horrifying act in NYC

[Andrzej Kozlowski]

Emotions are one thing, analysis is another (though the two are 
related). Comparing the present with the past (both in respect of 
similarities and differences) is the main tool of historical analysis 
and the only way to understand and make sense of both the present and 
the past. It is naive to to think that everything involves emotions, 
"compensatory attachments" etc. (I for one have no special emotions and  
no "wounds"  related to Pearl Harbor. In fact from my point of view it 
was a blessing for it eventually brought the USA into war in Europe  and 
so quite likely I own my life to this event.)  Pearl Harbor was a key 
turning point in US history and it is possible, though not sure, that 
yesterday's events will be another. Also, for those who experienced 
Pearl Harbor it is certainly natural to compare their reactions with 
those of yesterday. What is wrong with that? How is it making anything 
into a farce?

Andrzej Kozlowski
Toyama International University
JAPAN
http://platon.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/andrzej/

On Wednesday, September 12, 2001, at 10:54  PM, Nevetsgnow at aol.com wrote:

> Morality is not the issue here and neither is binary oppositions. The 
> need to
> compare recent events to an old and existing wound remains naive and
> irresponsible. Wounds do not go away, it survives even after there is so
> called recompense. An eye for an eye. Surely the Pearl Harbor remark 
> already
> entails compensatory attachments that have been predicated on 
> ideological
> mechanisms that are archaic. Ultimately, there is no need to make 
> tragedy
> into farce.
>