Would Victory Day by any other name taste as sweet?

A bill to change the name of Victory Day —  an official state holiday in Rhode Island occurring on the second Monday in August —  is back again in the General Assembly. It was re-introduced in January by Rep. Jennifer Stewart, a Pawtucket Democrat, and nine others and prompted some heated debate at a hearing earlier this month. Spoiler alert: I am agnostic about changing the name of the holiday.

But the discussion has been interesting, and it transcends concerns about this specific celebration. 

Rhode Island loses when it celebrates Victory Day

This holiday commemorating the end of World War II was inspired by national celebrations of the victory over Japan because Japan’s surrender in August of 1945 marked the end of the hostilities. And in this Navy-identified state, the horror of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor certainly lingered. 

There has been concern about this holiday, which only Rhode Island celebrates, certainly since I arrived here in 1991. Our government has tried to be clear that we are not celebrating the defeat of Japan specifically, even passing a law to ensure that all state agencies call the holiday by its proper name, and not, as many still call it, V-J Day. But it has been hard to move away from what seems like a racially targeted event, and changes have been proposed for years. 

The bill (H 7326) enumerates several reasons for change. While it reminds us that our government unconstitutionally interned Japanese-Americans during the war, the bill is only partially concerned about alienating present-day Americans of Japanese descent. It includes general statements deploring war and military spending, and highlights the ways in which American conduct of WWII was not above reproach: “Historians have cast doubt on the military necessity of using the atomic bombs on Japan.” 

In other words, we have nothing to celebrate here. 

This incensed Rep. Patricia Morgan, a West Warwick Republican, who responded at the hearing on the bill and in an op-ed published March 17 in the Providence Journal. Morgan is offended by the proposed name change on behalf of Rhode Island’s participation in WWII, but she, too, expands her comments beyond the specifics.  She expresses concern about what she calls “the left” both re-writing history and creating an atmosphere of general disapproval and disdain for the history of American actions. 

“Historical facts are not up for debate. Nor are they open to scholarship that evolves and modernizes them,” she writes.  And also, “They call into question anything that might be construed as good, or as having a positive impact.”

These arguments reflect larger, national conversations about what we celebrate, and how. Should we celebrate our role in a global conflict, and one that launched the nuclear era? And, on what amounts to the flip-side of this perspective, should we not allow ourselves any pride in our past? 

On Morgan’s first point, she is simply wrong. Historical facts are completely subject to continued scholarship which contextualizes and reexamines them. New facts are brought to light that change the accepted narratives all the time. One example certainly might be that upon examination, the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan, which was meant to both end the war quickly and establish the military dominance of the United States, was not the only choice. It worked, but at the undeniably tragic cost of tens of thousands of civilian Japanese lives. This price was assessed through a lens that was both nationalistic, and racist. These concerns were raised at the time, but they did not become part of our national narrative. 

This analysis, however, does not make us the villains of World War II. Our adversaries — Germany, Italy, and Japan — embarked on a world domination campaign based on a vision that was clearly antithetical to every principle of civilized life. They were making progress when we joined the Allies, entered the war, and helped win it. So, in the second instance, Morgan is not wrong. The effort to create a nuanced and complete picture of the past does not, should not, automatically destroy any sense of pride that we have in our historical efforts. 

Bart Simpson, in the cartoonish, profound, and very American long-running TV show “The Simpsons,” says, “There are no good wars, with the following exceptions: The American Revolution, World War II, and the Star Wars Trilogy.”  Both real-life conflicts are part of our national narrative. Both have been subject to reexamination by historians in ways that alter our understanding, and make it clear that motives in conflict are rarely without conflict. 

Only a very few would argue, however, that the outcome of World War II was not good for the world. Perhaps its successful conclusion can be celebrated at the same time that we also recognize and learn from the choices we made to get there. Stewart’s proposed new name, “Peace & Remembrance Day,” might encourage us to do so.