9/11: Lest the French Forget....a rant.

[ryyannon]

Well, actually it would appear that they have. Not much buzz in the media, not even a nod in the direction of the various commemorations around the world (in the U.S., Poland, South Korea and Japan just to name a few) on the evening news...

But in the unlikely event that someone here might have found him/herself feeling regret, sympathy or some other positive human emotion towards the victims of the attacks - who were, lest we forget, majoritarily American, the government-run Channel 3 here in France decided to program a two-hour-long documentary on the war crimes (rapes, murders, rapes, murders, rapes, murders....) committed by American soldiers stationed in France in the months following D-Day.

A surprizing and little-known aspect of the war, tonight was the night when France 3 decided that the truth had to be told. With clinical precision, case after case was presented (and there were apparently thousands of them), to the point where you got the feeling that the entire American army had somehow turned into a demented horde of psychopathic serial rapists and killers.

This being a French production and therefore particularly clever, viewers were treated to the added refinement of the proof of the innate racism of Americans: repeatedly, it was explained how whites were let off the hook whereas blacks were court-martialed and hung - with the unspoken insinuation that they were executed more for being black than for being rapists.

I have no doubt that these events really happened, and under other circumstances I would have felt no particular unease at seeing them related, but on this particular evening I have to ask myself why someone at France 3 thought it would be a good idea to schedule this particular documentary for broadcast precisely on 11 September.

No country is perfect, but I certainly get the impression that France increasingly gets it wrong more than most.

/rant off.

[Pugwash]

but on this particular evening I find that have to ask myself why someone at France 3 thought it would be a good idea to schedule this particular documentary for broadcast precisely on 11 September.

While I agree, you have to remember that 11/9 (Europe even has a different name for it) is just another date for France. I doubt the US news plans their European news around Bastille day or 7/7, for instance.

Yes, someone should have spotted it, but knowing a little about how news TV is scheduled, it was most likely an unintentional faux pas, as the French would say.

[ryyannon]

This wasn't presented as news, Pug - it was tricked out as a fact-filled documentary.

As for comparisons with Bastille Day, I'm too bummed out to even go into it....

[Pugwash]

As for comparisons with Bastille Day, I'm too bummed out to even go into it....

But you missed 7/7. As valid a comparison as there is.

[SportsterRider]

While I agree, you have to remember that 11/9 (Europe even has a different name for it) is just another date for France. I doubt the US news plans their European news around Bastille day or 7/7, for instance.

Yes, someone should have spotted it, but knowing a little about how news TV is scheduled, it was most likely an unintentional faux pas, as the French would say.

Actually, you're correct that the news around here isn't planned around 7/7. But there was talk of 7/7 on 7/7 as it relates to terrorism. So it in that regard, your observations aren't entirely correct since there was a 'on this date in 2005' in the news about the bombings, as opposed to a documentary about French military atrocities.

As far as Bastille day, I'm not sure how that relates? Do European nations make a news event about The Fourth of July?

Anyway, I'm not all that surprised to hear about this as the American military, or more specifically, the current American political administration, isn't very popular globally right now ('nor here, actually). C'est la vie.

SR

[narikaa]

I know US citizens get all hurt n wounded over 9/11

Yes it was dramatic

Yes it was a whole new tactic

David gave Goliath a kick in the nuts that day

But, the reality is, to a lot of the planet losing a couple of buildings (albeit full of innocents) to and act of hostility...just ain't lasting (or unusual) news.

[Victoria]

But, the reality is, to a lot of the planet losing a couple of buildings (albeit full of innocents) to and act of hostility...just ain't lasting (or unusual) news.

Yeah, I actually agree with that, I'm afraid. And I have personal reasons why 9/11 was very relevant to my family, but I'll leave it at that.

For the rest of the world, it's not that it's not important -- it's just not "lasting", as Narikaa put it.

However, I think everyone will agree that if the French and others don't "commemorate" 9/11 maybe it's understandable. It's not their mental ordeal, even if their citizens were lost in the Towers too.

But at least, Jesus H. Christ, don't choose 9/11 of ALL days to post a blatantly anti-American documentary. Can we all at least agree that was in awful poor taste, and move on?

[FasTTaP]

I agree, France's attitude toward 9-11 sucks big time... Americans are more and more unpopular in the country (people tend to get confuse between the American people and the Bush administration)...

@Victoria, that's not only very bad taste, but totaly intentional, it's - IMHO - a total lack of respect.

Every day, I'm considering moving from this country (I'm french, BTW)

[Victoria]

I agree, France's attitude toward 9-11 sucks big time... Americans are more and more unpopular in the country (people tend to get confuse between the American people and the Bush administration)...

Without me getting political (which as you know, FasTTaP, I hate), that sometimes is a cop out, I feel.

America under Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, Eisenhower, even Roosevelt was never popular with the French. Excepting 42, you'd have to go as far back as Wilson before you got to a President which the French approved of, when he was greeted as the Saviour of Europe by them in the Versailles Conference. It went to his head, and maybe the French became wary of America's growing legitimacy after that -- which ironically, they had a part in "bestowing", if you will.

