9/11 in American History

[ceriserose 1]

This is an interesting question that history can probably answer as well. 9/11 has modified Americans' self-perceptions and it is in the process of modifying the national self. But it is by no means the first time this happens and most likely it is also not the most extreme transformation of American identity, especially if compared to the impact of the industrial revolution (ran contrary to the idea of the citizen as independent farmer/artisan), the Civil War (Southerners had the hardest time to reidentify with the Union) or the American entry in WW1 and WW2 (both of which officially marked the end of American isolationism).

While I haven't studied a lot of American history or the cultural impact of historical events, I believe you're right in your assessment that it's not the most extreme transformation of American identity.

I wonder, though, where this sits on the scale for placing the current civil liberties in jeopardy? Meaning, out of all these various historical events, if 9/11 has the largest potential for changing what are currently hard-fought and hard-won rights?

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I wonder, though, where this sits on the scale for placing the current civil liberties in jeopardy? Meaning, out of all these various historical events, if 9/11 has the largest potential for changing what are currently hard-fought and hard-won rights?

On that scale, I would think 9/11 has a high potential of changing access to these rights. All of the various measure taken before that clearly curbed civil liberties, the current situation is different because, thanks to technology, it has become much easier to enforce anti-rights legislation.

On the other hand, however, so far (knock on wood) every attempt to abandon the commitment to civil liberties in the past has eventually come to an end, usually shortly after it got so out of hand that the general public became aware of the inherent dangers. For example, in the 1800 election campaign, Thomas Jefferson was charged under the Alien and Sedition act by supporters of John Adams. He was found guilty and convicted of treason (while being absent at the trial) in some town in Connecticut. Similarly, it took the execution of the Rosenbergs, the indictment of many well-known intellectuals, and an investigation of the Army during the McCarthy-era to put an end to the anti-Communist scare in the 1950s.

All we can do is hope and try to put things in perspective.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i ain't no fan of bush. definitely do not like the way he has handled the response.

but to classify 9/11 as not important? either historically or militarily/economically ? wow. dudes! surely you do not mean that nothing be done. right? do you think that America issomehow imune from the types of attacks thar are more common in europe and the mideast?

Daniel

:energetic:

I don't think that 9/11 is not important, but it is not the biggest threat to the US in history. What Ellis wants to suggest is that today's government spin portrays the situation as more extraordinary than it was to justify a response that is basically a remake of bad policy of the past.

In other words undue emphasis is placed on 9/11 to justify a more insidious long term threat to our constitutional values.

I've said before that the 'War on terror' is being kept deliberately vague and apparently non-ending. Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with National Security, yet to this day it is placed within the overall umbrella of the 'war on terror'. We are, it seems extremely selective about the terrorism we seem to oppose. That changes the emphasis from a war of defence (against a specific external threat) to one of political opportunism. The war on terror is little more than a 21st century cold war IMO. It has little to do with 'protecting' national security.

Edited January 28, 2006 by Fishdude

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

i ain't no fan of bush. definitely do not like the way he has handled the response.

but to classify 9/11 as not important? either historically or militarily/economically ? wow. dudes! surely you do not mean that nothing be done. right? do you think that America issomehow imune from the types of attacks thar are more common in europe and the mideast?

Daniel

:energetic:

I don't think that 9/11 is not important, but it is not the biggest threat to the US in history. What Ellis wants to suggest is that today's government spin portrays the situation as more extraordinary than it was to justify a response that is basically a remake of bad policy of the past.

In other words undue emphasis is placed on 9/11 to justify a more insidious long term threat to our constitutional values.

