Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

The modern way of mourning

ERIN ANDERSSEN

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 1:50 AM EDT 28/08/07

Internet memorials, roadside shrines, candlelight vigils: Are these 21st-century public mourning rituals just acts of 'conspicuous compassion' ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. John Stanton from Toronto, Canada writes: I find the roadside shrines to be dangerous and odd. Why highlight where the person died and not where they lived?
  2. Lorna Poole from Canada writes: Last fall, debris from an overloaded roadside memorial was blowing across Hwy 6 near Waterdown causing drivers to swerve and dodge for 1/2 a kilometer. My thoughts then are the same now - how selfish that the need of the living to say "look at me, I'm grieving for the people who died here" could cause another fatality. Frankly, I believe MTO should be removing all of these raodside hazards.
  3. Dewey Dell Bundren from Curmudgeon, Canada writes: Does everything have to be written about, probed, examined and analysed, discussed, lamented....? One wonders how our ancestors survived in a world lit only by fire and no news of the funerals taking place over the next hill.
  4. I. M. Al Wayswright from Canada writes: I like the roadside memorials, they remind me how fragile our life is, and to drive carefully.
    Our society has denied death for too long. Death and dying has been removed from most people's life. I think it is good to remind ourselves that we will all die one day, sooner or later. As for public mourning, I'm all for it. Mourning other people's death helps us to face our mortality.
  5. globefan EH from Canada writes: I don't understand the need to be so visible. We all grieve differently.

    I always wonder why there is so much gnashing of teeth and banging of chest for the religious afficionados of any religion. If heaven truly is a better place , it would lend itself to having a party, like the Irish do.
  6. I. M. Al Wayswright from Canada writes: globefan EH, I think when we morn we morn our loss. Death is a loss regardless of whether person's soul goes to heaven or cease to exist.
  7. Terry Terry from Brantford, Canada writes: Conspicuous Compassion what a wonderful phrase. A few random thoughts:

    A local women has turned the tragic death of her son into a cottage industry, with the largest "In Memoriam" ads you'll see, duelling webpages and shrine webpages, a walk-a-thon and other stuff that seem to me to just keep the wound tearing open instead of healing. It would not be sustainable to all take up so much grieving space.

    Mixed feeling on those roadside memorials, when I see one on a straight level concession road, I always think: alcohol speed = roadside memorial. But the site of some have helped me glance down at my speedometer and ease up a bit on the gas. The guys who drive the snowplows have other thoughts about them.

    As the story touches on, I've always thought so much this grieving for the cameras, has evolved in the vacuum left as people abandon religious belief. Religious beliefs provided some certainty of an otherwise unknown and an understanding of the physical death as part of a bigger plan -- that was my experience in the back of an ambulance this January.
  8. i. ignatius from Mount Pleasant, Canada writes: roadside memorials for accident victims are very commonly seen in quebec and across europe ... in areas where roads are narrow and twisty through mountains and such ... you'll see plenty of them in europe. been like that for years, so i don't think it's a new phenomenon ... perhaps its a catholic/christian thing? for the most part, it's usually just a cross with a few flowers, rarely one that would have debris blowing across a road for 1/2 a km ... that does appear excessive!
  9. Red Ensign is our glory! Real Canadian pride! from Canada writes: its a low class phenomenon really. taky ppl just looking to make a show of how compasionate they are as a social statement, rather than expressing real grief. its plays right along with the liberals oddball inclinations to romanticize misery and glorify victimization. you may as well make sure the newspapers catch you in the act of throwing money at bums in the street so everyone can see what a 'good' politically correct person you are. never mind that such displays often rob these ppl of private dignity and the solemn reflection due by those close to them. just more stupid public reminders of why everyone ought to be miserable and not enjoy their own lives, because after all ppl die in this world. we may as well all just walk around goth or something. personally i find such public displays vulgar and disrespectful, not to mention intrusive. why should everyone bear your sorrows? just because you or some select group hurt, is not justification to make sure everyone else does too.
  10. D Mores from Canada writes: Roadside memorialists: Let go. Move on. There was another story in this paper a few days ago about how some people develop a clinical inability to move on with their lives after loss. It almost needs treatment.

    Jilted lovers do the same thing, and this is with living people. Who wants to see your grief? We have our own lives and problems to deal with.

