Thank you for reposting this, it’s an interesting and thoughtful piece.
I’ve always thought there are 4 broad phases to collective memory and memorialisation of major events, particularly the more traumatic kind. 1: the immediate phase of 1-30 years where interest and connection are strong, 2: the middle phase of 30 to 90 years where, except for those directly impacted the event drifts into the collective background as ‘history’ other than for significant anniversaries, 3: 90-100 years where we lose the last of our ‘living connections’ causing a brief period of intensive retrospection and lastly phase 4 at 100 years + where it moves beyond first hand memory into pure history.
We’ve seen phases 3 and 4 with the passing of first the WWI generation and then more recently those that lived through WWII. The Vietnam generation will all too soon move from phase 2 to 3 as will 9/11 in its turn. (Continues in 1st reply)
(Cont) This progression is natural as we need connection to often help us in our understanding and as we lose that connection over time so our understanding/appreciation of the the event will shift. What isn’t good is when these events are repurposed or repackaged to fit some new version of history a la the Lost Cause or even when stories are deliberately censored to fit some preferred narrative such as what seems to be happening with Tom Junod’s truly excellent ‘The Falling Man’ in places like Facebook.
The history of these events, warts and all should be told.
Thanks for the comment, Michael. This seems right, but I wonder to what extent our new media landscape has shaped how we understand that murky line between history and memory. Seems to me that major events no longer have the time to achieve a certain status in our collective conscience/memory.
Thoughtful piece. However, it's not accurate to say there was "no contrition" in Japan after WWII. As John Dower shows in his classic 1999 work on the Occupation period entitled Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II, there was a good deal. Among other things, Dower says that "Ordinary people unaccustomed to writing for the public, such as housewives and farmers, wrote letters apologizing to the Chinese people and asking how the Japanese could make amends for such terrible behavior."
I hope there is not a person teaching American history anywhere who has not struggled with the issues you raise here, in relation to all these events and others. How do you interpret the national radicalizing impact of Pearl Harbor to students who may have read about it a high school history book or seen the movie. I used to struggle with this when I taught US Since 1877, especially around Pearl Harbor.
I think it is the obligation of the historian to try to put the person of present in touch with the events of the past. But, doing that in away that lets that person of the present both see those events through the eyes of the past and understand their impact on the present makes my head hurt.
Thank you for reposting this, it’s an interesting and thoughtful piece.
I’ve always thought there are 4 broad phases to collective memory and memorialisation of major events, particularly the more traumatic kind. 1: the immediate phase of 1-30 years where interest and connection are strong, 2: the middle phase of 30 to 90 years where, except for those directly impacted the event drifts into the collective background as ‘history’ other than for significant anniversaries, 3: 90-100 years where we lose the last of our ‘living connections’ causing a brief period of intensive retrospection and lastly phase 4 at 100 years + where it moves beyond first hand memory into pure history.
We’ve seen phases 3 and 4 with the passing of first the WWI generation and then more recently those that lived through WWII. The Vietnam generation will all too soon move from phase 2 to 3 as will 9/11 in its turn. (Continues in 1st reply)
(Cont) This progression is natural as we need connection to often help us in our understanding and as we lose that connection over time so our understanding/appreciation of the the event will shift. What isn’t good is when these events are repurposed or repackaged to fit some new version of history a la the Lost Cause or even when stories are deliberately censored to fit some preferred narrative such as what seems to be happening with Tom Junod’s truly excellent ‘The Falling Man’ in places like Facebook.
The history of these events, warts and all should be told.
Thanks for the comment, Michael. This seems right, but I wonder to what extent our new media landscape has shaped how we understand that murky line between history and memory. Seems to me that major events no longer have the time to achieve a certain status in our collective conscience/memory.
I recall seeing your cousin's memorial. I recall not being able to see ground zero for nearly 20 years, and crying when I did. Thanks for writing.
Thanks for reading, Cornelius.
Sorry for your loss, sir.
Thoughtful piece. However, it's not accurate to say there was "no contrition" in Japan after WWII. As John Dower shows in his classic 1999 work on the Occupation period entitled Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II, there was a good deal. Among other things, Dower says that "Ordinary people unaccustomed to writing for the public, such as housewives and farmers, wrote letters apologizing to the Chinese people and asking how the Japanese could make amends for such terrible behavior."
Point well taken. Thanks for the comment, Lee.
Your assessment does indeed hold up; thanks for reposting it!
Thanks for reading, George.
I hope there is not a person teaching American history anywhere who has not struggled with the issues you raise here, in relation to all these events and others. How do you interpret the national radicalizing impact of Pearl Harbor to students who may have read about it a high school history book or seen the movie. I used to struggle with this when I taught US Since 1877, especially around Pearl Harbor.
I think it is the obligation of the historian to try to put the person of present in touch with the events of the past. But, doing that in away that lets that person of the present both see those events through the eyes of the past and understand their impact on the present makes my head hurt.
I think you've described the challenge involved in teaching history generally. Thanks.