It's taking me forever to read the Siegfried Sassoon books, the fictionalized memoirs on which Pat Barker's Regeneration Trilogy is based. I've put it down a few times to read other things, and I've been writing, so I haven't been reading it as much as I would like.
As a result, I find myself on this Remembrance Day reading a first-hand account of that most terrible and useless war.
Unlike most people around me, I don't wear the red poppy symbol. No matter what anyone says about honouring veterans' sacrifice, and how it's supposedly politically neutral, it just doesn't work for me. I feel the remembrance excuses, normalizes and glorifies war.
Canadian should never have been sent to die in the trenches of France and Belgium. Neither should the British or the German. And although the Americans only showed up briefly at the end, and are often mocked for it, they never should have been there at all.
Did you know there was a huge anti-war movement in the US at the time? It was led mainly by socialists, and it was systematically repressed, often with pre-emptive arrests.
Obviously people born in Canada have a different view of war than those born in the US, and a different vision of what it means to be a soldier. But for me personally, the official remembrance condones the sacrifice. I feel this is especially true for a war that never had to be fought, and for which such an enormous price was paid.
As I say every year: honour the dead by working for peace.
51 comments:
Just do what I would do:
Wear a white poppy for peace. You might piss off some idiot warmongers, but Canada is a free country, eh?
I bought a white poppy at the Oct 27 peace demo. But I found I don't want to wear it. I don't want to do something in reaction to something I don't care for, if that makes any sense. (Which it may not.)
If it did piss anyone off here, I highly doubt they would say anything. I'd be shocked if anyone did.
This is the only time of year when I feel like a foreigner in my adopted country. I don't understand Remembrance Day. That used to be my own fault for not asking questions about it, but when I finally did start doing just that, I found that Canadian-born Canadians don't understand it, either--they just think they do. People's visions of the day fall into four distinctly different categories, and what's worse is that each group insists that their own personal view of what the day means is the correct one (and what everybody else thinks about the day, too). That is terribly muddled and uncomfortable for me. And frankly, it shocks me that it's perfectly okay with Canadian-born Canadians.
99.99% of the ways Canada is different from the U.S. are welcome changes to me. This is one of the ones that's not. So I don't wear a poppy, and I'm hiding in my house today.
People's visions of the day fall into four distinctly different categories
And those four categories are ...
Remberence Day does not glorify war but rather is a day when we honor those that died, those that fought and the families of veterans.
Remberence Day does not glorify war but rather is a day when we honor those that died, those that fought and the families of veterans.
That's the standard take on it. I disagree.
I also question why I should honour those that died. I didn't want them to die. They didn't die for me or my "way of life," as we are frequently told.
This is the only time of year when I feel like a foreigner in my adopted country.
That's a shame. But I guess if it's only one day each year, it's pretty good. As opposed to how often we felt like foreigners in the US!
I found that Canadian-born Canadians don't understand it, either--they just think they do.
Ditto what Allan said - I'd like to hear more. Can I invite you to guest post here?
I also question why I should honour those that died. I didn't want them to die. They didn't die for me or my "way of life," as we are frequently told.
I use it to remember how thousands upon thousands of young men were thrown in front of machine guns in aid of a war that never made much sense -- but that isn't that different from any other war.
This is what I think of on Rememberance Day:
Benjamin Britten's War Requiem
Blackadder Goes Forth
I use it to remember how thousands upon thousands of young men were thrown in front of machine guns in aid of a war that never made much sense -- but that isn't that different from any other war.
Yes. That's what I think about, too. I think about that quite a lot.
Benjamin Britten's War Requiem
Blackadder Goes Forth
Excellent choices. I'll throw in Lord Ponsonby's "Falsehood in Wartime: Propaganda Lies of the First World War".
redsock and l-girl,
And those four categories are ...
This is an oversimplification of all four positions, but essentially, these seem to be the options:
1) "The day exists to honour those Canadians who have fought in wars."
