Forgetful Sunday

[peterbirks]

So, it's Remembrance Sunday. Clearly I haven't got Alzheimer's, since I remember that. Then again, it seems like only yesterday that the Armistice was announced, so, perhaps I have. Where was I?

Oh yes, remembering. In the old days it was nice and simple. You commemorated the war dead of the Great War. Then it all got a bit messy. For a start, Armistice Day was meant to commemorate the British Dead. The Americans liked the idea of this after WWII, and so, in 1954 Eisenhower signed into law the now renamed (in the US) "Veterans' Day".

Since the Second World War killed quite a few people as well (although, in the UK, it actually killed a smaller proportion of the population than did the First World War), it seemed "only fair" to commemorate the guys and gals who died in that, too. Just to commemorate the dead of the now First World War seemed a little bit exclusivist, didn't it?

Hold on, said the ambulance workers and the like. What about us? Lots of our chaps died in the wars, you know. You didn't have to be a soldier to die. What about remembering us?

And, of course, there were the women workers (now with their own statue in Whitehall, btw, and very nice it is too. Nothing wrong with modern British sculpture). In fact, it wasn't really fair just to commemorate those involved in the war effort. What about the civilians who died in bombings? Surely they should be remembered as well?


And then someone said, "hold on, just commemorating our soldiers is a bit one-sided, isn't it? Surely we should commemorate all of those who fall in battle. So that we should know not to go down that route again".

Fair enough, they said, commemorate the lot of 'em. Germans, Arabs, Jews, Turks, Russians, the dead in the last war, the dead in the First War, the dead in Korea, the dead in Vietnam, in the Falklands, in Auschwitz, the dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"Inclusivity" is the same as dilution; I'm not saying that one person's death is any more important than anyone else's. And, in Britain, at least, there still seems to be some vestige of a thought that this is 'about' the First World War. Everything else is an add-on. And that is how it should be.

For a 10-year-old, the war in Vietnam is nigh-on as much a distant part of the past as the First World War is for me, so I guess that, for a 10-year-old, the First World War has about the same impact as the Napoleonic Wars do for me.

Now, where was i?

So, it's Remembrance Sunday....

++++++++++


Part of my weekend news research takes me to the Hong Kong Information Services Department.

This particular department has a slightly skewed concept of what is newsworthy about Hong Kong. Indeed, much of it seems to revolve around what Fred Ma, Secretary for Commerce and Econopmic Development, is doing. So, on November 10, we see that Fred Ma woos Canadian business sector". This would be shortly after November 6, when "Frederick Ma Woos SF Businesses". Good stuff Fred, because, as I see from the headline on November 1, "Fred Ma to visit US, Canada".

I think we should be told more on this. I want to know what hotel rooms he is staying in, whether he likes extra-curricular activities after a hard day's wooing of business. Is he a sports fan? What coffee does he drink? The Hong Kong Information Services Department is letting us down here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I think the "women" sculpture in Whitehall is awful. At first glance it looks like a number of people hanged by the neck.

It is as forced and fussy as the cenotaph is stark and sombre.

Titmus (aka GOM)

Remembrance

[geoffchall.livejournal.com]

I do think the inclusivity is a good thing. The fact that both sides die in war is something that needs emphasising as a means of pointing up the stupidity of the whole enterprise in the first place. But it's only lip service. There are plenty of people who still grumble at the Hun. I do like the war memorial in Berlin (forget the name - it's on Unter den Linden just next to Nicki's Humbolt Uni and opposite the Statopera. It's just very very simple - sculpture of nother and soldier in the middle of an empty space, but indoors. Again - it's all soldiery not just the German dead.

I don't think perspective on last century's wars has changed greatly for the girls' generation. The first world war is seen as a true horror because of the unimaginable conditions in which it was fought. The second world war is seen as an interesting tactical and strategic conflict. The only aspect that emotionally reaches them about WW2 is the holocaust. When we went ot Berlin, Steph was very keen to see the Wannsee Conference House but found Checkpoint Charlie boring.

Re: Remembrance

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

You wrote that "the fact that both sides die in war is something that needs emphasising as a means of pointing up the stupidity of the whole enterprise in the first place", which is where the liberal side of the equation took over the event. I'm all for pointing out the stupidity of the whole enterprise in the first place, but I thnk that it's a bit off to hi-jack someone else's event so to do. The Armistice Day Parade was not created to emphasise the futility of war, but to remember the bravery of the men involved. To shift the emphasis (or to add in another emphasis) by definition dilutes the original purpose. My own views on the relative merits of the original purpose and the "added-on" purpose are neither here nor there. One lot got there first, which kind of gives them squatters' rights. The "all war is futile" brigade commemorating all of those killed in battle should have their own march.

PJ

Re: Remembrance

[geoffchall.livejournal.com]

Why should we be stuck with the original purpose? After all the original purpose of the poppy appeal was to raise funds to support the wounded veterans and the war widows from WW1. Why should the thing only be open to amendment/co-opting for one set of messages and not another? Should Christmas be restricted to Saturnalia?

What irritates me is the claiming of the whole thing by the military? The RAH Remembrance service is full of military drums and medals and regimental references. If I were to be a bereaved spouse/child, the last bunch of people I would want involved in my memorial would be the people who sent my loved one to their death. Keep it personal and non-military.

Re: Remembrance

[(Anonymous)]

"...a means of pointing up the stupidity of the whole enterprise in the first place"

An unfathomable sentiment. War will be rendered obsolete when there are no men of ill will, ie never.


Titmus

Re: Remembrance

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Your logic is faulty here, Allan. Just because war is not going to end (i.e., just because something is occasionally inevitable) does not make it sensible.

And to call the sentiment "unfathomable" is a bit weird, because the whole point of diplomacy is to settle arguments without resorting to the use of violence. Implicitly, therefore, in diplomacy you have at least one side which is saying "well, actually, resorting to violence might not be a sensible way to solve this problem".

Politicians don't dispute that war is a stupid enterprise. They just claim that it's necessary to have force as a threatened back-up; Nye Bevan's famous speech of not wanting to walk naked into the conference chamber springs to mind.

Although there may be cases of people "of ill will" resorting to war "for the fun of it", it's usually a case of both sides knowing that the play is negative EV overall, but feeling that, if they win the hand, it's a better play than folding.

PJ

Re: Remembrance

[(Anonymous)]

There's a whole discussion here that can't be done justice in a blog comment. We'll have it out one day over an orange J2O.

Give War A Chance!


Titmus