After reading
David Rieff’s article, “After 9/11: The Limits of Remembrance,” I’ve considerd
how we will portray the attacks of September 11, 2001 as an event in history. For
our class, excluding our professors, these attacks mark the first largely
infamous event that affected America in our lifetime. With that being said, I
think it is important to consider how we view events in history that we have
not experienced. Accordingly, we must consider how we will portray the events
of September 11 to the generations of people in the future who will only have
our stories as a means of understanding.
I started thinking
this way after considering Rieff’s comparison between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. I
don’t know many people—aside from my grandparents—who lived during the time of
the attacks on Pearl Harbor, so the only knowledge I have about this tragedy comes
from a history textbook. I started thinking that this medium of communication
could be highly dangerous. If we only communicate events in history through one
medium, that medium becomes the monopoly on the topic, and we receive a
one-sided account.
Considering this
danger, I think we should practice caution when we plan to portray the events
of September 11 to future generations. For me, it’s hard to fathom that someone
will only know of the attacks through word of mouth. However, this concept will
become a reality in the near future, as our youth will learn about this event
from a textbook.
With that being
said, I wanted to pose some questions to the class. How do you think we should
portray these events? Should we take any specific precautions? Should we teach
them, like Rieff suggests, to move on and eventually forget the events?
To answer my own
question, I would advise using caution when portraying al-Qaeda, because I can
see our anger influencing future generations and ultimately perpetuating
violence. I would take caution against portraying the events with an “us versus
them” mentality, for I could see our grievances overflowing onto future
generations. Do you agree? Disagree? Suggest otherwise?
Ya thats the interesting thing Bethany cause the future is already here. Kids in grade school and high school already are learning about 9/11 from text books. Its a strange thing because we remember it, but they weren't even alive when it happened. It's amazing how any point in time gets lost in the past so quickly, even with something as big as 9/11. But I agree that we need to continue to teach the youth about 9/11 because it was a major event in our country's history and has, whether we like it or not, shaped our country to what it is today. In our economic system, our military protocol, our international relations, and our view toward people of other nations. Some of these we good outcomes, some were not good at all. There is a problem about how 9/11 is taught, because like anything, the facts can be skewed and an agenda can be underlying. But nonetheless, it is still apart of our history. Forgetting it would be like people who want to forget the Holocaust happened. Yes, we need to move on emotionally, but we cannot forget all the innocent lives that were slain. We need to tell kids the facts. What we know happened, who was involved, why we believe they did it, and how we responded. Those are somewhat clear and will provide kids with an understanding of 9/11.
ReplyDeletei agree the only reason pearl harbor and iwo jima are accepted memorials is because we won and they were avenged. with there being no one to avenge in the situation of 9/11 the subject of hate becomes an ideology. something that can not be seen or proven with physical evidence. without the retribution 9/11 will serve as the martyr its is portrayed as today. To be teaching kids to be against something like this before they can truly grasp the concepts that they are discussing. we do not want to have the future generations growing up on hate and stereotypes that would lead our nation on a path to bigotry and eventual self-destruction.
ReplyDelete