"The War" As Opined By Winston Groom Of Point Clear, Alabama
Madam Speaker, earlier this week one of my constituents-- nationally-renowned author and historian, Winston Groom--wrote an op-ed piece for the Mobile Press-Register offering at least one theory as to why the reviews of Ken Burns' recent…
Madam Speaker, earlier this week one of my constituents-- nationally-renowned author and historian, Winston Groom--wrote an op-ed piece for the Mobile Press-Register offering at least one theory as to why the reviews of Ken Burns' recent documentary series, ``The War,'' have been panned by several of America's leading and supposedly ``most respected'' national publications.
As you may know, ``The War'' recently aired throughout the Nation on PBS. While admitting that the ``Second World War was fought in thousands of places, too many for any one accounting,'' Mr. Bums and his extraordinarily talented team tell the story of four American towns and how some of the citizens from those towns experienced and remember ``The War.''
The personal accounts of these men and women in their own unique dialects and accents tell an important and powerful story of World War II and the men and women that Tom Brokaw, among others, has deemed ``The Greatest Generation.''
This documentary shows the significant sacrifices made by the brave men and women of the American military, as well as the millions of American families whose loved ones were fighting the forces of evil during the Second World War.
As Mr. Groom so eloquently explains in his article, the underlying complaint of ``The War,'' shared by many in the mainstream media who reviewed the film, is ``grounded in the new liberal fad of `moral relativism' '' and self-hatred. Unbelievably, some of these critics appear to believe that Mr. Burns' documentary was simply too ``pro- American'' and not sympathetic enough to the Germans and the Japanese.
After watching this fascinating documentary with my wife and children, I, personally, could not be more proud to be an American. Moreover, I believe this film should be required watching in every school in America.
Today, Madam Speaker, I rise to ask that this op-ed piece be entered into the Congressional Record in its entirety, for I believe Winston Groom may be on to something:
Hatchet Job on ``The War''
(By Winston Groom)
Many of you who enjoyed Ken Burns' ``The War'' may or may
not be surprised that much of the mainstream media trashed
the series.
At the simplest level, their complaints illustrate the
common literary fallacy in which the critic reviews not the
film (or book) that was written, but the one that he wanted
to see written. But this is merely one technique of doing a
hatchet job.
The underlying complaint against Burns' film by such
revered organs as ``The New York Times'', ``The New Yorker'',
``Slate'' magazine, etc., is grounded in the new liberal fad
of ``moral relativism'' or ``moral equivalency, ``a doctrine
that seeks to have us believe that in the real world, there
are in fact no ``good guys'' or ``bad guys.''
Instead, everything is ``relative'' (i.e. Oh, poor Adolf.
He was simply misunderstood.).
Thus, Alessandra Stanley of the Times felt compelled to
inform her readers that, ``Examining a global war from the
perspective of only one belligerent is rarely a good idea.''
I myself had a similar run-in with that kind of thinking
when the Times trashed my history ``1942: the Year That Tried
Men's Souls,'' so 1 know whereof I speak.
In that instance, the Times for some reason assigned the
hatchet job to its theater editor, who carped that I was
``cheerleading'' for America and ``conducting a pep rally for
the Allies.'' It made me wonder just who she wanted me to
cheer for--Hitler? Tojo? Or were we all of us--Japan,
Germany, America, England, Russia--equally at fault for the
war?
In the online magazine ``Slate'', Beverly Gage was
constrained to label ``The War'' ``manipulative, nostalgic
and nationalistic, `` and lamented that it offered ``no
commentary from the German or Japanese'' side.
To be fair, she also complained that it offered no
commentary from the British or Canadians, to which she might
also have added that we didn't hear about the Norwegians or
the Peruvians--or the Ugandans, for all it matters.
The point is, that was not what the film was about. It was
about America and Americans in World War II, as was plainly
stated at the beginning of each episode. To be fair again,
Ms. Gage acknowledges this, or, in her words, ``Burns admits
this,'' but then she goes on to complain about it anyway.
Ms. Gage also spears the film for offering ``fantastically
sentimental stuff--Ken Burns at his most indulgent.''
I, for one, didn't see anything particularly sentimental
about pictures of dead American Marines floating face down on
the beaches of Tarawa or being carted off the battlefield.
Ms. Gage also hints in her review that the story told by
Mobile's Eugene Sledge about some Marines pulling gold teeth
from dying Japanese soldiers smacks of American racism, since
in the European Theater, the absence of that unpleasant
custom presumably denied similarly situated Germans their
experience of a lifetime.
In The New Yorker, Nancy Franklin's objection, rather than
moral relativism, is that ``The War'' is just plain bad film-
making.
``They've taken a subject that is inexhaustible and made it
merely exhausting,'' she writes, before going on to complain
about the sound track and narration and that a lot of the
footage Burns selected had been used before--as if Burns,
being unable to conjure up some stash of unused footage, was
somehow obligated to use old bad footage instead.
She also found tedious Burns' style of using real
participants in the war to describe their experiences rather
than, one supposes, using analysts, historians and
politicians. Myself, I rather enjoyed hearing from such
contributors as Dwain Luce, Sid and Katherine Phillips,
Maurice Bell, Willie Rushton and others who actually lived
it.
As Ms. Stanley writes in her review, `` `The War' gives
generous voice to a wide variety of voices, but they are all
American voices,'' which, she complains, ``is the only tale
Burns wants to tell.''
The strange implication here is that surely Burns could
have dug up a Hiroshima survivor or a fugitive Nazi SS man to
tell his side of the story--or better yet, a Kamikaze pilot.
What really underlies this ``moral relativism'' is the
fetish of self-hatred that has become so pervasive in the
mainstream media and the halls of academia. Whatever the
issue, ``America is at least no better than the rest of them,
and probably worse'' is their mantra, and anything that
smacks of patriotism is automatically suspect.
Heaven help us if this had been the bunch in Philadelphia
on the Fourth of July, 1776, when they were trying to find
people to sign the Declaration of Independence.