Remembrance Sunday

[faceless]

Bollocks to patriotism and 'heroes'.

[pirtybirdy]

A big "yay" to patriotism and heroes! Yay heroes, thank you!

[luke]

"Patriotism in its simplest, clearest, and most indubitable meaning is nothing but an instrument for the attainment of the government's ambitious and mercenary aims, and a renunciation of human dignity, common sense, and conscience by the governed, and a slavish submission to those who hold power. That is what is really preached wherever patriotism is championed. Patriotism is slavery."

[pirtybirdy]

poppycock. simple. 'nuff said.

[luke]

why don't you explain to me what patriotism means to you pirty? i'd be interested in hearing ... i might disagree, but then we disagree on everything from war to beards

[faceless]

[luke]

Remembrance Sunday: Actions Speak Louder than Memories

The time of year when ‘the nation’ remembers is upon us again. The red poppy of the Royal British Legion’s Earl Haig Fund (re-branded ‘Poppy Scotland’ in Scotland) becomes the ubiquitous signification of ‘our’ remembrance and gratitude to those who have fought, died or been injured in violent conflict on behalf of the UK – whatever that phrase actually means. The dignitaries and military organisations will gather in the towns and cities of Britain, surrounded by military paraphernalia, to lay wreaths, bow their head and promise never to forget. The red poppy, Remembrance Day and their ever-increasing associated events wraps the violent acts of war in cosy patriotism and national duty promulgating the rhetoric of willing “heroes” “fighting for justice and freedom” whom we must “remember with pride”. ‘Our' cause is heroic, worthy and just whilst 'theirs', by implication if not outright assertion, is cowardly, unworthy and unjust.

In a period in which military personnel remain involved in one highly contentious conflict in the name of ‘the nation’ camouflaged as ‘heroes’ fighting for ‘freedom’, the Earl Haig poppy, a symbol of British war remembrance and source of financial support for those who have engaged in military-sponsored violence, is politically charged whether we like it or not. Indeed, the Remembrance Day event has recently become the mere tip of a year round “remembering heroes” iceberg concocted by a concerted multi-agency campaign designed to facilitate blind acceptance of controversial militaristic actions whilst de-legitimising just criticisms of their perennially perilous political rationale. We were reminded of this only too well by the Sun newspaper’s besmirching of the Archbishop of Canterbury for his comments at the recent Iraq commemoration service. Despite Dr Williams’ assertion that supporters and detractors of the ‘war’ may be “rash”, and despite his entirely legitimate questioning of the political decisions that led to the deaths of the individuals being remembered, the Sun accused the Archbishop of “hijacking” the service “to spout an anti-war rant”[1]. It is revealing that unconditional support is not political. Yet, as soon as someone dares question, it suddenly becomes political and the questioner is demonised. It may be convenient for some to strip these deaths of the political context that created them in the first place, but this is a false dichotomy.

No doubt some will bark “they’re soldiers not politicians” and “we have to support our troops”. Yet consider the actual consequences of this dogmatic mantra – a mantra that is continually reproduced, blindly accepted by many and historically enforced against the wishes of others by their own rulers. Many within ‘the nation’ refused to kill and die in WWI and were imprisoned or effectively sent to labour camps by those in command. Shell shocked and traumatised battle victims were branded cowards and murdered by their ‘own’ people for insubordination. In the trenches, rather than shoot and bomb one another, masses of British and German soldiers preferred to play football together. It was only the threats of execution by their ‘own’ military generals that forced them to resume the killing and dying. What if the leaders were forced to do what Harry Patch had suggested before his passing? Harry said the “politicians who took us to war should have been given the guns and told to settle their differences themselves, instead of organising nothing better than legalised mass murder.” The subsequent scandalous hijacking of his funeral by the militaristic elites demonstrated the desperate determination to re-brand old Harry as a willing hero in war rather than the unlikely survivor of legalised murder.

But what about Hitler and the Nazis? Without the Empire-building First World War, the Nazi party wouldn’t have existed, nor would the conditions of its development and growth. Were the German 'people' right to unconditionally ‘support the troops’? What if Nazi Germany’s citizens refused to ‘support the troops’ and what if its soldiers stood up to the political ideology informing its militaristic decisions? Seducing an economically impoverished underclass with a cocktail of jingoistic patriotism, aggressive militarism and national pride intoxicates many misguided patriots into believing in the righteousness of their 'nation'. Nick Griffin is the latest beneficiary of such seduction.

But surely “we must never forget the sacrifices” of the dead. No, we must remember that many didn’t sacrifice themselves. They were given little or no choice to die. French soldiers at Verdun who, knowing they had no alternative but to obey their military superiors, hopelessly bleated like sheep as they went over the top to certain slaughter. I doubt they would appreciate their death being invoked by the modern version of what killed them in the first place – dogmatic nationalism and militarism. Additionally, given that millions continue being ‘sacrificed’ in the name of war since “The War to End All Wars”, the red poppy and "never forgetting" have proven useless in preventing future war and suffering. Perhaps a greater honour and respect would occur by raising questions about and objections to the ideological decisions which have led to the continual killing, maiming and suffering of millions of individuals and families around the world; and this includes questioning the whole dominant framework controlling the Remembrance Day activities which sees militarism and its political apologists dictating the remembrance agenda with scant awareness of the in-built irony.

