Below are a couple videos from the website of the National 9/11 Memorial & Museum. These are part of a webcast series of interviews called "Exploring 9/11: The World Before and After," in which the Memorial's senior program adviser Clifford Chanin talks with historians, theologians, sociologists and others about topics related to 9/11.
Above is Brigitte Sion, an assistant professor of religious studies at New York University. I've highlighted chapter 5 of the interview, in which she talks about how memorials evoke an event from the past, but also say something about the time the memorial was created. Let me just add something she says in chapter 7 of her interview: “The
memorial is not a closure. It is a closure in some ways for ... some
form of mourning. But it is not a closure for remembrance. We shouldn’t take
memorials as sites that relieve us from the burden of remembering, even though
it’s tempting. But really, we should keep a space within a memorial, a space
that remains open for additional names, for additional data, for additional
details about the context, and additional details that will help us, maybe,
answer the question why.”
And now here's David Blight, a professor of American history at Yale University. I've highlighted chapter 7, in which he talks about national historical narratives.
Lastly, another (long) quote from chapter 1 of David Blight's interview, in which he talks about the difference between history and memory. “When we use the term history, generally, we tend to mean what
historians actually do. The craft of writing history, or of presenting history
perhaps in a museum. It’s the work of the historian or the curator... It is
supposed to be guided by research tools, standards of evidence, and so forth.
And therefore it can be done by basically anybody. Anyone can claim I’m a
historian if they can go to the local library and do research. When we use the term memory, though, we
don’t necessary mean research at all. We mean the stories passed on in a
family, in a community, perhaps in an entire nation... They’re the stories, or even the deep myths
that we grow up with, they’re the encoded stories that tell us who we are, tell
us what our identity is, tell us the narrative we want to live within. And memory tends to be more absolute,
often more sacred, it tends to get linked to notions of heritage, what you’ve
inherited from family, or from community, or from nation. And often these
stories are not necessarily verifiable at all, they’re not based on any kind of
formal research or even pedagogy, they’re what one’s grandparents taught you or
told you. And in that sense, memory is larger, it’s much more powerful than
what we could call history. There is much more remembered past, if we think
about it, out among the populace of any society, however free it is in its
institutions or even in the practice of free speech. There’s far far more
memory practiced in communities than there is formal history.”
Friday, September 10, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

0 comments:
Post a Comment