"Come From Away": Thank You, Canada The Huffington Post By David Harris, AJC CEO March 16, 2017
I’ve had a few varied jobs in my life, including postal worker and waterskiing counselor, but theater critic never figured among them. Nor do I plan to embark on a new career anytime soon. But I have to say that rarely have I been as moved by a Broadway play as I was by seeing the new show, “Come From Away.” It tells the story of the people of Gander, Newfoundland, a rather remote town of nine thousand inhabitants in northeastern Canada, in the immediate aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Following the four terrorist attacks that killed nearly three thousand people, American air space was immediately closed to all commercial flights. For 39 planes already in the air from overseas and headed for U.S. airports, that meant immediate rerouting to the large airport in Gander, which had once served as a refueling station for transatlantic flights when they couldn’t make the ocean crossing on “one tank of gas.” Within hours, some seven thousand passengers on those 39 planes found themselves in Gander, uncertain where they were, what was in store for them, or what the future held. Anyone who lived through that period will remember the widespread fear that more attacks were coming, that it was only a question of time, methodology, and place. The play takes a look at what happened to the thousands of unexpected arrivals who nearly doubled the town’s population overnight. It does so in a brilliantly creative, energizing, and poignant way, improbably using song and dance to tell the story, but without ever losing sight of the very human actions that inspired it. The play offers a powerful counter-narrative to the maniacal hatred that led 19 terrorists – and their sponsors – to kill blindly and voraciously. Ultimately, “Come From Away” reveals the human capacity for down-to-earth, unadorned kindness and compassion. And at a time when both traits seem to be in relatively short supply in our world, it is heartwarming and uplifting. Best of all, it’s true, not an embellished or sweetened account. The people of Gander and the surrounding towns responded to the thousands of passengers coming from many different countries, cultures, languages, and faith (and culinary!) traditions with an immediate outpouring of concern, empathy, and help. Quickly, they organized themselves to find food and shelter for the newcomers. Homes were opened, meals were cooked, the hockey rink became a food refrigeration space, medical care was provided, babies were cared for, and even the animals in the planes’ cargo holds were looked after. It was an amazing outpouring of honest-to-goodness humanity. Some of the passengers couldn’t believe what their own eyes were telling them. Instead, they were suspicious of underlying motives, fearful of theft, and worried about having to pay the bill. But it didn’t take long to figure out that this was the real deal, the Golden Rule being played out as it was meant to be. Leaving the theater, I was on an emotional high, taking away three thoughts in particular. First, too many Americans take our neighbor, Canada, for granted. We never should. We’re blessed beyond words to have this country, now celebrating 150 years since the Confederation that brought the nation together, on our northern border. What the people of Gander did expressed the highest ideals of a nation that always ranks near the very top on the Human Development Index and on rankings of best places in the world in which to live. Second, we are rarely given the chance to prepare in advance our reaction to out-of-the-ordinary situations. The moment arrives, it lingers briefly, and then it passes. But when that moment arrived in Gander, the residents responded in a magnificent way. They could have tried to ignore the newcomers, or isolate them, or deny them shared space and food, but they did the exact opposite. This is, if you will, true religion. Our ultimate ethical test is not what we say, but what we do, not how we pray with our words, but how we act with our deeds. And third, when it was all over and the seven thousand people boarded planes and headed for their final destinations, the people of Gander resumed their lives just as they had before September 11. They didn’t seek to commercialize or exploit their random acts of kindness, but, thankfully, they did allow a play to be shown on Broadway about them 16 years later – and for permitting their magnificent story to be shared, I am grateful.
Great story. An antidote to much of the news we get today. I am reminded so many times of Rodney kings words, "CAN'T WE JUST GET ALONG".
THEY DID!
