Today Sat Sun
It is forcast to be Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Thunderstorm
30°/16°
It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
27°/19°
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 27, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
30°/16°

47 Comments

culture

What We Forget to Remember

Remembrance Day is an opportunity to reconsider the true meaning of sacrifice and heroism in Canada's wars.

Remembrance Day is one of the new battlegrounds of the culture war. Are you a patriot, supporting our men and women at home and overseas as they defend Canada? Or are you some kind of hippie peacenik?

You’d better choose a side. It’s all been laid out nicely. Were grandpa and his pals liberators in the fight against Hitler and the Nazis? Or did they deliberately drop bombs on European cathedrals and hospitals?

Keeping the argument simple, and keeping people ignorant about Canadians and their wars, has worked well for both sides. It helps that most of us know war only from the media and from family stories. We don’t have real memories of war, even in Afghanistan. We carry around a mish-mash of propaganda, fiction, and factoids, heavily filtered by our own ideologies.

What do we not “remember” on Remembrance Day?

We don’t remember much of the stuff that was actively censored during the war: the U-boat attacks in the St. Lawrence River and the Gulf of St. Lawrence that killed about 300 people; the big army mutinies in B.C., Ontario, and Quebec in the fall and early winter of 1944; the Japanese balloon bombs that drifted from the Pacific Ocean as far east as Detroit in early 1945.

We don’t remember how the military tried to cover up the mistakes of its deployment of troops to Hong Kong. Or how poor the Canadian officer corps really was in both world wars.

And, as Jeff Keshen showed six years ago in his book Saints, Sinners and Soldiers, the war life of women has been re-written in a way that’s unfair.

The standard story today is that women were liberated by the war, at least temporarily, “allowed” into the work force during the world wars. After the Second World War, they didn’t want to go back, and, after a decade of dormancy during the 1950s, the women’s movement burst upon us.

Some women did flourish during the war. Many more resented working long shifts in factories while still being expected to do all the work they already did at home.

In fact, with so many men being on the move—whether to join the armed forces, get one of the thousands of new jobs, or heading to Ottawa to work in the war bureaucracy—women were saddled with far more child-rearing, home responsibilities, and trouble.

Relationships fell apart. Juvenile delinquency became an ugly problem during the war, divorce rates went up, and sexually transmitted infections went into epidemic mode. When men came back from overseas, they were usually in bad shape. For every 10 who went, one man died, two were wounded, and the rest suffered from varying degrees of post-traumatic stress disorders and other psychiatric illnesses.

And even if they did come back relatively undamaged, most members of the armed forces were gone for at least three years and as long as six, and had life experiences that were unfathomable to their partners. It must have been almost impossible to re-ignite whatever drew most young couples together.

Women were expected to fix all that. And to do it quietly.

“Sacrifice” and “heroism” are the buzzwords of any commemoration of those who served in war. Sacrifice has developed a whole new meaning. My grandfather’s 19-year-old cousin killed in 1918 by a stray shell is a “hero” because his number came up. I’m supposed to believe that he gave himself as a “sacrifice” to stop the spread of Prussian militarism, when I know damn well he wanted to get back to his home on Georgian Bay.

In fact, not everyone who puts on a uniform is a hero. Nor is every poor bastard who gets blown up by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan and ends up in a hearse on the section of Highway 401 between Trenton and Toronto that’s been renamed the “Highway of Heroes.” Heroism involves a certain amount of choice, fearlessness, even gambling. Getting blown up in Afghanistan was, in many cases, more a matter of bad luck.

On Friday, crowds turned out at the National War Memorial, at the Cenotaph in front of Old City Hall, and at the war memorials that were built across the country after the First World War to make some sense out of the senseless, to give dignity and meaning to slaughter and waste, and to pray that we can someday control the vicious animal side of human behaviour.

The old vets of the Second World War were there, artifacts of a world that we can never know. They’ll be joined by the young Afghanistan vets who are still trying to figure out what their war was about and waiting to learn if it was all just a waste of time, sweat, and blood.

Filed under: , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • Anonymous

    People who make the decision to put themselves in harm’s way in the service of their country are heroes regardless of whether they take a bullet in combat, accidently step on an IED or make it home completely unscathed having just carried a clip board at a supply base. But of course, only most adults think this way.

    You’re entitled to your piss-in-the-cornflakes opinion. In my opinion, you’re an ungrateful, clueless Monday-morning quarterback jackass.