2) "The day exists to meditate on the horrors of war."
3) "The day exists to renew our commitment to work for peace."
4) "The day exists to support the Canadian military."
Those are four very different things, some of which I would probably feel comfortable making a public statement about by wearing a pin for a few weeks a year, and some of which I wouldn't. Conflating them, though, really feels like a baaaaaad idea.
As for guest-blogging, thanks for the offer, but I think this is all I have to say about the subject in public.
And as for it being only one day a year...I wish! The poppy-wearing starts well before Halloween, as far as I can tell.
Thank you, I/P, especially for the link. I think Redsock and I were both looking for it on your blog.
Those are four very different things, some of which I would probably feel comfortable making a public statement about by wearing a pin for a few weeks a year, and some of which I wouldn't. Conflating them, though, really feels like a baaaaaad idea.
I agree. I had no idea any Canadians thought of Remembrance Day and/or fake-poppy-wearing as renewing our commitment to peace. Interesting!
And as for it being only one day a year...I wish! The poppy-wearing starts well before Halloween, as far as I can tell.
Yes, very true. I was referring to the moment of silence, the wall-to-wall newspaper coverage, all the focus on veterans and esp WWI.
I would say it's probably a combination of all 4. The phrase that symbolizes Rememberance Day for me is "Never Again". The WarAmps materials our teachers used certainly ensured that.
The first-hand accounts, the horrific images, conditions and struggles that we read about just made the horrors of war real for me. And really, outside of Rememberance Day when do most people ever stop to think about these things? Death and suffering are just words until you take the time to imagine yourself in other peoples shoes. As adults we get so caught up in our daily lives that this kind of reflection never happens.
As for honouring those that died. I too didn't want them to die, and don't think it preserved our "way of life" in any way, but they thought it did. And they suffered greatly for it. Ordinary people endured extraordinary conditions. They showed amazing courage as well, and this always deserve to be honoured in my mind. By doing so, I don't see it as condoning their sacrifice. If anything, it ensures that we don't ever take their sacrifice lightly, or see only the glib idealized view of war. The in-depth coverage strips away the veneer of "glory" (if it even existed in anyone's mind in the first place). In fact, in my years in the Canadian school system, I don't think I ever heard the word glory used to describe war.
Thank you, Canrane - excellent comment.
Most of the WWI and WWI monuments use the expression "our glorious dead". It was used a lot in those days.
I'm glad your Canadian education gave a more realistic view.
Most of the WWI and WWI monuments
That should say WWI and WWII.
I'd also like to note that Americans who fought in WWI were drafted. The earlier British troops were volunteers, but as the war went on, those soldiers were also drafted.
I know that they suffered greatly, but I'm not sure those men thought they were preserving a way of life. Some might have. From what I've read, many perceived themselves as unwilling victims.
I don't know if my take on Remembrance Day falls into your four categories, I/P. Maybe the third one.
Remembrance Day (and Armistice Day) started when an entire society looked back in horror at the abject futility of four years' slaughter and decided that they could not let it happen again. The poppy was meant, I think, as a sign that the wearer remembered what had happened and, more importantly, why it happened, and kept in mind how important it was to never, ever let that happen again. (And as we can see, that worked out just fine for everyone...)
It calls the individual citizen to remember the cost of war -- the staggering human cost of war. Whether you're for it or against it, the actual cost has to be firmly in mind when we start thinking of starting (or continuing) another war. In fact, I think it's similar to the thinking around Holocaust memorials (the only comparable event to the Holocaust is the WWI slaughter, I think). You don't let it slide into history because it's the lack of remembrance, the lack of thinking, that got everyone there in the first place.
Many here know I was in the military myself; I have since early childhood been fascinated by military history. But you'd have to be, let me say, a rather obtuse scholar to learn a lot of modern military history and not build up a huge amount of sympathy for the people who actually do the fighting -- children, most of them. I feel that sympathy, and my books are a product of it.
