This is a comment by Kirsten on the post “What do Pacifists do on Memorial Day?“
I would not say I am a pacifist by a long shot, but I do believe the use of violence should be reserved to situations of defense (such as deterring violent criminals) and consent (such as in sports). I think James Garner’s character Charlie in “The Americanization of Emily Arthur Hiller” had it right on Memorial Day:
“I don’t trust people who make bitter reflections about war, Mrs. Barham. It’s always the generals with the bloodiest records who are the first to shout what a Hell it is. And it’s always the widows who lead the Memorial Day parades … we shall never end wars, Mrs. Barham, by blaming it on ministers and generals or warmongering imperialists or all the other banal bogies. It’s the rest of us who build statues to those generals and name boulevards after those ministers; the rest of us who make heroes of our dead and shrines of our battlefields. We wear our widows’ weeds like nuns and perpetuate war by exalting its sacrifices.”
“May be ministers and generals who blunder us into wars, but the least the rest of us can do is to resist honoring the institution.”
Yesterday, I didn’t honor the institutionalized violent aggression that has been perpetrated on my tax dollar and in my name. Instead, I worked my volunteer shift at a food pantry. I didn’t kill anyone. I didn’t celebrate anyone killing anyone else. I didn’t honor those who died in the pursuit of killing. I worked for what I believe in as I try to do every day.
And no, none of the fraudulent wars of aggression that have been endlessly conducted in my lifetime did a damned thing to protect my ability to do so. In fact, if we weren’t hell bent on bankrupting our country by taking money out of working folks’ pockets—and therefore food off their tables—I might have fewer customers at the food pantry on Mondays.
Photo credit: Flickr / Maryland National Guard
About the Editors
And when faced with the institutionalized violent agression of another country, what will you do then?
That said, any response to facing such incursions does not necessarily requiring honouring the same in one’s own country, but I’m pretty sure those doing the fighting and the dying appreciate hearing “Thank you,” if nothing else.
I have no qualms with saying that much myself.
Kirsten (in MT), your argument confuses two distinct concepts:
1) the existence of a military populated by individuals who volunteer to use martial force when called upon.
2) the use of force to pursue foreign policy goals that Kirsten (in MT) doesn’t agree with.
These are not the same thing. Your ability to celebrate Memorial Day the way you choose was probably not affected by the latter. But what about the former? That society (yourself included) derives no benefit from the existence of a standing military and the sacrifices its members make is an untenable argument, and yet that’s the one you are making.
Realize that Memorial Day is not about whether our political views permit us to approve of the wars and conflicts in which our armed forces have been involved. It is about the individual sacrifices its members make.
I tried to write this yesterday, but it came out as an incoherant mess, well said
Apparently men and war are two mutually exclusive topics. Except for the fact that men are stereotyped as violent and aggressive and warlike and dominating and potential rapists, etc…
But when it comes to victimisation and positive, empathic attributes war has nothing to do with men whatsoever, or so one would surmise from all the evasive wording. Society honours the “fallen” and dishonours “men” simultaneously. Just look at the levels of misandry everywhere.
Somebody argue about this with me please. Come on, what are you waiting for, I’m intrigued by the human propensity for denial so bring it on. Don’t hesitate. What misguided children we humans are.