On Poppies and Politics

 
Punditman says...

Punditman is hesitant to even write this, knowing the strong emotions that surround Remembrance Day. In fact, if the symbol of the poppy had arisen out of the horrors of World War Two and the fight against fascism, punditman would not have written this piece. But the poppy's legacy surfaced out of the horrors of World War One (which punditman will return to shortly). It has been used henceforth in remembrance throughout the Western world.

So I write this with all due respect to those who may take offence; however, there is a certain irrationality in the air that should be addressed.

Punditman feels that since Canada became involved in Afghanistan, poppy wearing begins earlier and is more widespread than in past eras. No surprise there, punditman supposes; these days, war is never far from people's minds. Does punditman detect a subtle but increased social pressure to wear a poppy? Perhaps. Are the two issues connected? Does wearing a poppy presuppose support for the Afghan mission? Punditman thinks he is not alone with such questions. But wearing a poppy should be a personal and reflective act, not an ideological reflex that feels socially enforced.

The poppy owes its heritage to Guelph's John McCrae, a Canadian physician and Lieutenant Colonel, who wrote the poem "In Flander's Fields" on May 3, 1915, after witnessing the death of his friend Lieutenant Alexis Helmer the previous day. It was published on December 8, 1915 by Punch magazine in Britain:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved, and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

The poem, which we all learned as school children, has not escaped critique. Wikipedia cites Paul Fussell, cultural and literary historian, and professor emeritus of English literature at the University of Pennsylvania:

Critic Paul Fussell, in The Great War and Modern Memory, pointed out the sharp distinctions between the pastoral, sacrificial tone of the poem's first nine lines and the "recruiting-poster rhetoric" of the poem's third stanza; Fussell said the poem, appearing in 1915, would serve to denigrate any negotiated peace which would end the war, and called these lines "a propaganda argument," saying "words like vicious and stupid would not seem to go too far."

Those strong words come from a decorated American World War Two veteran; but who is better equipped to opine on the power of propaganda?

Irrationality comes into play when the poppy is used not simply to honour veterans and all of war's victims and to recognize their sacrifice and sufferings but to also attack the voices of dissent. Irrationality’s ignorant face is displayed in the attitudes of those who have been attacking writer Peter Smollett for writing a piece entitled, War resisters also deserve a memorial in yesterday’s Toronto Star. Some of the reactions to this well researched article are disturbing.

Remember, Smollet is talking about World War One only here, a conflict that began 96 years ago when Canadian forces were still under British command. But for the militarist faction of today's right wing, the political subtext of Remembrance Day is that all Canada's wars are by default noble endeavours that protect our freedom and security; and all soldiers from all wars are heroes, while all pacifists are cowards. They will hear nothing of dissent or from those who happen to believe that most wars are unnecessary and unjust.

In writing about World War One, Peter Smollet's great sin was to outline the generalized slaughter and senselessness of what was essentially a struggle between imperial powers divvying up the spoils of their colonies. He explains how they used the working classes as cannon fodder and how generals and politicians advanced their careers off the blood of the poor. How can anyone who knows their history seriously disagree with this assessment? Many veterans of that conflict arrived at the same conclusion.

The so-called "war to end all wars" was a major factor in the rise of Bolshevism and revolution in Russia; and the Armistice and Treaty of Versailles contributed to fascism taking root in Germany and the rise of Hitler. This was the lovely little war that the would be over by Christmas!

Resistance to the First World War's bloodbath was widespread throughout belligerent countries and Smollet does a good job outlining the various anti-war movements of the time, including Canadians who made great sacrifices, including losing their lives, in the name of peace. For his efforts, Smollet gets a ton of brickbats tossed at him from wingnut corner.

Punditman believes in remembering the war dead and all of war’s casualties—but on all sides, including all the civilians who have perished or have been maimed in war. It seems this is what the remembering part of Remembrance Day should be about.

There was a time not so long ago when the sentiment for peace was as strong as for war, when people were not afraid to speak up and when wearing a poppy could just as easily mean "never again" as "support out troops."

Honouring conscientious objectors and others who bravely stood in opposition to the slaughter of World War One is not about to happen any time soon. The current zeitgiest leaves no room for nuance, only group think. Important symbols are easily used to keep the herd in line. Those who lambast Smollet's opinion piece say it is a disgrace to publish it during Remembrance Week because they believe World War One was all about protecting our freedoms. But if they truly understood freedom, they should have no problem with the Star publishing a different viewpoint.

So wear a poppy if it feels right. But don't be afraid to say what you think—of any war.

Punditman is wearing a poppy.

Note in the margin:
The lines, "To you from failing hands we throw / The torch; be yours to hold it high" are also written on the wall of the Montreal Canadiens dressing room. Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment ownership take note: stirring, inspiring words apparently help teams win Stanley Cups. Or at least make them playoff bound!

Short Peace In A Terrible War

Alfred Anderson died last month at the very ripe old age of 109.

But it was not the Scotsman's many years that made him remarkable at the end of his long life. It was that, to his last days, he well recalled participating in the Christmas Truce of 1914 -- that brief respite from the carnage of World War I that saw soldiers of both sides in the conflict lay down their arms, climb out of their trenches and celebrate together along the 500-mile Western Front.

