By: Bill Lee
Don't get me wrong, myths and myth making are important for any group or polity. We need to have some sort of stories that explain us to ourselves and our experience of the human condition. Also, don't get me wrong about the idea of Remembrance Day. A lot of good and decent young men went to their deaths and on the whole probably fought very bravely. World War Two was indeed by and large an unavoidable conflagration and had a moral purpose for millions of people. Hitler really was a terrible leader and the Nazi ideology one of the most pernicious to ever confound decent human beings. On the other hand WWI, the war after which Remembrance Day was developed has hardly a noble mission. One doesn't have to be a follower of Lenin to recognize that it was a capitalistic and imperialist tragedy, ill thought out in beginning, inadequate in purpose and abysmally brainless in execution. I had an uncle who fought in that mess and once home he pretty much refused to discuss it or participate in any Remembrance Day observations (more on him later). His reluctance to give any attention to his "adventure or to the war itself has always made me wary of its celebration and wonder what was going on with said celebration. So what am I on about with my three myths?
Myth One, "The Fallen"
We are constantly reminded of "The Fallen". Of all the most disingenuous, pusillanimous descriptions applied to violent death, this is one of the very mealy- mouthed worst. Whether it was WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Afghanistan, or anywhere else soldiers only fall (unless they trip on something) after they have been subjected to one or other of the death dealing ordinances inflicted upon them on the battlefield. No, they are not "fallen", they are stabbed, shot (perhaps multiple times) by rifles or machine guns and sometimes though rarely, small arms, blown up by grenades, or bombs or IUD's, or run over by vehicles, or are burned to death or are buried under exploding houses. The means seem endless but one thing, they never fall. In the end they are all dead or horribly disfigured or seriously disabled. "Fallen" is simply one of those bogus terms one military mouthpiece or another has dreamed up to paste over the horrible reality of painful and brutal deaths.
Myth Two, "They Fought for Our Freedom"
I have to admit there may be some truth in this one, but if, and only if we are speaking of WWII. WWI has been demonstrated again and again a sham and a boondoggle of the first order perpetrated by a brew of imperialism, capitalism and militarism. Particularly for Canada, what horse did we have in that race? England (The Mother Country) was hell bent on saving its various colonial enterprises. Germany was hell bent on grabbing some its own. France was in on the Imperial games too, Russia was also a noted imperial power and Austria Hungary had been an Empire for so long it was creaking along and perished at the end. Toss in Turkey and we have as nasty a conglomeration of greedy states as one could scrape together. So, where was this freedom for which our brave (and many of them doomed) fellows were to fight?
Myth Three, "Without Our Soldiers We Would Not Have Our Freedoms"
This one is not simply untrue but a kick in the face to all the men and women who really did fight for our various rights and freedoms here at home. Even before we had a country there was Lafontaine and Baldwin. Louis Real fought for the rights of the Metis and some First Nations people. He failed at the time but his spirit did live on. How about women's rights, Nelly McClung or Agnes McPhail who had to battle men all over the country and our own government to bring some semblance of rights to Canadian women. How about Tommy Douglas who brought universal medical care to Saskatchewan and then to Canada? If memory serves the man was a pacifist. I have nothing against soldiers, but really developing and fighting for the democratic rights and freedoms of Canadians is simply outside of their remit. We don't look to the military to tell us what freedom is all about. Indeed, it is a singularly autocratic and dictatorial institution and knows obedience, not dissent and argument, the hallmarks of democracy.
In conclusion, there are other myths that exult militarism, like the one that tells us that the "Battle of Vimy Ridge made Canada a nation", but it is Remembrance Day, originally put in place to recognize the Armistice that ended WWI, (the war that was supposed to end war) that is regularly and effectively perverted into a celebration of militarism by the collection of untrue myths. Perhaps if we could face up to the truth of these myths we could turn the 11th of November into something that had humane meaning. This wouldn't leave out the sacrifice of the killed and wounded vets, it would simply put the price they have paid in the proper perspective.