    I'm annoyed at the four roadside memorials right outside my own home. Call it NIMBY (not in my back yard), selfishness or whatever.
    It's just all very unwelcome!
  11. James Meatball from Toronto, Canada writes: These roadside memorials -- especially those that commemorate murders rather than accidental deaths -- just infuriate me. These mawkish, maudlin displays do nothing for the deceased. They only enrich the florists, teddy bear sellers and so forth. And the really stupid part is that 99.9 % of those who offer these "tributes" didn't know the deceased at all. Red Ensign is right...very lower class! But this is all part of the dumbing down of western "civilization".
  12. James Meatball from Toronto, Canada writes: Speaking of which...what's with the rush to rename a section of the 401 "Heroes Highway"? I support our troops in Afghanistan -- even though I think they shouldn't be there -- but putting up a few signs on the 401 isn't going to make a bit of difference. A permanent memorial? I think not. Apparently we've already forgotten that the 401 was previously named after two "heroes of confederation". It used to be called "the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway". If there is to be a memorial, let it be something special, like a cenotaph, rather than just a glorified roadway marker.
  13. Kate MacKay from Canada writes: Yes, Red Ensign, I can see where witnessing someone else's sorrow should prove to be such a massive cross for you to bear. Kudos to you for maintaining the forbearance to endure the onslaught.
  14. Alistair McLaughlin from Ottawa, Canada writes: A simple white cross placed a safe distance from the road is a good idea. It is a subtle, respectful nod to the fallen loved one, and a reminder to motorists to drive a little more carefully. However, this business of placing wreaths, flowers, photos, notes, poems and teddy bears at the place of a fatal accident, often years after the accident occurred, is nothing more than a narcissistic show of fashionable "grieving"; a way of demonstrating a socially desirable amount of "sorrow" in order to gain social validation and status among one's peers. Even worse is when people line the streets and openly weep for someone they never knew. Such public displays of grieving are nothing more than self-indulgent attention-seeking. Real grief is suffered quietly and out of the public eye. No one who is truly hurting would be interested in grieving for the cameras. And no one who has lossed a loved one whom they really cared for wants to hang around the site of the fatality. Notice that when a teenager dies, the victim's family is almost NEVER seen lingering at the scene. But numerous "friends", acquaintances and classmates congregate at the scene for days afterwards, hugging and sobbing for the cameras, often for someone they hardly knew. Seriously, who has 50 or 60 close friends? Why then are their 50 or 60 teenagers "grieving"? And if they feel that badly about it, why aren't they at home?
  15. I. M. Al Wayswright from Canada writes: Most countries in the world have public display of grieving. Why is public grieving such a sin in Canada?
    Although I think that flowers, pictures, and teddy bears should go to the cemetery not to the roadside.
  16. Chris H from Canada writes: Terry Terry, I'm not sure that religion provides certainty about the afterlife; I think more than anything is gives you a social framework for discussing it. Grief needn't be a private, solitary thing, but it also needn't be inappropriately public. It can be difficult finding a forum for it, and it's obvious that that forum is what is being sought by people. The death of 'public' people (ie: Diana) isn't so much about a loss (I mean, really) but more about an abrupt change, a reminder that life is unpredictable. It can be jarring. (to say the least)
  17. Clive Gingell from Ottawa, Canada writes: I'll concur with those who regard such displays as tacky and 'low class'.
  18. Sean D from Toronto, Canada writes: I find it exceedingly odd that people choose to mark the sites of the death of there loved ones, even if (as I have experienced) their death was the result of there own poor judgment. Be it drunk driving or speeding.

    In general the amount of space and resources we waste on people when they are no longer with us is ridiculous.
  19. Michael Sharp from Victoria BC, Canada writes:

    I like them.

    MVAs kill people worse than any war.

    Maybe if people see the carnage that is happening on our streets they might drive more carefully.

    Maybe.
  20. Thumb Sucker from Toronto, Canada writes: To all those saying that these displays are tacky, how many of you can claim they have never gone on a G&M forum and posted something to the effect of "My thoughts and prayers go out the victims and the families"?

    I find these forums are a good indication of the level and excess of needless sentiment and meaningless condolences that is the internet 'greiving' process.
  21. C A from Toronto, Canada writes: Shame on so many of you who have posted in this discussion.

