On "John Walker's Blues": Two Sides to Every Conflict

Steve Earle’s musical portrayal of John Walker Lindh reiterated a lot of the thoughts that I have been having about both the attacks and the aftermath of the attacks. When Elshtain first used the word evil, I immediately looked at the situation from the perspective of the enemy. Although I can’t say for sure, isn’t it safe to assume that the members of al Qaeda and the others that attacked us see us as evil? Isn’t that partially why they attacked us, the “infidels”? With that being said, I think that Earle does something necessary with “John Walker Blues”: he shows the other side of the conflict. Although most Americans may not care about the religious reasons behind the members of al Qaeda, those motives say a lot not only about the reasons behind the attacks but also about the nature of the enemy. I realize that Earle focuses on John Walker Lindh for specific reasons—as mentioned in his video interview, he believes that he has been wrongfully accused and punished for a crime he never committed. However, beyond John Walker Lindh, Earle’s message speaks more of the motives of the attackers, in my opinion. By including Islamic prayer—A shadu la ilaha illa Allah/ There is no God but God—Earle reminds listeners that some of the men acting in the attacks were acting for their god and their religion. Even further, he croons, “…sometimes a man/ Has to fight for what he believes/And I believe that God is great, all praise due to him/And if I should die I’ll rise up to the sky,” a message that describes the expectations that some of the members of al Qaeda held. I realize that we may never understand fully why these men acted in the way that they did. However, Earle’s lyrics, such as the lines: “We came to fight the jihad and our hearts were pure and strong/As death filled the air, we all offered up our prayers/And prepared for our martyrdom,” suggest the religious agendas that some of the members of al Qaeda had. With that being said, I believe that we come from a country that boasts religious freedom, and Earle’s song challenges how much we accept when it comes to beliefs that we do not understand. Also, I believe Earle made a bold but necessary move by releasing his song. In an era of music told from the victims, Earle dared to tell the story of the attackers, catching the attention of the listeners and the media alike and challenging Americans to question how much we truly value the freedom of religion.

Steve Earle on Iraq War

John Walker Blues appeared on a CD entitled, 'Jerusalem.' A subsequent CD, "The Revolution Starts Now," was much more critical of U.S. policy in Iraq. Below I have posted a few songs from the later album, along with John Walker Blues and a more hopeful song, "Jerusalem." Earle talks about John Walker Lindh about 2:25 into the video below. He plays the song after that. Home to Houston Jerusalem

Response Bruce Springsteen - Into the Fire and Toby Keith's - Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue

I think that what the class is getting into now is going to be very interesting; 9/11 and its effect on the musical world. Music has always been very special to me and I love playing guitar and piano and have even written a few songs. Therefore, I can appreciate Bruce’s and Toby’s musical talents and there ability to write the lyrics in response to the 9/11 attacks. I believe, songs, like pictures, can depict emotion far better than ordinary writing can. Both of these writers did a very good job at doing this in different ways. “Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue: by Toby Keith portrayed most Americans reaction a little while after the attacks. They were feelings of revenge, American pride, and patriotism. As he sang, “American girls and American guys, will always stand up and salute. We'll always recognize, when we see ol' glory flying...” “Now this nation that I love is fallin' under attack. A mighty sucker-punch came flying in from somewhere in the back. Soon as we could see clearly through our big black eye, Man, we lit up your world like the fourth of July.” This is a tactic to inspire a patriotism inside Americans to stand up against our oppressors. It is a opportunity to “round up the troops”. This was Toby’s motive. To help Americans out of their shock and sadness and get them excited and patriotic again. Bruce Springsteen, on the other hand, took another approach. In his song, Into the Fire, he sings of an account of a brave fireman diving into the fire in the twin towers to help those who were trapped. I believe that the song is taken from a girlfriend/wife perspective because Bruce sings, “I need you near, but love and duty called you someplace higher Somewhere up the stairs, into the fire...” This song is to provide comfort and strength to those who lost loved ones in the rescue attempts. They were the bravest of the brave. It is also a great testimony to sacrifice. All the wife wanted was one last kiss from her husband, but she knew that his responsibility of saving lives was much more important. The lines that are repeated throughout the rest of the song are, “May your strength give us strength, May your faith give us faith, May your hope give us hope ,May your love give us love...” It shows the listeners to look to those who have fought and died for this country for strength not sadness. They are to be our worldly examples of strength, faith, love, hope. The melody of the song is somewhat slower and sad, but I do not think that is the intention. Just as Bruce sang, “May your strength give us strength...” So as we can see the musical world was very much affected by the 9/11 attacks. It inspired artists in many ways such as patriotism and heroism. Bruce Springsteen’s album The Rising, debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 chart, with first-week sales of over 520,000 copies. Americans responded well to his response and I believe that it helped Americans better remember and understand what happened on 9/11.

