0
Usenet Posted 23 years ago
Usage

Losing our Innocence -- How often can it be done?

Recently, in one of the endless reviews of the Anna Lindt murder, someone eventually got around to deploying the now almost compulsory "loss of innocence" cliche.
In so far as it typically refers to whole nations, I wonder what it really means (both explicitly and implicitly).
It seems almost de rigeur after some horrible crime for some journalist to claim that (fill in name of nation) has "lost its innocence".
I want to know if it's possible for a nation to be innocent in the first place (which is surely a precondition to losing it). Isn't this an example of reification the attribution of human qualities to abstractions?
What would such innocence entail? And who decides when it is definitively lost? Kennedy's murder? Vietnam and My Lai and Watergate? 9/11. Surely serial loss of innocence is as plausible as serial loss of virginity?
Isn't this just a lot of flatulent, arrogant, self-serving cant? (Hmm, I could probably have stayed with cant. Must cut down on those adjectives.)
Chrissy
  

Top answer

[nq:1]Recently, in one of the endless reviews of the Anna Lindt murder, someone eventually got around to deploying the now ... [/nq] Any chance of supplying the relevant paragraph? We don't know what the writer/speaker was trying to say, either.

  • [nq:1]Recently, in one of the endless reviews of the Anna Lindt murder, someone eventually got around to deploying the now ...
  • [/nq] Any chance of supplying the relevant paragraph?
  • We don't know what the writer/speaker was trying to say, either.
  • [nq:1]It seems almost de rigeur after some horrible crime for some journalist to claim that (fill in name of nation) ...
  • lot of flatulent, arrogant, self-serving cant?
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

4 Answers
0
[nq:1]Recently, in one of the endless reviews of the Anna Lindt murder, someone eventually got around to deploying the now ... In so far as it typically refers to whole nations, I wonder what it really means (both explicitly and implicitly).[/nq]
Any chance of supplying the relevant paragraph? We don't know what the writer/speaker was trying to say, either.
[nq:1]It seems almost de rigeur
0
Thus spake chrissy:
[nq:1]Recently, in one of the endless reviews of the Anna Lindt murder, someone eventually got around to deploying the now ... lot of flatulent, arrogant, self-serving cant? (Hmm, I could probably have stayed with cant. Must cut down on those adjectives.)[/nq]
In Sweden's case, they should have lost their innocence after the murder of Olof Palme, back in 1986. For some
0
[nq:1]Recently, in one of the endless reviews of the Anna Lindt murder, someone eventually got around to deploying the now ... lot of flatulent, arrogant, self-serving cant? (Hmm, I could probably have stayed with cant. Must cut down on those adjectives.)[/nq]
You sure nailed it there, sister!

John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
0
[nq:1]In Sweden's case, they should have lost their innocence after the murder of Olof Palme, back in 1986. For some ... the development. Hopefully, Swedes have now lost their innocence; they don't deserve to have it taken advantage of any longer.[/nq]
Yes, but the headline "The day (fill in your favourite nation to get maudlin about)lost its self-delusion/naivety" doesn't have quite the jingo

Related Questions