R.I.P. A Final Taboo

Ever since the stuffy cultural pinnacle that was Victorian Britain, this country has been cautiously emolliating many of our most latent taboos – from exposing seemingly-lubricious piano legs (it is believed some Victorians covered them up) to legalising same-sex relationships. Although more self-critical dialogue is still needed in the majority of these categories, one prosaic taboo which still remains conspicuously ignored is that of death. The relative lack of progress in this area can be partly explained by the grip of our instinctual fears, deeply-embedded religious doctrines, and the heart-felt sensitivity of this gargantuan and complex issue. However whilst there is a lot at stake, there is also a lot to gain.

Poppyism

A Personal History

For as long as I can remember, I’ve always bought a Red Poppy in the run-up to Remembrance Day on the 11^th November. During my school years, it was made considerably easier by the volunteer students who would interrupt our classes to sell them in the week leading-up to the event. Even in a London suburban, multi-ethnic, youf comprehensive, you were considered tight if you didn’t fork out at least 20p of your lunch money for a poppy. The tradition has been so deeply instilled in me since my childhood that last year, horrified that I couldn’t find a vendor on my university’s campus, I went on a poppy-specific shopping-trip.

The purchasing of a red paper poppy is a national convention which I’ve never questioned, perhaps because I’ve always understood it to be a profoundly respectful and revered act. However, in recent years, there’s been a tiny nagging feeling about the ritual, and I’ve only let it bob to the surface of my consciousness in the last week or so.

It has got a lot to do with the fact that in the last five years I’ve become a lot more politically-aware, and so can identify and articulate those feelings I’ve which always had inside – those feelings which have been expressed through my attendance at several anti-war protests, through my vocal support for diplomacy, and through my admonishment of the glorification of war – those of being essentially, a pacifist.

So it begs the question, why exactly do I/we do this? What is the poppy for?

The Poppy Rationale

The way I see it, the poppies that we buy each year serve two distinct purposes:

-          Symbolically they enunciate a remembrance of the sacrifice of individual soldiers in World War One, being replicas of the Flanders poppy that grew in and around the trenches

-          The donations go to the British Legion, a charity that helps serving and ex-Service UK personnel and their families, providing support and advocacy for these groups

Fair enough. But this isn’t unproblematic for me. Firstly, the last WWI veteran, Harry Patch passed away in July this year. Perhaps the time should come for a shift in focus, looking at current and future events, and preventing the ongoing (illegal) wars we are engaged in from re-occurring – i.e. actually learning from the past, not just looking back shiny-eyed on past conflicts.

Secondly, and more personally, I’m interested in what exactly the British Legion spends their money on – a basic requirement for me before I donate to most causes/charities. Up until now, the Poppy Appeal has always evaded my personal scrutiny through its sacrosanct nature. Well they raised almost £30m last year, and I note with interest that this year they’ve bought out huge billboards on London’s streets:

To quote directly from their website:

In 2008 we helped more than 100,000 people in need with our Poppy Support services.

For every pound raised 80p goes towards achieving our objectives and of that 6.6p goes towards our support costs.

300,000 staff and volunteers organise the Poppy Appeal each year.

More than 30 million Remembrance poppies, 500,000 poppies of other types, 5 million remembrance petals, 100,000 wreaths and sprays, 750,000 Remembrance Crosses and other Remembrance items are made at the Poppy Factory in Richmond, Surrey, each year

More than 70% of the workers at the Poppy Factory are disabled or suffer from chronic illness. The Factory was designed to offer jobs to such people and its remit remains the same today.

All commendable, but what was probably a significant factor in my growing questioning of the whole Poppy Appeal, was that it has surreptitiously slipped into an unquestionable patriotic act. For one thing, I decided to find out if the Appeal provided any sort of support for non-British victims of UK wars, soldiers or otherwise.

And the answer, in short, is no.

Historical Revisionism

When it is said that the poppy is a ‘symbol of Remembrance’ and enables us in ‘commemorating those who are no longer with us’, who ‘fought for our freedoms’, what it means in that whilst using what appears to be generalised (internationalised) language, the beneficiaries – both financial and of ‘remembrance’ – are only British servicemen and women.

The reason I raise this point is a personal one – my grandfather was a pilot training to fly for Britain under the Commonwealth, and was weeks away from taking part in this fight for freedom in WWII, along with hundreds of thousands of other ‘imperial’ soldiers. In fact, a brief search on the internet suggests that roughly 20% of British Imperial force deaths were not actually British. I would ask where the appeals are for these former soldiers? This question is particularly pertinent in the lesser-developed countries – namely India – that were/are less able to provide support domestically – in large part because their wealth was historically siphoned-off by the imperial centre, Britain itself.

Moreover, it appears that The Royal British Legion find other minority groups’ attempts at remembrance – specifically those wishing to remember the contribution and suffering of the tens of thousands of gay servicemen and victims of the homo-Holocaust – as  ‘insulting, offensive and distasteful’. Incidentally, I actually find their reaction to this confrontation of hetero-normative historical revisionism to be insulting, offensive and distasteful.

