Ship of Fools: Remembrance Day/Remembrance Sunday. Who may be remembered

Thread: Remembrance Day/Remembrance Sunday. Who may be remembered 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=030563

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

We have located the grave of my cousin who was killed 31 Oct 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan whilst a POW of the Americans, captured in Italy near Monte Casino. Fought in Russia before that. May we remember him in the same way we remember my mother's brothers who were with the Canadian Army? No-one has ever remembered him before. They were all killed.

Is Remembrance for our side, or for all in war, and all the tragedy of war? Is it a patriotic thing? Should I shut up already?

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

It looks like you may be a few days early. I don't see anything wrong remembering your family member on that day.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

..........I guess it's a question what is being remembered. A hard question might be to ask what was your relative doing in Russia, and why he was defending fascism by Monte Casino? Your relatives who died in the Canadian army fought for a more noble cause, and their sacrifice is one for which many of us have cause to be grateful. The brutal fact is that there is a difference. We remember people in different ways, which enables us to remember them all with integrity.

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

Be gentle with yourself. Remember all the boys and men who fought in wars, your side, the other side, their side. They were (are) someone's son, daughter, husband, wife and parent. They are human. They should be remembered, if only during the silence, to avoid complications with the super-charged "patriotism" present at most memorials.

Je me souviens/I remember

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I recently visited Heilbronn , 62% of which was flattened during WW2. Mostly, probably, by Lancaster bombers built by my Dad. It was a strange and sobering visit.

Of course we should remember all sides. War is terrible, from every angle.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Thanks Pete.

Kwesi: they fought because their country asked or made them. Which seems the same everywhere. The only surviving German cousin (and family) I have was born in 1942. My father is alive because his family left in 1936 being of the wrong persuasion, and fled again from Singapore in 1942 to Canada.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I didn't formerly observe the silence today but intend to do so on Sunday 13th

On our news they showed the 19,000 plus effigies, (representing each British soldier killed on 1/7/16), made by a local artist all laid out in formation on Westminster Green. The news reader said it was a day to remember 'everyone killed in every conflict around the world'. This sounded like a very general statement and it all seemed strangely vacuous to me.
The visual impact of the display was powerful enough, but what actually are we commemorating in this instance? Bravery/obedience on a grand scale yes, but military incompetence on an even grander scale I should have thought.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The BBC news (online) refers to 11th November as 'Armistice Day', i.e. specifically remembering the end of WW1 (which ISTM means remembering not only the slaughtered, but also the military nincompoops who 'led' them to the slaughter....).

The nearest Sunday to 11th November, says the BBC (so it must be right) is now 'Remembrance Sunday', presumably not only to honour the dead of WW1, but also all the other wars since then.

Not sure what to make of all this, TBH.

IJ

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@rolyn, point of information, sir, it was College Green, Bristol.

I find myself unable to acknowledge thanks for the British dead on whom my freedom rests. I want to acknowledge their loss. But I'm not glad they fought and killed and died for my freedom.

But this is a very recent development, from my 6th decade and so I'm strongly conditioned to love my nation's warriors, from the Civil War onwards, which I find intriguing. I'm reading a biography on Lincoln and find myself enormously moved by him; a consummate warmonger of the highest dominant principle in our culture.

Unfortunately!

And yes no..., I'm happy to acknowledge your cousin. How was he killed? I can't find anything about Italian POWs killed in Canada after the war. Or during. As the Calormene soldier Emeth's good works done for Tash were accepted as works done for Aslan in Lewis' The Last Battle, so are your cousin's if our side's are.

We are patriots of a higher kingdom that does not war and that should frame our remembrance of our dead and all dead in the futility of war.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

As noted in my original post killed in the USA. Fort Custer was a large POW camp in Michigan. He is German.

[ 12. November 2016, 14:36: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

It seems clear to me; Remembrancetide is a time to remember those who have died in war. Perhaps we might focus foremost on those in the armed forces who have "willingly given" their lives but that is not to forget those whose lives have been "unwillingly taken" when they were civilians. It matters not to me; we remember those who have died in war - any war, any way.

They shall grow not old, as we that left grow old; age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn; at the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

I no longer do anything to observe Remembrance Day, except to put a sign on my office door and take the day off. Why? Because the best way to observe Remembrance Day is to stop creating more dead soldiers to remember. What we celebrated yesterday might as well be called Amnesia Day.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As noted in my original post killed in the USA. Fort Custer was a large POW camp in Michigan. He is German.

That'll learn me. Corrected rolyn and misread you.

You should still remember your cousin as one of the fallen. We can't be grateful for war.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

I should probably put this down to too much Facebook, but I’ve become disillusioned with remembrance over the last few years. Social media is full of people attacking “liberals” who are offended by poppies, before anyone has expressed offence. The Britain First party seems to have adopted the poppy as their logo. I even saw one of them claim that the 2nd world war for nothing, because we got invaded by Muslims anyway. And there seems to be an increasingly amount of pressure to join in. With poppies being worn on TV from some time in October; controversies about footballers not being allowed to wear the image; brooches, pins, jumpers; tapestries; flower gardens all in poppy logos. It’s no longer about remembering anyone who was killed in war – it’s become a self-serving industry. A must-have fashion accessory.

I’ve spent remembrance Sundays standing by the war memorial in silence, holding the cross or a candle; but no more. If I want to remember the victims of war, be amazed at their sacrifices, or be thankful for what was won, I shall do it when I please, without announcing it to the world. If I want to give money to the RBL, I shall do likewise. It’s time to rethink remembrance.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@rolyn, point of information, sir, it was College Green, Bristol.

Thanks for that correction. Half an eye on the TV, saw Prince H and put 2 and 2 together to make 5. Longstanding fault.
------------------------------
Posted by Martin60:
We are patriots of a higher kingdom that does not war and that should frame our remembrance of our dead and all dead in the futility of war.

That encompasses the only real feeling that can come to me on Remembrance Day. Usually if I happen to hear the strains of Elgar's Nimrod played in the open air of the Cenotaph.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As noted in my original post killed in the USA. Fort Custer was a large POW camp in Michigan. He is German.

When you say 'killed', what exactly do you mean? 31st October 1945 is several months after VE day. Did he die of wounds suffered earlier? Did he die of some other cause, illness or whatever? And if so, was that natural, accidental or caused by poor conditions in the camp.

Or was he put to death by his captors on that date. Unless the circumstances were very odd, that would have been a serious war crime. If he has no other kin and you were only recently to have discovered this, that might impose on you some sort of obligation to take up his cause.

Unless that really is the case, it is, I'm afraid, misleading to say he was 'killed on 31st October 1945'. If he died of wounds, Monte Cassino was in the winter of 1944.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@rolyn, point of information, sir, it was College Green, Bristol.
...

I can confirm that. I visited it this morning.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Ten members of the Luftwaffe who died when their planes were shot down are buried in the next parish to mine. There will be poppies placed on their graves tomorrow;their graves are treated exactly as the British war graves in the same cemetery.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Our service this morning was rather special and I shan't go into all the detail. After the welcome to special guests, the initial words of the service itself were the reading of Wilfred Owen's poem starting "So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went" which got me as it always does.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As noted in my original post killed in the USA. Fort Custer was a large POW camp in Michigan. He is German.
When you say 'killed', what exactly do you mean? 31st October 1945 is several months after VE day. Did he die of wounds suffered earlier? Did he die of some other cause, illness or whatever? And if so, was that natural, accidental or caused by poor conditions in the camp.

Or was he put to death by his captors on that date. Unless the circumstances were very odd, that would have been a serious war crime. If he has no other kin and you were only recently to have discovered this, that might impose on you some sort of obligation to take up his cause.