    • Kris

      I’m starting to chafe a bit at the framing of ‘heroism’ as ‘service to one’s country.’ I think the form and purpose of that service needs to be examined in every case. If a prospective soldier is aware, or reasonably should be aware, that the conflict he is about to be joining is maybe not something that is absolutely justifiable by their normal moral code, no matter how it’s sold to them by their political leaders (e.g. ‘The War on Terror’ particularly in the Iraqi context). Your definition lacks any critical nuance, in my view. Unfortunately that’s sort of the tone and timbre that every at-large discussion of militarism and soldiery tends to take in the modern media. Nobody seems to be interested in tackling what ‘service to the country’ actually means from an ethical standpoint.

      • Kris

        I left a sentence fragment hanging there. Edit: I think it is problematic that prospective soldiers might be aware, or reasonably should be aware, that the conflicts they are about to be joining is maybe not something that is absolutely justifiable by their normal moral code, no matter how it’s sold to them by their political leaders (e.g. ‘The War on Terror’ particularly in the Iraqi context).

      • Anonymous

        “I’m starting to chafe a bit at the framing of ‘heroism’ as ‘service to one’s country.’ I think the form and purpose of that service needs to be examined in every case.”

        Exactly, this is your opinion and is not the current state of things. Albeit a completely pessimistic version of what the rest of us already know.

        Soldiers don’t deem themselves as heroes. That’s a moniker that we attach to them. We have that right. Ethics/morality aside. In fact any self-proclaimed hero, would in fact probably not be a hero. You’re confusing the two.

        “If a prospective soldier is aware, or reasonably should be aware, that the conflict he is about to be joining is maybe not something that is absolutely justifiable by their normal moral code, no matter how it’s sold to them by their political leaders”

        I think you miss entirely the point and importance of military discipline, bravado and unison.

        Your post comes off as hateful towards soldiers because you obviously have a disdain for war. But you and the OP are seriously confusing the two. You seem to have that same attitude of 60′s flower children who would spit on soldiers as they returned from Vietnam and call them baby-killers – so short-sighted.

        “Nobody seems to be interested in tackling what ‘service to the country’ actually means from an ethical standpoint.”

        Including you, apparently.

        P.S. this article is ridiculous.

    • Mark Bourrie

      Your momma should hear you talk.
      I am grateful to the people who serve in the armed forces. I have many friends and relatives who do, and I teach soldiers. But the “heroes” talk is what comes out of the mouths of politicians and others who benefit from war without taking personal risks. The soldiers I’ve known invariably see themselves doing a tough and dirty job on behalf of the rest of us. They don’t try to be heroes and they don’t fight for glory — or really want to fight at all, if there’s some other recourse. And to compare, say, Smoky Smith or other Victoria Cross winners who basically made suicide attacks on superior enemy forces to, say, the four Canadians who were the unlucky victims of US aircraft “friendly fire” in the first year of the war is to confused “heroism” and tragedy. Too many people like you seem to feel that by tub-thumping with words like heroism, you can somehow get a lock on patriotism. It’s bogus.

      • Anonymous

        ” But the “heroes” talk is what comes out of the mouths of politicians and others who benefit from war without taking personal risks”

        Yea, like the general public. The one’s that view these soldiers as heroes. What is so wrong about that? Do we not “benefit” from war? My family is alive because of the military in 2 instances in 100 years of our family’s history – WW2, Somalia. So because I haven’t had “personal risk” in either of these wars, I should not be allowed to deem these people as “heroes” because well, you say so?

        So who has the right? Soldiers? So they are “self-proclaimed” heroes. If you DO in fact know anyone in the military, you know that none of them see themselves this way – which is what makes them so f’n special in the first place.

      • Anonymous

        You’re giving the strawman stooge of the century a run for his money.

    • Anonymous

      And you’re entitled to talk your rah-rah bull roar from behind a keyboard while not being able to get up off of your ass and join the army to fight the war that you believe in so much, like most warmongering neocon chickenhawk Keyboard Kommandos. Just don’t confuse what you say with any real truth.

      • Anonymous

        “And you’re entitled to talk your rah-rah bull roar from behind a keyboard while not being able to get up off of your ass and join the army to fight the war that you believe in so much,”

        And you’re entitled to talk your rah-rah bull roar from behind a keyboard, while not being able to get up off your ass and do something about not fighting in wars that you obviously do not believe in.

