In Remembrance of the Victims of War

Sometimes I wonder, we demand that governments apologise for the misdeeds of their predecessors whether it comes to the Nanjing Massacre, the slaughter of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the enslavement of Africans, the 'stolen generation' of Australia, the extermination of the Jews in WWII.....but why no such demands when it comes to the soldiers who died in wars, as opposed to 'glorification'. I dare say that when we look close enough, we'll find that, oftentimes, those whom dispatched us to do battle might very well have been complicit in some way in founding it. So, as i stood there looking at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday, I couldn't help wondering if i ought to be 'respecting' or 'glorifying them' - as stipulated by the engraving on the monument - or if we ought to be apologising to them for not learning the lessons from and between the wars of the past and present in spite of their sacrifice.

...not 'the Glorious Dead', but the 'Victims of War', lest the former term enables them to be enlisted posthumously to reinforce the conditions that led to their untimely demise.

Did they die for 'King and Country', or did 'King and Country' serve as the last refuge from whence they attempted to make sense of that which was beyond ours and their comprehension? For that,they deserve not our gratitude, but our heartfelt apologies.

In truth, wars do not make heroes out of wo/man, it is the humanity that struggles to survive within them despite war or 'King and country' that does it.

In Remembrance of,



  1. To justify the cause of the war, the losses would be glorified.

    To analyse the reason for the war, we probably would be apologising for those who sacrificed.


Post a Comment

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.