Unless that really is the case, it is, I'm afraid, misleading to say he was 'killed on 31st October 1945'. If he died of wounds, Monte Cassino was in the winter of 1944.

That's when he died. They had a truck full of German boys, taking them out to work on farms. Crashed a train into it. The newspaper articles from 1945 say accident. We don't know really. He fought in Poland, Russia before being wounded before Leningrad, then recovered, sent to Italy.

Link to POW deaths listing

I took the info to Germany in 2011 and again 2 years ago. The village my family lived in was carpet bombed. The whole of the Rhineland was. In the hill country between Solingen and Cologne. The tour of the area is troubling with people who know: das haus kaput, pointing and saying kaput alot. Very round ponds. Rough count is 90% of houses destroyed. 4 of 5 families of immediate relatives all killed in their homes. I have no idea what cause to pursue. Except peace and general disapproval of wars, soldiers etc. And prizing the family I have got.

[ 13. November 2016, 03:59: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

That looks like a well-maintained cemetery, and the plaque mentions an annual memorial ceremony. I can't see any reason not to include your cousin in Remembrance.

FWIW, this is the Commonwealth War Graves listing for Dyce Old Cemetery, not far from where I live. You will see that the war dead are listed alphabetically, with no division between the Germans and "ours". The gravestones are of the same design, the Germans are included in Remembrance.

The Dyce burials are all Luftwaffe who were shot down. There was also a German prisoner-of-war camp in a different parish. That parish church has preserved the German Bible used by the prisoners-of-war for their Sunday services in the church. Any relative of one of those prisoners-of-war would be treated as an honoured guest at a Remembrance service.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

That is first class, from the time. First class.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

The Armenians should be remembered. It was the largest loss of life during World War 1 relative to a distinct population, 1.5 million Armenians perished, from a population of 2-3 million. There is state-sponsored denial of the event in Turkey and internationally states don't seem keen to ruffle feathers in Turkey. No-one seems to want to remember. One Remembrance Sunday I'd like to see a particular point made of remembering the Armenians.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Hmmm. Radical that I am, that's not going to work, except in Armenia or countries with large Armenian populations (the States, Russia, France, Georgia, Brazil, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Ukraine, Greece but NOT Turkey!).

The emphasis has to be on the dominant culture, being inclusive from there.

Couldn't find my white poppy to go with the red this year. Most annoying.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Martin

Peace Pledge Union always sells white poppies.

A couple of years ago I decided I did not want to wear any symbol. I still donate (I consider it a disgrace that we ask people to serve and then when discharged they end up relying on charity to survive, so I will always donate). This year I decided for my own mental health I had to donate to a peace charity as well.

Needless to say, my remembrance focuses on the horror of war.

Jengie

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Jengie -

I wear the two poppies when I lead worship. Apart from that I am completely with everything you say.

And I detest "civic religion" - but that's probably a tangent.

[ 13. November 2016, 14:03: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

I used to do the two poppies, in the end, I decided it was nobody else's business to know where I stood or what I have given to charity.

Actually, it goes wider than that. I dislike the sense in which wearing badges becomes a form of proclaiming the goodness we do, or our righteousness to complete strangers. This goes for the pink breast cancer awareness ribbon, the yellow Macmillan daffodil and the Peace Symbol as well as any coloured poppy. I simply feel it is none of the people I pass in the streets fucking business where I stand on this issue. If you want to know then you need the decency to talk with me and not rely on symbols I wear.

If you want to feel good by wearing the badge to say you support something or other then fine but remember Matthew 6:2. Our motives are rarely simple. I will sometimes wear a badge if I can see the purpose, but never just for having given to a charity.

I suppose with poppies it came to the end when I decided people were judging others who did not display them. I wore them as a symbol long after I gave up charity stickers simply because they were a sign of communal mourning and I valued that. When I sensed the judging I wanted people to deliberately undermine it and that was best done by wearing nothing.

There is a very raw nerve here. Maybe because I have always had a sense of being watched and judged by an unseen viewer.

Jengie

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
That's when he died. They had a truck full of German boys, taking them out to work on farms. Crashed a train into it. The newspaper articles from 1945 say accident. We don't know really.

Right. The Americans staged a train crash in order to execute a small number of German POWs. Seems a little baroque.

quote:
I have no idea what cause to pursue. Except peace and general disapproval of wars, soldiers etc. And prizing the family I have got.

Don't forget "insinuating that my family member might well have been the victim of an American war crime."

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

I'm another that stopped wearing a poppy a few years ago as it was beginning to feel almost compulsory. I am happy to donate to the Legion, though.

M.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

I wear the two poppies when I lead worship. Apart from that I am completely with everything you say.

And I detest "civic religion" - but that's probably a tangent.

Can you explain why you wear them when leading worship yet feel uneasy about wearing them otherwise?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I'm not particularly uneasy about wearing them at other times, although I don't much like wearing any badges which proclaim my position on "issues". To be honest though I can't be bothered to pin them onto my clothes! In church I feel I must wear a poppy as to desist would cause offence among the congregation; however by wearing the white one as well I am hoping to make a positive statement about peace.

What I detest is the way in which many aspects of Remembrance services make it appear (I choose my words carefully) that the churches endorse the notion of war - by including parading soldiers, the flying of colours, bands and fanfares, prayers which do not seem to question the notions of warfare and patriotism, the constant talk of "sacrifice" of people who in many case were frightened conscripts who had no option but to fight ...

I would much prefer civic remembrance commemorations to be secular - which doesn't mean that they cannot contain any Christian (or other religious) reflection.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I'm proud of you BT.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I'm relating less and less to Remembrance Day commemorations and 2 min silences, etc., as time goes by. It's not a part of the society I see around me. There's something strangely exclusive about it all.

When it comes to churches seeming to 'endorse the notion of war', Remembrance Sunday (and its associated events) represents one of the few occasions when many ordinary people actually expect the participation of the state church, so it would be difficult for the denomination as a whole to take a step back.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The emphasis has to be on the dominant culture, being inclusive from there.

You mean *has to be* in the regrettably-so sense not in the ought-to-be sense I think? Surely the ought to be should be standing up for the most marginalized, the most injured, the most stigmatized.

Using Remembrance Day for the most forgotten *has to be* right.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Today, at our Remembrance Services, I highlighted not only those who died but those who lived. Those who served in the forces, risking their lives, and yet survived. Those who stayed at home because they were in Reserved Occupations, or were bringing up a family - those whose small, unspectacular acts of heroism meant there was a home for the troops to return to after battle was done. All those who did their best, whatever it was, even when they were scared by world events they could not understand or explain. Somehow that seemed fitting at this time.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The emphasis has to be on the dominant culture, being inclusive from there.
You mean *has to be* in the regrettably-so sense not in the ought-to-be sense I think? Surely the ought to be should be standing up for the most marginalized, the most injured, the most stigmatized.

Using Remembrance Day for the most forgotten *has to be* right.

Definitely mdijon. Lest we forget.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, at the service I went to, Mother Vicar took great care to 'remember the forgotten', and mentioned a number of 'forgotten wars' in her sermon, as well as remembering the huge numbers killed in the major conflicts of 2015 alone.

Being held in the parish church of a small suburban village, which still contains families related to those listed on the War Memorial, it was also entirely appropriate that the names of those local lads killed in WWs 1 and 2 were read out, along with that of a more recent casualty - a 23-year old killed in the Falklands War of 1982.

All in all, a sombre, moving, well-balanced, and challenging service.

IJ

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I can't find anything online to support this, but I have a recollection that relatives of Turkish soldiers who fought at Gallipoli are allowed to participate in the ANZAC Day parade. There is a substantial Turkish immigrant population in Melbourne who must have lobbied for this I suppose. Everything to do with these events and remembrances is organised by the Returned Services League here. That said, online statements about what is remembered limit memorial to those who served in Australian forces or for our cause.