        I hate war, but your logic is astoundingly flawed.

        • Anonymous

          No sir, my logic is not flawed-it’s right on point.

          People like DryDry are called chickenhawk Keyboard Kommandos for a reason: they love to cheer-lead these current wars, but when it actually comes to putting one’s money where their mouths are, they beg off or invent some excuse, saying, ‘My country needs me here’ or ‘My career’s too important for me to enlist in the army and go abroad.’ So others fight, mainly poor people and minorities (what I’m talking about applies to the United States and Americans, but sadly also applies to Canada as well-one of the people killed in the ‘friendly fire’ incident was a black youth from Regent Park, IIRC.) These are the people Mark’s talking about.

          As for how I protest, that’s frankly none of your business whatsoever. I’m expressing my opinion, and so is the author of this piece-that should be protest enough for you. The rub is, even when I would do that, people like you would (and are, in the case of the Occupy Toronto movement) ready to call us names and tell us to get a job or go fight the war. So what difference does it matter to you ultimately?

          • Anonymous

            ” they love to cheer-lead these current wars”

            Interesting, I didn’t read anywhere where he claimed to cheer-lead anything. Care to point it out? Fabricating someone’s opinion is pretty low.

            ” but when it actually comes to putting one’s money where their mouths are, they beg off or invent some excuse”

            “As for how I protest, that’s frankly none of your business whatsoever. I’m expressing my opinion, and so is the author of this piece-that should be protest enough for you. The rub is, even when I would do that, people like you would (and are, in the case of the Occupy Toronto movement) ready to call us names and tell us to get a job or go fight the war. So what difference does it matter to you ultimately?”

            Hrmm… Maybe you need to read what you write before you hit “post”. Flawed indeed, both in logic and execution.

            Thank you for underscoring my point.

          • Anonymous

            Cheerlead what current wars?
            What excuse?

            You’re a strawman king stooge of the century.

      • Anonymous

        What war I believe in so much?
        Fabricate shit out of thin air much?

        • Anonymous

          I don’t fabricate shit out of thin air like you Keyboard Kommandoes do. I READ the article and understand it, which is what you and torontothegreat didn’t do, simply because it raises your patriotic dander up and offends you by extension. Well, boo-freaking hoo.

          I think that Mark is right, and that Remembrance Day is a good time to say it. That neither of you can stand what he says (other than to say ‘How dare you/think of the troops!’) shows how shallow you two are.

  • Scott

    People fought so that people would have the right to express their ideas. So “dry dry” is is YOU who pisses on the corn flakes.

  • Guest

    The word hero has been overused to point of meaninglessness. I long for the day when it returns to it’s original meaning, probably at the same time jingoistic military fetishism goes away too.

    • Anonymous

      So what is a hero? According to the dictionary pretty much all soldiers are considered heroes. But you’re hate for the military is blinding you. So you take it out on soldiers. Typical b.s. We already did this back in the 60′s.

  • Anonymous

    Oops, I guess I should start looking at who the author is. This is 2 for 2 – horrible, horrible articles. http://torontoist.com/2011/11/how-the-cbc-got-it-wrong-on-rob-ford/

    • Mark Bourrie

      Keep reading them…

      • Anonymous

        dense

    • Anonymous

      Yes, the article on CBC was garbage too.

      Bourrie is dragging Torontoist down with his moronic worldview.

      Can’t wait to read his next bucket of snot.

  • Anonymous

    “Juvenile delinquency became an ugly problem during the war”

    - In the U.S. but it actually dropped here, because of our slack child labour laws.

    “divorce rates went up”

    - Again, yes in the U.S. In Canada, divorce was not a common occurrence until after the end of the Second World War.

    “For every 10 who went, one man died”

    - By war’s end, 1 million citizens would have served in military uniform
    - Total Canadian deaths: 45,400
    - Do the math.

    Garbage.

    • Mark Bourrie

      Torontothenotasogreat should follow my advice and read the Keshen book, rather than try to use BS to make a point. His/her obsession with my blog posts is interesting, but his/her bile is getting tiresome. And to all the brave trolls who hide behind fake and grandiose names, wank on.

      • Anonymous

        A contributor (not paid, I hope) tells readers of the site his articles are on to “wank on”.

        Nice professionalism, jackass.

        We all look forward to your next train wreck of a piece.

