babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
No to Militarized Patriotism from Vimy Ridge
April 8, 2007 - 10:13am
The Toronto Star editorialized about the Vimy celebrations occurring tomorrow, about Prime Minister Harper and others at Vimy:
The basic idea there is that by fighting a battle for the British Empire, Canada forged an identity separate from that empire.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/200136
That's unlikely, just as it would today be unlikely that support for the American war in Iraq would be evidence of INDEPENDENCE from the United States.
But militarized patriotism contains many other dangers. First, celebration of Vimy tends to celebrate the leaders who sent the soldiers to die there, for no adequate reason. At the very least, celebration of Vimy as a stepping stone to independence absolves Borden of his responsibility for sending those men to death.
In Canada, the Battle of Vimy Ridge was used to popularize military conscription, which came into effect two months later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1917
Memorializing battles as national touchstones also necessitates treating foreign soldiers as instruments for our national advance. It defines us positively by reducing "them" to ciphers.
I think Canada has many achievements to celebrate, from national healthcare to the Charter of Rights. Our celebrations of Canada should be based on achievements which extend our liberty and the quality of our lives.
They should not be based upon our willingness to sacrifice lives for the Anglosphere.
http://www.slate.com/id/2162837/pagenum/all/
[ 08 April 2007: Message edited by: jeff house ]
Harper is not only linking Canadian nationhood with war time exploits; he seems to be planting the conservative flag alongside the soldiers: No members of the opposition were invited to attend the Vimy ceremony.
Unfortunately, "he died for nothing" is the hardest thing to tell a soldier's family, no matter how true it is.
In Canada, as elsewhere, the government does everything it can to hide this truth.
There have been meaningful controversies over our part in the WW2 Allied bombing campaign in German urban/industrial areas to which a person can more usefully devote their energies.
He argues no such thing. But it is interesting that you'd think of horrible disasters and defeats as somehow "accepted national mythology". Accepted by whom?
Dunkirk had bugger all to do with Canada. Paaschendaele was yet another bloody failure. And Vimy was irrelevant. The common thread between them is that Canada fought as a colonial mercenary army for the waning British empire. Hardly an admirable goal.
If people are dedicated pacifists, conscientious objectors to all use of armed force, fine. But getting one's shirt tail in a knot because it's a Tory PM going to the Vimy ceremonies is really kind of ridiculous, a case of total nitpicking and extreme 24/7 partisanship of a kind that the general public finds really boring.
If the shoe were on the other foot, if an NDP Premier were going there, and all the blogging Tories and all the Liblogs from that province had to start posting that the whole thing is a bloody disgrace, how would NDPers react?
A fair point. I think at a minimum the Opposition Leader should have been invited to this kind of event, and really the NDP and Bloc Leaders as well.
But suppose they had and Layton had gone. Then what? Would you condemn him for taking part in this glorification of war?
Would you vote for such monsters?
N.Beltov, If we are going to condemn the pols then lets condemn those who sent our boys and girls over seas. Too just attack the Cons is not good enough. The Libs are as guilty as the cons.
Indeed. I also applaud Jeff's well articulated and insightful posts.
Hear, hear !!
He talked about their sacrifice, but refused to say anything to condemn the war or the government that sent the men to their deaths.
I guess only Harper is allowed to score political points out of this event.
I'm glad the PM went to Vimy. It reminds me of sacrifice, and causes me to step up any efforts I can make to not allow such murder to occur again. So far I'm not having much of an impact.
and so far as I can tell, Canada may have come out on the side of the victors in both wars, but really, Germany achieved many of their pre-war goals, it just took a few decades longer than planned.
In a way, this type of thing is kind of funny. It's certainly amusing to the NDP's rivals, they can barely stop laughing when they see this kind of thing.
But for New Democrats and labour and social and environmental activists this kind of pathology of the Canadian left is surely a serious problem, one you can laugh at if you have a good sense of humour, but in the end is a real, serious downer.
For is it not worse that the press televise this to all?
Personally I think that the Prime Minsiter no matter from what party but the Prime Minister must be at events like this.
I felt this way during the 50th D-day memorials, the 60th D-day memorials, liberation of Holland etc.
But who here who opposes it will write letters to the CBC and CTV against the live coverage?
You can't even figure out that WWI was wholesale slaughter for no moral good. What is your problem?