Found some evidence - the Turks are a special case

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I took part in the Remembrance parade with Guides, colour party, uniforms and all. The most mind-boggling bit is all the the clubs, societies and businesses that feel they have to lay a wreath: Army cadets, police, uniformed groups I get. I even understand the local secondary school remembering an ex-student who died in Afghanistan. But the Art Society, founded in 1975? A group committed to conserving a local mansion, founded in the 1980s?

That parade is in the afternoon with parade to civic church service away from the normal congregational services. We don't tend to take the Guides into the service; an hour of parading and standing in silence watching 40 wreaths being laid is enough.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

I note that one I remember is Ferenc Békássy, an Hungarian who was at King's College, Cambridge. He returned to Hungary, joined up, and was killed very shortly after reaching the front in 1915. His brother was to later marry my great-aunt and I can remember various relatives over the years showing me his name in King's College chapel (alone on one wall, on another are the dead who fought on the British side).

Too many died for nothing much.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
That's when he died. They had a truck full of German boys, taking them out to work on farms. Crashed a train into it. ...

That really does sound like a tragic accident rather than anything purposive such as ''They .... crashed a train into it" would grammatically imply.

North East Quine, on your reference to a preserved prisoners' bible, there is a famous chapel built by Italian prisoners on Orkney. I've never been there, but there is a website here with pictures.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

But the next 2 sentences are: The newspaper articles from 1945 say accident. We don't know really. I read the whole as Dave W did - and asked myself why anyone would bother to stage a train crash when other means would be much easier and cheaper.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm not particularly uneasy about wearing them at other times, although I don't much like wearing any badges which proclaim my position on "issues". To be honest though I can't be bothered to pin them onto my clothes! In church I feel I must wear a poppy as to desist would cause offence among the congregation; however by wearing the white one as well I am hoping to make a positive statement about peace.

What I detest is the way in which many aspects of Remembrance services make it appear (I choose my words carefully) that the churches endorse the notion of war - by including parading soldiers, the flying of colours, bands and fanfares, prayers which do not seem to question the notions of warfare and patriotism, the constant talk of "sacrifice" of people who in many case were frightened conscripts who had no option but to fight ...

This. I find the "gave their lives" language problematic; apart from a few suicidal sorties to save comrades the majority had their lives taken away from them. For all the talk of dying for ones country, the actual practice of war is aimed almost exclusively at trying to ensure that instead the bloke on the other side gives his life for his country.

[ 14. November 2016, 11:10: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I find the "gave their lives" language problematic; apart from a few suicidal sorties to save comrades the majority had their lives taken away from them.

My wife and I were saying exactly the same thing in the car yesterday evening.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Of course, there was a deliberate WW1 narrative that directly sought to link soldiers' deaths to Christian symbolism.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I presume the aim of that - in a country where Christian discourse was far more generalised than it is today - was to try and give meaning and value to so many senseless deaths. Indeed it could have been the only available way of expressing things at that time.

Nevertheless my feeling is that this has had the effect of almost sanctifying "the fallen" (another phrase I dislike), quite apart from denuding the phrase "greater love has no man ..." of its implied inference, "But Christ gave his life for his enemies".

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I would suggest that a lot of that was an attempt to give legitimacy to warfare and to state policy regarding war. Remembrance has gone beyond the act of remembering. I can't even begin to imagine how many heretical sermons and addresses I've heard comparing killed soldiers to Jesus going to the cross. It's become such a habit that we don't even filter it through a critical process any longer. That, and the fact that 'protestant' denominations seem to have prayers for the dead with about as much pomp and ceremony as one could possibly hope to muster, yet at the mere mention of All Souls they have some kind of melt down. Again; there is a total and utter disconnect of any form of critical thinking about what they are doing and why, which would lead me to begin believing that it is actually all about nationalism, which is something I find problematic anyway.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I presume the aim of that - in a country where Christian discourse was far more generalised than it is today - was to try and give meaning and value to so many senseless deaths. Indeed it could have been the only available way of expressing things at that time.

Nevertheless my feeling is that this has had the effect of almost sanctifying "the fallen" (another phrase I dislike), quite apart from denuding the phrase "greater love has no man ..." of its implied inference, "But Christ gave his life for his enemies".

Just read the words of O Valiant Hearts for full confirmation of that - especially the bit about the deaths being lesser Calvaries.

OTOH it is a lovely hymn and sets me off every time we sing it.*

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
In church I feel I must wear a poppy as to desist would cause offence among the congregation; however by wearing the white one as well I am hoping to make a positive statement about peace.

I realise you are being realistic and pragmatic, but why should it offend people that a leader of worship of Christ does not wear a symbol which is not Christian? The cross is the only statement about peace that should be required on any Sunday of the year.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm not particularly uneasy about wearing them at other times, although I don't much like wearing any badges which proclaim my position on "issues". To be honest though I can't be bothered to pin them onto my clothes! In church I feel I must wear a poppy as to desist would cause offence among the congregation; however by wearing the white one as well I am hoping to make a positive statement about peace.

What I detest is the way in which many aspects of Remembrance services make it appear (I choose my words carefully) that the churches endorse the notion of war - by including parading soldiers, the flying of colours, bands and fanfares, prayers which do not seem to question the notions of warfare and patriotism, the constant talk of "sacrifice" of people who in many case were frightened conscripts who had no option but to fight ...

This. I find the "gave their lives" language problematic; apart from a few suicidal sorties to save comrades the majority had their lives taken away from them. For all the talk of dying for ones country, the actual practice of war is aimed almost exclusively at trying to ensure that instead the bloke on the other side gives his life for his country.

Surely if you're in the Armed Services, especially at war time, you know you could be killed at any time? In that sense, by staying where you are, and risking your life, you are offering it for your country if necessary?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, but remember that a lot of fighting men in the World Wars were conscripts rather than volunteers.

And in WW1 especially, many men were surely killed by inept and over-confident decisiosn made by their superior officers and/or politicians.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm not particularly uneasy about wearing them at other times, although I don't much like wearing any badges which proclaim my position on "issues". To be honest though I can't be bothered to pin them onto my clothes! In church I feel I must wear a poppy as to desist would cause offence among the congregation; however by wearing the white one as well I am hoping to make a positive statement about peace.

What I detest is the way in which many aspects of Remembrance services make it appear (I choose my words carefully) that the churches endorse the notion of war - by including parading soldiers, the flying of colours, bands and fanfares, prayers which do not seem to question the notions of warfare and patriotism, the constant talk of "sacrifice" of people who in many case were frightened conscripts who had no option but to fight ...

This. I find the "gave their lives" language problematic; apart from a few suicidal sorties to save comrades the majority had their lives taken away from them. For all the talk of dying for ones country, the actual practice of war is aimed almost exclusively at trying to ensure that instead the bloke on the other side gives his life for his country.
Surely if you're in the Armed Services, especially at war time, you know you could be killed at any time? In that sense, by staying where you are, and risking your life, you are offering it for your country if necessary?

Risking losing something and giving it are two rather different things, at least to me. Especially when I'm quite sure that the majority of people involved in a war are doing their best, within certain parameters, to avoid getting killed. It's like I said - the intention is all about making the guys on the other side lose their lives, not about you losing yours.

[ 14. November 2016, 13:04: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, but remember that a lot of fighting men in the World Wars were conscripts rather than volunteers.

And in WW1 especially, many men were surely killed by inept and over-confident decisiosn made by their superior officers and/or politicians.

On all sides. We hadn't been there before. This was fully industrialized warfare, the American Civil War was a bun fight by comparison: 800,000 vs 17,000,000 dead.