So honestly, I think using the political administration of today is really a red-herring. Of course, I'm not saying no. It does play a role. But De Gaulle would've hated him too, and they're both Conservatives...(hello, M. Chirac...).

Besides, this documentary doesn't come from the official powers that be. It comes from the French media elite, who are all Sciences Po grads and ENArques...right?

And moreover, the feelings come from your average French people, which doesn't hurt Americans, save the ones there like Ryyannon, but does ruin the possible feelings of respect these two nations (so similar in so many ways), should have for each other.

@Victoria, that's not only very bad taste, but totaly intentional, it's - IMHO - a total lack of respect.

Yes, I think most people saw that, unfortunately. This is way beyond Freedom Fries territory. And I say this as an unrepetant Francophile, who loves speaking French, and loves everything French.

It was un mal go

[ryyannon]

But, the reality is, to a lot of the planet losing a couple of buildings (albeit full of innocents) to and act of hostility...just ain't lasting (or unusual) news.

Aside from any consideration of nationality, patriotism, politics or what-have-you, I have to disagree with you on this point.

The event in and of itself counted (and will count) as among the most dramatic series of images ever seen: relayed live and globally - and then repeated again and again for weeks - those scenes are permanently etched into the collective consciousness of the planet.

A bit like the first moon landing, but infinitely more dramatic: a supposedly invulnurable nation - which had never been attacked on its own soil (at least since the Brits were last here) being struck by enormous commercial passenger jets aimed at it's financial and political/military centers.

Even a five year-old child somewhere in Southeast Asia, seeing those images on the collective television of his village - and ignorning the who, what and where of what they represented - would be astounded by what he saw: something which had never been seen by anyone, anywhere - up to the very moment the planes hit the towers.

Whether this constitutes unusual or lasting news is a red herring: the images are amonst the most incredible ever filmed and will remain so - until the Second Coming of Elvis, or similar.

That they represent a very real tragedy - and should be commemorated as such - even fleetingly - is another question.

What's for sure, is that humanity never tires of seeing stuff getting blown up - that the stuff in question consisted of thousands of human beings, two (out of the four that were hijacked) jet airliners and two of the most marvellous modern architectural achievements of the late 20th century, only makes the event that much more compelling.

Given all of this - and aside from any laborious questions concerning commemoration - the absence of a generalized replay of those images strikes me as somewhat strange: the tenth anniversary of Lady Diana's death got endless air-time and press exposure all across the EU.

Tragedy sells. What I can't quite understand - or perhaps don't want to think about - is why the EU media - as far as I can see - so thoroughly ignored this particular money-shot.

[narikaa]

Wether you disagree or not

The absence of coverage (or concern) shows exactly the disparity between the (still smarting) US of A ,and the rest of the world (most of which has endured far greater historical losses without this ballyhoo).

As for the Diana diatribe lets not forget that the tabloids et al publish what Joe Public wants to read (facts and morality being of little concern). Unfortunately any headline pertaining to the darling Diana or any effete lout who can get paid for kicking a ball will always feature in front of actual news.

.

[ryyannon]

The absence of coverage (or concern) shows exactly the disparity between the (still smarting) US of A ,and the rest of the world (most of which has endured far greater historical losses without this ballyhoo).

I reiterate that it's not a question of disparity in feelings or far greater historical losses endured by the rest of the world - that's a given.

What I do maintain is that the images of the event in and of themselves - given mankind's fascination with destruction - remain (with no disrespect implied) fascinating, which is to say newsworthy - even if the news is old.

It's the disparity between the intrinsic newsworthyness of these images and the exposure that they actually received in the media here that seems odd to me.

Somehow, it just doesn't add up: unless one is using a system of mathematics which I apparently have problems understanding.

Once again, no negative insinuations as to your own point of view implied - I myself am trying to sort this out as we go along, and it may well turn out that your vision of how things actually are concerning this, is much clearer than my own.

[narikaa]

True

But as I said

A UK newstand with a choice

Frontpage Twin Towers Colour tribute

or

Footballer 'X' caught in gay nightclub

Guess which will sell out ?

[Pugwash]

It's the disparity between the intrinsic newsworthyness of these images and the exposure that they actually received in the media here that seems odd to me.

But we've seen the images, over and over again. Frame-by-frame dissections have been performed of every video of the event. There isn't an image that's not been plastered over the news as much as the images of the towers. We've seen it all and, frankly, if you weren't involved in some way, it's time to move on. First, the rest of the world will show less interest in digging up the images, then eventually most of the US will until finally, it's just a New York deal. We'll all still care or whatever, but we'll stop the morbid fascination.

No-one will forget, don't worry. We don't need to be reminded every year.

[ryyannon]

No-one will forget, don't worry. We don't need to be reminded every year.

