"Social Studies School Service" created the "September 11th Education Program": a briefcase containing two DVD and reproducible materials. The goal? of course, provide secondary teachers (grades 6-12) video equipment, photographic and written allowing them to present Sept. 11 to their students. The idea is not bad in itself: of course, must be taught on September 11 for children who, for the most part, were not old enough to understand when it occurred. Of course, we must organize information, provide a perspective on the event, and the best offer different perspectives on issues related to the event.
The DVD includes different elements: a commemorative video of the great events of the day, with excerpts from interviews with survivors, families of victims, and politicians (could it really have made the economy of Giuliani?) and 70 interviews featuring the same survivors, family members, political figures, journalists, etc.. around the time of reconstructing a timeline of the day on September 11 and various topics related to the event, as its commemoration, national security, etc..
It is obvious that the history taught to children can not help but be biased. Or finally, it seems clear that it can not do without the point of view, that the victor in the case of conflict, that of the victim here. From the first video, the view is clear: to be discussed throughout the event to extract the individual level, not the state or the reasons behind the attacks. Of course, I say again, an act of such magnitude can not be justified in any way that would minimize the impact. Certainly. But just as it would in my view incorrect to speak of the rise of Nazism in Europe without mentioning at the same time, Quebec know also his own radicalization, just to show the children that we are not immune from extremism, would it not possible to present the whole event, explaining who were the terrorists? At no time in the multiple segments are we talking about the claims of terrorist groups. Individuals who perpetrated the acts are mentioned, of course, but in passing, and in a way that, again, personalizes the discussion: this is not the group that is designated, it would give an existence, legitimacy . No, these are the "bad guys", the wicked.
If possible to identify, even without consulting the written records, some of the studied objects, such as pros and cons of the various groups opposing the memorial when it comes, the complete absence of a comprehensive perspective on event, a perspective beyond the facts in the 102 minutes of its proceedings, is surprising. Evacuated from this program events preceding the attacks, except for one or two references to the 1993 bombing. No word of what followed the attacks either, outside of what directly concerns the sites (cutting, identification of remains, reconstruction, memorials).
In fact, it is surprising, but not that much. Basically, even if the first moments, appeared on television screens and newspapers printed references to the war, coverage of 11 September was blinded from the start by the notion of victims. Even martyrs. And more often than heroes. The "Portraits of grief" from The Times, directing attention, each time with a story to describe the victim, had undertaken this personalization of the event. And this customization is to create an effect of emotional overload as Susan Sontag fetching every morning his "dose" September 11 by reading the portraits and pouring a few tears. What is overloading? It aims to make visible, to give a face to the thousands of deaths. It is a noble goal, which is difficult to oppose, because the violence of the destruction of 11 September, the violence that has "sprayed" and annihilated those bodies and buildings, just had a depersonalized. But the overload has a perverse effect on the pretext of making visible the victim, sailing event, so instead of seeing both the victim and the act, the act and its context, context and its causes, we only see the face of a man, a woman.
said without saying the teaching document, is that nothing and no one could have prevented September 11 and September 11 is unlike any event in history (say the United States, even if speeches go beyond national boundaries). Behind this emotional overload and hides another mechanism of 11 September: hammering the innocence of the victim allows the formation of speech exception, the incommensurability of the event. And it does consider the event that his human part, out of its socio-historical-political. What seems to me rather dangerous.
And this, Jay Winuk, in his commentary on the creation of the 9 / 11 National Day of Service says it very well: merge memory of 11 September with heroism is to ensure that we remember the that Americans are good. The good guys, as opposed to the bad guys of course. It is then, finally, a way to control the memory of the event. And everything is done in most "innocent": "Harness The Memories of 9 / 11 to Help Others in Need,-through charitable acts and public services," offers the documentary at its very end. "Harness". Be positive. Optimistic. And hope that the "harness" here refers more the principle of control, unified broadcast of the event, not the outright exploitation of memory. But which is worse?
