Simplifying is deadly ...

Politics functions on simplicity of identities, since identity politics became the main politics of our time. So, there are constant choices and declarations made in order to situate oneself within a group or constituency.
The historians simplify for clarity and lack of infinite space and time. What gets written then gets set aside, is published or not. The "grand narratives" of our time ("our time" meaning primarily American or "western" and the last 50-100 years, at least that is the time period I know best) are written in books and newspapers published by a small number of media companies/conglomerates. Newspapers have a powerful position in creating and recreating stories over and over daily and on a massive scale (via internet, TV, etc.)
Growing up in an American school system and with American media, there were certain things I "learned" and had no reason not to believe or assume.
After five years "abroad" I have had the repeated experience of catharsis upon the discovery of an alternative narrative of history, of an alternative reading and understanding of the same event, and so on.
It makes me angry.
I know every nation-state participates in the editting of history and information for its citizens. The US is not special in this. However, the United States' hegemonic position, at least in terms of economic influence, but also culturally through its products, means its choices of what IS history or what IS the truth for its citizens can have further consequences; inaccurate assumptions by an entire population whose government commands a vast number of destructive tangible or non-tangible items reduces the "democratic" process and voters miscast their ballots.
This brings me to the topic of September 11, 2001.
In my opinion, past events of "the west" like the two "world" wars, Cold War tensions and the dismantling of the Soviet Union were all events able to be narrated, in my former American context, as keeping in line with the American "destiny" of belevolent dominance and the wisdom of spreading democracy around the world. The United States was always on top or came out as the "good guy." This all fit nicely into the narrative of God watching out for "us" and blessing our actions (continuing onward as in the right-wing or neo-conservative discourse declared by Pres. Bush II and Republican vice-pres. nominee, Gov. Palin).
The September 11th attacks were orchestrated, meticulously planned (over a period of years) and coordinated over many borders. The young men were successful intransmitting a message of frustration, discontent and rage through simple but highly destructive actions (pilot killing+massive airplanes+tall towers+inattention to "collateral damage". The monuments were the targets, but also the people inside and around them.
This attack did not fit into this grand narrative of American history. We were victims and we were tricked, out-smarted.
We had to cancel out our extreme victimhood by creating other victims.
What makes me angry is the lack of acknowledgement within American culture and politics of our constant victimizing of "innocent" people in many countries around the world.
Like any other colonizing power, we helped carve up European, Middle Eastern and Asian nation-states. But, we don't count ourselves among the colonizing countries (although we call the early settlers of North America "the colonies").
We have organizations cloaked in secrecy.
My point is that simplifying history has made it easy for a dominant American history, THE narrative, to exist among a majority and, perhaps most importantly, among law makers and media disseminators.
The September 11th attacks were reminders that another dominant narrative exists simultaneously.