One must understand that to forget is natural and a necessary part of life. If we did not have the ability to forget, then humans would not survive this largely harsh and brutal world. It is our ability to forget events, no matter how traumatic they may be, that allows us to reign over this planet as the dominating species. However, Rieff makes a rather clear and explicit point when he says it’s been ten years since 9/11 and many of us still have not even begun to forget this. This is, in my opinion, dangerous and potentially problematic, as not allowing ourselves to let go of the thoughts could lead us to harboring unwanted and unnecessary thoughts.

We must understand that when we force ourselves to remember 9/11 every single day of our life, and we forcefully try not to forget it, we are also inviting unwanted thoughts into our minds. For example, after 9/11, a concept I’d like to call “religionism” erupted. While racism is discrimination based on the race, religionism is discrimination based on religion. Many of us started inviting hostile thoughts about Muslims throughout the world and started acting strangely and suspiciously around Muslims. Such shameful thoughts could potentially lead us to act in a manner that is not only inappropriate, but ultimately illegal. It is when not being able to forget gets to this point that one must finally have the volition to forget.

In addition, it is important to understand that when we forget about an event, particularly something as traumatizing as 9/11, we are not letting go of the importance of that date, nor are we letting go of the people who died that day. Rather, we are training our mind in such a way that this day does not hinder us from our daily activities and does not impede us from successfully completing our lives. This is one reason why memorials are so important – they remind us that 9/11 happened and that we will not dare let go of all the people who died that day. By enacting memorials, we are able to live our lives normally and remember the tragedy of the day and mourn for those who died that day.

Oskar Schell is both a complex and irritating character to interpret. To call him precocious would be a vast understatement – a nine year old boy who’s able to roam the city by himself and who asks questions with such profound depth is difficult to find; in fact, it’s almost unrealistic. Why does Foer assign such abnormal traits to a young boy who undergoes such a normal tragedy? Critics have argued that Oskar relates to all American constituents who lost a loved on on September 11th, but is this really the case? Why is Oskar so different? Rather, is he really all that different? I contend that Oskar, while ostensibly strange and bizarre, is a relatable character on multiple levels.

For one, Oskar like most children (including myself) – imaginative and always concocting inventions in his head. For instance, Oskar imagines a kettle that would sing “Yellow Submarine” in the opening of the novel, and much like Oskar, I was also a kid whose imagination assuaged personal distress. For Oskar, his imagination of things that clearly aren’t real is an escape from what is real – in this case, his father’s death and inevitably, his own death. Haven’t we all resorted to our imaginations during times of tragedy? When my grandmother passed away, I invented a machine in my head that would bring her back to life; a machine that could be used once a year to bring someone back to life – a machine only for me and no one else…and I was 16 at the time. Oskar is only nine, which underscores the relativity of his character. Oskar is inherently a spacey and inquisitive boy who isn’t afraid of his own thoughts. He doesn’t stifle his curiosity in fear of disapproval. He resorts to imagination to abate his agony and he fires away with questions when something doesn’t make sense to him. He doesn’t necessarily think before he asks questions, just like most kids don’t. Oskar is the epitome of an average child in terms of his behavior and in terms of his thoughts. Consequently, Foer creates Oskar in the image of children who had to grow up without a father or a fatherly-figure after 9/11. There is a little bit of Oskar in all of us if we examine closely enough.

Throughout life, there are many instances in which we remember things – intentionally and unintentionally – that we have been exposed to at some point in the past. Whether the experience occurred ten hours ago or even ten years ago, the simple act of remembering helps to shape our actions and decisions in the future. But what happens when we can no longer remember? Should we even allow ourselves to get to a point where the only thing left for us to do is forget? Rieff feels that this phenomenon is inevitable. In his opinion, as much as we try to hold onto the past, memories will eventually fade.

In the case of 9/11, most New Yorkers will agree that they will never forget about what happened on that sunny Tuesday morning. It is because of that tragedy that security has become stricter in airports, racial tensions have increased, and a great wave of patriotism has resurfaced among Americans. How could an event that produced such effects and changed the lives of millions simply be forgotten? In his essay, Rieff mentions a quote from George Santayana that states, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” If we are doomed to a future where no one understands what it is like to see our nation at its most vulnerable, I believe that it is possible that the national security could again be threatened. If what Rieff is saying is valid, and 9/11 will indeed eventually be forgotten like Pearl Harbor in this generation, then individuals in the future will lead normal lives, security may go back to the way it was before the Twin Towers came down, and no one would even entertain the idea of something like that happening again. Take Pearl Harbor, for example. The idea that tomorrow the Japanese could bomb Hawaii does not make sense to any of us. All of what we know about the 1940’s is what we’ve heard from history textbooks and our ancestors. The same is true, I believe, for 9/11 and the future American citizens.

It is of paramount importance that we continue to remember by participating in memorials, sharing our experiences with each other, and keeping the spirit of America alive. This sense of community and togetherness brought about by something as terrible as 9/11 is what makes so unsusceptible to the enemy. It is what builds an impenetrable wall of safety around the U.S. We cannot forget, because although Rieff believes that to remember is to harbor vengeance and anger, to remember is also to remain strong and unified. And that is what being an American is all about.

We talked in class about how memory is shaped around the pieces we remember, forming a composite idea that fades over time.  I couldn’t help but compare this to art, which is also influenced by our perspectives and can mean vastly different things to different people.  How artistic expressions relate to our lives also changes through different periods of life over time, all based on our experiences.

In a similar way, I think 9/11 affected people in many different ways.  Those who literally experienced it firsthand have vivid memories, like those who directly connect to a piece of art.  However, even people like myself who had never even seen the towers, much less know someone affected by it, will not directly connect.  Nevertheless, they will still respect the highly emotional nature of the tragedy (or piece of art).

Therefore, I somewhat disagree with Rieff’s assertion that 9/11 will be forgotten as memories fade.  The event might resonate differently to different individuals, but the powerful sentiments can and should still be felt.  Just as art can generate fervent emotions, memories can always be revived if they are constantly reflected upon.  9/11 will always be an intense memory for those who experienced it and saying otherwise, especially nearing the 10th anniversary is disrespectful.

Of course as generations pass the remembrance may lose its sensitivity, that is true for anything.  It doesn’t justify diminishing the rightfully strong feelings of those who are yet in the wake of the tragedy, nor does it make them less valid.

From Adam’s interpretation with “On the Transmigration of Souls” to the 9/11 memorial itself, there are many art forms with which to reflect upon Semptember 11th.  When observing these mediums, I believe people should not repress their genuine emotions, for this is when history is doomed to repeat itself.

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.