Take care not to co-opt soldiers' and civilians' deaths

4 Comments

 

 

At Anzac Day it is common to set the deaths of the soldiers at Gallipoli into the context of a larger cause. Early war memorials declared their deaths to be for God, King and Country. Later comment frames them teleologically as shaping a template of national identity and of the national character.

Anzac Day Dawn Service at Kings Park, Western AustraliaThis year we celebrate Anzac Day in a sea of citizen deaths from terrorism and military actions. Killings in first world nations are also often set within a broader context such as democracy, national security, freedom or the Western way of life.

This framing within a broader context is initially attractive. It appears to give meaning and value to lives that ended randomly, and consolation to the people who love, grieve for and honour them. Those who die are revered as victims or martyrs for a cause; perpetrators can be hated as monsters or representatives of an alien ideology.

Deeper reflection, however, suggests that to attribute meaning and value to people through their relationship to a cause does not enhance but diminishes their humanity. It implies that human beings are given value only in relationship to some larger idea or institution.

They are not seen as precious in themselves, regardless of how ordinary was their life and random the circumstances of their death. Their title to being remembered is as a cipher for democracy or another abstraction, not as persons set in their unique everyday relationships and commitments. This view weakens the value of the cause they are made to stand for by obliterating the differences between people in their relationship to it.

The example of the early Christians who were killed brings out these differences. The death of some was tightly identified with their faith: they were offered the opportunity to live if they renounced their faith but refused to do so. Others refused to escape from danger and were summarily killed as Christians. Others had no option but to remain and were killed in a general massacre of nominal Christians, non-Christian and anti-Christians.

Of these, we might say that members of the first and second group died for their faith, but to co-opt the others would be disrespectful. It would implicitly deny that each person who died is equally valuable, and should be remembered and respected regardless of their relationship to Christian faith.

Similar differences exist between the soldiers who died at Gallipoli and between the civilians killed in terrorist attacks. Many soldiers would have seen themselves as fighting for God, King and Country. Others fought for their mates or by accident. Few civilians would have died for democracy if offered an escape. But the life of each soldier and each civilian was equally valuable and the death of each equally to be mourned regardless of the quality of their commitment.

 

"It is important to celebrate the courage and generosity of people who put their lives at risk in supporting a greater cause. But we should not ask ourselves what we'd be prepared to die for, but what we're prepared to live for."

 

To turn people into ciphers for or against a cause is unfair and misleading. It is right to grieve for the dead, to remember their lives, to grieve for the corruption of the spirit that led someone to see them as expendable for a cause, and to reflect on the motives that lie beneath the desire to identify them with a cause. It is also important to celebrate the courage and generosity of people who put their lives at risk in supporting a cause greater than themselves. Anzac Day reminds us that many soldiers have gone to war with that spirit.

Their example invites us to reflect on our own lives. But we should not ask ourselves what we would be prepared to die for, but what we are prepared to live for. That question leads us away from imagining final and decisive choices for or against some large value such as God, freedom or democracy. It urges us to consider the ordinary actions and passivity and the ordinary words and silences that shape our lives and reflect the quality of our relationships, our constancy and our love.

To live for democracy, for example, would mean developing habits of listening, consulting, appreciating difference, showing respect, forgiving, understanding — all the habits that sustain a public life built around the common good. Not as spectacular as dying for democracy, certainly, but perhaps just as difficult. It means paying as you go and not putting off the reckoning to the never never.

 


Andrew HamiltonAndrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street.

Pictured: Anzac Day Dawn Service at Kings Park, Western Australia

Topic tags: Andrew Hamilton, Anzac Day


 

submit a comment

Existing comments

Thank you Andrew for this re-framing of both the large-scale death of soldiers in war and of Christians in Rome during the two centuries before Constantine. Your essay provides a reality check for the politicians and churchmen who use remembrance of past mass killing to further their respective causes of nation and church. Respectful commemoration of those who died in service to the nation is best expressed by ensuring equity of opportunity, freedom and respect for all those living today ... such were the aims for which people have died, and people continue to die, in war.
Ian Fraser | 24 April 2017


Anzac Day in Australia has overwhelmed the individual and memorialised the corporate. It's been a way for this nation to cope with a searing grief which has never gone away. In important ways this is unhealthy. As noted in the article, the intrinsic value of individual lives has been given up to the concept of a cause. War changes every life - both those who died, and those who go on living. For those who go on living, the best memorial is to live for democracy.
Pam | 24 April 2017


A good point Andrew, to keep the individual at the centre rather than view their suffering and death as justified for a greater ideology or cause. Anzac Day is a time to focus on the individual who has entered eternal life, to pray that they may have peace and be in the divine light, in the fullness and bountiful freedom that is promised to all by Christ. Nations, Church, King and country are all man- made concepts, but God is uniquely and personally co-existent with the individual.
Trish Martin | 24 April 2017


Thank you, Andrew for this rich source of observations worth noting and remembering.
Sheelah | 24 April 2017


Similar Articles

It is my duty to remember

  • Gillian Bouras
  • 21 April 2017

Every Anzac Day there seem to be arguments about the legitimacy of what has been called the One Day of the Year. In the past I have taken my turn at rebutting views that express the belief that such days are part of a wholly reprehensible glorification of war. I've had a great deal of time to think about the matter, and also have a personal involvement: my grandfather and father were in the Australian Army, and both saw active service, about which periods they hardly ever spoke.

READ MORE

The counter-cultural, rehumanising work of volunteers

  • Fatima Measham
  • 27 April 2017

A significant portion of the work that goes on in our economy is voluntary. It features in many contexts, such as social welfare, mentoring, animal welfare, landcare, local sport, and arts and literary activities. It can be hard to make a case for volunteering at a time when labour exploitation is rife. Students, migrants and Indigenous people, who need to establish work experience, are particularly vulnerable when it comes to unpaid work. This does not mean that volunteer work can never be meaningful.

READ MORE