What is to Blame?
On April 20th, 1999, two students entered their high school
armed with guns, bombs, and one objective: to kill. They began
their rampage in the hallways killing one teacher and two
students and continued to the library where they ended their
massacre with the murders of ten more students and their own
collective suicides. To this day, the real motive behind the
crimes has yet to be determined, however, initial speculations
pointed to music in particular. It wasn't until much later that
the students' backgrounds and living environments were
investigated, which is a very concerning fact. So much emphasis
was placed on one subject that it overshadowed the logical
sources of the crime.
Music alone is not to blame for the shootings and violence in
America's schools. Other factors such as politics, living
environment, and the criminal's background play a much larger
role in the lives of the students than music and to put the
spotlight directly on it is illogical.
Violence in schools is a topic that is widely debated in
Congress and other political arenas. Congressman often speack of
the "cruel" and "harsh" lyrics of today's music and how it plays
out in the lives of the listeners. They cite such acts as
Marilyn Manson, Ozzy Osbourne, Snoop Doggy Dogg, Eminem, and
other artists as the cause for many violent acts, whether it's
murder, suicide, rape, kidnapping, or burglary. What the
politicians don't understand is that by concentrating on music
so much, they are giving teenagers an excuse to commit these
heinous crimes. The way politicians treat the issue is that all
a child or a teenager has to do is listen to the lyrics of an
explicit song and violence will become inevitable. Most of these
lyrics are representative of the artist's way of life. What they
don't understand is that vulgar music is not the problem. It is
a symptom of a problem much larger. It's not the catalyst of the
crimes committed; it's the outlet for artists who have been
involved in or witnessed those types of crimes. The purpose of
the music is not to promote the violence but to inform the
public of these atrocities. Being a musician, I know that the
music has emotional ties in an artist's life, which they choose
to express to a new community of listeners. However, the true
meaning behind the song is lost in politics. The music doesn't
push a person to commit a crime. What the politicians fail to
notice is the conditions under which the suspect is living and
the other factors that contribute to the violent behavior. A
teenager's living environment is a major contributor to violence
among juveniles. Every school has at least one person that is
considered a "bully"; more often, though, it is more than just
one person. Different "cliques" conduct social wars in a sense,
which lead to face-value judgements and hateful verbal
exchanges. For instance, a kid wears a Marilyn Manson shirt to
school, and one of his peers in an opposing social group begins
to mock him for it. The kid comes back the next day and shoots
him, did music cause the violence or did the mocking? Neither
can justify the teen's actions, but was music really the
greatest contributing factor in the shooting? Additionally, in
the Columbine shooting, the two students were described as being
social outcasts that were ridiculed and joked about by their
fellow students more so because of the lifestyle they lived than
the type of music they listened to. However, the mockery of
their peers was not part of the blame, it was the music that
stole the limelight. Because they listened to Rammstein and
Manson, the public stressed that their lyrics caused the
outrage, not the scorn of their classmates. Therefore, although
music was involved in an indirect way, it was not the main
motive for the crime.
The most imporant factor behind teen violence is a child's
background. If children grow up in a household where they are
left to fend for themselves, they oftentimes begin using drugs,
failing out of school, and becoming violent. Therefore, music
doesn't have any influence on the child growing up; it is lack
of parental guidance that leads to violence. Nevertheless, if a
child is raised in a family where the right morals and values
are taugh, listening to some type of "vulgar" music won't
necessarily corrupt them. Children need to have a person to talk
to about their problems and misgivings in life, whether it's
their parents, teachers, or even their friends. Someone without
these outlets tends to let their rage build up inside them until
it bursts without warning. For example, the Columbine killers
were practically ignored by their parents. They built pipe bombs
in their rooms and basements, were convicted of robberies and
other crimes, and bought weapons with ease, often shooting them
around their homes. If their parents would have paid more
attention to them and punished them for these actions, those
thirteen people may still be alive today. However, their
ignorance was overlooked initially and once again music was to
blame.
To hold music itself accountable for the crimes committed in
today's society is almost as appalling as the crime itself. The
criminal and their background are far more important than what
kind of music they enjoyed. Maybe they were abused by their
parents, ridiculed by their classmates, or scorned by their
superiors. It seems that everything rational is thrown out the
window in favor of taking the easy road for a motive. Remember,
music doesn't pull the trigger, the suspect does.