Are you a turtle?
There is a phenomenon going on on MSN Messenger. The last time a phenomenon of similar proportions occurred was back in 2004, after the Beslan crisis in Russia where children were held hostage and killed by terrorists. The primary difference is in the character the mourning has taken.
So what is the phenomenon in mention? Friends in my contact list are putting up turtle emoticons as a symbol of mourning/commemoration/recognition of Steve Irvin's death, and all his achievements for Aussie tv and wildlife. Two years back roses were erected in exactly the same place - before each person's nickname. Therefore everyone esle sees the turtle/rose before reading the nickname. The emoticons become, for the moment, the prime mode of identification for those who choose to endorse them.
[Allow me to clarify the intentions of my post. I have opinions and I hold it against no one if they included the emoticons. I am not passing judgement on what others do, just simply openly wondering why people do such things. This post is not intended to, and cannot possibly, alter people's actions.]
When the Beslan roses (I find this sounding affectionate and deprecating at the same time. don't ask why) started appearing not soon after the news were released, I was astounded by how fast news spread. Two roses popping up on your MSN screen within the hour and you're tempted to find out why so. So you ask and you find out the horror of human perversity. Of course my MSN is limited to friends from Singapore, Melbourne or those who were studying in other parts of the world. However I believe that there is a movement happening here, one moving assiduously.
Roses for the Beslan children? I thought doing it online was patronising, an act with (possibly) good intentions but which romantic sentiments are rather misplaced. What difference does a rose make? Yes it can show sympathy, and that has probably drove many to do likewise. But when does a badge worn to proclaim a stand becomes one of conformity, and worse still, a gradual marginalisation of the intensity of horror at terrorism?
Was it an effort to spread the news? Was it simply about jumping onto the bandwagon? Was it an assertion of one's stand? If that is so what stand is it? Does it reflect how we assimilate and re-produce our reactions to information right now? Are all our thought processes moving too rapidly for us to grasp the significance and implications of what we do? It may sound like I dislike the emoticons, and to an extent I nurse a disdain for them (though no strong dislike), because I wonder if emoticons become the best way for aligning ourselves to a global outpouring of grief.
Next on to turtles. The greatest irony is above all reserved for how Steve Irvin died. He was a remarkable spokesperson for Aussie wildlife and did much for his country on an international platform. To die at such a young age by a stingray barb's bite whilst filming a documentary is hard to digest. Aside from the many layers of irony we can rationalise through, I arrive once more at the emoticon.
Firstly there is the problem of finding an appropriate symbol. There are no crocodiles so turtles have to make do. I am not sure how much he has done for turtles but being in the same reptilian family, I figure they just have to stand in. [tongue in cheek: they look cuter on screen than crocs do] Secondly after inserting the symbol into the nickname, is there a corresponding discussion and reflection on the significance of his death? I mean if it appears for a reason, the reason has to be talked about, right?
Leave your turtle on. Who knows you may like it so much that you decide to include it into your nickname long after international mourning has faded away. It could be you never knew you could add turtles until the phenomenon took many on MSN by storm.
I find it amazing how easy it has become to establish your identity on the internet. The phenomenal emoticon - at once inclusive and divisive.
So what is the phenomenon in mention? Friends in my contact list are putting up turtle emoticons as a symbol of mourning/commemoration/recognition of Steve Irvin's death, and all his achievements for Aussie tv and wildlife. Two years back roses were erected in exactly the same place - before each person's nickname. Therefore everyone esle sees the turtle/rose before reading the nickname. The emoticons become, for the moment, the prime mode of identification for those who choose to endorse them.
[Allow me to clarify the intentions of my post. I have opinions and I hold it against no one if they included the emoticons. I am not passing judgement on what others do, just simply openly wondering why people do such things. This post is not intended to, and cannot possibly, alter people's actions.]
When the Beslan roses (I find this sounding affectionate and deprecating at the same time. don't ask why) started appearing not soon after the news were released, I was astounded by how fast news spread. Two roses popping up on your MSN screen within the hour and you're tempted to find out why so. So you ask and you find out the horror of human perversity. Of course my MSN is limited to friends from Singapore, Melbourne or those who were studying in other parts of the world. However I believe that there is a movement happening here, one moving assiduously.
Roses for the Beslan children? I thought doing it online was patronising, an act with (possibly) good intentions but which romantic sentiments are rather misplaced. What difference does a rose make? Yes it can show sympathy, and that has probably drove many to do likewise. But when does a badge worn to proclaim a stand becomes one of conformity, and worse still, a gradual marginalisation of the intensity of horror at terrorism?
Was it an effort to spread the news? Was it simply about jumping onto the bandwagon? Was it an assertion of one's stand? If that is so what stand is it? Does it reflect how we assimilate and re-produce our reactions to information right now? Are all our thought processes moving too rapidly for us to grasp the significance and implications of what we do? It may sound like I dislike the emoticons, and to an extent I nurse a disdain for them (though no strong dislike), because I wonder if emoticons become the best way for aligning ourselves to a global outpouring of grief.
Next on to turtles. The greatest irony is above all reserved for how Steve Irvin died. He was a remarkable spokesperson for Aussie wildlife and did much for his country on an international platform. To die at such a young age by a stingray barb's bite whilst filming a documentary is hard to digest. Aside from the many layers of irony we can rationalise through, I arrive once more at the emoticon.
Firstly there is the problem of finding an appropriate symbol. There are no crocodiles so turtles have to make do. I am not sure how much he has done for turtles but being in the same reptilian family, I figure they just have to stand in. [tongue in cheek: they look cuter on screen than crocs do] Secondly after inserting the symbol into the nickname, is there a corresponding discussion and reflection on the significance of his death? I mean if it appears for a reason, the reason has to be talked about, right?
Leave your turtle on. Who knows you may like it so much that you decide to include it into your nickname long after international mourning has faded away. It could be you never knew you could add turtles until the phenomenon took many on MSN by storm.
I find it amazing how easy it has become to establish your identity on the internet. The phenomenal emoticon - at once inclusive and divisive.
for this post
Leave a Reply