We may be dead and we may be gone

[venta]

At the end of last week, there was a story in the London Evening Standard about some workmen causing havoc in a Paddington graveyard.

"Workmen have desecrated an 18th century burial ground by destroying scores of ancient tombs," trumpeted the opening sentence, "some of which belonged to children."

Now, really this is quite a dull story. Some workmen had to dig out a wall, they uncovered some ancient gravestones, they smashed them to continue their digging. Not really what they should have done (in my opinion), but hardly screaming-banner-headline stuff.

What confuses me is the idea that, to make things worse, some of the graves belonged to children. I understand the LES wants to try and make every story as dramatic as it can, but is there actually anyone, anywhere, who thinks it worse to desecrate a child's grave than an adult's?

I've always struggled with the idea that a child's death is more tragic than an adult's (in the abstract, I mean - I understand it's a tragedy to, say, the child's parents). But that this should carry on into the hereafter to make a child's grave more sacred than an adult's... well, I just don't get it.

Comments

[sushidog.livejournal.com]

But won't somebody think of the (long dead) children?

Erm, but yes. It would have been nicer if they'd moved, rather than smashed, the stones, but they're just stones, not bodies, and even if they'd been bodies, they're just old bones, not living people. I think the dead still outnumber the living, but all the same, there's only so much respect we can pay them and their bones and their stones.

[venta.livejournal.com]

But won't somebody think?

:)