History HubΒ permalink
World Trade Centre attacks - so what?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Saturday, 10th September 2011
Yes, I know they had a massive impact upon US foreign policy, but, what I want to know is, was the damage caused by the attacks actually materially significant other than to the families of the individuals killed, for whom they were, obviously, tragic?
Was the ability of the US, or the west in general, to feed itself, clothe itself, shelter itself , defend itself or carry out 'normal', day-to-day activities such as trade in 'real' goods (rather than pretend money made up of pixels on computer screens) affected one iota? Was there any shortage of peole seeking careers in the international money markets as a result of the attacks? It seems to me that most of those killed in the WTC attacks were just parasitic bankers, and if they'd lived another ten years we'd have villified them for their part in bringing about the recent/current recession.
If 3,000 postmen or bin collectors died all at once, surely that would have had a far more 'real' impact on western society...
-
Message 2
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 10th September 2011
Although I do feel that it was a dreadful thing that people barely out of childhood were killed in the Norwegian attack, generally I don't think the 'quality' of people is relevant when talking about this sort of thing. Parasitic bankers are just as much people as dustmen. They have children, partners, parents, friends, interests, worries, just the same as anyone else. I am not quite sure why people see rich people as less deserving than poor ones.
I presume the death of thousands of people must have material effects, since we are always told the anyone dying costs so many thousands of dollars (pounds for you), though sometimes it seems to me it might save quite a few dollars. I don't quite see how I, for instance, am worth anything particularly - I don't earn export dollars (or indeed many dollars of any sort), don't save people's lives, don't even now educate my children to do these things.
Caro. -
Message 3
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 11th September 2011
Catigern
I will not repeat all that I posted on the conspiracy theory thread on this-
But I was very afraid that 9/11 would result in the death of perhaps millions of people, since within 2 days the global economy lost 20% of its value..
During the recent and current financial troubles charities have expressed great concern over the implications on the help that the "haves" can provide for the "have nots" with people having much less money.. With the world being 20% poorer the poorest were the most likely to face extinction.
And this 20% fall could have been followed by a descent into World Chaos like that of the Thirties that created the pre-conditions for the Second World War and the death of 55 million.
Fortunately humankind does learn some things from historical experience.. "We" were all told to go out and defy terrorism in a spend, spend spend culture, because, in the post-Communist globalisation, what had been "The Third World" could now be brought within One World. New working classes were becoming Workshops of the World providing cheap goods in a Western consumerist culture in which even the "common man" could "have it all" without producing anything at all (e.g. lottery winners)
But, of course, this whole business of putting life at various levels "on the credit card' has led to the present financial crisis in which the implications of lending to indiividuals, groups and states that have no means of paying back their loans still presents us with a very real risk of World Chaos leading to anarchy and nihilism once more.
We have to find more to life than merely an animal instinct for self-preservation.
Cass -
Message 4
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 11th September 2011
the west in general... western society...Β
Is there a definition available for these terms? -
Message 5
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 11th September 2011
Vizzer
I think that from the time of "Go West Young Man" there was a growing feeling that the USA and "Americanization" was the "way ahead" for better or worse..
Certainly Matthew Arnold was writing about this in the 1860's and giving thanks that as his father's son he was likely to die too young to see the worst.. Of course very much as the result of Arnold's work there was a drive to "Civilize" the UK, balances by a drive for a different kind of German Civilization.
After 1918 it really seemed that America really was the way.. with even Soviet Communism trying to replicate the "Heroic Materialism" of the USA. In popular culture Hollywood became the "great educator" of the masses, a role that it continued and expanded after 1945.
These days it is quite fashionable to decry the US establishment, but even this is largely the product of anti-establishment US youth culture- from Rock and Roll to Urban Guerilla rap.
Cass -
Message 6
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Sunday, 11th September 2011
A letter to the IT today by an architect said that if similar buildings in Europe had been hit they wouldnt have collapsed; the TT were flimsy.
