Originally posted by Omega Vision
I know what he meant, but the only proposition that would even work symbolically would be that Bush's presidency began in earnest on 9/11. Before that, everyone assumed that he was going to be a forgettable president in a laidback post-conflict era when the worst we had to deal with was Dotcom bubbles and Serbian militants.
It really was going that way though. 911 threw him head first into the deep end.
Originally posted by Omega VisionIYO, why does the symbolism fail for the "21st century" and "WW3" parts of the statement? For Americans, 9/11 was a seminal event, unlike anything prior. Happening in the first true year of the 21st century, the homeland was spectacularly attacked, and how Americans view the world was changed forever, dramatically.
I know what he meant, but the only proposition that would even work symbolically would be that Bush's presidency began in earnest on 9/11. Before that, everyone assumed that he was going to be a forgettable president in a laidback post-conflict era when the worst we had to deal with was Dotcom bubbles and Serbian militants.
And a Pearl Harbor.
But your and my examples were generations ago. People that far removed tend to think history cant or wont repeat.
Pretty sure if an incurable disease wiped out 60% of Europe's population from now till 2022, Europeans'd consider it a seminal event, a world view changer, even though it happened to them before.
Originally posted by BentleyYou see a civil war the same as being attacked by a foreign agency? I would've picked Pearl Harbor as the more similar event, or the 1993 WTC attack. But even then, with the former, it did not happen on mainland soil, and the 1993 attack was nowhere near as spectacularly deadly. Heck, the 9/11 death toll > Pearl Harbor's, and with civilians.
Didn't you guys had a frigging civil war?
Maybe other countries -- especially those with histories of being attacked -- saw 9/11 differently. But for Americans, it was clearly a watershed moment.
Originally posted by Mindship
You see a civil war the same as being attacked by a foreign agency?
Nope, sometimes in an invasion you are in the receiving end of some bombs, a civil war is more much involved and terrifying. If you were physically occupied by a foreign army maybe then you can compare them.
Originally posted by Mindship
I would've picked Pearl Harbor as the more similar event, or the 1993 WTC attack. But even then, with the former, it did not happen on mainland soil, and the 1993 attack was nowhere near as spectacularly deadly. Heck, the 9/11 death toll > Pearl Harbor's, and with civilians.Maybe other countries -- especially those with histories of being attacked -- saw 9/11 differently. But for Americans, it was clearly a watershed moment.
Again, my point isn't about similarities, your civil war >>>>> 9/11 by a FAR margin. When it comes to "less violent" events, the abolition of slavery and the civil rights rallies could overcome 9/11 in overall significance. Of course, this thread wouldn't include any event of that kind.
I think 9/11 is one among several milestone when it comes to international terrorist attacks, which is definitively a relevant trend in western countries on the 21st century, so it is important. However, war torn countries would certainly dismiss it as much less visceral than their very own problems and with good reason.
The anexation of Ukrania might become a critical event on the 21st century. It definitively belongs in here.
Originally posted by BentleyOf course the civil war trumps 9/11. So does the revolutionary war, or our being in two world wars. But the thread didn't ask about all of American history; and 9/11 was unprecedented in that it was a major attack by a foreign power -- on our mainland -- that shattered American complacency about our national security. There's a reason that every year we read aloud the names of each and every victim who perished (we never even did that for Pearl Harbor). That alone should tell you how it shook us up and changed the way we see the world, how in a very real way (per the thread's OP) it "introduced" us to the 21st century.
Again, my point isn't about similarities, your civil war >>>>> 9/11 by a FAR margin.
Originally posted by BentleyWhich is why I said, other countries may well see 9/11 differently than Americans. Maybe they thought, "'Bout time you Yanks found out how it feels to be attacked." Well, now we know.
However, war torn countries would certainly dismiss it as much less visceral than their very own problems...
Originally posted by BentleyAgreed.
The annexation of Ukrania might become a critical event on the 21st century. It definitively belongs in here.
Originally posted by riv6672
And a Pearl Harbor.
But your and my examples were generations ago. People that far removed tend to think history cant or wont repeat.Pretty sure if an incurable disease wiped out 60% of Europe's population from now till 2022, Europeans'd consider it a seminal event, a world view changer, even though it happened to them before.
Today Europeans understand about germs and bacteria and even flossing and brushing their teeth twice daily. So assuming folks shower up every day and wash their hands every few hours with warm water and soap, and don't have any weird funeral practices and eat animals on a stick, doubtful Ebola or the black plague wiill come to town near you.
