not exclusively) Christian cemetery objecting to a new gravestone with a non-Christian religious symbol on it. At least, not in this century.

Crid, all you had to do (in pre-COVID times) was to watch the herds of young and not-so-young people in public, staring at their phones and oblivious to the world, to realize that conforming to that type of behavior was very likely a bad form of conformity. That's what I meant. Especially in terms of time not spent on face-to-face socializing, non-instant gratification, etc. That doesn't help to maintain social decorum.

Of course, it helps one's social skills if one can talk at least a little about what everyone else is doing, but anyone who really NEEDS a phone is typically old enough to pay for it, without a parent's help.

Other forms of lemming-style bad conformity that are damaging to society: Junk food, huge portions, constant snacking, and parents who cave in to the perpetual whine of "if my friends can eat like that every day, why can't I? Besides, you have no idea how unpopular it makes me whenever my friends drop by and there's nothing they want to eat in the house! Whaaa!"

Another form of GOOD conformity would be following the laws of the country - and your state. Of course, there's no shortage of teenagers who would flat-out disagree, on the grounds that fun is no fun unless it includes at least one misdemeanor or felony per month, but only wimpy parents would pretend that there's nothing they can do about that, regarding their own kids.

Oh, and about cemeteries - these objections typically come up within days after a NEW headstone has been added. Just how often do OLD headstones get removed on the grounds of offensiveness?

> Religious symbols have never been
> considered a breach of decorum

Not in the graveyards of the cultures in which their faiths predominate. But religion is in retreat most everywhere in the world… I wish sanctimony was traveling right behind it, but apparently it ain't. I've long suspected that about 33% - 72% of typical religious enthusiasm was an excuse to look down on others. Biology compels us to find differences as well as attractions, and for a braincase-specialty species like humanity, cosmology really hits the spot. There will be many more skirmishes like this in the times ahead.

> families whose relatives were buried
> there FIRST tend to set the rules

If it's a 'community' cemetery as described in your earlier comment, then the rules are presumably under continuing revision. As I was saying earlier, the dead will almost always be welcome to speak up on current matters, but they almost never do.

"If that's brilliance, give me coal instead."

You already have it, in your heart. Like or not, Crid's been beating pretenders to English competency senseless here for over 15 years, even if he has been grossly wrong on two issues so large as to make this one invisible by comparison, and irritating to someone or other day in and day out. I especially enjoy his discourse with some kid in Mom's basement here called "Arty", whose prose I must scrape off my shoe.

But, bah. You have no dog in this fight.

Neither do I, but I enjoy correcting others, often so tactfully they cannot tell when Socrates has reversed their position.

Tell the HOA prez you're bringing donuts this week. Mow your grass.

I'm a fraud, the kind of pretender you get when a slum mediocrity grows up around professor's kids.

> Especially in terms of time not spent
> on face-to-face socializing, non-instant
> gratification, etc. That doesn't help
> to maintain social decorum.

The only great thing about 2020 is being this old when as happens: In the 7th decade, I can say the world's going to Hell, and it's true, so no one can tell that it's just the crotchety-ness that comes with jowls yellowing teeth. It's like how Walter Payton used to get up slowly as he could, so opposing defenders could never tell if they'd really shook him up.

Saying 'these kids are full of shit and the world's going to Hell!' nonetheless calls to mind a teenage admonition from when weed was illegal: The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

What I'm arguing is that we need to keep some powder dry. Social media on smartphones is a profound sociological change, but so was radio and long hair for boys and short skirts for girls and women in the workplace and blacks in college and on and on.

Parents probably shouldn't let kids have access to social media in the early teen years, but parents shouldn't have let their husbands and wives divorce them and fracture their families, either.

Western Civ is committed to a lot of things we don't like now, and it feels like the list is growing daily. I sincerely believe these are times of, excluding war, nearly unprecedented social dynamism. But I also believe old men are often full of shit, and will endeavor as (and if) the dust from these crises settles, to not be uselessly fogey-ish about it.

Kids spend too much attention on phones. My generation spent attention just as wastefully on television, and it made them rude in very similar ways.

I love the donuts thing.

When I moved into the new place, I saw a gathering of nice ladies by the clubhouse and walked over, maintaining some distance, to say hello. The matronly HOA president stood, walked RIGHT up, and put an August-moistened hand out. August 2020!

