493 Anzac Day is upon us
Anzac Day is upon us, ostensibly to
remember the fallen dead comrades. But does Anzac Day - with its war stories,
marching soldiers and the narrations of battles won and battles lost - glorify
war? And if not glorify, do Anzac Day celebrations lend themselves to justify war? Do they cement war in our consciousness as unavoidable; indeed do they bring us to accept war as sometimes necessary?
War is an industry, a profession. The case is often made that many innovations and inventions are spurred on by the military. Furthermore, many will say that war often is an economic necessity; conservatives argue that the Military-Industrial Complex must be kept in business, otherwise the economy at large will slide into decline (it is they who have shares in the armaments industry). One other argument to support war is that it turns boys into men, it builds camaraderie and makes life-long friends.
All these arguments are true ... but what is the cost of war? And is the objective - purportedly to gain peace - ever achieved? History shows, it is not. One war bears the seeds of the next war, it always has and it always will. The only way forward to peace is to avoid the next war, the one that we are about to go to because we want to "Fight for Peace". I have essays on WAR, WAR / PEACE CONSCIOUSNESS, WEAPONRY and FIGHTING FOR PEACE as well as on PACIFISM and PACIFISTS in my book with not title but instead three definition for the term en.light.en.ment
Lest We Forget is the maxim of Anzac Day ... let's not forget our fallen soldiers, who gave their lives for the country. This is a noble gesture. We must not forget our dead ... indeed, above all those who have died in the service for the greater good. But we have Remembrance Day (11th of November) ... without the militaristic overtones. Anzac Day - with all its recounting of battles, fighting and logistics, the narratives of heroism that cost soldiers' lives, with its profuse militaristic imagery, the marches, the displays of military hardware - is not an institution with the impetus to prevent the next war. On the contrary, it fosters war-consciousness; and as it strives to instil the Anzac Spirit (the war spirit?) in the young, it is a precursor for the next war.
The Anzac Centenary will be a show-piece for war consciousness, where the minds and hearts of the public get manipulated into the conviction the Gallipoli campaign of the "Great War" (has there ever been a greater oxymoron in the English language?) constitutes the occasion of the founding of the Australian nation; yet, an occasion steeped in peace-consciousness would be a more desirable connection.
I try with sincere intent to
understand the meme of the “Anzac Spirit”. It is said Turk leader Atatürk in 1934 in his address to the peoples of the
war, offered these words:
“Those heroes that shed their blood
and lost their lives …
you are now lying in the soil of a
friendly country.
Therefore rest in peace.
There is no difference between the
Johnnies
and the Mehmets to us where they lie
side by side
here in this country of ours …
you, the mothers,
who sent their sons from far away
countries,
wipe away your tears;
your sons are now lying in our bosom
and are in peace.
After having lost their lives on
this land they have
become our sons as well.”
Why should the mothers of killed sons wipe away their tears? How can they, the sons and the mothers, be at peace? What consolation is it that we call them Heroes? But this is the question I am compelled to ask above all, "how can we view the world a better place now, after the loss of 80,000 Turks and 44,000 allied soldiers?" ... in just the one campaign, that at Gallipoli (remember, millions died in the "Great War" altogether). Why is it a given that we fight, bury the dead, have an armistice and move on ... stumbling and blundering with eyes wide open toward the next war? Truly - contrary to the promise - the "Great War" was not "the war to end all wars". Furthermore, we can be sure that never, ever will a war end all wars ... and it is just as certain that any celebration of a battle or a war, lost or won, will not bring peace.
Peter FitzSimons in the newspaper today (one week before the Centenary) says:
"I agree with Paul Keating that the foundation stone of our nationhood was something other than the devastatingly bloody battle of Gallipoli ... But the point is, that really was the first thing that brought our mob together as one."
He then suggest to replace celebrating Gallipoli with Eureka ... another bloody battle. Is there really no occasion we could find in our past that can be determined to have been a nation-building event ... that came without violence and bloodshed?