Getting Over It
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
First, these are college students so there's a giant selection effect in action: they are by definition the child abuse survivors that were functional enough to have gotten to college.
Secondly, a lot of the problems with problematic childhoods don't express themselves until the children become parents; in other words, I don't care how well enough these kids did at college if they went on to abuse their own children. (Not that they all would; but the issue is more complicated than how it is presented).
Overall, the whole point of the article is that experience is not destiny; some people can survive the most horrific abuse and come out of it; others are completely destroyed by the experiences. This is not news. The fact that as a society we may want to worry more about the latter than the former is not, IMHO, a problem.
Yes, I found it disturbing. And I'm with you in wondering if this is simply due to expectations set by the media. Most people want to be 'normal' and for most people, the media defines normality.
There is a certain attraction to 40's/50's imagery - this polite simplicity masking darkness beneath... alcohol, war stories, adultery, mental issues:
“I want you to be able to talk to me about the war. It might help us to understand each other. Did you really kill seventeen men?” “Yes.” “Do you want to talk about it now?” “No. It’s not that I want to and can’t—it’s just that I’d rather think about the future. About getting a new car and driving up to Vermont with you tomorrow.” “That will be fun. It’s not an insane world. At least, our part of it doesn’t have to be.”
Basically, they subtly want to encourage the status quo : the poorer classes of society join the army and get themselves killed while doing horrible things to other people because our Leader said they have WMDs, while the middle classes with a brain go to Uni, and some of them get to write beautiful essays about how one should forget the war. And I'm not even mentioning the subtle connotations in there to forget other negative associations that war has, such as torture and the robbery of the other nation's resources. The beauty of the thing is that the subtle messages are couched in an arguable parable of a soldier who chooses to look forward, not at the past.
What the article actually is, is propaganda.
Fuck you. I will not forget the war, the people who made us go to war unnecessarily, nor the effects it has on everyone, and definitely not the poor fuck soldier veteran who got a raw deal from educated assholes who tricked him into sacrificing his life with propaganda just like this. First they massage you with the anthem and the flag to get you to war, then they massage you with such essays to calm you down from the resulting anger.
I agree that many soldiers have been given "raw deals" in the recent wars, and that it is the duty of every american to question the logic behind all military and political moves. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not most soldiers are fully functional after the war or how psychologically scarred they are.
2. Regardless of that, if the science is right, it's right. There aren't pro-war and anti-war facts; there are just facts.