I took a history 140 class last semester. My professor discussed history from the specific sense of how a people remember it. I thought a lot of it was mumbo-jumbo, but I really enjoyed the class.
It is interesting to see, as a member of one of the youngest generations to hold vivid memories of 9/11, how people are remembering the tragedy. Of course, the study of the “remembrance of history” is never perfect. Generalization is inevitable.
One of the most common ways of understanding how people remember history is to chronicle the journalism of any given era. That said, what in the world are they remembering over at the Daily Tar Heel?
Last year they ran a not-so-moving front page with quotes about how 9/11 was used for political purposes before a montage of American flags. This year they went the more tasteful route: a touching article entitled “Community Moving Past 9/11.”
This story, to be written in such a way as to commemorate the anniversary of September eleventh, is pathetic. They interviewed a history professor who asks the reader to think upon the question of “How much of 9/11’s memory is a function of our real desire to keep it alive and how much was our leaders’ desires to keep the ideas alive?” The article goes on to mention that “Sept. 11 is viscerally tied to former President George W. Bush. It’s hard to associate it with the current administration.”
What does that have to do with anything? These unnecessary jabs at Republican leaders or at Bush are ridiculous and insensitive to what happened on September eleventh.
My thoughts exactly, Justin. You should write a letter to the editor.
Haha, I have spent much of my letter to the editor capital already.
9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and he then exploited it for political purposes for the next 7 years. Is mentioning those facts a "jab" at Bush? The second sentence is nonsensical, I agree.