Thread: Remembrance Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026444
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I found myself deeply troubled as well as deeply moved by the BBC coverage of the Royal British Legion at the Albert Hall tonight.
Troubled at the state church sanction, blessing of militarism. Of war in the name of justice and freedom and ... peace. What disturbed me most was the literalization implicit in 'fight the good fight' and laying down your comfort, reward, life for your comrades in ARMS.
Which until last year I regarded as about the most noble sacrifice possible. But now I regard NOT doing so as the yet higher sacrifice.
I wonder what will happen tomorrow when I where my white poppy in front of what seems to be the whole village at church? I've had a couple of pleasant enquiries so far.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I found myself deeply troubled as well as deeply moved by the BBC coverage of the Royal British Legion at the Albert Hall tonight.
You are not alone - this is an extraordinarily powerful piece of writing, from an ex-soldier, who is, like you, increasingly queasy.
The Torlets' school was the nominated 'remembrance' school for the British Legion. Various parts of the armed forces came to explain to the children what they do - lots of physical exercise and disarming land mines, it seems, and little of the bayoneting and shooting and bombing. Fortunately, our antidote is Mrs Tor, who was in the army, and various relatives who, while now dead, were witness to some of the war's most bloody moments, including liberating a concentration camp.
Now let me see your war face.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Doc Tor, thank you for the link to that moving article (I am left of the Guardian so don't usually read it).
I am a pacifist; however, the remembrance industry is as poor at honouring soldiers as it is at honouring those brave enough to go with their consciences and oppose war. Both are victims of the sin of war. The Established Church's lapse into civic religion and endorsement of militarism is appalling and an insult to Christ and His Kingdom of Peace, although other churches are not blameless either (particularly the Salvation Army). Tomorrow (well, today) I shall attend the local Quaker Meeting for Worship in thanks for their faithful witness to peace.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
This is such a complicated arena.
I am the daughter of an army officer: my dad fought in WW2 and in Korea and his father fought in WW1. He had to kill people.
My American mother's brother was killed in Korea. I grew up being told that sometimes war is necessary but only sometimes. On one occasion my father disobeyed orders (from very high up) as he believed what he had been told to do was morally wrong.He risked his own life in doing this but he was immovable on the point and he saved many other lives with this choice.
In his retirement years, he went into local schools to tell the children about the reality of war, not to glorify it but to urge them to do all they could to work for peace.
But he still maintained that sometimes war was necessary but only after all other methods of remedy had been exhausted. He abhorred the hijacking of remembrance of his fallen comrades to serve political agendas.
Now I work for peace in a conflict area in Kenya. These week more innocent people were brutally killed, wonderful people who were pacifist like me. Had I been there, with the means to save them, would I have stood and watched them die or would I too have taken up arms?
As I said, it's complicated
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
This happens at this time every year on the Ship.
Some heroic Athanasius contra mundum announces that they are going to courageously fly in the face of mass militaristic hysteria on the part of hoi polloi and the media and refuse, even under the direst persecution, to wear a red poppy.
It is, of course possible to wear a poppy in simple remembrance of all who served and suffered in past conflicts, without either glorifying war in general or voicing an opinion about any current hostilities, but that would be pretty boring.
At this time of the year, too, the usual suspects (Guardian in the UK, The Age and the ABC here in Australia) dig out an ex-service person who questions war in general or some war in particular.
They have won the right to their opinion by (unlike almost all the rest of us) having participated in combat, but it can be asked whether their views are representative of most ex-service people.
I base my conviction that war is sometimes the lesser of two evils (which is not the same as just war theory, because it is arguable that no war is unambiguously just) on, amongst other things, the opinion of other ex-service people who also served in combat but did not become pacifist, such as my father who fought in WWII, and C.S. Lewis who saw action on the Western Front and wrote Why I Am Not A Pacifist – they have won the right to their opinion, too.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
This happens at this time every year on the Ship.
Some heroic Athanasius contra mundum announces that they are going to courageously fly in the face of mass militaristic hysteria on the part of hoi polloi and the media and refuse, even under the direst persecution, to wear a red poppy.
It is, of course possible to wear a poppy in simple remembrance of all who served and suffered in past conflicts, without either glorifying war in general or voicing an opinion about any current hostilities, but that would be pretty boring.
At this time of the year, too, the usual suspects (Guardian in the UK, The Age and the ABC here in Australia) dig out an ex-service person who questions war in general or some war in particular.
They have won the right to their opinion by (unlike almost all the rest of us) having participated in combat, but it can be asked whether their views are representative of most ex-service people.
I base my conviction that war is sometimes the lesser of two evils (which is not the same as just war theory, because it is arguable that no war is unambiguously just) on, amongst other things, the opinion of other ex-service people who also served in combat but did not become pacifist, such as my father who fought in WWII, and C.S. Lewis who saw action on the Western Front and wrote Why I Am Not A Pacifist – they have won the right to their opinion, too.
It's not about pacifism v non-pacifism. It's about what the red poppy was about, and what it's about now. They are two different things. I have zero issue remembering those who have died while serving in the Armed Forces. I have enormous issues with the blind acceptance of war that comes with Remembrance Sunday nowadays (which was never the original intention), the commercialisation of death (not all commemorative items are charity ones) and above all the unspoken obligation to wear a poppy, otherwise you're being disrespectful of the war dead. It's not presented as a choice anymore, but a duty, which is not right. People have every right to wear a poppy if they want to do so, the BBC and others do not have the right to enforce their wear (albeit unspokenly). It seems ironic that we are constantly told that those we remember died to protect our freedoms, yet we are not given the freedom to freely choose to wear a poppy or not.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Also - plenty of conscientious objectors died in wartime too, yet are never publicly honoured despite the very real persecution they endured.If that isn't glorification of combat, rather than remembering all the war dead (and many COs served in non-combat roles), I don't know what is. Strange how there isn't a national remembrance event for May 15th (International Conscientious Objectors Day).....
Why do officers who sent boys to their deaths in WWI get honoured, and not the Friends Ambulance Service?
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Well said, Jade Constable!
Also tangent- from the timings of your various posts it looks like you were up all night? Insomnia is horrible, sorry- end tangent
Still,I suppose its given you plenty of time to craft thought provoking posts which are always respectful of other people's opinions too....
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also - plenty of conscientious objectors died in wartime too, yet are never publicly honoured despite the very real persecution they endured.If that isn't glorification of combat, rather than remembering all the war dead (and many COs served in non-combat roles), I don't know what is. Strange how there isn't a national remembrance event for May 15th (International Conscientious Objectors Day).....
Why do officers who sent boys to their deaths in WWI get honoured, and not the Friends Ambulance Service?
My father-in-law was a conscientious objector and served in an ambulance unit.
I have no less respect for him than for my father.
No-one is making you wear a poppy, and vast numbers don't.
In our church of 200-300 members, I was one of fewer than half a dozen who wore one this morning.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The Established Church's lapse into civic religion and endorsement of militarism is appalling and an insult to Christ and His Kingdom of Peace, although other churches are not blameless either (particularly the Salvation Army).
I'm sorry?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
What's that about then? What have we done now?
[ 10. November 2013, 07:36: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Sorry for not making it clear, I'll be wearing a red one as well. It's just that the white trumps the red. And no MrsBeaky. It's not difficult at all, it's just ... difficult.
Of the military men I have known, the most courageous was my school chemistry teacher, a WW2 pacifist ... and bomb disposal expert.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No-one is making you wear a poppy, and vast numbers don't.
In our church of 200-300 members, I was one of fewer than half a dozen who wore one this morning.
At my church there will be about 50 this morning and if anyone turns up without a poppy they will be handed one on the assumption that they forgot.
I wear a poppy with sorrow, not pride. I object to the RBL slogan "wear your poppy with pride". The service men and women are victims of war, just as much as the civilian victims. But they died because their leaders asked them to, not just because they got in the way. We should remember them. We should grieve for them. But national pride is what got them killed.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
@ MrsBeaky
I'm also uncomfortable with the unspoken (sometimes spoken!) pressure to wear a poppy and, in fact, choose not to. Partly it's simple stubbornness; I don't want to do something just because most other people are. But I'm also deeply ambivalent about war per se, and in particular about the glorification of war and celebration of patriotism that can sometimes follow on the coat-tails of remembrance.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What's that about then? What have we done now?
You have the word "army" in your name.
Therefore you are irredeemably militaristic and in favour of war.
There's no point arguing. If you weren't all jingoistic gun nuts, you wouldn't call yourselves an army. QED.
Just like the fact that Remembrance Sunday is jingoistic, nationalist, militaristic and glorifies war. Never mind that every single Remembrance Service I've ever been to has described war as a horrible outrage and contained prayers for and commitment to peace. Nothing will ever convince some people that we're not secretly tucking copies of Guns and Ammo into our orders of service and salivating over the prospect of war, more war.
Evidence and argument to the contrary is presented, and ignored, every year on the ship. It never does any good. The anti-Remembrancers enjoy their annual self-congratulatory whinge too much.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
All I can say is thank God that you are alive today and speaking English. Especially if you are Jewish, homosexual, disabled, a Traveller, a Jehovah's Witness, dark-haired or even Christian!
Had Hitler managed to invade and conquer Britain you can be sure that none of the above would have lasted very long under the Nazi government.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What's that about then? What have we done now?
You have the word "army" in your name.
Therefore you are irredeemably militaristic and in favour of war.
There's no point arguing. If you weren't all jingoistic gun nuts, you wouldn't call yourselves an army. QED.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What's that about then? What have we done now?
You have the word "army" in your name.
Therefore you are irredeemably militaristic and in favour of war.
There's no point arguing. If you weren't all jingoistic gun nuts, you wouldn't call yourselves an army. QED.
Just like the fact that Remembrance Sunday is jingoistic, nationalist, militaristic and glorifies war. Never mind that every single Remembrance Service I've ever been to has described war as a horrible outrage and contained prayers for and commitment to peace. Nothing will ever convince some people that we're not secretly tucking copies of Guns and Ammo into our orders of service and salivating over the prospect of war, more war.
Evidence and argument to the contrary is presented, and ignored, every year on the ship. It never does any good. The anti-Remembrancers enjoy their annual self-congratulatory whinge too much.
Actually, I think I have realised that this post may be slightly sarcastic.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Why would Hitler have invaded and conquered Britain?
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Sorry for not making it clear, I'll be wearing a red one as well.
Then you have my admiration. A good freind, who is ex-military, does exactly the same.
As for the Festival of remembrance last night, I saw nothing that glorified war.
War is always, always a bad thing. A very bad thing. But occasionally there comes a time when all other avenues have been exhausted when military action becomes the least bad of all the alternatives. It is only then that war can be justified.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I'm sensitized to it now balaam, paranoid one could say I'm sure, but believe me, it was there. Tastefully, understatedly, most movingly done, most Britishly done. But there. The state's pet church did not represent its countercultural founder. Imagine, eh?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm not sure that 'anti-Remembrancers' are self-congratulatory, are they? I am very conscious of the debt owed to previous generations - both my grandfathers fought in WWI, and lost brothers. Both my parents were in the army in WWII, and my dad was involved in operation Mulberry.
So I don't denigrate what they did at all. But I don't like wearing a poppy for various reasons, some of them rather private. One reason is that both grandads refused to wear them, and were bitter about their experience. So I honour them in my own way.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Kaplan:
quote:
This happens at this time every year on the Ship.
Some heroic Athanasius contra mundum announces that they are going to courageously fly in the face of mass militaristic hysteria on the part of hoi polloi and the media and refuse, even under the direst persecution, to wear a red poppy.
....and this happens every year on this ship too. Anyone expressing any kind of qualm about the poppy or remembrance services in church is made to face up to their perceived lack of integrity, their hysterical mania at not supporting 'our troops' fighting for 'our freedom' and informed that they are disrespecting the memory of the war dead. Perhaps, just perhaps, you might be able to get beyond a knee jerk reaction to see the genuine qualms of others without emotively manipulative appeals of perceived intent to actually see what is being said - namely that most people want to remember with respect and maintain the dignity of those who died in the waste of war.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Why would Hitler have invaded and conquered Britain?
Because he could Martin , because he could -- The mantra of all serial killers.
I was surprised to learn this morning that the white poppy was first worn in 1933 .
In Britain , if any decade could be an example of the complex relationship between the desire for peace and the necessity to fight, then the 30s was it .
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Why would Hitler have invaded and conquered Britain?
It was what he wanted to do. That was why Oxford was never bombed: he wanted it to be his new capital after he'd flattened London and marched in.
I never wear a poppy. It's too visible a reminder of those days of both wars. The First World War shattered my father's family, the Second was easier but either way, to hold a poppy in my hands is for me to hold a visible symbol of part of both conflicts and all the memories that go with it. It's not something I can do lightly. I'm glad that other people do it, though.
It is for me about remembrance because also, there will be young widows for whom it has a particular significance (Falklands, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc). I find it deeply depressing that the urge to fight seems to be ingrained in human nature. But there it is. I don't see the poppy as glorifying war at all: it's a sign of that time of year when, as with November generally, you remember those who have gone before, in some cases, far too young and suddenly.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Kaplan, the queasiness about Remembrance Day is nothing new, and I suspect it's partly to do with the changing nature of warfare. WWI and WWII involved most of the country in the War Effort, in some way or another, including those who served as conscientious objectors and those who died as civilians. Other conflicts have not been so universal.
I grew up with an annual dispute between my grandfather who served in WWI, was deafened on the Somme working alongside the big guns, and my father, who served in Korea; that war whose veterans are only marching in the Cenotaph Parade for the first time this year on the 50th Anniversary of the end of that war. My grandfather polished up his medals and stood proudly next to the war memorial. My father did not. I only found out he had medals from this annual row. And from talking to a flatmate later, whose father had also served in Korea, that veteran did not talk about his experiences either without drink taken. Some wars are harder to remember than others.
