Is the label "survivor" overused and thus devalued?

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:12:35 -0400

The word "survivor" is now used as a suffix to any traumatic experience (or percieved traumatic experience). The most recent one, which prompted this, was "gun violence survivors." Some were shot and "survived" the experience, others had family members killed. Should this be labeled "survivor?" It seems to build on the victim profile we continue to build for people. Honestly, unless you have been the target of a homicide, and the intention to kill is present...isn't that the only time you're really a survivor? Someone tried to kill you, but you made it. Everything else is surely tragic, but saying you survived something that doesn't involve attempted killing of some sort seems...alarmist, and just wrong.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2015 10:15 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:15:31 -0400

I feel that it is getting dangerously close to that. The definition of the word is being muddled because people want attention for having something like that happen to them - no matter how many degrees they have to go out in order to find said situation. In my humble opinion, it should only be applied to those directly involved in the situation.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Sep 11 at 2015 10:22 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:22:20 -0400

It was an attempt to avoid the word "victim" or "patient" in many cases.

So what we ended up with a case of word substitution "gone awry."

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Sep 11 at 2015 10:24 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:24:48 -0400

COL Private RallyPoint Member I agree with you and SSgt Private RallyPoint Member. The title of "survivor" is used to often and sometimes people try to find whatever connection they can find to an event to have that labeled applied. For example, looking at today as the 14th anniversary of the terrorist attacks, if very loosely applied, aren't we all "survivors" of the attacks? Just some food for thought.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2015 10:35 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:35:08 -0400

COL Private RallyPoint Member, Sir, this is very interesting question and point that you have presented. If not ‘survivor’, than what? What do you call someone that has been involved in a serious event, but escaped from being seriously harmed or killed, regardless if it was a murder attempt? If you escape a house fire, is that considered surviving or just escaping? What about a plane crash or wild animal attack?

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 11 at 2015 10:51 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:51:43 -0400

Been saying that about survivors and heros for years, COL.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2015 10:54 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:54:04 -0400

I definitely see where you're coming from. You're right, to me if someone is labeled as a survivor, without knowing anything else, I assume they escaped from some near death situation. So in that respect, yes it seems it's being overused.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Sep 11 at 2015 11:02 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:02:37 -0400

COL Private RallyPoint Member I would agree on both. I have said for years that the TV show survivor needs to show someone being bitten by a shark, mauled by a lion, gored by a hippo, trampled by elephants, or some other major event that has to be dealt with before the title applies. Playing games in the woods is not surviving, it is camping (a recreational activity that almost anyone can participate).

I think that in the internet age, people want to be there when it happens. Be where? the epicenter of an event that will start a national or global discussion about said event. Using gun violence as an example, if a person is close enough to here the gun shots, then they were close enough to be famous. Case in point, when the last theater shootings occurred, there were interviews conducted with people who were in the building, but nowhere near the actual event. Words like courageous, survivor, and victim were thrown around. My thought was that they were as much courageous survivor victims as I am. When someone has first hand experienced a traumatic event, they are a survivor. A person who is bitten by a shark is a shark attack survivor or shark attack victim. I personally think that the word victim is far worse. It has an implication that the person labeled was helpless to do anything in the situation. I would like to think (even if it leads to death) that there is always something that can be done to improve a situation. We need to stop the use of these spectacular words to describe average events.

That being said, those guys who attacked the terrorist on the train in France are survivors. One was shot in the neck, and the other was slashed badly across the neck and hand. That is survival. Even the man who was shot's wife would qualify, not because her husband was shot, but because she was right there in the same train car with the terrorist when it

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2015 11:13 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:13:42 -0400

In the context of a society and infrastructure driven by "event = benefit", yes.
In the context of individual experience...well, it's subjective at best. If someone missed getting hit by shrapnel from an incoming round, or an insurgent took a pot-shot at 2,000 yards without even using the sights...does that equal being in a plane crash, or spending a week on the slope of Everest? Probably not.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Sep 14 at 2015 2:51 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:51:41 -0400

We need to change our lexicon. Hero and survivor and thrown about too freely

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2015 5:04 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:04:42 -0400

COL Private RallyPoint Member Curious about how you view obituaries stating, "survived by"... What if a person is a "survivor" because they fought off urge to commit suicide? What about breast cancer survivors (male and female)? What else would we call someone who "survived" breast cancer? I don't watch the show Survivor I think it's on the same level as WWE wrestling shows.

Response by Carol Davis made Mar 18 at 2018 12:13 PM

Carol Davis — Sun, 18 Mar 2018 12:13:15 -0400

Because something terrifying happens NEAR you, does not make you a “Survivor”. Really, most are just “witnesses”, direct or indirect.
This may seem callous, but not everyone that attended Parkland School qualifies. (Or any other tragic event, for that matter, this is just more front-and-center right now).
Those who were shot, or shot AT do qualify.
Otherwise, we can all wear a “Survivor” badge of honor and deserve special considerations.
Why must our society constantly suck actual MEANING out of words and terms?
Eventually, everything will mean nothing... we will swim in a sea of white noise conversations.
Already, it’s so close.
Say what you MEAN, and have INTENT when you do.
Or simply... well, shut up.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2018 12:18 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Mar 2018 12:18:34 -0400

In terms of general traumatic experiences, I believe the term survivor is often applied to those surviving the MENTAL battle (PTS/PTSD) rather than the physical threat. Post-traumatic stress from any traumatic event can wreak havoc on your life, relationships, well being... It seems you are labeled a survivor when you have survived and overcome that stress and are able to return to life as normal.

However, it being applied to liberally in these cases I think is more the media trying to make a bigger, more heart-wrenching story.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2018 1:05 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:05:54 -0400

You mean like “the war on...”