That would be "An Empty Regard," by William Deresiewicz, in yesterday's NYT. The essay is about about the "cult of uniform" in America and has some interesting points. A few excerpts...
NO symbol is more sacred in American life right now than the military uniform. The cross is divisive; the flag has been put to partisan struggle. But the uniform commands nearly automatic and universal reverence. In Congress as on television, generals are treated with awed respect, service members spoken of as if they were saints. Liberals are especially careful to make the right noises: obeisance to the uniform having become the shibboleth of patriotism, as anti-Communism used to be. Across the political spectrum, throughout the media, in private and public life, the pieties and ritual declarations are second nature now: “warriors,” “heroes,” “mission”; “our young men and women in uniform,” “our brave young men and women,” “our finest young people.” So common has this kind of language become, we scarcely notice it anymore.
[...]
As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have dragged on, other purposes have come into play. The greater the sacrifice that has fallen on one small group of people, the members of the military and their families, the more we have gone from supporting our troops to putting them on a pedestal. In the Second World War, everybody fought. Soldiers were not remote figures to most of us; they were us. Now, instead of sharing the burden, we sentimentalize it. It’s a lot easier to idealize the people who are fighting than it is to send your kid to join them. This is also a form of service, I suppose: lip service.
[...]
The irony is that our soldiers are the last people who are likely to call themselves heroes and are apparently very uncomfortable with this kind of talk. The military understands itself as a group endeavor. As the West Point professor Elizabeth D. Samet recently noted, service members feel uneasy when strangers approach them to — as the well-meaning but oddly impersonal ritual goes — thank them for their service, thereby turning them into paradoxically anonymous celebrities. It was wrong to demonize our service members in Vietnam; to canonize them now is wrong as well. Both distortions make us forget that what they are are human beings.
About his last... I'm glad someone finally came out and said it. Ms. Samet is right... I speak only for myself here but have no doubt my sentiment is not uncommon... that we who served, and currently serve, are more than slightly embarrassed by all this "thank you for your service" stuff. I know those expressions of thanks and gratitude are well-meant and I really DO appreciate them. Being a member of the Vietnam generation, I much prefer being embarrassed and at a loss for words in these circumstances than being totally ignored (or worse yet: spat upon), as was the case back in the '60s and '70s. But forgive me if I shuffle my feet, look down at the ground, and simply murmur "thanks for that" when you offer YOUR thanks. I, and thousands like me, simply did my duty as we saw fit to do. Thanks are not required... it was an honor to serve.
But we digress. I hope you go and read Mr. Deresiewicz' article because he makes some very valid, interesting, and provocative points. His missive made me think.
Now let's pick a nit. Here's the illustration that accompanied the article:
Was the NYT trying to piss off the military with this illustration? They certainly succeeded, if so. There are ample photos and graphics extant of real individuals wearing real military uniforms, which could have been cropped to preserve an individual's anonymity. But, no... the NYT had to go and publish this fucking travesty of an illustration. But, Hey! It's the Times, ain't it? I really shouldn't expect accuracy and respect out of those asshats.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar