The act of being tasteless is defined as lacking in politeness, seemliness, or tact. One of the easiest ways for a subject to be placed in a category of tastelessness is to talk negatively about a tragedy soon after it happens. This raises the question, does the article “The Limits of Remembrance” by David Rieff qualify for a category of tastelessness?

Some may argue that “The Limits of Remembrance” details the truth in its rawest form. The idea that the horrific attacks on September 11th, 2001 would lose their strength in the minds of Americans is a powerful statement that could possibly happen. Rieff’s comparison to a diminishing remembrance of Pearl Harbor is an example which holds weight when compared to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Both events were extreme tragedies in American history and both also had political connotation. Rieff describes the use of the 9/11 memorial in a political way–to never forget that there may have been an attack on American freedoms (instead of a dislike of the American actions around the world)– and in doing so he brings to light that the attack and the memorial also have connections to politics.

Personally, while I find David Rieff’s view to definitely hold weight, I believe that the ten year anniversary of 9/11 is too soon to be mentioning how it will be forgotten or how political the memorial will be. As a New Yorker who experienced the events of 9/11 while in my household, I still remember the day to be traumatizing to my family (especially to my mother who previously worked at the World Trade Center buildings). The attacks of 9/11 still linger in the back of the minds of every New Yorker and possibly every American.

When we step foot onto a plane and we need to go through extreme security measures, we’re reminded of the attacks.

When we look at the New York City skyline and see the two towers missing, we’re reminded of the attacks.

When we see a plane fly overhead close to the ground, we’re reminded of the attacks.

When we see terrorist activities in other countries, we’re reminded of the attacks.

Some of us may be reminded almost every day of what happened on that day, some of us may be reminded once a year, but when most New Yorkers remember what happened that day, their first reaction is not to think of politics. Most New Yorkers remember the videos of the people jumping out of the building, the ash covered businessmen running in fear down the street, the firefighters who ran into the building minutes before it collapsed, the clergymen at the scene of the attacks giving religious service to those in need, and most prominently, the video footage of the plane going into the actual tower.

While Rieff could be correct about the political connotation of the 9/11 memorial, I believe it’s too soon to be making statements of that nature. When that day comes on Sunday, we will gather together as a united American people to remember what happened ten years ago. I believe it is a time to honor those who sadly perished and to not be thinking about how the event will lose its gravity as the years go on in the future of the United States.

So yes, while Rieff does have a very strong argument that is solidified by historical events, I also believe he is tasteless on the basis of his impoliteness toward the ten year memorial of the attack. It’s too soon to be thinking of moving on from the event.

After reading David Rieff’s “After 9/11 : The Limits of Remembrance”, I was shocked that I never thought about the point he was making about how America will eventually forget about 9/11. He compares 9/11 to Pearl Habor by saying, “But how many Americans actually remember the 1,177 American sailors killed on the U.S.S Arizona that day…” From what I recall the only persons that ever brought up the issue of Pearl Harbor on its anniversary date of December 7th were my Spanish teacher and my American history teacher. This fact does lead to believe that Pearl Harbor is slowly being forgotten. Rieff goes on to say that even FDR, a role model to many Americans, did not say that December 7th was a date that would live forever. Therefore maybe even one of our great leaders recognized that nothing truly last forever. After giving his argument some thought I do believe that Rieff is correct. If the catastrophe of Pearl Harbor can slowly be forgotten, why can’t the similar event of 9/11 slowly fade away with time.

On the other hand I was shocked to see Rieff bring up such an idea when the horrible event only happened ten years ago. Although I agree with Rieff’s idea, I do believe it is too early to even mention it. It is only ten years old, and the people affected by it are still coping with it. I understand that people who have similar experiences to Oskar will find such an idea impossible. For example this event has shaped Oskar’s whole life. He was only 9 when his father died, and it has greatly altered his childhood. He is so obsessed with his father that he is willing to travel around New York City, just to find who the owner is to they key. You just can’t expect someone like Oskar to just forget about such a life changing event or even come to the realization of something like this is possible.

