I remember really liking the way that the country did seem to unite in the immediate aftermath, but I also remember feeling like it was really shallow. Our college paper printed a full-spread American flag that people posted in their windows -- a nice sentiment, but nothing that helped anyone. More disturbing to me was the attitude that went with the genuine outpourings, especially to the Red Cross. That organization is *always* in need, frequently rather desperately. After September 11, people were suddenly lining up to donate both money and blood. By about September 13 or so, they didn't need much blood for the events in NYC, and they had gotten far more than they could use for that. Logically, they wanted to put people's generosity to good use in the rest of the country, finally having the level of blood (more, actually), they always need. Yet people were horrified that their donations weren't going to help the relief efforts. Never mind that they were saving lives, they wanted to help with the terror relief, even if that wasn't what was needed. And donations died down quickly, even though the Red Cross was asking people who wanted to help to make appointments to give in a month, when the current supply would no longer be any good.
This afternoon I was discussing our international reputation and the rest of the world's horror at our election outcome, along with the idea that they do have reason to care and maybe we should wonder why they hate Bush (and us by extension) so much. Someone responded that this was probably one reason some people voted *for* Bush; we have to be "independent" from what other countries think, which apparently means deliberately doing whatever they'll like least.
I have this horrible sinking feeling that one set of internationals who are happy with this result are the leaders of terrorist movements in charge of recruiting. Getting more people to join your violent anti-American group must be much easier when the Americans keep the man who, in your view, is most hurting you and keeping you down. Of course, if you say something like this, then clearly you're allowing the terrorists to decide who should be in office. Not that they don't already, based on the amount of Bush-voters for whom terrorism was a top issue.
no subject
I remember really liking the way that the country did seem to unite in the immediate aftermath, but I also remember feeling like it was really shallow. Our college paper printed a full-spread American flag that people posted in their windows -- a nice sentiment, but nothing that helped anyone. More disturbing to me was the attitude that went with the genuine outpourings, especially to the Red Cross. That organization is *always* in need, frequently rather desperately. After September 11, people were suddenly lining up to donate both money and blood. By about September 13 or so, they didn't need much blood for the events in NYC, and they had gotten far more than they could use for that. Logically, they wanted to put people's generosity to good use in the rest of the country, finally having the level of blood (more, actually), they always need. Yet people were horrified that their donations weren't going to help the relief efforts. Never mind that they were saving lives, they wanted to help with the terror relief, even if that wasn't what was needed. And donations died down quickly, even though the Red Cross was asking people who wanted to help to make appointments to give in a month, when the current supply would no longer be any good.
This afternoon I was discussing our international reputation and the rest of the world's horror at our election outcome, along with the idea that they do have reason to care and maybe we should wonder why they hate Bush (and us by extension) so much. Someone responded that this was probably one reason some people voted *for* Bush; we have to be "independent" from what other countries think, which apparently means deliberately doing whatever they'll like least.
I have this horrible sinking feeling that one set of internationals who are happy with this result are the leaders of terrorist movements in charge of recruiting. Getting more people to join your violent anti-American group must be much easier when the Americans keep the man who, in your view, is most hurting you and keeping you down. Of course, if you say something like this, then clearly you're allowing the terrorists to decide who should be in office. Not that they don't already, based on the amount of Bush-voters for whom terrorism was a top issue.