When I look back, the attacks on September 11th, 2001 seem to be such a trivial tragedy in the mind of a child. I was only 7 years old, and while there is no denying the horror and impact of the event on a large scale, it was just so mind-numbingly foreign that, as a child, I had trouble fully grasping what had actually happened. I remember feeling confused, but no real feelings of dread really hit me. Only after observing my parents’ looks of dismay and uncertainty was I able to try to replicate, understand, and feel those emotions. I saw the need to be scared and sad, but the feelings just weren’t genuinely there.

Now, this isn’t to say that the event is by any means insignificant. When I Iook upon it now, 9/11 was a horrible tragedy that changed a city, a country, a world. With the wisdom and experience that comes from even ten years, I can understand it’s weight more fully now than I did then. It wasn’t just a terrible loss, though.  It was so much more than that. It was a source of national unity, of communal togetherness. Neighbors helping each other cope, separated family members reconnecting with each other, strangers helping other strangers with the simplest of tasks. Everyone was an American, and this unifying characteristic seemed to override the day to day prejudices and preconceptions. While I’m not necessarily convinced, I hope that the unity is what sticks.

Remembrance is a fickle beast, however. Long after the sentiment of 9/11 has worn off, there are few things people remember. And as Rieff talks about in “The Limits of Remembrance,” people tend to remember the bad instead of the good. As time passes, the sense of unity slowly wears away until people only remember the wrong done and harbor animosity and retribution. And eventually, Rieff claims, 9/11 will eventually follow the path of most important events and fade from the collective consciousness of the world altogether.

But is 9/11 an exception to that rule? With the immediacy of it’s coverage and the abundance of pictures and videos, 9/11 is the most well-documented tragedy in American history to date. While that may stand out now, I don’t necessarily know if it’s enough to make 9/11 an outstanding event that will never be forgotten. It may be the first event to gain so much coverage, but if there ever happens to be another huge tragedy in America, (hopefully there won’t be, but these days you never know) it won’t be the last. With the advent of technology and media in our world today, any subsequent events will be documented just as well as–if not better than–9/11. It’s an uncomfortable idea to toy with, especially so early on, but it’s probable that 9/11 will lose it’s significance in this respect.

And maybe that’s for the better. As time goes on, this over abundance of coverage will become the norm, and people will become jaded on it’s novelty. It’s possible that many people will be unable to form their own emotions, the same problem I had as a child, and pick up on the feelings of vengeance referred to by Rieff. While people are supposed to regard and learn form the past, we are also supposed to move on and leave the past behind us for reasons such as this. If the sentiment of unity from 9/11 can’t be relayed through time, it only leaves room to breed hate. All of the animosity can only grow and distort itself into mindless prejudice as time passes, and that would only serve to be detrimental to that ever-important sense of unity. If such is the case, maybe 9/11 would be better left in the past.

I have found the many responses to Rieff’s work, both in class and on this blog, quite intriguing and intelligent. However, as I go back to his work for my own response, I find that many of the arguments against his opinions have already been mentioned and countered in his lengthy article. For example, Rieff recognizes that his view “is not a view that finds favor anywhere today.” He expects criticism. He acknowledges a point many have mentioned; that “no one in their right minds would expect the loved ones of those who died on 9/11 to forget.” He asserts that the memory that will be lost is not an individual’s memory, but a society’s memory, as the generations pass. He affirms that “remembrance is humanly necessary,” and is not dismissing the idea of having a memorial at all. He is just taking note of a pattern that is likely to repeat itself for this historic event. His argument is not to be taken offensively.

While I appreciate Rieff’s perspective, I do not necessarily agree with it, and I definitely do not agree with his method of delivery. I find it ironic that he admits that “it is too soon” to even consider forgetting, yet he insists on presenting insensitively. I speculate that many miss the point of Rieff’s article because they are distracted by his condescending tone. Such a stance puts readers, especially those who have been affected by 9/11, on the defensive, and they automatically dismiss his ideas. Discussing such a controversial subject, it would make sense for him to be less cynical and pessimistic in his tone. His negativity takes away from his work and its ultimate goal.