Dave,
There is more to the story of the heroic folks of Gander. After the Arrow Airlines plane crashed right before Christmas of 1985 with members of the 101st Airborne aboard. The folks in Gander volunteered and some even waded into the crash among the gruesome human remains in some cases and ferreted out the undelivered Christmas packages, salvaging as much as they could and then paying out of their own pockets to rewrap them and seeing the packages were forwarded to military familes here in the United States of the deceased. Now that is a shining example of how humanity should be everywhere.
daveklepperAnd third, when it was all over and the seven thousand people boarded planes and headed for their final destinations, the people of Gander resumed their lives just as they had before September 11. They didn’t seek to commercialize or exploit their random acts of kindness, but, thankfully, they did allow a play to be shown on Broadway about them 16 years later – and for permitting their magnificent story to be shared, I am grateful.
What a contrast in humanity with the attempted "travel ban" of today.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
No one in Canada was very surprised as to how people on "The Rock" acted. Newfies are the friendliest people I've ever met.
I've been to Newfoundland twice. Great place, great scenery, and great people!
The seafood pretty great too. Fried codfish tongues! Yum!
Lady Firestorm loves the lobster, however. Don't get between her and a plate of Newfoundland lobster!
schlimm daveklepper And third, when it was all over and the seven thousand people boarded planes and headed for their final destinations, the people of Gander resumed their lives just as they had before September 11. They didn’t seek to commercialize or exploit their random acts of kindness, but, thankfully, they did allow a play to be shown on Broadway about them 16 years later – and for permitting their magnificent story to be shared, I am grateful. What a contrast in humanity with the attempted "travel ban" of today.
daveklepper And third, when it was all over and the seven thousand people boarded planes and headed for their final destinations, the people of Gander resumed their lives just as they had before September 11. They didn’t seek to commercialize or exploit their random acts of kindness, but, thankfully, they did allow a play to be shown on Broadway about them 16 years later – and for permitting their magnificent story to be shared, I am grateful.
It's also too bad that we didn't have judges with the courage to block President Roosevelt's ban of shipments of scrap iron and petroleum to the Empire in Japan. Whereas the presidential authority to enact such a ban was authorized by Congress, and at the time a judicial stay preventing it would have been regarded as a court overstepping its authority under the constitution, it was plainly motivated by anti-Japanese racism in the United States, along with a misunderstanding in public sentiment in the U.S. of the Japanese Emperor wanting to bring order to a China that had fragmented into fiefdoms of warlords.
No iron and oil ban, no Pearl Harbor, no U.S. declaration of war against Japan, no German declaration of war in support for their ally against the U.S., no Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic attacks, no rule of Soviet-backed Communism over half of Europe, no Communist China, no Korean and Vietnam wars. If only.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic schlimm daveklepper And third, when it was all over and the seven thousand people boarded planes and headed for their final destinations, the people of Gander resumed their lives just as they had before September 11. They didn’t seek to commercialize or exploit their random acts of kindness, but, thankfully, they did allow a play to be shown on Broadway about them 16 years later – and for permitting their magnificent story to be shared, I am grateful. What a contrast in humanity with the attempted "travel ban" of today. It's also too bad that we didn't have judges with the courage to block President Roosevelt's ban of shipments of scrap iron and petroleum to the Empire in Japan. Whereas the presidential authority to enact such a ban was authorized by Congress, and at the time a judicial stay preventing it would have been regarded as a court overstepping its authority under the constitution, it was plainly motivated by anti-Japanese racism in the United States, along with a misunderstanding in public sentiment in the U.S. of the Japanese Emperor wanting to bring order to a China that had fragmented into fiefdoms of warlords. No iron and oil ban, no Pearl Harbor, no U.S. declaration of war against Japan, no German declaration of war in support for their ally against the U.S., no Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic attacks, no rule of Soviet-backed Communism over half of Europe, no Communist China, no Korean and Vietnam wars. If only.
