Will We Remember Them?

Two minutes of lost time seemed more than some customers could handle.

Observing a two minutes silence for the war fallen each year seems a logical and traditional manner to commemorate and remember the sacrifice of our countrymen. Two minutes in which to take solace, stock and thank those who gave up their lives so young is, in fact, not very much by way of a remembrance.

Yet, whilst at work on Sunday, I couldn’t help but notice customers agitated by the two minute delay to their day. It seemed unthinkable that men who had died in a country not so far away, in a part of the world we are quite accustomed with, could roughly rob them of 120 seconds. Many shuffled around, sighed, and launched forward at the till points once an announcement declared the time 11:02.

Watching people behave with such disregard shocked me. How have the British become so desensitised to the Remembrance Sunday tradition, and unobservant of this most remarkable occasion to honour the dedication and service of veterans, old and new?

Could it be that the idea of war has become synonymous with twenty-first century lifestyle? Internet access and dedicated news channels have ensured that conflicts over the past decades are under constant scrutiny from a plethora of different outlets and sources. The conflict in Syria is believed to be the most reported news item this year. Whether on social media, the radio, television or in newspapers, scenes of warfare have come to dominate from all around the globe: be that in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or countless other territories torn by fighting.

The inundation of information is as confusing as it is unending. In his work, ‘A Tragic Legacy’, Glen Greenwald reasonably argues that “The fact that war is the word we use for almost everything—on terrorism, drugs, even poverty—has certainly helped to desensitize us to its invocation; if we wage wars on everything, how bad can they be?” 

Greenwald’s extension as to how negative war actually is may be a push too far, but it does reflect on an interesting phenomenon. There is increasingly less support for war, and consequently we often try to completely distance ourselves from the events. 

Following the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that have dominated the first decade of the 21^st century, support for intervention in the Syrian conflict has dwindled. While a May Gallup Poll of the US found that 59% and 82% of the population supported those respective wars, only 36% are in favour in the case of Syria, versus 51% against. The sentiment is echoed by Britons, with 56% believing that military intervention in the area is not the answer.

It is difficult to imagine then that the World Wars drummed up so much support – of course, largely through propaganda. The threat to the public in the UK was a very real and very palpable one, with attacks on the country a constant reminder of the ongoing fight for freedom. With such little first-hand interaction into modern warfare in the last 50 years, it would appear that Britons have forgotten how crucial an army is to maintaining freedoms.

David Cameron is calling for some change to that, announcing plans for a larger remembrance on the centenary of World War One. However, Jeremy Paxman branded the PM a “complete idiot” as a result of this suggestion, arguing that “people [will] get the idea that somehow this is going to be celebrated. Well, only a complete idiot would celebrate such a calamity.”

Downing Street have demanded an apology for the comments, and rightly so. Indeed, celebrating war itself would be a calamity, but celebrating the lives of young men and boys who died for their country is nothing short of justified. There is much to be said for the courage and valour of men who, with little knowledge of the war and not wholly in support of the fighting, still went to meet certain death.

Only last week, we have seen the remarkable act of remembrance for unifying a nation under a single emotional banner as hundreds of strangers turned up to mark the funeral of soldier Harold Percival. It demonstrates our resolve to stand up for what is right and to intervene to protect social and cultural liberties. It is our respect for these men that unites us every 11 November as a testament to British resilience under adverse pressure; something that resonates with many nations following a century pocketed with war.

After all, while only a complete idiot would celebrate the calamity, it would be a far greater fool who did not remember history and commemorate its lessons.

Jewel in the Crown

This weekend sees the country celebrate the rare occasion of a monarch reigning for 60 years, with Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee.

Events to mark the historic moment have been held nationwide, and it is difficult to escape from the bombardment of programmes across the television and radio that proffer discussion and debate on the past six decades.

Similar to the glorious era that saw Queen Victoria on the throne, the Queen’s reign has seen revolutions in lifestyle, communication, opinions, fashions, economy, politics, society and any other aspect of life that one might care to mention.

However, whilst Elizabeth’s great-great-grandmother was a respected symbol of power worldwide, with Britain at the height of her Empire, our Queen does not appear to command the same sentiments from her peoples in this country, somewhat a figurehead of a bygone age.

Yes, congratulations to the Queen for being born of the right family and living for a very long time afterwards some might scoff. Well done on following up an ancient institution of praising a single figure sent from God in an increasingly agnostic populous. Kudos on ‘forming’ our governments, that are just as scandalous as the rule of a single monarch was to in the Tudor era. Hurrah. Cakes and ices all round.

Yet, perhaps such cynical pessimism should be locked away in the Tower.

Imagine being made head of state in almost 20 countries around the world, having a Commonwealth thrust upon you and suddenly being under the scrutiny of millions in an era of unprecedented media intrusion. And having that job for 60 years. Thought the proposition of retiring at 67 was a bad idea did we? I’m sure Elizabeth would have loved that privilege.

As Queen, her majesty is to represent a symbol of British resilience, strength and reserve. This fabric of humanity is something bred into the Queen from her childhood, that saw her father overcome impediments to lead a nation as a beacon through World War Two. She is not likely to give up her throne before death because her predecessors instilled a sense of pride and responsibility into her that few can understand. Integrity of the nation has shifted dramatically since the 1950s, but the Queen remains a stonewall symbol of old fashioned values integrating with modern man.

Admittedly, the power of the royal family is far from the absolute rule of those just a couple of centuries ago; but if anything the quintessential Britishness that the royals represent has grown in purpose.

Consider the French, who, in the middle of Eurocrisis, face a loss of identity to the mega-power of Germany and who look back on their own bloody usurping of monarchy with some gruesome horror. Or the Russians, who deposed of their Tsar amidst waging war, yet are left with a vast void, empty landscapes with no symbol of power.

Many European counterparts have no resolute figures that represent the proud heritage of their nation in the way that the royal family afford our country.

Modern society may deem that those in Buckingham Palace are relics of a bygone age; and yet their lives continue to provide a microcosm of social norms and wants. Never before has a cross-generation of imperial powers captured the public imagination as the current Windsor family. Perhaps Diana rocketed the royals to en vogue status, and her legacy is that the family are much more public property than before, an idea reignited by the marriage of Kate Middleton to William. Whilst the Queen is the staunch, strong and determined head of the family, she remains in the public eye and appears genuinely interested in maintaining links and visits to other Commonwealth nations. Her grandchildren are magnets of an eclectic mix of social respectability on the one hand, with numerous awards for their fighting and fundraising efforts, and extravagant parties on the other. Never has a previous century enjoyed such an intimate insight to regal routines.

As such, the jubilee is not so much a celebration of the power of the monarch, all but absorbed by government, but of the new generation of sovereign, who find themselves dedicated anew to the role of representing the sensibilities, morals and behaviours that are such causes for national pride.