I have to march with the Guides today, wearing a poppy, which I only bought for that purpose. And I'm reluctant. I feel really squeamish how this has moved from the service I willingly attended as a child where veterans and others remembered, which when attending with people who served was a poignant reminder, to what we have now - a huge wreath laying ceremony from the uniformed groups, schools, civic groups - Uncle Tom Cobley and all, most of whom are not involved, none of whom remember.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Why would he have flattened London?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
And due to my inoculation by the Son of Man I heard it again in today's service, from the mouth of his priest.
It's not what He would have said.
Interestingly I very much doubt I'd hear it in a British Roman Catholic Church.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Hitler tried to flatten London and other key cities in order to browbeat the UK into submission, having lost patience with the initial invasion timetable due to Churchill's stubborn resistance .
The sea-borne invasion by Germany would probably have come in the Autumn of 1940 or early 41 had the Luftwaffe persisted and successfully knocked out the RAF .
Respect to "The Few"
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Why did he have to browbeat the British in to submission?
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Why did he have to browbeat the British in to submission?
Because they were not going to call a truce any time soon or give in to the Nazis.
Hitler was determined to bring Britain to its knees. Flattening London would have been (from his point of view) a good symbolic defeat. Hence the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. You might find what Wikipedia has to say on Operation Sea Lion interesting.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Why weren't they going to call a truce soon or give in to the Nazis?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I wear both a white and a red poppy.
Our Remembrance service at Church went really well.
It was not a celebration of power - it was a reminder that God's power is the Power of Love.
We had the carol 'It came upon a midnight clear' which resonated really well.
But with the woes of sin and strife
The world has suffered long;
Beneath the angel-strain have rolled
Two thousand years of wrong;
And man, at war with man, hears not
The love-song which they bring.
O hush the noise, ye men of strife,
And hear the angels sing!
The preacher reflected on remembering in order to learn from the past, remembering in order to forgive not forget and remembering the words of Scripture. That men “would beat their swords into ploughshares, their spears into pruning hooks and study war no more” - peace as the consequence of Worship.
The whole service was very well received indeed.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Britain was an 'irritation' to Nazi Germany , as it had been to various military empires previously .
And as was the case in the past , Hitler's tyranny was kept out by a wing and a prayer coupled with extreme good fortune .
<cross posted with Boogie>
[ 10. November 2013, 12:35: Message edited by: rolyn ]
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Why did he have to browbeat the British in to submission?
I'll go with: Because Churchill was going to go down fighting... (ask those French ship Captains)
Please not only feel but BE free to call it a 'sin', from your protected pulpit. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Boogie: Your Church sang "It came upon a midnight clear".
I would have liked my congregations to sing Wesley's " All glory to God in the sky and peace upon earth be restored". ( But we are few and it is not well known!)
It contains the words
"Come then to thy servants again
who long thy appearing to know;
Thy quiet and peaceable reign
In mercy establish below;
All sorrow before thee shall fly,
And anger and hatred be o'er,
And envy and malice shall die,
And discord afflict us no more".
[ 10. November 2013, 13:02: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
We had our Remembrance service this morning, suitably timed so that we could keep the 2 minute silence.
The names of the dead from the village were read out for the two World Wars, for Korea, for the Falklands, for Northern Ireland and from Afghanistan.
Not sure why but there seems to be a very strong link between living in the village and the military, so we have people still in the forces, some from the reserve and lots of ex-service at Church.
This year the roll of honour was read by the nephew of one of the people on it - a WAAF who died when the air station she was serving at was bombed.
We remembered the millions of civilians of both sides who died, as well as those who perished in concentration camps - some of these last by name as relatives of one of the regular worshippers, which is why among the prayers we had a translation of the mourners Kaddish.
I didn't see a single person not wearing a poppy. People wore them to mark Remembrance but also to support the charitable work of the Royal British Legion.
There was no "glorifying" of war. There were many there who had fought and knew that armed conflict should be the response of last resort, not the first; but equally who were only too aware that sometimes the taking up of arms is the least bad option.
If you feel this country would have benefited from being taken over by a madman who sought to exterminate the Jews, gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses and homosexuals of Europe, who made it deliberate policy that all Russian prisoners of war should be starved then that is your prerogative. But please don't presume that those of us who disagree with you are not entitled to mark the sacrifices of those who died so that we did not end up as an ethnically cleansed client province of the thousand year Reich.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
moron
Rather than being snide about Churchill you should be grateful that he was there to be cussed and face down Nazi Germany. Yes, the French fleet was sunk but that was to stop it falling into the hands of the Kriegsmarine.
If you're looking for a scapegoat among the wartime leaders you could do worse than opt for FDR - he who decided that Churchill was such a dangerous man that it was preferable for half Europe to be given to Stalin on a plate: the effects of FDR's hubris and wrong-headedness are still evident from the Balkans to the Baltic.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also - plenty of conscientious objectors died in wartime too, yet are never publicly honoured despite the very real persecution they endured.If that isn't glorification of combat, rather than remembering all the war dead (and many COs served in non-combat roles), I don't know what is. Strange how there isn't a national remembrance event for May 15th (International Conscientious Objectors Day).....
Why do officers who sent boys to their deaths in WWI get honoured, and not the Friends Ambulance Service?
My father-in-law was a conscientious objector and served in an ambulance unit.
I have no less respect for him than for my father.
No-one is making you wear a poppy, and vast numbers don't.
In our church of 200-300 members, I was one of fewer than half a dozen who wore one this morning.
Missing the point. There is no public remembrance/honour for COs.
Also, there is definitely an unspoken push to wear a poppy. I don't know what church you belong to, but certainly in town today I could count the people without poppies on my hands - including myself. It may not be legally required but there is forceful social pressure.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The Established Church's lapse into civic religion and endorsement of militarism is appalling and an insult to Christ and His Kingdom of Peace, although other churches are not blameless either (particularly the Salvation Army).
I'm sorry?
What's that about then? What have we done now?
....being called an army, with military ranks and other names? It's not criticism of the SA in terms of theology, but of the way churches and the military have become intertwined. Most mainstream churches do it to some extent, but the SA was the one who does it most obviously, aside from the CoE (since they have official presence on Remembrance Day in a way other churches don't). Sorry for not explaining very well (as MrsBeaky says, insomnia), and believe me I criticise my own denomination for it far more.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What's that about then? What have we done now?
You have the word "army" in your name.
Therefore you are irredeemably militaristic and in favour of war.
There's no point arguing. If you weren't all jingoistic gun nuts, you wouldn't call yourselves an army. QED.
Just like the fact that Remembrance Sunday is jingoistic, nationalist, militaristic and glorifies war. Never mind that every single Remembrance Service I've ever been to has described war as a horrible outrage and contained prayers for and commitment to peace. Nothing will ever convince some people that we're not secretly tucking copies of Guns and Ammo into our orders of service and salivating over the prospect of war, more war.
Evidence and argument to the contrary is presented, and ignored, every year on the ship. It never does any good. The anti-Remembrancers enjoy their annual self-congratulatory whinge too much.
I can only speak for myself, but I am not anti-Remembrance. I am opposed to the modern military-glorifying Remembrance, which bears no resemblance to the original aim of it. 'Wear your poppy with pride' speaks for itself - no, we shouldn't be proud that people killed other people because their governments told them to do so. And Remembrance has become very nationalistic and nationalism is something for Christians to avoid - are we not all God's creation, regardless of country of origin? Why do we only value those who died 'to protect our country'? Why not all who died?
It would perhaps help if COs and those who died on the 'enemy' sides were honoured enough.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I can say is thank God that you are alive today and speaking English. Especially if you are Jewish, homosexual, disabled, a Traveller, a Jehovah's Witness, dark-haired or even Christian!
Had Hitler managed to invade and conquer Britain you can be sure that none of the above would have lasted very long under the Nazi government.
This isn't about pacifism v non-pacifism. Did you actually read the article?
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
moron
Rather than being snide about Churchill you should be grateful that he was there to be cussed and face down Nazi Germany. Yes, the French fleet was sunk but that was to stop it falling into the hands of the Kriegsmarine.
If you're looking for a scapegoat among the wartime leaders you could do worse than opt for FDR - he who decided that Churchill was such a dangerous man that it was preferable for half Europe to be given to Stalin on a plate: the effects of FDR's hubris and wrong-headedness are still evident from the Balkans to the Baltic.
Your post is either a wind-up WAY above my pay grade or I failed to be clear enough.
FWIW I would have named my son Winston but my wife overruled me.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
moron
Clarity failure.
Plus a little tired of the remembrance = glorifying war narcissistic ranting.
Honouring the dead of a war(s) fought to prevent the enslavement of millions and the extirmination of entire peoples is a decent thing to do; IMO to imply that those who attempt to do such honour are being jingoistic or are showing support for unbridled militarism is less than fair, decent or honourable.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
We had our Remembrance service this morning, suitably timed so that we could keep the 2 minute silence.
The names of the dead from the village were read out for the two World Wars, for Korea, for the Falklands, for Northern Ireland and from Afghanistan.
Not sure why but there seems to be a very strong link between living in the village and the military, so we have people still in the forces, some from the reserve and lots of ex-service at Church.
This year the roll of honour was read by the nephew of one of the people on it - a WAAF who died when the air station she was serving at was bombed.
We remembered the millions of civilians of both sides who died, as well as those who perished in concentration camps - some of these last by name as relatives of one of the regular worshippers, which is why among the prayers we had a translation of the mourners Kaddish.
I didn't see a single person not wearing a poppy. People wore them to mark Remembrance but also to support the charitable work of the Royal British Legion.
There was no "glorifying" of war. There were many there who had fought and knew that armed conflict should be the response of last resort, not the first; but equally who were only too aware that sometimes the taking up of arms is the least bad option.
If you feel this country would have benefited from being taken over by a madman who sought to exterminate the Jews, gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses and homosexuals of Europe, who made it deliberate policy that all Russian prisoners of war should be starved then that is your prerogative. But please don't presume that those of us who disagree with you are not entitled to mark the sacrifices of those who died so that we did not end up as an ethnically cleansed client province of the thousand year Reich.
Sigh. As I've already said, it's not about pacifism v non-pacifism. The person writing the Graun article is an ex-soldier.
Was there any memorial/remembrance for conscientious objectors who were persecuted by friends, family, churches and their country at your Remembrance service? Those who died on the 'enemy' side (which would have included many sincere Christians who were conscripted against their will)? The teenage boys shot for 'cowardice' when they were actually very ill? THAT is the problem with modern Remembrance Sunday - it doesn't actually commemorate all the war dead. If you (general you) only remember the military heroes from 'our country', then it glorifies war by itself. The whole point of the original movement was to remember the tragedies, not the heroes, because there are no heroes when it comes to war, at least not from a Christian perspective. We all lose when we fight each other. As I have repeatedly said, I have no issue whatsoever with remembering the war dead - I have a problem when not all the war dead are actually remembered.
BTW, Britain invented the concentration camp and used it in South Africa.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Also a bit of a strawman isn't it, to talk of non-poppy-wearers preferring being taken over by a madman (Hitler)? I don't not wear a poppy, or not go to a Remembrance service because I'm a pacifist (I'm not), or because I would have preferred Hitler to win the war (I wouldn't)!
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Boogie: Your Church sang "It came upon a midnight clear".
I would have liked my congregations to sing Wesley's " All glory to God in the sky and peace upon earth be restored". ( But we are few and it is not well known!)
It contains the words
"Come then to thy servants again
who long thy appearing to know;
Thy quiet and peaceable reign
In mercy establish below;
All sorrow before thee shall fly,
And anger and hatred be o'er,
And envy and malice shall die,
And discord afflict us no more".
Then we must learn it!
Excellent words.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Jade
Please read what I posted: quote:
...We remembered the millions of civilians of both sides who died, as well as those who perished in concentration camps...
I think the specific categories you mention quote:
...conscientious objectors who were persecuted by friends, family, churches and their country at your Remembrance service? Those who died on the 'enemy' side (which would have included many sincere Christians who were conscripted against their will)? The teenage boys shot for 'cowardice' when they were actually very ill...
were all covered in our remembrance: COs were civilians, conscripts (willing or unwilling) were in the armed forces, as were the soldiers (not just teenagers) executed in WWI and we remembered the dead of ALL the armed forces, on both sides.
Yes, I am well-aware that the idea of keeping in one place - concentrating - civilians in a war zone was a practice invented by the British army during the Boer War. Ironically the Boer PoWs were sent overseas and so not subjected to the vagaries of poor supply, dreadful sanitation and disease that their women and children endured.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Jade
Please read what I posted: quote:
...We remembered the millions of civilians of both sides who died, as well as those who perished in concentration camps...
I think the specific categories you mention quote:
...conscientious objectors who were persecuted by friends, family, churches and their country at your Remembrance service? Those who died on the 'enemy' side (which would have included many sincere Christians who were conscripted against their will)? The teenage boys shot for 'cowardice' when they were actually very ill...
were all covered in our remembrance: COs were civilians, conscripts (willing or unwilling) were in the armed forces, as were the soldiers (not just teenagers) executed in WWI and we remembered the dead of ALL the armed forces, on both sides.
Yes, I am well-aware that the idea of keeping in one place - concentrating - civilians in a war zone was a practice invented by the British army during the Boer War. Ironically the Boer PoWs were sent overseas and so not subjected to the vagaries of poor supply, dreadful sanitation and disease that their women and children endured.
COs weren't just civilians though - they were people punished for being civilians, and a lot of that punishment came from the Established church. Despite many if not most COs objecting to war on Christian grounds (which is a perfectly valid position to take and was indeed the position of the early church).