Johnny
Deggesty Paul Milenkovic schlimm daveklepper And third, when it was all over and the seven thousand people boarded planes and headed for their final destinations, the people of Gander resumed their lives just as they had before September 11. They didn’t seek to commercialize or exploit their random acts of kindness, but, thankfully, they did allow a play to be shown on Broadway about them 16 years later – and for permitting their magnificent story to be shared, I am grateful. What a contrast in humanity with the attempted "travel ban" of today. It's also too bad that we didn't have judges with the courage to block President Roosevelt's ban of shipments of scrap iron and petroleum to the Empire in Japan. Whereas the presidential authority to enact such a ban was authorized by Congress, and at the time a judicial stay preventing it would have been regarded as a court overstepping its authority under the constitution, it was plainly motivated by anti-Japanese racism in the United States, along with a misunderstanding in public sentiment in the U.S. of the Japanese Emperor wanting to bring order to a China that had fragmented into fiefdoms of warlords. No iron and oil ban, no Pearl Harbor, no U.S. declaration of war against Japan, no German declaration of war in support for their ally against the U.S., no Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic attacks, no rule of Soviet-backed Communism over half of Europe, no Communist China, no Korean and Vietnam wars. If only. Yes, and no invasion of North Africa, Italy or France by our troops to stop the German advance which could well have destroyed England.
Yes, and no invasion of North Africa, Italy or France by our troops to stop the German advance which could well have destroyed England.
But if you oppose judicial interference in the power to conduct foreign policy as authorized by Act of Congress by one president, you oppose such interference in the orders by all presidents?
Or judicial interference is OK with a "bad choice" of president made by the American people? But if you allow such interference with a "bad president" how do you prevent it from happening to a "good president" when that president's authority to act becomes existential? Some of our fellow Forum participants are in the habit of making broad statements, tangentially related to trains, that have all manner of unintended consequences.
Newfoundland is a favourite place to visit.....I'm there often (I live 2 hours from the Ferry) and Newfoundlanders are the finest!!
While we're on the subject of Newfoundland......I set out on an adventure a couple of years ago to see what was left of CN's narrow-gauge Newfoundland Railway.....and there's still a lot:
http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/61734-adventures-along-the-newfoundland-railway/
Great slide show CBN! We recognized several places, although the last time we were in Newfoundland was in 1997 for the "Cabot 500" festivities. Saw the reproduction of the "Matthew" as well.
Of course things may have changed since then, but if you're in Placentia check out the on-site restaurant of the Harold Hotel. The hotel doesn't look like much but the food in the restaurant (if it's still there) is outstanding! Ask if the lobster is in season, fresh out of the water if it is and it's the best we've ever had!
I didn't know there was that much Newfoundland Railway equipment still around. In '97 they had a display in St. John's Bowring Park which was quite interesting.
While there I picked up a "Newfoundland Railway - Gone But Not Forgotten" sweatshirt which has (ahem) shrunk over the past 20 years. It DID get quite a few comments from people when I wore it at trainshows for several years.
Our first trip there was in 1992 for the "Red Island Reunion," where Lady Firestorm got to meet all 750 of her Newfoundland relatives. Another story.
Paul Milenkovic it was plainly motivated by anti-Japanese racism in the United States, along with a misunderstanding in public sentiment in the U.S. of the Japanese Emperor wanting to bring order to a China that had fragmented into fiefdoms of warlords.
Instead of parroting the Japanese rationalization for its years of aggression in Asia ("The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere") try reading some actual history.
schlimm Paul Milenkovic it was plainly motivated by anti-Japanese racism in the United States, along with a misunderstanding in public sentiment in the U.S. of the Japanese Emperor wanting to bring order to a China that had fragmented into fiefdoms of warlords. Instead of parroting the Japanese rationalization for its years of aggression in Asia ("The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere") try reading some actual history.
So you are claiming that were a judge to have blocked President Roosevelt's embargo of the Empire of Japan, that would have been an unconstitutional usurpation of presidential authority as well as having resulted in a bad outcome, the United States staying out of WW-II?
And that sector of American public opinion that regarded the Empire of Japan as being a malignant influence in the world, to the extent that the loyalty of citizens of Japanese immigrant origin or even heritage was suspect, that such was justified?
And that the Chinese Communists, who regarded Chang as just one warlord among many, and certainly not the legitimate ruler of China, were wrong?
Just checking.