Originally posted by Mindship
IYO, why does the symbolism fail for the "21st century" and "WW3" parts of the statement? For Americans, 9/11 was a seminal event, unlike anything prior. Happening in the first true year of the 21st century, the homeland was spectacularly attacked, and how Americans view the world was changed forever, dramatically.
Let's compare that to 9/11. It's true that 9/11 ended the post-Cold War sense that America was at peace and had no real enemies in the world, but this period had only begun barely a decade before with the last great event, the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. I'd say the end of the Cold War was much more important than 9/11.
As for the WW3 comment, I never take any such hyperbole at face value. The Global War on terror has less in common with WW1 and WW2 than it does with the War on Drugs, or the English War on Slavery during the 19th century. A World War requires multiple major power blocs facing off in direct combat on multiple continents simultaneously. If the War on Terror counts as a World War, then it isn't World War 3 because many other wars better qualify--it would be more like World War 5 or 6 (because I'd count the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars as well as the Cold War).
Now, you might point to tensions between the US/EU/NATO with China and Russia as signs of a developing war, but NONE of these tensions have anything to do with the War on Terror or 9/11 and everything to do with good old Great Power dynamics. In fact, the issue of combating Islamic terrorism is the one issue on which every one of the above mentioned powers agrees and cooperates on.
Originally posted by Omega VisionI understand your position now. I still disagree insofar as the symbolic sentiment, but I see where you're coming from.
I think calling 9/11 the start of the 21st century would be analogizing it to the Death of Queen Victoria in 1901 which is said to be the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th. With Victoria's death, it actually was very close to the actual start of the 20th century--three weeks in fact. Also, it brought an end to the Victorian Era which had stretched roughly from her coronation in 1837 all the way to her death. This was a time characterized by British isolation in Europe and economic (for the first half of the era, before the USA overtook them) and military hegemony over the world and an assumption that big wars like the Napoleonic Wars were a thing of the past because everyone in Europe had family ties so while nations like Italy and Germany might disrupt the peace temporarily, they never turned into global conflicts. With Victoria's death, in a very real way the actual connection between many of the continent's rulers vanished. All of the rulers of Europe loved and respected Victoria but hated and distrusted each other, so with her death the relative stability began to unravel.Let's compare that to 9/11. It's true that 9/11 ended the post-Cold War sense that America was at peace and had no real enemies in the world, but this period had only begun barely a decade before with the last great event, the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. I'd say the end of the Cold War was much more important than 9/11.
As for the WW3 comment, I never take any such hyperbole at face value. The Global War on terror has less in common with WW1 and WW2 than it does with the War on Drugs, or the English War on Slavery during the 19th century. A World War requires multiple major power blocs facing off in direct combat on multiple continents simultaneously. If the War on Terror counts as a World War, then it isn't World War 3 because many other wars better qualify--it would be more like World War 5 or 6 (because I'd count the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars as well as the Cold War).
Now, you might point to tensions between the US/EU/NATO with China and Russia as signs of a developing war, but NONE of these tensions have anything to do with the War on Terror or 9/11 and everything to do with good old Great Power dynamics. In fact, the issue of combating Islamic terrorism is the one issue on which every one of the above mentioned powers agrees and cooperates on.
You should be on one of those talk shows, like "UP" with Steve Kornacki.
Originally posted by Mindship
I understand your position now. I still disagree insofar as the symbolic sentiment, but I see where you're coming from.You should be on one of those talk shows, like "UP" with Steve Kornacki.
Thanks. 🙂
Originally posted by SayWhat
Today Europeans understand about germs and bacteria and even flossing and brushing their teeth twice daily. So assuming folks shower up every day and wash their hands every few hours with warm water and soap, and don't have any weird funeral practices and eat animals on a stick, doubtful Ebola or the black plague wiill come to town near you.
Actually, scratch all that, this is the greatest event of the 21st century:
We're beginning to train our replacements.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I definitely think social media is more important than any terrorist attack or even any war that's occurred during the 21st century, and it's the one technological advancement that's entirely native to this century, as cell phones and computers were both invented in the 20th century.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I definitely think social media is more important than any terrorist attack or even any war that's occurred during the 21st century, and it's the one technological advancement that's entirely native to this century, as cell phones and computers were both invented in the 20th century.
It's accurate considering the use it has to organize political and armed movements all around the world. Social media just like mass media before it couldn't have evolved in the vacuum, so making it a 21st century thing is a fair evaluation.