Posted on 05/19/2002 10:35:32 AM PDT by blam
Americans 'dealt with emotions better' after Sept 11 than other tragedies
A new study has found Americans dealt with their anger and emotions better after September 11, than they did following President Kennedy's assassination.
But many apparently still have to regain their sense of security as they balance new terror warnings with encouragement life will return to normal.
Researchers have examined the effects of the attacks on public opinion from different angles.
Michael Traugott, from the Institute of Social Research at the University of Michigan, said: "This is a lifetime marker for an entire generation, the same way Pearl Harbour was in the 1940s and the assassination of President Kennedy was in the 1960s."
Tom Smith, of the National Opinion Research Centre at the University of Chicago, added: "In the first or second hour after the attacks, the thought dawned on me we should do something like the Kennedy assassination study."
His research compared the public's attitudes measured after the 1963 assassination with those following September 11. Anger and shame were the dominant emotions four decades ago, while anger was most prevalent after the terrorist hijackings, he says.
After September 11, people found many ways to channel that anger, by donating to charities, giving blood, helping the families of victims and survivors. The anger could not be constructively directed after Kennedy's murder, Smith adds.
Traugott says although emotionally things may have returned to near normality following the attacks in New York and Washington, the public's sense of personal security and safety has not.
He interviewed people soon after the attacks, and again six months later.
Story filed: 15:43 Sunday 19th May 2002
Yup. Us too. We had not completely recovered from the Cuban Missle Crisis (14 Days In October), then this.
Shame?
Does anyone remember shame?
Absolute SHOCK, yes...but shame?
Who the hell had anything to be ashamed of?
Agreed.
I will go so far as to say NOBODY felt any shame in '63.
Meaning....that this report is lying.
The question is WHY?
Who gains with this revision of history?
Or are they like Clinton....who would sooner lie (I was the first president to host Jackie Kennedy back at the White House) even when it is meaningless?
PS....I am much younger than you....I didn't turn 12 until 2 months later. : )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.