User Avatar Image

Why all the hate on crawford?

posted by marioluigi344 on - last edited - Viewed by 1.5K users

To be honest, Crawford was a brilliant idea. They had strict rules, but that's it. I can understand the "no children" hate, but they didn't kill kids, they just let them out of crawford with their parents. So, what did they do wrong? Did I miss something?

36 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • Cuz the guy who ran it was a dick

  • They did not get rid of children, they killed them, and anyone with any medical problems would be killed, even if the condition was gone, Vernon and his cancer group were in remission, but they were still almost killed, they were crazy, and there leader was a mad man who did what he wanted to do because he had the power to do so, I feel no sympathy for them at all.

  • Because those selfish... people... sent those children to hell with their parents, you know the odds of surviving aren't quite high for a small family, Crawford though could've helped them, protected everyone, but they didn't want to take care of people, it was as simple as that for them. Oberson had lost his humanity, in case of emergeny he'd doomed everyone including those, who were allowed to stay in Crawford to save his own ass. It's not kids only, elderly people or people who were suffering from cancer or any other sicknesses, that needed some special treatment were "disposed of..." as well. And as the poster above me said... Oberson was a dick.

  • I mean anyone below the age of 14 is dead, and if there is anything wrong with them, mentally, physically, or anything they are dead, only so much of any resource can be used at any time, which means they would let one of there own die from a treatable wound if it cost to much medicine, I wonder when he went mad with power, the first couple days, weeks, a month, I wonder.

  • Does this question even seriously need to be asked? Crawford was kind of evil.

    @marioluigi344 said: They had strict rules, but that's it. I can understand the "no children" hate, but they didn't kill kids, they just let them out of crawford with their parents.

    I was under the impression that they killed the people who didn't fit their "perfect survivor" image. Didn't someone mention that the zombies that are on spikes outside of Crawford were people that they just impaled out there for not following the rules?

    Anyway, even if the children, the sick, and the elderly only get kicked out to deal with the walkers on their own, that's still pretty cruel. Regardless of what you may have contributed in the past or what you may be able to do in the future, you're simply kicked to the curb if you don't measure up to one particular person's idea of what an ideal survivor should be. To quote Gandhi, "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."

    Then there's the matter of corruption within the system. If you watched the third video with Molly, you know that those in power were willing to cut deals for a price. So the strong bully the weak by saying, "Give me what I want, or you're gone."

    And even if it weren't an awful system on moral grounds, it's not particularly practical either. If you're only keeping people in your group who exhibit specific characteristics, then that means your group is only going to be very good at one specific thing. And that may keep you alive for a while, but eventually, you'll run into a situation that those people don't have either the knowledge or the skill to handle. Because you kicked out everyone who could have helped you. Diversity is really the best survival strategy, and Crawford is the very embodiment of putting all your eggs in one basket (which ultimately ended up being its downfall).

    If Lee's group had gone by Crawford's rules, then Clem, Duck, Larry, Chuck, and probably even Doug would all be out of the group. And think about what that would mean. Lee dies on his first day because Clem's not there to help him fight off the babysitter. Lee can't get to the medicine in the pharmacy because Doug's not there to program the universal remote control for him. The motel is overrun by walkers because Larry isn't there to help build the wall. Lee, Kenny, and Lilly die in a meat locker because Clem isn't there to crawl through the duct to open the door. They're all killed by a herd of walkers on the railroad tracks because Clem isn't there to help Lee get to the blowtorch. The group is killed by walkers on the streets of Savannah because Chuck isn't there to hold them off. They're not able to get into the house because Clem isn't there to crawl through the pet door and let them in. And so, and so on. You get the idea.

    And besides which, who in Crawford gets to decide who's fit to survive and who isn't? No matter how many people you kick out, there's always going to be someone who's weakest. Do you just keep tossing away weakest links until there's only one person left? How can there be any trust in a society where everyone knows they might be the next to get kicked out at any moment?

  • Sending children out to fend for themselves is as good as shooting them from point blank range.It's a death sentence either way,Crawford was a terrible place run by a dictator.

  • I think they did kill them, from the tone of Molly's voice that what I guessed.

  • Their front gate was literally made out of the sick and elderly that weren't fit for their Nazi regime.

    Besides, abandoning all the children and forcing abortions was evil on the short term, and stupidly shortsighted on the long term.

  • @WalkingDeadFan23 said: Cuz the guy who ran it was a dick


  • To be fair Crawford has a point...
    As harsh as it is they cannot afford to give out supplies to everyone and if people are unwell and require regular treatment, it can't properly be sustained...
    Children (other than Clem) are a risk and most of them are probably incapable of doing the work that needs to be done to the same extent of healthy Adults...
    I don't necessarily blame Crawford as harsh as it is because not everyone can survive

Add Comment