So was the 'success' of the attack down as much to builders/developers greed and therefore down to the American dream of 'winners (developers)' and 'losers (9/11 victims)' and ultimately to the capitalist system?
Interesting thought... -
Message 7
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 11th September 2011
Shane,
I don't know how one says it in English? But one "finds always a stick to beat the dog" (if you want to condemn someone you find always somewhere somehow a reason to beat one). I call that tendentious history writing.
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 8
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 11th September 2011
Shane
As I wrote on the conspiracy theory thread, I had particular reasons to feel enraged that the TT had been built to design specifications that allowed for a plane getting lost trying to land with hardly any fuel.. but had not anticipated that the hi-jacking which had been a plague in the Sixties and Seventies might return in the age of the suicide bomber with an airliner with full tanks being flown deliberately into the building.
Cass -
Message 9
Posted by RusEvo (U2126548) on Monday, 12th September 2011
Parasitic bankers or not, we have seen the impact to the world economy when the banking sector gets rattled....the money-go-round dries up and even people with good businesses and sound balance sheets can have difficulties due to the virus-like contamination of troubles......you dont get that effect with 3,000 rubbish collectors.
-
Message 10
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 12th September 2011
Rusevo
Exactly.. It always amazes me how people can just take for granted the systems that we have developed, maintained, and must constantly monitor and keep effective and efficacious...
On Saturday night our downstairs lights fused.. But I had reflected just a few weeks previously that it had been a very long time since I had had to change that fuse wire. As you are supposed to re-wire your house every 20+ years these days (according to the people who offer free inspections) - I think that the very flimsy piece of fuse-wire had done very well to last as long as it did.
I get the impression that quite a large proportion of people on the MB are pensioners- in other words people who live by means of money flows generated by the Finanicial Systen- depending on the work of people like our daughter who is an Actuary and has had to work incredibly hard to get where she is- and to now to fullfil her job description.
As I said before on this and the other tread-- to some extent the "so what?" element in the title is a tribute to the success of the Financial Sector- and the G8 & G20 countries- in arresting the potentially catastrophic global consequences by coordinated action.
Cass -
Message 11
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Tuesday, 13th September 2011
Shane
As I wrote on the conspiracy theory thread, I had particular reasons to feel enraged that the TT had been built to design specifications that allowed for a plane getting lost trying to land with hardly any fuel.. but had not anticipated that the hi-jacking which had been a plague in the Sixties and Seventies might return in the age of the suicide bomber with an airliner with full tanks being flown deliberately into the building.
°δ²Ή²υ²υΜύ The design contract for the Twin Towers was awarded in September 1962. The design was completed and made public in January 1964. -
Message 12
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 13th September 2011
Triceratops
I still think that to plan for an empty airliner and not a full one shows a lack of realism.. almost at the height of the Cold War??
Cass -
Message 13
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Tuesday, 13th September 2011
No, it doesn't.
-
Message 14
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 13th September 2011
Triceratops
Well.. To my mind security is security... and to have ignored such a simple thing shows a less than 100% job...
Cass -
Message 15
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 14th September 2011
The Sixties connection got me thinking about the significance of the aspirations and dreams of the Sixties in the context of 9/11.
Tower building has its history and legend.
Genesis Chapter 11.
"And the whole earth was of one language , and of one speech...
And they said. Go,let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven: and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth...
And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the Lord said Behold the people is one and they have all one language: and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."
The world language of the twentieth century was mathematics used in pure mathematics, mathematical philosophy and science - including the human sciences. And by 1945 the global community that lived this language cut across the political and humanistic diviisions, and offered the possibility of creating a better and more unified world based upon its own unity.
For the needs of mere speech -rather than real thought- English became a universal means of international discourse.
One has to be amazed now at the confident assertions of that time that humankind had mastered Nature and harnessed it to serve mankind, with economic planning amongst all those other aspects of the new managed reality. The World Trade Organisation lay right at the heart of attempts to manage world trade and avoid the problems of the late twenties and the World Chaos of the early thirties.