Continued comparison of 9/11 Report and Fahrenheit

Although as a class we have moved past the 9/11 report and are now looking into music I think it is still worth mentioning an addition to the conversation we were having on Friday. In class we were comparing the different mediums and interpretations of how President Bush was portrayed, both in the 9/11 Report adaptation and in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. On page 26 of the graphic novel it does explain that the President was in Florida visiting an elementary school. As a class we were comparing 2 different moments when Bush was learning information. In the book it is before he even enters the classroom recieivng a call from Condoleeza Rice explaining that the only information that the White House knew was a commercial aircraft had hit the World Trade Centers. In Michael Moore's documentary the class viewed the moment when the President hears "we are under attack" while he is in front of the children. I think it would have been beneficial for the graphic novel to contain both instances. The first phone call illustrated in the novel shows a leader that seems confused and thoughtful. Many Americans thought within the first few minutes of the attacks that it was some horrible accident, Bush and the administration may have initially made that error as well. If the second pictures would have been contained explaining to the President that "we are under attack," and showing his bewilderment, it would have showed that no one was impervious to the shock and sheer horror of that day. That illustration would not only humanize the President, but also be a more accurate account of response time and feelings in those initial moments of the attacks.

Flight Patterns

So after browsing Facebook, YouTube, and a series of links to new and interesting videos, i found something that i thought i would share with the class. I think while many of us know that there are a lot of planes in the air at any given moment, we don't realize exactly how great of a feat flight control is. I came across these videos showing flight patterns of the world and the U.S. for a full 24 hour period sped up. It was really eye opening to me.




Then i came across this video which pertains to the class. It shows the flight patterns on Sept. 11th, 2001 and how all the planes had to ground, no planes could leave the country, and no planes were allowed to come into the country.


The reason i decided to post this is because i personally underestimated the scale of the task it is to guide flights. It was eye opening to me and i thought others might find this interesting also.

Grief and Grievance: Songs of 9/11

On Monday and Friday, we'll be discussing some of the songs that emerged from 9/11. For Monday, let's consider the populist country hit by Toby Keith, "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue," as well as the album The Rising by Bruce Springsteen.

There is a story that "Springsteen got the inspiration for the album a few days after the 9/11 attacks, when a stranger in a car stopped next to him, wound down his window and said: 'We need you now.'" (from Wikipedia). Springsteen has rarely shied from adopting the mantle of "national bard," when he moved from being a youth poet to the man who could sing "Born in the U.S.A." and make it sound both full of pride and full of injury and betrayal. In that sense, I'd argue that he has been one of our most popular patriotic artists--but in a way that rarely feels smug or simple-minded.

I'd argue that this album may well have been the most important artistic response to 9/11; there may be others that emerge, but for its reach, its power, and its complexity (a term rarely used when speaking of pop music), The Rising gets my vote.

When listening to these songs, pay careful attention to the lyrics, and re-read them as if they were poetry. There are many allusions to mull over(to the Bible, for example, not just to features of the 9/11 and post-9/11 world). When you write about these works, take time to make sense of the lyrics, and their use of persona, imagery, allusion, etc.