If you want to manufacture consent, embedding your ideological signifiers into society’s sacred rituals is vital. A variety of popular cultural events have recently been hijacked by potent symbols of national militarism. Recruiting agents and their PR consultants are engaging in extraordinary propaganda activities to combat the effects of potential recruits being put off by the continual sight of Union Flag draped coffins arriving home. North of the border, that great Scottish cultural ambassador, the Tartan Army is being used by a PR onslaught that’s seen city buses emblazoned with the patriotic call for young Scots to “join the real Tartan Army”. Of course, the PR soundbite fails to advertise that the ‘real’ foot soldiers, unlike their football fan counterparts, have every chance of returning home in a coffin or wheelchair. Alas, their ‘glorious service’ may be rewarded with a medal or public display of manufactured mourning in Wootton Bassett.

This surreptitious infiltration of the pastimes of the masses (or working class masses to be precise) continues. The national game was also commissioned last year when all English and Scottish Premier League football clubs were asked to display the red poppy on their kit. In addition, that other national treasure, the X-Factor (sponsored by the Sun newspaper) manufactured its “song for heroes”. Indoctrinating the ‘nation’ with hero rhetoric aims to encourage potential ‘heroes’ to put down the remote control and ditch the season ticket for a stint on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan where the quest for excitement far exceeds anything Simon Cowell or Bolton Wanderers can muster. Not only will army life replace idleness and menial work with discipline and manly activities, but it will also substitute £60 per week dole money with £17k whilst freeing the concerned middle classes – doyen of the political elites - of their moral panics about subsidising ‘scroungers’. Just in case the ‘nation’s’ favourite sport and television programme don’t do the trick, last year also witnessed the MoD ‘advising’ teachers on what to include in history lessons resulting in the NUT accusing the MoD of behaving “unethically”.[2] This ‘unethical’ behaviour included strategically targeting disadvantaged schools to bombard with army recruitment materials. The MoD providing propaganda lessons on the Iraq ‘war’ to schoolchildren is worrying enough without attempting to recruit more youngsters to waste their and/or other peoples’ lives. In 2007 two reports highlighted the poorly educated nature of army personnel, reporting that half of new recruits had literacy and numeracy levels of primary school leavers, with nearly one in ten deemed to have levels lower than those expected from seven and eight year olds. These are the ‘best of the best’ our government sends off to “win hearts and minds” in far off lands. Rather than celebrate the heroics or mourn the ‘sacrifice’ that we encouraged them to make in the first place, let’s educate them properly.

Previous studies[3] have shown that one of the necessary conditions in the process of transforming civilians into soldiers – willing to kill, maim and die – is for soldiers to feel the public supports them and their actions. This is the raison d’etre for the many newly created rituals of national militarism, including the aforementioned special Iraq ‘war’ commemoration service at St Paul’s Cathedral. Tony Blair, chief architect of the destruction, along with senior Royal Family members, chief benefactors of senseless patronage, accompanied representatives of all the armed forces in presenting an institutionalised national front of pride and sorrow. Tracey Hazel, mother of a killed soldier lit a special candle as part of the ceremony. She commented, “the service is a fantastic idea. It makes me so proud to be British and a lot of other people should be”. The message is twofold – Britishness is militarist. Therefore, rejecting militarism is anti-British. There is not enough national sycophancy and support for British militaristic endeavours so we have to pull out the stops and get everyone on board. A grieving mother is difficult to argue with. We’re killing and maiming (ourselves and others) under a British flag. Therefore, it must be desirable and legitimate.

Just in case the soldiers begin to doubt – and therefore question their own acts – Royal Navy representative, Jon Pentreath, a reader at the St Paul’s commemoration, pleads, “it’s important for the nation to understand what members of the armed forces and their families are going through”. What he really means is that it is important for soldiers to feel ‘the nation’ understands and supports them, as this support is a fundamental requirement for maintaining soldier morale. However, it’s important that the armed forces and their pawn soldiers understand that vast numbers of the public do not support their violence, do not agree with their actions and do not wish them to die or kill others. The Nuremburg Code outlines our responsibly to act according to our moral code rather than any national or military codes. One should remind the warmongers, however, that this refusal to ‘remember with pride’ or ‘support the troops’ is quite separate from feeling deep sympathy and sorrow for those who have lost loved ones and so it should be. The problem is that the powerful elites are determined to weave both issues inextricably together in their attempts to manufacture consent and demonise dissent. It is no secret that the most successful PR weapon is to (misre)present your opponent’s position as morally corrupt. Resistance always needs to be understood both in the ways it opposes dominant ideology and is contained by it!

By manufacturing a number of new ‘traditions’ such as military ‘homecoming parades’ and newly hatched memorial services for soldiers killed after WWII and embedding this politicised agenda within popular culture under the guise of ‘helping heroes’, these politically imbued practices combine in seeking to create a culture of uncritical acceptance and pride in military actions whilst simultaneously demonising legitimate opposition to militarism and nationalism. Red poppy wearers merely promote and justify the narrow agenda of political and militaristic elites helping socialise young army recruits into feeling “the nation’s support”. Rather than piously remember, let’s question the morality and legality of ‘supporting’ the killings by ‘our troops’ of many of the million plus[4] individuals who have lost their life due to the UK supported invasion of Iraq.