Paul Milenkovic schlimm Paul Milenkovic it was plainly motivated by anti-Japanese racism in the United States, along with a misunderstanding in public sentiment in the U.S. of the Japanese Emperor wanting to bring order to a China that had fragmented into fiefdoms of warlords. Instead of parroting the Japanese rationalization for its years of aggression in Asia ("The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere") try reading some actual history. So you are claiming that were a judge to have blocked President Roosevelt's embargo of the Empire of Japan, that would have been an unconstitutional usurpation of presidential authority as well as having resulted in a bad outcome, the United States staying out of WW-II? Just checking.
Never said anything about that. I suppose you think stopping Hitler was unnecessary? Perhaps you think the Ustase were just patriots?
Ever hear of the Rape of Nanjing, the Japanese way of bringing order to China?
Again, I suggest you read some scholarly history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVcxtuBk9n4&t=3m32s
Excerpt from the Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/a-secret-encounter-that-shaped-world-history/article20028944/
It is perhaps one of the most important, yet least-known moments in Canadian history, an event that set out a future of peace when the world was enveloped in conflict and despair.
In early August, 1941, just off the tiny town of Ship Harbour in Newfoundland’s Placentia Bay, two of the giants of the 20th century had their first formal meeting. Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt would meet many times, but this first encounter defined their relationship.
schlimm Paul Milenkovic schlimm Paul Milenkovic it was plainly motivated by anti-Japanese racism in the United States, along with a misunderstanding in public sentiment in the U.S. of the Japanese Emperor wanting to bring order to a China that had fragmented into fiefdoms of warlords. Instead of parroting the Japanese rationalization for its years of aggression in Asia ("The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere") try reading some actual history. So you are claiming that were a judge to have blocked President Roosevelt's embargo of the Empire of Japan, that would have been an unconstitutional usurpation of presidential authority as well as having resulted in a bad outcome, the United States staying out of WW-II? Just checking. Never said anything about that. I suppose you think stopping Hitler was unnecessary? Perhaps you think the Ustase were just patriots? Ever hear of the Rape of Nanjing, the Japanese way of bringing order to China? Again, I suggest you read some scholarly history.
So say it then. Were a judge to have blocked President Roosevelt's embargo, that would have been bad law and a bad historical outcome? Would that be so hard to say? Would that go against what you stand for? A person is willing to say every other thing but that one thing?
Laws in the United States are applied uniformly across time and across persons, so what what was said earlier in this thread is as much as saying that a judge blocking President Roosevelt would have been OK as law, and in the context of how it was said, also a good outcome. Just checking where a person stands on such matters.
Paul Milenkovic Perhaps you think the Ustase were just patriots?
Oh one demanding that a person be more current in world history, are you thinking by my last name that I could be a Croatian ultra-nationalist?
Croatian ultra-nationalism is a thing, I had seen them stage a demonstration on the Capitol Square against Milwaukee Congressman Jim Moody for having been a Peace Corps volunteer serving in what they judged was the wrong part of what was once Yugoslavia
Good. If you think I am one of them, maybe they won't come after me.
I know that your name is Serbian, of course. But your views on Imperial Japan are misinformed.
Paul MilenkovicSo say it then. Were a judge to have blocked President Roosevelt's embargo, that would have been bad law and a bad historical outcome? Would that be so hard to say? Would that go against what you stand for? A person is willing to say every other thing but that one thing? Laws in the United States are applied uniformly across time and across persons, so what what was said earlier in this thread is as much as saying that a judge blocking President Roosevelt would have been OK as law, and in the context of how it was said, also a good outcome. Just checking where a person stands on such matters.
My opinion is quite clear in regards to the law and/or executive order ending sales of scrap steel to Japan. It was constitutional as stated by the courts. Judicial review ha been part of our process since Justice Marshall. My opinions in regard to defeating Japan and Germany are also quite clear. It was necessary and good. It probably would not have happened had we not entered the conflict. What in a few simple, clear declarative sentences, is your opinion?
