Violence is it all the media?s fault? Which came first? The chicken or the egg? This has been the central issue concerning violence in the media for years and years. Does violence in life imitate violence in art? Or, does violence in art derive from violence in life? Also, how do we curtail the random acts of violence within our society? Does the answer lie in the cessation of violence in art? Are the violent acts depicted on TV responsible for our violent behavior? The answer is an emphatic "NO". The escalation of belligerent activity in American society is a symptom of deteriorated value systems and poor parental instruction.
Even a cursory survey of history will reveal that violence definitively preceded the modern day media. Emperor Nero found it amusing to light his garden parties with the burning corpses of Christians. AD 37 marked the emergence of Gaius Caesar Caligula as the ruler of Rome.
Abduction of Europe
Europe Simulator
United StatesHe brutally crucified hundreds of people, murdered members of the aristocracy to acquire their funds, and reveled in torturing sons while their fathers watched. The 16th century czar of Russia, Ivan Grozny, sadistically decimated 30,000 of his own subjects at the siege of NovGorod. At the battle of Verdun, beginning on February 21,1916, the world witnessed, for ten long months, a constant rain of shooting, shelling, and clouds of poison gas. After one million French and German casualties, the battle lines were essentially unchanged. "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9 Since violence is not a novelty and TV, relatively, is, TV cannot be responsible for the creation of violence. What, then, are the origins of violence? Our use...