Oh, the Humanity

A San Francisco man died on the afternoon of Tuesday, April 24. I didn’t know him, but according to this article he left a wife and a tight-knit community that described him as “a good guy” and “a very gentle man” when he was struck by a mail truck at age 48.

He must have been some guy to score an entire article instead of just an obituary, right? Well, let’s see what else we can learn from this very interesting read:

if you are looking to muster a lot of sympathy, this is an uphill battle. Skateboard was a reckless, homeless drinker who, after any number of close calls, finally got run over. Frankly, he was probably living on borrowed time. So it goes.

Monty Holmes, known as Skateboard because he was missing both legs and chose that mode of transport, was homeless and an alcoholic. Apparently, the San Francisco Chronicle finds this adequate reason to to paint him as a “street character” who, despite his quirks and annoying characteristics, managed to find friends while living in a rough neighborhood.

I know that certain rules of etiquette are antiquated and should be challenged. However, there are still situations in which one should observe a baseline standard of decorum. Death is one of those instances. Not speaking ill of the dead is a good rule of thumb, especially not publicly and not immediately afterward. Making every effort to comfort loved ones is another - describing the wife of the deceased as having a “nasty scar” is probably indelicate during the mourning period.

A person’s position in life should not rob him of basic human dignity. A homeless man should be granted the same respect in passing as any other person. I don’t think it’s likely that the Chronicle would publish an article noting that a recently deceased businessman was not only philanthropic and influential in his field but also tyrannical to his employees and unfaithful to his wife. That person’s family wouldn’t stand for such a portrait, nor would the general public. Why should a homeless man be treated that way?

There are about a zillion homeless people in my neighborhood, and many (if not most) are addicts of some sort. I don’t pretend I’m not disturbed when someone lights up a crack pipe in front of me, or stumbles into the corner store to buy yet another overpriced bottle of liquor. My response to this, though, is to be thankful I haven’t been cursed with a substance abuse problem, and grateful for a support system that ensures I will always have a home. Unlike the author of this Chronicle piece, I understand that I am lucky in life, and that not everyone has my good fortune. I am disgusted that, in this theoretically “progressive” city, a man’s life can be publicly torn apart before he’s even laid to rest, simply because he had the misfortune of living on the street.

The lesson in this? It’s not just a homeless person’s life that’s worth less than others’ - it’s his death, too.

Filed under Blogicize the Revolution, Evil Businesses, San Francisco

1 Response So Far
  1. 1

    Brooke said,

    April 26, 2007 @ 9:30 pm

    Great piece! If you haven’t done so already, you should submit this (or an abbreviated version) as a letter to the editor. I doubt they’d print it, but worth a try.

Say your words