The visceral hatred and fear that led two two wars, one a possibly justified response to bring down those who attacked us and those who harbored them, that was quickly neglected in favor the second, a war of opportunity that needed to be started quickly, while the first was still on going, while the fear and hatred was still fresh and so could justify attacking those who hadn’t attacked us but who superficially resembled them. Should we never forget the hatred that nearly two decades later has declared 1.8 billion people in the world evil terrorists, the enemy who must be eradicated. Should we never forget a fear that causes strangers with the wrong complexion to be viewed with wary mistrust, that causes us to build walls, perimeters and checkpoints to keep us safe. No, I think that has lasted enough and should well be forgotten.
But there are somethings we are in danger of forgetting that we must remember.
We shouldn’t forget what life was like on Spetember 10th 2001. A time when you could meet your family a the airport gate with a bottle of homemade apple cider. When you could walk up the steps of the capitol in Washington, when an unattended bag would simply be dumped in the lost and found without calling the police. We must never forget that we once lived in a world without constant fear if we are ever going to return.
We should remember what how everyone came together in the weeks after September 11th before it all fell apart. A time when there were no Democrats or Republicans, just Americans and everyone was a patriot, not in a holier than thou “I’m a real American and your not”, sort of way, but with real love and reverence for our history, resilience and compassion for each other. A time when we were still the beacon of freedom, and our allies supported us with open arms and open hearts. Eventually this changed, as patriotism turned to Jingoism, and the international good will was squandered as “nous sommes tous Aericains” (we are all Americans) was replaced with freedom fries. I hope that someday we can return to this, but that hopefully it won’t take another national tragedy to bring it about, and that should it happen it won’t be squandered for a short term political gain that will leave us even more divided.
I agree: I think it’s the gut desire to want to confront them in person is what’s behind the need to see them as cowards, since they can’t or won’t oblige you with that. Sometimes avoiding one’s personal comeuppance is correctly seen as cowardice, which is why I think people call them cowards.
I think its also that they attacked civilians who couldn’t fight back, rather than attacking soldiers on a battle field.
Although its pretty hard to come up with a definition of cowardice that includes the 9/11 attackers that doesn’t also include the brave men and women conducting the US air war against ground targets unable to shoot back.
And after this, and while we’re furiously trying to organize a response here in NC, that sanctimonious douchebag HurricaneDitka comes in and says, oh, no problem here, Speaker Moore says he did everything right, so you have nothing to complain about!
Ahh god, I’m sorry to hear that. From what I’ve read, that place was both business AND family.
I’m from a suburban township outside of Philly, and more than one alumni of my high school died that day. Worked for Cantor Fitzgerald.
I sometimes wonder how the Vietnamese remember that war.
Just once, I’d like to see Hollywood come out with a 'Nam movie telling the story from the POV of the Viet Cong, with Yanks appearing only as minor background characters.
Yes . . . That was a time when we (meaning not the Americans, but all humanity) had just gotten through an extraordinarily bloody century. The world of 1900 was a world of empires, with many subjects restive under colonial rule. And then came the rise of fanatical ideological creeds, fascism and communism, and much blood and treasure had to be expended putting them down. And then, no more empires, but a New World Order in which the principle of Westphalian Sovereignty was extended to non-Euro states. What a relief!
But then it turned out there was one dangerous fanatical creed remaining, one not a product of modern Enlightenment civilization, but predating it. I don’t mean Islam as a whole, of course, but salafist jihadism – a thing much harder to put down, and which still might be around 100 years from now.
The only other fanatical creed I can think of that is now relevant is resurgent RW nationalism – and I don’t think it has yet reached the point where it can be considered really dangerous. Just very, very annoying.
Trump is often called a Nazi, but I think he lacks the imagination. If he were a Nazi, his ambition would be to conquer Mexico, exterminate the Mexicans, and resettle the territory with white Americans. That was roughly what Hitler intended for Poland and Russia – see Greater Germanic Reich.
I don’t get what you mean by Salafi jihadism “predating” “modern Enlightenment civilization”. The Islamist jihadi movement as it exists today originated in the Soviet-Afghan War and the propaganda of Abdullah Yusuf Azzam beginning in 1979.
Even if you try to equate Salafi jihadism with Wahhabist “Islamic fundamentalism”, that itself only dates back to the 18th century, so it’s not really “predating” the 18th-century Enlightenment.
Your first paragraph makes me cringe a little. I get wanting to remember and honor the victims and their families, but what you’re describing sounds like deliberately ginning up the fear and hatred many felt in the aftermath–feelings that, understandable though they may be, aren’t really conducive toward making anything good out of what happened. It kind of reminds me of the two minutes’ hate in 1984.
I don’t know exactly what you mean by “relevant”, but I’d say that, for example, violent terroristic “Hindutva” movements in India and violent Buddhist extremism in Sri Lanka count as “fanatical creeds” that are definitely “relevant” to the many people who suffer from them.
Even a movement as decentralized and areligious as modern anti-vax ideology is arguably a “fanatical creed” that incontestably kills people. And that’s not even getting into the question of the violence that right-wing nationalism has already inflicted.
I think you’re being naively optimistic if you imagine that Islamist jihadism is the only “dangerous fanatical creed” that’s “relevant” in today’s world.
In the above terms:
Humanism = secular liberal democracy, as expressed in a line from the Dutch Republic through Locke and the modern U.S. and Western Europe.
Rationalism = a line extending from Voltaire and the French Revolution through Communism.
Romanticism = Rousseau, etc., through fascism – a counter-Enlightenment attitude.
Supernaturalism = 19th-Century throne-and-altar reactionary conservatism, radical Islamism, and analogous movements in modern Christian societies (mostly Protestant) – neither pro- nor anti-Enlightenment, but a pre-Enlightenment attitude.