Something I noticed in the picture attached in Rieff’s work is that it has a double meaning. It represents the formation of the 9/11 Memorial. The progress of the project is visible as the towers get higher. But it can also represent the fading memory of the event. It could be as if the memorial is slowly fading away.

A question came up in my mind. While I was reading Bloomberg Businessweek, there was a table of Top Costliest Diasters since 1970 and The Top 10 Deadliest Diasters Since 1970, I noticed how 9/11 only showed up once as fourth most costliest disaster. There have been far costlier and deadlier disasters like the 2011 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster of Japan; the 2010 earthquake in Haiti; and the 1970 cyclone in Bangladesh. So why do certain disasters like 9/11 receive more attention than other disasters?

One of the readings that stood out to me was the article “The Limits of Remembrance” by David Rieff. This reading did not stand out to me for the right reasons, but that does not disqualify Rieff’s writing, but only shows that my beliefs and ideas are very different than his. Rieff explains that there are costs as well as benefits to remembrance, basically saying that through remembering the tragedy of 9/11 and the people who fell to the terrorist attacks, we are also remembering our hatred and anger toward these terrorists. I don’t feel this would be the case, but at the same time I do not see the problem with being angry at the terrorist group that caused our country this deep pain. The conflict comes about when we discriminate and spread this hatred upon middle eastern people in general, just because they share the same ethnicity or religion as the terrorist groups.

I strongly disagree with the idea of forgetting about the event, as if it never happened. I feel that Rieff doesn’t agree with the fact that the 9/11 tragedy is still an issue in society. His argument focuses on past events where generations who witnessed these events are now dying off, and all we have left are second-hand accounts of events such as Pearl Harbor and the Holocaust. Although a strong and convincing argument, it makes a very obvious point. Yes our memories of 9/11 will eventually be calmed, but is it truly necessary to state this?

The thing that bothered me the most about Rieff’s article, was when he proposed forgiving as a valid option. I believe this option is completely non-existent, especially for people who lost relatives in the tragedy. The terrorists knew what they were doing and planned the attacks to cause harm to our country. When you hear forgive, you usually think that a mistake has taken place, and the person who committed the mistake is asking for forgiveness. For example, someone spills their water on a table and it splashes onto your lap, they say sorry, and you obligatorily forgive them because it was an accident; as opposed to if someone throws their water in your face purposely. The terrorists understood their actions, got their message across, and meant what they did. They are not asking for our forgiveness, so the question has changed into: why forgive those who don’t want our forgiveness?

The most evocative piece I have read yet in this course is Rieff’s “The limits of remembrance.” I find it interesting that Rieff essentially says the remembrance and commemoration of the September 11th attacks will one day go the way of Pearl Harbor. His article seems to be a bit “too soon” as he compares the American celebrations of the Fourth of July to the ceremonies commemorating the tenth anniversary of the attacks. The assertion that these ceremonies will take place “in this spirit” of celebration is grotesque. To compare the fraternal bond which comes from suffering through an event and a celebration of the nation’s founding does not fall in the same vein. On September 11, 2011, the nation will not be celebrating, but rather will be in a united state of mourning.

Rieff’s criticisms of the American society come too soon following such a horrific event. To say that President Roosevelt never claimed December 7, will always live in infamy seems irrelevant, because the words “We will never forget 9/11” do not necessarily mean “The world will never forget 9/11” or even “America will never forget 9/11.” It simply means that Americans at that moment will not forget 9/11. This is not an example of Americans “fetishizing” change, but rather a commitment by those who witnessed 9/11 to carry on its legacy.

This is not to say that the attacks on 9/11 will never fade or become more distant in people’s minds, especially those not directly affected by the attacks. However, I am sure anyone who lost a family member in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or in Lancaster, PA will never forget the attacks on 9/11. In fact, I challenge anyone to watch footage of the attacks or pictures of “the falling man” without becoming emotional. These media documents are yet another important primary source, which separates the 9/11 attacks from Pearl Harbor. Generations will be able to watch the raw footage of the 9/11 attacks, unlike Pearl Harbor.