      • Anonymous

        Me: – Countless points asking you to defend this offensive piece of trash.
        – 7 direct questions
        – Pointed out 3 factual errors you used to fit your argument in the post, I haven’t had time to go through the rest, but I’m sure I’d find more, just like in your last article.

        You: Troll! You’re obsessed!

        Bravo sir, bravo… Stay classy!

        • Mark Bourrie

          You: troll. Your “facts” are wrong, you can’t actually discuss the argument of the piece, and you toss out insults. I’m sure you’re so deeply thrilled that anyone who actually signs their name to an article will give you a moment of their time. Like all insecure and unhappy people, you don’t have the faith in yourself and your intellect to sit down, write an article with your name on it, and defend it. You’re a waste of time, and you won’t get any more of mine.

          • Anonymous

            Bourrie you forgot to tell him to “wank on”. You know, like a troll would say.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=659861290 Mark Bourrie

            And here are some facts, in case anyone things the self-styled great Toronto guy actually knows what he’s talking about. These stats are taken from the chapter “Youth Run Wild” in Jeffrey Keshen’s Siants, Sinners and Soldiers (2005). Keshen is the head of the history department at the University of Ottawa. Divorce rates went from 14.4 per 100,000 in 1936 to 20.8 per 100,0000 in 1940 and 27.7 per cent in 1943. Charges laid for “spousal desertion” increased from1547 to 2546 from 1938 to 1940. Many more men joined the military or moved across the country to as ways of deserting their wives (Keshen, 2005:123) Juvenile delinquency cases before the courts rose from about 9,200 in 1939 to a peak of 14,000 in 1943 (Keshen 2005:206 chart). Street gang violence increased in Toronto, with 26 youth gangs being identified in downtown Toronto in 1944. The number of girls appearing in juvenile court increased by 30 per cent in 1939-1940 and stayed at that rate through the war. (Keshen 2005:209) The number of absentee days among Ontario school children rose from 8.4 million class days in 1939-1940 to 1 million in 1940-41, with officials blaming “parental neglect and truancy” for 164,000 of them. (Keshen 2005:211) While there were 1 million men in uniform, the actual number who went to the European Theater to fight on the ground was 370,000. http://wwii.ca/content-7/world-war-ii/facts-and-information/. There were 215,200 in the RCAF at peak strength. http://wwii.ca/content-41/wwii-rcaf/ and 97,000 in the Navy: http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-per-e.htm

          • Anonymous

            The juvenile crime is a non-starter, it has steadily been on the rise since 1900 and has only in the last few years gone down. You point to a bunch of examples concerning Ontario, ummm… okay… cool, we’re talking about Canada though right?

            “Divorce rates went from 14.4 per 100,000 in 1936 to 20.8 per 100,0000 in 1940 and 27.7 per cent in 1943″

            And again, has steadily risen since. The divorce rate has risen 1000% since 1950 in Canada. Blame the war or something, right? Your own numbers even show a trend before and after the conflict. You can’t have it both ways, sorry about your luck.

            “For every 10 who went, one man died, two were wounded, and the rest suffered from varying degrees of post-traumatic stress disorders and other psychiatric illnesses.”

            For every 10 who “fought/we’re deployed/went to the european theatre”, one mad died…

            There, I fixed it for you.

            So yes, I’m questioning these “facts”, they are a slice of what was happening prior and since.

            If you want to slice and dice things, and blame it on the prof – all to make a point about how not all soldiers deserve the moniker of “hero” – Well gosh darn, good on you! I just hope you don’t take equal offence when I bestow the label of “asshole” on you.

            P.S. Thanks for the book review. Sorry I think you should tag it better to indicate it that way.

          • Anonymous

            “divorce rates went up”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_Act
            http://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Historical_Divorce_Rate_Statistics

            “For every 10 who went, one man died”

            http://wwii.ca/content-7/world-war-ii/facts-and-information/
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_Canada

            So it’s a bit rich to say that my “facts” are wrong. I’d also like to point out, that I’m only going for the low-hanging fruit, I see a few more questionable “facts” that I just don’t have time to research. Something apparently you have a hard time with.

            You did this in your last article too. Albeit, you didn’t break down into a melodramatic tantrum as you did here. You at the very least owe me an apology at this point for such trollish behavior.

            Have a great day.

            P.S. All you’ve done is insult me, when I did in fact question the merit of the piece several times. You’ve ignored them all.

