BS: Also 'In Remembrance'

Subject: BS: Also 'In Remembrance'
From: Raedwulf
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 06:17 PM

I nearly added this to the "In Remembrance" thread. Then I thought, A) leave it alone, for it has a topic & purpose (both worthy) of its own; & B) this question is probably worth discussion on its own merits.

So...

Can someone explain why the 3,000-odd dead of 9/11, who get 3 minutes silence, are worth more than the millions of dead of two World Wars, who only get 2 minutes? I do not belittle the loss of 2001. I am, however, puzzled by the way in which America remembers. Is this the proverbial 2 second attention span at work? There is a deliberate & conscious decision here.

Two seconds silence has been observed for more than 80 years, under the guise first of Armistice Day (see below), then (post WWII) of Remembrance Day. 9/11 appears to be worth more. Why?

A Melbourne journalist, Edward George Honey, first proposed a period of silence for national remembrance in a letter published in the London Evening News on 8 May 1919.

The suggestion came to the attention of King George V. After testing the practicality of five minutes silence - a trial was held with five Grenadier Guardsmen standing to attention for the silence - the King issued a proclamation on 7 November 1919 which called for a two-minute silence. His proclamation requested that "all locomotion should cease, so that, in perfect stillness, the thoughts of everyone may be concentrated on reverent remembrance of the glorious dead".

Subject: RE: BS: Also 'In Remembrance'
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 06:21 PM

You should have left it alone altogether!

Subject: RE: BS: Also 'In Remembrance'
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 06:27 PM

Raedwulf:

You think public mores should be rational, make sense, follow some sort of logic? Come on. The answer to your question is that the emotional tantrum-du-jour centers on the surprise attacks of 2001. What could numbers have to do with it? For one thing 90% of those who died in WW2 were probably unknown to any of the young toffs currently administering our various gummint PR branches. For another, a fresh would always seems to hurt more than an old one.

Why do people worship invisible spirits or wave their fingers in the air at black cats? Emotions don't follow the paths of transistor logic. How big is a loss? How long is a piece of string?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Also 'In Remembrance'
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 06:33 PM

When do these minutes of silence take place? I guess I'm not aware of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Also 'In Remembrance'
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 07:23 PM

I don't think the time really matters. Most people have a hard time keeping quiet for two minutes anyway. I think the extra time may be because September 11 2001 is fresher in people's heads. It's more raw, and most of us can remember the exact moments it happened. Many of us knew someone, or have friends that knew someone.

I recently met Terry Kelly. He has a CD out - The Power of the Dream, which has a song on it called 'A Pittance of Time'.

Subject: RE: BS: Also 'In Remembrance'
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 12:42 AM

Is that now the coin of the realm of rememberance---how much time is devoted to silence?   

Just think of the great quote: The death of anyone diminishes me. Silence or no silence---what is in your heart is what counts. Ritual is not the thing that makes anything meaningful to the individual---only to the masses who need an anchor of some sort. For them I don't believe that 2 minutes or 2 seconds makes a difference---it is the all important ritual.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Also 'In Remembrance'
From: Hrothgar
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 04:48 AM

It will wear off with time. Who really remembers Pearl Harbour as a separate event?

Subject: RE: BS: Also 'In Remembrance'
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 08:59 AM

I'm already sick to death of the phoniness in most the maudlin "9/11 rememberances".

9/11 didn't change my life one iota. It didn't even make me think differently. I knew my government would react the way it did, because my government has been acting this way all along, it just never inconvenienced middle class white people before.

Until this year, I hadn't even met an actual survivor of 9/11. But at a 4th of July party in PA, I met a NY firefighter who had taken early retirement and moved away from NY. He seemed decent enough for a hard man. Not particularly likable, really. All he talked about was 9/11. He seemed stubbornly obsessed and it was clear he wasn't moving on. His obviously long suffering wife was clearly exasperated. They were my in-laws new neighbors, and I'm sure she hoped to make friends. But people kept politely trying to get away from him. She did say at one point he just out and out refuses to get any help, ie counseling, antidepressant/anxiety medication. He seemed manic depressive.

Trauma can do that to people, but not just 9/11 trauma. And I'm guessing by now, both survivors and families are starting to move on. It takes people about 5 years usually to get through the grief of a profound loss, although everyone is different. I can tell you, if I were a family member of one of the people lost, I'd stay as far from this "remembrance" thing as possible. But again, everyone is different.

I watched a show on PBS this week about survivors of the WTC, and most seemed well adjusted enough. But I'm guessing they wouldn't have wanted the guy we met this summer on the program. He'd have come off like a ranting, racist lunatic (he used every racial slur for Muslims and Arabs I'd ever heard and then some). It struck me that the Bush/Cheney administration's foreign policy mirrors the behavior of that retired NY firefighter. Out of control, and proud of the fact they are out of control.