That sympathy is my remembrance; my work has been to put the human cost of war up front, and remind the armchair Napoleons that this is the inevitable result of their warmongering.
The problem is, as both I/P and L-g have pointed out, the politicization of the symbol, and although I'm still wearing the poppy I grow more and more worried that I'm inadvertently supporting a position that I simply don't share. Phrases like "our glorious dead", though, seem to get flung around a lot more this time of year than "the guys who were shot and lay in the mud dying for two days as the excrement and blood created a massive, painful, and ultimately fatal infection". The first phrase is catchier, I admit.
I think the correct reaction to this holiday is Laura's -- honour the dead by working for peace.
Oh, and by the way, I would like to add that I hate the poem "In Flanders Fields". It's a plea for continuing the war, not stopping it. I wish people would stop reading it, especially on Remembrance Day. My thoughts on it are here if anyone cares to read.
(Btw, Canrane, your comment came while I was writing mine and I didn't see it before I posted. I wish I had -- I think you and I are coming from the same place, but you took a much more direct and articulate route! Very well put.)
Another excellent comment - thank you, M@.
I will readily admit that I had no idea that was the genesis of the poppy symbol. I was never taught that.
I associate the poppy with veteran's groups - the hard-boiled, right-wing veterans groups that are so common in the US, full of bile and intolerance for wild modern notions like equality and democracy. Veterans groups of the sort that M Yass has linked to above, but perhaps more virulent, as they are flag-waving, chest-thumping Americans.
I also associate the poppy with Flanders Fields. As I've mentioned before, I'm rare for an American of my generation that I even know the poem. As M@ said, it's not an anti-war poem - it's a celebration of "glorious" war.
Thus my two poppy associations are decidedly political, and negative.
Also, it just feels totally false and wrong to me to wear it. It doesn't feel like me at all.
Folks, please go read M@'s post at his blog (linked to above). It's excellent.
Somewhere on the net, I must be able to find Joni Mitchell's response to the poem. Several people have found this blog searching for it, but it's not here - yet.
*sigh* Canadian schooling might have given me realistic visions of war, but I'm afraid the terrible spelling is all my own! Remembrance day, Remembrance day.
As for the expression "glorious dead", thank you for pointing that out! I've never really stopped to think about it before. I guess I've always taken M's view that it's the same as saying "our honourable dead", or our "our brave dead" etc. Interesting...
I am amazed at how humanity memorializes its great slaughters rather than its times of peace.
Maybe because the peace has been underappreciated...the period from 1857-1913 was a time of growth and invention in most countries (the American Civil War should have been a warning of what was to come in the age of mechanized warfare, fought in civilian areas.)
Why are there no holidays for Peace?
Thanks, Nancy. Well said.
After a fair amount of reflection, I decided not to wear a poppy this year. It's probably the first time in my life since I was old enough to make a conscious choice that I chose not to. I won't labour the comments here with my reasons... I blogged about it extensively, so if anyone's interested in my reasons, they can follow profile link to City in the Trees and have a look.
I do get the feeling that Remembrance Day is cut a little differently from Veteran's Day, or Memorial Day... whichever is in November — it's weird that there are two of them. The US versions seem like excuses to thump chests and wave flags, and strike me little different from just about any of day of the year when ribbons and medals are in view. In Canada, it always seemed a more singular occasion, quite apart from the rest of the year. When I was a kid, it was about how horrible war was and how unnecessary, but that we needed to remember the loss of the people who who'd gone because it was felt at the time there was no choice. I guess I still kind of believe that... we, like the United States, were far away, essentially untouchable, and mostly went for reasons of principle. If people were naive in 1914, they weren't in 1939 or 1950. I'm fine with us taking a single day out of the year and dedicating it to the memory of what we lost and what values we fought to maintain... there's some justice in that and it's important to any nation to remember its history, good and bad — and Remembrance Day should mean both. I just don't like the turn it's all taking these days.