The Japanese government was determined to make Japan safe for Japanese--and no one else. I do not recall the name of the author, but the book Japan's Imperial Conspiracy points this out clearly. When Emperor Hirohito felt that Japan was strong enough to win a war with the West, he encouraged his people who wanted Japan to be for the Japanese only to act, even though they knew that Japan had the military strength fo a short war, Not knowing how the people of United States would act in response to military aggression, he encouraged his supporters, both military and civil, to move to attack--despite the opposition of elder statesmen.
Hirohito's great-grandfather, Kotohito, wanted to resist our Commodore Perry--and his advisors knew that the comparative military might was absolutely against Japan. After he died suddenly, his son Mutsohito pursued the policy of slowly building up the military strength. His son Yoshohito, was almost a non-entity. However, Yoshohito's son Hirohito determined that Kotohito's desires would bear fruit.
Despite advice from certain elder statesmen, the government moved to remove all western influence from what Japan considered to be its sphere--even though it was calculated that Japan's military strength had a limited time to conquer the enemy.
schlimm Paul Milenkovic So say it then. Were a judge to have blocked President Roosevelt's embargo, that would have been bad law and a bad historical outcome? Would that be so hard to say? Would that go against what you stand for? A person is willing to say every other thing but that one thing? Laws in the United States are applied uniformly across time and across persons, so what what was said earlier in this thread is as much as saying that a judge blocking President Roosevelt would have been OK as law, and in the context of how it was said, also a good outcome. Just checking where a person stands on such matters. My opinion is quite clear in regards to the law and/or executive order ending sales of scrap steel to Japan. It was constitutional as stated by the courts. Judicial review ha been part of our process since Justice Marshall. My opinions in regard to defeating Japan and Germany are also quite clear. It was necessary and good. It probably would not have happened had we not entered the conflict. What in a few simple, clear declarative sentences, is your opinion?
Paul Milenkovic So say it then. Were a judge to have blocked President Roosevelt's embargo, that would have been bad law and a bad historical outcome? Would that be so hard to say? Would that go against what you stand for? A person is willing to say every other thing but that one thing? Laws in the United States are applied uniformly across time and across persons, so what what was said earlier in this thread is as much as saying that a judge blocking President Roosevelt would have been OK as law, and in the context of how it was said, also a good outcome. Just checking where a person stands on such matters.
Excuse my ignorance of history, but the embargo was deemed constitutional by a court? It is my understanding that Congress passed enabling legislation, President Roosevelt acted as permitted by that legislation, and no one even had the thought of challenging the constitutionality of those two branches of the government acting in that manner. When Imperial Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, no one at the time (OK, Charles Lindbergh, maybe) thought to say, "If you hadn't provoked the Empire of Japan with that embargo, none of this would have happened." All of that came later from revisionist historians? Again, as is said about me, I am weak on my history.
I had asked a hypothetical as to were a court to have challenged President Roosevelt's executive order, what was your position on that, and I feel my question has been evaded at every turn. Furthermore, our political/judicial/cultural system applies laws uniformly, let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may, and evidence was offered to me that a person would have been sympathetic to such a challenge and a person hadn't thought through the unintended consequences of such a challenge.
The judicial reasoning in the current state of affairs is that the current president is not pure of heart. The public purpose of the Executive Order that one cheers being blocked is supposedly national defense, but a judge is reading into the president's heart that the real reason is one of pandering to populist sentiment. In Mr. Roosevelt's case, the public explanation of the embargo was one of pandering to populist sentiment, in this instance the Chinese suffering terribly under Japanese Imperial oppression, but there is a broad consensus, among mainline as well as revisionist historians, that there were hidden national defense reasons, that Mr. Roosevelt believed that war with each of the Axis Powers was inevitable but his actions were blocked by isolationist sentiments even though the people sided with China on humanitarian grounds to allow the embargo to go forward. It is also broadly held that Roosevelt well knew that the embargo meant war, only Pearl Harbor was a big "oops" that the opening strike in that war would be that devastating to us. Who knew the IJN has such "forward power projection capability"? Japan certainly wasn't telling the U.S. they could pull this off to effect deterrence against us. Was Mr. Roosevelt racist in understimating the Japanese?