I shook it.

In real life, we gotta get along with those people.

But not in the fucking graveyard!

typoze itslate

My generation spent attention just as wastefully on television, and it made them rude in very similar ways.
_______________________________________

Yes, but that was back when it didn't take long for MOST shows to become predictable and boring, so only the dumbest or most neglectful of parents thought there was nothing they could do that would tempt kids away from TV. Nowadays, unfortunately, one might argue that most of the fictional shows are pretty intelligent. (The late media critic, Neil Postman, wrote decades ago "we would all be better off if TV got worse, not better.")

Not to mention the siren song of social media.

So, even if ALL the parents threw their kids outside, the kids wouldn't decide to play ball or go bike riding; they'd likely find ways to smuggle their phones out - and either watch them privately or with their friends. Either way, they wouldn't be exercising or doing anything creative. Hence, the rise in organized sports and after-school programs - how else can parents pull kids away from screens AND keep them engaged in activities that are healthful to both brain and body?

If it's a 'community' cemetery as described in your earlier comment, then the rules are presumably under continuing revision.
_______________________________

And again, just how often do we hear of town officials refusing to allow, in a mixed cemetery, a new gravestone with a minority religious symbol on it? Come to think of it, IF there's a heavily (but not exclusively) Muslim public cemetery anywhere in the U.S., I'd love to know if there were ever a case, in that cemetery, of a deceased Christian not being allowed to have a cross on the gravestone. (See what I said above, about the reverse scenario.) If neither case has happened in this century, what are the odds that any OLD gravestones would have to be altered?

If it's a 'community' cemetery as described in your earlier comment, then the rules are presumably under continuing revision.
_______________________________

And again, just how often do we hear of town officials refusing to allow, in a mixed cemetery, a new gravestone with a minority religious symbol on it? Come to think of it, IF there's a heavily (but not exclusively) Muslim public cemetery anywhere in the U.S., I'd love to know if there were ever a case, in that cemetery, of a deceased Christian not being allowed to have a cross on the gravestone. (See what I said above, about the reverse scenario.) If neither case has happened in this century, what are the odds that any OLD gravestones would have to be altered?

Lenona at November 23, 2020 7:48 AM

There is always the mob vote

https://www.newsweek.com/gravestones-jewish-cemetery-swastikas-anti-semitic-messages-1368078

Hang in there Lenona. They sound like every whiny teenager ever, "It's not fair! I hate you! Everybody else gets to."
The difference here is that these folks are old enough to know better.

> And again, just how often do we
> hear of town officials refusing
> to allow, in a mixed cemetery,
> a new gravestone with a minority
> religious symbol on it?

My point exactly: Graveyards are a sensational and frequent venue for tolerance.

> There is always the mob vote

Indeed! Spidey, nose in the air, pinky extended, and desperate to condescend to someone, no matter how delicate the context, arrives from Portland to lead the mob to an aggravated expression of pedantry… But I wouldn't call it a 'vote.'

Are you guys preregistered? The materials packet (including lapel pin, laminated oath card, and a short booklet on 'community' activism) should have arrived USPS… But y'know, some supply chains are messed up by 'Rona. Spidey will lead you through the parts for which you aren't equipped.

Gog, 

Your dismissal is 

shallow, 

reactionary, 

and ripe with cosmopolitan arrogance.

"Reactionary"

Reviewing, "specialty-species" is awkward and best, redundant at worst. And repetitive. I'll make it up to you.

Um, Crid, that was Isab.

I certainly don't understand why she posted it, since, like you, I wouldn't call mob vandalism a "vote."

"Just how often do OLD headstones get removed on the grounds of offensiveness?" ~Lenona

This happens around the world all the time Lenona.

"1. Religious symbols have never been considered a breach of decorum in cemeteries, to my knowledge." ~Lenona

You need to read more history books. This is also quite common.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_cultural_heritage_by_ISIL

Muslims are hardly the only group that have done such things. ISIS was just easy to google.

"I wouldn't call mob vandalism a "vote."" ~Lenona

It is a common phrase. It refers to the need of the consent of the governed for any government to actually work.

OK, Crid, I read your post again, and I see what you're saying. It would have helped if you'd put the word "and" before "Spidey."