None of it could be helped, avoided. It had to be suffered. And the Church was supine. Worse. Like today, complicit, exploited for morale. All armies love their chaplains.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's like I said - the intention is all about making the guys on the other side lose their lives, not about you losing yours.

Can I develop/correct this ever so slightly?

Whilst the Patton quote has a grain of truth in it - most rational members of the forces would rather the other guy died than they did - the intention (from my experience of going to war) is really all about bringing the war to an end as quickly as possible so everyone on both sides can go home.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Copied across from the other Remembrance thread

quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
This is one of those "Is it just me?" posts, as I'm genuinely unsure and want to know if my memories are accurate, or merely what I want them to be.

To the best of my knowledge the point of remembering on Remembrance Day/Remembrance Sunday has always (generally) served a two-fold purpose, at least in the UK:

a) to remember the fallen - particularly but not exclusively 'ours' - be grateful for their service & sacrifice, and to offer support/acknowledgement/succor to their survivors, i.e. a respectful acknowledgement of military reality

b) to remember how bloody awful it is, as an exhortation for those in power to find better ways to settle things in future than opting for mass slaughter, i.e. a hopeful encouragement to a more peaceful world

Is that right, or am I deluded? Because increasingly, and this year in particular, it seems that (b) has largely faded away and even quite moderate, non-guns'n'ammo types have gone much more down the "Our brave boys keeping us free to enjoy our liberty" narrative, with a subtle but nonetheless greater emphasis on the militarism and glorification, even whilst speaking against glorificationof war.

And I'm not particularly comfortable with that, especially in the wider political context in the UK (USA, Europe).

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
To be honest, I think that the militaristic overtones have always been there, even if the main narrative is as you have described it. I haven't noticed any particular shift rightwards, though I suspect it depends on the views of those organising events at a local level. If you are in a garrison town, your viewpoint is likely to be different to that of an inhabitant of, say, Accrington (of Pals fame) or Coventry, where international reconciliation is , by all accounts, a way of life.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I imagine this will be consolidated with the prior Remembrance thread.

But it's inevitable as the Church is silent, acquiescent, passive in the wrong way. Scared. The Church does not oppose war, the state monopoly on violence and MORE, far from it, it never has.

The earliest Church myths recount multiple assassinations by God the Holy Spirit and the wrath of God is integral to the Gospel, fulfilled in the sacking of Jerusalem, raved over in The Book of Revelation, essential to penal substitutionary atonement even in Jesus' human understanding and in Judgement. State monopoly of violence is endorsed by John The Baptist and Paul.

Pacifism is and always will be a marginal and textually heterodox understanding of the trajectory of God in Christ. Society has no chance.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
the intention (from my experience of going to war) is really all about bringing the war to an end as quickly as possible so everyone on both sides can go home.

A surrender would achieve that far more quickly. Going to war is about asserting your rights over the rights of the opposing forces, regardless of the cause or justification of the conflict. A concern that it should be completed quickly and with minimum loss is always going to be secondary.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

The saddest gravestone I have ever seen is for a father of children who died in a fire trying to get his kids to safety. It's sad not only because it's his gravestone. He shares it with the three who didn't survive. Obviously, I might be wrong, but I'm guessing that from his point of view the optimal outcome was to get out alive with all five kids. But I don't think that we'd be overdoing it to say that he laid down his life to save his children. Despite the fact that we, he and them would all be delighted if we could take back time and arrange for the business to have a different outcome.

Most people who die doing something meritorious are taking a risk which they know might well have bad outcomes for them, not because they are death seekers or burdened with survivors guilt, or whatever. On the one occasion in my life that I intervened in a potentially violent situation, I knew that one of the potential outcomes was bleeding to death in an Underground Station but I also knew that there was a reasonable chance that I would survive the outcome unscathed. If I had been killed I would have laid down my life protecting the chap but that wasn't the object of the exercise!

The same is true of members of the Armed Forces. They knowingly put themselves in a situation where the risk of death is rather higher than if they had decided to go and work in the local Library. They would like to go home when their term of service ends in one piece but given the danger that they put themselves in it is fair to say, that when they are killed, they laid down their lives for their country. Broadly speaking if someone accepts a genuine risk of death for a good cause, and then they do die we can say that they laid down their life, even though, in most cases if they could have honourably avoided it they would have done.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It's probably just semantics, but in that situation I'd be satisfied with "risked his life", or "lost his life". I'd not feel (well, I'd be dead, but you know what I mean) that I'd "given" it.

But perhaps I'm overliteral.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
North East Quine, on your reference to a preserved prisoners' bible, there is a famous chapel built by Italian prisoners on Orkney. I've never been there, but there is a website here with pictures.

I was there earlier this year. The trompe d'oeil inside is stunning; it does look like carvings and stonework. It is impossible not to feel awe there. An important part of the story is the ongoing relationship between the prisoners of war and the people of Orkney, once the war was over and they had returned home. The chief artist, Domenico Chiocchetti, returned to Orkney to restore parts of the chapel in 1960, just 16 years after he ceased to be a prisoner. He left a message to the people of Orkney, part of which reads:

quote:
The chapel is yours—for you to love and preserve. I take with me to Italy the remembrance of your kindness and wonderful hospitality.
I shall remember always, and my children shall learn from me to love you.

When two peoples who were enemies come together in friendship and the next generation learns to love - that is truly the miracle of the Italian Chapel.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Thank you for that North East Quine. That is moving.

quote:
Originally posted by Snags
To the best of my knowledge the point of remembering on Remembrance Day/Remembrance Sunday has always (generally) served a two-fold purpose, at least in the UK:
...
b) to remember how bloody awful it is, as an exhortation for those in power to find better ways to settle things in future than opting for mass slaughter, i.e. a hopeful encouragement to a more peaceful world

Is that right, or am I deluded? Because increasingly, and this year in particular, it seems that (b) has largely faded away and even quite moderate, non-guns'n'ammo types have gone much more down the "Our brave boys keeping us free to enjoy our liberty" narrative, with a subtle but nonetheless greater emphasis on the militarism and glorification, even whilst speaking against glorification of war.

I agree. I'm worried about that too.

After 1918, everybody hoped that the Great War would be 'the war to end all wars'. It wasn't. After 1945, a major impetus to setting up both the UN and what is now the EU was to try to prevent wars. The UN hasn't entirely succeeded, but we haven't had a major war on the European continent since 1945. We have had some small ones and from 1948-89 we had a very long era of militarised stand off.

With first Brexit, and now Trump, it feels as though progress has now gone badly into reverse.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

And since 2009 we have had an "Armed Forces Day" which surely reinforces the OK-ness of militarism among the population at large.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

In the post our Host kindly consolidated from the closed thread, I said "The Church does not oppose war, the state monopoly on violence and MORE, far from it, it never has." and went on to illustrate that from the New Testament.

As I was out getting me 10,000 steps in, I remembered the account of a Roman military unit converting to Christianity en masse and being tortured to death for it. I cannot find a reference. This was on the Eastern front in the C3rd.

Ah HAH! The Forty Martyrs of Sebaste

Early C4th Armenia. Frozen to death. I remember it from a Grammar School assembly 50 years ago.

Hmmm. They were presumably martyred for Christian pacifism, not nominal Christianity, which was officially benevolently tolerated from Constantine & Licinius' 313 Edict of Milan.

In the C2nd, Church Fathers, even saints, spoke against it. But it only lasted for a hundred years or so. The Church doesn't seem to have spoken with one voice, certainly no Pope seems to have spoken out.

It was good while it lasted:

1 "Hippolytus of Rome listed military service as an occupation to be left before church membership. He listed it along with other professions like pimping, sculpting idols, prostitution, and being a magician or astrologer."

2 3

So my original post stands I submit, despite a brief, partial golden age.

