REMEMBRANCE SUNDAY.....

[Nearly Sane]

But the scale means that the way in which you can commemorate necessarily has to change - see my post above.

Not from the viewpoint of a nation. We have lits of people who have died defending it. We can commemorate the all the same here.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you are overthinking it: people will pause to remember those who fell, and in most cases those doing the remembering will have no personal connection to the fallen and nor will they be processing the numbers killed in each separate conflict - but nevertheless they will pause and reflect, and that is surely the whole point.

I agree that each person makes their own decision about how they individually choose to mark (or not to mark) Remembrance events. But there is still the fact that it is an official event, and officially it is scoped in a particular manner and that is, in itself significant.

[Gordon]

I agree that each person makes their own decision about how they individually choose to mark (or not to mark) Remembrance events. But there is still the fact that it is an official event, and officially it is scoped in a particular manner and that is, in itself significant.

It isn't just official though: people who can safely stop what they are doing will likely do so - I remember being in a supermarket one year when they announced the silence and everyone paused.

It is an expression of humanity on a personal level and, as such, the numbers don't really matter if each one matters.

[Walter]

I agree that each person makes their own decision about how they individually choose to mark (or not to mark) Remembrance events. But there is still the fact that it is an official event, and officially it is scoped in a particular manner and that is, in itself significant.

to continue with this argument is futile . It is what it is and each individual will see it as they wish and attach emotion to it as it suits them . I don't remember ever discussing with any other individual what remembrance day means to them, I only care what it means to me .

[ProfessorDavey]

It isn't just official though: people who can safely stop what they are doing will likely do so - I remember being in a supermarket one year when they announced the silence and everyone paused.

It is an expression of humanity on a personal level and, as such, the numbers don't really matter if each one matters.

It is of course both official and personal - and both matter. How each individual marks remembrance day is totally up to them - whether simply thinking about Uncle Bob who died in the Normandy landings through to thinking about all and every person who ever died in war.

But the official part matters to as it frames the scope and limits to those who are to be included (and not included) and in doing so also sets the tone. And the latter is important - Remembrance events that focus entirely on the World Wars (as used to be the case) have a different tone to those that also focus (and indeed increasingly focus) on other conflicts that are recent or even ongoing. In the latter case the event becomes much more politicised and, frankly, controversial as the public are asked in effect to legitimise ongoing conflicts that they may profoundly disagree with. Surely you have been aware of the debate and levels of disquiet over a perceived politicisation of the event in recent years - and that is driven by the scope creep.

[Nearly Sane]

Leaving aside the Prof's egregious use of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy as regards 'scope creep' leads to complaints about and possible actual politicisation of remembrance, it's worth noting that it's factually incorrect in terms of the history as illustrated by the white poppy appearing in 1926.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_poppy

[Anchorman]

Tomorrow morning - the Sunday before Rememberance Sunday; we have a local tradition which started a few years ago and has gained in poularity.
We remember the miners who died in the twentieth century, particularly those in the local area, some of whise remains remain unrecovered, underground. Yes, our war memorial has far too many names on it...but when the total of those lost underground or on the surface is addrd up, that number surpasses it.
Tomorrow morning, two 'glennies' - miners lamps - will be lit and placed on the communion table in the Kirk for morning worship.
Then they will be carried and placed each side of an obelisk which commemorates the miners who died.
A wreath will be laid, silence observed, and a lement played on the pipes.
The sacrifice of lives to coal was every bit as final - and vital to the war effort.
Later in the afternoon, those ex-miners still fit enough, and some of the rest of us as well, will climb a small hill near the Kirk - not a natural hill; the 'bibg'; last remnant of the spoil from mining, now green and tree covered.
On top, two rough iron girders - part of a pit prop - are shaped into a cross - the 'miners cross'.
We'll lay a wreath and observe silencer; some of us wil
l pray as well.
There are many types of rememberance, and a lot to remember.

[ProfessorDavey]

Leaving aside the Prof's egregious use of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy as regards 'scope creep' leads to complaints about and possible actual politicisation of remembrance, it's worth noting that it's factually incorrect in terms of the history as illustrated by the white poppy appearing in 1926.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_poppy

I am well aware of the history of the white poppy, thanks very much - indeed have friends who choose to wear a white poppy now. This is not the only time in which there has been disquiet over politicisation of the Remembrance day commemorations - that doesn't mean that there isn't a debate about it currently (there is) and indeed to reappearance of the white poppy as an emblem of peace is testament to that debate. Actually your own article - albeit rather brief on detail, clearly indicates that the white poppy as a symbol has had two period of prominence (in both cases linked to disquiet about the polticisation/militarism of the commemorations) - one rather early in the history of the events (late 1920, perhaps through to the second world war) and another much more recently - largely in this century.

