People are often ashamed that they're not having the same reactions everyone else is having, like there's a normal way to respond to death, accident, tragedy. That's what TV does--people are suspicious if they don't cry enough at someone's funeral, for example.
We're all different, and we have different reactions, so we shouldn't be treated psychiatrically as if every bad thing that happens has the same precise effect on everyone. I know a Vietnam vet, now deceased, who wasn't disturbed in the least when a cop harassed him because he was involved with the police in his hometown and he let that stuff slide; I saw a Vietnam vet having to be pulled off another cop merely because the cop asked him to step outside of a homeless shelter. That's merely an illustration, but it's a pretty good one about how people have wildly different reactions. And one thing that needs to be said is that something you and I might agree is horrible sometimes, not always, is something someone else can deal with very easily, or at least deal with it better than someone else might.
A well adjusted person who experiences a sudden trauma and is thereby traumatized by that in ongoing life afterward isn't in need of the same care or treatment as is someone who is raised in a bad environment by abuse parent/s, or who is otherwise maladjusted from development years onward.
There are different types of problems of the mind and spirit...and thus, different approaches to treating those different problems.
I agree that it's not advisable to encourage not confronting past events, but each individual has to be evaluated is the point and a blanket methodology change of just closing the books on past events is not a good idea. It's only contributing to further problems, in my view. It also encourages gross generalities about the self that fits best into liberal ideology.