Within this managed reality the mass of individual humanity could just be regarded as "The Naked Ape" just one more natural species to be managed and, when the Sixties revolt expressed a desire to "break out" and "be free" the management could adjust to that - as long as it was "sex, drugs and rock and roll" people could do all that they had imagined to do.
In that age, living in a MAD age, with two minute warning systems, it was commonly stated that with just the time left to do one last thing in your life- the best thing to do was to be true to our Naked Ape nature and fornicate with whatever partner was around..
In fact what happened in the Twin Towers is that those about to die, able to just do one last thing, phoned their loved ones to reaffirm their love; while others rose above selfishness and self-preservation driven by a sense of the value of every human life.
And the follow up responses were not only the war on terror, but, as Naomi Klein wrote with some bitterness because she had been banging the drum about this in vain for some years, all of a sudden people in the USA started really talking about a world of have and have nots ,and so many people living under undemocratic regimes.
Meanwhile long before 9/11 the implications of the break-out from the "Law of Nature" era of science, which presumed- even if there was no God- at least a reality consistant with a Divine law giver keeping reality managed, had confounded the World unity. Science moved on to chaos theory and the whole Hegelian dynamic of thesis and antithesis, that does not necessarily resolve itself into a synthesis, but rather spawn more and more theses and antitheses.
The "new men" lost their authority and credibility. After 1973 economic planners could claim that their plans would have worked- had it not been for the unforeseen OPEC Oil Crisis..
Well that is why historians study people? Their imagination and inventiveness go way beyond anything that any other species can aspire to. Including flying airliners into a great iconic piece of archtitecture.
Cass -
Message 16
Posted by RusEvo (U2126548) on Wednesday, 14th September 2011
Triceratops
I still think that to plan for an empty airliner and not a full one shows a lack of realism.. almost at the height of the Cold War??
°δ²Ή²υ²υΜύ But maybe there is a limit to what can actually be planned for. Should people just accept that there is either a risk of attack, or should they build far more modestly?
Could any modern building take an Airbus A380 hit, fuel tanks or not?
EDIT: On further thought. The idea of a jet running out of fuel and hitting a building which sits between 3 very busy international or major domestic airports isnt actually very far fetched at all. -
Message 17
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 14th September 2011
Rusevo
The question arises as to whether modern buildings are actually built with the real needs of people in mind..
Here in South London as a Comprehensive School teacher from the late Sixties it was very obvious that my pupils were living and studying in a built environment that was really conceived in the interests of the builders more than those who would use them. In fact I have often wondered about the class bigotry which destroyed the system in which people from "the working class" actually had homes in the most beautiful houses and environments in the age of domestic service. People may say that they were homes only in a limited degree. But no more limited than the flats in the Thirties Estates and the Sixties tower blocks where people had no outside space and no place where they had any real right to put their own imprint., not even chose the colour of their front door.
The buildings were built so that a box "House the poor" could be ticked.
In the same way our huge Tower Block school housed 2,200 pupils because statistics said that for economical A Level Classes you needed a Sixth Form of about 200, and as only 10% were capable of A Level you needed 2,000 pupils up to 16 to produce that number.. Herding boys from those huge estates into a huge building had inevitable consequences and some naturally kicked against what looked like just more "white middle class management" of their lives.
The other day I was writing about Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful" and reflecting on condescending comments one often read about the rulers in newly Independent countries- especially Africa- spending vast sums of money on huge "White Elephants"- massive construction projects that merely reflected the vanity and hunger for prestige of these leaders who were trying to "ape" Western Civilization [surely there was at least a tinge of residual racism]..
But actually what those African "prestige projects" mirrored back to us was the vacuous and essentially disposable and valueless nature of what they were trying to imitate. Such buildings have really nothing to offer beyond their functionality and some tribute to the design genius of the architect and the ability of the sponsors to build something which will bring prestige to their name, brand, etc.