As M@ said, it's not an anti-war poem - it's a celebration of "glorious" war.
I have to take issue with that. It's not right to say that without qualification. I, personally, am uncomfortable with the line "take up our quarrel with the foe", but it has to be seen in the context in which it was written, and also in the the way it's presented.
Aside from that line, the poem is hardly a call to glorious arms. It's really an invocation that those who died, should not have died for nothing. It was written by a man on the battlefield, watching men he knew die around him. Who wouldn't beg the people back home not to let it be for nothing? And yes, at that moment, that essentially did mean sending more men to die. But I don't think it glorifies war. The first two stanzas are not the kind of thing you'd put on recruitment posters. They certainly aren't a promise of being home by Christmas, marching down Main Street through showers of ticker tape with a girl in each arm. I think they worst spin you can fairly put on it would be, "this is a terrible thing, but we can't walk away from it" — which has a familiar ring these days, I'll be the first to admit. To my ears, it straddles a middle line between isolationism and triumphalism; a weary resignation to the realities of the situation. I doubt McCrae imagined it would survive him the way it did; it was simply a snapshot of his feelings at the time.
But more fundamentally, a lot of the impact of the work has to do with the way it's presented. When I was in elementary school, and we learned it by heart, the emphasis was decidedly on the opening characterization of war as horrific and wasteful. In grade three, I had a teacher who told us that the "foe" being spoken of was not the Germans or people of any other country, but was the institution of war itself. She told us that the poet was speaking on behalf of the dead men, who were telling people everywhere, not just Canadians, that war was a mistake that had cost them everything, and that we must not let things get to a state where it happened again. That made an impression on me, and I defy anyone to say it's an illegitimate interpretation, particularly when contrast with the rest of the poem. The "torch" that was passed to us was the gift of being able to live in peace and freedom — it was ours to hold high because the horrors of war had been revealed to us. That was the idea, anyway. It's too bad it's not a more common sentiment, especially lately.
I suppose if presented differently it could be played up to suggest there's glory in dying overseas, if nothing else, but even so, I imagine there are works that would lend themselves better to the task than ones that start off by remembering row upon row of dead men who will never love, feel dawn, or see sunset's glow again.
After a fair amount of reflection, I decided not to wear a poppy this year. It's probably the first time in my life since I was old enough to make a conscious choice that I chose not to. I won't labour the comments here with my reasons... I blogged about it extensively, so if anyone's interested in my reasons, they can follow profile link to City in the Trees and have a look.
LP, thanks for stopping by with is. I'd love it if you gave us more of a summary here, but I hope readers will visit CIIT for the full story. I know I will.
I do get the feeling that Remembrance Day is cut a little differently from Veteran's Day, or Memorial Day... whichever is in November — it's weird that there are two of them.
Are there two in Canada? In the US, Nov 11 is Veterans' Day. It used to be called Armistice Day, then was renamed Veterans' Day.
Memorial Day is in late May. I am never sure of the difference between Memorial Day and Veterans' Day. I guess Veterans' Day honours all veterans, and Memorial Day just the dead ones?
But in any case, there is no Remembrance Day in the US, just Veterans' Day.
1) "The day exists to honour those Canadians who have fought in wars."
2) "The day exists to meditate on the horrors of war."
3) "The day exists to renew our commitment to work for peace."
It's possible to combine these without conflating them, however. To me, Rememberance Day is best summarized by the phrases "Lest We Forget" and "Never Again". Of course, neither of those pieces of advice are really followed, but one can hope.
(Trivia point: Some of the windows in the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa spell out "Lest We Forget" in Morse Code)
Lone Primate: Why I'm Not Wearing The Poppy This Year.
This was fascinating to me. I knew nothing about this holiday in Canada. It sounds similar in some ways to Veteran's Day in the US, but also very different. Veteran's Day here is mostly remembered by veterans and their families. Others just see it as a day off from work and a chance to go shopping. There are parades, but for the most part, the general population is apathetic.
