In Against Remembrance, David Rieff provocatively argues that the business of remembrance, particularly of the great tragedies of the past, are policitised events of highly selective memory. Rather than ending injustices, as we expect it to, collective memory in so many cases dooms us to an endless cycle of vengeance. Humanity, he says, simply cannot cope with the true ambivalence of historical events. And if we remember only partially, how can our memories serve us, or our society, as well as we hope?
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
ambivalence American Amos Elon argued Armenian genocide Armenians Auschwitz Australia Baltasar Garzón Battle believe Bosnian War British Butler called civilisations claim collective historical memory collective memory committed contemporary country’s Crusades cultural Easter Rising Empire ethical European example fact famine forgiveness France French Garzón genocide Halbwachs Halevy historian Holocaust Hubert Butler human rights Hyperthymesia imagine imperative individual invented Ireland Irish Irish famine Israel Israeli Jerusalem Jewish Jews justice Kantian Kipling Kipling’s kitsch least less Lest we forget live Loi Gayssot Löwith Marcel Ophüls Margalit Masada matter meaning moral multiculturalists museum myth nationalist Nazis never no-one Nora one’s past Paul Connerton peace people’s Pierre Nora Pinochet poem political psychological Quebec question reality remembrance Renan Ricoeur sense settler Shoah simply societies speak suffered Szymborska thing thought Todorov tradition truth twenty-first century understood Vichy victims words writing wrote Yosef Yerushalmi Zionist