I felt at the time that the Millennium Dome really just summed up the vacuity of what was being offered to the new Millenium. Essentially just a plain piece of paper for a new world to write a new history. But "History is dead"
In "Small is Beautiful" Schumacher talked of "Buddhist economics". In Buddhist countries in times of trouble building a new temple was a real solution. It provided work for everyone in the community from the simplest labourer to the greatest artist, and when it was finished it could be used and appreciated by all. From the point of view of functionality there may well have been perfectly good temples close by, but they showed how previous generations had risen to the challenge. Now the challenge faced them.
Now such places are great tourist attractions for what they are, not for their functionality or their history. Future tourists may need to know why there is a big black hole in the ground in New York.
I recently re-read in John Steinbeck that the Greeks said that men needed to have a war about every twenty years. I prefer the idea of putting that energy into creating "Public Goods".
Cass -
Message 18
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 14th September 2011
Perhaps I should add that some of my reflections today spring from a phone conversation with our daughter last night.. I have never been to NY, but she spent 3 days there last week-end.. And I was somewhat surprised at her saying just how nice and friendly everyone was.. I had become accustomed to NY's reputation for a place where everyone was getting along with their own lives in a hurry, people just walked past other people laying on the sidewalk without giving them a thought, and there was a high rate of murder and criminality.
Cass -
Message 19
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Wednesday, 14th September 2011
Triceratops
Well.. To my mind security is security... and to have ignored such a simple thing shows a less than 100% job...
°δ²Ή²υ²υΜύ So it's now "such a simple thing". What happened to the 30 or 40 years experience of hijacking you've been babbling about on other threads?
Until message 11, you had no idea when the Towers were built.
To suggest that the architects of the 1960's could have forseen 9/11 is ridiculous. -
Message 20
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 14th September 2011
Kamikaze.. and as people said on 9/11- 'Not since Pearl Harbour'... I suppose it is too much to expect architects to know history.. but someone should ..
Film makers seem to be capable of imagining the very worst that the human mind can conceive-- so why not people who are paid specifically to do so. And as I said they did build-in a fuel-empty plane crashing into the towers...
It is true, of course, that decades of hi-jacking made the possibility a much more likely one and entered my mind without any great responsibility for thinking of such things..
But apparently not one that all those clever people playing war games had anticipated and made sure that measures were taken to protect against..
After all the first attack on the WTC- the car-park bomb- presumably was followed by some major work. Buildings can be updated-- and surely evacuation measures from "towering infernos" should be constantly under review.
Cass -
Message 21
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 14th September 2011
And, if not before, surely someone else other than me, someone whose job it was, should have thought of this scenario when more than ten years before a plane took off from NY with fuel to cross the Atlantic and officially was plunged into the ocean of Newfoundland by its Muslim pilot with total loss of life.
Perhaps I should have written then to the US Embassy rather than after 9/11. But I get used to people dismissing as impossible or irrelevant the way I see things
Cass -
Message 22
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Wednesday, 14th September 2011
Although I do feel that it was a dreadful thing that people barely out of childhood were killed in the Norwegian attack, generally I don't think the 'quality' of people is relevant when talking about this sort of thing. Parasitic bankers are just as much people as dustmen. They have children, partners, parents, friends, interests, worries, just the same as anyone else. I am not quite sure why people see rich people as less deserving than poor ones.
I presume the death of thousands of people must have material effects, since we are always told the anyone dying costs so many thousands of dollars (pounds for you), though sometimes it seems to me it might save quite a few dollars. I don't quite see how I, for instance, am worth anything particularly - I don't earn export dollars (or indeed many dollars of any sort), don't save people's lives, don't even now educate my children to do these things.
°δ²Ή°ω΄Η.Μύ Hi Caro
I agree with much of your post but your remark
" I don't quite see how I, for instance, am worth anything particularly - I don't earn export dollars (or indeed many dollars of any sort), don't save people's lives, don't even now educate my children to do these things."
I find unsettling.........
