|
Post by sayne on Jun 27, 2009 11:27:09 GMT -5
JFK, Elvis Presley, John Lennon, Diana Spencer, and Michael Jackson. Those are the ones in my life time whose deaths I would consider to be the biggest. I see them as having equal emotional and cultural impact on the Western world. I don't think the deaths of Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, Marilyn Monroe, Martin Luther King, or others had the same impact, although their passings were significant. Now, here's my point. Although I know I could be overlooking and not readily thinking of some people, I think only Paul McCartney and (hopefully it won't happen) an early Obama death would reach the same emotional level and newsworthiness of the people I mentioned at the top. Not Madonna, any Rolling Stone, Eminem, Prince, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Angelina Jolie, etc. What do you think? Do you agree or not that a Paul or Obama death would be the equal of the others? Do you agree or disagree that at this time there are no others around today that would reach that level? If you disagree, who do you see around today as capable of having the same emotional impact and news coverage upon their death as the ones above. Don't you dare say "Gary Coleman"
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 1, 2009 20:10:19 GMT -5
I thought JFK Jr. 's death was as freaky and unexpected as Lady Di's. Although accidents happen all the time- theirs were bizarre. John's mostly because of his inexperience as a pilot-taking on a flight of that nature alone, Lady Di trying to avoid papparazzi (sp.)
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 1, 2009 22:34:15 GMT -5
I just thought of one more death that I think will have a huge cultural impact as the others - Muhammad Ali.
|
|
wooltonian
Very Clean
"Football isn't a matter of life and death - it's much more important than that." Bill Shankly.
Posts: 796
|
Post by wooltonian on Jul 2, 2009 3:52:58 GMT -5
I just thought of one more death that I think will have a huge cultural impact as the others - Muhammad Ali. You beat me to it. Even with Ali, though, the impact would be mitigated slightly by the fact that his passing is likely to be from 'natural causes' after many years of declining health. Having said that, it would still be a huge moment. I can't think of anone in the world of politics, music, celebrity or sport who would have the same impact as the names already mentioned. Just as a footnote, I am really interested and surprised that Americans would mention the deaths of JFK and Diana in the same breath.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 2, 2009 8:12:52 GMT -5
. . . Just as a footnote, I am really interested and surprised that Americans would mention the deaths of JFK and Diana in the same breath. Really? Why is that? I find that to be an interesting statement. Please elaborate.
|
|
wooltonian
Very Clean
"Football isn't a matter of life and death - it's much more important than that." Bill Shankly.
Posts: 796
|
Post by wooltonian on Jul 2, 2009 9:17:01 GMT -5
. . . Just as a footnote, I am really interested and surprised that Americans would mention the deaths of JFK and Diana in the same breath. Really? Why is that? I find that to be an interesting statement. Please elaborate. Because JFK was a world leader, an iconic figure during hugely turbulent times. He was your President - assassinated in full view of the world. It was an era-defining, truly shocking moment in history. Diana was a member of the British aristocracy who was obviously loved by millions, but whose international profile was largely propelled by the tabloid newspapers and celebrity magazines. I'm not knocking her, or belittling her worthy causes and achievements, but I wouldn't put her premature demise in the same ball park as JFK - even speaking as a Brit. Let me turn the question on its head. Why do you find them comparable?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 2, 2009 10:09:19 GMT -5
. . . Let me turn the question on its head. Why do you find them comparable? They are comparable to me because I wasn't talking about the nature or importance of their occupation. Yes, certainly being president is more important than being a former princess or a pop/rock star. My thread meant to address the issue of deaths of icons. There are people that transcend what they are. JFK was more than "just" a president. Just as, for good or bad, President Obama currently is. He and JFK represent(ed) so much more. Same with Elvis, Lennon, Diana, and now Michael Jackson. They didn't set out to be icons. We made them so. Granting of icon status says more about us than about the icon. When we bestow this status on people, we set ourselves up for a huge hit when they die. We admire a lot of famous people. We idolize fewer. And create icons out of even less. And, only a handful are world icons. Because icons become part of our collective essence, when they die, it is no wonder that there is huge collective grief. Look at it this way. I don't think the same grief would have been exhibited if Nixon (not an icon) had been shot. Heath Ledger wasn't at that level, nor was Farrah Fawcett. That's what I'm referring to in my comparison of JFK, Diana, and the others. In my lifetime, the collective grief, social "gathering of the tribes", and media coverage of the deaths of Kennedy, Presley, Lennon, Spencer, and now Jackson are comparable and unique above other famous deaths in the Western world and in places it touches. And, I think the deaths of Ali and Mc Cartney, and (God forbid) an untimely Obama death, will reach the same level as the ones I have experienced. Not because they are "important", but because of what they represented and because of how much the world has imbedded them in its communal hearts and minds.
|
|