One of the first things I heard after Sept. 11 was that the terrorist attacks on our nation were going to be our generation's Pearl Harbor. Six months later, after some thoughtfulness and observation of how our government has reacted, it is clear that nothing could be further from the truth.
Sure, it was a surprise attack. Sure, approximately 3,000 people died. Sure, it woke up our nation to dangers that millions of others in the world deal with everyday--war and terrorism.
Beyond the superficial, the attack was done by terrorists (not a nation), by people with irrational, religious grievances (versus rational, yet misinformed, complaints) and was waged on civilians (instead of on a military facility). That is not to excuse--in any way--the attack on Pearl Harbor. But comparing the events before and the aftermath of Sept. 11 to that of Dec. 7, 1941 is shallow.
The same is true of the reaction to both catastrophic events. After Dec. 7, as our nation was about to enter a global conflict, President Franklin Roosevelt told Americans that they would have to make sacrifices during the war if our nation was going to win. Nothing could be further from the message that President George W. Bush has given us--that we have a right to act the way we do and that the only people who should be sacrificing are those who are under interrogation, mostly those with hyphenated last names and slightly more melanin. The rest of us have been told to do the opposite of sacrifice--in a time of crisis, we've been told to splurge.
Last winter, our nation endured tiresome advertisements from travel associations--who quoted our president's tribute to indulgence speech. "Go buy a car!" "Travel with your family." "Get on an airplane!" "Smoke 'em out!"
We also endured relentless and despicable piggybacking from American corporations--the auto industry suggested that it was our American duty to invest in a new SUV, using patriotic imagery to try to spur sales. Retailers used similar enticements, but unlike the misleading "Buy American" campaigns from the late '80s and early '90s--these campaigns were urging citizens to "Buy Patriotic"--as if selling our patriotism and increasing stock share values would somehow stop terrorism. Even though those "patriotic" SUVs were just encouraging more oil dependency on the Middle East (read: hurting national security), buying one was going to make it all better.
Now it's spring, and it's still hard to tell if Americans have learned anything, besides an acute sense of rage and the names of a couple foreign countries. The image that pervaded world thought before the terrorist attacks--of unilateral, uninterested and uninformed Americans--remains.
Look no further than Entertainment Weekly cover boy and country singer Alan Jackson. Of all the music that struck new resonance after the attacks, it is unfortunate that Jackson's ballad, "Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning)" has been selected the anthem most likely to perpetuate.
The lyrics of the verse are innocuous enough. They ask rhetorical questions about how people may have reacted to the events that tragic day--expressing the acceptability of all reactions from buying a gun to crying on the couch to kissing your children goodnight. For a genre of music as judgmental as country, that part of the song is refreshing.
But it cannot make up for the troublesome refrain: "I'm just a singer of simple songs/ I'm not a real political man/ I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I could tell you/ The difference in Iraq and Iran/ But I know Jesus and I talk to God...."
If this is the song that Americans are embracing, then it is not hard to see why foreigners have such low impressions of the American people. If Jackson were using the terms "not political" and "simple" as virtues, that would not be so bad, but he's using the terms as a defense of general worldly ignorance. When did not knowing the difference between Iraq and Iran become a virtue of personal simplicity? It may seem like a trivial point, but it is indicative of the kind of ignorance that most Americans display toward the Middle East--before and after Sept. 11. We engage both nations for their oil and had dramatic conflicts with both nations from the 1970s to today. Do most Americans really know the difference? By embracing a song that praises benightedness we confirm the worst stereotypes.
As for the next part of Jackson's song--even those who are religious should be wary of the double standard of this part of the refrain. Our nation was attacked by religious extremists who fall back on ugly perversions of their faith to justify horrible acts. Jackson's song preaches religious absolutism--the kind of "our god is better than your god, our faith is better than your faith" arrogance that enrages and fans the flames of religious war. What kind of message is this? Why are we embracing a song that justifies these stereotypes?
After Pearl Harbor American made sacrifices and learned lessons about the rest of the world. Jackson, the president and American corporations are preaching blind allegiance, ignorance and zealotry in order to combat blind allegiance, ignorance and zealotry. What will be the message, and the public reaction, if the world stops turning again?
Trinity senior Martin Barna is projects editor of The Chronicle and film editor of Recess. His column appears every other Wednesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.