On Remberance

When I was in university, one of my professors held two minutes of reflection instead of silence.   Instead of standing silent, each person spoke briefly about what the day means to them.  This was before 9/11 and the following war in Afghanistan.  Most of us said we cannot actually “remember” something that we have never lived through, but acknowledged the importance of the day itself.  Even if we don’t have an actual memory of war, we should always be aware that it happened and why.   This is, in part, the point of studying history.

In an upper year class, the (same) professor made a comment that still sticks with me.  He said (in reference to the more localized wars of early modern Europe) that some wars and battles seem much less terrible if the only metric examined is the number of casualties and death rates.  However, to those fighting and to the families of those affected, it is no less awful than a “great” war.  (Great in the case of WWI means huge, not wonderful, of course.).  The families of those killed grieve just as much, and those who survive are just as affected afterwards.

Dr. Sam Mclean, whom I follow on BlueSky (and earlier, on Twitter, before we left it), often complains that the way war is taught and ‘remembered’ is too much like a sportscast.  I’m not a historian, but I see his point and tend to agree.  War is terrible, so let’s not glamourize it by making the number of kills/planes shot down (etc.) like a baseball stat or MVP award. 

Finally, if you only show concern for veterans when you want to deny aid to refugees or another group. In that case, you are not concerned for veterans.  You are couching racism or prejudice in care to disguise them and avoid criticism.    Don’t do that.   Similarly, if you think early November is too early for Christmas decor, fair enough; just don’t pretend it has anything to do with honouring veterans or Remembrance Day.   Be honest enough to say ‘too soon!’ and leave veterans out of it.