I've said before that the 'War on terror' is being kept deliberately vague and apparently non-ending. Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with National Security, yet to this day it is placed within the overall umbrella of the 'war on terror'. We are, it seems extremely selective about the terrorism we seem to oppose. That changes the emphasis from a war of defence (against a specific external threat) to one of political opportunism. The war on terror is little more than a 21st century cold war IMO

oncertains points i agree that undue emphasis is placed on 9/11. but to belittle it as unimportant or not a 'top tiered' event is a classic exsample of a mind who has spent too much time in the ivory towers.

agreed: iraq shouldn't be part of the terror war; our civili liberties should not be undermined.

also agree: war in afghanistan; investigations into groups related to al quaeda.

to give bush some credit, this type of threat is very new to the american ppl and just how to deal with it best is still being souht. i don't think he and his buddies are the devil incarnate. just a bunch of cowboyng from ths shootiep.

carry on ppl.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

oncertains points i agree that undue emphasis is placed on 9/11. but to belittle it as unimportant or not a 'top tiered' event is a classic exsample of a mind who has spent too much time in the ivory towers.

agreed: iraq shouldn't be part of the terror war; our civili liberties should not be undermined.

also agree: war in afghanistan; investigations into groups related to al quaeda.

to give bush some credit, this type of threat is very new to the american ppl and just how to deal with it best is still being souht. i don't think he and his buddies are the devil incarnate. just a bunch of cowboyng from ths shootiep.

carry on ppl.

Daniel

:energetic:

I certainly don't think that 9/11 is unimportant, but I agree with the article that it is misrepresented as the single biggest threat to National Security that the US has ever faced. I also agree that the manner in which it has been used as a political tool in the intervening five years to justify all sorts of foreign and domestic policy decisions represents a greater threat to our national security than the initial tragedy.

Edited January 28, 2006 by Fishdude

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What bothers me most is the threat to democratic values that the Bush administration claims to purport.

Remember when Bush said that famous line "You're either with us or against us".

To me at least, that's a fair assessment of how polarised things have become. It seems anyone who criticises administration policy over the 'war on terror' is considered irresponsible at best, or unpatriotic at worst, which is really a less than subtle way of dismissing people's legitimate concerns.

Just last week the administration came out defending its wiretapping policy by referring to it as a a "Terrorist Surveillance Program". The language used is interesting because it defines the strategy in such a way as to dismiss any criticism - that anyone who disagrees must somehow be against 'terrorist surveillance' which is totally untrue.

I think you'll find that most people (regardless of political persuasion) are not unwilling to grant powers to office of the president in order to uphold law and order and prevent terrorist atrocities. The difference here is in how much of a say the executive office has in dreaming up and implementing these ideas without involving other branches of government. Accountability is just as important as authority (if not more so).

Edited January 28, 2006 by Fishdude

[Fischkoepfin 1]

oncertains points i agree that undue emphasis is placed on 9/11. but to belittle it as unimportant or not a 'top tiered' event is a classic exsample of a mind who has spent too much time in the ivory towers.

agreed: iraq shouldn't be part of the terror war; our civili liberties should not be undermined.

also agree: war in afghanistan; investigations into groups related to al quaeda.

to give bush some credit, this type of threat is very new to the american ppl and just how to deal with it best is still being souht. i don't think he and his buddies are the devil incarnate. just a bunch of cowboyng from ths shootiep.

carry on ppl.

Daniel

:energetic:

John Ellis has probably spent a lot of time in the ivory towers, but historians are usually not the ones out of touch with reality. Most of them realize that by retelling the past they remain firmly rooted in the present. So the idea of 9/11 not being as big a threat to the nation in comparison to the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, or the Civil War might seem strange to us, but when you think about it carefully you will see that at least so far the number of terrorists on American shores hasn't outnumbered or defeated American troops once. Even the Japanese threat to American possesions in the Pacific and the potential threat of a German invasion during WW2 was higher.

I'm not trying to downplay 9/11, but I do think that the "newness" of the threat is hyped. If you claim this is so "new" to the American people, then you assume that Americans have no sense of their own history. I'm not saying that Americans are not prone to "historical amnesia," but I do think it is an insult to American intelligence to assume that there is no room for historical pespective in the American mind.

And this is what Bush is pushing. He's trying to make people forget that the country has weathered a whole different type of threats in the past and that in all these instances it was usually common sense and a cool head that ended up solving the problem not propagandized attempts to abandon basic liberties in times of war.

Edited January 29, 2006 by Fischkoepfin

[slim 1,525]

Excellent post!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I predict we will not have another attack like 9/11. ie plane into building.

I agree.