Really Unionist? What utter bullshit from you. Just because I beleive that the leader of the government in the Commons should be at an event to memorialize those who gave their lives does not mean that I think that slaughter was good.
Take your bull shit home Unionist. One can disagree with your opinion without having to be attacked by you.
Any death is morally wrong. But to remember those who gave their lives is not a tragedy. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
ETA one must be able to oppose war while remembering those who gave their lives. For if we fail to respect the past what will the future bring.
[ 09 April 2007: Message edited by: miles ]
Can you imagine the Prime Minister attending an event to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust - while covering up the fact that it was the Nazis that murdered them?
Is that the kind of dignified memorial you think that a Prime Minister is duty-bound to participate in?
Well, that's what Harper is doing at Vimy. "Commemorating" the victims, while forgetting to mention that it was Canada, as a British neo-colony, that sent them to useless slaughter under a false flag.
Worse, Harper repeats the same crime today, in Afghanistan, and glorifies the ugly past in order to beautify the present reality.
You may not like my pointing out these things. But I do think you have enough moral sense to wake up one day, if the truth is told often and loudly enough.
My parents taught me this: "Never again!" I apply that lesson to all the most catastrophic injustices perpetrated by and upon humanity. I do not pick and choose, miles.
[ 09 April 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Do any of you people get the fact that we are honouring the SOLDIERS who died and were wounded at Vimy (and other battles)! Who the hell cares about the politics of all this. Harper and his "behatted" wife were an embarrassment and did not seem to have a report with anyone there, but WHO CARES? I personally have a close relative who fought at Vimy and his life was effected forever by the experience. That we honour these people is a GOOD THING and I don't care if one is a Liberal, Conservative or NDP!
The political ploy may not work on you and me, but it is bound to work on thousands of others who believe that dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
Could it be that he sees it as his duty?
Actually, I am not so sure of that. Prior to yesterday I may have thought so too, but I was watching news clips with reporters asking people how they felt about; war, Vimy and about linking it to Afghanistan. This was done on 2 separate channels one Global and one CTV that I watched.
There was not one person interviewed and shown, who thought Harper's presence at Vimy was a good thing, nor did they feel our military should be in Afghanistan and they wanted Canada to focus on making peace in the world NOT war. And were stating our military should be brought home from Afghanistan.
Further, those asked and responding were WWII vets and seniors. They are the voters in this country.
I think in fact, that this photo op ploy, may well backfire on Harper. Him and his family yesterday played the monarchy to crowds handing out Canadian flags and Harper's wife furthered that notion with her hat weared today. Though the Queen was there so.....
I would anytime. I think to remember is beyond politics, and to do everything to ensure never again is our duty and the soldiers legacy.
My point, which seems not to have gotten across, is that the soldiers who fought and died there SHOULD BE REMEMBERED AND HONOURED. I can't stand smarmy Harper or his motives for being there; he is irrelevant in my opinion. I know that the families of these soldiers get comfort from this ceremony and that's good enough for me!
I can't think of any occasion when Harper did something out of "duty" that wasn't also serving his political agenda.
I would in fact argue that it is the duty of any Canadian prime minister not to send Canadian soldiers to fight and die in imperialist adventures, and accordingly to refrain from suggesting in any way to Canadians that doing so is a good or glorious thing. Harper has failed in that duty on both counts.
Harper is far from "irrelevant" to this event, as you claim. He's made it all about support for his war.
If it's possible to "honour" the Canadian men who were victims of the Great War without at the same time suggesting (a) that the cause they were "fighting for" was freedom and democracy and (b) that today's soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan for the same "cause", then I honour them. Unfortunately, the memory of the Vimy victims has been hijacked by the modern war industry, and their propaganda wing, the mainstream media.
It's also hypocritical, as I have pointed out at Remembrance Days past, to make a special point of honouring soldiers who "gave" their lives in the service of the government, without equally honouring miners, firefighters, construction workers, and many others who have died while faithfully performing their jobs - far more useful jobs, it must be noted, than being professional killers.
How dare you call my dead relative a "professional killer!" He may have been misguided, in your opinion, (and perhaps he was), but he was doing it out of the best of motives....love of country and family. Many of these world war one soldiers were mere teen agers. My relative was 17 when he went to war. I repeat......THEY DESERVE TO BE REMEMBERED. FOR GOD'S SAKE FORGET THE POLITICS, FOR ONCE!