![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Remembrance (previously known as "Rant")
It is interesting, and slightly sad, what Remembrance Day has come to mean to people.
I am writing this because of a number of observations made by people over on![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
robcee's journal. He made the observation that this year he is working in an office where for the first time in his experience, everybody observed the two minute silence for Armistice Day.
I don't know if it is symptomatic of an age difference between me and many of my LJ friends - I am between 15 and 20 years older than a good proportion of them, but I feel quite strongly that Armistice Day/Remembrance Sunday are things we should observe. I think it may well be the generational remove that informs the attitude. Where as for me, the First and Second World Wars were things that directly affected my grand parents and parents, for many of my LJ friends, they are events removed by an additional generation, and consequently more remote from their experience.
This is not to say that I think that there is a lessening in observance of remembrance - the number of people sporting poppies on their lapels is evidence of that - and I find that aspect heartening. What, by contrast, I find sad, and in some ways distressing, is the increased and increasing politicisation and political correctness that is attaching itself to remembrance.
I do not find it hard to separate out remembrance for the dead of (primarily) two world wars, and those who have died in other conflicts in the service of their country from those who have died tragically in other circumstances. What annoys and upsets me, is the cheapening of this act by the increasing application of the two minutes silence to the remembrance of the deaths of any significant modern day tragedy. A number of people have made the point that they object to this, and I think I agree.
The tragic deaths of the Russian school children, the Soham school girls and any number of similar events have been used as an excuse to show two minutes' respect. I'm not sure what this represents, but it is neither grief nor remembrance, except to those directly involved, and without wishing to denigrate their genuine emotions, I agree with a number of people that a two minute silence in these cases is an inappropriate way to express our thoughts on tragedies which do not affect us directly. To pretend otherwise is to insult those directly and genuinely involved.
Grief is an over and misused word; it is not possible to feel genuine grief over the loss of someone you do not know personally. Those who have felt genuine grief know this to be true. Whatever were the emotions whipped up by, for example, the deaths of Elvis, Lennon or the Princess of Wales were, they were not grief. Sadness perhaps; anger maybe, but not grief.
Similarly as time passes, Remembrance becomes less about grief, and more about reflection on honour, duty and waste; on the willingness of ordinary people to sacrifice for their family, village, town, county and country. Probably in many cases, in that order. They did what they felt they had to, often with little choice so that others need not. Remembrance of this should not be sullied with ersatz emotions, political posturing and political correctness. What it should do, is allow us to reflect on the fact that the world we live in today despite its faults would be vastly different had they not acted and sacrificed.
I have deliberately refrained from mentioning 9/11 to this point, because that event does not in my mind fit under the banner of remembrance, but neither does it fit the plastic antithesis of false mourning exemplified by the celebrity deaths or other human tragedies above. The attack on the twin towers deserves its two minutes' silence. Not out of grief for most of us, but to give us pause and time for reflection. The scope of that event is unparalleled in peace time, and the consequences are still unravelling and reverberating throughout the world.
That alone warrants at least two minutes reflection.
I am particularly incensed by the increased politicisation of remembrance, although I accept there are often good reasons for protest. We have seen the white poppies of those who do not wish to glorify war. These people have missed the point. Remembrance reflects the permanent sacrifices, not any notions of transient glory. Similarly, but more understandably, the BBC informs us that a delegation of families of those killed or still fighting in the current Iraq war laid a wreath of poppies on the doorstep of 10 Downing Street to symbolise the "blood on the doorstep of Tony Blair". I accept that in a case like this that the protest is informed by grief, but so too, it is a mistimed action which reflects poorly on the families themselves.
Right. That's out of my system and I feel much better for it.
I am writing this because of a number of observations made by people over on
robcee's journal. He made the observation that this year he is working in an office where for the first time in his experience, everybody observed the two minute silence for Armistice Day.I don't know if it is symptomatic of an age difference between me and many of my LJ friends - I am between 15 and 20 years older than a good proportion of them, but I feel quite strongly that Armistice Day/Remembrance Sunday are things we should observe. I think it may well be the generational remove that informs the attitude. Where as for me, the First and Second World Wars were things that directly affected my grand parents and parents, for many of my LJ friends, they are events removed by an additional generation, and consequently more remote from their experience.
This is not to say that I think that there is a lessening in observance of remembrance - the number of people sporting poppies on their lapels is evidence of that - and I find that aspect heartening. What, by contrast, I find sad, and in some ways distressing, is the increased and increasing politicisation and political correctness that is attaching itself to remembrance.
I do not find it hard to separate out remembrance for the dead of (primarily) two world wars, and those who have died in other conflicts in the service of their country from those who have died tragically in other circumstances. What annoys and upsets me, is the cheapening of this act by the increasing application of the two minutes silence to the remembrance of the deaths of any significant modern day tragedy. A number of people have made the point that they object to this, and I think I agree.
The tragic deaths of the Russian school children, the Soham school girls and any number of similar events have been used as an excuse to show two minutes' respect. I'm not sure what this represents, but it is neither grief nor remembrance, except to those directly involved, and without wishing to denigrate their genuine emotions, I agree with a number of people that a two minute silence in these cases is an inappropriate way to express our thoughts on tragedies which do not affect us directly. To pretend otherwise is to insult those directly and genuinely involved.
Grief is an over and misused word; it is not possible to feel genuine grief over the loss of someone you do not know personally. Those who have felt genuine grief know this to be true. Whatever were the emotions whipped up by, for example, the deaths of Elvis, Lennon or the Princess of Wales were, they were not grief. Sadness perhaps; anger maybe, but not grief.
Similarly as time passes, Remembrance becomes less about grief, and more about reflection on honour, duty and waste; on the willingness of ordinary people to sacrifice for their family, village, town, county and country. Probably in many cases, in that order. They did what they felt they had to, often with little choice so that others need not. Remembrance of this should not be sullied with ersatz emotions, political posturing and political correctness. What it should do, is allow us to reflect on the fact that the world we live in today despite its faults would be vastly different had they not acted and sacrificed.
I have deliberately refrained from mentioning 9/11 to this point, because that event does not in my mind fit under the banner of remembrance, but neither does it fit the plastic antithesis of false mourning exemplified by the celebrity deaths or other human tragedies above. The attack on the twin towers deserves its two minutes' silence. Not out of grief for most of us, but to give us pause and time for reflection. The scope of that event is unparalleled in peace time, and the consequences are still unravelling and reverberating throughout the world.
That alone warrants at least two minutes reflection.
I am particularly incensed by the increased politicisation of remembrance, although I accept there are often good reasons for protest. We have seen the white poppies of those who do not wish to glorify war. These people have missed the point. Remembrance reflects the permanent sacrifices, not any notions of transient glory. Similarly, but more understandably, the BBC informs us that a delegation of families of those killed or still fighting in the current Iraq war laid a wreath of poppies on the doorstep of 10 Downing Street to symbolise the "blood on the doorstep of Tony Blair". I accept that in a case like this that the protest is informed by grief, but so too, it is a mistimed action which reflects poorly on the families themselves.
Right. That's out of my system and I feel much better for it.
...
Events reminding us of our frailties, failures, and even triumphs that cost so much that they where almost losses, will always be the target of malice by some. Noone ever wants to remember past pains, and not everyone can let the haze of time passed blur the impact of events. Should we shun them for thier beliefs, or should we accept that thier criticism for what it is, their escape fromn something hurtful. We should not judge those weaker than we are, for we all have flaws we cannot overcome, this is human nature.
Re: ...