NYT reviewer sneers that new 9/11 museum lacks *nuance*

Despite atrocity after unspeakable atrocity committed by Muslims, the Left's defense of the indefensible continues.  The latest example is a review of the just-opened 9/11 museum (on the site of the destroyed twin towers) in the New York Times.  A sample:

The prevailing story in the museum, as in a church, is framed in moral terms, as a story of angels and devils. In this telling, the angels are many and heroic, the devils few and vile, a band of Islamist radicals, as they are identified in a cut-and-dried, context-less and unnuanced film called “The Rise of Al Qaeda,” seen at the end of the exhibition.

Oh yeah. Cuz we at the Times will not tolerate displays that are un-nuanced or lack context. The museum's approach to 2,900 Americans killed that day is just so..."cut-and-dried." Where's the crucial explanation of "root causes?" After all, we couldn't expect those nice Muslim boys to just sit on their hands after we invaded Iraq, right?  I mean, all us "progressives" kept warning America that we had it coming.  (Yes, the last two lines are sarcasm.)

The narrative is not so much wrong as drastically incomplete.  It is useful history, not deep history; news, not analysis. This approach is probably inevitable in a museum that is, to an unusual degree, still living the history it is documenting; still working through the bereavement it is memorializing; still attached to the idea that, for better and worse, Sept. 11 “changed everything,” though there is plenty of evidence that, for better and worse, this is not so. The amped-up patriotism set off by the attacks has largely subsided.

Cuz here at the Times we are reeally sick of amped-up patriotism. Well, all patriotism, really, if displayed by Americans. On the other hand we find patriotic actions by Saudis and Afghanis and Yemenis and Russians very...stirring. It rouses us in ways we can't really explain here.

And the Times sees the museum's "narrative" as "not so much wrong as drastically incomplete."  Of course that's really just a way of saying the narrative is wrong.  Meaning, We Enlightened Folks at the Times don't like it.  And the reason?  Ostensibly because it's not "deep history", not analysis.

Let's see here: 2,900 people were murdered that day and the Times wants...analysis?  I wonder, would you be so interested in "analysis" and "root causes" if someone cracked your kid's head open with a crowbar?  Sure you would.  Cuz, like, it's important to analyze things if you want to have enough latitude to nuance them down to no threat.

Still, within its narrow perspective, maybe because of it, the museum has done something powerful.

Only one group has the crucial broad perspective, and that would be the reviewer and editors of the Times. Just ask 'em.

And, fortunately, it seems to regard itself as a work in progress, involved in investigation, not summation.  I hope so.  If it stops growing and freezes its narrative, it will become, however affecting, just another Sept. 11 artifact. If it tackles the reality that its story is as much about global politics as about architecture, about a bellicose epoch as much as about a violent event, it could deepen all our thinking about politics, morality and devotion.

Wait... the reality is that its story is "as much about global politics as about architecture"??  Gee, and here I thought it was to memorialize 2,900 dead Americans...  And there's that bullshit about "a bellicose epoch as much as about a violent event..."  Um...yeah, can't imagine why anyone would dare..uh...memorialize a "violent event" at a museum located at the site where 2,900 innocents were killed by 26 throat-cutting savages, eh?

So...if you wonder why congress hasn't voted to slam the hammer down on Muslim thuggery, a big part of the answer is sneering, snide, contemptuous, elitist bullshit reviews like the Times ran on the 9/11 museum.