This thread starts off trying to compare the impact of the lives of different people on society and I beleive that there is a mantra of people understanding the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
All of us in one way or another has a major impact on those around us because of what we say and do and have said and have done and what we will say and what we will do because of what we have read, been told, been shown or have observed in others.
This is how society evolves.
You for instance have influenced me although we have never met and are unlikely to do so but I have been privy to your ideas, your humour occasionaly your annoyance etc. as I have been by all the people that I have read on this board.
That is just a small part of my life and I am sure a smaller part of yours.
Of all who those people who perished in the Twin Towers, what might they have acheived or their work acheived if their lives had not been so abruptly stopped?
Could there have been people there who might have stopped the Banking crisis?
Possibly....... just by influencing events through a chance observation or remark.
Are we saying that loosing thousands of dustmen would not have affected society as badly? Perhaps not the Markets but we have no idea of what those people contribute to society which could have as much of a fundamental effect on our society.
(How often have we heard the term "a driven person" because of something that had affected their lives and they feel that they have to do something to change society so it can't happent again?)
It wouldn't help to become a recluse because that action alone would affect others.
So we all have a tremendous responsibility to each other in how we treat each other and what effect we might have.
It is probably a blessing that we cannot possibly understand what affect we do have on others because anger at certain things may have a future beneficial affect on that person's action later in life whereas an understanding may not.
There is far more to our history than just the event itself.
It is often the cause behind the event which is so often not made up of the simple answers that we seek.
It also should make us think of the huge loss that any life shortened has on society.
As a history we can observe the destruction of the Twin Towers and some of the fall out but the loss to society as a whole is something we cannnot even speculate upon.
Kind Regards -TA -
Message 23
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Wednesday, 14th September 2011
It seems to me that the destruction of the Twin Towers as well as the attack on the Pentagon had precisely the effect it was intended to have. Bin Laden and his cohorts had taken Mao's philosophy to heart and, by striking at the heart of America's national pride and self image as the impregnable fortress of its vision of liberty, provoked exactly the kind of response they were hoping for, one which by its unfocussed and disproportionate retaliation radicalised uncounted Muslims.
The reaction of the financial markets and the damage to the economy was a, no doubt hoped for but not crucial, bonus over and above the impact on the national psyche. -
Message 24
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Wednesday, 14th September 2011
That's a very thoughtful encouraging post, thanks, TA. We seem to live in an era where monetary and material values are placed so highly on everything that it's hard to see past it sometimes. I don't recall this emphasis on money when I was young, but perhaps I just didn't notice, but now everything is given an economic value. Here there is talk of making a law forcing women back to work after their child turns one (not women with working husbands, women trying to bring up kids on their own), as if there is no value in motherhood and someone else will do that job better than you can. And service work is not valued - again there is talk of encouraging women into more 'productive' work because that would benefit the country more and allow women to value themselves more. (No one has mentioned what is to happen to older people/disabled people/sick people when all the women have disappeared into more high-powered work. Will men suddenly value it more and go and look after people?)
It wouldn't help to become a recluse because that action alone would affect others.Β
That comment is very relevant at the moment here. An old man was found dead in his house, a house which was provided by the council, but isn't a 'home' or part of sheltered housing. He had apparently been dead for over a year and no one had noticed. They hadn't noticed because he was reclusive and didn't want company or concern or even interest in him. His bills were paid by direct debit, so no concern felt there. People are saying the council should have checks, but they say people are entitled to live as they wish without council staff poking their noses in. But his reclusive actions have certainly affected others now - neighbours feel guilty, council staff defensive, others blaming and sad. (I personally don't see why this is particularly sad - it might be sad that he wanted to be so alone, but once he was dead it doesn't seem specially sad to me that no one realised. Not much fun for the people who had to take him away and clean up. No family turned up at his funeral - I don't know if there were none or he had cut himself off from them.
This is one of the times when you will have heard me annoyed! And the boards are quite a big part of my life. Though lots of other things are too.
Cheers, Caro.