But regarding "my point exactly," did you mean you HAVE heard, frequently, of such cases, or what?

This happens around the world all the time
_____________________________________

I meant in the U.S., in both of those statements.

Obviously, I wasn't referring to, say, countries like post-war Germany.

> did you mean you HAVE heard,
> frequently, of such cases,
> or what?

I meant that it's not worth investigating, as it doesn't bear on my admiration of this woman, who responded to her challengers with nearly-American clarity (quoting from Amy's post):

"I have no sympathy for the person that was offended," she told the outlet.

"They don't have to look at it. I lost my 13-year-old daughter. I picked that picture for a reason, it represents her. If you don't like it, don't look at it."

This happens around the world all the time
_____________________________________

I meant in the U.S., in both of those statements.

Obviously, I wasn't referring to, say, countries like post-war Germany.

Lenona at November 23, 2020 12:01 PM

So what exactly, culturally do you think distinguishes the U.S. from post War Germany? I say people in general are a bunch of intolerant bigots usually trying to use the gubmint or the HOA to force their values on everybody else.

Lenona, as Isab said what makes the US special? Why shouldn't the US do such things?

And as for it never happening in the US, it actually has happened here. It just isn't common. And considering the fact that the US doesn't have a unifying culture anymore I expect it to be more common. After all we just had a year of tearing down monuments and gravestones are just another monument.

> I say people in general are a
> bunch of intolerant bigots usually
> trying to use the gubmint or the
> HOA to force their values on
> everybody else.

👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍

Simple, Isab. As a rule, we didn't allow Nazism to sweep the country in the first place, so, very few Americans asked for swastikas to be put on their gravestones at all - if any. (And their families may well have refused to carry out their wishes.)

I don't know how many - if any - Nazi gravestones got taken out, in Germany, with or without swastikas. (And, I admit those weren't that old in the first place.) I do know that Germans (in THIS century) don't want to erase at least certain signs of the past. As Michael Moore showed in "Where to Invade Next," Germany today makes every effort to ensure that young Germans can't ignore what their great-grandparents did, with history courses, relatively recently installed plaques, landmarks and so on.

But at any rate, when it comes to civilized, lawful petitions, since even majorities are not allowed to force CIVILIZED minorities to make themselves invisible, I can't imagine how a minority could successfully force a majority to make itself invisible, on the mere grounds that religious symbols in a mixed cemetery are somehow offensive.

Btw, a thank you to Conan for his last sentence yesterday, at 9:13 am. But I still think it was selfish and juvenile for the mother to do that.

Besides, on the assumption that the girl wasn't rude enough to do that with innocent strangers, at least, how do we know she really wanted to do just that, for eternity? What have they done to deserve it?

You can't look away from something if you didn't already know it was there, so the mother's remark makes little sense.

You are missing the forest for the trees Lenona.

It all comes down to community standards. And as Isab said religion is just those standards codified.

So for this specific example what are the community's standards? I haven't a clue. They aren't my standards. I bet they aren't yours. How soon will those standards change? I haven't a clue.

Personally I have no issue with the picture. But I also have no issue with someone else using a sledgehammer to destroy the grave. Either way they are not my people. They don't share my values. So it is none of my business what they do and don't do. At least so long as they don't involve me.

“Simple, Isab. As a rule, we didn't allow Nazism to sweep the country in the first place, so, very few Americans asked for swastikas to be put on their gravestones at all - if any. (And their families may well have refused to carry out their wishes.)

Whose this “we” you are talking about?
I’m not sure what this has to do with defacing Jewish graves by spray painting swastikas on them.

The symbol itself is an old Native American one among other meanings. I have seen it inlayed in tile into a floor in an old mansion in Oklahoma built circa 1904.

I think you need to pay less attention to symbols and rules. Understand the humanity and fallibility of parents. We aren’t little Nazi robots with a book of rules, and neither do we expect our kids to be. I was stuck once with a screaming baby in a checkout line at the commissary that went to the back wall. As much as I would have liked to remove my child to the car, it just wasn’t possible on that particular day. Fellow parents react with compassion and understanding in those situations. (I was offered help by people in the line with me) They didn’t start screaming at me to do something, or give me dirty looks. This is why people aren’t particularly impressed with your opinions, You respond to your fellow humans like a badly programmed Karen bot.