A Soldier’s Purpose

Also, it troubles me that although support services are obviously needed, these should be provided by the government, and thus taken into account when making the decision to go to war. Likewise, if everyone in this country has seemingly benefitted from soldiers’ actions, surely it’s only fair that we evenly share out the subsequent costs, rather than relying on the voluntary contributions of the compassionate few to pick up the government’s slack? It’s a hard-line stance, but the argument could be made that donating to such a charity is essentially subsidising the cost of warfare for the government. This is why many feel it smacks of hypocrisy when current war-time heads-of-state participate in such ceremonies.

Why is this different from any other charitable cause dealing with particular diseases, environmental problems, or social justice? Well I’d argue that it’s one of the world’s greater and more easily preventable evils. I object to militarisation of international conflicts, particularly its tendency to be perpetrated under the guise of ‘righteousness’ and the patriotic defence of ideologies – and more so, when as in most British wars since WWII, these coincide suspiciously with lucrative economic and geopolitical interests.

Further, whilst I feel sadness when I see the coffins draped in the Union Jack being flown back to UK military bases from Afghanistan and Iraq, the reporting of such events is always the same. It’s a cynical point, but is the entire armed service made up of ‘brave heroes’; an alluring characterisation for potential recruits, but also an unrealistic misrepresentation of individual fallibility. Humans are flawed, and to pretend otherwise is at best delusional, at worst pernicious.

The other part of me questions whether sympathy should be felt for someone who voluntarily signs up to the modern day army – i.e. joining an organisation primarily in existence, whichever way you look at it, for training individuals in killing other people. The act effectively obliges them to accede to whatever orders are given, irrespective of how immoral or wrong the war in question may be (unless of course they choose to become a conscientious objector, which remains a rare and stigmatised occurrence).

The army today is perceived to be a ‘job’ as any other, so there is national surprise when soldiers are then sent to dangerous lands far away to ‘defend our freedoms’, and horror when there are casualties, but we seem to forget that this is the military’s raison d’etre. An auxiliary point, but it reinforces the glorification of the military and deification of rituals such as the poppy appeal.

Also, I’m concerned that the colouring of ‘remembrance’ with patriotism means that the other victims are forgotten. As William Connolly writes, a good democracy is where “the relation [of a citizen to their government] is one of patriotism chastened by scepticism”. Incidents of ‘collateral damage’ are a perfect illustration – what of Dresden for example, and more recently conflicts in the Middle East?

For example, the best-estimates are that in the six years since invading Iraq, approx 100,000 civilians have been killed through military action and ensuing civil unrest, and 179 British soldiers have died in action or other related causes. That’s a ratio of 558 Iraqi civilians for every one solider. And that’s in Iraq alone. Who is remembering these people who didn’t voluntarily enlist to risk their lives?

Finally, the symbolic value of donning the poppy, is to me, questionable. Although many people feel almost morally blackmailed to buy and wear a Poppy – as highlighted memorably by Jon Snow – what exactly has this annual performance of remembrance actually achieved? Other than very moving shots of masses of people stopping their daily lives, and wreaths lying at the foot of the Cenotaph, for the front pages.

What exactly are we remembering? How futile war is? – The millions who’ve died since WWI in conflicts directly or indirectly influenced by the British government would beg to differ. It almost feels like we conscientiously invest a few dutiful minutes every year, so we can then go back to our ordinary apathetic lives, totally guilt-free.

What can I do?

I was interested in if there was anything else I could do, which in my mind, would be more inclusive and more constructive, and a quick search of the internet found a White Poppy, which I think is more suited to my personal beliefs.

Its organised by the Peace Pledge Union – admittedly challenging the Royal British Legion’s claim to ‘the nation’s [sole] custodian of remembrance’. Besides covering production costs, the money goes to the Peace Research and Education Trust, which does peace work, addressing the alternatives to war, rather than just picking up the pieces afterwards. Scholar Jørgen Johansen once said to me at a conflict resolution workshop:

“If you go to a library, you’ll find shelves and shelves of books on war. Why is this so? Shouldn’t we be studying the long periods of peace instead, studying what we did right?”

There’s apparently been some anger from advocates of red poppies towards white poppies – for ‘stealing support’, and a heated debate has thus ensued. I don’t want to get into an either/or argument, because both have slightly different messages which need not contradict, and it’s up to the individual to think about what they support and why. Nevertheless it does make me suspect that people somehow believe that one charity righteously deserves a total official monopoly on such an emotive cause.

So, I’m going to be wearing a white peace poppy in the run-up to Remembrance Day, and if anyone else feels it’s important to remember war’s many victims, both past, present and future, perhaps they should consider doing the same too.

————————–

P.S. I picked up a few poppies in Housmans bookshop in Kings Cross, London, and have a couple spare if anyone would like them.