Here are some general questions for your consideration and response.
1. Why was Toby Keith’s “Courtesy” such a hit song? Would it be a hit today? Why, why not? Is it a song of grief or grievance?
2. In what ways does Bruce Springsteen’s album “The Rising” engage in the work of public elegy (think about "Into the Fire," "Empty Sky," and "Nothing Man,")?
3. Why does Springsteen use the motifs of religious "revival" experiences (listen to "The Rising," in particular, or "Mary's Place," for a secular version). In what are these songs also responses to 9/11?
4. In what other ways does Springsteen challenge the official narrative of 9/11 in these songs (think about "Worlds Apart," or "Empty Sky")
5. If you have a favorite song from this list, or other songs that broach 9/11, what is it, and why? What makes it important as a cultural and artistic response to or artifact of 9/11?

Sontag comparison to cancer, poverty and drugs.

I would like to touch on the comparison that Sontag makes in regards to wars on cancer, poverty, and drugs. Surprisingly, I understand (and somewhat agree) with where this comparison is coming from.  The question that I’m trying to answer is how does one “win” a war on terrorism? Take, for example “winning” a war on cancer. If someone beats cancer that simply means that they are cancer-free and can go on with their life. Like cancer, terrorism affects many people in the world; both may not directly and personally affect an individual, but the thought of both stays with an individual for their whole like.

Now, unlike cancer, poverty and drugs once these problems have been diminished and “beat” the war is over, right?. We must go further than that when dealing with terrorism, the war cannot simply be over when the apparent problems seem to have gone away. This confirms Sontag’s argument that the war on terrorism is a never ending war. Declaring war on such an “idea” rather than something that is tangible is much different and will result in a “war” unlike we have ever seen. For having published this only a year after the attacks, I feel that Sontag displays arguements that are still relavant even 10 years after the attacks.

Chapter 2, 9/11 Commission Report

Chapter 2 of the 9/11 Commission Report, in my opinion, helped me learn more about the background and understand clearer how Al Qaeda came to have so much power. While in the graphic adaptation they do mention most of these points, this chapter 2 gives more in depth detail about how and why all of these affairs were able to take place. One point I wanted to reflect on was my own personal understanding of the way Osama bin Ladin was able to gain so many followers for his hatred towards America. The graphic adaptation touches base, but chapter 2 from the 9/11 Report goes into the matter in greater detail. For example, it explains how he used the evidence of the United States occupying Middle East countries and supporting Israel. The economic situation and lack of a strong government left many individuals discontent and as the report mentions, "easy targets for radicalization". On page 54 it says, "He could present himself and his allies as victorious warriors in the one great successful experience for Islamic militancy in the 1980s: the Afghan jihad against the Soviet occupation." The Soviet Union being one of the superpowers of the world at the time, it would seem like a great accomplishment and give hope that no force was too strong to overcome. 

Sontag's Argument

After reading Sontag's argue and comparison between 911 and Pearl Harbor, there were a lot of things that came to mind.  First off, like many other’s comments and blogs I believe that this was not a fair comparison.  In both cases I believe the word "war" is very appropriate.  Yes, both were completely different but both had an impact on a country in a way that no one was willing to let go unnoticed.  I believe that we did do everything we could to handle this attack in an appropriate way and capture those who were in charge.  I read another’s comment on how they believed there could have been a more peaceful way of going about finding those responsible.  The thing that I immediately thought about was that this was a horrible act that happened to our country and there was a lot of anger behind on country, and rightfully so.  To say that there was a more peaceful way of going about the aftermath of this attack is baffling to me.  Four planes were intentionally hijacked and killed/injured our country.  I do believe that both 911 and Pearl Harbor were "just wars" but definitely in their own ways.  I do not agree with the author who described 911 as a "phantom war."

Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 Attacks: A Fair Comparison?