We were in NYC yesterday and passed by Madison Square, where the marchers were gathering for the parade. We were stopped and questioned by a journalism student about our views on Veteran's Day. I said that I wished all these young people could go home to their families and be safe and that I wished that we had no reason to have a Veteran's Day. When asked whether my views had changed over the years, I said that in the past I had blamed the soldiers for participating in the wars (Vietnam in particular), but that now I realized that these were just young people being victimized by the government, and that it is the government that deserves our wrath, not the young people in the armed services.
Are there two in Canada?
No, sorry, I meant in the US. I'm sorry if that was unclear. But that's part of what I meant... in Canada, there's just the one, and it always seemed like a day very much apart from all the others in everyday experience. Canada in general strikes me as a less militarily-oriented culture than the US, at least in modern times.
I'd love it if you gave us more of a summary here
Oh, an offered soap box... one of my many weaknesses. :) Well, thank you; I'll try to be brief for once. I'm bothered by the blaze militarization of Canada lately, particularly this move to rename public places like the 401 and the DVP after vets and "war heroes" (and I'm sorry if my putting that in parentheses offends; but I don't consider someone killed when a jeep flips over somewhere or the like as a genuine "war hero"; simply an unfortunate doing his/her job... "Highway of Unfortunates" just doesn't have that martial ring right-wingers love, though). It disgusted me that David Miller was put in the no-win position having to say no to renaming the DVP because it would "confuse motorists", instead of risking the flak of saying it was bad idea unworthy of any Western country since Mussolini was strung up on piano wire, if not before. So with that in mind, every time I passed one of those Legion boxes with the poppies, I forced myself to remember how angry those demands for tribute made me feel, the anxiety for real freedom of speech they caused me, and I turned away. It honestly was not easy for me. I spent Sunday in the company of someone wearing a poppy and I was constantly aware of the fact that I wasn't. But I thought it was an important gesture to make this year.
To me, Rememberance Day is best summarized by the phrases "Lest We Forget" and "Never Again". Of course, neither of those pieces of advice are really followed
Exactly, and less so now than when we were young and the UN wasn’t quite the cynical exercise it is now, and peacekeeping really did mean that... not Regime Change "R" Us.
This was fascinating to me. I knew nothing about this holiday in Canada. It sounds similar in some ways to Veteran's Day in the US, but also very different.
It's the same day, but it's much, much bigger and more important. Everyone wears these poppy symbols, there is a national moment of silence at 11:11, a huge focus on WWI.
Canada was still part of the British Empire during WWI, and as a result suffered the same kind of tremendous losses that England did. After moving here, I was amazed at how present WWI is in Canada.
Thanks LP. I'm happy to offer you a soapbox any time.
L.P. -- I do see your point, and I admit that the way it's presented has a lot to do with it. But it's obviously being taken as a call to arms more and more (as I pointed out in my post).
I actually used to think of IFF quite differently, until I did some serious academic work on war poetry. My view changed dramatically after that.
I think you do have to look at it in the context of its time to see how propagandistic it is. Where Thomas and Owen and Sassoon (and a whole host of others) were the initiators of an entirely new way of talking -- and thinking -- about war, McCrae remains at the Brooke level where war is an abstract concept and its cost is somehow justified.
Just look at the language. The poppies are obviously the most stirring image; larks flying, but their calls obscured by the ubiquitous artillery; the humanity of the people who are now corpses underground. These images are clear and moving.
Then we get to the third stanza, and the strong imagery gives way to weak abstractions -- the torch, the quarrel, the foe -- that are way over on the other end of the spectrum. It turns out that all that sympathetic imagery was a ruse in preparation for the admonition that, if we don't keep fighting, it was all for nothing.
And the fact that it is so propagandistic is supported by the fact that the poem was printed and distributed to the soldiers at the front -- the powers that be were obviously happy to put McCrae's message out there. It's guilt by association, I suppose, but I don't think it's irrelevant.
