I spent from the 15th to the 22nd of April in Boston. The timing of
my trip has been a topic of conversation with many in- and out-side of
Boston. Most people assume that the terror attack, and subsequent
events negatively affected my time in the city. It is true that a few
blocks of one street were closed, as was one subway stop, and the entire
city for one day. Yet, I got to see Boston show itself, and that is a
rare time to visit.
Before my writing becomes a Whedonesque take on Sun Tzu, I spent a week visiting a friend, in a historic city, at a time when the whole city was reacting to, talking about, and recovering their lives after a national event. An event that seems to have captured the attention of the world, and mostly overshadowed an industrial explosion that any other week, would have been all that was on the American news. Unlike the average week in Beantown, I feel like I saw the citizens of a metropolis share something, and that is a rare occurrence.
Without the marathon bombing, I would have walked away from Boston a little disappointed that Newbury Street is dominated by corporate stores, and that Dunkin' Donuts seem to outnumber Starbucks 3:1, which in turn seems to outnumber local coffeeshops 2:1, making Boston seem to have about as much character as a shopping mall where everyone wears a shirt that says the name of the mall. (I profoundly apologize to any proud Bostonians that I am offending, but the Old Corner Bookstore is a Chipotle!)
Being in Boston during the bombing does not change the businesses that occupy the historic buildings, but it did allow the people of Boston to shine through where they may not have otherwise. Walking around Boston with Denise, amidst a sea of "Boston Strong" signs and impromptu memorials, she asked, "does terrorism work"? (Which she may not have actually asked, but I am definitely giving her the credit for the initial idea.)
In thinking further about this idea, I have thought about all the times that I have said, "If you do that, then the terrorists win." I have also read myriad comments from internet users asserting that when the police put the city on "lockdown," the terrorist won. In the case of this incident, we have charged the surviving person accused of being the terrorist, and though we do not know why (or truly if), this 19 year old kid did this, it is hard to look at his situation and argue that he won anything. Harder still to say that his older brother, who died in his pursuit of whatever he thought he was pursuing, won anything either. In fact, it seems that those attacked can lose, but that the attackers can never win.
In the case of the attacks in Boston, Bostonians seem to have redoubled their pride in the city, and may have even gone on some defiant runs. I have no doubt that while there may be additional security, the 2014 Boston Marathon will not be just a city crazed about running, but a country crazed about the patriotism of a running city. In essence, what the perpetrators did solidified Boston's and America's resolve in what ever it is that the Boston Marathon represents in this culture.
If, instead of isolated attacks, there were repeated attacks, would Bostonian's be shaken in their love of their marathon? How many years of bombings at the finish line would it actually take before people feared Boylston Street? Repeated attacks definitely increase the level of terror a populace experiences. In talking to people who lived in DC during the Beltway sniper attacks, it seemed that they were actually successful at creating terror. According to first-person accounts I have heard, people would run from their car to the grocery store out of fear. Statistically, the incidence of a person in the affected area being killed by the sniper was about 0.018/100,000 people. Had the people of DC run from bacon to prevent heart disease, with a national mortality rate of 268.8/100,000 people, they would have been much better off! (An American is more than 15,000 times more likely to die of heart disease than a person in DC being killed by the sniper. DC has a higher incidence of heart disease than the national average, making a resident of the DC area something like 50% more likely to die of heart disease than the average American (gross estimation of CDC data), or, very roughly, 23,000 times more likely than sniper fire.)
For three weeks, one city experienced terrorism caused terror, but the sniper did not win! Using any act of terror committed in the US as an example, I would say that, in the end, life has continued, more or less, as normal. Reacting to 11 September 2001 the US created the Patriot Act, two wars, countless dead and wounded, etcetera. Americans certainly did not come out unscathed, and the world would be a better place had the attacks not occurred, but we are far from checkmate. Even in places with more terror attacks, the Tamils have, or are much closer to, losing their war in Sri Lanka, despite years of terrorism directed at the Sinhalese. Both Israelis and Palestinians have directed terrorism at each other, but after decades of violence, is one side any closer to a meaningful "victory"?
People's beliefs are difficult to change, but hearts and minds are not won by violence, but peace and prosperity. Every country will struggle with how to preserve quality of life, provide safety, and allow its people civil liberties in the face of hatred and violence. In retrospect we can debate whether shelter-in-place orders, police actions, and new laws benefit life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but I think we need not look any further than Boston to know that the terrorists will never win.