Don't get me wrong, myths and myth making are important for any group or polity. We need to have some sort of stories that explain us to ourselves and our experience of the human condition. Also, don't get me wrong about the idea of Remembrance Day. A lot of good and decent young men went to their deaths and on the whole probably fought very bravely. World War Two was indeed by and large an unavoidable conflagration and had a moral purpose for millions of people. Hitler really was a terrible leader and the Nazi ideology one of the most pernicious to ever confound decent human beings. On the other hand WWI, the war after which Remembrance Day was developed has hardly a noble mission. One doesn't have to be a follower of Lenin to recognize that it was a capitalistic and imperialist tragedy, ill thought out in beginning, inadequate in purpose and abysmally brainless in execution. I had an uncle who fought in that mess and once home he pretty much refused to discuss it or participate in any Remembrance Day observations (more on him later). His reluctance to give any attention to his "adventure or to the war itself has always made me wary of its celebration and wonder what was going on with said celebration. So what am I on about with my three myths?
Myth One, "The Fallen"
We are constantly reminded of "The Fallen". Of all the most disingenuous, pusillanimous descriptions applied to violent death, this is one of the very mealy- mouthed worst. Whether it was WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Afghanistan, or anywhere else soldiers only fall (unless they trip on something) after they have been subjected to one or other of the death dealing ordinances inflicted upon them on the battlefield. No, they are not "fallen", they are stabbed, shot (perhaps multiple times) by rifles or machine guns and sometimes though rarely, small arms, blown up by grenades, or bombs or IUD's, or run over by vehicles, or are burned to death or are buried under exploding houses. The means seem endless but one thing, they never fall. In the end they are all dead or horribly disfigured or seriously disabled. "Fallen" is simply one of those bogus terms one military mouthpiece or another has dreamed up to paste over the horrible reality of painful and brutal deaths.
Myth Two, "They Fought for Our Freedom"
I have to admit there may be some truth in this one, but if, and only if we are speaking of WWII. WWI has been demonstrated again and again a sham and a boondoggle of the first order perpetrated by a brew of imperialism, capitalism and militarism. Particularly for Canada, what horse did we have in that race? England (The Mother Country) was hell bent on saving its various colonial enterprises. Germany was hell bent on grabbing some its own. France was in on the Imperial games too, Russia was also a noted imperial power and Austria Hungary had been an Empire for so long it was creaking along and perished at the end. Toss in Turkey and we have as nasty a conglomeration of greedy states as one could scrape together. So, where was this freedom for which our brave (and many of them doomed) fellows were to fight?
Myth Three, "Without Our Soldiers We Would Not Have Our Freedoms"
This one is not simply untrue but a kick in the face to all the men and women who really did fight for our various rights and freedoms here at home. Even before we had a country there was Lafontaine and Baldwin. Louis Real fought for the rights of the Metis and some First Nations people. He failed at the time but his spirit did live on. How about women's rights, Nelly McClung or Agnes McPhail who had to battle men all over the country and our own government to bring some semblance of rights to Canadian women. How about Tommy Douglas who brought universal medical care to Saskatchewan and then to Canada? If memory serves the man was a pacifist. I have nothing against soldiers, but really developing and fighting for the democratic rights and freedoms of Canadians is simply outside of their remit. We don't look to the military to tell us what freedom is all about. Indeed, it is a singularly autocratic and dictatorial institution and knows obedience, not dissent and argument, the hallmarks of democracy.
In conclusion, there are other myths that exult militarism, like the one that tells us that the "Battle of Vimy Ridge made Canada a nation", but it is Remembrance Day, originally put in place to recognize the Armistice that ended WWI, (the war that was supposed to end war) that is regularly and effectively perverted into a celebration of militarism by the collection of untrue myths. Perhaps if we could face up to the truth of these myths we could turn the 11th of November into something that had humane meaning. This wouldn't leave out the sacrifice of the killed and wounded vets, it would simply put the price they have paid in the proper perspective.
Comments
Post a Comment