And ferval, I agree with you entirely. -
Message 25
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Thursday, 15th September 2011
No. Buildings can be updated in minor details, like sprinkler systems, they cannot have concrete columns added to their upper floors.
There were certainly evacuation plans in force and they seem to worked well as the initial estimates of 10,000 - 20,000 dead proved to be unfounded.
Anticipating the attacks in the 1990's is an entirely different matter, the responsibility there lies not with the builders but with the airlines for both ground and in-flight security. If the measures in force at EL- AL had been adopted, eg double door cockpit entry, the airliners would never have been seized in the first place.
The Phillipine Security Forces uncovered an Al- Queda plot to assassinate the Pope in 1995 and at the same time came across details of Operation Bojinka*. It was at this time that Al-Queda proposed the hijacking and crashing of airliners into public buildings. The Phillipine authorities insist that the Americans were informed about this at the time.
As regards fire-fighting, the highest that a fire has been successfully fought was the 80th floor of the Empire State Building, co-incidentally the result of a plane strike, in this case a B-25 IN 1945.
But I reiterate, the designers of the Twin Towers cannot be blamed.
* Operation Bojinka, a plot to blow up 12 TransPacific airliners simultaneously.. -
Message 26
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 15th September 2011
Triceratops
I did not say that I blamed them.. I said that I was angry.. an anger that was as much directed against myself as against a world that does not seem to see things the way that I do.. And ,as I brought up this actual idea in a lesson a stone's throw from Brixton Mosque, where Richard Reid the subsequent shoe-bomber used to go to prayers and meetings, and seems to have been radicalised-- I have to face up to the possibility that I invented the whole thing.
Cass -
Message 27
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Thursday, 15th September 2011
I think that from the time of "Go West Young Man" there was a growing feeling that the USA and "Americanization" was the "way ahead" for better or worse.Β
I'm not particularly convinced that the term 'the west' and the term 'western society' refer to the western parts of North America. This doesn't seem to stand up to scruitiny.
The casual use of the term 'the west' (more often than not) seems to be a lazy journalistic one. For example the other day a Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ reporter said regarding Libya that 'Western intelligence agencies are using eavesdropping technology to help trace Colonel Gaddafi'.
What exactly does the word 'Western' mean in this context? And is it the same as in the historical term 'Western civilisation'? -
Message 28
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Thursday, 15th September 2011
Yes, western is shorthand, but you need shorthand phrases and words; you can't spell out every time you want to say something every country/place it refers to. For me western means Europe. especially western Europe, North America, and more or less all the Commonwealth or English-speaking countries. It excludes most of Africa, Asia, Melanesia and South America. I don't know if I imagine Pacific Island countries as 'western' or not. Now where intelligence gathering is concerned.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 29
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 15th September 2011
I did not say that there was a link between the West of the USA and that feeling...
William Cobbett wrote most glowingly about the the eastern parts of North America and not long after the "New Harmony" experiments in cooperative living may have encouraged some people-- especially with the trade depression that set in around 1835. Some TU's funded the emigration of members as one way to reduce the supply of skilled workers.
But "Going West" could not become the way ahead until the steam revolution phase one Isambard Kingdon Brunel's "Great Western" project-- the railway from London to Bristol and the Great Western steamship with which Bristol hoped to win the contract to take the Royal Mail, only to have Liverpool beat it in the race across the Atlantic with the Sirius.. But Brunel carried on furher west with the railway down to Plymouth and even one to West Wales and potentially the best deep water harbour in mainland Britain. That had to wait the ege of petrol tankers.
And then there was the work of Beatrice Webb's father- one of the great financiers of the transcontinental railway system that opened up the Mid-West- and therefore created huge economic potential for processing materials, commodities and foodstuffs. By the time that the French presented the USA with the statue of Liberty to be put up at the approach to New York it was evidently meant to symbolize that those who went west across the Atlantic could understand when they saw this iconic statue that they were arriving at the land of opportunity.