You can have complicated feelings about Remembrance AND honour the war dead - all the war dead. I am (genuinely) glad your church did indeed honour all the war dead, but unfortunately that seems rare now.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Our remembrance service did not glorify war, it glorified God. It was about the call for peace, as well as paying tribute to and remembrance of all those who have died in wars, all including those being fought at the time. It was respectful and moving. I thank God that it's a Sunday set aside in the church calendar.
It's important to recall the tragedy of war, the loss of young life and the tears of the bereaved, for the sake of the push for peace. The red poppy means that to me now. I have in the past listened to those who suggested that it was about perpetuating war. I know better now, based on the experiences of the services I have attended, and the people I have spoken to who have been directly involved.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
You can have complicated feelings about Remembrance AND honour the war dead - all the war dead. I am (genuinely) glad your church did indeed honour all the war dead, but unfortunately that seems rare now.
We certainly have always tried to do that - and remembering the dead, injured, displaced etc. of all wars on all sides. Perhaps it's easier for Nonconformists - we may well still be swayed by public opinion, but we are less likely to be involved in "civic" celebrations of Remembrance.
In our service today I preached on "Greater love hath no man..." but related it very specifically to the voluntary death of Christ and his suffering with and for the world. I did also comment in passing on the way in politicians or other leaders have sometimes been far too quick to get involved in wars and so sent service-people to die when they should not have done.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Jade Constable asks: quote:
Those who died on the 'enemy' side (which would have included many sincere Christians who were conscripted against their will)?
I suppressed a French MW report from 2011 as my notes were incomplete, but after the service I spoke with the Gabonese rector of a country church in Brittany who told me that when he celebrates on the anniversary of the town's liberation by US troops during WWII, mention is made of all the soldiers and fighters who died in that place, of whatever stripe. As well, on the 60th anniversary, a quiet and semi-private mass (as all involved wish to avoid controversy), some aging German veterans attended a mass of reconciliation with French and US survivors of the event. He told me that this had been done in a few other places, but it was still controversial. He said that he understood this as his father's tribe had been long enemies of his mother's; many were unable to attend their wedding and he had uncles who had never spoken; it was a cause of joy when people were able to overcome these divisions at the altar.
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
In our service today I preached on "Greater love hath no man..." but related it very specifically to the voluntary death of Christ and his suffering with and for the world. I did also comment in passing on the way in politicians or other leaders have sometimes been far too quick to get involved in wars and so sent service-people to die when they should not have done.
The church I went to today had a really strange sermon about how it's God's job to remember the dead, and how we should only remember the living - the preacher went on about the whole remembrance 'season', including Bonfire Night, All Souls, Halloween, as well as today, and likened some of it to ancestor worship - he was a visiting preacher, I believe, possibly of a somewhat evangelical bent (judging by his delivery), so I don't know whether this is standard spiel for evo's, perhaps someone can enlighten me.
Also, one of the prayers we used only mentioned those who died in the cause of freedom, so presumably excluding Germans and (possibly) Soviet soldiers who died, and of course the millions who just died for no particular cause, except that they happened to be in the wrong place.
So, it was a bit off-putting overall, but just a small part of the service, fortunately.
[ 10. November 2013, 16:56: Message edited by: Holy Smoke ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Our remembrance service did not glorify war, it glorified God. It was about the call for peace, as well as paying tribute to and remembrance of all those who have died in wars, all including those being fought at the time. It was respectful and moving. I thank God that it's a Sunday set aside in the church calendar.
It's important to recall the tragedy of war, the loss of young life and the tears of the bereaved, for the sake of the push for peace. The red poppy means that to me now. I have in the past listened to those who suggested that it was about perpetuating war. I know better now, based on the experiences of the services I have attended, and the people I have spoken to who have been directly involved.
So the person who wrote the Guardian article, who has been directly involved and does not wear a poppy doesn't count?
Also, nobody here has said it perpetuates war. It makes heroes from events from which there were no heroes, only losers, because the horror of war means nobody wins. Plus, those of us who choose not to wear a poppy should not be pressured into wearing one and be treated as if it is disrespectful to follow our consciences.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I didn't attend a Remembrance service today , not for any particular reason . I did though watch 20 mins of the Cenotaph ceremony, and was pleased to hear the commentary focus on the various faiths being represented rather than too much going on about Afghanistan .
I confess to getting a degree of angst at Church Remembrance services .
I'm thinking my mistake is to try and justify war . Yes, it's all very easy to get high on the *keeping a mad tyrant out bit*. Although I don't believe many on the actual sharp end of Churchill's 'blood , tears and sweat' recalled it with any great sense of affection or noble feelings.
But when you get into 60,000 dead or injured in one day on the Somme for no tangible gain ? Or recent wars, where it is unclear as to why sacrifices are being made thousands of miles away for a patch of desert ?
This is where the problem comes for me.
Posted by trouty (# 13497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Our remembrance service did not glorify war, it glorified God. It was about the call for peace, as well as paying tribute to and remembrance of all those who have died in wars, all including those being fought at the time. It was respectful and moving. I thank God that it's a Sunday set aside in the church calendar.
It's important to recall the tragedy of war, the loss of young life and the tears of the bereaved, for the sake of the push for peace. The red poppy means that to me now. I have in the past listened to those who suggested that it was about perpetuating war. I know better now, based on the experiences of the services I have attended, and the people I have spoken to who have been directly involved.
So the person who wrote the Guardian article, who has been directly involved and does not wear a poppy doesn't count?
Also, nobody here has said it perpetuates war. It makes heroes from events from which there were no heroes, only losers, because the horror of war means nobody wins. Plus, those of us who choose not to wear a poppy should not be pressured into wearing one and be treated as if it is disrespectful to follow our consciences.
You shouldn't be forced to wear one but what pisses people off is the grandstanding that you and other non-wearers do over it. It's as if you want some sort of medal for your stance. That cunt Jon snow is the biggest hypocrite on the planet for the remarks he made when he had earlier berated people who wouldn't wear his favoured bracelt.
Posted by trouty (# 13497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I didn't attend a Remembrance service today , not for any particular reason . I did though watch 20 mins of the Cenotaph ceremony, and was pleased to hear the commentary focus on the various faiths being represented rather than too much going on about Afghanistan .
I confess to getting a degree of angst at Church Remembrance services .
I'm thinking my mistake is to try and justify war . Yes, it's all very easy to get high on the *keeping a mad tyrant out bit*. Although I don't believe many on the actual sharp end of Churchill's 'blood , tears and sweat' recalled it with any great sense of affection or noble feelings.
But when you get into 60,000 dead or injured in one day on the Somme for no tangible gain ? Or recent wars, where it is unclear as to why sacrifices are being made thousands of miles away for a patch of desert ?
This is where the problem comes for me.
History is obviously not your strong point. I suggest you read some proper academic histories of the Somme rather than basing your remarks on Blackadder and the like. Also, what s the basis for your belief that few shared Churchill's view about the sacrifices that would be needed? Just your gut instinct? Again I would refer you to some proper academic historians.
I have no problem with Remembrance because I understand what it is for - to remember the sacrifices that were made, to honour not just the dead but all who fought and gave up their youth that we may have a better life today and that honouring them in this way is not glorifying war, no matter what the ignorant white poppy brigade might say.
Posted by trouty (# 13497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Doc Tor, thank you for the link to that moving article (I am left of the Guardian so don't usually read it).
I am a pacifist; however, the remembrance industry is as poor at honouring soldiers as it is at honouring those brave enough to go with their consciences and oppose war. Both are victims of the sin of war. The Established Church's lapse into civic religion and endorsement of militarism is appalling and an insult to Christ and His Kingdom of Peace, although other churches are not blameless either (particularly the Salvation Army). Tomorrow (well, today) I shall attend the local Quaker Meeting for Worship in thanks for their faithful witness to peace.
What a load of fucking shite you come out with.
I thank God that brave men and women in 1914-18, 1939-45 and so many conflicts since have not been pacifists. You come across as very smaug and extremely ignorant but what else can be expected from someone who boasts of being left of the Guardian? Do you really think that non-pacifists are in favour of war? Do your really think that you and Quakers are the only ones who want peace? Do your not think that the Quaker way may actually lead to more conflict? Do you think that the Second World War, for instance, could have been prevented by holding hads and singing We Shall Overcome. Sorry but smug so-called anti-war loudmouths just totally piss me off. We're not trying to force poppies on you. We jsut want you to show some fucking respect of our views if you are capable of it. I suspect you are not.
Our AC Church had a great remembrance service we we all gave thanks for what all our armed forces and particularly those from our church did and do for us.
Posted by trouty (# 13497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I didn't attend a Remembrance service today , not for any particular reason . I did though watch 20 mins of the Cenotaph ceremony, and was pleased to hear the commentary focus on the various faiths being represented rather than too much going on about Afghanistan .
I confess to getting a degree of angst at Church Remembrance services .
I'm thinking my mistake is to try and justify war . Yes, it's all very easy to get high on the *keeping a mad tyrant out bit*. Although I don't believe many on the actual sharp end of Churchill's 'blood , tears and sweat' recalled it with any great sense of affection or noble feelings.
But when you get into 60,000 dead or injured in one day on the Somme for no tangible gain ? Or recent wars, where it is unclear as to why sacrifices are being made thousands of miles away for a patch of desert ?
This is where the problem comes for me.
History is obviously not your strong point. I suggest you read some proper academic histories of the Somme rather than basing your remarks on Blackadder and the like. Also, what s the basis for your belief that few shared Churchill's view about the sacrifices that would be needed? Just your gut instinct? Again I would refer you to some proper academic historians.
I have no problem with Remembrance because I understand what it is for - to remember the sacrifices that were made, to honour not just the dead but all who fought and gave up their youth that we may have a better life today and that honouring them in this way is not glorifying war, no matter what the ignorant white poppy brigade might say.
Gone a bit far in my response to you, I'm afraid. I should have read what you said more carefully but was feelin a bit emotional after reading some of the shit on here and tarred you with the same brush. Apologies.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Jade
I'm not saying that the views expressed by the writer of the article from The Guardian don't count. But what I, and some others, are saying is that they are just that: the views of one ex-serviceman. There will be others who may have a different view: the viewpoints of them all will be valid because that is just what they are - personal viewpoints and there is no right or wrong, however much you may feel more in tune with one that another.
I'm astonished that you find it surprising that my church remembers all the dead from WWII - this has been the norm in every parish where I've worshipped since around the early 1970s. Perhaps you need to look beyond the symbolism and the more formal parts of Remembrance services (the bugles, silence and exhortation) to the words expressed in the prayers and sermons.
And I think you're being a little unfair in claiming that the CofE in general was anti Conscientious Objectors: for one thing, how can you ignore George Bell? And he was only the most famous example of many clergy who, even while they supported with their prayers the efforts of servicemen and women, made no secret of their hatred for the carnage and devastation being wrought across the world.
As for feeling pressured about a poppy, I would never try to coerce someone into supporting any concern, charitable or otherwise, that someone cannot wholeheartedly support. I personally feel that the work of the Royal British Legion in supporting veterans is of value and that is one of the reasons why I buy a poppy because sales of them provides the RBL's main source of income to fund this work.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Good move.
(to trouty.)
[ 10. November 2013, 18:04: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I can say is thank God that you are alive today and speaking English. Especially if you are Jewish, homosexual, disabled, a Traveller, a Jehovah's Witness, dark-haired or even Christian!
Had Hitler managed to invade and conquer Britain you can be sure that none of the above would have lasted very long under the Nazi government.
Yes, but being homosexual was illegal in the UK under Churchill's government. I don't think anyone was fighting WWII for gay people. In fact Alan Turning, who's brilliant mind allowed the British to win, was hounded to his death by the very society that he served. And travellers, JWs, Jews and the disabled haven't all been treated very fairly in the last 7 decades either. It's only recently that we've learned a bit more tolerance. What's to say that our German rulers wouldn't have changed in the same way over that time? And what's so great about the English language anyway? The way we've let the Americans rot our language clearly shows we have no respect for it, and as for being alive ... well who is it we were remembering?
Most of the stuff we're proud of in Britain was constructed after WWII (and has been in decline ever since the 1970s). Let's not make remembering those who died into a feast of "weren't we great to bash the evil hun". Can we just keep it a remembrance of those who died in appalling circumstances?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Rolyn, I don't understand how that answers my question.
Kaplan Corday, not a conviction shared by Jesus so it carries no weight whatsoever for me since I let it go.
moron, I adored Churchill unquestioningly for his courage and ruthless pragmatism. Until I looked anew at the East Bengal Famine of 1943. Tipping point. Among others. Many others. Rational humanitarian ones let alone true Christian ones. Pacifism alone begins to look rational and humane. A correct response to aggression. But in Christ it is obvious regardless. Which liberated Europe in the fourth century and India, Ulster and South Africa in the twentieth. As for my protected pulpit, protected from what? By what?
L'organist, I of course don't have that feeling and don't need your prerogative. But of course you couldn't have meant it in my direction as it is utterly irrational. So whose?
And why does anyone assume I'm asking history questions? I KNOW that narrative.
And trouty. Served have you? Know anyone who has? How can non-conflict lead to more conflict? Non-violence to more more violence? Non-coercion ... non-imperialism ... non-slavery ... Declaring war leads to more war. Declaring total war leads to ... There would have been no first or second world wars including the Holocaust (no Hitler, no Russian revolution, no communism, no Mussolini, no Franco) and Hiroshima without Britain. There would be no Kashmir and no Israel. No partition of India. No Apartheid. No Drogheda. No ... name it. It's easy to name what there would have been. Certainly not anything worse or even as bad. But we'll never know will we?
OK the Portuguese destroyed the heart of Africa starting half a millennium ago. Spain and Portugal ruined South America.
Rome.
Britain is just the most influential Babylonian-Roman head, horn crown since the Reformation, but of course all of Christendom is as bad compared with our ignored, denied, emasculated, domesticated, blasphemed, co-opted founder.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So the person who wrote the Guardian article, who has been directly involved and does not wear a poppy doesn't count?
