Saturday, July 09, 2005

Spirit of the blitz lives on in London?

BUSH AND BLAIR AT GLENEAGLESAs London recovers from the terrorist Underground/bus bombings, the US media coverage has begun to pick up references to the so-called "spirit of the blitz" in London (the Blitz being the German bombing of British cities in WW II). References have been made regularly on cable news, PBS's "News Hour," on NPR, and the national press. And numerous news organizations have noted that this was the deadliest attack on the people of London since WW II. And with pronouncements by Blair and the Queen, who toured a London hospital to meet the wounded, the Blitz is emerging again as a historical exemplar and frame for interpreting this event on both sides of the Atlantic.

The New York Times, in its second-day reporting (Alan Cowell, "First Details of Bombs Emerge; Toll Reaches 49"), notes that "many people sought to invoke the memory of Britain's bulldog wartime spirit, when Londoners grew accustomed to German bombing and confronted it with gritty humor. 'If London could survive the Blitz, it can survive four miserable events like this,' said Mr. Blair. He spoke of 'this wonderful great diverse city' and called London and Britain 'one united community against atrocity.'" And one AP report quoted by Juan Cole really ramps up the war imagery. Cole introduces the piece in obvious WWII/Blitz terms, by writing "London began digging out on Friday". He then quotes the following passage, talking about the Friday after the bombing:
    Much of London was eerily quiet. Bombed stations were shrouded in security curtains, and refrigerated trucks waited outside to carry away bodies. Bouquets of fresh flowers and cards scribbled with thoughts for the victims of London's worst attack since World War II piled up outside the stations near the bombed lines. "Yesterday, we fled this great city, but today we are walking back into an even stronger, greater city," said one card near St. Pancras Church, near where a bomb shredded the bus. "The people who did this should know they have failed. They have picked the wrong city to pick on. London will go on."

Yes, it's 1940 all over again. Or maybe 1941. Of course, part of this is driven by the fact that London - and Britain - is getting set to celebrate the end of WW II 60 years ago. But then WW II retains a much deeper resonance - and immediacy - in Britain than in the United States. One major reason for this is that, unlike any US cities, London and other UK cities suffered continuous heavy bombing raids that killed tens of thousand of people. This has left a very deep impression on the national psyche. And it's a clear historical parallel that still resonates in London to this day. When the 9/11 attacks happened in New York, there was no such obvious historical analogy for New Yorkers (and the US media) to attach themselves to - so one had to be created out of whole cloth. In London the Blitz provides a ready-made mediated "myth" and frame for Londoners to attach themselves to.

US audiences seem to instinctively to be able to empathize with the spirit of Londoners - perhaps more so than, say, with Madrid after its Al Qaeda train bombings last year. Why is this? It could just be that, as Tom Friedman put it, the London bombings "are profoundly disturbing" because, in some ways, "a bombing in our mother country and closest ally, England, is almost like a bombing in our own country." But there's more to it than that.

Another AP report, republished in the New York Times on July 8, perhaps provides a clue as to why this is. The article, "Bombs Likely Won't Leave Emotional Scars" suggests that London's experience with trauma of this type will help them shake off this incident all the more easily. It quotes James Thompson, a lecturer in psychology at University College in London, who argues that The Tube is a terrifying target for so many Londoners. He says: '''This is hard for us because so many of us are tube users. But whether it will be for us what Sept. 11 was for America, I would doubt, because we have so much more experience with this sort of stuff.'' Another trauma specialist quoted in this article
    agreed that previous experience is a crucial factor in determining how well a population fares psychologically after a tragedy. While the United States had never considered itself vulnerable at home until Sept. 11, 2001, London has had a long experience with attacks -- from the Nazi blitz during World War II to the Irish Republican Army.

    What also will help Londoners recover more quickly is that there is no sense of surprise over why attackers may have struck, Thompson added.
    ''In the Sept. 11 incident, there was a colossal sense of bafflement over 'What have we done to deserve this?' I don't think in England anyone is saying: 'Why do they hate us?''' Thompson said, noting Britons have long been aware throughout history that their foreign policy is unpopular with some. Also critical to psychological recovery is the meaning that individuals, or the society, give to the attacks, the experts said.

All this mythical British stoicism and ability-to-cope-in-a-crisis is ready-made for American audiences because of a historical and ready-made UK-US parallel that still works in this country: Edwin R. Murrow's reporting from London during the Blitz. Murrow was successful in transmitting to his American audiences the "myth" of London's and Britain's heroic and stoic resistance against the Blitz (aided by a very effective British propaganda campaign aimed at breaking down US neutrality). And the heroic stoicism was perhaps the key ingredient here. It's something that Americans can easily attach themselves to - especially given New York's own newly created post-9/11 "myth" of heroic stoicism.

Addendum: Slate's "international papers" section provides a useful overview of British press coverage of the bombings.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's something that Americans can easily attach themselves to - especially given New York's own newly created post-9/11 "myth" of heroic stoicism."

Since 9/11, there have been many terrorists attacks all over the world. Let me see how many countries I can name: Indonesia, Philippines, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Russia and Spain, just to name a few. But out of all of those, none prompted wide-spread panic here in the United States. I would say the closest to widespread panic were the Madrid bombings.

But when LONDON got attacked this past July, America seemed truly alarmed. I will always remember working at Stafford Recreation that day, and getting the text messages from my dad and my girlfriend. Nor will I forget the countless throngs of parents telling us what had happened in LONDON at noon when the kids went home for lunch.

"It could just be that, as Tom Friedman put it, the London bombings "are profoundly disturbing" because, in some ways, "a bombing in our mother country and closest ally, England, is almost like a bombing in our own country." But there's more to it than that."

I think Thomas Friedman is right. We here in America definitely view England as our closest ally. And that is certainly because England is our closest and most dearest ally. For years, we have watched countless international events unfold, to see Britain right by our side every single time. Not only are they our main military ally, consistently being the country to supply the most troops for any international campaign besides us, but they also seem to be a key political ally.

Presidents, and subsequently the media, and then subsequently the people, equate Britain as being our closest ally becuase of the situation in Europe. Although it is probably not my place to comment on the politics of Britain, given our instructor's Scottish decent, I think it is safe to say that Britain is relatively stand alone when it comes to European affairs. They aren't particuularly interested in making a Europe that collectively wields more power than the United States, like much of the continent is. They are happy being friends with America and see no need to rival our power.

Britain is much more apt to stand for what it believes in, and to make things better for its own people than for Europe as a whole. While most of Europe feels relatively threatened by the amount of power the United States has amassed (see the European stance on Iraq leading up to the war), Britain doesn't really feel threatened by the rise of American power (at least in my judgment). They seem relatively happy to be allies with the United States, and are not ashamed to admit it.

Although public outcry in Britain against the war rivals, if not tops, the outcry seen in this country for the war, it seems to me as though in general, the people of Britain genuinely like being allies with the United States.

For whatever reason, this is the impression I have of Britain. And I am guessing that if I have it, many other people in this country have the same feelings as well.

I don't know if they are correct, and clearly Professor Bickett is probably the best authority we in this class could ever have on this subject, but it really seems to me as though Britain likes being our ally - and that is why when that country gets bombed, our country will rally behind them, just like they have supported us so many times in the past.

Joe Mignano

2/09/2006 4:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home