This is a no-win situation, here. If I defend Libertarians, I am a Libertarian lover, if I defend Mr. Trump, I am a Trump lover (the Libertarians, by the way, are among the Trump repudiators), if I defend my defending the undefendable, I am a German U-boat commander-turned-Lutheran-minister disrespecter.
The big losers in all of this stand to be passenger trains and all of the persons benefiting from passenger trains. We are in new territory here. Mr. Trump gives signs that he endorses HSR as part of a massive infrastructure bill (a massive bill being something Libertarians vigorously oppose). On the other hand, his budget will eviscerate Amtrak. We haven't heard anything coherent along the lines that "long-distance trains are out but HSR is in" and may end up with no trains.
We are wheeling out the old NARP talking points along with gratuitous pot shots at Mr. Trump whenever there is an opening. Disrespect Mr. Trump at your peril (I knew President Roosevelt, I served under President Roosevelt, and you sir, with your Executive Order are no Franklin Roosevelt). Mr Trump does not have universal appeal, but the persons lining up for the Resistance are those who have had their voices heard, and the persons behind Mr. Trump are those, correctly or perhaps erroneously, strongly believe that their voices had not been heard.
To which side of this political battle do people want to attach passenger train advocacy? Why is anyone who advocates for trains even taking a side right now?
Dave Klepper- Well thanks for the nice thoughts on Gander.
The world remains very dangerous. Arms buildups everywhere, darkness and ignorance. Nuclear proliferation looming.
Somehow I remain optimistic and I believe their will be a significant push back of evil and usher in a new era where it's the good that wins for a while. It's our turn.
You are correct about the Canada/USA relationship. We are mutually very fortunate. 3 Ocean's, enormous land mass, abundant natural resources and agricultural land, well developed, common language and we get along tremendously well.
We may even witness an international merger of Railroad systems some day. If anyone can really pull it off it would be USA-Canada.
The frustration with the pittance allocated to Amtrak and the glacial pace by which the California HSR is moving forward, the big political no-no lightning rod was the Iraq War.
The Iraq War was a terribly expensive proposition in treasure, our blood, and the blood of our foes who were mixed in among a civilian population. At a time that it was popular to prosecute this war, the cry went out "The trillions spent on the War could get us a great set of trains!" that was countered by many around here who supported the then president in the war effort but couldn't overtly say that without being shamed.
I guess the war ran its course as did public support for it, and we elected a bold, young, new president who was going to end such wars (or at least fight the "correct war" and wind down U.S. involvement in the "incorrect war" where his predecessor had started both wars and his own-party primary challenger voted for both). This new president also had a trillion dollar stimulus bill and had a vice president enthusiastic about passenger trains. But this president eyed the challenge of if not meeting Harry Truman's vision of universal public health care, of advancing a program to broaden health insurance coverage, especially among those with known health problems or of limited financial resources. Another trillion dollar program that was not the dollar cost of yet another foreign expeditionary war, but have passenger trains really prospered these past 8 years?
But among some who support passenger trains, it is all about the trains. I offered tongue-in-cheek, yes, all of the money spent on old-person's health care could get us really nice passenger trains, but many were too earnest to "get" my attempt at humor or offended that I would liken the vast money spent on defense to the even larger amount spent on health care? But then someone commented on another thread that the large amount of money spent on the University System in my state would go to funding a lot of passenger trains, and they were serious rather than trolling, me?
But how is saying, "Hey look at me, I look with contempt upon a U.S. president who has lamely and temporarily tried to block entry of foreign nationals from eight and now pathetically down to seven Middle Eastern countries characterized by failed or failing central governments with governments overtly hostile to the U.S. or are currently active conflict zones", how does that advance the cause of passenger trains? Because everyone around here agrees with you apart from a self-loathing person of multi-ethnic former Yugolavian heritage who is still upset that the Clinton state department blocked a tourist visa to his cousin who-had-to-change-his-last-name-on-account-of-living-in-a-conflict-zone?