Also, nobody here has said it perpetuates war. It makes heroes from events from which there were no heroes, only losers, because the horror of war means nobody wins. Plus, those of us who choose not to wear a poppy should not be pressured into wearing one and be treated as if it is disrespectful to follow our consciences.
Huh? I said I wore a poppy, and what it meant to me. I couldn't care less if nobody else wears one. In the past I didn't wear one for some years, and I didn't feel pressurised when others did. I understand the symbolism of the white poppy, but the red one for me also says 'give peace a chance'. Nobody should face what soldiers face, and they wouldn't if as Martin says we all followed the example of Christ. We all have trouble doing it.
As you said, nobody wins, but for those who suffered and who are still suffering the loss of health or life or relationship or home I stand with them in their pain, and think especially of those I personally know or knew who lost part of their lives whether injured or not. Yes, they were heroes: not of my making nor of the service I attended, but of their making through their suffering, and those of their families, as they continued to carry the burden.
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on
:
It is not the remembering that is the problem, though there are things that it would be better to forget, it the civic side of things. Today I officiated at 3 war memorials. The British Legion - decent body of men - were at each one, mainly the same members. But by the time we got to the third time of lowering the standards and listening to the piper, I began to reflect that it is those who came back who are in the Legion. Those who died might not feel so positive about their military experience that they would want a quas-military remembrance. If we are to remember properly, in a way that is relevant to all and shows the importance of all loss in war, maybe we should not let the Legion think they can or should run things? Though then the question would be who would do it?
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
Sigh. Jade appears (not for the first time) to be living on a different planet from the one I live on. Martin seems to be speaking a different language, which reminds a bit of Dutch in that it looks superficially like English but I can't understand a word of it.
A few points, in no particular order for what they're worth (which is probably not much, as peoples' minds seem pretty fixed):
1. Many churches (Anglican and RC) have requiems on Remembrance Sunday. This is the only Sunday of the year in which a requiem mass may normally be celebrated (and only by Papal permission for certain Anglophone countries). There is nothing celebratory or jingoistic about a requiem. It's a mass for the dead.
2. I think I've heard more Remembrance Sunday sermons that mentioned Bishop Bell and his opposition to aerial bombing than those that didn't. This includes services at All Saints, Margaret Street, and St Mary's, Bourne Street, so it's not as though I've been associating with wet liberals the entire time.
3. Whilst my parish's service this morning was a bit of an unhappy mixture(in that we couldn't seem to decide whether Remembrance took precedence over the Third Sunday of Advent or not), several things about it contradict the impression given by Jade and Martin about 'normal' CofE practice: firstly, the sermon mentioned the dead of all sides and that 'heaven is not only for "us" and people "we" like'; secondly, the only man in uniform was in a Red Cross ambulance driver uniform (about half the people wore poppies), and he was asked to bring up the wine at the offertory.
4. At the service I was at this evening, the sermon was by a Russian Orthodox priest and was on God's response to human suffering, and mentioned both the First World War and the purges of Stalin, as well as the 1918 influenza epidemic.
5. When I attended, some years back, a service of remembrance in my college chapel, the focus was very much on 'the young men from this college who died before their time in the course of war'. It was a solemn occasion, we read out their names. Nobody was celebrating anything. The sheer number of names was startling for a college of the size (it's worth remembering that officers died in proportionally very high numbers, so a smallish Cambridge college could experience loses of such a large proportion of its young alumni that to talk of 'decimation' would be obscene understatement). That service, a clear example of English civic religion as could be found anywhere under the sun, was a group of young people remembering a time when their predecessors, as young and hopeful as they were, went to war, and fought, and were slaughtered. It was a time for that generation of students, none of whom had served in the military (as far as I know) to remember a time when death in warfare was much nearer at hand than images on a television screen. And I think that's very healthy. Nobody, and I repeat this, viewed as a fucking celebration.
6. Every Remembrance Service ever done anywhere has 'O God of Earth and Altar'. If you think that's a jingoistic hymn, read it again.
7. Finally, although outside the realm of liturgical observation, Remembrance Day for me brings to mind two works of art. One is Britten's War Requiem. Britten was a pacifist and CO. The War Requiem, sung and listened to all over this country, is an anti-militaristic piece. The second piece of art I'm reminded of, perhaps more idiosyncratically, is from Kipling's 'Hymn Before Action'
quote:
Ah, Mary pierced with sorrow,
Remember, reach and save
The soul that comes to-morrow
Before the God that gave!
Since each was born of woman,
For each at utter need --
True comrade and true foeman --
Madonna, intercede!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
But not yours. Without irony either! And as I said S. Bacchus, in English, in the BBC Festival of Remembrance the head chaplain chap officiated over our nation's losses in taking up arms, making war, fighting, killing for 'justice, freedom and peace'. I'm glad that wasn't reiterated in your back yard. It was in mine and countless others I'm sure.
I felt particularly sorry for the marine who broke the 11th commandment. The first EVER to do so on our side. Amazing.
As your mind is still open, what does Jesus' example lack for you?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I can say is thank God that you are alive today and speaking English. Especially if you are Jewish, homosexual, disabled, a Traveller, a Jehovah's Witness, dark-haired or even Christian!
Had Hitler managed to invade and conquer Britain you can be sure that none of the above would have lasted very long under the Nazi government.
Yes, but being homosexual was illegal in the UK under Churchill's government. I don't think anyone was fighting WWII for gay people. In fact Alan Turning, who's brilliant mind allowed the British to win, was hounded to his death by the very society that he served. And travellers, JWs, Jews and the disabled haven't all been treated very fairly in the last 7 decades either. It's only recently that we've learned a bit more tolerance. What's to say that our German rulers wouldn't have changed in the same way over that time? And what's so great about the English language anyway? The way we've let the Americans rot our language clearly shows we have no respect for it, and as for being alive ... well who is it we were remembering?
Most of the stuff we're proud of in Britain was constructed after WWII (and has been in decline ever since the 1970s). Let's not make remembering those who died into a feast of "weren't we great to bash the evil hun". Can we just keep it a remembrance of those who died in appalling circumstances?
But, unlike Hitler, we were not - and had to intention to start - gassing them. My point is simply this: Had we not fought against Hitler, had Hitler been allowed to invade Britain then the
British Jews, the British homosexuals, the British gypsies, the British disabled people, the British dark-haired people, the British Christians (eventually) would have been taken to death camps.
One of the most offensive things I ever read was the opinion of a Quaker who said quitye categorically that as far as he was concerned 'it wouldn't have been so bad living under Hitler's rule', and that 'British people were wrong to fight against him.' As far as he was concerned, the extermination of British Jews was an acceptable price to pay for him to maintain his pacifism.
[ 10. November 2013, 21:40: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
I'm afraid. I should have read what you said more carefully but was feelin a bit emotional after reading some of the shit on here and tarred you with the same brush. Apologies.
Apology accepted .
I've always found Britain's role in both World Wars to bring on emotion .
Martin , I haven't answered your question as I've forgotten what it was . I agree this little Mr. Big Island has not always covered itself in glory down the ages . Re. warfare and foreign intervention we have cocked things up royally on several occasions .
Remembrance Day for me is chiefly about honouring the dead from 2 World wars . If , as seems to be the case, in this Century it is to become something all encompassing then so be it . People should feel free to dip in or to dip out .
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
We are, as ever, confusing what had to be done with celebrating what we did.
As one of those unfortunates who'd have ended up in the gas chambers, I am inevitably grateful for my chance of life. But as Cathscats says, is a quasi-military remembrance what we need? No flags, no medals, no uniforms, no marching, no fly pasts: read out the names of the dead, one by one in a cold clear voice, stack their coffins like cordwood and weep for what we have lost.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I don't understand.
If the church had stopped Britain being part of the problem, had the clarity of its alleged founder, the courage, then it would also have had the courage not to co-operate in a British implementation of the Holocaust. The Nazis couldn't have done it without us.
This is what it, the church, we will have to do next time. For the first time. Anywhere. Ever.
Be the kingdom.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
For a long time I have been puzzled as to why we get so emotional about people who die serving their country in the armed forces, but others not in the armed forces are forgotten. Why don't we honour our police, firefighters, teachers, doctors, nurses, etc who have lost their lives in the service of their country at home and abroad, in wartime and in peacetime? Surely they are just as important and worthy of remembrance and respect.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I'm not pleased with Remembrance Day and services any longer. Since the misguided 'wars on terror', it has morphed into a 'support the troops' thing. This is a refocussing. I do not support the troops. I support remembrance. Of suffering, death, sorrow, and the goal of avoiding this. Not promotion of current wars.
WW2 has always seems pretty clear in terms of 'rightness' and 'wrongness' of the sides and of allied victory. Except for the Pacific war which seems to be the USA's fault as much as the Japanese in terms of the prelude: Philippines and economic war for starters. WW1 was a product of 19th century thinking and the British-German arms race. We're still dealing with the middle-east mess they left with that one.
I write this as one who lost 3/5 of his family in WW2, with all those boys serving Germany killed, the last by Americans in Michigan in a POW camp, a war crime. Whose father was being trained for an allied invasion of Norway after escaping Hong Kong in Jan 1942 and then was nearly interned by paranoid Americans and British. Whose father-in-law liberated Holland, and the Hunger Winter.
Thus I find myself rather angry at the usurping of Remembrance for war boosterism. "The universal soldier, (s)he really is to blame...."
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Adding 2 cents' worth to say that I find the White Poppy campaign to smack of "Look at me! I'm so pure and holy to be thinking about all those pointless deaths, while you Red Poppy guys are all slavering for more war"
despite the fact that virtually everyone here, and everyone I know where I am, treats this as a moment of respect for those who went to do a job, not all of them willingly. Some died, some came back broken, all came back changed. Huge numbers of people were "collateral damage", and many of them were no more warlike than any of the people posting on this thread.
And we pay attention to all of them - at least, in this area, and in our schools, we do. I'll send you the script of the reading s that were done here if you want. It is in pretty basic English.
Take your damn showpiece poppy somewhere private, and snivel about how you aren't appreciated. When you finally reach the mental age of, say, 21, maybe you'll begin to understand.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I'm sorry, but I thought our soldiers died for "freedom". That freedom includes the right to dissent from Remembrance Day and the right to wear a white poppy, red poppy or no poppy at all.
Freedom in a democracy means allowing people the opinion that most wars were simply fought based on greedy, self-interested, nationalist concerns.
It means being free to not join in Remembrance Day ceremonies on the basis of conscience.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
Except for the Pacific war which seems to be the USA's fault as much as the Japanese in terms of the prelude: Philippines and economic war for starters.
On behalf of the American people, I apologize to the people of Japan for not aiding them in their conquest of East Asia. That was wrong. We had Pearl Harbor coming. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
... That freedom includes the right to dissent from Remembrance Day and the right to wear a white poppy, red poppy or no poppy at all ... [and] ... being free to not join in Remembrance Day ceremonies on the basis of conscience.
I couldn't have put it better than that. I wear a poppy not as a "glorification of war", as some would have it, but as a mark of respect for those whose sacrifice has given me that freedom, and I would defend with my last breath anyone's right to disagree with me.
I'm very happy that our service this morning included a short act of remembrance - reading out the names of Cathedral parishioners who were killed in WWII*, They shall grow not old, and singing the Royal Anthem, Ode to Newfoundland and National Anthem, which I always find very moving.
* We commemorate those lost in the First World War on 1st July.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Hairy Biker quote:
being homosexual was illegal in the UK under Churchill's government. I don't think anyone was fighting WWII for gay people. In fact Alan Turning, who's brilliant mind allowed the British to win, was hounded to his death by the very society that he served. And travellers, JWs, Jews and the disabled haven't all been treated very fairly in the last 7 decades either. It's only recently that we've learned a bit more tolerance. What's to say that our German rulers wouldn't have changed in the same way over that time? And what's so great about the English language anyway? The way we've let the Americans rot our language clearly shows we have no respect for it, and as for being alive ... well who is it we were remembering?
Most of the stuff we're proud of in Britain was constructed after WWII (and has been in decline ever since the 1970s). Let's not make remembering those who died into a feast of "weren't we great to bash the evil hun". Can we just keep it a remembrance of those who died in appalling circumstances?
Yes, homosexuality was illegal in 1940s Britain - and virtually everywhere else in the world as well. Unfortunately for your theory that after an invasion our German rulers would have changed over time on the EVIDENCE of what went on in continental Europe the Jews, Witnesses, gypsies, homosexuals and Slavs wouldn't have had the luxury of time to wait for this civilisation-through-time to happen, they would have been dead.
What's so great about the English language? Err, no-one has said that either of the World Wars for fought for reasons of linguistic purity: but if you're asking the strange mish-mash that is English seems to be the easiest language for a vast number of the earth's inhabitants to pick-up - perhaps because of its very lack of formal structure? And this ability for one language to be understood by so many is what has enabled so many living under regimes of violent tendency to have their voice heard - or are you suggesting that demonstrators from China to Iran to Syria would be just as easily understood (in the West especially) if their uploaded videos and blogs were in Cantonese, Farsi or Arabic?
And your rant about the Americans "rotting" our language: do get up to speed - even US written software has long acknowledged (for 20+ years) that British English and US English are two similar but non-identical languages.
Most of the stuff we're proud of has been constructed since WWII? Reeally? So you're happy to disregard the achievements of Brunel, Telford, McAdam, Nash, Wren, Hawksmoor, etc, etc, etc. You'd cheerfully ignore the work of Rutherford, Fleming, Jenner, Newton? The first 300 years of the Royal Society?
As for pride being in decline since the 1970s - you're right there: and it could have something to do with the "history is bunk" attitude that has been prevalent among some so-called educationists who should know better.