Btw, a thank you to Conan for his last sentence yesterday, at 9:13 am. But I still think it was selfish and juvenile for the mother to do that. ~ Lenona at November 23, 2020 3:04 PM

As long as we're clear, I'm on the mother's side in this.

I may find the gesture vulgar, but I think we need to step back and realize she lost her 13-year-old daughter less than one month before her 14th birthday. She was probably planning a party and had already purchased gifts.

My mother died on Christmas morning. My father left the gifts unopened for three years afterward. In the eight years he lived beyond her death, he never cleaned out her closet or disposed of her stuff. He preferred to have it around.

If we want to call ourselves a civilized society, we need to give people in the throes of grief some wiggle room.

This morning, and I'll never remember where, there was an article about Umberto Eco, who has an enormous private library of books he hasn't read. Because he's brilliant, visitors presume he's read each page.

Nasim Taleb keeps unread books around for the same reason… To remind him of all that he doesn't know.

Gifts under the tree for a woman you loved makes good sense.

A woman I knew and loved died, and I delayed buying a new phone for years, because it meant losing the voicemails. (Eventually I digitized them and went with the new company.)

Ah, via Christakis, yonder.

Having already cleared out a few estates, I did a major book culling as a 50th birthday gift to myself, and as a blessing to my nieces and nephews, who won't be bothered.

No, I've never missed them. Much. Never more than three anecdotes/passages per title. I'm over it!

Guys, don't be an asshole about this. We all die eventually, do you really want to die surrounded by a bunch of BOOKS!?!?!?!!

That you were probably never going to read again anyway? Or so you thought when you threw them out?

Ten years later, the shelves are full again.

Nasim Taleb keeps unread books around for the same reason… To remind him of all that he doesn't know. ~ Crid at November 23, 2020 5:11 PM

I have several books on my shelves I haven't read yet. Not to remind me of anything, but because I found several books at once on topics I wanted to read about.

A woman I knew and loved died, and I delayed buying a new phone for years, because it meant losing the voicemails. ~ Crid at November 23, 2020 5:24 PM

I get that.

Yes Conan the mother is grieving. But so are the people she who complained. None of them are unique. Around here we regularly have parents building shrines where their kids killed themselves drunk driving. And eventually they get mowed over when the lawnmowers come. That those parents are grieving doesn't mean they get to build a little shrine to their kid on public property or someone else's private property. We have cemeteries for a reason.

So the question is what is acceptable in that community. Clearly there is disagreement over what is and what is not appropriate.

But as I said above I don't really care what that community decides. Not my culture, not my people, not even my nation. Hence none of my business.

Yes Conan the mother is grieving. But so are the people she who complained. ~ Ben at November 23, 2020 6:05 PM

That's a good point, Ben. However, there's still the matter of the timing. Her child died in February of this year, 8 months ago. This is still fairly fresh grief. Unless every person in that cemetery died and was buried there this year, they have had some time to process.

Like I said, the gesture and the picture of it on the headstone are vulgar. Let the mother mourn now and later see if you can't negotiate a better memorial to her daughter later. That way, your loved one is not lying in eternal rest across the way from a vulgar display. Like you said, most of the people visiting that cemetery know something about grief.

It doesn't work that way Conan. What is permitted is permitted. If you let this stand for a week why not a month? If a month why not a year? Why not a decade? There is a tradition of precedence for a reason. If you are to impose a time limit on this display it needs to be made clear what that time limit is.

Maybe the mother would calm down after a period of time. But maybe she wouldn't. If she isn't willing to change her views how can those offended by this get it changed at a later date?

As Isab said there is always the mob vote. How will the mother feel if other people decide to resolve their issue with a sledgehammer?

This is why you need to clearly communicate what your community's standards are. That way people know what is and what is not permitted.
Then people can work to change things when the rules don't work. Doing things based on how you feel at the moment and how much you like this or that person is a terrible way to run things.

Maybe the mother would calm down after a period of time. But maybe she wouldn't. If she isn't willing to change her views how can those offended by this get it changed at a later date?

So what. She, like all the family members buried in the cemetery, has a right to memorialize her daughter in the way she so chooses.

