How the 10th anniversary of our "day that will live in infamy" differed from the 10th anniversary of our national 9/11 trauma:
In fact, on Dec. 7, 1951, Pearl Harbor wasn't remembered, at least not prominently in the major newspapers and magazines. There was a reason why the Japanese attack in 1941 received so little commemoration on its 10th anniversary: In 1951, the U.S. was fighting a new war on the Korean peninsula, and had just signed a security treaty with Japan, which made it a crucial ally and staging base for the Korean War. Remembering Pearl Harbor could interfere with the nation's new mission.
[. . .]
Thus on the 10th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, Americans were told it was time to forget about what happened on Dec. 7, 1941, because we needed Japan's help to fight communism in Asia.
As UC Irvine historian Emily Rosenberg explained it in her book "A Date Which Will Live," historical memory is not fixed. Lessons that seem crucial at one point can be ignored at another. Memory, even of the most unforgettable events, is unstable and can be transformed by new circumstances.
No doubt this is as true for Sept. 11, 2001 as it was for Dec. 7, 1941.
But it was easy to "forget about" Pearl Harbor 10 years later. World War II was a convetional war against conventional enemies. It was about defending or invading borders and featured recognizable soldiers who wore obvious uniforms and followed understandable rules. Our current struggle is with an enemy who recognizes no borders, wears no uniforms and follows no rules. It's harder to forget 9/11 because the war it touched off is still ongoing, and there may be no recognizable way to tell when it ends.
It's a valid point, though, that "historical memory is not fixed," that "memory . . . is unstable and can be transformed by new circumstances." If we really learn
