I bought and started reading Over the Edge, Death in Grand Canyon.
I'm only on page 11 and the flavor seems to be a positive approach to avoiding fatalities by reviewing what went wrong. I'm enjoying it.
But, like we often hear now days, we are learning about not "getting in harm's way".
I don't get it.
Why don't we say, "not getting in danger"?
When the term "putting oneself in Harm's way" is used, it sounds like an entity. Harm becomes a noun, something we as victims have gotten too close to, hence have gotten in its way. We must avoid "Harm". It is out to get us.
What happened to the word Danger?
Be careful, or you'll be in danger? That's more direct. It places self-responsibility on our doorstep.
The troops overseas are not in harm's way. They are in danger.
That is the gist of it. Not wimpy, politically correct, victimizing, self absolving.
Who made up that terminology, and why?
Is this a media thing, and we don't stop to analyze how that affects our outlook ? Was it coined to help us tolerate the wars we are mired in, without hope of exiting in our life times?
I'm for saying it straight out. Don't go hiking without enough water. You're in danger. That's dangerous.
Forget " If you go hiking without water you place yourself in harm's way".