Charlotte Church: Did she really say that?

Typical 15-year-old blabbering. Remember Fiona Apple?

Still, I'm sure Church's handlers had a heart attack and a half when she said that stuff.

Hahahahahahahaha. Yes. Any fule no that such things are reserved for people sucking fame from the corporate cock, Frank Skinner and Jonathan Ross.

Hmmmm....we're getting a bit out of bounds here. While it's true that we here in the States haven't really suffered from the history of terrorism that has plagued Europe & the rest of the world, the sheer magnitude of September 11th (in both sheer statistics and simply as an act of aggression writ large) caught us up pretty damn quickly, I'd say. Are there people out there who continually bring it up (I refuse to call it 'overdramatizing')? Surely, but there are also people in fuckin' Ireland who love to remind people about the goddamn potato famine of 1847...I mean, don't expect us to 'get over it' or 'put it in perspective' when the wounds are still pretty fresh.

Important to remember: The current President's agenda does NOT adequately represent the views of the the general American populace.

I think the trouble comes from the ambiguity of her statement, "People overdramatise and lose perspective." If you take it to regard, people claiming grief who aren't by any reasonable measure entitled to it, then I sympathize.

But if she means "people making more of the event" in the sense of being shocked by it, I think she's way off base. Per Webster's the first non-theater definition of "dramatic" is "Arresting or forceful in appearance or effect" and I think the attack on the WTC qualifies, and I can't imagine anyone "overdramatizing" it. My visceral reaction to September 11, before anyone had any time to process it for a CNN logo, was: I ran outside and vomited. Was I being overdramatic?

I should be charitable and presume CC meant the former, but I can see how people could have taken her to mean something closer to the latter and taken umbrage. Of course even if she clearly and unambiguously meant the former, some folks would still be taking offense.

This is true, actually. I'm a native New Yorker and live bout fifteen blocks from the WTC site and lost a friend from high school on that day, but recently travelled over Christmas to Round Top, Texas (population: 77) where there was "Remember 9/11!" iconography galore, which struck me as a bit much and just a wee bit hypocritcal. Let's face it, you're average rural, gun-totin' Texan prior to September 2001 probably considered NYC full of perverted weirdo ultra-liberal-commie city-slickers who didn't have America's best interests at heart. Now --- in this tiny Texan town -- they act like they lost a bit of their selves on that day.

Personally I'd submit that if the U.S. had even 10% more international news coverage the reaction would have been much less dramatic.

Alex: barring the friend from high school (and Texans can have friends from high school living in New York, too), I don't necessarily see how physical proximity gives you any more entitlement to be affected than anyone else.

Granted, but let's face it -- even if the buildings were completely empty, say (or near to it), and even if the news coverage was as you say, it wasn't exactly going to be buried under the farm report in the following day's newspaper, for instance.

I dunno. Any other NYers feel that way? Of course reactions in the aftermath were very personal...

I agree. It seemed like many people were intent on being more afraid (at least five of my friends bought gas masks and antibiotics in the following months), but primarily outside of NYC. And because of the monstrosity of the event, people were reaching for the tenuous connections that Church mentions (my neighbor's dog, etc) -- everyone wanted a bullseye on their back. I remember on another message board that I frequent where everyone was coming up with reasons why their hometown would be a terrorist target ("Bumfuck, WV's got the biggest horseshoe in the world. It would be a symbolic attack saying our luck's run out!"). It's basic human nature, to want to be where the action is. I can't fault anyone for thinking that way, even if it bewildered me (but in another way I understand. I remember the first time I left NYC after the attacks, which was for Xmas last year, and I found myself hoping that nothing happened while I was gone, even if that meant it would save my life. I kept thinking that I would feel guilty if something happened while I wasn't there... if a close friend died instead of me. Weird thoughts).

As for the WTC memorial, I agree. I do think, however, that coming up with something based on raw emotion could be interesting. I don't think I'd want to be looking at it outside of my window, but it's a strange idea. NY's budget crisis very well might force a delay in the construction of something at the site, which is a shame as I think that following the progress of such a ceremonial erection would provide a catharsis of sorts.

Perhaps the problem there is not America's, then.

The only point I'm making is that if that group = "the world" then there's a spectrum, from (a) areas where people live within the immediate possibility of death through "political" violence to (b) areas where people do not fear such things at all. The transition of (b) to (a) -- which is what the WTC destruction essentially was -- is met with strong emotions by the people there. But it's good to understand, within that strong emotion, that some people who have (or think they have) a greater sense of situations like that in (a) might not be quite as struck or affected, and yes, might even verbalize that sentiment. This is the sort of opinion that lends people perspective on the contexts in which they exist; we don't "believe" them but they let us know how other people see things, and as such I don't think our getting nationally blowsy and defensive about it is the greatest idea.

Seriously though, I agree with you that there's "no rulebook," but I guess my point was that if people elsewhere who are more exposed (and then possibly more desensitized? kind of a weird thing to consider re: America's high level of violence, esp. murder rate) to political killing/terrorism wouldn't flinch at 3,000 people being reduced to dust (which I'm not even sure is true: even the examples I can think of widespread political violence in the past decade - Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, etc. - did not have, to my knowledge, such a widespread, all-at-once killing), then yes that is a "problem" and perhaps they should examine not why Americans are "overdramatic," but why they themselves don't "sweat" the proverbial "it." (sorry for such a convuluted sentence, btw.)