And before you say that the distant past doesn't matter there is truth in the old maxim "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it". The same man also said "Only the dead have seen the end of war".
Lastly HB, point out to me and the rest on this thread where ANYONE has "bashed the evil hun" - please.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by no prophet quote:
WW2 has always seems pretty clear in terms of 'rightness' and 'wrongness' of the sides and of allied victory. Except for the Pacific war which seems to be the USA's fault as much as the Japanese in terms of the prelude: Philippines and economic war for starters.
The Pacific War as much the fault of the USA as Japan???
FYI the Pacific War (as you call it) had its origins in the second Sino-Japanese War - and that began in 1931. In case you haven't heard of it other than in the context of the film The Manchurian Candidate, Manchuria is in fact a very real place: a place where the most appalling atrocities occurred and where, had the first world bothered to look, they would have seen a presentiment of things to come with the experiments on human guinea pigs of elements for chemical and biological warfare.
In fact the Japanese aggression and partial invasion of China was so serious that, at least until 1937, the Chinese were receiving support and military hardware from the US, Soviet Union, Germany and the UK. The League of Nations commissioned the Lytton report in 1932 from a multi-national group headed by Bulwer-Lytton into the Japanese actions in Manchuria.
As for your economic war between the US and Japan, are you quite sure that the attack on the USS Panay in 1937 put no strain on the relationship? And how do you explain the "out-of-the-blue" attack on Pearl Harbour?
And even if you can convince yourself that the US "had it coming" from the Japanese, that doesn't justify what happened to millions of Koreans, Burmese, Malays, Pacific Islanders, Vietnamese, not to mention the British, French and Dutch - even a few Soviets - residents in the territories captured by the Japanese.
Perhaps your view is coloured by the fact that there was no Far East equivalent of the Nuremberg trials after the Japanese surrender. The decision to play-down the atrocities committed by Japanese Imperial Forces was a cruel betrayal of the millions of men, women and children slaughtered by an army whose casual barbarity was sickening. If you doubt that statement, look at the way that Japanese actions during WWII are still quoted by the Chinese and Koreans (among others) as a reason for strained relations between themselves and the Japanese.
For Japanese horrors to have gone unpunished says more about the cynicism and rabid anti-communism of Roosevelt, Truman and Macarthur than about justice or plain human decency.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am left of the Guardian so don't usually read it.
When I was an impressionable teenager back in the Sixties, I participated in an anti-Vietnam War demonstration in which the marchers were chanting predictable anti-American sentiments.
Suddenly, a group of Maoists, apropos of nothing in particular, commenced their mantra of “Smash Soviet revisionism!”
It was the most pretentious piece of ideological one-upmanship I have encountered until now.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There is no public remembrance/honour for COs.
Why on earth should there be?
My father-in-law's Field Ambulance unit, which contained other COs beside himself, has always marched on Anzac Day,and received exactly the same recognition as other units.
Nor have COs been ignored in military histories.
The novelist John Masters, who served as an officer under Slim in Burma, wrote in his autobiographical The Road Past Mandalay:-
"The American Field Service are bloody marvels. They seem to be, in equal proportions - pansies [!], Quakers, conscientious objectors, and altruistic young men; but damned nearly all heroes".
[ 11. November 2013, 05:16: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Nor TGC do you acknowledge the loss of Australian lives in the Pacific Theatre of the war? We particularly remember the New Guinea Martyrs, two of whom were missionary nurses and former members of the Parish. We have a chapel dedicated to all the New Guinea Martyrs.
Perhaps you should read more about the Japanese invasion of China, starting with the Rape of Nanking. Then follow with accounts of the invasions of countries further to the south. It is worth noting that with the exception of Chandra Bose and his group, there were very few collaborators in the various countries occupied by Japan.
And L'organist there were war crimes trials against a series of Japanese. They are not as famous as the Nuremberg Trials and those that followed in Germany, but did result in a large number of convictions.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
So the Philippine–American War was not a factor?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Our remembrance service did not glorify war, it glorified God. It was about the call for peace, as well as paying tribute to and remembrance of all those who have died in wars, all including those being fought at the time. It was respectful and moving. I thank God that it's a Sunday set aside in the church calendar.
It's important to recall the tragedy of war, the loss of young life and the tears of the bereaved, for the sake of the push for peace. The red poppy means that to me now. I have in the past listened to those who suggested that it was about perpetuating war. I know better now, based on the experiences of the services I have attended, and the people I have spoken to who have been directly involved.
So the person who wrote the Guardian article, who has been directly involved and does not wear a poppy doesn't count?
Also, nobody here has said it perpetuates war. It makes heroes from events from which there were no heroes, only losers, because the horror of war means nobody wins. Plus, those of us who choose not to wear a poppy should not be pressured into wearing one and be treated as if it is disrespectful to follow our consciences.
You shouldn't be forced to wear one but what pisses people off is the grandstanding that you and other non-wearers do over it. It's as if you want some sort of medal for your stance. That cunt Jon snow is the biggest hypocrite on the planet for the remarks he made when he had earlier berated people who wouldn't wear his favoured bracelt.
I don't do any grandstanding, thanks all the same. How can you possibly read my mind? Perhaps instead you'd like to read my posts about my concerns about modern Remembrance Sunday (different from the original) and why I can't in good conscience keep it any more. However I don't make a big deal about it at all - the Ship is the only place I discuss it in fact - just go out without a poppy (I don't wear a white poppy FYI). Guess what, I still get berated in public for it. But cheers for your ignorance. I actually think Jon Snow does a great job at fighting the politicism of the red poppy, which has become political even if it wasn't in the first place. When the BBC can make all its employees wear one but ban the white poppy, that is unfair, not free and political.
Not wearing a poppy =/= wearing a white poppy. I do however support the white poppy makers and donate to them in lieu of buying a poppy when I see them, since actually they are far from ignorant and work for peace. You know, that thing God rather likes.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There is no public remembrance/honour for COs.
Why on earth should there be?
My father-in-law's Field Ambulance unit, which contained other COs beside himself, has always marched on Anzac Day,and received exactly the same recognition as other units.
Nor have COs been ignored in military histories.
The novelist John Masters, who served as an officer under Slim in Burma, wrote in his autobiographical The Road Past Mandalay:-
"The American Field Service are bloody marvels. They seem to be, in equal proportions - pansies [!], Quakers, conscientious objectors, and altruistic young men; but damned nearly all heroes".
We don't have Anzac Day in the UK and COs do not get recognition with other participants.
COs were incredibly brave (standing up for their consciences and usually God too) yet were persecuted by their friends, family, churches and country. I think their sacrifices deserve honour too.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Doc Tor, thank you for the link to that moving article (I am left of the Guardian so don't usually read it).
I am a pacifist; however, the remembrance industry is as poor at honouring soldiers as it is at honouring those brave enough to go with their consciences and oppose war. Both are victims of the sin of war. The Established Church's lapse into civic religion and endorsement of militarism is appalling and an insult to Christ and His Kingdom of Peace, although other churches are not blameless either (particularly the Salvation Army). Tomorrow (well, today) I shall attend the local Quaker Meeting for Worship in thanks for their faithful witness to peace.
What a load of fucking shite you come out with.
I thank God that brave men and women in 1914-18, 1939-45 and so many conflicts since have not been pacifists. You come across as very smaug and extremely ignorant but what else can be expected from someone who boasts of being left of the Guardian? Do you really think that non-pacifists are in favour of war? Do your really think that you and Quakers are the only ones who want peace? Do your not think that the Quaker way may actually lead to more conflict? Do you think that the Second World War, for instance, could have been prevented by holding hads and singing We Shall Overcome. Sorry but smug so-called anti-war loudmouths just totally piss me off. We're not trying to force poppies on you. We jsut want you to show some fucking respect of our views if you are capable of it. I suspect you are not.
Our AC Church had a great remembrance service we we all gave thanks for what all our armed forces and particularly those from our church did and do for us.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Sorry, but I don't think what I've said deserves such rudeness. Aside from unfortunately not actually being Smaug the dragon from The Hobbit, calling pacifists names (when pacifism has a lot of historical presence within Christianity and has never been just a Quaker thing at all - and FYI I am A-C myself) and suggesting that I am incapable of respecting others' views based on nothing at all (I have done nothing but this, just disagreeing) is not exactly making you deserving of respect.
I did not realise that obeying Christ's commands to turn the other cheek (as I see pacifism, I realise there are other interpretations) was such a terrible thing, but for me it is Christ I must obey and not governments.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Jade
I'm not saying that the views expressed by the writer of the article from The Guardian don't count. But what I, and some others, are saying is that they are just that: the views of one ex-serviceman. There will be others who may have a different view: the viewpoints of them all will be valid because that is just what they are - personal viewpoints and there is no right or wrong, however much you may feel more in tune with one that another.
I'm astonished that you find it surprising that my church remembers all the dead from WWII - this has been the norm in every parish where I've worshipped since around the early 1970s. Perhaps you need to look beyond the symbolism and the more formal parts of Remembrance services (the bugles, silence and exhortation) to the words expressed in the prayers and sermons.
And I think you're being a little unfair in claiming that the CofE in general was anti Conscientious Objectors: for one thing, how can you ignore George Bell? And he was only the most famous example of many clergy who, even while they supported with their prayers the efforts of servicemen and women, made no secret of their hatred for the carnage and devastation being wrought across the world.
As for feeling pressured about a poppy, I would never try to coerce someone into supporting any concern, charitable or otherwise, that someone cannot wholeheartedly support. I personally feel that the work of the Royal British Legion in supporting veterans is of value and that is one of the reasons why I buy a poppy because sales of them provides the RBL's main source of income to fund this work.
I have never ever heard churches remember all the war dead in Remembrance services, and I've been to a lot of them. Possibly a churchmanship difference? I was at RC early Mass and then Quaker meeting for worship today, but best friend was at her local CoE church (she's not from a CoE background) and was uncomfortable that the service was all about celebrating that 'Britain won the war' and not much else. So it does vary, it seems.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am left of the Guardian so don't usually read it.
When I was an impressionable teenager back in the Sixties, I participated in an anti-Vietnam War demonstration in which the marchers were chanting predictable anti-American sentiments.
Suddenly, a group of Maoists, apropos of nothing in particular, commenced their mantra of “Smash Soviet revisionism!”
It was the most pretentious piece of ideological one-upmanship I have encountered until now.
Sorry, what does that have to do with anything I said?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Sigh. Jade appears (not for the first time) to be living on a different planet from the one I live on. Martin seems to be speaking a different language, which reminds a bit of Dutch in that it looks superficially like English but I can't understand a word of it.
A few points, in no particular order for what they're worth (which is probably not much, as peoples' minds seem pretty fixed):
1. Many churches (Anglican and RC) have requiems on Remembrance Sunday. This is the only Sunday of the year in which a requiem mass may normally be celebrated (and only by Papal permission for certain Anglophone countries). There is nothing celebratory or jingoistic about a requiem. It's a mass for the dead.
2. I think I've heard more Remembrance Sunday sermons that mentioned Bishop Bell and his opposition to aerial bombing than those that didn't. This includes services at All Saints, Margaret Street, and St Mary's, Bourne Street, so it's not as though I've been associating with wet liberals the entire time.
3. Whilst my parish's service this morning was a bit of an unhappy mixture(in that we couldn't seem to decide whether Remembrance took precedence over the Third Sunday of Advent or not), several things about it contradict the impression given by Jade and Martin about 'normal' CofE practice: firstly, the sermon mentioned the dead of all sides and that 'heaven is not only for "us" and people "we" like'; secondly, the only man in uniform was in a Red Cross ambulance driver uniform (about half the people wore poppies), and he was asked to bring up the wine at the offertory.
4. At the service I was at this evening, the sermon was by a Russian Orthodox priest and was on God's response to human suffering, and mentioned both the First World War and the purges of Stalin, as well as the 1918 influenza epidemic.
5. When I attended, some years back, a service of remembrance in my college chapel, the focus was very much on 'the young men from this college who died before their time in the course of war'. It was a solemn occasion, we read out their names. Nobody was celebrating anything. The sheer number of names was startling for a college of the size (it's worth remembering that officers died in proportionally very high numbers, so a smallish Cambridge college could experience loses of such a large proportion of its young alumni that to talk of 'decimation' would be obscene understatement). That service, a clear example of English civic religion as could be found anywhere under the sun, was a group of young people remembering a time when their predecessors, as young and hopeful as they were, went to war, and fought, and were slaughtered. It was a time for that generation of students, none of whom had served in the military (as far as I know) to remember a time when death in warfare was much nearer at hand than images on a television screen. And I think that's very healthy. Nobody, and I repeat this, viewed as a fucking celebration.
6. Every Remembrance Service ever done anywhere has 'O God of Earth and Altar'. If you think that's a jingoistic hymn, read it again.
7. Finally, although outside the realm of liturgical observation, Remembrance Day for me brings to mind two works of art. One is Britten's War Requiem. Britten was a pacifist and CO. The War Requiem, sung and listened to all over this country, is an anti-militaristic piece. The second piece of art I'm reminded of, perhaps more idiosyncratically, is from Kipling's 'Hymn Before Action'
quote:
Ah, Mary pierced with sorrow,
Remember, reach and save
The soul that comes to-morrow
Before the God that gave!
Since each was born of woman,
For each at utter need --
True comrade and true foeman --
Madonna, intercede!
Is it possible for you to address a post to me without being sneery and patronising, just for once? Please?
1. I have never been to a church that holds a requiem for Remembrance Sunday, including RC churches. I agree that there is nothing celebratory about a requiem and do think that this is a good idea. It doesn't stop me from disliking the public pageantry, but actually would let me comfortably sit through a church Remembrance service.