[ 14. November 2016, 17:07: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes; but wasn't the reason for the early Church's opposition to being in the military not so much because they were against fighting, but more because they refused to take oaths to Caesar as God?

I may be wrong, of course.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

I think that it was both/ and rather than either/or. Certainly, in De Corona Tertullian objected to military service on both grounds.

By the Second Century you certainly have Christians serving in the armed forces but it was by no means uncontroversial. As late as the Fourth Century, St. Martin of Tours, whose feast day, rather pleasingly, falls on 11th November, thought that being a Christian also entailed being a pacifist. I suspect that the honest answer is that Christians disagreed about it, as the case for and against hasn't changed very much since then.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And here we are, an irrelevance now as then, with the odd exception. Far worse as the martyrs of Christianity far outweigh the martyrs for.

[ 14. November 2016, 18:44: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

When I attended a service in the Italian Chapel on Orkney this summer the other people who came in by bus were obviously Italian tourists. The service was all about peace and very moving. There is a service once a month on Sunday afternoon through the summer months.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Risking losing something and giving it are two rather different things, at least to me. Especially when I'm quite sure that the majority of people involved in a war are doing their best, within certain parameters, to avoid getting killed. It's like I said - the intention is all about making the guys on the other side lose their lives, not about you losing yours.

A frequently overlooked dictum of von Clausewitz is that a general's aim should be to win a battle/campaign with as low a casualty list as possible on both sides.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

I doubt that Von Clausewtiz had them in mind but I think that the apocryphal miracle of 'The Thundering Legion' and St. Germanus' 'Alleluia Victory' may indicate that the early church, on some level, thought along the same lines.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Risking losing something and giving it are two rather different things, at least to me. Especially when I'm quite sure that the majority of people involved in a war are doing their best, within certain parameters, to avoid getting killed. It's like I said - the intention is all about making the guys on the other side lose their lives, not about you losing yours.
A frequently overlooked dictum of von Clausewitz is that a general's aim should be to win a battle/campaign with as low a casualty list as possible on both sides.

Aye, but when it comes to him or me dying, the normal procedure is to ensure it's him. The way to win with a low a casualty list as possible would be to agree to decide it on stone/paper/scissors between the generals.

[ 15. November 2016, 10:36: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
people were judging others who did not display them.

The first thing somone said to me when I ewntered a church (not my own) on Sunday was, "Where's your poppy?"

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
the words of O Valiant Hearts for full confirmation of that - especially the bit about the deaths being lesser Calvaries.

OTOH it is a lovely hymn and sets me off every time we sing it.*

I'd ban it as being heretical - Verse 2 identifies the church with the state (extreme Erastianism) suggesting that those who went to war were responding to God’s message. This equates the will of the politicians who declared war with the will of God.

Later, ‘all you had, you gave, to save mankind.’ The doctrine of kenosis, of the self-emptying of Christ, was popular in Victorian Anglicanism and was used to describe the willingness of soldiers to lay down their lives. Yet war is principally about killing, not dying.

Verse 4 identifies the war dead with Christ who ‘passed the self-same way’. Yet Christ did not ‘fight back’. He simply accepted his fate

Verse 6 alludes to death on the battle field as a form of martyrdom. This idea is found nowhere in Christian theology (with the exception of the crusades).

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But perhaps I'm overliteral.

Arguing semantics over a gravestone of a father dying as he tried to save his children does seem overliteral to me. I would hear it as wanting to diminish the sacrifice somewhat.

Carried to its logical conclusion one would be unhappy hearing that an athlete "Gave her all in training" on the basis that she still had some things left, for instance.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

O Valiant hearts is a dreadful thing: with the full backing of the vicar, I dropped it from our place and in its place we alternate O God of earth and altar and Judge eternal, throned in splendour.

Our Remembrance Sunday routine is to combine the usual two communion services to a 'said with hymns' at 9am and then the Remembrance commemoration at 10.45, complete with bugle calls, extract from For the fallen, National Anthem, etc, etc, etc. The parish war memorial is actually in the churchyard, and there are also war graves, a memorial for crew of the ship named after the village), graves of civilians killed by bombing/strafing in WWII and people from the village killed in conflicts since WWII.

Maybe its because there are civilian casualties but despite the bugles, etc, there is no overall sense of triumphalism or glorifying of war - its just a small village coming together to remember its dead.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But perhaps I'm overliteral.
Arguing semantics over a gravestone of a father dying as he tried to save his children does seem overliteral to me. I would hear it as wanting to diminish the sacrifice somewhat.

You're probably right, but there's some difference between the fire example and war which I can't actually put my finger on. Let me try to work out why it feels different.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I think it's most likely that you have a moral objection to soldiering that you don't have to saving from fires. The objection is based on the attempts to kill people that are implied.

I'm not quite a pacifist (although from a UK perspective in the current world I would be functionally close enough to a pacifist to make no difference) but I share a moral objection to most wars that have been fought by European or Western powers in the last 50 years.

Nevertheless I think we shouldn't change the use of language in a differential way to emphasize that. We may think that a soldier misguidedly gave his life for his Country, or that the situation could have been averted by his government, or that he made a serious error, even a moral error, in joining up and fighting, but that doesn't change the fact that his life was given for his Country.

Semantic scruples shouldn't become a cover for a moral position, and if they don't apply across the board then they aren't semantic.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I don't think it's that. It's something else, which I can't quite define.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
O Valiant hearts is a dreadful thing.

As is "I vow to thee, my country".

[ 16. November 2016, 13:35: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

"The Grave"

The grave that they dug him had flowers
Gathered from the hillsides in bright summer colours,
And the brown earth bleached white at the edge of his gravestone.
He's gone.

When the wars of our nation did beckon,
A man barely twenty did answer the calling.
Proud of the trust that he placed in our nation,
He's gone,
But Eternity knows him, and it knows what we've done.

And the rain fell like pearls on the leaves of the flowers
Leaving brown, muddy clay where the earth had been dry.
And deep in the trench he waited for hours,
As he held to his rifle and prayed not to die.

But the silence of night was shattered by fire
As guns and grenades blasted sharp through the air.
And one after another his comrades were slaughtered.
In morgue of Marines, alone standing there.

He crouched ever lower, ever lower with fear.
"They can't let me die! They can't let me die here!
I'll cover myself with the mud and the earth.
I'll cover myself! I know I'm not brave!
The earth! the earth! the earth is my grave."

The grave that they dug him had flowers
Gathered from the hillsides in bright summer colours,
And the brown earth bleached white at the edge of his gravestone.
He's gone.

Don McLean

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
O Valiant hearts is a dreadful thing.
As is "I vow to thee, my country".

Yes - I walked out of the church I was visitring last Sunday when they sang it.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Fortunately my organist is fairly sympathetic to my nearly-pacifist views. Although he chooses our anthems, he was quite willing to "pull" an overly-patriotic one at my request a few years back. Last Sunday we had Christopher Wiggins' "Peace between nations" which I like. (Having said that, he did play an Elgar "Pomp and Circumstance" March as his closing voluntary - although not "Land of hope and glory").

One hymn we manage to fit in most Remembrance Sundays is "Behold, the mountain of the Lord" to "Glasgow". This year it sat particularly well with the Lectionary text from Isaiah, on which I preached. (Having said that, I am always faintly amused by the couplet "They hang the trumpet in the hall/And study war no more" - I think of someone coming in after a day's work, hanging up their trumpet on a peg in the hall and then going to sit down in the living-room with a nice cup of tea).

[ 16. November 2016, 16:05: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Choosing a motet or anthem for Remembrance Sunday can be tricky. In recent years I've scheduled Parry's My soul, there is a country, a setting of the text of the bit from Binyon's For the fallen (They shall grow not old...) Purcell's setting of the Burial Sentence Thou knowest Lord the secrets of our hearts.