America and Americans are certainly way too self-absorbed, but at the same time while I do think a major degree of that in this culture is superficial, I do think there are some real "lessons" that we teach ourselves as a culture through that. From my perspective, it certainly beats the European method (which is to browbeat Americans for their "racism" and "violence," while ignoring such problems at home - HELLO FRANCE WAKE UP YOUR SYNAGOGUES ARE BURNING). (Although that said I really enjoyed being in Spain in November '01 because I didn't have to hear about 9/11 hardly at all [except if I read the Herald-Tribune or Financial Times] but then again I saw A LOT of extremely insensitive bullshit posturing concerning 9/11 in leftist grafitti, etc.)

You wrote that:

Personally I'd submit that if the U.S. had even 10% more international news coverage the reaction would have been much less dramatic.

and I completely disagree with this sentiment, entirely (although I do agree that Int'l news coverage should be greater here). International news coverage was much greater during the Vietnam era, but did that mean that Americans were less passionate/less dramatic/less "overdramatic" over American soldiers dying in Vietnam? I think not.

nabisco sed: "Alex: barring the friend from high school (and Texans can have friends from high school living in New York, too), I don't necessarily see how physical proximity gives you any more entitlement to be affected than anyone else."

Like someone else said, physical proximity (as well as olfactory proximity...you could smell the smoke for weeks afterwards) ensured an inescapable element. Even when you turned the television/radio off, there was no relief from it. Whereas, if you lived further away, it was easier to remove yourself from it -- literally and figuratively. Moreover, I wasn't decrying people from out of state -- in this instance Texans -- who actually *KNEW* folks who may have passed away in NYC that day, I was more raising my eyebrows at people from thousands of miles away who suddenly asserted some affinity with those they'd have sooner thumbed their nose at a day earlier. But, by the same token, who am I to chuck stones at people who show support/compassion/solidarity for their fellow countrymen, regardless of differences in particular idealogy?

Still, unchecked "patriotism" can be a damn scary thing.

Like how when I went to Daley Plaza in Chicago for the moment of silence on the Friday after and these jock assholes starting screaming "USA! USA! USA!" Listen, guys, we didn't beat the Ruskies at hockey, we just got the holy bejeezus kicked out of us, 'kay?

NYC is an island city-state.

0.03% of that number of American capitalist office drones die in WTC. It's the biggest act of terrorism ever.

The fact that America own the global news media might have something to do with it.

Iraq has an undemocratically elelcted leader, is not far off being a stratocracy/police state, believes in state-sanctioned murder and has one law for the rich and another for the poor. Sounds a bit like the USA.

And there's a HUGE antiwar rally taking place right now in Washington D.C. because....?

0.03% of that number of American capitalist office drones die in WTC. It's the biggest act of terrorism ever.

"American capitalist office drones"?? Fuck you, man. Fuck you. That is a HORRIBLE thing to say. So you're basically implying that because these people were capitalist pigs, their death is less important than if they had been normal average working class folk?

"American capitalist office drone"? GO FUCK YOURSELF!

1. A lot of the people who died at the World Trade Center were not Americans. People of just about any and every nationality worked there.

2. A lot of the people who died at the World Trade Center were not office workers, but janitors, maids, security guards, busboys (don't forget: Windows on the World restaurant was at the top of one of the towers, and a number of their employees there that day were not even middle class in terms of income), waiters, restaurant managers, etc.

Fuck you, indeed. Learn the facts before you spout off.

I wouldn't agree with this statement exactly, but some targets are more legitimate than others. The Pentagon was legitimate. In the context of an attack on the west and capitalism, the WTC was legitimate. Which isn't to say anyone at these places deserved to die. No one deserves to die. But if America is to be attacked, these are the places to attack.

A lot of the people who died at the World Trade Center were not Americans. People of just about any and every nationality worked there.

This would apply to practically every location in the US (also the maids, janitors thing).

NEVER SURRENDER

No. But in the context of wanting to commit a terrorist attack against Eyeball Kicks, then I would be the only legitimate target.

murdering everyone on ILM would be a "legitimate" attack on fans of pop music

No. Not before you did the Brit Awards.

the firebombing of black churches in the 60s south was a "legitimate" political tool of segregationists?

Again, it's not a legitimate political tool, in my opinion. But, if you are a segregationist firebomber, black churches are probably the best place to start.

which is why maybe it'd be best to stick with the longstanding agreed-upon and internationally-recognized distinction between military and civilian targets, no

I think it'd be best if there were no targets at all. Who sticks to military targets anyhow? Not the US. Not anyone. The aggressor always defines the boundaries.

PS: I realise that the word 'legitimate' often means 'lawful' or 'agree upon by concensus'. Given the subject, clearly that's not how I'm using it here. Terrorism is the opposite of concensus. I'm using 'legitimate' in the weaker sense of 'logically inferred' or 'following by natural sequence'.

I just found it funny that someone was pointing out that janitors and non-Americans were there too, as if the attackers tried to choose each one of the 3000 individually but got their sums wrong.

I just found it funny that people were pointing out that janitors and non-Americans were there too, as if the attackers tried to choose each one of the 3000 individually but got their sums wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/shortcuts/2012/jun/12/charlotte-church-rupert-murdoch

Ccccccccccc

12 June 2012 9:56PM

Hello Peter Robinson, It's Charlotte Church here. I was wondering if, as a music journalist, you'd like to go down the reasonable route of actually going to the live show of an artist, before writing a piece that is dripping with sarcastic disdain. In fact, I'd like to invite you to one of my gigs and then, if you still believe it to be true, you can tell me to my face that I sound like Matt fucking Cardle. By the way, It's a yukele that you can see in the background( significantly smaller than an acoustic guitar).
Sincerely.
CC.

Ccccccccccc

13 June 2012 12:10AM

I meant ukulele! Damnation!

i don't really care about CC's music either way but i would like her to say more things all the time please