Reconciliation: Healing wounds of the past |

Reconciliation: Healing wounds of the past


As is frequently the case, a couple of recent incidents have combined to get me interested in the concept of reconciliation. The first incident was the February edition of the Andrew Carnegie Free Library & Music Hall’s fine “Second Saturday Civil War Lecture Series.”

This presentation, entitled “The Meaning and Legacy of Gettysburg,” was made by a well-qualified Civil War historian, retired Air Force officer David Albert. One of the several concepts that he believes contribute to the long-term legacy of this sacred battleground is that of reunion.

It is well known that the battlefield was the site of regular reunions of men from both sides who fought in the battle, for many years. Mr. Albert exemplified this by showing a famous photograph of two grizzled veterans, one in Union blue and the other in Confederate gray, shaking hands in 1913, 50 years after the battle. It is not clear why this concept became so important at Gettysburg, but indeed the battlefield has become a symbol of reconciliation, the eventual healing of a great wound.

Recently, I came across a video of an interview of Dr. Paul Zolbrod for the Veterans Breakfast Club, which includes numerous references to a novel he wrote about the Korean War, “Battle Songs.” Zolbrod is a 1950 graduate of Mt. Lebanon High School whom I knew in the early 1950s. I learned that his military service paralleled mine. Drafted seven months before me, he too served in Japan immediately after the Korean cease-fire was signed.

Obviously, I had to read the book. Written when he was a graduate student, it wasn’t published until 2007, when he opposed our war against Iraq. Despite its obscurity, I found it to be quite thought provoking; it is the March selection for our book club.

Zolbrod describes “Battle Songs” as a story of the Korean War in four movements. It documents the experience of four young men from Western Pennsylvania who are drafted early in the 1950s and end up in combat in Korea. The four movements refer to four different perspectives on war in general as personified in four different young men.

The first perspective is man’s inherent need for conflict, to show his superiority over his inferiors. The second perspective is man’s instinctive need to fight to protect his companions against their common enemies. The third perspective is the absolute horror and insanity of war.

The final perspective I found to be profound, the idea that the only way a combatant can overcome his guilt about participation in such an uncivilized activity is by reconciliation with his enemy. In “Battle Songs,” the author exemplifies this by inventing a relationship between a noncombatant GI in Tokyo and a bitter, badly injured survivor of Hiroshima.

Historically, reconciliation has an excellent track record. I recently heard Todd DePastino give a fine presentation on the conclusion of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles, which focused on punishment rather than reconciliation, virtually assuring the certainty of World War II. In contrast, our treatment of the defeated Axis powers after World War II has produced healthy nations that are among our strongest partners.

One wonders if reconciliation can ever be achieved with the victims of our society’s social injustices — the Holocaust, slavery and the uprooting of the Native Americans.

Categories: Local | Carlynton
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.