2. Yeah, I've never been to All Saints' Margaret Street, and St Mary's, Bourne Street so those names mean nothing to me. I have however been to many many evangelical Remembrance Sunday services (since I've been an evangelical for most of my Christian life - please remember that not all Anglicans are AC) and I don't think anyone at those churches would even know who Bishop Bell was. Sad, I agree, but how things are. Even Remembrance Sunday, it seems, varies across churchmanship.
3. I have never been in an Anglican service that remembers all war dead, including the 'enemy' and non-combatants. The RC Mass I attended yesterday did, but that's the first church service I've attended that has done so.
4. I have never heard 'O God of Earth and Altar' at a Remembrance service - in fact, I have never heard it at all and have no idea how it goes. At my previous churches, nobody would have known it. I have heard 'Oh Happy Day' by (I think) Matt Redman though. I wish I was making this up.
5. The service in your college chapel sounds very well-done. However, it's not my experience of civic religion (mostly because I've never been to a university that has college chapels). What I've experienced is churches doing jingoistic services for Remembrance Sunday that barely mention Christ.
6. I have never heard Britten's War Requiem, I don't think, unless I've heard it on television and didn't know what it was called. Now that's nobody's fault but my own, given that I really don't like classical music aside from film soundtracks. Thanks for the poem.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
When the BBC can make all its employees wear one but ban the white poppy, that is unfair, not free and political.
…
Not wearing a poppy =/= wearing a white poppy. I do however support the white poppy makers and donate to them in lieu of buying a poppy when I see them, since actually they are far from ignorant and work for peace.
While I agree that the BBC ought not to make people wear anything, there is something about the White Poppy movement that I think is highly disingenuous. The White Poppy movement is a very political movement,for example:
quote:
[I]nstead of rage at a socio-political system that brought about war, instead of forceful insistence that the world be run differently, the deaths of so many British soldiers were turned into glorious sacrifice.
Demanding upheaval of the socio-political system is a controversial political statement to make.
It seems to me that to make this kind of political posturing acceptable, the White Poppy movement has to paint its opponent as also being political, so as to justify itself as the alternative. And yet I struggle to see what is political about red poppies and that one can wear a poppy regardless of how one feels about any particular conflict or conflicts generally.
Personally, I don't think Britain should have fought in the Great War and part of me wonders whether we ought to have sued for peace in 1940, and that's before we get started on modern conflicts like Iraq. But despite those thoughts it doesn't stop me reflecting and remembering on those who did fight and did die.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
When the BBC can make all its employees wear one but ban the white poppy, that is unfair, not free and political.
…
Not wearing a poppy =/= wearing a white poppy. I do however support the white poppy makers and donate to them in lieu of buying a poppy when I see them, since actually they are far from ignorant and work for peace.
While I agree that the BBC ought not to make people wear anything, there is something about the White Poppy movement that I think is highly disingenuous. The White Poppy movement is a very political movement,for example:
quote:
[I]nstead of rage at a socio-political system that brought about war, instead of forceful insistence that the world be run differently, the deaths of so many British soldiers were turned into glorious sacrifice.
Demanding upheaval of the socio-political system is a controversial political statement to make.
It seems to me that to make this kind of political posturing acceptable, the White Poppy movement has to paint its opponent as also being political, so as to justify itself as the alternative. And yet I struggle to see what is political about red poppies and that one can wear a poppy regardless of how one feels about any particular conflict or conflicts generally.
Personally, I don't think Britain should have fought in the Great War and part of me wonders whether we ought to have sued for peace in 1940, and that's before we get started on modern conflicts like Iraq. But despite those thoughts it doesn't stop me reflecting and remembering on those who did fight and did die.
I think red poppies are political now and they were not orginally - or rather, the wearing of them has become political. I would have been happy to wear one were I around in 1919, but not now.
I do agree that white poppies are a political statement which is why I don't wear them but just wear no poppy*, along with Romans 13:14-19. I agree with the organisation enough to donate, that's all (although I haven't seen them this year, so have not done so).
*I was wearing a 'peace' badge (the word peace on a rainbow background, not the CND symbol) on my coat but had actually forgotten it was there - it's from Pax Christi (Catholic peace organisation) and connected to nuclear disarmament not Remembrance. The priest at RC Mass complimented me on it though...
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Thanks for the apology, trouty, because the personal insults were definitely over the top.
Gwai
Purgatory Host
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would have been happy to wear one were I around in 1919, but not now.
I don't understand what has changed between the early 1920s and today?
quote:
I do agree that white poppies are a political statement
In which case you would agree that the BBC should ban presenters from wearing them?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would have been happy to wear one were I around in 1919, but not now.
I don't understand what has changed between the early 1920s and today?
More wars, many with their roots in the 1914-18 war, and many more dead. I cannot see why the same symbol should not continue to be used.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
People wear a red poppy for a variety of reasons and I see nothing wrong in wearing one to commemorate:
- Family members/friends killed in action – between 1914-2013
- Those who were conscripted into wars they didn’t particularly want to fight, who lost their lives
- Those who went into it willingly and idealistically, wanting to fight for/defend their country, families, friends etc
- The acts of heroism, sung and unsung, that took place during conflicts (some we will never know about)
- Those who were shocked, badly, by what they saw and experienced
- Men who were shot for desertion or cowardice
- Those who died alone far from home, at sea, in jungles, in trenches, in sudden explosions, or shot down in mid-air
- Young lads who lied about their age to join up, out of innocence and a desire for adventure and whose lives were cut short
- Those who never made it to the end of the war they were involved in
- People who desperately tried to preserve their way of life against ruthless invaders and paid the price for that
- Men who had to live with life-changing injuries
- Any member of bomb disposal, past or present, who tried, unsuccessfully, to defuse explosives.
This isn't an exhaustive list, but if any of these strike a chord then the red poppy is something you can relate to.
And it isn’t just about Britain, either. It's worldwide. It's Poland, Austria, and Australia, and Afghanistan, and Iraq, and many other places. Displaying a red poppy doesn’t necessarily mean that you support war. It does mean that you are remembering, and honouring, those caught up in it – and almost all of them through no fault of their own.
Don’t wear a poppy if you don’t want to. I don’t. But don’t be smug about not wearing one and don’t write it off as being from the past. It isn’t. It’s still current: reclaim it.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would have been happy to wear one were I around in 1919, but not now.
I don't understand what has changed between the early 1920s and today?
quote:
I do agree that white poppies are a political statement
In which case you would agree that the BBC should ban presenters from wearing them?
Red poppies are an equally political statement. So why aren't they banned?
And in 1919 Sainsburys weren't selling 'Remembrance' items where a whopping 10p (on something costing £1 or more) went to the British Legion. Red poppies have been turned into a money-making scheme (not by the British Legion I hasten to add) where if you don't wear one you're a traitor. Not on.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
People wear a red poppy for a variety of reasons and I see nothing wrong in wearing one to commemorate:
- Family members/friends killed in action – between 1914-2013
- Those who were conscripted into wars they didn’t particularly want to fight, who lost their lives
- Those who went into it willingly and idealistically, wanting to fight for/defend their country, families, friends etc
- The acts of heroism, sung and unsung, that took place during conflicts (some we will never know about)
- Those who were shocked, badly, by what they saw and experienced
- Men who were shot for desertion or cowardice
- Those who died alone far from home, at sea, in jungles, in trenches, in sudden explosions, or shot down in mid-air
- Young lads who lied about their age to join up, out of innocence and a desire for adventure and whose lives were cut short
- Those who never made it to the end of the war they were involved in
- People who desperately tried to preserve their way of life against ruthless invaders and paid the price for that
- Men who had to live with life-changing injuries
- Any member of bomb disposal, past or present, who tried, unsuccessfully, to defuse explosives.
This isn't an exhaustive list, but if any of these strike a chord then the red poppy is something you can relate to.
And it isn’t just about Britain, either. It's worldwide. It's Poland, Austria, and Australia, and Afghanistan, and Iraq, and many other places. Displaying a red poppy doesn’t necessarily mean that you support war. It does mean that you are remembering, and honouring, those caught up in it – and almost all of them through no fault of their own.
Don’t wear a poppy if you don’t want to. I don’t. But don’t be smug about not wearing one and don’t write it off as being from the past. It isn’t. It’s still current: reclaim it.
I'm not smug about not wearing one, but annoyed that my right not to wear one is not respected. I don't write it off as being from the past and haven't said that I sympathise with the original intention but not the modern use. Also as I've already said, the Ship is actually the only place I discuss it at all....
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Thanks for the apology, trouty, because the personal insults were definitely over the top.
Gwai
Purgatory Host
Trouty apologised to rolyn only.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would have been happy to wear one were I around in 1919, but not now.
I don't understand what has changed between the early 1920s and today?
More wars, many with their roots in the 1914-18 war, and many more dead. I cannot see why the same symbol should not continue to be used.
Of course there's no reason why the symbol can't still be used - it's the WAY it is used that I object to.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Has anyone actually been smug about not wearing a poppy? I don't feel smug about it at all. The whole subject is painful in my family, because of various deaths, people who were very bitter about WWI, and other reasons. It's interesting how much passion it seems to arouse on this forum, I'm quite surprised really.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
]Red poppies are an equally political statement. So why aren't they banned?
But I don't accept that they are. Lot of people can wear them for lots of different reasons (as Ariel has outlined). An army colonel can wear a poppy as can an anti-war activist, so far as I can see.
quote:
And in 1919 Sainsburys weren't selling 'Remembrance' items where a whopping 10p (on something costing £1 or more) went to the British Legion. Red poppies have been turned into a money-making scheme (not by the British Legion I hasten to add) where if you don't wear one you're a traitor. Not on.
To my mind nothing can be as bad as the Lollipoppy. But as much as I dislike the Lollipoppy, I can't let that undermine the whole thing.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Got two red and one white on top of my computer screen at work where we were enjoined to keep the two minute silence.
A nice checkout girl asked why the white (along with the red) at B&Q and I was happy to oblige: I acknowledge, I'm grateful for all the unnecessary sacrifice and regret all the losses incurred and inflicted and I don't want anyone to kill or die for me ever again.
Which is what I'll say next year in hindsight.
What I actually said was even less coherent than 'For no more killing, for peace'.
I think I managed 'For peace' the night before when asked by a church volunteer.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Thanks for the apology, trouty, because the personal insults were definitely over the top.
Gwai
Purgatory Host
Trouty apologised to rolyn only.
It occurred to me that there was more than one way to read who was the target of trouty's apology. I decided to give trouty the benefit of the doubt and assume that you and the rules were also included in the apology. Either way I wanted to note that it didn't need to continue.
And neither does this discussion. It should be in the Styx or nowhere.
Gwai
Purgatory Host
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
This is, to repeat a very early post on this thread, a very...difficult...subject, and seemingly an annual one.
I think there can be a good deal of confusion around Remembrance Sunday, and Armistice Day and "London Poppy Day" (what was the significance of 7th November?!) as there seem to be three classes of things going on which interplay to a greater or lesser degree:
- religious services on Remembrance Sunday;
- civic acts of remembrance on Armistice Day, Remembrance Sunday or the preceding Saturday; and
- the Royal British Legion's annual Poppy Appeal.
My principle interest is what the Churches do for Remembrance Sunday, and how I respond as a Christian. However, being a member of the CofE, the mixing between the three things above tends to get pronounced.
Even within the bounds of each of religious and civic acts of remembrance, and the act of giving money to the Royal British Legion and sporting a red poppy, there seems to be disagreement as to what we are actually *doing* on Remembrance Sunday or Armistice Day. Are we remembering every person who died in any war ever? Or only those since 1914? Or only those in WW1 and WW2? Or only those who died from "our" side? Or only those died for justice and peace (however they may be defined)? Or are we remembering all who fought in the above categories, whether they died or not? Or are we making a stand for peace over war? Or are we standing in support with members of the armed forces today, whether "our" armed forces or all armed forces?
On this last point the Royal British Legion's campaign slogan this year is hugely confusing and a whole argument/debate could be had about the meaning of "Shoulder to shoulder with all who serve" - does it actually mean "all"?! Does the RBL really stand shoulder to shoulder with all members of the armed forces throughout the world? I'm sure not, but it can easily be interpreted as that. Even if it means only the British armed forces (which I'm sure it does), how does that tie in with the business of remembrance? It's possible to read too much into a slogan of course!
The Days at issue here mean all sorts of different things to all sorts of different people so perhaps it is no wonder that disagreement will occur.
As a reflection on the thread so far, it is amazing how bellicose people can get armed only with a computer keyboard and mouse...
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
On this last point the Royal British Legion's campaign slogan this year is hugely confusing and a whole argument/debate could be had about the meaning of "Shoulder to shoulder with all who serve" - does it actually mean "all"?! Does the RBL really stand shoulder to shoulder with all members of the armed forces throughout the world? I'm sure not, but it can easily be interpreted as that. Even if it means only the British armed forces (which I'm sure it does), how does that tie in with the business of remembrance? It's possible to read too much into a slogan of course!
It is. Of course, given the RBL's remit it is limited to standing shoulder to shoulder with all those who have served in the British armed forces, so that bluntly is where the money is going and so what it must mean. Remembrance as run by the RBL is all British people who have served, that is where the poppy money goes.
I think the slogan reflects something however of which the average shipmate may not be aware, so indulge me for a second while as a (young) ex-serviceman I trot it out...
Help for Heroes is the most successful fund raising charity of the 21st century and has raised a staggering amount in the few years it has existed. It gives some money away to other military charities as it sees fit, but with a caveat - all the money goes to projects in support of those serving, or who have served *since we went into Afghanistan.*
Consequently, many military charities with a wider remit, eg (and for the sake of getting the point across I'll use the traditional names for organisations many of which have rebranded in recent years) St Dunstans, KGFS, BLESMA, Combat Stress (ESMWS), SSAFA, RBL are feeling a bit starved.
