Being a global city, in my understanding, means connecting the world (or the major parts of the world) in one space, as a major train station is a meeting point of all the train branches. It means bringing in a mixture of all kinds of cultures and ideologies, as well as businesses and markets. But while this diversity might mean prosperity of social and economic proportions, it also means a vulnerability to the nation. When all the goods are gathered in one spot it attracts the attention of the good and the not-so-well-intentioned, as well as takes all the hits of the global economy since it is running on that frequency. It is why, historically, in order to conquer a country, an invader had to first capture the capital, the heart of the city. NYC, in being one of many centers of the world for business and people, became the perfect target for America’s potential downfall as it became more prosperous, drawing the focus of wealthy investors as well as those seeking to destroy it.
Now talk about spurring controversy! I wonder how David Harvey got away with saying these words so soon after 9/11. But, being a lover of controversy (just a little), I have to say that he was right in saying that the attacks on the World Trade Center should have been a bigger message than they were, if that’s possible. It was a little amusing to read of his confusion by the opposing views of the BBC and the American media; with one saying that that attacks were due to America’s prosperity and business while the other focused on the sympathetic and individual aspects of this tragedy. I especially liked the line on page 61, “We had three days of noncommercial television, as if the country was collectively ashamed of its terrible habits of mindless consumption.” The events of 9/11 should have been a wake up call on a national level, a realistic image of what the rest of the world really thought of America, and maybe a peg or two off our arrogance as a nation, but it wasn’t. People came together in sympathy and nationalism and didn’t quite see the message behind it all, which according to Harvey was more grounded in economic issues. And then it was turned into an anti-Muslim movement that included the war on terrorism, which in the subsequent ten years has gotten us nowhere and brought us nothing but more antagonism from other countries.
I understand that this was a major tragedy, and on the individual level, it’s quite a big deal. However, looking at a wider picture, from a national or even a historical standpoint, there is a message behind it that had more to do with America’s economic practices and it’s advantage over other countries than it did with a vendetta against Americans.
I’m a little confused by Harvey’s work, however. He seems to have more than one point (or maybe I’m just not getting it). Is this a social commentary, like on the level of the individuals as is indicated by the beginning of the text? Or is it more of a comment on policy/ government? Who is to blame? Or is it everybody’s fault? Does he offer solutions for change?