And by what authority does a person commenting under a "handle" around here get to counter criticism by pointing out a critic's ethnic heritage? An ethnic heritage in very recent history connected to a conflict zone and subject to presidentially ordered immigration restrictions?
daveklepper The people of Gander and the surrounding towns responded to the thousands of passengers coming from many different countries, cultures, languages, and faith (and culinary!) traditions with an immediate outpouring of concern, empathy, and help. Quickly, they organized themselves to find food and shelter for the newcomers. Homes were opened, meals were cooked, the hockey rink became a food refrigeration space, medical care was provided, babies were cared for, and even the animals in the planes’ cargo holds were looked after. It was an amazing outpouring of honest-to-goodness humanity. Some of the passengers couldn’t believe what their own eyes were telling them. Instead, they were suspicious of underlying motives, fearful of theft, and worried about having to pay the bill. But it didn’t take long to figure out that this was the real deal, the Golden Rule being played out as it was meant to be.
The people of Gander and the surrounding towns responded to the thousands of passengers coming from many different countries, cultures, languages, and faith (and culinary!) traditions with an immediate outpouring of concern, empathy, and help. Quickly, they organized themselves to find food and shelter for the newcomers. Homes were opened, meals were cooked, the hockey rink became a food refrigeration space, medical care was provided, babies were cared for, and even the animals in the planes’ cargo holds were looked after. It was an amazing outpouring of honest-to-goodness humanity. Some of the passengers couldn’t believe what their own eyes were telling them. Instead, they were suspicious of underlying motives, fearful of theft, and worried about having to pay the bill. But it didn’t take long to figure out that this was the real deal, the Golden Rule being played out as it was meant to be.
Mr. Klepper:
Am I correct in that there is an ancient tradition, no, commandment regarding the offering of hospitality to strangers. Abraham, who is the patriarch of one great religion and also "culturally appropriated" by two others, was particularly blest for his immediate and enthusiastic hospitality to three, mysterious strangers?
But doesn't that same sacred text in other places support self-defense against invasion by much larger numbers of strangers along with condemnation for forsaking one's own culture in adopting the ways of strangers?
And isn't there some irony in this celebration of not shunning strangers in one's midst (I get the point that many if not most of the stranded passengers were not USian but were from overseas from both Canada and the U.S.)? Namely that those planes were carrying large numbers of strangers between the U.S. and those distant lands, that the U.S. is quite open to this sort thing? But that a very small number of those strangers took it upon themselves to betray the hospitality that was shown them turning on their hosts and by committing mass murder with jet aircraft? The very thing that put a large number of other strangers at the mercy of the citizens of Gander being that friendly and hospitable?
There is also a subtext of what you had posted that hints that in recent months, the U.S. through its elected leaders is poised to turn its back on this hospitality and generosity, possibly because of rare sprees of violence perpetrated by again, a very tiny few?
The stranding of those passenger is Gander, Newfoundland, Canada was an act conducted by U.S. authorities. Was this "collective punishment" by purposefully stranding those passengers as well as an imposition on the good disposition of our Canadian neighbor, friend, and ally? This very temporary restriction on their passage, a very inhospitable action of the U.S. given the inconvenience and potential privation, were it not for generous Canadians, such was done out of the fear that more attacks could be underway?
Since that time, it appears that the fear in the U.S. is that we would turn away from our openness and hospitality to strangers rather than the fear that other strangers would attempt to "top" the 9-11 horrors? But in recent months, the "fear balance" has shifted, something a U.S. leader is attempting to cynically exploit?
Another commenter here that I attempted to engage in a Socratic dialog regarding hypotheticals on this subject is taking umbrage that I should question him on anything. My questions are answered with, "You, sir, have an intellectual disability." But I guess they ended up poisoning Socrates because they wouldn't stand for being questioned in this way? But may I ask you those questions?
Or may I ask you these questions? Where is the boundary between hospitality and self-defense? What is the dividing line between multi-culturalism and acceding to the customs of people entering out society?
schlimmInstead of parroting the Japanese rationalization for its years of aggression in Asia ("The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere") try reading some actual history.