Those who do not support the political or ideological justifications for conflict, and those who oppose war in general, have a duty to speak up and not to allow their voice to be hijacked into the “nation's support for heroes”! These are the reasons why it is more urgent to act than merely remember and these are the reasons why those who reject the Earl Haig framework of remembrance have every right to seek change rather than remembrance. They also have every right not to be routinely ostracised for their entirely legitimate position!

If you’ve suffered as a result of military conflict you know only too well that you do not require a glib red poppy to remind you of it. The fact that people continue to carelessly repeat the mantra of "we should remember those who were fighting for our freedoms" is evidence alone of the latent political power of the red poppy. The "freedom" soundbite is cleverly abused in defending the legalised mass murder of young men from all over the world in WWI and in the atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq which, for many, have little or nothing to do with freedom. Remembering the war dead in this narrow politically charged red poppy framework is not the only way to remember them publicly if one wishes to do so. The Peace Pledge Union’s white poppy does that job perfectly minus the militaristic and nationalistic ideology surrounding the Earl Haig version!

In order to successfully execute a war, governments need obedient and unquestioning soldiers willing to kill and die on their behalf. This is after all the central feature of army training. Governments (and the soldiers) also require populations to be equally unquestioning and obedient and part of our training is the annual homage to militarism and human sacrifice at Remembrance Sunday. The time has come to refuse the conscription and to disobey and question. It is time to stop remembering with pride and time to act with purpose. Then, and only then will it be possible to create the peaceful future we all should desire. Harry Patch, the last living link to the biggest waste of all has now died. It is revealing that in the aftermath of his death, those salivating military obsessed elites were so determined to re-brand old Harry they conveniently ignored his lifelong anti-militaristic feelings and his unambiguous message that “war isn’t worth one life!”

John Kelly

[1] 10th October 2009 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2675598/Archbishop-of-Canterburys-war-rant-mars-troops-tribute.html
[2] See The Guardian (14/3/08 ) “MoD accused of schools propaganda”
[3] Grossman, D. (1996) On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society; Nadelson, T. (2005) Trained to Kill: Soldiers at War.
[4] Source: ORB polling company (reported on the BBC’s Newsnight, 14th September, 2007). In October 2006 The Lancet reported that at least 650,000 deaths had occurred by then.

[SpursFan1902]

I have to side with Pirty on this one. I think patriotism has a place in modern society. There is nothing wrong with being proud to be *fill in nationality here*. In order to move forward as a national community, we have to have something that binds us as a communty and for most nationalities that is the pride of being whatever nationality you are. I think the error that is made it that some folks equate patriotism with blind faith or following. I consider myself very patriotic, but do I always think that we (as Americans) are always right? Always do the right thing? No, I certainly do not. Would I (and did I) stand up when I thought things were going in the wrong direction? Yes I did and I campaigned and voted for the candidate that I thought would put us back on the right track. As with alot of emotionally charged ideas, there is the "patriotic ideal" and then there is the reality of the situation. Being proud of where you come from and where you live is not a crime nor does it necessarily mean the patriotic parties have blinders on. Make no mistake, while I may only be 2nd generation American and I may be enamoured with all things from the UK, I am 100% American and proud to be so. Ok, I am done...

[SpursFan1902]

[faceless]

That's my own example, spurs - I've had things like that said to me for years. I can see your point and I jsut wish your level was the one at which people stopped, but there's just too many examples of nationalities causing grief because of the attitudes of those few people in control for me to be interested in supporting patriotism. It's just propaganda.

As I said earlier, I reckon sports are about the only way that patriotism could be relevant. The world we live in now is not dependent on any one nation, it depends on the individuals within those nations to take us all forward.

Down with blind patriotism, up with internationalism!

As an aside, the Dadaist art movement of the early 20th century had a line about war that went something like 'If logic and reason will lead us into such horror, then why choose logic and reason?'

[SpursFan1902]

"As I said earlier, I reckon sports are about the only way that patriotism could be relevant. The world we live in now is not dependent on any one nation, it depends on the individuals within those nations to take us all forward."

Well we all know how I feel about sports and I love 'em and I agree that we now live in a global community and have to work together as a world community rather that country vs country but I still think there is a place for personal patriotism for one's home country. IMHO, we can't move forward unless we have a firm grounding in who we are...

"Down with blind patriotism, up with internationalism!" Here, Here!!

[faceless]

But who we are isn't defined by where we are born. I doubt you'd be a much different person if you'd been born in any other country - you'd have different cultural references, but you'd be pretty much the same person. And I'm pretty sure I'd be the same non-conformist rabble-rouser wherever I'd have grown up!

[major.tom]

[modern]

Nice pic in OP Faceless. Can you buy those?

[faceless]

yeah, this is the site - I should have linked it earlier really


http://www.ppu.org.uk/poppy/