By the way, I'm obviously pro-military and so on, but I abhor this highway-naming craze. The word "hero" makes me cringe.
M@, what can I say, except if you find a poem about buried corpses an inducement to sign up, well... you and I are wired a little differently. :) That ain't the kind of thing that gets me pushing to the front of the line, I'm afraid. That kind of "glorification" is just a little too abstract, even for this deconstructionist. Besides, it's easy to make the argument (as my teacher did) that the poem can convey the idea that the act of fighting, in and of itself, is all for nothing, and that can make sense even to an eight-year-old. It's not much of a stretch; the single requisite is suggesting a different interpretation of the word "foe"; everything hinges on that. The answer to me isn't to curse the poem as necessarily sending our young people willing into a meat grinder, it's in providing an appropriate background by which it can be offered as an argument against war. And I'd rather we were teaching it that way.
Then we get to the third stanza, and the strong imagery gives way to weak abstractions -- the torch, the quarrel, the foe -- that are way over on the other end of the spectrum.
That's the key for me.
And the fact that it is so propagandistic is supported by the fact that the poem was printed and distributed to the soldiers at the front
That says a lot, IMO.
It's also worth remembering that art is always subject to interpretation and context. It's possible that how the poem is now taught differs from its intended meaning. English teachers in today's world - looking back through the carnage of the 20th Century - are going to read meanings into the poem that people didn't and couldn't when it was first disseminated.
It's possible that how the poem is now taught differs from its intended meaning. English teachers in today's world - looking back through the carnage of the 20th Century - are going to read meanings into the poem that people didn't and couldn't when it was first disseminated.
Very much so. Firstly, it's invalid to speak of the "intended" meaning. McCrae's dead; we can't ask him. All we have is the poem. Even when he lived, the poem's meaning was ultimately in the mind of the reader; that should be clear from M@'s and my rather different interpretations of it based on our understanding of the imagery and the emphasis. I personally believe the poem is entirely salvageable as an anti-war statement. I don't consider that application invalid given that it was distributed to the troops at the time; as I said, it's a poem asking that sacrifice not be for nothing — why wouldn't the troops want to see that? But exactly what would have negated that sacrifice would have been a different matter from man to man to man. It's entirely a subjective matter, and the poem doesn't force an answer.
It's clear that inducements to fight, or at least to behave militarily, today and in the latter half of the 20th century are nothing like so subtle. They're called Rambo, Top Gun, Independence Day, and Pearl Harbor. They're about always being right, always being the victim, always being the victor. We are good, they are evil; we are just and our intentions are altruistic; they are envious and self-aggrandizing. Whatever spin one might put on In Flanders Fields, it's not unquestionably in line with any of that. Unlike modern messages, it leaves itself open to more nuanced readings.
M@, what can I say, except if you find a poem about buried corpses an inducement to sign up, well... you and I are wired a little differently. :)
I am concerned about the propagandistic bent of a poem that is being swallowed whole as propaganda here and now.
Dismiss it if you want, but agreement with the actual message of the poem is visible all around us. The poem makes the same plea as Wanda Watkins in her demand that Canadians keep fighting in Afghanistan so that her son's death remains meaningful. These things politicize the entire question, so the very discussion of Afghanistan or Canada's international role becomes impossible.
It's also worth remembering that art is always subject to interpretation and context. It's possible that how the poem is now taught differs from its intended meaning.
That's almost certainly the case, and as others have said here IFF is not taught as a pro-war poem. (I've heard of teachers leaving the third stanza out altogether, in fact.) But wouldn't it be easier to just use a poem that is actually anti-war? There's enough good anti-war poetry about, after all.
Firstly, it's invalid to speak of the "intended" meaning.
I should have said "original" meaning: that's what I meant.
However, it is certainly possible to discuss an artist's intentions. That's much of what the discussion of art is about. We may never arrive at the answer, but the question is perfectly valid.