Some of Rieff’s points do have sound grounding. Of course, the 9/11 attacks will not be remembered the same now as they will be in 30 years. There is no way to maintain the same level of mourning as there is now. However, Rieff’s stark criticism of American society is out of taste and has no place just days before the ten year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

It was all fun and games for me during 9/11/2001 because a student named Nikita was having his birthday party in class that day. When he left school early it seemed no big deal. Maybe it was because his birthday, I thought. But when more than half of my third grade class slowly was thinning out one by one, I could help but wonder why. I deduced that something important happened that affected a lot of people, but I just wasn’t able to put my finger on it. My mom who was supposed to be working that day picked me up. I was surprised to see her. She explained what happened and all the clamor that parents were making outside the school. When I got home I sat down at the dining table and waited for my mom to make me a snack. I would usually watch cartoons after school, but when I turned on the TV, I was only able to see the news on channel two. As a kid, I was upset that I wasn’t able to watch my favorite shows, such as Pokémon or Digimon.

Taking a look at Oscar’s view on 9/11, he wasn’t in my situation. He heard the final words of his father, and had to go through the pain of living and growing up without one. Oscar is one of those unlucky few who suffered a truly devastating loss. I, on the other hand, was a just a normal boy who was too young to comprehend others’ feeling. I was, in a way, lost in my own world. Oscar in a way lost a part of his childhood and grew up faster than most kids did.

9/11 has left an impact on Oscar. It isn’t easy to deal with all the grief he is suffering from. It also hurts him more when he holds onto the memories of his father. Oscar suffers when his mom is dating Rob. The memory of still having dad as a fatherly figure and mom only in love with dad is deteriorating. The concept of family is over when Rob steps into his mom life. In “The Limits of Remembrance” by David Rieff claims the forgetting is warrant, and in a way better. But for some people, like Oscar, forgetting might bring more pain. Oscar will lose precious memories of his dad. Pain will always live on in memory, but pain lives on when someone forgets someone or something special. Is forgetting really worth the sacrifice?

The picture of the 9/11 memorial in “The Limits of Remembrance” can be seen as the towers fading into the sky when getting bigger, which symbolizes a memory. When one lets go of a memory, the memory slowly fades away. The endurance of pain lessens and all the suffering disperses. Another analogy is as someone screams into the air, the sound drifts slowly away and spreads until it can’t be heard anymore. It can also be seen as a concrete memory that won’t be forgotten. The layers represent the depth of remembrance and all the way down to the core, 9/11 won’t be forgotten. Even in the hustle and bustle of New York City, 9/11 will always have a place in its lore. Even though the picture in “The Limits of Remembrance” can be seen in different way, there is no right still no right answer to is forgetting really worth the sacrifice? It all depends on the individual who answers it.

I have no clear memory of the 9/11 attacks; not anything personal, anyway. Mine was the story of surprisingly many young New Yorkers at the time – one where we were thrust into a hushed and hyped world, called in one by one to our school’s main office to be picked up by our parents. I cannot claim that I have witnessed the towers crumble or the blankets of dust swallow the city whole. Nor can I say that I sprinted down several flights of stairs for my life. I can only pull out inspiration from fake memories, which I will not do. As such, this blog entry won’t be as tear-jerking or heartstring-puling as the others.

When I think back to it, there was no real reason for us to be taken home if our school was nowhere near ground zero. It was irrationality brought by fear that won over. This same irrationality plagues the protagonist of Jonathan Foer’s Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close Oskar Schells.

The novel starts off perhaps a year after the 9/11 attacks, which young Oskar’s father unfortunately does not get out of alive. Then comes a string of events: the boy finds a key within an envelope addressed to “Black”, takes it as his responsibility to return said key to said “Black”, and plans to do all this by walking through the streets of New York alone and ringing every door bell belonging to a family with last name Black. This quest might as well have been impossible to complete, yet the boy perseveres because he is afraid. He is afraid of forgetting about his father, that somehow all of the love and wonderful memories between them would just disappear if he did not return the key. To us the readers this seems very much an act of impracticality, but in Oskar’s mind, it’s absolutely necessary.

And the boy continues his journey with the solemnity of a widow at her deceased husband’s funeral. Never in his thoughts is the reality that there are many dangers in the city, including and not limited to muggings and abductions. He treks on, almost in a trance-like obsession to return the key. Luckily in the end, this romanticism does not cost Oskar anything other than the realization that a single action can be the difference between life or death.

