Today is November 11. Armistice Day to many countries around
the world.
Armistice Day is so named to celebrate the armistice signed
between the Allies of World War
I and Germany at Compiègne, France, for the
cessation of hostilities on the Western Front of World War I, which took effect
at eleven in the morning—the "eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the
eleventh month" of 1918. Many Western countries have changed the name of the holiday from
Armistice Day, with member states of the Commonwealth of Nations adopting Remembrance Day, and Veterans Day in the US.
Changing the name of the day subtly changes the
intended meaning of the day. Armistice Day is about remembering the end of the
war to end all wars — an optimistic mis-foreshadowing if there ever was one. Remembrance
Day evokes those who lost their lives in defense of their beliefs. In putting
the names of the days in context, the first great war dealt an extensive blow
to the psyche of the European continent. A hundred plus years later, the effect
of the war is still affecting the way Europeans think, react, and feel whenever
large human conflicts are the subject of discussion. It affects the way they
memorialize the day, with the subtle pinning of the red poppy flower on the
lapels of the general populace and remembrances of the war dead in the
battlefields.
In the US, the turning of the day into Veteran’s
Day changes the focus of the day to the living veterans, even though the remembrance
of those who died are never far from the surface: such activities as the many ceremonies
placing flags on the graves of those who died fighting the war and the
remembrances at the war memorials and tombs of unknown soldiers — the focus is
clearly on honoring the living veterans; a chance to give thanks to those who
had survived.
This is a clear illustration of the pragmatic
bent of the American culture. My thought is that by culture, we Americans as a
people are not so inclined to be elegiac. We are a culture of action, doing
what is practical and immediate. Hence the turn towards honoring the living is
a far more practical thing to do on this day of remembrance than contemplating
the past. This is not an indictment; indeed, it is very natural for our
cultural personality. Afterall, pragmatism is an American philosophy.
As I think about this, I think about the inadvertent
omissions in our thoughts when we changed the name of the day. By changing the
name of the day, we unintentionally change our internal conversations with
ourselves about the meaning of sacrifice, or the altruistic nature of
responsibility and commitment. We miss the necessary discussions about the
meaning of
altruism and the psychic
demands placed on those who willingly sacrifice their most precious possession,
their lives, in the service of a greater good, fully knowing and understanding
the role that they will play in the future of civilization. Sometimes I think
about those who have passed as they are observing our present in which we are
living and wondering whether they think if it was worth their altruism.
On a greater stage, I think about the role of
the armed conflict in our society. Of the role that our organized fighting
forces play in our own geopolitical chess match. We make noble the cause by
waxing poetic about those who willingly give their all, sacrificing their
individual good for the benefit of our greater good — fully knowing that their
lives may be the price they pay. What very few contemplate in times of geopolitical
conflict is the role and responsibility of the leaders; their need to critically
self-question, to contemplate the need
to minimize the call upon those who are
willing because every life is valuable, every loss of life is too costly. I would
hazard to guess that the best of our leaders, both military and civilian, are
kept awake at night, contemplating the intricate calculus of making their
decisions in the widest and narrowest contexts possible. Yet, I also know that
there are blackhearts who does not even think of the sacrifices of the
altruistic and haphazardously commit the lives of other humans in the service
of their own vainglorious self-serving purposes.
Another thought that crops up is the formalism
that we place on the day and on our responses on the day. All around the world,
we honor the war dead on November 11, which leads to many other questions. Why don’t
we honor the war dead on the other 364 days of the year? Who are we
memorializing? Unless the person who had passed is a relative or a friend,
there is actually very little or no remembrances of their person or their deeds.
Are we going through these exercises to assuage our own guilt for living rather
than give remembrance to the dead? What if we took that emotion and exercise in
remembrance and turned the attention to the lessons that we ought to have
learned and propagated to the future regarding the meaning of the
self-sacrifice that the headstones concretely exemplify? Are we deriving the
lessons that we should be deriving from the lessons of altruism we are observing?
One thing that has bothered me throughout the
years is the obligation that we have imbued our interactions with living
veterans. Many are sincere when they say” “Thank you for your service.” While I
have no arguments with the sentiment, I wonder if we are commoditizing that
sentiment by making it an obligation to say the phrase to anyone that has been
identified as a veteran. Once again, are we parroting the phrase for our own
benefit because we feel it is our obligation? No doubt there is ample sincerity
in the spoken gesture, but how much of it is due to the obligation that we
feel?
In my mind, parroting the phrase reactively is
a conversation stopper. It pre-emptively arrests any further discussions into
the war experience, the horrors and negativity associated with armed conflicts
are stopped cold in their tracks because the speaker has met their obligation
to laud the veteran for their service. Indeed, it stops all kinds of
conversations, conversations about how many veterans with PTSD are living in
the streets because we —the people who make up the government — are unwilling
to face the realities of the aftermath of war, we would rather sweep it under
the national rug. Conversations about the suicide rates of veterans.
Conversations about how we are taking care of the veterans for the rest of
their lives.
It is worth saying that the idea of the volunteer
army is that those who are willing are depending on those who are unwilling or
unable, to meet needs of the willing after the war. Needs that are a result of
the decision to commit the willing to the conflict; the after-effect imposed upon
those who are willing. This is not a partisan issue, both sides of the wide
political divide have failed abysmally in this regard. Those on both sides of
the political chasm have taken every chance to make a cape of the flag and
performing in their own self-directed political drama while running away from
the responsibilities of their positions.
To conclude, I am not saying that calling
November 11 Remembrance Day assures that the general populace will naturally conform
to contemplating the greater meanings of personal altruism that motivates the
willing to give up their lives. I am also not saying that everyone who says: “Thank
You for Your Service” are disingenuous in their intent. I am not a veteran, so
I can not speak for their emotions as they hear that phrase. I am speaking to
my own skepticism of the intent of some when I sense that they are parroting
the phrase as an obligation.
I am, however, serious about using the day as a
day of reflection on the meaning of altruism, service to the greater good of
society rather than to the self as a regular habit on this day, once a year. I
don’t think it is too much to ask.