The others, the ones who want the picture removed, can ask her to remove it, preferably after some respectful time, but at their own discretion. If she declines, that's her right - absent any violated statute. Apparently there is no violated statute as none of the parties to installing the headstone raised an objection to being left open to lawsuits or criminal prosecution.

"She, like all the family members buried in the cemetery, has a right to memorialize her daughter in the way she so chooses." ~Conan

Are you so sure of that?

“I got a phone call from the council telling me that someone had put in a complaint about the picture on my daughter’s headstone saying it was rude and inappropriate,” the mom told the outlet.
They said they needed the picture taken down."

The city council of Aberdeen, Scotland appears to disagree with you.

Are you so sure of that? ~ Ben at November 23, 2020 8:26 PM

If she broke a law or a rule of the cemetery, then she should have to take it down. If not, then it stays.

Decorum and taste are good things to have, but they don't carry the power of law. A complaint is not a citation. Tacky is not illegal. Another person's offense is not a police matter.

Until she's broken a law, she can memorialize her daughter as she chooses.

"I got a phone call from the council telling me that someone had put in a complaint about the picture on my daughter’s headstone saying it was rude and inappropriate."

"Rude and inappropriate." Not "illegal" or "against cemetery rules." The council requested she take it down. The council did not cite the law she broke and order it taken down. Nor has the council sent a construction crew to remove the offending headstone. It merely requested she take the picture down.

The council also offered to pay for a new picture to be installed; at taxpayer expense, one assumes, since city councils don't usually have non-tax sources of funds. So, one person is offended and the taxpayers of Aberdeen, Scotland are on the hook to remedy the offense? Where does that end?

We can disagree on this, Ben. I'm with Leona that it's tacky and vulgar. However, until it's illegal, I'll defend the mother's right to put it up - albeit proportionally, not with rifles and barricades.

The best proportion at this hour is to ridicule the clucking ninnies from another hemisphere.

That measurement applies to so many things....

And besides, wasn't the judgment of the Aberdeen City Council precisely our topic, implicitly or explicitly?

Conan,

I don't agree or disagree that the grave should be changed based on moral or religious grounds. As I've made clear repeatedly I have no dog in this fight. Not my culture, not my people, not even my nation.

But your legal analysis is garbage. From the article you don't know if this is a request or a demand. You don't know if this is legal or not. That the city offered to pay to change things doesn't change that. That the original monument manufacturers had no issue selling this good doesn't change that.

Your advice is dishonest.

"However, there's still the matter of the timing. Her child died in February of this year, 8 months ago. This is still fairly fresh grief. Unless every person in that cemetery died and was buried there this year, they have had some time to process." ~Conan

You support this person because you've heard her sob story. You don't support the other person because you haven't heard their story. Your advice is for them to give up their possible legal rights without a fight or compensation. But you weren't straightforward about that until I called you on it.

As for the legality, from what little I know it is probably murky. Much of UK law is based on precedent. Hence why your advice to just wait was so dishonest. If Aberdeen hasn't had a similar situation in the past there may not be a law. But then again maybe a good barrister can find one or just make something up. Most likely there is precedent for both sides. Hence murky.

There is actually a lot of fun looking at odd laws in the UK due to historical precedent. In London there are very valuable properties who's annual taxes consist of a few horse shoes, or a handful of nails, or even a bundle of sticks. At one time those were valuable goods but today they are more of a joke. But still a very important joke. Being able to avoid millions in taxes with a stop by the hardware store is a big deal.

Lenona,

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was enacted in 1990 specifically due to the ongoing destruction and looting of Native American graves sited around this nation. Some were destroyed for profit. Some for curiosity. Others for animosity. Or even simple convenience. How is this any different?

"This happens around the world all the time" ~Ben
"I meant in the U.S., in both of those statements." ~Lenona

The grave in the article isn't in the US.

Yes, Ben, the offended party can always sue. And, if successful, there will be a precedent for removing an offensive grave marker. Until then, it appears that nothing in the law says she can't use that photo.

According to Metro UK, "A spokesperson for Aberdeen City Council said: ‘Staff phoned the applicant and advised that we considered the photograph attached to the memorial headstone to be inappropriate and asked for it to be replaced."

So, the council asked that it be replaced because the council "considered the photograph...to be inappropriate." Nothing about it being illegal in that article either.