That's almost certainly the case, and as others have said here IFF is not taught as a pro-war poem. (I've heard of teachers leaving the third stanza out altogether, in fact.) But wouldn't it be easier to just use a poem that is actually anti-war? There's enough good anti-war poetry about, after all.
I agree completely.
And teaching a poem by omitting one stanza is unconscionable. (Which I may have spelled wrong.)
If you are not comfortable with the message that a particular work of art, in your estimation, sends, you don't truncate the art to suit your needs! Go find different art that suits your purpose. There's plenty to choose from.
A teacher omitting the stanza that offends him/her is deeply offensive to me as a writer - no less offensive than changing the message of anti-war poem/play/movie to seem pro-war.
As you may know, the decidedly pro-war blog that the commenter (who I recently banned) kept linking to was called The Torch. Its URL contained the phrase "to you from failing hands".
Whatever spin one might put on In Flanders Fields, it's not unquestionably in line with any of that. Unlike modern messages, it leaves itself open to more nuanced readings.
In my opinion, that nuance is more because of the opacity of the language, in keeping with the times, than because of its meaning.
Also, I'm sorry to seem nitpicky, but interpretation is not the same thing as spin. Art - especially poetry - is subject to interpretation. Widely different interpretations can all be valid.
Spin is something else, and bears little relation to truth.
Again, sorry to be nitpicky, but I think it's an important distinction when discussing literature or any art.
The poem makes the same plea as Wanda Watkins in her demand that Canadians keep fighting in Afghanistan so that her son's death remains meaningful.
Unquestionably, but my point is the poem can be — was, for me and my class — presented as a vehicle to deliver the idea that war is flawed instrument of resolving disagreements, and revealed as such in conjunction with Remembrance Day. So I don't dread the poem; we simply have to stand up in public and claim it as our own. We can't do this with a lot of the other propaganda I just mentioned, and I think their power, resonance, and success at the box office are much more damaging to the idea of keeping Canada less militarized than appeals to In Flanders Fields. Put bluntly, we have bigger fish to fry, with pointier teeth.
But wouldn't it be easier to just use a poem that is actually anti-war? There's enough good anti-war poetry about, after all.
Easy to erase this poem from the public consciousness of Canada? I'm doubtful. I'm doubtful, too, as to the wisdom of the suggestion because it would, effectively, yield the poem up entirely to the people and uses M@ just brought up; dangerous when this is a poem that springs instantly to the lips of millions. My opinions of war might be entirely different today if that had been my experience of this ubiquitous work in the 1970s.
Art - especially poetry - is subject to interpretation. Widely different interpretations can all be valid. Spin is something else, and bears little relation to truth.
Well, okay... "interpretation" when you're in university and trying to be original. "Spin" when you're in grade three and your morals are being shaped.
Put bluntly, we have bigger fish to fry, with pointier teeth.
I don't think anyone will argue with you there.
Well, okay... "interpretation" when you're in university and trying to be original. "Spin" when you're in grade three and your morals are being shaped.
I meant us, here, right now, on this blog. No one is spinning. We simply read and interpret the poem differently, is all.
I meant us, here, right now, on this blog. No one is spinning. We simply read and interpret the poem differently, is all.
Yes, I understood that. But I was using the word spin to suggest that the poem can be valuable in illustrating the waste of war if it's presented in the appropriate light... cynically, "spun", was it was for me long ago, though perhaps the use of the word is ill-advised. Still, that's the context in which I meant the word. And it's why I raised the objection in the first place. Because of how it was presented to me, I was surprised to see it portrayed as glorifying war... it's not my experience of the work, and I think it's probably not the common understanding of it for Canadians my age, either. Frankly, till now, I'd always seen it as primarily a warning, with a forget-me-not attached to the end. And I think as long as it's presented that way to the young, it can be an ally rather than a menace. I'd be sorry to see it pass from the common lexicon, though of course it should be buttressed by other works, in keeping with M@'s suggestion.