As for the roots of the use of the word "west", did Columbus not use it when he argued that the way to Asia was not East, South or North- but West?
Cass -
Message 30
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 15th September 2011
TA,
I join Caro in her comments on your message. Thoughtful "piece of work". "Chapeau" (hat off).
Kind regards and with high esteem,
Paul. -
Message 31
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 16th September 2011
The suggestion that 'western' is shorthand is okay - but shorthand for what.
When some people say 'Holland' instead of the Netherlands or say 'Russia' instead of the Soviet Union or say 'Austria' instead of the Habsburg Empire or say 'England' instead of the UK, then (annoying as such shorthand undoubtedly is) at least the listener is generally aware of the intention.
But this is not so with the term 'the West'. In this case the intention is quite often unclear. Why, for example, should Melanesia and South America be excluded from whatever 'the West' is? This seems quite arbitrary. If a term such as 'the West' is going to be used as shorthand for something - then let's have a definition of exactly what it is shorthand for. -
Message 32
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 16th September 2011
I did define it - you didn't like the definition, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one. It's basically English-speaking countries and western Europe, usually led from the United States of America. What would you call that particular block of countries if you don't like 'western'?
-
Message 33
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 16th September 2011
Caro
"Wild-western"
Cass -
Message 34
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 16th September 2011
Being a bit more serious what about Spengler's "The Decline of the West" just after the First World War? Did he define it?
Cass -
Message 35
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 17th September 2011
Caro -
it wasn't a matter fo liking or disliking a particular definition. It's the fact that the attempted definition given in Message 28 was vague and therefore unsatisfactory as a definition. For example it used conditional words and phrases such as 'most of' and 'especially' etc. But for a definition to have any validity it needs to have precision and be unambiguous.
A second attempted definition was given in Message 32 (and granted that this was somewhat tighter than the first) but it was nevertheless still seemingly vague. For example the term 'western Europe' was used and yet this term itself needs to be defined. It's not clear if it is a geographical term or a political term or a cultural term or something else. The boundaries of 'western Europe' need to be clearly defined at the very least before an attempt at a definition of the (presumably wider) term 'the West' can be understood. -
Message 36
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Saturday, 17th September 2011
I've still yet to actually know what the American Dream is. What I do know from History is that the USA is a young country, a melting pot for the ideas of the people who have come to inhabit it from the time of the settlements of the C17th onwards to the purposeful anhiliation of the Native Americans in the c19th.
Only the Civil War of the mid c!9th affectived local inhabitants of this continent. The people who were landing on Ellis Island were from war worn countries from all over the world, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Greece, France and one could go on and on. Having once been a British Colony ALL were united in disliking it yet the "upper classes" seem to want to emulate it to this day with "Ivy League" universities, "prep schools" and such places as the "Hamptons",
This I do not understand. Mayfower Madames et al.....
One thing is clear, mainland Northern America has never been attacked by outsiders. Much has been written, recorded, filmed and televised about the Pearl Harbour attacks by the Japanese, what is not said is that these attacks were almost 1,000 miles from the West Coast of the USA in Hawaii.
North America has never been attacked unless from inside. Unlike Europe and other countries. Due its wealth and distance from political intrigue, the people of North America have never known bombing, air attacks, Blitzkreig, etc.....To feel Vulnerable from outside attack, is a new sensation.
This is why the attacks of September 11th hit so hard. Not only were the Twin Towers demolished with great loss of life (more Brits were killed here than in central London during the bombings of July 6th) but the White House and the Pentagon were faced with death and disaster. North America had not faced this before.
Having visited the USA and studied International Relations and those of the USA at univ some time ago, it always struck me how unprepared the USA was for simple war. Never mind the SALT talks or the Cuban Missile Crisis, I wondered how it would cope if simply bombed, ie., London or Coventry during the Blitz let alone a full scale "Blitzkreig". The niavete hit me. And it came to pass. When faced with such bombing it was unable to cope. Ten years later it is still in a state of shock, fury and disbelief.