I'm not knocking H4H, but you have to bear in mind that I think many give them money and think that that's job done, or that there is some sort of link between H4H and the RBL.
The reality is that Great Uncle George, who's been having flashbacks since 1944, or Steve, who did 4 tours of Northern Ireland in the 80s and is now homeless, don't get help from H4H.
What the RBL appears to be trying to do with this year's slogan, in as many words as it feels it can get away with, is reinforce the fact that it is for *ALL* who have served the crown, unlike certain other high profile charities which (and I'm not knocking them overmuch as I have a lot of respect for them) are hoovering up the available money perhaps at other military charities' expense.
Tangent over!
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
Edit: H4H is one of the most successful charities *in the UK*, having raised over £100m in about 3 years. Staggering.
What's going on the rest of the world, of course, I couldn't say!
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
Just to add my twopennorth: On Remembrance Day, I think of all who suffer in war. I recollect those who thought that they were fighting to make the world a better place. I look at what we have made of their world, and ask myself whether we have kept faith with them.
That is what I tell people when asked to preach on Remembrance Sunday.
And, yes, I wear a red poppy.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Stupid bloody ignorance!
Wearing a white poppy because it symbolises something like peace rather implies that the wearing of a red poppy reflects another meaning, as if the red has a symbolic political message.
It doesn't,
poppies are red because...well, poppies are red! And after the battles, the only things growing were poppies and they were red!!!
White poppies do not grow in Flanders fields and the wearing of white ones, to my minds, literally takes the colour out of the symbol and makes it fictional and meaningless.
Poppies grew where the men and boys died. THAT'S why our poppies are red. it commemorates their death in those awful places.
Wearing a white poppy places your pale pacifist opinions above the memory of those who died, and rather implies your willingness to ignore their deaths.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
A few odd thoughts, mainly tangential.
When I was in my teens, a long time ago, I was quite hostile to the annual remembrance. I thought it was militaristic. I now know I was wrong.
The misuse of remembrance by politicians with axes to grind is not a good reason for not remembering any more (i.e. forgetting) those who had the misfortune to have been killed in war.
I'm very grateful that the way history has panned out, I've never had to do my bit. I'm grateful to those who did, many of whom I knew and remember, on both the occasions when our national well being was seriously threatened in the twentieth century.
I do, though, resent the way everybody who appears on television after about mid-October is expected to wear a poppy. It's as bad as seeing a giant inflated Santa yesterday (yes - I did). I'll admit though that that is coloured by my dislike of other people telling me what I'm supposed to feel. IMHO poppies should never be worn before 1st November, andpreferably only for a week ending on 11th November.
There's a real problem at the moment about the war in Afghanistan. Politicians know most of us don't support it and don't think 'our boys' should have to be there. They are repeatedly tempted, and give way to the temptation, to plug the argument 'because 'our boys' are risking their lives and getting killed there, we owe it to them to back the war in Afghanistan'. That's intellectually and in every other way, dishonest.
However, it's very hard on 'our boys' to know they are every day being expected to put their necks on the line in a cause that they know the country by and large doesn't support, and one suspects, quite a lot of them aren't that convinced about either.
That is completely different from the situation in 1914-8 or 1939-45.
There was a very odd snippet on the news today about 'the last widow of the 14-18 war'. "Hold it", I thought, "even to have been 16 by 11th November 1918, she would have to be 111". It turned out she is 93, and so can't have been born until 1920. She had married a man who had survived the war, and was much older than she was. I'm still puzzled by that one.
I also resent the current fashion to misuse the word 'hero'. A hero is someone who does something personally heroic, the sort of stuff that gets you cited for a VC or a GC. However tragic it may be for you or your family, you aren't automatically a hero just because you had the misfortune to be in the path of a shell. That is like saying someone is a hero because they are killed in a road accident.
[ 11. November 2013, 16:43: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Wearing a white poppy because it symbolises something like peace rather implies that the wearing of a red poppy reflects another meaning, as if the red has a symbolic political message.
Or because the white poppy says "peace" in the middle of it?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Wearing a white poppy because it symbolises something like peace rather implies that the wearing of a red poppy reflects another meaning, as if the red has a symbolic political message.
Or because the white poppy says "peace" in the middle of it?
The fact that it has that word in the middle rather implies that the red poppy that doesn't have that word is anti-peace.
More offensive ignorance.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Stupid bloody ignorance!
Wearing a white poppy because it symbolises something like peace rather implies that the wearing of a red poppy reflects another meaning, as if the red has a symbolic political message.
It doesn't,
poppies are red because...well, poppies are red! And after the battles, the only things growing were poppies and they were red!!!
White poppies do not grow in Flanders fields and the wearing of white ones, to my minds, literally takes the colour out of the symbol and makes it fictional and meaningless.
Poppies grew where the men and boys died. THAT'S why our poppies are red. it commemorates their death in those awful places.
Wearing a white poppy places your pale pacifist opinions above the memory of those who died, and rather implies your willingness to ignore their deaths.
Nobody in this post actually talks about wearing a white poppy, though? I've said repeatedly that I don't, and why. I just wear no poppy at all. And white has been associated with peace for centuries so why that's passed you by I do not know.
Re 'pale pacifist opinions', given Jesus' command to turn the other cheek, I don't think anything else is compatible with Christianity. I realise not all Christians agree, but pacifism and Christianity has a long history and it is a perfectly valid stance to hold.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
These implications seem to be getting people into a lot of trouble.
Just because one thing says one thing doesn't mean another thing stands for the opposite. What logic applies for that to be the case?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
this thread continues to amaze. Why are people so excited by white poppies and pacifism? I don't get it.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I also resent the current fashion to misuse the word 'hero'. A hero is someone who does something personally heroic, the sort of stuff that gets you cited for a VC or a GC. However tragic it may be for you or your family, you aren't automatically a hero just because you had the misfortune to be in the path of a shell. That is like saying someone is a hero because they are killed in a road accident.
Or, as I said yesterday ... "perhaps it is the branding of every dead combatant as a “hero”; many of them, of course, are amazingly brave individuals, but countless others have been reluctant conscripts, shamefully sacrificed to a political ideal".
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I also resent the current fashion to misuse the word 'hero'. A hero is someone who does something personally heroic, the sort of stuff that gets you cited for a VC or a GC. However tragic it may be for you or your family, you aren't automatically a hero just because you had the misfortune to be in the path of a shell. That is like saying someone is a hero because they are killed in a road accident.
I realized the word had become devalued on coming up against the phrase "food heroes" for the first time. Still not sure what these are.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I realized the word had become devalued on coming up against the phrase "food heroes" for the first time. Still not sure what these are.
I might just be sick in the head, but the film Alive immediately came to my mind... ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Wearing a white poppy because it symbolises something like peace rather implies that the wearing of a red poppy reflects another meaning, as if the red has a symbolic political message.
Or because the white poppy says "peace" in the middle of it?
The fact that it has that word in the middle rather implies that the red poppy that doesn't have that word is anti-peace.
More offensive ignorance.
I don't think you're too young to remember that the red poppies used to have the words "Haig Fund" on the black button in the centre. That had a meaning and the replacement of those words by "Poppy Appeal" had another.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
L'organist: Lastly HB, point out to me and the rest on this thread where ANYONE has "bashed the evil hun" - please.
I certainly didn't say that. Given that half of my ancestry fought on "the wrong side", I would be unlikely to say that.
My point was that the need for having a different kind of poppy smacks of some kind of expressed superiority, not a desire for peace and understanding. If anything it is a poke in the eye for people who take the idea of Remembrance seriously.
I have never met a veteran or anyone else in this area who actively wants a state of war anywhere. But many of them do become involved in acts of remembrance and thoughts about the horrors and other negatives of wars.
Yes, there are boys who like talking about the number of rounds per minute that some new Gatling gun will fire, as one such 40-y.o. did at the Legion after the parade. But he also talked about the need to suppress war-like thinking.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Stupid bloody ignorance!
Wearing a white poppy because it symbolises something like peace rather implies that the wearing of a red poppy reflects another meaning, as if the red has a symbolic political message.
It doesn't,
Denying the political associations of the red poppy - i.e. that war is both acceptable and right - is pretty ignorant. Certainly people wear the red without accepting that message, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Those who suffer as a result of their joining the armed forces have my sympathies, and I respect that some of them have done incredibly brave things in that role but... I also respect those who have suffered to make sure I have food on my table, and fuel to bring it there. People die fishing, and farming, and bringing ashore gas and oil. They are just as dead, and their families just as distraught. They won't grow old either.
I've worn a white poppy in the past. I didn't this year or last. I agree with the purpose of the white poppy but I understand that it upsets some people and I have no desire to cause conflict for the sake of it. The problem is that the machinery of war and death continues, and the language used by the Poppy Appeal serves to wrap that machinery in sentiment and hide it from view. I... don't feel comfortable being a party to that.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Problem. People who choose not to wear a white poppy because others are offended by it. People who feel that to wear a white poppy is to assume some sort of superiority. The second group's anger suppresses the first group which assumes no such thing.
What are we taught fighting war was about?
[ 11. November 2013, 18:12: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
As I wear both and am not angry at anyone except the established church of the past 1600 years of which I am a part, and therefore myself, for letting down the military and our founder, for failing to give a witness, for denying Christ, not sure where I fit in to any criticism above greater than my own.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Denying the political associations of the red poppy - i.e. that war is both acceptable and right - is pretty ignorant. Certainly people wear the red without accepting that message, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
I'm repeating myself now, but I don't see that this is necessarily the case? One can remember the dead of a war that one opposed and, by extension, war generally.
quote:
I also respect those who have suffered to make sure I have food on my table, and fuel to bring it there. People die fishing, and farming, and bringing ashore gas and oil. They are just as dead, and their families just as distraught. They won't grow old either.
If you feel about these issues then start a remembrance day for them. Perhaps wear a turnip badge on your lapel for a week or something. I don't see how your respect for these people adds or detracts from your respect for soldiers, etc.
quote:
The problem is that the machinery of war and death continues, and the language used by the Poppy Appeal serves to wrap that machinery in sentiment and hide it from view. I... don't feel comfortable being a party to that.
Is the opposite not the case now? The realities of war are surely more visible to us now than they have ever been? In the recent trial of Marine A we were able to listen to audio footage from the scene of the crime. Last weekend's Sunday Times magazine profiled soldiers who had lost limbs, with clear photos showing which limbs were missing.
[ 11. November 2013, 23:46: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
Except for the Pacific war which seems to be the USA's fault as much as the Japanese in terms of the prelude: Philippines and economic war for starters.
On behalf of the American people, I apologize to the people of Japan for not aiding them in their conquest of East Asia. That was wrong. We had Pearl Harbor coming.
Philippines for starters as I noted. You have nothing on the Japanese if you examined the history. It's easy if you parse out the bits you want. America in the Pacific is an enlightening history.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
What does US occupation of the Philippines have to do with Japanese militarism?
Absolutely nothing
The US had occupied the Phillipines for over 40 years prior to Pearl Harbor. The Japanese and US reached an understanding over US occupation of the Philippines and Japanese occupation of Korea in 1905. Japan and the US were allies in World War I.
If you mean, Japan wanted the Philippines and the US was there then I guess the US is responsible. Then again, Japan wanted Burma and the British were there. Like I said, if you mean that the US is responsible not aiding Japan in it's efforts to build an empire in East Asia, then the US is responsible for Pearl Harbor. I wasn't aware that the US was under any obligation to help the Japanese build an empire in East Asia but apparently Canadians see it differently.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
American expansionism in the Pacific and competition with the Japanese. It's not that complicated. It forms the undercurrent. Do you think the Japanese attacked simply because they were militaristic? Someone was going to dominate the Pacific weren't they? Why was there a perceived need?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Well, sure, any number of nations were preventing the Japanese from achieving an empire in the Pacific. The Japanese attacked them all. Heck, several nations were preventing Hitler from achieving dominance in Europe. The US had little interest in building an empire in the Pacific. Like all the other nations in the world, the US simply wanted the region open to trade. And, perhaps, you need to take a closer look at the US occupation of the Philippines including the Philippine-American War. True, the US had no business being in the Philippines but claiming it was the same as Japanese occupation is just knee jerk Canadian Anti-Americanism (don't know whether to be disgusted or amused at how widespread that is).
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The US had little interest in building an empire in the Pacific.
I think it's more accurate to say that the U.S. had built an empire in the Pacific and was willing to fight the Japanese over ownership rights. It's still got bits and pieces of that empire (Northern Marianas, Guam, Hawaii, etc.).
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Like all the other nations in the world, the US simply wanted the region open to trade. And, perhaps, you need to take a closer look at the US occupation of the Philippines including the Philippine-American War. True, the US had no business being in the Philippines but claiming it was the same as Japanese occupation is just knee jerk Canadian Anti-Americanism (don't know whether to be disgusted or amused at how widespread that is).
Given the American employment of concentration camps, terror tactics against civilians, and torture in the Philippine-American War, are you sure that taking a closer look at it helps your argument?
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Why don't we honour our police, firefighters, teachers, doctors, nurses, etc who have lost their lives in the service of their country at home and abroad, in wartime and in peacetime? Surely they are just as important and worthy of remembrance and respect.
I think this comment, and the earlier one by someone asking why conscientious objectors aren't remembered in the same way as the soldiers entirely misses the difference. Perhaps the horrors of what soldiers went through (and still go through) has been forgotten. Perhaps the knowledge of the dehumanising nature of war has been lost. COs and teachers and nurses kept their minds and bodies and souls intact, by and large, choosing to help behind the lines. Some were brave. Some were persecuted. But few in the same way as the soldiers. Those on the front line suffered immeasurably. For many the dead were the lucky ones. For many their humanity was lost as they witnessed horrors or even were forced to carry out horrific deeds that haunted them to their dying day. For many their minds were destroyed and they never stopped screaming. The ones who only suffered physical agony got off lightly.