    How dare you pass judgement on the grieving process of others. how dare you assume that because someone does not personally know someone who has passed, that they are somehow not eligable to grieve. my god has it occoured to any of you that perhaps someone who grieves may be grieving as a mother, aunt, sister, etc. who has lost someone in a similar manner who now is showing their love and support for someone going through what they went through??? how dare any of you proclaim the class of grieving. low class? tacky?? you idiot no heart having insensitive social rejects are those who probably do not have much of a impact on peoples lives to warrent such a tribute. so what if someone wants to mourn for years? are they disrupting your life? no?? ok, then STFU and keep your vile arse in gear.
    someone who passes is someones loved one.. even if it isnt you. shocker isnt it you self absorbed pr*cks.
  22. Thumb Sucker from Toronto, Canada writes: C A from Toronto, you have completely missed the point of this article. Also, no one pays attention to posts that have the grammar and writing ability of an 8 year old child.
  23. Greg Atkin from Canada writes: What's any more conspicuous than those little old Italian nonnas shuffling around in black for 60 years?
  24. Alistair McLaughlin from Ottawa, Canada writes: C A, it isn't the grieving that bothers us, it's the self-indulgent attention-seeking and shameless posturing. Real grief is not a production put on for the sake of the cameras, nor should the display of grief be a legitimate means of gaining social validation. Candlelight vigils, if they were to be truly meaningful, would not require the notification of the media ahead of time. Most such displays are nothing more than hollow gestures by shallow people. I assume that most public displays of overwrought grieving are motivated by a though process that looks something like this: "Look at me. Look how compassionate and caring I am. Watch me as I display the socially appropriate gestures of sorrow and grief. I hope all my friends see me on the news. I'm going to tell everyone I was here, so I can bask in the social validation I'll get for "doing the right thing". Just look at what a wonderful, caring person I am, to be here grieving for a stranger! And all to support the victim's family. I just give 'til it hurts!"
  25. C A from Toronto, Canada writes: "Alistair McLaughlin from Ottawa, Canada writes: C A, it isn't the grieving that bothers us, it's the self-indulgent attention-seeking and shameless posturing. Real grief is not a production put on for the sake of the cameras, nor should the display of grief be a legitimate means of gaining social validation. Candlelight vigils, if they were to be truly meaningful, would not require the notification of the media ahead of time. Most such displays are nothing more than hollow gestures by shallow people. I assume that most public displays of overwrought grieving are motivated by a though process that looks something like this: "Look at me. Look how compassionate and caring I am. Watch me as I display the socially appropriate gestures of sorrow and grief. I hope all my friends see me on the news. I'm going to tell everyone I was here, so I can bask in the social validation I'll get for "doing the right thing". Just look at what a wonderful, caring person I am, to be here grieving for a stranger! And all to support the victim's family. I just give 'til it hurts!"" you assume a lot allister. real grief is... says who?? people notify the public to invite the public to mourn the loss of someone who was cared about. usually a public vigil or memorial is set up in cases where a person has died due to senselessness or some sort of great tragedy. its very important that these kinds of deaths are mourned publicly and that everyone has a chance to share in the grief. if its a small child riddled with bullets at a b-day party its important for the public to get involved and mourn the loss and stand up to the public and say, this is sad, this child is missed by family, friends and those who his story alone touched and we arent going to let the police, government and anyone else sweep this under the rug. you call it seeking attention. i call it seeking justice while mourning the loss of someone loved, missed and someone who was taken from their family all too soon.
  26. Blinken Nod from Toronto, Canada writes: I blame Oprah. She and her confessional talk show ilk have created a phenomenon whereby every human experience and emotion is for public consumption. The more dramatic and teary-eyed, and the bigger the audience that bears witness to your pain, the better. And if you get TV cameras to record it all? Jackpot!!!

    The whole thing is ghoulish, show-offy and terribly inappropriate.

    If I died tomorrow in a horrific accident I’d be mortified (ha) if someone erected some tacky roadside memorial in my honour. I do not wish to be remembered as roadkill and I can&8217;t fathom why anyone thinks it&8217;s a good idea to remember their loved ones this way. And if a bunch of strangers showed up at my funeral to weep and wail I hope my family and friends have the good sense to send the attention-seekers packing.