This year we rolled out a setting of words taken from Pericles' funeral oration So they gave their bodies to the commonwealth and received praise that will never die ... and a home in the minds of men... Their story lives on without visible symbol, woven into the stuff of other men's lives. It seemed to go down well.

As for a voluntary, I prefer silence as people leave to go to the War Memorial but otherwise the St Anne Fugue would come to mind.

[ 16. November 2016, 16:39: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
O Valiant hearts is a dreadful thing.
As is "I vow to thee, my country".

Always a shame that not wanting to sing the first verse means the second verse doesn't get sung, which is much much better.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

We had I vow to thee, my country at the church I attended on Sunday. I remained silent for that ghastly first verse, listening to Gustav Holst spinning in his grave, but sang the second verse with gusto.

IJ

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And since 2009 we have had an "Armed Forces Day" which surely reinforces the OK-ness of militarism among the population at large.

That's a nasty, nasty thing, which surely wouldn't have happened if the New Labour governments hadn't wanted to ensure that the armed forces' reputation didn't suffer as a result of the dubious military adventures they'd been sent on.
I mean, Armed Forces Day- what is this? Bolivia? North Korea?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

I mean, Armed Forces Day- what is this? Bolivia? North Korea?

Interestingly, there are quite a few out there, beyond Bolivia (7th August) and North Korea (25th April).

I always thought of Armed Forces Day as one of those things designed to ease Gordon Brown's insecurities about being a Scottish Prime Minister who hadn't faced a General Election. There was lots of talk around the same time about flying the Union Jack.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

So mdijon, most of

Kenya
Laos
Algeria
Vietnam
Suez
Lebanon
Basque Country
Congo
Pay of Pigs
Tunisia
N. Yemen
Indonesia
Malaya
S. Yemen (Aden)
Guinea-Bissau
Dominican Republic
Nigeria
Israel
Egypt
Jordan
Syria
Iraq
Lebanon
UK
Italy
Philippines
Cyprus
Chile
Angola
Cambodia
Mozambique
Zaire
Chad
Salvador
Grenada
Panama
Afghanistan
Rwanda
Djibouti
Sierra Leone
Bosnia
Albania
Darfur
Libya

often many times for each, but not all?

And everything before 1957 is OK?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Martin. Obviously not. Not A here does not imply necessarily B elsewhere.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I remained silent for that ghastly first verse, listening to Gustav Holst spinning in his grave

Most unlikely, and a danger of trying to fit personal beliefs onto other people. Holst himself adapted Jupiter to fit the words of I Vow To The My Country.* He also wrote the original setting for O Valiant Hearts - to which it's almost never sung.

*Legendarily he was exhausted when the commission came in, and overjoyed when he realised that with a bit of tweaking using Jupiter would mean he didn't have to start from scratch!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Martin. Obviously not. Not A here does not imply necessarily B elsewhere.

Indeed mdijon. So which are the just ones?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

betjemaniac, I stand corrected. Perhaps what I heard was the sound of me spinning in my grave....

IJ

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Martin. Obviously not. Not A here does not imply necessarily B elsewhere.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Indeed mdijon. So which are the just ones?

Why do you ask? I espouse a position which isn't pure pacifism which I know is different from yours (we've done this before) and won't be clarified with some tangential line of questioning. Why not just make your point.

But for what its worth, I thought the Tutsis were just to defend themselves against genocide in 1994.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

This is the point. Once you're way down the path of war, 4 years in Rwanda, genocides happen and yes, in the absence of any other framework, completely absent in the entire history of Rwanda and the world except subversively in Europe once upon a time, as the Church makes no difference but worse, you might as well take up arms.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

That's a lot for an individual member of a community deciding whether to defend themselves and their families against genocide. The only thing worse than an armchair warrior is an armchair pacifist.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

The problem with the "Just War" hypothesis )quite apart from deciding what is and isn't just) is that all wars have a tendency to spiral out of control, with even the "goodies" resorting to the most appalling and indefensible acts.

e.g. We may have felt that it was "just" to go to war against the Nazis; but the indiscriminate carpet bombing of German cities was, to my eyes, a war crime.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Some wars yes, not all wars. It's hard to make that argument about the RPF. They stopped shooting when the genocide stopped. Kagame has, on the back of that, established a less-than-wholesome subversion of democracy, but I submit it is not worse than allowing genocide to take its course for the greater good.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The RPF invaded Rwanda 4 years before the genocide. They stopped firing the year before it. Before they (or Hutu extremists, because he was soft on the RPF) assassinated Hutu President Habyarimana.

Then the war restarted and the genocide started.

According to my armchair history.

The courage to take up arms in self defence is penultimate. I'm not aware of the Tutsi trapped within the Hutu taking up arms. The civil war restarted independently of the genocide. Without French help this time and with Clinton's green light.

And complete silence and worse from the Church of that Christian country and beyond.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

You are attempting to imply that the war with the RPF was responsible for the genocide and therefore the RPF were not justified in trying to stop it once it started. At least that's the only way I can join up the points you are making. A tough argument if you happen to be Tutsi and stuck in Kigali waiting to be killed.

You say you are not aware of Tutsi's stuck in Kigali taking up arms to defend themselves. Of course you aren't aware from your armchair, and what would it prove even if they didn't? That they would have preferred to be killed rather than have the RPF take up arms in their defence?

You say Kagame may have shot down Habyarimana. Maybe he did, maybe it was the Hutu extremists. What is clear is that Hutu extremists had planned the genocide and were waiting for a signal. It was a cold-blooded calculated event and not a popular welling up of anger due to RPF provocation.

But let's take the detailed discussion aside and talk principles.

I regard taking up arms as a last resort.

If you are going to be a pacifist and recommend that genocides be allowed to continue it seems to me there are two possible positions; a) that you have a principle that armed struggle is always wrong irrespective of the outcomes, the history, the justifications or b) that one theoretically allows the possibility of justified armed resistance but finds that in every case there is always enough evil to accuse the armed resistance of to remove the possibility of justification.

Which is it? Or is there another position I've not thought of?

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Personally, I'm happy to sing the first verse of "I vow to thee" on Remembrance Sunday, although not at other times of the year. In a time of war, I hope I would accept military discipline; at other times loving my country means asking awkward questions!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

mdijon, I don't do false dichotomies and I'm implying no such thing. The Hutu manufactured an excuse for genocide I'm sure, in assassinating their own president. Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines AKA "Hate Radio" is credited with the killing of 10% of the victims - over 50,000 - with such catchphrases as "You [Tutsis] are cockroaches! We will kill you!" for over nine months before the genocide.

I FULLY understand and sympathise with those who have to take up arms to defend themselves. Again, the Tutsi and liberal Hutu within the dominant Hutu culture did not. Like the vast majority of Jews in the Holocaust. At least they could have gone down fighting. What's this got to do with Christianity? That's an open question.

Were there educated, morally developed, non-nominal, non-folk Christians in the victim community? Of course. Were there any in the invading RPF? Can I identify with them? Of course. I can identify with anybody including their mindless murderers. Can I imagine what I would do in my home with my family if they came for us? Yes. I hope I'd show them the way to die fighting like a demented tiger. I don't have a problem with that. The same applies right now. I'm not an absolute pacifist. If the police and the army can't protect a community, should it take appropriate measures to protect itself? Of course. Patrol the streets? Of course. Get hold of baseball bats? Kalashnikovs? Neutralize threats before they enter the neighbourhood?

WWJD?

[ 19. November 2016, 18:26: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

I've also been wondering about the questions of the OP. We here seem to have such a narrow range of Acceptable Narratives which may be remembered on Remembrance Day. They are:
(1) remembering soldiers who died in wars past, especially WWI and WWII
(2) honouring current military personnel for their service.

But I remember more than that.

