ShareThis Page

Why can't we just all get along?

| Saturday, April 20, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Bells marking the noon hour had just stopped pealing when an ear-shattering explosion ripped the downtown street, filling the air with shards of glass.

Flame and smoke towered 100 feet skyward.

The blast, enclosed within a valley of tall buildings, trapped office workers and threw lunch-crowd pedestrians off their feet. Its concussion lifted cars from the ground, as blood splattered the sidewalks and surrounding buildings.

The year was 1920, the city was New York, and the guilty terrorist was thought to be an anarchist who used a horse-cart bomb to blow up Wall Street, center of the nation's commerce and symbol of all that was successful in America.

Thirty-eight people ultimately died; hundreds were wounded.

Historian David Pietrusza says the scene was horrendous. “The shrapnel and slaughter make the Boston Marathon events very similar to the 1920 incident, and both were timed for maximum damage — the start of lunchtime in 1920, just as the marathon attacks were timed for the four-hour mark of the race,” he explained.

In 1920, the New York Stock Exchange opened as usual the next day. By then, the blood and body parts had been washed away, the broken windows covered with burlap or wood planks.

The perpetrator was a man who saw the country as one of divided classes, the wealthy holding all of the power and the working class oppressed. He wanted revenge.

Instead, the majority of the dead were working-class people — secretaries, clerks, deliverymen, brokers and peddlers who toiled on and around Wall Street.

It was the era of the Red Scare, jailed dissidents, Prohibition, bomb-throwing terrorists and the Ku Klux Klan, a politically turbulent time that marked the end of progressivism, with the economy not yet roaring.

The attack was widely believed to be part of a series of dynamite-filled bombs mailed to elected officials, political appointees, newspaper editors and businessmen, all in brown-paper-wrapped packages marked “Gimbel Brothers,” from the followers of Luigi Galleani.

As we grapple with another attack — this time not on a symbol of capitalism or military strength, as in 2001's attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, or on a government center such as Oklahoma City's Federal Building in 1995 — we are contemplating that Main Street has become the new target.

The Boston Marathon is an all-American event. It is a long-held tradition celebrating ordinary people achieving an extraordinary feat: finishing a 26.2-mile race.

It is the highlight of a weekend filled with baseball games, family reunions, parades and the convergence of old college friends and Bostonians coming back to run or to celebrate achievement and fellowship.

To have terror hit Main Street is unusual, unsettling, devastating. This time it took the lives of Lu Lingzi, 23, a Boston University student from China; Martin Richard, 8, a spectator enjoying the day with his family; and spectator Krystle Campbell, 29. It injured more than 170 runners, spectators and small children, many of whom lost limbs and will never be the same.

Some people are using this moment to hope that someone aligned with their political opposition carried out the terrible act.

Most other people are simply grieving for their fellow Americans and wondering if we are all marked as targets.

As Western Pennsylvania native Terry Francona, the former manager of the Boston Red Sox who now runs the Cleveland Indians, said: “You know, you turn on the TV and you hear ‘right wing,' ‘left wing.' I wish there were no wings. I just wish people would get along. I don't understand it and I don't pretend to.”

The New Brighton native said all he cares about is that, someday, folks a lot smarter than he are able to figure this out, so stuff like this doesn't happen.

I think the majority of Americans agree with him.

Salena Zito covers politics for Trib Total Media (412-320-7879 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.