    Death must be acknowledged and grief must be expressed, certainly. But in my opinion and in my personal experience it is an intensely personal and private matter. It is for you and your circle of loved ones to deal with. It is not for mass public consumption.
  27. Johan Jacobs from Toronto, Canada writes: I view these public displays of "grief" as empty, lacking class and self-serving
  28. C A from Toronto, Canada writes: idiots.

    yeah, i'm sure these dead people are spinning in their graves at the thought of the public coming out to remember them. i'm sure they are horrified that they were cared about so much by family, family friends and (gasp) the public.. yeah, surely they are ready to throw up their arms in anger.

    you people should be so lucky to have so many people take an interest in your passing and in turn, your life that they travel down to your vigil just to pay respects.

    i don't doubt there are some out there that are looking for air time on citytv @ 11pm but you are seriously underestimating the interest of a bunch of people who will travel from out of town and purchase with their own money flowers and bears and bla bla bla for the deceased.

    its called paying your respects to a life that was lost.

    you people are cynical.
  29. Blinken Nod from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm not cynical. I just can't figure out what the public mourners get out of it. It's attention-seeking, pure and simple. What else could it be? It's trying to get everyone to notice how compassionate you are. It's no longer about the deceased or their families, it's about you.

    If you feel moved to do something for the families of someone who tragically died, hurrah for you. But surely it's a more effective use of your teddy bear money to donate it to a worthy related cause instead. Anonymously.
  30. C A from Toronto, Canada writes: "Blinken Nod from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm not cynical. I just can't figure out what the public mourners get out of it. It's attention-seeking, pure and simple. What else could it be? It's trying to get everyone to notice how compassionate you are. It's no longer about the deceased or their families, it's about you. If you feel moved to do something for the families of someone who tragically died, hurrah for you. But surely it's a more effective use of your teddy bear money to donate it to a worthy related cause instead. Anonymously." THAT IS YOUR OPINION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU feel there are more effective uses for teddy bear money... go you.. then YOU march over to your local charity and donate YOUR money.. little jennifer who sees the story of someone close to her age murdered might want to bring something that comforts her in her time of need, maybe a teddy bear or something SHE feels will comfort the family or the person who's passed on. good god. i think a big problem is that you people feel like you have to understand everything.. that everything has to have a reason. IT DOESNT. especially with death. i've personally never went to a vigil for someone i didnt know however i understand why people do it... i've walked past those make shift memorials and given a moment to the deceased. i may send them a little prayer in my head or at the very least, think about them and how and why they died and it reminds me of how precious life is. it also shows me that we care enough to remember these people. how is it attention seeking when 98% of the people at these things dont get the airtime or spotlight like some of you seem to think???? you think the full purpose of these people gathering is for the 2% chance they are going to get on the 11 o'clock news??? like i said, cynical.. and jaded.
  31. Alistair McLaughlin from Ottawa, Canada writes: C A, I'm cynical because human nature is, at its very basic level, disingenous and deceitful. For example, we have to teach our kids to tell the truth. But research clearly demonstrates that babies are born knowing how to lie, and regularly decieve their parents even before they learn to speak. We are the product of millions of years of natural selection. Much of the success enjoyed by our ancestors was the willingness to do whatever was necessary to gain social acceptance. Those early homonids who didn't gain social acceptance out on the savanas of Africa didn't live long enough to produce offspring. Not only have we evolved to pursue social status, but we've also evolved complex methods to decieve each other, and to deceive OURSELVES in our attempts to gain such acceptance. Why decieve ourselves? Because it is easier to deceive others when we belive in the virtue of our own behaviour. There is not near enough space here to explain how these universal traits of human nature have come about, but I would urge you to read Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate", Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene", Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal", and Matt Ridley's "The Red Queen." One cannot help but be cynical about human nature once one realizes the evolutionary origins behind many of our social behaviours. Those behaviour, often as not, are simply unconcious and insincere attempts to earn social status. You may be content to ride along with the crowd and conform to whatever silly social trend happens to be in fashion. As for me, I believe it is our responsibility as a conscious, thinking species to attempt to rise above such blatantly Darwinian behaviour, however embedded it might be in our natures. I'm not arguing that this somehow makes me better. What I'm arguing is that we ALL should strive to be better. Mindlessly aping the fashionable grieving of others should be left to the apes.
  32. Willis Canada from Toronto, Canada writes: Well, of course it's my opinion. That's what we're all doing here, expressing our opinions.

    But another question I have for you is: how do you choose? I mean, considering how many people die every day, how do you choose which ones you'll mourn for, and which ones you won't? Do you just go for the big splashy news-worthy tragedies? Or do you ever pay tribute to an anonymous elderly person who died quietly after a prolonged illness in hospital?

    And finally, how can you remember someone you didn't know in the first place?
  33. C A from Toronto, Canada writes: "Alistair McLaughlin from Ottawa, Canada writes: BLA BLA BLA.. OH AND BLA BLA BLA... BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA.. AND BLA BLA.. BLA... BLA BLA."

