On why I do wear a red poppy

[netninny]

(The following is in response to various expressions of discomfort with Remembrance Day encountered on my f-list yesterday, in particular copperbadge's On why I don't wear a red poppy. I would have replied to that post itself, had comments not been disabled.)

The first time copperbadge really read the closing lines of "In Flanders Fields," he was dismayed by what he

Comments

[musesfool]

Lovely post that pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.

[netninny]

Thank you, Vic--and thanks for linking!

*

[destina]

Excellent post. Excellent, excellent. And it's nice to see a counter to the bitterness and cynicism and so forth I've seen in other posts.

[netninny]

Thanks, Destina. Though I do agree with certain of the ethical concerns that have been raised, I felt the case needed to be put for the other side.

*t

[jo_ellen]

Followed here from musesfool's link... beautifully put.

[netninny]

Thank you, and thanks for reading.

*

Yes, to everything you've said

[leadensky]

I'm here by way of musesfool. Thank you for posting this.

For all our love of heroes, very few of us really want to find ourselves in a situation in which heroism is called for.

I was (re-)reading The Last Unicorn yesterday, and found this:

"Times change. Would you call this age a good one for unicorns?"

"No, but I wonder if any man before us ever thought his time a good time for unicorns."

Is there *ever* a time that does not call for heroes? A time in which a land that lacks heroes is not poorer than the land that has heroes to bury?

I do not think so. And I beg to respectfully disagree with the poster who said, War blows and is the stupidest, crudest, most insane thing ever.It is wholesale slaughter, oh, yes, I will agree with that. Horrible and terrible and ugly. But not the most terrible of things

Re: Yes, to everything you've said

[netninny]

Is there *ever* a time that does not call for heroes? A time in which a land that lacks heroes is not poorer than the land that has heroes to bury?

You're absolutely right, and that is the next step. When someone is dying or in trouble right before your eyes, the choice to be heroic is an easy one, which is why so many accidental heroes protest (after saving someone from drowning or pulling someone from a burning car) that they were only doing what anyone would have done under the circumstances. But when the person in trouble isn't dying right before your eyes--when they're on the streets or in a nursing home or starving in another country--the choice doesn't seem so obvious, does it? What a world it would be if we all looked far enough beyond ourselves to see the opportunities for heroism.

It is wholesale slaughter, oh, yes, I will agree with that. Horrible and terrible and ugly. But not the most terrible of things.I checked out your "bit in your own place" and I think you make this point admirably. Yes, a world without war would

[lartist]

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

Remembrance Day isn't supposed to be comfortable. I don't like war. We're not supposed to like war. I don't like the current military state but ignoring it won't make it go away. It only makes us ignorant. For those who choose to stand in the line of fire I have only the highest respect. For anyone who chooses to defend my sorry behind, past present or future I have nothing but respect and regret that I can do nothing for them. Except remember.

A small price.

[netninny]

Yes, absolutely--it's not supposed to be a comfortable day.

In Canada, at least, the symbols of Remembrance Day are so closely associated with the horrors of WWI (in which some of the greatest acts of individual bravery on the battlefield cannot be honoured without acknowledging the outrageous mistakes by those in command that made them possible in the first place) that it's never occurred to me to think of November 11th as a day promoting war.

Thanks for reading.

**