My grandfather was a WWI draft dodger, who fled his bit of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and made it to Canada. History showed that he made the correct choice, as he likely would have been slaughtered. One of his sons was a WWII draft dodger, who was found and imprisoned. Both of them refused to allow the great powers of their day to act out their ambitions on their bodies. I respect that. Yet I am certain that these are firmly in the category of Unacceptable Narratives Which Must Not Be Remembered.

Neither is the slaughter of civilians allowed to be remembered, as they are mere collateral damage.

Above all, we must not remember or name The Prince of Peace on that day. Oh my, no.

Who called it Amnesia Day? Absolutely right.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Bliss.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Neither is the slaughter of civilians allowed to be remembered, as they are mere collateral damage.

Above all, we must not remember or name The Prince of Peace on that day. Oh my, no.

Any evidence for those 2 assertions? Neither is applicable here. Admittedly, the main remembrance is still Anzac Day rather than Armistice Day, but most speakers would refer to he civilians killed. As for the second, the 2 standard hymns sung at public services, including our own local one, are "O God our help in ages past" and "God of our fathers, known of old", both solidly Christian.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
If the police and the army can't protect a community, should it take appropriate measures to protect itself? Of course. Patrol the streets? Of course. Get hold of baseball bats? Kalashnikovs? Neutralize threats before they enter the neighbourhood?

From false dichotomies to false continua. I think you are arguing that there is no place to draw the line and therefore any deviation from pacifism leads inexorably to unjust war.

There is no way of being in the world, being engaged in the world, and remaining pure and at no risk of becoming sullied. The world is full of actions that risk being drawn too far in pride, anger or hate. That doesn't mean we should do nothing.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Aye. When does it mean that we should pick up an AK?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Neither is the slaughter of civilians allowed to be remembered, as they are mere collateral damage.

Above all, we must not remember or name The Prince of Peace on that day. Oh my, no.
Any evidence for those 2 assertions? Neither is applicable here. Admittedly, the main remembrance is still Anzac Day rather than Armistice Day, but most speakers would refer to he civilians killed. As for the second, the 2 standard hymns sung at public services, including our own local one, are "O God our help in ages past" and "God of our fathers, known of old", both solidly Christian.

Both are applicable here. The constant arrogation of 'Greater love hath no man.'. These are military parades at war memorials, very often in churches, with military colours and veterans displaying all of their medals. In my char-evo congo there was none of that last Sunday, I'm glad to say, I could assent to everything said and done. It still wasn't enough mind.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Here the civic formal remembrance service, held away from the Sunday services, does mark the civilians lost - in a tacked on bit at the end of the service that most people miss. The memorial tablet to civilian casualties is on the outside of the church building in a memorial garden and wreaths are laid there - and a Star of David for the Jewish casualty. But it's very much away from the ceremonies at the War Graves, memorials in church - one each for WW1 and WW2 = and War Memorial on the Green.

Those who want to honour the civilian dead wait for their commemoration to follow the band led procession to the war memorial, the wreath laying at the war memorial, band led procession from there to the church, procession of colours, main service and long reading of names to finally lay a civilian wreath outside with the handful of others.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Aye. When does it mean that we should pick up an AK?

When not picking up one would be worse. Duh.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

When's that mate? When, like in a first person shooter, I've managed to club someone down who's got one, to take out the rest of the zombies, or should I join the vigilantes the week before the apocalypse?

Or, after my minority tribe has dominated another for 300 years, the majority begin to get the upper hand, in two neighbouring countries, when the utterly ghastly Christian imperialist overlords changed sides. This led to reprisals and expulsions of my minority who kept fighting to come back and in every other direction with regard to one country and a full cycle of genocide in the other. In the former everything REALLY went to hell on an apocalyptic scale. After a more effective invasion. Which had to pick up speed as a genocide had started. The minority invaders won and two million of the majority fled before an even bigger genocide could occur. They went on to be embroiled in more wars outside killing millions.

When would it have helped for me to pick up an AK?

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Neither is the slaughter of civilians allowed to be remembered, as they are mere collateral damage.

Above all, we must not remember or name The Prince of Peace on that day. Oh my, no.
Any evidence for those 2 assertions? Neither is applicable here. Admittedly, the main remembrance is still Anzac Day rather than Armistice Day, but most speakers would refer to he civilians killed. As for the second, the 2 standard hymns sung at public services, including our own local one, are "O God our help in ages past" and "God of our fathers, known of old", both solidly Christian.

I wrote from my experience of Remembrance Day as it is observed here.

I checked the lyrics of the hymns you mentioned. Neither of them refers to Jesus, the Prince of Peace. Perhaps you have access to variant versions?

And to describe them as "solidly Christian" is surprising. I accept they may have been used in certain Christian traditions, but there is nothing in them that a garden-variety deist would object to - they contain no references to Christ or his salvific gift. They contain no discernible distinctively Christian theology that would cause one to label the contents "solidly Christian."

I still wish there was a place to remember more, and more complicated and ambiguous, stories of war than the official government-approved narratives about past and present "heroes".

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I thought deists believed in a non-interventionist God, so a God who has been "our help in ages past" would be off the table. That hymn also alludes to heaven, and to creation as an act of God. The use of the definite article for God also implies monotheism. It is also widely know to be based on Psalm 90, so the best argument you can make is that it could plausibly be Jewish as well as Christian.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Martin, there is no evidence that the RPF or anyone else were intent on another genocide. There were killings and abuses of power but no systematic genocide by the RPF or by Tutsis. I'm not arguing they were perfect, nor that if I was Hutu I wouldn't have joined the millions fleeing in expectation, but it isn't always the case that humanity fulfills our worst expectations.

You sound like you want a simple rule that will distinguish right from wrong in armed resistance. I don't think there is one. Does that mean we shouldn't ever try?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

What Arethosemyfeet has said for a start. It is standard to refer to all killed in war, civilian as well as military.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Martin, there is no evidence that the RPF or anyone else were intent on another genocide. There were killings and abuses of power but no systematic genocide by the RPF or by Tutsis. I'm not arguing they were perfect, nor that if I was Hutu I wouldn't have joined the millions fleeing in expectation, but it isn't always the case that humanity fulfills our worst expectations.

You sound like you want a simple rule that will distinguish right from wrong in armed resistance. I don't think there is one. Does that mean we shouldn't ever try?

You tell me mdijon. In any historical or theoretical situation. When it would have been right, would it be right for a disciple of Christ to engage in armed resistance? Does armed resistance include offence as well as defence?

I'm open here mdijon.

The RPF were not engaged in armed resistance for four years. They were invading Rwanda for four years. They hadn't picked up a stick against an attacker. They were the attackers. Unless you want to argue every step back in the historical chain to the first point where they were the exiled innocent victims. Which doesn't exist. They were historically as innocent as the Tutsi minority in Burundi, as the Alawite minority in Syria as any power abusing elite. So we are only talking immediate situation ethics, yes?

The plight of any theoretical individual incarnational Christian in that 400 year maelstrom fuelled by nominal Christian imperialism is the issue, no? The hypothetical for us?

The swirling of the world around them is what it was in Judea and Rome. When Christians started taking up arms in C2nd it was as servants of the state, a way to get rich. It is inevitable that they would have been involved in the state persecution of other Christians. Who did not resist. And who won.

So you aren't advocating taking up arms in a peacetime army to keep it that way - get your armed resistance in early - and do all right for yourself, in the hope that you'll never have to wield the sword? Resist evil perceived by the state? Actual evil? Civil disorder. Insurrection. Often at the margins. The borders. Fed from beyond. Time was I'd have been right up for it on a law and order ticket, only the violent had anything to fear.