    Alistair.. i'm conforming because i see nothing wrong with public vigils. you sir, are a few slices short of a loaf.

    i will NOT read your cynical and negative books. NEVER. i will live much longer with what i know than looking over my shoulder for the next bad guy who's going to deceive me. people deceive, they lie and the steal and they cheat.. shall i go on? we all know these people exist and if you want to fixate on this, fine but i will not.

    i love how captain obvious comes in and attempts to educate me with books that tell the tale of NOTHING NEW..

    and look at all the bla bla bla'ing you did.. over things already known
  34. Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes: Mourning is a very personal process for me. I try to appreciate what that person meant to me. Of course, friends and relatives should be there to help remember those who were lost and contemplate our own mortality.

    We we are talking about larger public memorials where grief is made very public, I find they tend to have more of a contrived feeling about them, but some seem more genuine that others. I guess an exception would be a person who was a public leader, someone who affected many people and impacted many lives. But this can just be a cultural difference or a difference of taste.

    I think we need to tolerate a certain amount of diversity in how we mourn. I certainly wouldn't deride a certain type of mourning as low class. In fact, I often find what is often called "low class" is far more dignified that what is called "high class". For example, I was at a memorial meeting for a business leader who was a bit a an a$$ most of his life and there were people giving all sorts of accolades, because it was the "appropriate" thing to do, and it felt empty and shallow. However, while at modest family burial in Korea in the countyside and many people from the village spoke of the person and it was very touching, sincere and dignified memorial.
  35. C A from Toronto, Canada writes: "Willis Canada from Toronto, Canada writes: Well, of course it's my opinion. That's what we're all doing here, expressing our opinions. But another question I have for you is: how do you choose? I mean, considering how many people die every day, how do you choose which ones you'll mourn for, and which ones you won't? Do you just go for the big splashy news-worthy tragedies? Or do you ever pay tribute to an anonymous elderly person who died quietly after a prolonged illness in hospital? And finally, how can you remember someone you didn't know in the first place?" how do i choose (i cannot believe i am entertaining such a idiotic question. you're that clueless as to what i've been ranting about or you've chosen NOT to read any of it)... i dont "choose"... there is a big difference in the degree of tragedy between a 89 yr old in a old age home and a 11 yr old who was caught in crossfire of gang violence. if i am given the choice to go to one or the other, i'll go with the latter and if you still need to know why, you'll have to just chalk it up to me wanting attention. *rolls eyes* how can you remember someone you dont know? i dont know. i suppose you cant really "remember" someone you dont know but you can certainly lend your support by dropping by and praying, or sending a message of hope to the surviving members of the family who are grief stricken if its is a case of a 11 yr old being gunned down, you can go to send a message (as i've already stated) that this child will be missed, is loved and the incident will not be soon forgotten. do i really have to spell this sh*t out for you? my goodness.
  36. Alistair McLaughlin from Ottawa, Canada writes: C A, writes: "I cannot believe I'm entertaining such an idiotic question." Actually, Willis asked a valid question. I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Because I disagree with you, I'm "a few slices short of a full loaf." Because Willis asks a question that you don't like, it's "idiotic". I see you're one of those know-nothings who believes that he who shouts loudest wins. Go ahead, shout your ignorance from the rooftops. Call us all the names you want. Just don't forget to light a candle while you're up there; somebody might be watching.
  37. Alan S from Calgary, Canada writes: As with a lot of things some have gone too far, with the junk at the site, there is a lamp post around here in Calgary, that is just a mess, as one says teddy bear sales are great. Just a simple marker on the roads will remind us maybe to be more careful. I do agree with this statement "….. has evolved in the vacuum left as people abandon religious belief. Religious beliefs provided some certainty of an otherwise unknown and an understanding of the physical death as part of a bigger plan ……" I don't believe these markers are of any religious nature, even though crosses are sometimes used. To day with some tragic deaths these shrines become political posturing on the blood of the dead. No I don’t like them, the original idea may have been good, but now over done.
  38. Michael Sharp from The Salish Sea BC, Canada writes:

    No acknowledgement of the terrible loss of life faced by driving Canadians.

    It's part of doing business.

    We die in our thousands, every year.
    The Yanks lose 60,000 a year, we're 10%.

    Thousands.

    No acknowledgement of this fact by any other poster but me?

    Are you all blind?

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top