You're really developing the ability to formulate luminous ideas as time goes by: the climate of Scotland must be particularly invigorating for you.

But as to the above, don't you worry - believe it or not, reminding people of 9/11 every year is among the least of my concerns.

So try and let it not be yours as well, ok?

[cranium]

Thanks for your rant, ryyannon. Countries across the planet are currently fighting wars that began decades and even centuries ago, over issues far less than what occurred on 9/11 ... and a simple request to show respect for something that happened just 6 years ago (by an alleged ally), if requested by the USA, only receives more jabs and antics.

If I remember correctly, the headline of France's Le Monde newspaper on 9/12 went something like, "Nous sommes tous Am

[cornerstone]

Can I raise a practical point? Which is the time difference.

In news terms, the news is the commemoration of 9/11, so for example New York's "tribute of light". But because of the time difference that didn't happen in France until quite late, and news channels often take coverage from US networks. So there often isn't news footage until the 12th September. The problem then might become that it is so linked to the date of the event, that it seems like 'old' news if that makes sense.

Just by the by, almost a quarter of a million people died in the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004 - 75 9/11's in a single day. Tragedies are tragedies, ranking them seems almost futile - they become no less of a tragedy because they got 'trumped' by a worse one, if that makes sense.

The point is certainly made that the victims of this atrocity and their families are worthy of thought, sympathy and reflection. That is indisputable.

[Pugwash]

And to quickly compare 9/11 and 7/7 ... death tolls (respectively) were 2,993 and 52.

And even per capita, that's still a 10:1 disparity, but it's not about numbers.

It's about commemorating, surely. France didn't say, as a nation, that it's time to forget. What happened was one TV station ran one documentary that Ryyannon objected to. Let's not let this get out of hand here.

[cranium]

And even per capita, that's still a 10:1 disparity, but it's not about numbers.

Just for the records, I didn't bring up 7/7. Or 9/11. Or 12/26. I was merely pointing out that 9/11 and 7/7 may not be the best comparison. Not only because of the number of people who died, but because of the global impact of the event ... which, for better or worse, I hope we can all agree that people in all parts of the world are still being affected (and many still dying) because of the actions taken from and after 9/11. It seems it would be ignorant to say otherwise.

And cornerstone, I appreciate your thoughts. In reference to December 26 ... yes, tragedies are tragedies ... but all tragedies are not attacks on humanity. As unfortunate and horrific as it was, nothing could have stopped that tsunami (coral reefs excluded), or will prevent future tsunamis. The same can not be said about 9/11. Once again, I believe this drives home the point: why does everyone feel the need to prove that 9/11 wasn't really a big deal? Maybe instead we could say, "You're right, ryyannon, people are often all to insensitive."

Don't mean to stir the pot ... my guess is that ryyannon was just voicing his thoughts and frustrations with the current global political turmoil.

[Pugwash]

I hope we can all agree that people in all parts of the world are still being affected (and many still dying) because of the actions taken from and after 9/11. It seems it would be ignorant to say otherwise.

Um ... there's not that much going on in Afghanistan, compared to the normal state of affairs.

[cranium]

Ummm ... with all do respect, is there not a war going on in Iraq that is DIRECTLY related to decisions made after 9/11? Is there not a new PM of UK, primarily influenced by decisions made with regards to 9/11?

Maybe re-read my post? I sure hope this doesn't turn this into a "Does US belong in Iraq" thread.

[Pugwash]

Ummm ... with all do respect, is there not a war going on in Iraq that is DIRECTLY related to decisions made after 9/11? Is there not a new PM of UK, primarily influenced by decisions made with regards to 9/11?

Maybe re-read my post? I sure hope this doesn't turn this into a "Does US belong in Iraq" thread.

I'm not going to try to turn this into a Does the US belong in Iraq post, because it's completely unrelated.

Going by your definition, then my dinner is based on decisions made after 9/11.

The US is in Iraq was because of WMDs (and don't get into whether or not they were there, that's not for today). The Global War On Terror is why you're in Afganistan, not Iraq.

There is a new PM in the UK because the old one 'took up Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds' or retired.

[cranium]

So what you're saying is George Bush DIDN'T use 9/11 as the primary motivator for entering Iraq? And you're saying Blair's retirement had nothingto do with the fallback he received from decisions he made in regards to sending troops to Iraq?

Now that's a big "ummmmm ....."

[Pugwash]

So what you're saying is George Bush DIDN'T use 9/11 as the primary motivator for entering Iraq? And you're saying Blair's retirement had nothingto do with the fallback he received from decisions he made in regards to sending troops to Iraq?

Blair's retirement was more to do with the cash for titles debacle.

And Bush used 9/11 to get people to join up, but the decision to enter Iraq was not 9/11, even though he played all the heartstings possible with 9/11 to get popular support.

However, the government decisions were not based on 9/11. Apparently the politicians were too smart to buy that lie.

[cranium]

You win. Thanks for your sincerity and your willingness to understand, Pug