Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Flagwaving, Flight 93 and Fervour

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

11:05 / 14.08.02

Okay. I'm not wanting to get all conspiracy theory on yo' collective ass. Let me just get that straight now.

I found this fairly interesting...

Note, he doesn't say that this DIDN'T happen. He says "based on the records of telephone calls made from the plane, there is no disputing that a number of the passengers did indeed intend to carry out actions of great courage".

The fact they've got everyone rallying around a story that nobody actually knows for sure is true (though, as the article points out, could have been), well, it's not surprising, but...

Not to belittle the passengers, but how much do you think has been wild speculation, and how much (if any) of that speculation has been a consciousl attempt to whip up patriotic fervour?

11:55 / 14.08.02

I think a lot of it has been down to wishful thinking? Which, of course, has been exploited to the full. I'd always assumed the 'plane was shot down - even at the time, I couldn't see any way that 'plane was going to be allowed to get to Washington. It's quite possible that an attempt was being made to take control, or at least fight the hijackers, when it happened, though.

13:21 / 14.08.02

In a story that essentially begins with a complaint that the Times and Newsweek embroidered events, the author winds up knitting an entire coverlet of his own by the time he's finished...

19:36 / 14.08.02

Only this writer actually acknowledeges that no-one will ever no for sure what happened rather that irresponsibly propegating gung-ho myths...

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

10:16 / 15.08.02

Yeah, that was the impression the article gave me... and which was more my question.

NOBODY (or at least- conspiracy theory notwithstanding- nobody who's telling) knows what actually happened.

There's the famous "let's roll" call... there's also the guy in the toilet "the terrorist looks like he has a bomb" call (which is equally as plausible... if the hijacking went wrong, and they didn't hit the target, there was always the suicide bombing option).

My point is, seeing as we don't actually know (Schrodinger's atrocity/heroism, anyone?) what happened...

How justifiable is it to make it a cultural rallying point (which it has become... Neil Young singing "Let's Roll"... etc... the inevitable movie...)?

I'm sure the battle of Thermopylae didn't go exactly as recorded... but the story of it did rally Greece to unite. (Though, yeah, they did apparently have a guy going back to tell them what happened.)

12:12 / 15.08.02

1.) If Flight 93 was shot down, it'll eventually out. Too many people would have to know about it or it to be kept a secret for very long. That's why I suspect that it wasn't shot down.

2.) Propogating the myth of the brave passengers of Flight 93 isn't "irresponsible." It's the best thing that could be done in the aftermath of the hijackings. Now, no passengers would be complacent enough to allow a repetition of those events. Were I to be on a plane that was hijacked, I hope that I could be brave enough to try to wrest control from the terrorists, even if it meant my own death, rather than contribute to the deaths of many.

As patriotic rallying points go, "let's roll" (the scenario) is rather inoffensive, as it does indeed celebrate what was/could have been a selfless, heroic act, and focuses not on the perpetrators of the crime but on ordinary people. I do find it offensive when Bush or whichever Politician uses "let's roll" as short-hand for "Let's go bomb someone," but as an inspiring event by itself, it's not offensive.

09:51 / 16.08.02

Todd. your first point is kind of a rhetorical chinese finger trap.

To prove that the government have lied in the past - that lie must have come to light- thus supporting your notion that the truth will always come out.

If on the other hand it also posits that the government should be assumed right until proved otherwise. Which seems to be both a lazy and dangerous assumption for it implies that aas the government should automatically be believed it should also not be investigated or questioned. If this were the case - how would we ever find out about any government wrongdoing?

And of course until anything is proven, one man's conspiracy is another man's conspiracy theory.

You second point the creation of a myth of the gung-ho american heroes being a good thing for national unity at the time of a crisis. I somewhat agree with this in that it has created a unity of sorts, but it is profoundly ideologically slanted in its creation, especially since as these reports bear out, it is largely the result of speculation. The work done by the rescue services in New York was truly heroic. But it didn't give the american people a hero that actually faced down a terrorist and prevented them from achieving their goals. The need to weave a non-passive example of heroism out of a few isolated facts is understandable - it gave america something to lash out at and as such gave free reign to unfocused aggression and this is also exactly the reason i view it as iressponsible.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

10:09 / 16.08.02

sleaze... that's kind of what I was getting at. Though I have problems with t.o.d.d.'s point 1), in that, say, to pick an example at random, who actually knows for sure now who killed Kennedy? (The fact that a great deal of people no longer care, articulated so well by "Pope" Bill "The Divine" Hicks, is a scarier proposition.)

The point 2), well, yes, it's making a silk purse from a sow's ear, isn't it. As with my earlier example of the Battle of Thermopylae, it can serve a "higher purpose", if you will (which I, personally, won't). Don't get me wrong. I WANT to believe that that is exactly what happened.

BUT- and here is my point- we don't actually know. But it is largely being treated as truth (which it may be). Not just the best possible scenario, not what we'd like to have happened, not even what may have or probably did happen. But what DID happen.

That's what I find irresponsible. And yes, the notion of fighting back is, not just "inoffensive", but fucking great. Therefore, just their (proven, so far as I know) INTENT to fight back should inspire others.

However, to assume so much, and then to use it as a tool for propaganda... now that's about as far from "inoffensive" as it's possible to be and still use the same alphabet.

12:34 / 16.08.02

See, the way I've always understood the Flight 93 story was not so much about "gung-ho" action than about self-sacrifice. The "patriotic feel-good vibe" doesn't come from a "yeah, well, we whupped some of them terrorists butts" sentiment, but rather from the sacrifice those passengers made, just as the resuce crews in New York and Washington made.

But I can see your point when Bush says "Let's Roll" into action against the Afghan people.

To go back to sleaze's point about "conspiracy" vs. "conspiracy theory" I didn't mean by "the truth will out" that it is unnecessary to do anything active to out it. However, there's a difference between publishing hastily assembled theories (which usually amount more to no more than circumstantial cases) and doing real investigative work. For example, the myth that the U.S. threatened the Taliban in July 2001 over allowing a pipeline to be built (the Unocal theory). In a Salon cover story from just yesterday, even the Pakistani minister who is the only person on record about the "carpet of gold or carpet of bombs" threat acknowledges that the subject of a pipeline was never broached during these meetings. The Salon article is an example of thorough and responsible reporting. Hopefully, a similar report on Flight 93 will come about. I'm not holding my breath for it anytime soon, though.