9-11 Poll: The Historians' Perspective
NEITHER SURPRISED, NOR SHOCKED 9-13-01
How do we put the bombings in perspective? To read the press coverage of this event, we are all"shocked" and"surprised" by these attacks. They are"inconceivable." Well, the loss of life is horrifying and unjustifiable--the attacks have nothing to do with bringing justice for the Palestinians or anyone else--but these actions are neither suprising, shocking, inconceivable nor inexplicable. Whoever was behind the attacks, we need to realize that the imperialist actions of the US over the past century has rightly earned the hatred of many of the world's peoples. Moreover, the moral outrage of US government officials rings hollow. The US has carried out, paid for, and organized any number of terrorist activities. Consider that in the early years of the Cuban Revolution, the US organized terrorist training camps on its own soil, and then unleashed attacks inside Cuba which included assassination attempts, bombing of hotels, factories and burning of cane fields. Imagine if the Cuban airforce had retaliated by"taking out" terrorist cells on US soil. Would the US government support the Cubans' right to do this? Obviously not. Moreover, the US has armed and financed some of the very same forces they accuse of carrying out these latest attacks. Bin Laden was armed and financed by the American CIA. As was Saddam Hussein. I feel for the families and friends of those who have needlessly died, but to take part in a campaign against"terrorism" now is to buy into the distortions of history that the US government wants us to accept. Instead, we need to speak out against any warmongering action the US will take, which will only deepen the problems which caused this attack in the first place.
Carl Weinberg
Associate Professor of History
North GA College and State U.
FEAR 9-13-01
Like many others, I am speechless about much of this, and very worried about the political and military ramifications in days, weeks, and years ahead. The one historical lesson I am clear on is the one I teach my students about the internment of American citizens after Pearl Harbor.
Susan Strasser
University of Delaware
ARE OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN DANGER? 9-13-01
I think that historians can point out that in times of war, Americans are not the best guardians of American freedom. I hear many people, such as the Gov. of Ohio yesterday, saying that freedom must be preserved, otherwise the terrorists win. Yet we have already lost some of our freedom of travel through new restrictions at airports. I hasten to add that those are justified. But then can not the same be said for other restrictions?
Ohio congressman James Trafficant has denounced the openness of American borders. Rep. Trafficant is not known for being a particularly thoughtful person, so he may not have a positive program behind his words, but the logical interpretation of his remarks is that American borders should be tightened. To the extent that they are, then to that extent we have lost some of our freedom of movement.
Most disturbing, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has said that in times of war, civil liberties are curtailed. As historians, we all know that this is true; many of us regret that it is. I am deeply disturbed by the idea of restricting freedom in the name of preserving that freedom. I am also disturbed because this war is not like, say, World War I that began with a specific declaration and ended with an armistice & subsequent treaties. We are likely to be entering a state of war w/o a declaration. Any restrictions on civil liberties that happen now could very likely remain in force for years, decades. An indefinite amount of time.
I am voicing a criticism here of some American leaders. I hope I can continue to do so in so open a fashion in a few weeks and months. During World War I, criticism of the war landed some people in jail. As a result of the cold war, the range of acceptable opinion in the US has been narrowed considerably from say the diversity of the 19th c. That voicing criticism of the government on a forum such as this might be limited is the most extreme fear of what could happen now, and it is not perhaps a likely scenario, but it is a possible scenario.
Fortunately, there are congressional voices opposed to Mr. Lott. I hope they prevail. The lessons of American history are that when fighting for freedom, freedom is usually the first causality.
Stuart D. Hobbs, Ph.D.
Ohio Historical Society
THE VIEW FROM TURKEY 9-13-01
The event that the destruction of the World Trade Center and the killing of thousands of people by fanatics, clearly aiming at escalation, is most frequently compared to is Pearl Harbor. The comparison is a neat, and, in some ways, obvious: as in 1941, the US were unsuspectedly attacked out of the air. In a short time, a tremendous amount of destruction was done. The United States were attacked and had every right to retaliate. And, with the majority of Pearl Harbor victims being military personnel, the United States certainly have a right to feel even more justified this time, with the victims being exclusively civilians. The comparison is also a tempting one: quick military retaliation, while it may be costly in more than one way, will bring victory. By bringing the perpretators to justice, the lives of many US citizens - loved lost ones will be avenged and their death maybe given some sense after all.
I would suggest that another comparison is also taken into consideration: a comparison between Ussama Bin Laden and the infamous terrorist Illyich Ramirez Sanchez, aka"Carlos" - in all likelihood responsible, among others, for the 1972 Munich massacre."Carlos" has never been brought to justice, and Ussama Bin Laden has, it seems, even better connections and a more widespread network. I hope that any action will be taken after taking into consideration other possible historical paralells - not just the one that is most tempting.
Thomas Winter, Ph. D.
