I was just responding emotionally to the over-emotionalization in Ochs
lyrics based upon events that did not occur in Genovese's case and typically
do not occur elsewhere (baring conditions of war, famine, etc.).
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Palij" <[email protected]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)"
<[email protected]>
Cc: "Mike Palij" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [tips] Today is "Kitty Genovese Day"
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 05:52:11 -0700, Paul Okami wrote:
What utter nonsense. Even American Psychologist (finally) got
around to correcting the Genovese myths.
I apologize but the brevity of your message makes it ambiguous.
What exactly is "utter nonsense"? Are you referring to the
lyrics of the Phil Ochs song which was published in *1966*
or two years after Kitty Genovese's death? Given the influence
of the New York Times reporting at the time (see the webiste
http://kewgardenshistory.com/ss-nytimes-3.html which I
provided previously; see below), are you criticizing the
song for being inaccurate and not embodying an interpretation
that would not be available until later, like 2007 (the Manning,
Levine, and Collins article in the American Psychologist)?
Or is there some other "utter nonsense" that you are referring to?
Perhaps its just me but I'm finding these overly brief responses
to be cryptic and requiring the reader to "divine" the author's
intent.
-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected]
----- Original Message -----
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:27:17 -0700, Paul Brandon wrote:
"Outside of a small circle of friends" Phil Ochs
The first lines in the above song are:
|Look outside the window, there's a woman being grabbed
|They've dragged her to the bushes and now she's being stabbed
|Maybe we should call the cops and try to stop the pain
|But Monopoly is so much fun, I'd hate to blow the game
|And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
|Outside of a small circle of friends.
But I have to admit to being unsure about the message that Paul
is intending. He is saying that Kitty Genovese's death is no longer
relevant to most people? Our petty interests trump the suffering
and death of a person? For psychology, Kitty Genovese is of
less importance than the work of Latane and Darley that was
in response to her death? Or something else? I really don't
understand.
-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected]
On Mar 13, 2009, at 8:13 AM, Mike Palij wrote:
Back on March 13, 1964, Kitty Genovese was attacked and
killed. We now have a somewhat different view of the events
surrounding her death, particularly the issue of "bystander apathy".
For example, see:
http://kewgardenshistory.com/ss-nytimes-3.html
And others remember the event in their own way. For example, see:
http://deathaday.blogspot.com/2008/03/march-13-kitty-genovese.html
Of renewed relevance to younger folks, she plays a minor role in
the "Watchmen" graphic novel: see:
http://www.scifimoviepage.com/upcoming/previews/watchmen-2.html
Make it "help a stranger" day.
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
