You know what Remembrance Day should be for?
1. Remembering all those who have died in war. Precedence on the civilian deaths, because they die at far higher rate than any established military force.
2. Educate yourself as to what war is and how it is waged.
3. Take action to prevent future war and the inevitable human suffering that goes along with the organized murder we like to call warfare.
Today I’m all about the second bullet point.
Full Documentary
Have your minute of silence. Then take an additional hour and a half to get a glimpse of what the war on terror looks like.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
5 comments
November 11, 2014 at 5:53 am
john zande
I’ll save that for later
LikeLike
November 11, 2014 at 6:21 am
sapeterson
I don’t go to the ceremonies. One of my brothers told me he thought he was serving in WW11 to end war. I won’t go to the ceremonies until we are rid of our warmongering PM. If then. I belong to Ceasefire and Women for Peace.
LikeLike
November 11, 2014 at 7:58 am
tildeb
Although Remembrance Day is an evolving event, it’s central feature is to remind us all of the very real cost paid for by soldiers and their families in the service of their (Commonwealth) countries. It is not about civilians and is not about the cost to civilians when subjected to the destructiveness of war.
We honour those who have donned the military uniform and shown not just a willingness to go in harm’s way but who have paid the price for doing so by remembering. We remember by demonstrating our remembrance at these ceremonies on Nov 11.
It is this public recognition that helps the next generation to better understand that war always comes at a steep cost, that it is personal and serious, and that a willingness to be prepared for it is a necessary undertaking as part of responsible and mature citizenship. This reduces the risk of engaging in it as anything less than a very serious undertaking. And we cannot avoid playing some part in it no matter how much we wish it would all just go away.
LikeLike
November 11, 2014 at 8:42 am
The Arbourist
@Tildeb
I find that problematic, because being in the military is a choice. Dying for your country is part of the package when you enlist in the armed forces.
Civilian deaths due to war are, for the most part, certainly involuntary. Does the lack of uniform make civilian death somehow less important, considering how many more civilians die in war?
I really don’t think so. Our willingness to go to war has not slackened; furthermore our culture is inundated with violence and the idea that violence is the solution to many of our problems.
I would argue that resisting and conscientiously objecting to war is also a large part of responsible, mature citizenship. A commitment to peace, compromise, and coexistence are the hallmarks of what I deem to be a laudable society.
Our complicity is written in our narratives and the stories we choose to tell about war. There is nothing honourable about war as it always involves the destruction of innocent peoples lives. If we want any thought to resonate with future generations it should be that war is the greatest failure of the human imagination and engaging in such behaviour embodies the worst characteristics of our species.
LikeLike
November 11, 2014 at 9:24 am
tildeb
Arb, I just wanted to clarify what Remembrance represents: a day to honor the country’s war dead (but it is evolving). It has nothing whatsoever to do with civilian casualties no matter how much you would like to recognize this cost of war.
I know you believe that resisting and conscientiously objecting to war (who doesn’t generally… but changes that position once organized violence grows nearer?) can be considered responsible, mature citizenship. I think it’s a guaranteed way to encourage organized violence to be used more easily than if organized violence can be met and repulsed by organized violence. A commitment to peace can only be realized on a social level with an equivalent willingness to do organized violence if necessary. (The same case can be made about police: unnecessary only if there is a total commitment by everyone to do no crime. I don’t this dream is attainable no matter how philosophically compelling the reasons may be because some people simply aren’t as reasonable and do choose to commit crime. Hence, the police must be capable of meeting criminal violence equivalently.) Refusing to participate in this social undertaking – just like refusing to support police budgets for hiring, training, and equipping police adequately for philosophical reasons – I don’t think is responsible, mature citizenship but a selfish, self-centered immaturity regarding one’s social responsibilities to one’s neighbours. I think one encourages criminal behaviour by dismantling the court’s ability to enforce it’s rulings (aka the police). To think otherwise – that policing is in and of itself a disreputable undertaking and calling those who understand the police’s essential role in maintaining the law, imposing order, and ensuring good government (meaning lawful) as ‘complicity’ with examples of police brutality and illegal activities – is not reasonable but an example of magical thinking.
You’re right in that there is nothing honourable about carrying organized violence we call war (except doing it remarkably well); the honour resides in the willingness to put aside the personal and its identity and become part of a larger unit to accomplish some impersonal task. Think of the musician who puts aside the personal interpretation and joins with others under direction to create a larger ‘thing’. The honour is in that willingness to submerge the individual and demonstrated by the dedication (even to the point of death in the military) to serve that larger ‘thing’ and try to accomplish tasks and achieve results the individual alone cannot obtain. I would no more condemn the choir for failing the individual soloist than I would the police or military for failing the individuals who make them up. The music produced by the choir is not a failure of imagination any more than the destruction produced by military actions is a failure of the imagination. None of these organizations embodies the worst characteristics of our species but demonstrates the power and effectiveness of social cohesion when people work together to achieve specific results. Just because you may not like the results doesn’t mean we should condemn (or avoid showing our appreciation in sapeterson’s case) those who sacrifice the personal and refuse to honour those who have paid for it in full.
LikeLike