For every ONE name read out at the memorial at Ground Zero New York, there are at least ten orphans living in purgatory in Iraq, Afghanistan and the middle east.
Osama Bin Laden is dead. But his family are well and rich and well and living in Saudi Arabia, persecuting those who oppose them with Western backing.
Let us leave the teddy bears and sentiment behind us. Stupid and pointless wars have been waged for the last 10 years in the names of the Twin Tower victims who I believe would not want this. Only politicians do! It's time for North America to come of age and for the rest of us to pander to it all. TOO many innocent lives have been lost. Enough is enough. -
Message 37
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 17th September 2011
Vizzer, what do you call this group of countries, which is more than just America, more (and less) than just Europe, and doesn't include every bit of the Commonwealth?
Definitions are often vague or not completely inclusive. You can't just grab a dictionary and use a definition in replace of the keyword; it might work or it mightn't. They are only generalisations.
It seems to me countries know themselves if they are part of the west or not. New Zealanders all consider themselves part of the western world. You could, I suppose, call it 'first world' as well, but that still isn't defined. My little dictionary (edited by my NZ brother-in-law) defines 'the West' as Europe in contrast to Oriental countries; the States of western Europe and N America.
Shorter Oxford says much the same thing, only more wordily. The west is 'the western part of the world, relative to another part, spec. (a) Europe and N America as distinguished from Asia, China, etc. (b) the non-Communist States of Europe and N America (now hist); non-communist states in general.
Is Japan now part of the west? I don't know. You could define it as 'the wealthier countries of the world'. But I don't think Japan has western values and historical connection. Under western the Shorter Oxford talks of the Allied war bloc but does call this historical.
Does anyone actually not know what is meant by "The west". The dictionary defines dog but we all (including two-year-old children) know what a dog is without it. You can't run around saying "a four-legged carnivorous animal akin to the fox and wolf" every time you want to mention a dog; nor can you go into detail about what countries make up "the West" every time you want to refer to those countries as a group.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 38
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 17th September 2011
Caro
Your post is a reminder of the scene in I think Dicken's Hard Times when a little girl at school fails to give the teacher the definition of a horse- though she knows horses intimately.. Another pupil is congratulated for spouting out something like "a horse is a four legged mammal".. A True answer - but hardly a defining one.
Cass -
Message 39
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 17th September 2011
Perhaps one could define the West these days as "all those places that will be catastrophically affected if there is another World economic chaos like the Thirties"
Cass -
Message 40
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Saturday, 17th September 2011
Let us leave the teddy bears and sentiment behind us.Β
Minette, you beast! Don't abandon the poor bears - that would be horrid!
-
Message 41
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Saturday, 17th September 2011
Which begs the question Cass, is China part of the West? I've been trying to think of a way of defining the term and it becomes increasingly circular. You are pretty much there, I think, Caro, there is a high degree of self selection, it's largely a question of identity. The West is that group of countries which would define themselves as being the inheritors of Classical western civilisation, wherever they are situated geographically, have a broad commonality of interest, values and outlook and which are, historically at least, Christian. In my mind it's not synonymous with the group of 8 or 12 or whatever nor necessarily the overall wealth of the country beyond being a developed economy.
Russia and Brazil, for example, would they see themselves as being 'Western' in these terms?
I'm confusing myself, it's too late! -
Message 42
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 17th September 2011
ferval
I am not sure that China would collapse ..
Just because they are building Hong Kongs all over the place- that just means that they recognised the way that Hong Kong was able to mould together really ancient Chinese values with Western ones.. But the Chinese have had a Civilzation for about 5000 years and the mark of a Civilzation is that it gets over terrible shocks because it is held together by common values from top to bottom.
The West has never really overcome the infection of Two Nations- except when thrust into warfare when external realities dictate unity or disaster. And the opposing forces for and against create some kind of stability as when two bodies lean on each other and appear to be standing upright- though they might both be dead.
Cass
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.