According to The Sun the headstone had been at the cemetery for three months with no complaint.

One complaint has been filed, but the parents already have 1,200 signatures on their petition to let the photograph stay.

If the person who complained is battling their own grief, I sympathize. The three month gap would seem to indicate a grief less raw, however.

Nonetheless, this is not about sympathy for the bereaved. It's about stopping the snowflake busybodies of the world, the people who would have every moment of our days regulated to their satisfaction.

By the way, almost 200,000 people live in Aberdeen, Scotland. You'd think the city council would have more pressing matters to attend to than mediating a cemetery dispute.

Hence why your advice to just wait was so dishonest.

Nothing "dishonest" about it, Ben. I merely suggested that the offended party could let time take the edge off the mother's grief and then ask her if she would consider replacing the photo, perhaps at that point explaining his/her own point of view to her.

Surely such a move would be more considerate than filing a complaint with the city council and stirring up conflict.

I don't understand why people are inclined to legalistic chatter about this.

It's almost like one of the most powerful enthusiasms in the human heart is taking command of the behavior of others through social machinery.

Hoodathunk?

Oh, that's right, Isab woodathunk:

> I say people in general are a
> bunch of intolerant bigots usually
> trying to use the gubmint or the
> HOA to force their values on
> everybody else.

Imeen, it's a safe bet that the Spidey's of the world will take much deeper satisfaction for fucking with someone at a safe distance than with protecting the sensitivities of those who they imagine to be offended.

> Hell, where do you draw the line?

Who's drawing lines?

> We're trying to find your…
> …I think we've asked enough
> questions to....

> Spiderfall at November 21, 2020 11:30 PM




> Whose this “we” you are talking about?

> Isab at November 23, 2020 4:17 PM

Is there something we need to know?

"If the person who complained is battling their own grief, I sympathize. The three month gap would seem to indicate a grief less raw, however." ~Conan

No it doesn't. Maybe they just lost someone who was buried next to this grave. You don't know anything about the person who complained other than that they complained.

Yes your advice to wait is dishonest. As you've made very clear you just favor this mother and want the person who filed the complaint to go away. There is nothing to be gained by waiting for either party.

"You'd think the city council would have more pressing matters to attend to than mediating a cemetery dispute." ~Conan

Who do you think settles these kinds of disputes?

As the thread dies, consider these.

Ben, of course that 1990 act was correct. What's your point, exactly?

Isab, I don't know why you're bringing up that commissary story again. Obviously, a commissary isn't a fancy restaurant, and people need to eat. No one said otherwise. That doesn't change the fact that if rules are more strict in one venue than another, there are usually good reasons for that. The same goes for expectations of compassion, in informal settings. (And, of course, it's ALWAYS rude for adults to scream at strangers who aren't putting people in danger.)

Example: You don't take a screaming child to McDonald's, except for takeout, because even there, someone might be having the beginning of a migraine. But if the kid starts screaming only after you've sat down and started eating, customers there SHOULD have patience - and not give you dirty looks. (Of course, you still have to do what you can to quiet the kid, for the above reason. Also, the trouble with expecting strangers to offer help is that many of them are afraid of being profiled as potential molesters or kidnappers.)

I should add that if you think mothers with babies, in public, get treated less kindly than fathers, you may well be right.

The acclaimed pediatrician Perri Klass wrote in 2016:

"Somewhat self-servingly, I always believed that one important tip was: Whenever possible, give the kid to his father. People smile at men holding babies — even crying babies — on airplanes. Flight attendants offer them assistance. I wondered about this, till I read in my favorite parenting manual (Miss Manners' 1984 book on childrearing)":

“A father traveling with a screaming baby is presumed to be a widower who is devoting himself to the welfare of his poor babes, and therefore simple humanity requires that strangers do what they can to ease his burden. A mother traveling with a screaming baby is presumed to be a slovenly person whose husband was driven away by her neglect of discipline and the resulting bad behavior of the children; others naturally try to distance themselves from the mess."

(Of course, MM acknowledged that that was unfair.)

And here are some pretty polite ways for strangers to help (this is by multiple posters):

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-methods-for-dealing-with-other-peoples-loud-crying-kids-on-long-flights#!n=30

> And here are some pretty polite
> ways for strangers to help

Additionally—

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propofol

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorpromazine

It can be difficult to remember everything you want to pack when traveling.