[Nearly Sane]

I am well aware of the history of the white poppy, thanks very much - indeed have friends who choose to wear a white poppy now. This is not the only time in which there has been disquiet over politicisation of the Remembrance day commemorations - that doesn't mean that there isn't a debate about it currently (there is) and indeed to reappearance of the white poppy as an emblem of peace is testament to that debate. Actually your own article - albeit rather brief on detail, clearly indicates that the white poppy as a symbol has had two period of prominence (in both cases linked to disquiet about the polticisation/militarism of the commemorations) - one rather early in the history of the events (late 1920, perhaps through to the second world war) and another much more recently - largely in this century.

So you ignore the first time and say that your post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy is true because of you have excluded 50% of the cases.

[ProfessorDavey]

So you ignore the first time and say that your post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy is true because of you have excluded 50% of the cases.

It was you that brought up the white poppy - I never mentioned it. And the white poppy is a symbol of pacifism - sure that is related to what I am talking about, but is far from the entire story. So there are plenty of people who aren't comfortable with how the scope and tone of the Remembrance commemorations have developed over the past decade or so but aren't pacifists - I am one of them, hence the reason I don't wear a white poppy unlike a number of my friends.

And given that my whole argument throughout this thread has been that the remembrance commemorations should be about the two world wars, rather than other conflicts - in other words the situation from 1947 to the 1990s then something from a period before that (the first main white poppy campaign) isn't really relevant.

[ProfessorDavey]

Tomorrow morning - the Sunday before Rememberance Sunday; we have a local tradition which started a few years ago and has gained in poularity.
We remember the miners who died in the twentieth century, particularly those in the local area, some of whise remains remain unrecovered, underground. Yes, our war memorial has far too many names on it...but when the total of those lost underground or on the surface is addrd up, that number surpasses it.
Tomorrow morning, two 'glennies' - miners lamps - will be lit and placed on the communion table in the Kirk for morning worship.
Then they will be carried and placed each side of an obelisk which commemorates the miners who died.
A wreath will be laid, silence observed, and a lement played on the pipes.
The sacrifice of lives to coal was every bit as final - and vital to the war effort.
Later in the afternoon, those ex-miners still fit enough, and some of the rest of us as well, will climb a small hill near the Kirk - not a natural hill; the 'bibg'; last remnant of the spoil from mining, now green and tree covered.
On top, two rough iron girders - part of a pit prop - are shaped into a cross - the 'miners cross'.
We'll lay a wreath and observe silencer; some of us wil
l pray as well.
There are many types of rememberance, and a lot to remember.

Very interesting AM - points well made. Certainly those that died in support of the war effort but not in the military don't get the recognition they deserve. And of course many were also, in effect, conscripts - this guy was told he was to serve in the army, the next guy that he was required to work in the mines.

[Nearly Sane]

It was you that brought up the white poppy - I never mentioned it. And the white poppy is a symbol of pacifism - sure that is related to what I am talking about, but is far from the entire story. So there are plenty of people who aren't comfortable with how the scope and tone of the Remembrance commemorations have developed over the past decade or so but aren't pacifists - I am one of them, hence the reason I don't wear as white poppy unlike a number of my friends.

And given that my whole argument throughout this thread has been that the remembrance commemorations should be about the two world wars, rather than other conflicts - in other words the situation from 1947 to the 1990s then something from a period before that (the first main white poppy campaign) isn't really relevant.

I didn't say you did bring up the white poppy. Why ate you using an irrelevant strswnan?  I am really not getting your argument here. Are you saying that because of something being the case for a longer period of time than something shouldn't change? Which is a fallacious argument. Or are you saying that if we think of other deaths, that somehow makes it much more political inabad way? In which case your dismissal if the period following the First WW is irrational.

[ProfessorDavey]

I was reading this article earlier this morning - indeed before NS brought up the white poppy, although this article also briefly mentions it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/03/wearing-poppy-pledge-peace-sanitise-war-remembrance

There is much in it that I agree with, and the author makes those points far better than I can.

[jeremyp]

I think that is completely missing the point of Remembrance - don't forget that the primary purpose is to remember those that died - and in the case of WW1 those people have been dead for 100 years.

But why? They are all dead and it won't be long before most of the people that knew them will all be dead. We don't remember the people that died in the Napoleonic Wars or the Crimea do we and nobody complains.

My point is that, if you want Remembrance Sunday to remain relevant, it has to be about more than the people who died in the two biggest wars of the Twentieth Century.

I was born 50 years after the Somme - I clearly therefore don't remember it - but it is critically important that as a society we create space to remember the industrial scale slaughter in the world wars - indeed I think it is perhaps more important that we do after all those who actually experienced it are dead - while they remain alive they can tell of the horrors - regardless of whether there are survivors left alive we must still remember, reflect and learn. The idea that we would simply 'wrap it up' soon once all the survivors of WW2 have died is appalling - we must continue to reflect and remember - only by doing this do we have any chance of learning.

So what you really want is a day to reflect upon the horror of war and what it does to people. I couldn't agree more and that is why its scope needs to be about more than just the British and Commonwealth soldiers who died in the two World Wars. In fact Remembrance Sunday actually falls short in respect of remembering "the industrial scale slaughter in the world wars" because we seem to gloss over what our country did to Dresden and Hamburg and what our allies did to a number of Japanese cities.