Before my writing becomes a Whedonesque take on Sun Tzu, I spent a week visiting a friend, in a historic city, at a time when the whole city was reacting to, talking about, and recovering their lives after a national event. An event that seems to have captured the attention of the world, and mostly overshadowed an industrial explosion that any other week, would have been all that was on the American news. Unlike the average week in Beantown, I feel like I saw the citizens of a metropolis share something, and that is a rare occurrence.
Without the marathon bombing, I would have walked away from Boston a little disappointed that Newbury Street is dominated by corporate stores, and that Dunkin' Donuts seem to outnumber Starbucks 3:1, which in turn seems to outnumber local coffeeshops 2:1, making Boston seem to have about as much character as a shopping mall where everyone wears a shirt that says the name of the mall. (I profoundly apologize to any proud Bostonians that I am offending, but the Old Corner Bookstore is a Chipotle!)
Being in Boston during the bombing does not change the businesses that occupy the historic buildings, but it did allow the people of Boston to shine through where they may not have otherwise. Walking around Boston with Denise, amidst a sea of "Boston Strong" signs and impromptu memorials, she asked, "does terrorism work"? (Which she may not have actually asked, but I am definitely giving her the credit for the initial idea.)
In thinking further about this idea, I have thought about all the times that I have said, "If you do that, then the terrorists win." I have also read myriad comments from internet users asserting that when the police put the city on "lockdown," the terrorist won. In the case of this incident, we have charged the surviving person accused of being the terrorist, and though we do not know why (or truly if), this 19 year old kid did this, it is hard to look at his situation and argue that he won anything. Harder still to say that his older brother, who died in his pursuit of whatever he thought he was pursuing, won anything either. In fact, it seems that those attacked can lose, but that the attackers can never win.
In the case of the attacks in Boston, Bostonians seem to have redoubled their pride in the city, and may have even gone on some defiant runs. I have no doubt that while there may be additional security, the 2014 Boston Marathon will not be just a city crazed about running, but a country crazed about the patriotism of a running city. In essence, what the perpetrators did solidified Boston's and America's resolve in what ever it is that the Boston Marathon represents in this culture.
If, instead of isolated attacks, there were repeated attacks, would Bostonian's be shaken in their love of their marathon? How many years of bombings at the finish line would it actually take before people feared Boylston Street? Repeated attacks definitely increase the level of terror a populace experiences. In talking to people who lived in DC during the Beltway sniper attacks, it seemed that they were actually successful at creating terror. According to first-person accounts I have heard, people would run from their car to the grocery store out of fear. Statistically, the incidence of a person in the affected area being killed by the sniper was about 0.018/100,000 people. Had the people of DC run from bacon to prevent heart disease, with a national mortality rate of 268.8/100,000 people, they would have been much better off! (An American is more than 15,000 times more likely to die of heart disease than a person in DC being killed by the sniper. DC has a higher incidence of heart disease than the national average, making a resident of the DC area something like 50% more likely to die of heart disease than the average American (gross estimation of CDC data), or, very roughly, 23,000 times more likely than sniper fire.)
For three weeks, one city experienced terrorism caused terror, but the sniper did not win! Using any act of terror committed in the US as an example, I would say that, in the end, life has continued, more or less, as normal. Reacting to 11 September 2001 the US created the Patriot Act, two wars, countless dead and wounded, etcetera. Americans certainly did not come out unscathed, and the world would be a better place had the attacks not occurred, but we are far from checkmate. Even in places with more terror attacks, the Tamils have, or are much closer to, losing their war in Sri Lanka, despite years of terrorism directed at the Sinhalese. Both Israelis and Palestinians have directed terrorism at each other, but after decades of violence, is one side any closer to a meaningful "victory"?
People's beliefs are difficult to change, but hearts and minds are not won by violence, but peace and prosperity. Every country will struggle with how to preserve quality of life, provide safety, and allow its people civil liberties in the face of hatred and violence. In retrospect we can debate whether shelter-in-place orders, police actions, and new laws benefit life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but I think we need not look any further than Boston to know that the terrorists will never win.
Your last paragraph summarizes such a great message that can be appreciated by every American citizen, no matter what political affiliation. I know I always have my teacher hat on, but it is definitely a message I can take back to my classroom when frightened and curious students look to me for answers for what they see on the news or hear their parents talking about. I am grateful for your perspective, especially since we live so far away from Boston and only get to experience their courage and determination through the TV and radio.
ReplyDelete