“May the lives remembered, the deeds recognized, and the spirit reawakened be eternal beacons, which reaffirm respect for life, strengthen our resolve to preserve freedom and inspire an end to hatred, ignorance, and intolerance.”

Fighting words, indeed.

I love the fact that Rieff so candidly pointed out that these services of remembrance is one of the ways for the government to keep a hold on American society and our sentiments.  It forces us to remember that which we can so easily forget a decade later.  It forces us to continue to seek revenge. It forces hurt, hatred, war, and ultimately, even more deaths.

Yes, true 9/11 was a very traumatic experience for our our generation but, let’s be honest, it was most definitely not the only loathsome act committed in our time. The genocide in Darfur which has killed over 400,000 people does not seem to be remembered or discussed. Is it because it hasn’t occurred on our soil?

I remembered when I first heard about the 9/11 attack.  Of course, I was saddened but, mostly, I was surprised to see that many of my neighbors were shocked that this happened in America which, to them, was equivalent to paradise. If the rest of the world can suffer from such repulsive acts, then why exactly do we think that we can exclude ourselves and our country from such acts? United States of America is the world’s leading superpower, yet unfortunately, it does not mean we are inaccessible to harm.

The family members of all those whose loved ones died in the World Trade Center might not have the closure they’re looking for, however, stating forever that their loved ones died due to someone’s hatred and ignorance is not helping with the whole “moving on” concept.

Of the works we’ve read and discussed so far, the one that provoked the most thought (from me, at least) was The Limits of Remembrance.
The idea that 9/11 will be utterly forgotten about in the future is very powerful and hard to take in. One of our classmates, Joe V., said “it’s too soon for these kinds of thoughts.” In a way, he’s absolutely correct. We’re now approaching one decade since 9/11, and it still moves New Yorkers, Americans and much of the world very deeply.
However in another way, when will enough time have passed? Two decades? Five? Maybe ten? There’s no way of knowing what the future holds, and even though the events and deaths that took place on 9/11 may not be as remembered and mourned as they are today, I strongly doubt it will be entirely forgotten about.
The one thing that really stood out to me in the article was the writer’s reference to Percy Shelley’s Ozymandias. I read that sonnet in my senior year of high school and discussed how time changes everything. The 9/11 plaque reminds me of the words on Ozymandias’ pedestal, and it has made me think about the possibility of Manhattan not being here many decades from now, just like the great works not standing in the sonnet. Although cliche, only time will tell how future generations perceive and remember 9/11.

As a side not, one of my high school teachers rallied together support last year to raise money for a 9/11 memorial to be erected in Juniper Valley Park in Middle Village, Queens. The memorial was completed last week, and on 9/11 a candlelight vigil will be held at the park to remember and pay respect to the neighborhood’s fallen heroes as well as all victims of the attack. You can learn more about it HERE.

Of the literature that we have been exposed to this past week or two, John Adams’ On the Transmigration of Souls was, to me, the most powerful, and fully embraced the sorrow of the attacks on September 11th. Various musical tools are used by adams to capture the different tones and emotions of the day. The children’s Choir, often used in contemporary music, to evoke sadness, does just that. The tone of the music becomes much eerier when the adult choir enters and sings almost ‘Mozart’ like chords. Also, the sparse melodies of the orchestra give the piece tonality.
After hearing this piece i couldn’t help but think of Adams’ task in writing this piece. With 50 or so different parts, it is complicated, yet it is kept simple by the form of his writing. He also has the daunting task of writing a peace that serves homage to the dead, a sort of funeral or musical elegy for al of the victims of that terrible day. The piece is inspiring and beautiful, and, in my opinion does justice to emulate the events of the day.
In regards to the texts that we have read recently, I felt that “The Limits of Remembrance” was the most interesting. It made me think of the difference between first and second hand accounts of certain events. We, have the firsthand images of 9/11 burned into our minds and, when our generation passes there will no longer be a firsthand personal account of the events. The will go straight from our minds into the worlds new History Textbooks.

-John Cleary