explain why you think this idea of “acceleration of history” is relevant in the discussion of history

1. Read: Pierre Nora, “Between Memory and History;” Jeffrey K. Olick and Joyce Robbins, “Social Memory Studies: from “Collective Memory” to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices;”
2. Olick and Robbins’ literature review discusses how collective memory is a social, and even political construct.
They cite James Young and describe how social memory influences family and future generations. At the beginning, Nora talks about the “acceleration of history”. I want you to explain why you think this idea of “acceleration of history” is relevant in the discussion of history, memory and power.
Consider how and why the past through memory and history has been represented in present, how the history is remembered and passed down. And how these affect and shape us – through vicarious memory/duty memory/distance memory. In other words, whose memory and whose history? Whose voices are heard and whose voices are silenced? And who were/are left out.