            The post I’m replying or rather the emotional meltdown I’m witnessing, towards a voice of dissent is very telling to say the least…

          • Mark Bourrie

            Oh, Wikipedia and divorce.love.to.know.com Yea, definitely trumps the scholarship of a full professor published by a peer-reviewed university press. And of those who went — about 600,000 who actually left the country, about 10% died. You “question the merit of the piece”? Are you serious? You said you don’t like it. Fine enough. But then, anonymously, of course, you go on to troll away, lobbing insults. Small and pathetic.

          • Mark Bourrie

            And the wikipedia and divorcelovewhatever pages say nothing. I hope people go to them and have a look at what a thin reed you’re grasping for. The wikipedia entry says divorce in Canada was rare until 1968, which is true, but family breakdown existed, was a problem that increased during the war, and the numbers I cite above show it. TTG has abandoned his lie about juvenile delinquency going down in Canada during the war. My figures on overseas service, i.e., “the men who went” are solid and what I said in the piece is accurate.

          • Anonymous

            You’re talking to yourself now! “Meltdown” Mark.

        • Anonymous

          Stay stupid and clueless, guy, like you now have shown yourself to be.

    • Anonymous

      As I said just recently, what Mark said in this article is anathema to shallow, warmongering cowards like yourself. But what else is new?

      This, people, is what 9/11 hath wrought; warmongering patriotic dunderheads who decided to latch on to the war in order to get their anti-Muslim freak on, and can’t stand any deep analysis of what war is and why we as human beings do it. All they know how to do is shoot the messenger.

      • Anonymous

        Wow that was the most insane thing I’ve ever read on this site…

        I’m a pacifist, my partner is a Muslim and your tinfoil hat is on too tight.

  • Anonymous

    Can of worms, opened.

  • http://twitter.com/torkevo Kevin

    I don’t know why the feminism, censorship, and disorganization are being brought up in an article on Remembrance Day… isn’t it supposed to be about those who died or suffered, not about misinformation campaigns by the government, the family problems brought about, the “glories” of battles, or the triumph of x ideology over y ideology?

    • Anonymous

      I think you’re missing the point of the article, which is not to reiterate the point of the day. All of these other things are conveniently ignored and forgotten in the blinding golden light of War Is Heroic.

      • http://twitter.com/torkevo Kevin

        I didn’t miss that point… they’ve always been “conveniently ignored” because that type of stuff should be kept for discussions and history lessons. The point of the day (at least how I learned it in school) is to remember the horrors of war and the toll it takes on humankind.

        I’d say a decent number of people are aware of the horrible things that happened in wars past, even within Canada itself (Japanese internment, removal of “Indian” status for Aboriginals who fought, censorship, broken families, etc.), although more people should know. As my grandparents (who, unlike us, have experienced war first hand) have said a bunch of times to me – “war is war and bad things happen”.

        • Anonymous

          I don’t even know where to start a reply to this. There’s just… so much… wrong.

      • Anonymous

        No, that’s what should happens on the other 364 days a year.

        On your birthday or anniversary should people show up and talk about all the shitty things you’ve done all year and since you were born/married?

        Remembrance day is the anniversary to the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918.

        • Anonymous

          If you’re only home one day a year, that’s a pretty good day for an intervention.

          When these things get swept under the rug, which they are 365 days a year, it begins to replace the truth of the matter with a happy mythology. When it’s bundled into a sacred cow like “support the troops”, any disagreement becomes taboo.

          Pointing out that a lot of shitty stuff was done does not, in any way, diminish or eclipse the gross loss of human life or overwhelming sacrifices of those wars.

          • Anonymous

            Sure I’m totally on point with this. There should def be more discussion about these things (or rather, people need to get out and read more because there is already a lot of info). What I take offense to is the author’s narrative on sacrifice and heroism. Downplaying what the rest of us are generally pretty thankful for. Yea, maybe his uncle’s cousin’s brother did want to be in Georgian Bay – that’s EXACTLY what the rest of us are so thankful for and at that point it’s easy to acknowledge the sacrifice. Statements like: ““Sacrifice” and “heroism” are the buzzwords of any commemoration of those who served in war” only serve to minimize and patronize this.

  • David

    Thanks for posting an interesting article that is provocative and I think still considerate. Your initial question is neatly confirmed as valid by the ensuing comments section which name blames and blame names. Keep asking it.