Day: September 14, 2006

As we remembered the tragedy in the US of September 2001 I am once again pondering the assertions of those who so soon forget history and the lessons it can teach us. Sometiems we just plain forget. But subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) rewriting helps as well. Some of the rhetoric has the sound of “If I say it, it makes it so”.
One of the most repeated phrases is “the event that changed the world”. It is commonly stated that the world changed on Septemer the 11th 2001. Well – yes, but the world changes every day. Today for the family of the many people dying in car accidents the world is changed. For couples getting married the world is changing. Such joys and tragedies the world changes every day. What made this particualr date so different?

Maybe the number of people, hardly. The bombing of Dresden in February 1945 during the second world war killed in excess of 35,000 men women and children. The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed in the order of 200,000 men women and children each. These are only isolated (if extreme) examples of single incidents resulting in large numbers of civilian deaths.

Oh but, you say, these examples are of milatary campaigns, the attacks in the US were terrorist! What is the difference? Certainly we were in a declared war during WW II. But does being in a declared war preclude terrorist acts? According the the extremists who perpetrated the act, they are at war with the west. Their complaint is the infiltration of the islamic states with the west. Is this a legitimate complaint? Well to them it is. It may seem unreasonable to us but they are defending their religion. So to them they are in a declared war.

So then what actually defines a terrorist act? I have seen it defined by the US administration as one where terror is created amongst a general population by act of acts of an agressor. One could hardly say that the bombing of Dresden did not create a state of terror amongst the German population. The carpet bombing of an entire city over two days would terrify the soutest heart. The complete destruction of Dresden was the intent and it was calculated to induce terror in, and completely demoralise the general population. It certainly terrorised the population.

Wether by the sword, the gun or the plane terrorism has been with us since the dawn of civilisation and will be with us till its sunset, that much is certain. To say that the world has changed is somewhat of an overstatement. It is no more changed than after any of the other countless terrorist attacks. We should not fool ourselves. The world is the same place now as before September the 11th 2001. The US may be different – at least one would hope so.

That is not to say that the act was not deplorable, as were the Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents. To justify one is to justify them all. To condemn one is to condemn them all. Whatever the excuse for these acts they were all conducted with the moral backing of the people who perpetrated them. Each of them against a perceived agressor who had to be defeated seemingly at any const. Each of them led to the loss of thousands of lives of people who had no say in the matter, who were themselves non-agressors, men women and children.

Sometimes we need to step back and view these things in perspective and in a historical context.

With the sad passing of Steve Irwin it got me thinking as to what constitutes a hero. Why is it that we single out a very small group of people and elevate them to almost god like status. And we seem to do this almost to a man.

I suppose we are always seeking heroes to lift us above the mundane. Of course Hollywood offers us any number of heroes and in many guises. They are pre-packaged and served up to us in neat containers of film stock. This is the substitute hero that does not elevate us but diminishes us. It takes away our humanity, substitutes our morality with a pre-fabricated version that reduces everything to a comfortable level of mass ignorance. No I am talking about real heroes. The people with heads of gold and feet of clay. Those people who rise above us to elevated heights, and at the same time seem to reflect some of our worst flaws. These are the true heroes.

Steve was universally acknowledged as a great Australian. He was an ordinary bloke who did things in a way and with a personality that seemed to capture our imagination. He championed the cause of the environment. We all loved him and identified with him. We were not at all surprised that his family declined a state funeral, in fact almost expected it. He was one of us which was one of the reasons we made him our hero. But – yes he was flawed. We all recall the baby incident, and the criticism it drew. However, we expect our heroes to make mistakes, that way they are no so different from us.

Of course we all remember Martin Luther King Jr. No man did more to highlight the plight of the African American. He was a focal point for civil rights during the 60s. I did then and I do now consider him one of my heroes. Flawed – oh yes. Wether the stories put about were a concoction of that arch hypocrite JEH or no it was probably the case that he was not perfect. Yet in a contest of virtue I know who would come out on top. It is interesting that arguably the most powerful person in the US at the time is now one of the most reviled. And the person who was the expert at besmirching people’s chanters was himself one of the most corrupt.

The there was that other icon of the 60s, JFK. Would he have reached such elevated status had he lived? Certainly, there is no doubt King would have. Kennedy, I’m not so sure about. That he was in a politically difficult position – there is no doubt. That his hands were tied by circumstance – is certain. That he would have achieved his agenda – possibly not. However, I think he was the right man at the right time and stands as a giant amongst the Presidents who could have been so much more and I believe achieved so much had he not had such an untimely demise.

Getting back to the start again, why was it that Steve Irwin had such an elevated status? There was really nothing to set him apart. He was just an ordinary bloke that captured our imagination. He was one of us, and could have been any of us. I suppose that this was what made him special – that he was not, special that is. He reflected that which we as Australians value the most. He loved the bush, the Australian wildlife, that sense of being one step away from danger, family and his own country. He was us in other guise. In the end he was quintesentially Australian, and I suppose that is why the Americans loved him too. He was larger than life but not so large as to alienate.