On Randoms and Retrospectives
Maybe we were spoiled. Maybe New Years 2000 was such a big deal, that nothing after it will ever match it. Sure it had it's high and low points, but 2003 is just another random year. 2004 isn't really the start of anything new, at least not new enough that it would set off retrospectives of the last 5, 10, 100 or 1000 years. In the days leading up to New Year's Eve, we are bombarded with retrospectives of the passing year. We get to see all the great things that happened in 2003 that will make it a memorable year. Then we celebrate it's passing with champagne, loud noise makers and confetti. I have trouble getting excited about the celebration of New Year's Eve (there are those who would say I have trouble getting excited about anything), so maybe I'm not qualified to comment on it. Watching the coverage on TV (I watched the City TV coverage of the Toronto celebration), the people at midnight, were really excited, or they were just really good at faking it. If the days from Christmas to New Years are supposed to be a happy nostalgic trip through the past year, then why do we get so excited to see it pass? If it's about familiarizing ourselves more with the entity of 2003, then why not remind ourselves of the sadnesses as well as the triumphs. As I watched the revellers at Nathan Phillips square, I asked myself, "Did they have such a bad year? Has someone assured them that 2004 will be better?" New Years has always been a time to celebrate, and maybe that's what I'm missing here. Sure, the departure of something bad warrants a celebration, as does the arrival of something good, but 2003 was largely a random year, and we have no reason to believe that 2004 won't be. Every other day of the year we bemoan the passage of time, so why then, on the last day, do we celebrate it?

   [ posted by William @ 11:57 AM ]