What are we remembering with the red poppy?

    You’d have a difficult time finding someone who thought that a day of reflection and solemn recognition of the victims of war and fallen soldiers was a bad idea, or a waste of time. But Remembrance Day in Canada is a lot more than just that, and it always has been. I was once a patriotic, flag-waving youngster (like most people, I imagine) who enjoyed Remembrance Day. But over time I grew increasingly reluctant to identify with remembrance traditions at all (including wearing a poppy), worried about endorsing what I perceived as its dangerous implicit ideological functions. Disparate social values and attitudes come together to define this holiday that we observe (or celebrate, if you will). Deeply interwoven, these values and attitudes are also contradictory.

    Veterans Affairs Canada runs a program called “Canada Remembers”. Their website describes its mission, to help the public “come to understand and appreciate what those who have served Canada in times of war, armed  conflict and peace stand for and what they have sacrificed for their country.” You’ll notice that this sentence doesn’t focus so much on the people themselves, but rather on what they stand for. They go on about Canada’s reputation as a peace-loving country, and laud Canada’s ultimate reasons for fighting in wars: namely to protect the freedom of others and the human rights of all. This, we are told, is what has motivated soldiers to sacrifice so much, and why we must pay our respects to their sacrifice.  As romantic an image as that all is, the history of the British Empire (and by extension, Canada) is far from one of glimmering benevolence. The blame for past wars is well shared, having historical origins in imperial struggles for dominance, and succeeded by 20th century nationalism. If we’re to have a realistic picture of past wars, we must acknowledge that the historical origins of conflict have rested in the deficiencies and vices of all sides.
    I think it is also fair to say that soldiers often do not know why they are fighting, exactly, and that their motivations cannot be described as simply patriotic fervor. For example, what often motivated enlistees in WWII was the prospect of employment, which was in very short supply after the devastation of the Great Depression. I also think it’s fair to say that enthusiastic soldiers more often have a desire to simply rise up in defense of their nation, and care less about the overall narrative they are offered. This equally applies to soldiers of Nazi Germany, who undoubtedly also saw their nation as oppressed. At the very least, it is dubious to assume to know exactly what soldiers stood for and quite problematic to speak in their names. I imagine that if soldiers had sufficient insight to know the ultimate political reasons for their fight, they’d mostly be dismayed by the terrible waste of it all.
    In 1926, the white poppy was suggested by the No More War Movement (of which Albert Einstein was a prominent member) as an alternative symbol, to dissociate from the military aspect of remembrance. It added the meaning of hope for the end of all wars and recognized the casualties of all wars, including civilians (and not just British soldiers). The white poppy is covered occasionally by the Canadian press. Lately it’s been reported that the Royal Canadian Legion has considered suing the distributors of the symbol for violating their trademark. Many say that the red poppy is “already a symbol of peace” and that another symbol “denigrates remembrance”. We may want to believe this is true, but given the nationalist nature of Remembrance Day celebrations and the state’s official adoption of the poppy as a symbol, this is a bit optimistic. It’s also worth noting that the poem from which the symbol derives (Flanders Fields by Lt. Col. John McCrae) could hardly be called a lamentation on war. Sure, it is a solemn tribute to the heartbreak of soldiers’ deaths--but only to be used as a call to arms:

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.

    Lamenting war, as such, it does not. Cultural and literary historian Paul Fussell actually goes further, describing this stanza as “recruiting-poster rhetoric”, which, “first appearing in the early stages of World War I, would have, at that time, served to denigrate any negotiated peace which would end the war.” Of course, we’re all entitled to our own interpretations of symbolic meaning; if you wish to call the red poppy a symbol of peace, I won’t bother you about it. For me however, the notion is a bit of a stretch.
    Veterans Affairs was basically accurate: Remembrance Day’s primary purpose is about creating a national narrative to future generations about why wars are fought. So let’s face it, Remembrance Day is not about remembering fallen soldiers. At least not primarily, at any rate. Actually I think it is fair to say that Remembrance Day would be best described as the celebration of Canada’s war efforts and an assertion of Canadian identity. The paying of respects to fallen soldiers and veterans is a ritual within a much more important overall narrative which implicitly tells us a story of our wars. That story is one of a great nation, motivated by noble ideals, which reluctantly sacrificed its brave, young soldiers in the name of peace, justice and democracy. We celebrate the great victories that those patriotic young men helped our proud nation achieve, and recognize their selfless contribution.

Patriotism is a devotion to a certain place and people, contrary to nationalism which is inseparable from lust for power.

- George Orwell

This yearly ritual serves to rationalize in the minds of soldiers that what they did was a good thing and that it was not a waste of their lives and energies. More importantly, it is also a tale to be taught and repeated to all Canadians, of what Canada is, what ideals and values it stands for, and what its role was in historical conflicts (all in a positive light, of course). I cannot imagine describing this yearly celebration, a long part of Canadian tradition and identity, any other way. Could you picture a Canadian prime minister calling upon all Canadians to reflect on the young men whose lives were cut short in wars of debatable value and necessity, emphasizing what an appalling waste of lives war always is? I don’t think it would really be in the spirit of our day. Instead, in our solemn thanks to our troops, we note Canada’s moral superiority and tell everyone that supporting our nation at war, by itself, was a fine deed. I find this spirit inappropriate.

Remembrance Day, Vancouver.

    The specific purpose of my article in expressing my strong dislike of how Remembrance Day is celebrated is not necessarily to pass judgment on past conflicts and our participation in them (that would be beside my point). Nor is it intended to dismiss or trivialize the difficult toil or suffering veterans endured in war. Quite the opposite, in fact. Precisely because we recognize the tremendously gruelling demands of war, in addition to its staggeringly traumatic nature, we must ensure that any remembrance of it should focus primarily on recognition of its victims and not its victors. I cannot help but think that if we really wanted to recognize their ordeal, and do justice to the Canadian (or other) soldiers of the past, present and future, the majority of discussion on this day would reflect on the tragic waste that war is. In so honouring the soldiers whose lives were devastated or cut short, maybe we can protect our descendants everywhere from a similar fate. We should not allow celebration of nationalist militarism to in any way distract from this goal. Current Canadian remembrance practice tends to obscure the true nature of our war-fighting nation and what it stood for, and also to distort our role in history by framing our actions in terms of “us and them” (with “us” being the good guys, naturally).
    To support nationalism is to support the divisive force which has driven nations to hate and to make war on their enemies. I’m not hopeful that this approach will help our human race learn to co-exist in peace. It is time we stop indoctrinating ourselves and our children with simplistic and romantic caricatures of ourselves and of our past, and give them a more realistic picture of politics and war. It is the responsibility of all to prevent war, without loyalty to a nation, and without allowing our pride and investment in our own national identity to divide us from our extended human family.