Preliminary to Copenhagen: the Legislators’ Drive

There is little over a month to go before the climate change conference at Copenhagen, and it is, without question, more significant than the G20 meetings, as climatic destabilization will affect everyone in most walks of life. After all, if global systems were to go kaput tomorrow, we would not be able to eat the hoards of cash that were saved in solving the economic crisis.

But what will come of this meeting? Is it likely to fall flat on its face like Kyoto, all fart and no sh*t, or is a credible, viable path going to open-up for us to follow? One of the reasons for failure of the Kyoto Protocol was the fact that domestic legislatures were unwilling to act on international agreement. For example, the Clinton administration supported the agreement but Congress did not, thus rendering the Kyoto Agreement meaningless.

The Furore of Regulations

It has been over year since the financial crisis started, yet only this week it would seem as if nothing had happened at all. Much like an alcoholic who promises to give up the booze in order to have a life-saving liver transplant, only to recover from the operation, sober up a little and then go on another round of binging until the new liver packs-in – and then he pleads again for an operation, and so on.

This is uncannily reminiscent of the banking and financial sectors. They, not all of them though, were “ill” last year and came to the government for stimulus – some were considered worthy, and some were not. The “too big to fail” behemoths made it; I like to think of them as the George Best of the banking system. Prolific and high profile enough to warrant saving. Now they have been saved what protection is there in place to prevent them from going off the rails again?

Why, regulation silly!

A Junk Mail Crusade iii

So after sending off a few letters to companies sending me some junk mail, I got a rather pleasing response from the Halifax to this strongly-worded letter of complaint…a few personal highlights of my original letter are here:

If you had put in ‘a little extra’ effort invading my privacy, you would have discovered that I am a recently-graduated student. Consequently not only am I educated enough to realise the imprudence of light-heartedly taking out credit cards, but also I am very aware of potential financial difficulties ahead, and do not wish to willingly exacerbate them further.

…

I can only conclude that you as a company either use the [recycling] symbol with deliberate sarcasm, or you naively don’t understand these simple manufacturing processes. Luckily, I’m quite the optimistic individual and I obligingly enclose your letter for you yourself to recycle (many thanks for your paid envelope for this purpose), and trust that you will adjust your policies accordingly.

The BNP’s Big Break?

So, the far right British National Party leader Nick Griffin has been included on a panel for BBC’s Question Time. I’m as sick as you of hearing about this, and just want to get on with seeing the actual programme (which at time of writing has finished being recorded). I’ve got a couple of reflections on what is – rightly or wrongly – probably the most momentous televised political event since Cameron did Marr. But first, at the risk of repeating what many have said before, I shall clarify my own position.

A Defence of Twitter

The idea for this piece has been rattling around in my notebook for a while now, but it seems particularly timely to finally get it out. Part One is on Twitter in general (if you’re familiar, then I’d advise you skip over it), and the second is my take on what’s gone on in the last week.

If anyone is interested, you can find me @liannedemello.

—————————————————————————————————

Part One: Why Twitter?

I’ve been questioned countless times by friends on ‘the point of’ Twitter. Why would you want a poor man’s version of Facebook, without the photos, walls or applications and with a limit on what you can say? Isn’t it merely a mirror for masses of narcissistic wannabes to post vacuous and mundane details of their lives?

To some extent, yes.

But there is a whole lot more to Twitter, and the thing I try to impart to people is that it is what you make of it.

A Democratised Manifesto

Comedian/performer/political activist/all-round affable everyman Mark Thomas has, since early September, been running a series of shows around the country, most recently ending up at the Tricycle Theatre in Kilburn, London. The premise?

Each audience gets to nominate their favourite ideas to make Britain a better place and decide a policy for the Manifesto, which Mark will examine, road test and then make these policies a reality…or at least try to…At the end of the tour, Mark will take the policies to politicians in a public debate to see if any of the ideas can become a reality.

It’s a great concept, and I for one was curious to see how it panned out. So, the aforementioned finale to the tour was a debate on Saturday with four London Assembly Members – Jenny Jones (Greens), Joanne McCartney (Labour), Andrew Boff (Conservative) and Caroline Pidgeon (Lib Dems).

The G20 in Pittsburgh: Saving Who?

There is nothing quite like giving yourself a pat-on-the-back and going as far as claiming “it worked”. Well, this unsurprisingly is exactly what the G20 aficionados stated with no irony in Pittsburgh. Like a bunch of misfit Captain Planets, they managed to save the World. Yay!

But has it worked, and if so who has it worked for? Moreover I hear scant mention of the poorer nations. It seems as if the G20 is providing little other than nice sound-bites for embattled leaders to carry home to uncertain domestic futures. It is essentially the same tune played with a different instrument. Nevertheless the G20 is now deemed the future of international economic co-operation. Hooray!…for those 20.

Retrofitting

Please bear with us as we make a few changes as to how our blog will work both aesthetically and functionally. Thanks!