[ProfessorDavey]

But why? They are all dead and it won't be long before most of the people that knew them will all be dead.

But the whole point is that we are remembering the dead (most of whom died 100 years ago) regardless of whether we personally knew them. Heaven help us if we feel that commemorating the millions who died in the world wars somehow 'times out' 'We remember them' isn't meant to mean until their generation is all dead and we stop remembering them.

We don't remember the people that died in the Napoleonic Wars or the Crimea do we and nobody complains.

True - but we never did - we would not be stopping an established commemoration. Also neither come close in scale to the industrial level slaughter in the 2 world wars.

My point is that, if you want Remembrance Sunday to remain relevant, it has to be about more than the people who died in the two biggest wars of the Twentieth Century.

I disagree - even if you add the small numbers who have died in conflicts since 1945 which is the approach the deaths in the world wars massively dominate - they represent over 99% of the deaths being commemorated. So in effect what you are saying is that to make it relevant you have to focus on the 0.4% - if that is the case then we have a problem as a society.

So what you really want is a day to reflect upon the horror of war and what it does to people. I couldn't agree more and that is why its scope needs to be about more than just the British and Commonwealth soldiers who died in the two World Wars. In fact Remembrance Sunday actually falls short in respect of remembering "the industrial scale slaughter in the world wars" because we seem to gloss over what our country did to Dresden and Hamburg and what our allies did to a number of Japanese cities.

I agree - the focus should not be on British service personnel deaths, but all deaths in the two world wars. But in this respect there is a much greater problem when we include more recent conflicts - with the levels of resources we have in our military it isn't uncommon that British service personnel can be involved in conflicts, barely see any casualties yet cause massive destruction and death.

[floo]

In my opinion, as The World Wars were a very long time ago, they will soon be long forgotten blips in history if Remembrance Sunday doesn't embrace the dead in all the subsequent conflicts.

[ippy]

I always told both of my boys the reason they should respect remembrance day because it's for the the people that have lost their loved ones, we haven't forgotten their loss and need to demonstrate that we haven't forgotten; the dead have gone they're out of it, it's a show of respect to those left behind and probably still hurting.

ippy

[Owlswing]

Likewise - but always a traditional paper one. I'm not a fan of these glitzy poppies that people buy and use year after year.

Which is why most of the "glitzy poppies that people buy and use year after year" have the year that they were sold as part of the "glitz" so you can identify the cheepskate bastards!
 

[jeremyp]

Which is why most of the "glitzy poppies that people buy and use year after year" have the year that they were sold as part of the "glitz" so you can identify the cheepskate bastards!

It reminds me of Red Nose Day. I bought my Red Nose for the first one and I hadn't lost it when the second one came around, but the gits changed the design, so if I'd worn it, it would be obvious that I was a tight fisted bastard.

[Rhiannon]

Has anyone mentioned the fact that both England sndcGeemany will be wearing poppy armbands st the international friendly match tonight?

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/12010/11118256/england-and-germany-to-wear-poppy-armbands-at-wembley

[Rhiannon]

My feeling - so it’s completely subjective - is that the rise in ‘poppy fascism’ has something to do with collective guilt at the futility of the conflicts we have been involved in.

[Walter]

My feeling - so it’s completely subjective - is that the rise in ‘poppy fascism’ has something to do with collective guilt at the futility of the conflicts we have been involved in.

although I wear a poppy what pisses me off is the BBC who appear to insist that every man and his dog who appear on live telly MUST wear a poppy at all costs .
I imagine some sap of an intern running round the studios with a box of poppies pinning them onto anything and everything that's going to be in shot . I'm surprised they're not pinned on peoples backs just in case they turn round.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which is why most of the "glitzy poppies that people buy and use year after year" have the year that they were sold as part of the "glitz" so you can identify the cheepskate bastards!

There seems to be a new trend this year - the dual purpose campaigning poppy - as worn by Alex Salmond recently - effectively a poppy superimposed on a Scottish saltire - I mean WTF!

https://twitter.com/euanmccolm/status/528885956364206080

[ProfessorDavey]

although I wear a poppy what pisses me off is the BBC who appear to insist that every man and his dog who appear on live telly MUST wear a poppy at all costs .
I imagine some sap of an intern running round the studios with a box of poppies pinning them onto anything and everything that's going to be in shot . I'm surprised they're not pinned on peoples backs just in case they turn round.

I agree - it should be completely personal choice. Once people feel compelled to wear them the whole reason for them is devalued.

[Walter]

There seems to be a new trend this year - the dual purpose campaigning poppy - as worn by Alex Salmond recently - effectively a poppy superimposed on a Scottish saltire - I mean WTF!

https://twitter.com/euanmccolm/status/528885956364206080

outrageous. Mind you its typical of that failed self promoting would-be king of Scotland . If I were him I'd be embarrassed to  appear in public in the first place , never mind the 'poppy'