Aug 26 Tragic vs. Triumphant

It's often said that the shifts in our culture are gradual, almost unseen. Rarely is there a seminal moment when people can collectively say, "There it is."

I stumbled across one of those casual shifts in Saturday's Star-Tribune. Neal Justin wrote an otherwise commendable piece on Ken Burns' upcoming PBS special, "The War." The 15-hour, seven-part series on World War II begins airing Sept. 23, and like his other works will focus on how a great, worldwide event affected the common man. More specifically, he chose four small cities across America -- Waterbury, Conn., Montgomery, Ala., Sacramento, Calif., and our own Luverne, Minn., on the western border near Sioux Falls, S.D. The documentary will tell how the war affected each of these cities and their residents. Again, it was an otherwise fine piece and I'm looking forward to the documentary. But there were a few subtle shifts in Mr. Justin's copy that must be noted.

Just a few graphs into the piece, Mr. Justin writes: "More importantly, when "The War" starts airing on Sept. 23, Luverne will come to represent the pain and pride felt across small-town America during World War II."

Pain and pride? OK, there were both of those, but where is he going with this? A few graphs later, we find out.

"But the real heroes of the film are local vets and their loved ones whose patriotism never wavered during one of this country's most tragic, and eventually triumphant, periods."

So now World War II was "tragic," albeit "eventually triumphant"?

This is a prime example of the reporter putting themselves -- and their opinions -- into a story. Yes, Mr. Justin is a critic, but we don't really care what he thinks about the war? No, we care what he thinks about the documentary. Alas, Mr. Justin cannot help himself (nor can most of the rest of the mainstream press corps these days). That's because to them, all war is "tragic." It doesn't matter who won and who lost or -- gasp -- who was right and who was wrong. It doesn't matter that the cause was just. They learned in third grade and throughout the rest of their public school education that war is "bad" and you can't convince them otherwise.

This attitude comes through loud and clear with the words chosen by Mr. Justin. The war was first and foremost "tragic." It's only an afterthought, in his mind, that it was "triumphant."

Yes, I guess it was tragic that the Japanese launched a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and killed nearly 3,000 soldiers, sailors, and Marines in a pre-emptive effort to cripple our Pacific fleet. But wasn't it far more important -- triumphant -- that we recoveredd from that attack and in a matter of months struck a blow against the Japanese fleet at Midway? Wasn't it far more "triumphant" that we stopped the Rape of Nanking, the subjugation of the Philippine people, the gassing of millions of Jews, and the waves of V-2 rockets that were killing more civlians in London than Allied troops in Normandy?

Wasn't it our triumphant victory over the forces of evil that made the tragedy of each individual death somewhat understandable and acceptable?
Viewed through the prism of Mr. Justin and his colleagues at the Star-Tribune, apparently not.