Put another way... if we were to agree it's a call to arms and turn our backs on it, then we really do abandon it to people like Wanda Watkins, who would and do use it to send young people off to die. But if we teach it to kids the way I learned it, then they'll grow up immunized against such psychological misapplications of the work, leaving the bellicose-minded to fall back on such obvious folderal as The Charge of the Light Brigade.
That's a healthy view, I think. Thanks for clarifying.
Canada was still part of the British Empire during WWI, and as a result suffered the same kind of tremendous losses that England did. After moving here, I was amazed at how present WWI is in Canada.
You should try Newfoundland sometime, and the story of the Blue Puttees. As hard as Canada was hit as a source of cannon-fodder, Newfoundland was hit harder.
On the first day of the Somme, 801 Blue Puttees went over the top. Only 68 were able to answer roll call the next day.
As for In Flanders Fields, I always preferred Wilfred Owen's poems, especially as set to music by Benjamin Britten in the War Requiem. There's certainly no ambiguity there...
What passing bells for these who die as cattle?
Only the monstrous anger of the guns.
Only the stuttering rifles' rapid rattle
Can patter out their hasty orisons
No mockeries for them from prayers or bells,
Nor any voice of mourning save the choirs, --
The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells;
And bugles calling for them from sad shires.
What candles may be held to speed them at all?
Not in the hands of boys, but in their eyes
Shall shine the holy glimmers of good-byes.
The pallor of girls' brows shall be their pall;
Their flowers the tenderness of silent minds,
And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds.
(Full text)
Sara at Orcinus -- an American who moved to Vancouver in 2004 -- has an article up on Rememberance Day vs. Veteran's Day. It ends with this observation:
As I'm writing this, Keith Olbermann just came on TV. He's pointing out that George W. Bush was in Crawford this weekend, and hence unavailable to lay the wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery yesterday -- a formal duty presidents have performed, in peace and in war, since shortly after the Civil War to honor the soldiers of the nation.
"Support Our Troops" indeed.
On the first day of the Somme, 801 Blue Puttees went over the top. Only 68 were able to answer roll call the next day.
*sigh*
As for In Flanders Fields, I always preferred Wilfred Owen's poems
Me, too.
In popular culture, nothing beats Blackadder Goes Forth (which you linked to above). Nothing like comedy that makes you cry.
He's pointing out that George W. Bush was in Crawford this weekend, and hence unavailable to lay the wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery yesterday
He did use them for a photo op recently, however.
Thanks for the tip on that Orcinus post, I will go look.
In popular culture, nothing beats Blackadder Goes Forth (which you linked to above). Nothing like comedy that makes you cry.
I also recommend the war memoirs of comedic genius Spike Milligan (at least the first four volumes, they start to lose focus after that): Adolf Hitler: My Part in his Downfall, Rommel? Gunner Who?, Monty: His Part in My Victory, Mussolini: His Part in My Downfall. They're WWII, rather than WWI, but things weren't that much less absurd in that conflict.
Milligan suffered from bipolar disorder and shell-shock resulting from being caught in German shelling in Italy. He used to say, "My active service in the war ended when I was blown up. I've often thought that the biggest mistake of my life was coming back down again."
That was a really interesting discussion.
In the UK, Remembrance Day has become about honouring the dead of all wars. I haven't worn a poppy since childhood though, because like one or two other posters I think (privately) about Wilfred Owen and Blackadder Goes Forth, and my American history learning at university (principally Vietnam).
If someone appeared at the Cenotaph each year and read out 'I am the enemy you killed, my friend' (Strange Meeting) I might wake up.
As it is, I feel perturbed watching a young man educated at Eton and Sandhurst, and another who once foolishly wore a Nazi uniform at a party, lay wreaths. Even though, of course, I know they have been bereaved themselves; and I know one of them has a degree.
It's still more likely to be all 'playing fields of Eton' in the upper echelons I'm afraid. General Melchett lives on.
Post a Comment