"Ben, of course that 1990 act was correct. What's your point, exactly?" ~Lenona

"Just how often do OLD headstones get removed on the grounds of offensiveness?" ~Lenona

"1. Religious symbols have never been considered a breach of decorum in cemeteries, to my knowledge." ~Lenona

What is my point? Your lack of knowledge. One of the reasons that law had to be passed was exactly due to the destruction of old graves due to the religion of the inhabitants.

Fits in there with your complaints about Scots not following US law and custom.

So I failed to read that detail about Scotland provided by Amy. Fine.

And nothing about the 1990 act surprises me.

Other than that, I don't see how it's at all LIKELY that the blatant vandals, looters and bigots of the past (often bored teens) will ever grow up and become civilized enough to come up with a pseudo-reasonable, formal argument for imposing a ban against any religious symbol in a cemetery - again, if it's a mixed cemetery. So Isab's alarm bell doesn't ring true. Going through the city council is too much boring woooorrrrrrrrrrk, after all.

Plain old disrespect, hatred and greed are obviously not the same as establishing a set of non-partisan rules beforehand and then demanding that newcomers stick to them. (I'm sure you know that.)

You keep dancing around my question from November 23, 7:48 AM. Change U.S. to Scotland if you like, but I'd be surprised if such a thing happened in either country - in this century.

(I also noticed that no one here has argued for abolition of the rules against biking, loud music, or picnics, even if a grieving family might want to do just that at the cemetery, every year, in honor of the deceased. What's the difference there?)

Btw, there have always been plenty of "spaces" for families to do their own, irreverent rituals and monuments. They're typically connected to the scattering of cremains - and seldom bother anyone, for that reason.

I posit: You lack (well, actually, *Spidermuffin* lacks) the wisdom, kindness, empathy or intimacy with the distant personages involved (and deceased) to cluck like a freaking hen about their responses to, and commemoration of, the death of loved ones.

We invaded Iraq, and at the time, I was for it. (I still think we should have done some serious cultural follow-through after invasion.)

'So then why aren't you saying that if some Village Big Man in a remote Sudanese canyon slaps his #7 mistress, we should to nuke the entire region?!??? HMMMMMMMMMmmmmmm? AHA! I think we ALL see what's going on here!'

Spider, in twisted-panty eagerness for the fray, compels us to imagine shit (literally… Go back and read the comments). And then—

> No. Not "show us a case."

First a transparently ludicrous hypothetical which is rejected out of hand, and then he/she squeaks & quivers when not graciously presented with a line of reasoning that would make his/her own case… The fundamentals of which are not apparent.


Lenona's infinitely gentler, but still:

> no one here has argued for
> abolition of the rules against
> biking, loud music, or picnics

Why, on Earth, would you expect the conversation to flow in that direction? Yes! You're absolutely right! No one has argued about those things, because they're [A.] not on the table for this matter and [B.] not of interest to us (or at least to me). I'll choose my own arguments, ThankYouVeryMuch.

I've been listening to a lot of interviews & podcasts with Robert Kagan and Gregory Cochran talking about international affairs… Mostly on a scale not indicated by this Aberdeen kerfuffle. But I'm starting to accept their suggestions that Americans in general are too hung up on precise rules and responses which can be applied in all circumstances & at all hours.

No; We can be flexible and at times inconsistent, in global politics and well as our personal lives. Things which are before us require and deserve our full attention. We shouldn't be constrained by terror of inconsistency for events nowhere in evidence.

Additionally, see this outstanding blog post:

Also he was not interested in thinking through what they might argue about our occasional failures to call them promptly or to read the documentation or follow instructions. We must concentrate on arguing our case; not theirs. Lesson #5: never negotiate with yourself.

Lenona,

I don't think you understood any of what Isab or I wrote.

No the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is not about teenage vandals.

It should not be surprising that in a culturally homogeneous area people share the same values and thus don't fight over those values.

No dancing around your question. I don't know of any such event. But my ignorance doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I haven't significantly researched it. Either way your question isn't significant as such things have been done to less dominant religions in the US in that time frame. Hence the 1990 law to stop some of it.

Isab's response wasn't an encouragement of vandalism. Just a recognition of it's reality. The law can only go so far.