After reading Sontag’s article, I began to consider the comparison she made between 9/11 and the attacks on Pearl Harbor.  To begin with, I’m not sure that I feel the comparison is a fair one because the attacks were of such different nature: Pearl Harbor was a military attack, while 9/11 obviously targeted citizens.  Sontag, in my opinion, is essentially comparing apples to oranges.  She notes that the U.S. necessarily held “great commemorative ceremonies” after 9/11 but probably not after Pearl Harbor to “keep up morale”; moreover, she insists that America’s response to Pearl Harbor was a “real war” but the response to 9/11 was a “phantom war”.   While I understand Sontag’s reasoning for referencing Pearl Harbor because both 9/11 and Pearl Harbor were “lethal surprise attack[s]” in our nation’s history, I personally believe that the comparison is not justified because the circumstances for each was so different from the other.  I’m curious to know if anyone else agrees or disagrees.

War of Words

Let me appropriate a sentiment from Wordsworth to set the stage for this post.

Not in entire forgetfulness, 

And not in utter nakedness, 

But trailing clouds of glory do we come 

From God, who is our home

Words are never deployed in utter nakedness; they come always trailing clouds of meaning and consequence.  The use of “war” to describe the U.S response to the attacks of September 11 has consequences.  I don’t necessarily agree with Sontag that the language was intentionally chosen in a cynical attempt to consolidate power.  Nevertheless, it makes a great deal of difference whether we describe our actions as fighting a war or bringing criminals to justice.  In fairness to Sontag, there is considerable evidence that the Bush administration pressed for extraordinary presidential powers under the president’s war-making authority granted by the constitution.  See the link below for part of this evidence.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/declassified/2010/02/19/report-bush-lawyer-said-president-could-order-civilians-to-be-massacred.html

The 9/11 Report: A Point for Discussion

While numerous passages from The 9/11 Report: A Graphic Adaptation defined the attacks in starkly honest terms, one particular excerpt invited me to question the safety of life in America. Near the end of the adaptation, one particular square reads: “In the past, to be dangerous, an enemy had to muster large armies. Now, an organization like Al Qaeda, headquartered in a country with little electricity or telephones, can scheme to wield weapons of unprecedented destructive power” (Jacobson, Colόn 114). The picture associated with the quote shows two terrorists conspiring with each other inside a cave, an image that reiterates the ability that “weaker” countries now possess. This excerpt ties back to a discussion briefed in class: can we discount the military or terroristic power of certain countries just because they lack the technological development of first-world countries? At the risk of making a broad generalization, I do believe that an enemy—or more specifically, a terrorist—is only as strong as their target is weak. As I read The 9/11 Report, I could not believe how many opportunities the government missed in the prevention of the attacks. Once again, another quote took my breath away; before the attacks, “Richard Clarke, however, remained consistent. In a memo to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, he wrote, ‘Decision makers should imagine themselves on a future day when the CSG has not succeeded in stopping Al Qaeda attacks and hundreds of Americans lay dead in several countries, including the U.S.’” (Jacobson, Colόn 66). However, the “decisions makers” Clarke speaks of did not take action, and his premonition came true. Such inaction reminds me of the quote from Elshtain as she used to reassure her students that, “Americans don’t have living memories of what it means to flee a city in flames. Americans have not been horrified by refugees fleeing burning cities” (Elshtain 8).  I want to leave my final conclusion open for criticism and speculation: I believe that our enemy truly was as strong as their target was weak. With that being said, I am wondering if my professors and classmates alike will agree that, because naiveté on the part of Clarke’s “decision makers” and common citizens as Elshtain, Americans were completely blindsided by the attacks and could have taken preventative action if they considered the possibility of a terrorist attack.

9/11 Reports (The Graphic Adaptation versus the Original): What's the Point of a Graphic Adaptation?

