Commemmoration ceremonies

Denerick

What do you think about these? I've always been quite queasy about the idea; mostly because it is implicitly an act of mythologisation (Probably not a real word) What I mean is that the very act of official commemmoration creates an 'official narrative'. This may be one that reaffirms the founding myths of the nation (e.g, The Americans and their revolutionary obsession, France and Bastille day, Ireland and the famine) or one that challenges it (e.g. Nazi's commemmorating the Dresden bombing, Republicans commemmorating Irish nationalist leaders - believe me, I'm not invoking Godwins law, these were the only examples I could think of)

So what is the point? It seems to be either an irritating day out for the middle classes to pat themselves on the back and ensure that their tenuous grasp of history is nice and simplified or it allows extremists of every hue to add an even more galling simplification of history to suit narrow ideological purposes.

I don't think that the services are of themselves an evil, but the people behind them. I reject the idea that the State should play any role, but then again private interests are just as flawed and potentially damaging.

The only possible benefit is that it honours those who may still be alive after the events, or their immediate descendants. For example British ceremonies that recognise the struggle of their young men during WWII and honouring the surviving veterans of the conflict.

In America, the focus has long been on the individual men who fought in wars. Witness the many memorials to the Vietnam and Korean wars. The monuments and statues are generally highly personal, unromantic plaques listing the dead or images of young men, frightened but determined to carry on.

Any opinions? This is pure ramble so feel free to step on the soapbox.

Morlar

Denerick wrote: »

...the very act of official commemmoration creates an 'official narrative'. This may be one that reaffirms the founding myths of the nation (e.g, The Americans and their revolutionary obsession, France and Bastille day, Ireland and the famine) or one that challenges it (e.g. Nazi's commemmorating the Dresden bombing, Republicans commemmorating Irish nationalist leaders - believe me, I'm not invoking Godwins law, these were the only examples I could think of)

Can you expand on what you mean by this ? In what way do 'republicans commemorating Irish Nationalist leaders' challenge the accepted narrative ?

Which republicans and which Irish Nationalist leaders and which accepted narrative ? Also as regards 'nazis' commemorating the Dresden bombing I am not sure this is a challenge to the official narrative either. Regardless of comemorations the official narrative has been dubious since about the day after the bombings when churchill tried to distance himself from it.

Denerick wrote: »

So what is the point? It seems to be either an irritating day out for the middle classes to pat themselves on the back and ensure that their tenuous grasp of history is nice and simplified or it allows extremists of every hue to add an even more galling simplification of history to suit narrow ideological purposes.

Those are not the only 2 possibilities - smug middle classes and extremists. You are either ignoring the rest of society or placing them into those 2 little groups you just created. Not everyone with an interest in a historical comemoration is smug middle class with a tenous grasp of history or an extremist. What would make you think that you are entitled to disenfranchise people who might well be middle class and may not have read the same books you have ? You probably have not read all the books they have and so who is to say you are right and they are wrong anyway.

Denerick wrote: »

I don't think that the services are of themselves an evil, but the people behind them.

I think you need to clarify which exact commemorations you are referring to here.

Denerick wrote: »

I reject the idea that the State should play any role, but then again private interests are just as flawed and potentially damaging.

The state has a perfectly legitimate role in organising Irish historical commemorations in Ireland.

Denerick wrote: »

The only possible benefit is that it honours those who may still be alive after the events, or their immediate descendants. For example British ceremonies that recognise the struggle of their young men during WWII and honouring the surviving veterans of the conflict.

That is one benefit - it is not the only possible benefit.