Anderson was the last surviving old soldier known to have participated in what he would refer to in his later years as "a short peace in a terrible war."

That peace, which was initiated not by presidents or prime ministers, but by the soldiers themselves, serves to this day as a reminder that war is seldom so necessary -- nor so unstoppable -- as politicians would have us believe.

So it comes as no surprise that the Christmas Truce of 1914 is a bit of history that many in power have neglected over the past 90 years.

But Anderson's long survival, and his clear memory, made it impossible to write this chapter out of history.

On December 25, 1914, Anderson was an 18-year-old soldier serving with 5th Battalion, Black Watch, of the British Army, one of the first to engage in the bloody trench warfare that was the ugliest manifestation of a war that claimed 31 million lives. But on that day, there was no violence.

Rather, Anderson recalled in an interview on the 90th anniversary of the truce, "there was a dead silence that morning, right across the land as far as you could see. We shouted 'Merry Christmas,' even though nobody felt merry."

The calls of "Merry Christmas" from the Brits were answered by Germans singing: "Stille Nacht. Heilige Nacht. Alles Schlaft, einsam wacht."

The Brits responded by singing "Silent Night" in English. Then, from the trenches opposite them, climbed a German soldier who held a small tree lit with candles and shouted in broken English, "Merry Christmas. We not shoot. You not shoot."

Thus, began the Christmas Truce. Soldiers of both armies -- more than a million in all -- climbed from the trenches along the Western Front to exchange cigarettes and military badges. They even played soccer, using the helmets they had taken off as goalposts. And they did not rush to again take up arms. Along some stretches of the Front, the truce lasted into January of 1915.

Finally, distant commanders forced the fighting to begin anew.

Thus, it has ever been with war. As George McGovern, the decorated World War II veteran who would become one of America's greatest champions of peace, "old men (are always) thinking up wars for young men to die in."

But Alfred Anderson remembered, well beyond the century of two world wars and too many lesser conflicts, that the young men of opposing armies often have more in common with one another than they do with the old men who send them into battle.

Once, on a Christmas Day that ought not be forgotten, the young men decided to make a short peace in a terrible war.

The memory of the courage of those who chose, however briefly, to see the humanity in one another, and to lay down the arms of one of the most brutal wars this planet has ever seen, offers hope this weekend, as Christians mark the birth of the Nazarene who was called Prince of Peace. Perhaps, someday, we will make a Christmas truce that lasts not merely through the hours of good cheer on this Holiday but the whole year long.

(Original Link)

Was the "War to end all Wars" justified?

"It was a pointless war that just led to the next, 20 years later, as most people now concede and many soldiers knew then. Canadian historian Harold Innis, who fought at Vimy and was wounded there, spent the rest of his life stunned at “the stupidity of the whole performance” and even more that he had willingly joined."

punditman says:
On Easter Monday April 9, 1917, the entire Canadian Corps of four divisions stormed up Vimy Ridge, France. By April 12, the Canadians controlled the entire ridge, at a cost of 3,598 men killed and 7,104 wounded. The battle became a symbol of Canadian achievement and nationhood.

On this, the 90th anniversary, we have been subjected to a literal barrage of coverage this past week. While the reportage is certainly moving and poignant, it somehow lacks context. Could it be that in this time of current warfare, the media is afraid to ask the tough questions about previous conflicts? To ask in no way diminishes the sacrifices of those who paid the ultimate price. But when it comes to the "war to end all wars," also known then as the "struggle between civilization and barbarism," no one asks the question about World War One that has plagued so many for so long. Rick Salutin dares to ask it here:
Vimy: Was it Worth it?

For those with their heads still in the Sand:

punditman says:
In case anyone has been living in a cave for the past four years, the US occupation of Iraq is not all that popular -- among Iraqis that is. This past weekend is no exception. According to Sam Dagher, correspondent with the The Christian Science Monitor, "tens of thousands of Sadr's supporters crammed into the backs of trucks or into minibuses draped with giant Iraqi flags to make the 100-mile journey south to Najaf."

There are those (non cave dwellers, I mean), who still have their head in the proverbial sand when it comes to acknowledging this rather bleak reality. No doubt they have been helped each step of the way by much of the US media. With thanks to TvNewsLIES.org, the following comparative survey helps to illustrate this point:

From the UK: The Guardian: Hundreds of thousands of supporters of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr took to the streets of two Shia holy cities in Iraq today and protested against “US occupiers”.

Associated Press: Tens of thousands draped themselves in Iraqi flags and marched peacefully through the streets of two Shiite holy cities Monday to mark the fourth anniversary of Baghdad’s fall.

The New York Times: Large crowds marched in the city of Najaf today, the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, to protest the American occupation of Iraq.

CNN (the only media organization that seems to have relied on official U.S. military estimates): Thousands of anti-U.S. protesters marched in the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Monday to mark the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad.

The U.S. Army estimated the crowd size at closer to 5,000 to 7,000 participants based on aerial photographs, said military spokesman Col. Steve Boylan.