The graphic adaptation of the 9/11 Commission Report, as we discussed in class, employs the conventions of graphic novel and condenses a 400 page book into a slim and highly illustrated 131 pages.  As we mentioned in class, the graphic novel form allows for a greater visual impact, even while it requires a certain effort to figure out how to read each "plate" or page.  Some find some of the conventions of the graphic novel are particularly unsuited to the very real and massive tragedy of 9/11.   Consider, for example, the cartoonish "SHOOM" that accompanies the description of the plane hitting one of the towers.

While such moments seem to trivialize the attacks--how many people died in that "SHOOM"?--there are many examples of excellent graphic novels of war, tragic events, and political topics.  Take, for example, Art Spiegelman's Maus (on the holocaust and the legacy of surviving trauma),



or Joe Sacco's Palestine, among others.
 

Consider, as well, in the graphic adaptation, the representation of President Bush at the moment of hearing of the attacks,


as compared to Michael Moore's angry version of Bush's response to first hearing of the attacks (scroll to 16:00 or so):


Both representations, arguably, are partial.  But what are some of the dangers of making the commission report into a graphic novel, if the graphic novel occasionally trades on larger-than-life depictions of heroism and evil?

Further, what do you make of the depictions of Middle Eastern people--even the ones who are on "our side" (see p. 59, the Jordanian intelligence operative)?  Does this form tend to stereotype everyone?

Also does the graphic adaptation do a good job describing the background to what motivated the terrorists (see Chapter 2)?  Compare the graphic version to the Commission Report's second chapter.

Given all these potential pitfalls of the graphic version, would you recommend this text?  Why, or why not? And with what caveats?

Looking forward to hearing your takes.

Please feel free, also, to weigh in on Susan Sontag's Op-Ed, “Real Battles and Empty Metaphors,” and the further considerations of Jean Bethke Elshtain's arguments in Just War on Terror.

          

9/11 commission Report: A Graphic Adaptation

I know there was at least one person in the class that did not have a copy of this. I believe this is an online version that is the same. 9/11 commission Report: A Graphic Adaptation.

Questions for Elshtain reading

We began a discussion of Elshtain on Friday.  Here are some questions you might think about as you think about Elshtain's work.

(1)   Elshtain quotes Hannah Arendt that “Politics is not the Nursery.”  What is the point of this quote?  What is the problem with this kind of formulation of U.S. policy on counterterrorism?

(2)   What is Elshtain’s view of human rationality? Of human nature?  What implications do these views have for how we understand the role of the government/state?

(3)   Does Elshtain describe the 9/11 attacks as evil or does she describe the attackers as evil (or both)?  Why is the answer to this question important?

Welcome to "After 9/11: Literature, Arts and Ethics in the Age of Terror"

Welcome to our Course Blog!

 

 

Course Description and Goals

This course is designed to investigate how the attacks of September 11^th, 2001 ushered in “the age of terror,” in which “security” fundamentally altered critical and ongoing conversations about the politics and ethics in a representative democracy.  Using as a model the course AR199: “Making Sense of September 11^th,” we will explore, among other topics: 1) language and democratic discourse in the age of terror, 2) representations of 9/11 and other acts of terrorism in literature and the arts, 3) religious and ethical discourse about the use of violence. This course is designed to satisfy the “L” requirement, as well as suffice for a course for the PJHR (Peace, Justice and Human Rights) major.  In considering the texts of the course, we will ask key questions:

·        What was 9/11?  How have artists and intellectuals narrated 9/11 and its meanings, and do they differ from the mainstream narratives of the terrorist attacks of 9/11?  What are the central terms in these narrations and how are they defined?

·        In light of Edward Said’s notion that “nations are narrations,” how has the “war on terror” altered the U.S.’s narrative of itself in the world?  Relatedly, has this new security narrative altered our conversations about freedom and democracy, as well as our domestic and foreign policy?

·        How does the new U.S. (and Western) narrative of the “age of terror” and the national-security affect the Global South?  To what degree is this new frame a new articulation of post-Cold War political alignments?