Back to Rwanda: the four hundred year old, two-tone storm fed by population growth culminated in a genocide by the Hutu on the resident Tutsi (including a highly armed enclave, was that the answer? The NRA one? Arm every one?) after a four year invasion by Tutsi exiles. What should incarnational Christians have advised the invading RPF to do? Invade harder? To stop the genocide? What about suing for peace? How effective were the RPF in limiting the genocide? At what cost?

What should you and I have advised? Should we have joined them? To put our money where our mouth was? When suing for peace failed?

Is that what Jesus would have done?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

OK I'll tell you.

It is a logical fallacy to determine right or wrong by looking at the history of an actor to that point.

On that basis you and I would be wrong to give money to famine relief on the basis that we've been misusing our funds on gambling and heavy drinking in the past.

It isn't logical to impugn the armed resistance against the genocide because they had previously been aggressors. (And by the way there had been a ceasefire in place for a year before the genocide). And the Tutsi's were second class citizens in Rwanda and subject to genocides previously.

I would have respect for an argument that said "I think armed resistance is, on principle, wrong and will inevitably lead to more suffering despite the apparent wrongs it might right in the immediate term".

What I struggle with is the sniping at the edges, impugning motives and dragging in old history to argue that an action was flawed.

I think it was justified to fight in Rwanda to stop the genocide, and I would not lose confidence in myself and my community's right to life because my movement had been associated with aggressive armed action previously.

(And by the way population growth is not a respectable reason to quote for genocide).

[ 21. November 2016, 09:41: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
OK I'll tell you.

It is a logical fallacy to determine right or wrong by looking at the history of an actor to that point.

Correct. And incorrect.

quote:

On that basis you and I would be wrong to give money to famine relief on the basis that we've been misusing our funds on gambling and heavy drinking in the past.

Incorrect. And correct.

quote:

It isn't logical to impugn the armed resistance against the genocide because they had previously been aggressors. (And by the way there had been a ceasefire in place for a year before the genocide). And the Tutsi's were second class citizens in Rwanda and subject to genocides previously.

Incorrect. And correct. (And correct). And incorrectly correct.

quote:

I would have respect for an argument that said "I think armed resistance is, on principle, wrong and will inevitably lead to more suffering despite the apparent wrongs it might right in the immediate term".

Good.

quote:

What I struggle with is the sniping at the edges, impugning motives and dragging in old history to argue that an action was flawed.

Good.

quote:

I think it was justified to fight in Rwanda to stop the genocide, and I would not lose confidence in myself and my community's right to life because my movement had been associated with aggressive armed action previously.

Good.

quote:

(And by the way population growth is not a respectable reason to quote for genocide).

Correct.

This has nothing to do with incarnational Christianity then? Or everything?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

You aren't communicating Martin. Have another go. Tell me.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I'm communicating just fine thanks.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Incorrect. And Incorrect. But a little bit incorrectly.

(With who?)

[ 21. November 2016, 15:22: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Incorrect: whom.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Ahem. You both know the drill.

/hosting

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

My unreserved apologies mdijon, Host.

I failed to be courteous. I will be so from before my point of departure, which regrettably is quite far upstream.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Nope. Can't be done. I'll flush and get off the pot. One can't dump in the same stream twice and all that.

Whoops! Curse this dysentery.

But it's the wrong dunny. The better one is Love Your Enemies ... as what did you do in the Rwandan genocide daddy is more appropriate there than here.

Hope I make it!

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

If we're going to try and make it, then let's go back here.

My point was that in defending armed resistance, it isn't necessary to go through the history of who provoked who first back to European stoking of inter-ethnic discontent or beyond. The point is that a genocide is now taking place and it is right to resist it.

I would characterize your position as;

a) implying that in the absence of a simple rule to discern right from wrong resistance it is better simply to rule out all armed resistance and

b) that rather than articulate a principled view of what it is right to endure or observe rather than intervene, instead you justify the wrongness of intervention by detailed discussions on the history of conflicts, or the imperfections of actors in these conflicts.

So let me know if either of those characterizations are wrong and correct me if they are.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If we're going to try and make it, then let's go back here.

My point was that in defending armed resistance, it isn't necessary to go through the history of who provoked who first back to European stoking of inter-ethnic discontent or beyond. The point is that a genocide is now taking place and it is right to resist it.

Agreed. With force majeure. How I reconcile that, justify that to Jesus I haven't the faintest idea.

quote:

I would characterize your position as;

a) implying that in the absence of a simple rule to discern right from wrong resistance it is better simply to rule out all armed resistance and

That's the theory.

quote:

b) that rather than articulate a principled view of what it is right to endure or observe rather than intervene, instead you justify the wrongness of intervention by detailed discussions on the history of conflicts, or the imperfections of actors in these conflicts.

It's germane to the theory. Everything that's gone before is helplessly wrong. And real. I'm constantly and despairingly aghast at how wrong the Church is in it all, the worst actor of all. And I do endorse, applaud, support, praise and would pick up an AK in, any effort to stop genocide. ALL bets are off, regardless.

quote:

So let me know if either of those characterizations are wrong and correct me if they are.

How's that?

I'd ask Jesus what He'd have done if I don't make it.

[Smile]

I reserve the quixotic right to oppose the everything wrong up to the genocide from my armchair.

Which means I officially opposed Franco-US-Anglo intervention in Libya, whilst quite viscerally feeling 'WAH-HOO! GOT YOU, YOU BASTARDS !' but how do I then oppose the pathetic failure of France, America and Britain to finish what they started and the worse they created?

How far back up stream must I row and still call myself a pacifist trying to follow the glaring example of Jesus staring at me mutely from the cross? As He did when I was a kill them, kill them ALL man?

Welcome to the real world eh?

Now where?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Is He calling us to (b)? To do nothing that involves physical intervention? Well, He isn't in my house, in my street. Not on a Friday night when it kicks off at the soup kitchen. I don't hear Him say that.

In my cultic days, we used to say "You shouldn't use violence, but when you do, make it count.".

What a brave new world, a strange new loop of stepping in to the same stream.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Sorry, by (b) I mean to stand by in the face even of genocide? Stand with and die with?

That IS principled.

The trouble is we're not there.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Thanks Martin. I didn't mean principled in a necessarily superior way. There are all sorts of principled stands that I respect and disagree with, and many that I don't even respect.

I respect pure pacifism but I don't agree with it. I'm not completely sure what Jesus says, he doesn't speak all that clearly to me. It does seem to me that what he said in the Gospels is close to a doctrine of rejecting force for personal gain, but not necessarily for the defence of others.

As your questions imply the problem with that is that it doesn't take frail, deceiving and self-deceiving human beings very long to cook up a "defence of others" defence for their self-interested aggression.

My view is that we have to accept the problem. In the same way that we accept states enacting laws despite laws being almost universal tools of oppression, or accept monetary systems despite the root of all evil. I don't think Jesus is calling us to stand back and watch genocide any more than he calls us to starve to death in anarchy.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Superbly balanced. He don't say owt to me either. Much mulling in the marsh will be done. I still feel obliged to oppose the abuse of all power. Including intervention AND failure to intervene in Libya, now. Don't intervene unless you mean it. Unless you take full responsibility. All too nuanced for my black/white brain!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Stone me.

We must need another thread. "Pacifism AGAIN!" perhaps.

Need to see what Uncle Brian says! No mind of my own ...

[ 22. November 2016, 20:21: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
... I still feel obliged to oppose the abuse of all power ...

That's pathetic. One doesn't need to be a pacifist to do that. Yet ... surely ... even when a Christian takes up arms because it would be in-Christian not to, that principle is a constant duty, ESPECIALLY when taking up arms?

I need to re-assess my responses further up this thread too. The Anglican Pacifist Fellowship and Quaker sites don't look inspiring ...

[ 23. November 2016, 21:44: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0