Yes every individual is equally important, and COs should be remembered. But Remembrance Day is not the place for it. It should be unique in remembering what happens when pacifism fails, when ordinary people are forced into a situation so extreme it is different and worse than anything else mankind can do to itself.
But if we really did remember that fact every 11th November we wouldn't be sending soldiers to war today. None of us personally know the horrors of war, and cannot imagine them, and so the concept of the glorification of the bravery of our fighting lads is resurging.
The 11th is slowly, subtly shifting, as it has done since it was instituted, from a celebration of the end of war, of the heartfelt cry from the bottom of the world's soul: 'Never Again, please God, never again', and has become: 'Help our heroes and support their endeavours'. Of course this aspect was always part of it, from the plaques to the 'Glorious Dead' and even the use of the poppy as a symbol - it came from the poem In Flanders Fields by McRae and was used as propaganda to recruit for the war and to raise money selling war bonds.
The British legion who has a monopoly on selling the poppies is a good charity for the most part, standing up for the rights of servicepeople, but it is still quite pro-military propagandist by its very nature. Using a remembrance event dedicated to the memory of the tragic loss of millions due to militarisation and warfare to raise money for a military charity is a disconnect that I find hard to stomach. (Though of course one true to the pro-militaristic use of the poppy throughout its history.) Its phrase 'Shoulder to shoulder with all who serve' is particularly wrong, as it demands that we all support those who are fighting wars we may disagree with.
There is a tension between the two aspects of Remembrance Day, between the sorrow of the cataclysmic tragedies of war, and the pride of our honouring of the brave boys who fight for us. This tension between the two aspects has been present since the start, and will never go away. The US tried to split the two aspects by creating two seperate days, a Veterans Day and a Memorial Day. But even these are hardly distinct. I have considered wearing the white poppy, but its symbolism is still flawed, though perhaps not quite as much as the red one IMO. Perhaps a simple black armband would be a more applicable symbol.
Remembrance day shoud be kept for ever I believe. But exactly how we should remember and what we should remember is a valid question and one we should never stop asking.
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
"perhaps it is the branding of every dead combatant as a “hero”; many of them, of course, are amazingly brave individuals, but countless others have been reluctant conscripts, shamefully sacrificed to a political ideal".
And others have been cowards, criminals, rapists, killers of children and mothers, executioners of prisoners, torturers, and traitors. War breeds all of these things, and oftentimes puts pressure on weak, fearful and easily led people to commit atrocities. Such acts are evil but War is the greater evil in that it licenses and actively encourages such acts. That is why I think Remembrance day should not be about trying to paint all soldiers as heroes, but as sufferers, victims and even participants of a great evil that should never be commited again. Perhaps that's why many veterans throw their medals away or refuse to wear them. They know the truth, that whatever civilian society may like to believe, they did nothing heroic or honourable during war.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I'd not come across this 'Shoulder to shoulder' slogan till now , and I ain't that keen on it either . It is promoting popular pseudo-militarism , and that to me seems to be the leaning of Remembrance, esp. since 9/11.
OK , maybe the general public does need to be motivated due to invisible threats from those who wish us harm . But is using a day that was traditionally meant for remembering those slaughtered like cattle, or drowned in mud , really the way to do that ?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It was me, me, me who cited the Philippine-American war, which bordered on genocide.
And as I - that's I, I, I - said on Mudfrog's personal Hell thread: "And the correct response to evil is to oppose it, subvert it, without violence, not co-operate with it, [not] comply with it[']s demands against others just like Maximillian Kolbe and Janani Luwum and Oscar Romero and the patron saint of soldiers after whom I'm named and the Danish Royal family and Mohandas Ghandi and Martin Luther King oooh and some bloke called Jesus."
However I should be shot in the face for that apostrophe.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As I wear both and am not angry at anyone except the established church of the past 1600 years of which I am a part, and therefore myself, for letting down the military and our founder, for failing to give a witness, for denying Christ, not sure where I fit in to any criticism above greater than my own.
Personally I've come to rely on posting about erections and such as it's much easier.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The 11th is slowly, subtly shifting, as it has done since it was instituted, from a celebration of the end of war, of the heartfelt cry from the bottom of the world's soul: 'Never Again, please God, never again', and has become: 'Help our heroes and support their endeavours'. Of course this aspect was always part of it, from the plaques to the 'Glorious Dead' and even the use of the poppy as a symbol - it came from the poem In Flanders Fields by McRae and was used as propaganda to recruit for the war and to raise money selling war bonds.
.....
There is a tension between the two aspects of Remembrance Day, between the sorrow of the cataclysmic tragedies of war, and the pride of our honouring of the brave boys who fight for us. This tension between the two aspects has been present since the start, and will never go away. The US tried to split the two aspects by creating two seperate days, a Veterans Day and a Memorial Day. But even these are hardly distinct.
....
Remembrance day shoud be kept for ever I believe. But exactly how we should remember and what we should remember is a valid question and one we should never stop asking.
I was not aware of the USA practice per your 2nd paragraph. I was in Washington DC on 11 Nov in 2005 (it could have been 2004). It disturbed me. I tried to balance this in my mind with the 11 Sept attacks and response to that. I didn't see poppies, though we had ours with us.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
this thread continues to amaze. Why are people so excited by white poppies and pacifism? I don't get it.
Because pacifism implies disobeying orders, and if it were to spread widely then bosses and owners and governments would be unable to use the threat of violence to force others to do what they are told, so authoritarianism would become unworkable, and political conservatives cannot comprehend a possible world without rulers and ruled, it messes with their brains.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Or, if unpalatable truths are easier to digest when wrapped up in posh words, I could say that absolute pacifism is a complete refusal to participate in a fundamental part of the social contract that underlies both nation states and great property.
Nation states rely on a claim to the legitimate exercise of violence over a limited territory. That claim occasionally has to be made good, which requires men (it almost always is men) who, however reluctantly, are willing to inflict violence on behalf of what they see as a legitimate authority. (Or at any rate a tolerable and inescapable one) Private claims to great property also ultimately depend on the backing of laws, which themselves in the end depend on the potential threat of violence against lawbreakers.
So an absolutely pacifist group is opposed to the social and legal basis of both nationalism and capitalism. Neither can work without at least the possibility of legitimate violence at least tolerated by the majority. If everyone lived by the standards of Jehovah's Witnesses or Amish, or Even most Catholic religious orders, then there could be no nation states nor capitalism. Which may be one reason why such groups sometimes seem to attract apparently irrational prejudice. They seem on the surface to be decent hardworking honest people, their way of life possibly even attractive in some ways, but deep down they are a fundamental challenge to commonly accepted views of social reality.
I don't think most people think these things through, but there is a clash, an irritation, a cognitive dissonance. Something doesn't compute. So people feel disturbed, and become angry and strident for no obvious reason. Like at least three or four posters on this thread over-reacting to white poppies.
They day before yesterday, in honour of the season, I re-watched the amazingly wonderful film 49th parallel. Its sort of Canadian Tourist Board vs Evil Nazis, and guess who wins. But there is a beautiful scene in which the Nazis turn up at a Hutterite settlement, and try to find out who is in charge. Bloody wonderful. Watch it if you can.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That does open it out, as the monopoly of violence is a very important part of the nation state, and connects with 'who whom'.
So I suppose the conchie offends people quite deeply, not just for refusing the holy offer of violence, but for denying the right of the state to make him that offer (that he can't refuse). But he does.
I think also there is a kind of collectivism at work, since wars bring that out strongly, that we are all in this together (!), and anyone who disagrees is a pariah. This can be seen to an extent with the red poppy, which seems to be obligatory at the BBC.
I remember at school, wearing one was not an option, you just got given one. I can't remember if in the sixth form we rebelled or not, but a lot of people wore a CND badge.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Because pacifism implies disobeying orders, and if it were to spread widely then bosses and owners and governments would be unable to use the threat of violence to force others to do what they are told, so authoritarianism would become unworkable, and political conservatives cannot comprehend a possible world without rulers and ruled, it messes with their brains.
Not only political conservatives. Uncle Joe didn't like that sort of thing either.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
My point was that the need for having a different kind of poppy smacks of some kind of expressed superiority, not a desire for peace and understanding. If anything it is a poke in the eye for people who take the idea of Remembrance seriously.
..
Although I agree the white poppy as currently put forward assumes something of the red, I would still prefer that somebody other then the Canadian Legion get the money for the Red poppy. That organization has a LONG history of treating people not like "them", however that was defined, shabbily. My father in law fought for one of the Baltic nations, against the Nazis, and was branded a commie and unable to join the legion in any way. And don't get me started on the parallels of that dastardly Quebec law and a certain turban fight.
If I could get a poppy without being seen to in someway supporting the Legion, I would. Until then, I won't.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
...True, the US had no business being in the Philippines but claiming it was the same as Japanese occupation is just knee jerk Canadian Anti-Americanism (don't know whether to be disgusted or amused at how widespread that is).
I'm getting tired of knee jerk "all Canadians hate the States" lines around here. I wonder if the chips on people's shoulders are ketchup flavoured? (a myth apparently)
[ 13. November 2013, 00:39: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It was me, me, me who cited the Philippine-American war, which bordered on genocide.
And as I - that's I, I, I - said on Mudfrog's personal Hell thread: "And the correct response to evil is to oppose it, subvert it, without violence, not co-operate with it, [not] comply with it[']s demands against others just like Maximillian Kolbe and Janani Luwum and Oscar Romero and the patron saint of soldiers after whom I'm named and the Danish Royal family and Mohandas Ghandi and Martin Luther King oooh and some bloke called Jesus."
However I should be shot in the face for that apostrophe.
Came nowhere close to genocide. Cholera killed more Filipinos than the US did. Cholera killed more Americans than the Filipinos did. Not all the civilians killed in the war were killed by Americans.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Came nowhere close to genocide. Cholera killed more Filipinos than the US did. Cholera killed more Americans than the Filipinos did. Not all the civilians killed in the war were killed by Americans.
That does seem to be the standard American position, that it doesn't count as genocide if disease, starvation, and exposure do your dirty work for you. Have you considered the possibility that the American policy of establishing concentration camps may have encouraged the spread of cholera?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Came nowhere close to genocide. Cholera killed more Filipinos than the US did. Cholera killed more Americans than the Filipinos did. Not all the civilians killed in the war were killed by Americans.
Not sure what exactly the official definition of genocide might be. That said, American conduct in the Philippines during the Spanish American War between 1899-1902 contained some very terrible conduct by Americans soldiers and it appears to have been the policy. The USA almost annexed it. While the internet contains some biased and sketchy references and opinions, there are some scholarly studies of the period. I'm getting something like 1.4 million killed (this article, while also containing opinions and various bits of analysis references this number from a variety of sources. The water boarding of Filipinos by Americans has been rather well discussed when they started up again doing it to people they disappeared into their Cuban base.
The direct quotes from American generals and military personnel and politicians seems to confirm the attitude of what ever you want to call it when they indiscriminately kill people. Here's a sample from the preceding link: quote:
Until recently, I had thought that these things (torture) were sporadic and isolated, but I have been forced to the belief that they are but a part of the general plan of campaign." --Senator Joseph Lafayette Rawlins of Utah Philippine Question Up In The Senate, New York Times May 7, 1902 p. 3[21]
There's quite a bit of info about this available. Not sure what the expiration of significance of such things is. Certainly the Turkish genocide of Armenians post WW1, the Holodomor (Stalin's genocide against Ukrainians) in the 1930s and the Holocaust shortly thereafter by the Germans are not considered expired as examples. Canadians currently are dealing with the "cultural genocide" we waged against native peoples with a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, so perhaps we're a little sensitive about such things lately.
I didn't find a link to your cholera claim, can you please post it?
[ 13. November 2013, 03:05: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Nation states rely on a claim to the legitimate exercise of violence over a limited territory.
An astute post ken, and defnitely food for thought. However, my problem is with its assumptons that if such legitimate violence was removed then violence would cease. Actually it would just allow illegitimate violence to run unrestrained. People are by nature violent, but if a society's violence is constrained by law and bound by a strong sense of legitimate use and legitimate users, then that is surely far better than the alternative.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Unfortunately, the idea of "justified violence" has become somewhat tarnished with such marvels of badly-applied thinking as the Iraq melee of recent memory, going back through the "interventions" in Central America and, for example, the first British invasion of Afghanistan to the wars of the Reformation, or, for that matter, most of the Crusades, both of which had very little evidence of any Christian teachings.
There was some evidence that the most recent war in Afghanistan might have had some valid excuse, but that was thrown away in the eagerness to take on the unjustifiable Iraq tragedy.
Edited to add: this link which seems to be apposite.
[ 13. November 2013, 15:14: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Not only on the Ship, but on another site, and on the radio (BBC, R4 - can't remember if also LBC 97.3) I have noticed that those who criticise pacifists and white poppies do so with an extraordinary vehemence, and in some cases aggression, that is unlikely to convert people to their way of thinking (though it may convert behaviour). When it gets to people being criticised for wearing their red poppy the wrong way (with the leaf not pointing to 11 o'clock is one way, apparently) there is something seriously wrong. I suspect ken may be right.
I'm not sure what I shall do next year. (I usually contribute at the last minute and wear the poppy for the Sunday and the 11th only. I can't not wear one as a friend will then be subjected to a difficult diatribe about his choice of friend.)
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Pacifism implies disobeying orders, and if it were to spread widely then bosses and owners and governments would be unable to use the threat of violence to force others to do what they are told, so authoritarianism would become unworkable, and political conservatives cannot comprehend a possible world without rulers and ruled, it messes with their brains.
The Christmas Truce of 1914 provides the quintessential illustration of you point ken.
Following those unprecedented scenes the authorities, on both sides , threatened the firing squad to anyone "fraternizing with the enemy" in future.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0