UFV's Student Press Since 1993
By J.D.R. Brown (The Cascade) – Email
Print Edition: November 9, 2011
There was not much fanfare or media coverage when the Canadian Forces left Kandahar Province earlier this year, and even less when Master Corporal Byron Greff was killed in Kabul nearly two weeks ago. Since the invasion of Afghanistan, I’ve witnessed a number of spasms of patriotism. Immediately following our first casualties, who were bombed by American fighter jets, there was a great hue and cry followed by an extremely well attended public memorial; the death of Captain Nichola Goddard, Canada’s first female soldier to be killed in combat, elicited a good deal of public mourning and saw her widowed husband receive the Memorial Cross. There have been others, of course, most with repatriation ceremonies and speeches from bereaved parents and opportunistic politicians, but these remain most vivid to me.
I am not put off by public mourning, only by the nauseating rhetoric so often offered and interminable forgetfulness of the participants. And it is those two qualities that I find most often during the observance of Remembrance Day. We might buy our poppies and even shuffle on down toward the local cenotaph, but that is quite often the end of it for most. The exhortations to remember are received and chanted by us most dutifully, but all of the reflection and mindfulness of the silence is forgotten by lunchtime.
What’s left is an ersatz mourning and a Hollywood remembrance. The spectacle of television specials and movies mixed with a dogmatic, unthinking commitment to support our troops is woven into every speech and given wall-to-wall coverage for exactly one day. Most will appreciate the bombast, but for any other day of the year it is unlikely that you will find the average citizen contemplating the hell where youth and laughter go, as Sassoon would have us do.
And that is the crux of the problem. We have spent an entire decade in the middle of Central Asia, losing 157 soldiers in the process, and there has never been a clear articulation of why we are there. At first, it was to fulfil our treaty obligations as part of NATO. Then we were there to oust the Taliban and liberate Afghanistan. For awhile, we were nation-building: educating Afghan girls, building roads, and bringing democracy. But that fell by the wayside like all the others. We ended up fighting so that we wouldn’t just cut and run – perhaps to beat the Taliban into submission? But that, too, has come to an end; we are no longer sending our men and women beyond the wire to wait for that awful crack of an IED. There have been peace talks between us and the Taliban.
It is said by us every year that at the going down of the sun we will remember them – all of them, all of our brothers and sisters who have died from this war and all the others. But the reality is we do not. We do not remember them; not their lives, or their sacrifice, or the bloody wars where they bought the farm. We continue on with our petty little worries and think nothing of sending our troops every decade or so into yet another quagmire, so long as we don’t have to think about it very much.
Ypres was nearly a century ago; we ought to have learned that lesson by now.
Related articles:
I find in quite sad on multiple levels that the Cascade has dealt with the matter of Remembrance Day in what I can describe as no less than shameful. I think it is proper that government decisions putting people in harm’s way should be held up to scrutiny. I think it is proper that war be condemned. University newspapers are certainly a venue for such discussions. What saddens me is that the meaning and purpose of Remembrance Day has been ignored and instead been the hijacked to use to promote agendas. I expected better from The Cascade and its writers. I know that they are so much more capable than they have shown in the two editorials appearing in the November 9th edition.
I wholeheartedly agree with James. The whole point of the day has been missed here in order to make a political point. The idea that perhaps wars are (sometimes) fought for good reasons–for justice, for the defense of the weak, etc. is missed.
I think you may have missed the point of the article.
I wonder if that is a reader or a writer failure? I appreciate there is a point in the the final paragraph regarding public attitude towards the sacrifice, but as only one reader I found it too little to late. No doubt I come from the old school and believe there is a proper time and place for things. When considered along with the other item from the Editor-in-Chief in the same edition I just don’t believe this article reflects appropriate respect to those that have earned it. Opinion pieces are often considered effective if they get people talking. This piece will likely accomplish that. As I stated previously I know that the writing and editorial staff are capable of much worthier comments.
James,
Thank you for your comments.
My understanding of Jack’s argument is as follows: a single day of remembrance does not show adequate respect to Canada’s veterans. He is calling out the public forgetfulness that seems to follow each year’s November 11 fanfare. It strikes me that Jack’s piece is, in fact, highly supportive of those who have served in the military while critical of the inadequacy of our act of remembrance.
To me, the purpose of Remembrance Day is twofold. First, to honour those who have served by reflecting on their sacrifice. And second, to remind ourselves of the unspeakable horrors and incomprehensible violence war inflicts on all those involved. We should be mindful of these consequences any time a decision is made to put Canada’s daughters and sons in harm’s way.
Every year I ask myself if we’ve really learned our lessons.
I’m glad that my comments have inspired people to share their viewpoints on “We do not remember them”. Quite interesting how the same words result in such different positions on their timing and appropriateness. I hope that others will also share their thoughts. As I mentioned earlier editorials that create strong response can be considered effective. In that grading scale the editorial is clearly effective.
This is what I find truly objectionable about Remembrance Day. It has a narrative: We should honor those who sacrificed so much for our country. In presenting this message it exploits the horrific experiences of veterans in ways that shape the narrative and leaves out the experiences of those that don’t (those who participated in or witnessed atrocities on our side, those who didn’t think the war was about idealistic values). The day frames Canada’s participation in wars in abstract idealistic terms ( freedom, justice) and leaves out the parts that don’t fit (imperialism, reckless nationalism, strategic stupidity). The day creates a sense of formality and ritual in how people ought to behave and what should or shouldn’t be said (“let’s not dishonor our veterans”) and those that do not conform are to be derided. Rather than create space for honest discussion about war, Remembrance Day confines our behavior and attitudes in very limited terms.
Inglis’s criticism here is that “the meaning and purpose of Remembrance Day has been ignored and instead been the hijacked to use to promote agendas.” The irony here is that he doesn’t acknowledge that remembrance day itself “hijacks” the experience of those who fought and died in war in a way that is poetic, elegaic, romantic yet fundamentally political. To criticize someone for not conforming to the script seems a little self-defeating for a day which presents notions of freedom. Freedom includes the freedom to raise uncomfortable questions even at uncomfortable times and this is a healthy activity if one values a critical, open society where individuals reserve a right to be critically disloyal.