Assistant Professor and Acting Chair
Department of American Culture and Literature
Bilkent University
TURKEY
SO MANY THOUGHTS 9-12-01
1. Patience. We may know who did it tomorrow; it may be a year. It is important, both for questions of justice and of realpolitik, to know precisely who did it.
2. Discrimination (the literal meaning). If the Middle East is the source of the attack, we need to help students understand that the terms"Middle East,""Islam" and"Arab" are not interchangeable words for the same monolith. We need to educate ourselves on and discuss the differences between nations, between forms of Islam, and among the many peoples of the Middle East. That will help to avoid"discrimination" is its usual meaning. It will also help us all to understand who are our enemies and why they are enemies, who are our friends and why, and why some feel caught in the middle.
3. Security. There is going to be an intense push for new security powers. We need to teach, and demonstrate in our own analyses, a wary (but not knee-jerk) evaluation of these powers. If we find ourselves conflicted over the trade-offs between security and freedom, then we should discuss that as well. We should not cover up hard choices, even if we know what we would choose.
4. We should express intelligent citizenship in our words and model it in our actions.
5. We should respect our students and the right to their opinions, their griefs, their angers. We should only challenge their conclusions if we are willing to hold our own up to equal scrutiny.
Oscar Chamberlain
PREPARING FOR WAR 9-12-01
I hope that we have a full congressionaland national debate before we go to war. It sounds like the politicians are getting us ready for a war. We should remember the stampede at the time of the Maine (1898) and the Tonkin Gulf Incidents (1964). What are the facts and what are the policies that are needed for a full debate? Whom are we going to bomb and why? What does this incident have to do with our mideast policy? Do we have a rational mideast policy? To what extent are we a terrorist nation? A rogue nation?
John J. Fitzgerald
Longmeadow High School
Vietnam Veteran
THE BUSH DOCTRINE 9-12-01
The analogy to Pearl Harbor is misplaced, and not only because in 1941 the United States could identify the enemy. The analogy is misleading because its connection to the"last good war" implies that we can conquer this evil as we did the Axis powers. As Bush admitted, we cannot wage a successful eliminative war against far-flung cells of fanatics without granting ourselves the unilateral power to intervene in any country suspected of harboring (even containing) possible terrorists. Americans should weigh heavily the consequences of replacing the Truman Doctrine with a Bush Doctrine.
Sarah Phillips
PhD candidate, Boston University
FLASHBULB MEMORY 9-12-01
One thought that keeps occurring to me as I reflect on this tragedy is how it will challenge my students' assumptions about life.
I often teach undergraduates about JFK's assassination and the concept of"flashbulb memory" (everyone over a certain age remembers where they were when they learned of this). My students can never give me a satisfying answer when I ask them to name a moment that has had a similar impact on their generation.
Just as I was born after Kennedy's assassination, my students are too young to remember the Challenger explosion. Before yesterday, Challenger was the moment I recall most vividly as changing my perspective and challenging my assumptions about my nation (the U.S.) and my own era.
Now, sadly, my question about their generation's"flashbulb moment" will no longer be much of a debate.
We ALL have a new defining moment now.
John Aveni
ABD History Ph.D. Candidate
Instructor
Rutgers University Writing Program
THE LESSONS OF HISTORY 9-12-01
Historians have a role to play in any important--or, for that matter, unimportant--news development. All too often, that role is to discourse on the"lessons of history," which usually descends to a cliche festival. Howwever, history does teach lessons, and we have the ability, the obligation, to try to impart those lessons.
That role may seem debatable, except perhaps for reciting a litany of historic disasters. But now the word war is being tossed around. As a historian of 19th century America, I am aware of debates about previous wars and whether they should, in fact, be defined as wars. Lawyers and politicians are not the only ones who can help Americans understand the implications of their rhetoric.
We, as historians, can help put the tragedy in perspective, in part, yes, by telling Americans what they need to remember. We need to remember that all people are different--another cliche, but true. If, indeed, this was the bloody work of Osama Bin Laden, we need to understand his history and the history of his people and his region--not to excuse, of course, but simply to know better what we are dealing with. We need to remember that 2001 is not 1901, or even 1991. Developments in technology, changes in the issues facing the world--these are factors affecting and reflecting what happened in New York, Washington, and western Pennsylvania.
Finally, we need to understand that unity is precious, but fleeting. In 1861, Abraham Lincoln received more offers of military service than he could fill, so some would-be soldiers had no need to serve. Merely a decade-and-a-half later, northerners sacrificed the cause for which they fought and let injustice settle over the South, and our whole country, for nearly a century. A century later, the federal government lied about what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, and an overwhelming majority of Americans happily gave Lyndon Johnson a blank check to deal with Vietnam. Historians can offer that most precious, cliched of reminders, and can do it better than anyone else: look before you leap.
Michael Green
Community College of Southern Nevada