What should have been a peaceful thread honoring the folks in Gander, Newfoundland instead becomes a debate on WWII. The discussion has been turned into a "church of the poisoned mind" between two fueding democrats.
All this thread needs now for frosting on the cake is a singing and dancing transvestite......Oh wait, here is one......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVzAH0FtNwg
Chicago tags on that Caddy?
schlimm What in a few simple, clear declarative sentences, is your opinion?
My opinion in a few, simple, clear declarative sentences?
Mr. Roosevelt in embargoing Japan was pursuing the U.S. national interest in containing the lawlessness of Imperial Japan.
Mr. Trump in temporarily restraining the entry of persons from seven countries is pursuing the U.S. national interest in containing the lawlessness endemic to those countries.
There are many good people in those countries just as there were and are many good people in Japan. The countries in question, however, are regarded as having governments (or lack thereof) giving license for many bad actions by their citizens.
Even the blocked travel ban has noticably gotten the attention of leaders in Iran, a target of the ban, and Pakistan, not targeted but could be targeted. Passage of their citizens to and from the United States is being realized to be a benefit to them and to their respective governments, a relationship that could be nurtured by cooperating with the U.S. to encourage lawful conduct. That is, rather than not cooperating with the U.S. and sponsoring unlawful acts. That and encouraging your citizens to rally and chant "Death to America!"
My belief is that people by expressing contempt for the travel ban as both immoral and ineffective at the same time, my belief is that such people shop at Whole Foods, a kind of corporate-Disneyland "Small World Exhibit" version of multiculturalism. Seriously, shop at an Aldi to get some trans-cultural perspective.
CMStPnP schlimm Instead of parroting the Japanese rationalization for its years of aggression in Asia ("The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere") try reading some actual history. What should have been a peaceful thread honoring the folks in Gander, Newfoundland instead becomes a debate on WWII. The discussion has been turned into a "church of the poisoned mind" between two fueding democrats. All this thread needs now for frosting on the cake is a singing and dancing transvestite......Oh wait, here is one...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVzAH0FtNwg Chicago tags on that Caddy?
schlimm Instead of parroting the Japanese rationalization for its years of aggression in Asia ("The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere") try reading some actual history.
Two feuding Democrats? Good, I am a Croatian ultra-nationalist supporting Senator Russ Feingold as well as a Democratic Party member in good standing -- I haven't "blown my cover" I have been trying to maintain for the last 35 years here in the People's Republic (of Madison, Wisconsin).
Honoring the folks in Gander? The back story to that play is the most horrific attack on the continental U.S. since the British burned down D.C., and any discussion of the preconditions providing the predicate for that attack are out-of-order?
Paul MilenkovicHonoring the folks in Gander? The back story to that play is the most horrific attack on the continental U.S. since the British burned down D.C., and any discussion of the preconditions providing the predicate for that attack are out-of-order?
I think the preconditions if they extend back to WWII and the Japanese are a little off topic (not to mention stretching things a bit), don't you? I mean this isn't much different than having a thread honoring someone that passed on and then someone posting "They deserved to die" on that same thread.
If you want to pull the topic that far off on a tangent then start another thread. This thread is only vaguely related to trains as it has to do with airline transport and international relations so I am also unsure why the OP started it in the first place but since its here, not sure why we had to bring Hitler and Hirohito into the discussion of Gander, Newfoundland.
CMStPnPI think the preconditions if they extend back to WWII and the Japanese are a little off topic (not to mention stretching things a bit), don't you? I mean this isn't much different than having a thread honoring someone that passed on and then someone posting "They deserved to die" on that same thread. If you want to pull the topic that far off on a tangent then start another thread. This thread is only vaguely related to trains as it has to do with airline transport and international relations so I am also unsure why the OP started it in the first place but since its here, not sure why we had to bring Hitler and Hirohito into the discussion of Gander, Newfoundland.
Amen.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.