Viktorie Voriskova
November
Each year, on November 11th, at eleven in the morning, the world goes silent for a minute, in commemoration of the anniversary of the signing of an armistice in Compiege in the region of Picardy, France. This agreement took effect at 11:00 am, ending the war on the Western Front and, with it, the First World War. This anniversary is celebrated mainly in the United States but also France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Nigeria, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. Every year, these countries organize parades, their citizens wear the symbolic red poppy flowers, and heads of state give speeches at war memorials. Is there a line at which it becomes too much?
On the one hand, the eleventh of November is a day during which many people in the world reflect on the horrors that ancestors had to endure during the four years of World War One, reminding us that our freedom should not be taken for granted. On the other hand, this day has also become not just an anniversary of the end of the war, but also a celebration of militarism itself, leading to debates on whether it has not evolved into a day of military glorification instead of a day for reflection. The duality of this internationally celebrated and appreciated holiday highlights the thin line between reminiscing about our past and glorifying it. Therefore, while the original aim of the celebrations of the Armistice Day war peaceful reconciliation and remembrance, these days there seems to be a shift towards militarism and glorification of military action, which has sparked discussions—even controversies—around the values the Eleventh of November embodies and its role in modern society.
In the years following 1919, Armistice Day ceremonies were used to promote the message that “never again” should we engage in the brutality and futility of war. At this time, the grief caused by war was raw. People felt real loss—one fourth of the population in the Western world lost at least one family member during this conflict—and the need to have a collective ceremony to mourn nationally was understandable. Over decades, this anniversary has evolved into a day of solemn reflection for those lost in all conflicts.
In the early 1950s, the celebrations underwent another change in their symbolism: in 1954, in the U.S., Armistice Day was renamed Veterans Day to honor all veterans, not just those who have fought in World War One. Some advocates argue that this change diverted attention from the original peace-oriented message, leading to a rise of glorification of military intervention, meandering away from the initial intention of reflecting on the war and remembering those who have lost their lives during the conflict. One of these critics is the professor of Environmental Health from Boston University School of Public Health, H. Patricia Hynes, who claims that the renaming of Armistice Day to Veteran's Day led to the discarding of “all public ideals of peace with all other peoples.” She goes on to add that “the rebranding of Armistice Day to Veterans Day [is] enabling militarists and war profiteers “to celebrate and promote militarism … misrepresent war members of the military as heroes, and encourage the enlistment of cannon fodder for future war for profit.”
Controversies surrounding the nature, which often tends to be rather militaristic of Remembrance Day, the official name of the Armistice holiday in the United Kingdom, have a long history too: participants in Armistice Day events have almost always worn or displayed red poppies in English-speaking territories, cornflowers in France and Belgium since the poppy became associated with the holiday because of the popularity of the poem, “In Flanders Fields,” written in 1915 by Canadian soldier John McCrae. However, as early as the 1930s, people began wearing the white poppy instead of the original red one to reject the perceived militarism associated with Remembrance Day.
Other scholars corroborate this view on the significance of Armistice Day: Olivia Abbott, a writer for the Organisation for World Peace, wrote an article titled: “Rethinking Remembrance Day: Unpacking Memory, Identity And War” in 2019, where she voices her opinion as follows:
“Remembrance Day prevents us from moving forward. We should not forget our national history, but the rhetoric of “keep calm and carry on” and “lest we forget” focuses on the past and stops us from looking forward. […] The longer we hold onto the emphasis on remembrance, the longer we will hold back from pursuing a brighter future.”
Abbott’s criticism of Britain’s approach to Remembrance Day celebrations is yet another example of the controversies that this holiday creates—it represents a controversial focus on the past and its glorification instead of a reconciliation that would help the nation in moving forward.
Furthermore, there is also a very recent example of the November 11th celebrations being controversial: the pro-Palestinian protests that took place in central London. Many people think that protesting on Remembrance Day as a sign of “disrespect” towards the fallen. Others talk about the dangers of militarism as one of the core values of this holiday and the glorification of war that is perpetuated through the celebration of this anniversary. On November 11th last year, Clément Voule, the UN’s Special Rapporteur for the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association, discouraged painting the protests as “hate marches.” He argued that it could risk public disorder and more public disagreement on the validity of Remembrance Day.
Commemorating an anniversary of the end of a war or another military action will always spark controversies because of the thin line between appreciation and glorification. There has been a major shift in the symbolism of the Eleventh of November—renaming of this holiday in America or the rise of unrest these ceremonies bring about in the present exemplify this. Despite the shift in the values and importance of this holiday, which should be reflected upon during this anniversary, the core idea that led to its establishment is still relevant: the horrors of the past cannot be forgotten. Otherwise, we run the danger of repeating them.