On Nov. 11, Commonwealth countries around the world will be celebrating what they know as “Remembrance Day”. Remembrance Day, or Veterans Day, honors the end of formal conflict during World War I and aims to appreciate all those who fought bravely in war: a mark of sombre celebration in the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month Throughout my Australian-inspired schooling, at 11 a.m. on Nov. 11 I have participated in two-minute silences, not only for those who perished during World War I, but for all those who have ever died fighting for my country. In addition to this, a red paper poppy was pinned to my shirt - a symbolic representation of the sacrifices these soldiers have made. Inspired by the poem “In Flanders’ Field”, the poppy-flower has become an emblem in British and Commonwealth societies for soldiers that passed away in World War I. Two weeks ago, a stunning art installation entitled ‘Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red’ began to be assembled outside the Tower of London. Just under 888,246 ceramic red poppies will be “planted” (one for each soldier who died), creating a moat of flowers surrounding the historic castle. The scene is beautiful - a glimpse into the innocent commemoration that these occasions attempt to achieve. But is this the best way to convey the casualties of war? Not only has this art piece been criticized for being too pretty, it has been argued that the installation undermines the genuine hardship and grief that World War I brought to civilians. The purpose of these poppies is to symbolize those who died fighting in war - where are our symbols for civilians who died as externalities? Thus, one inherent problem with ‘remembrance’ days is that they usually fail to honor innocent civilians, only acknowledging and ‘celebrating’ those who have participated in war. The Yasukuni Shrine, constructed in 1869, is a memorial that commemorates and honors all Japanese who died fighting for their country. Currently, more than 2,466,000 individuals are immortalized in this Shrine - including 14 individuals convicted by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East of crimes against peace and humanity. Whilst these criminals were released from jail in 1958, many in the international community still insist that Japan should not be ‘celebrating’ these individuals. The same problem is evident here: the civilians that these individuals committed crimes against are ignored; understandably, then, China and Taiwan have in particular pushed for the removal of these names, due to the crimes committed by the Japanese army during the Nanjing Massacre of 1937. This objection to the Yasukuni Shrine can be described as a pacifist perspective on these memorial days. In the case of an unjustified and belligerent war (such as the Sino-Japanese War of 1937), some argue that it is inherently wrong to honor these participating soldiers. In addition, it is not only past wars that these remembrance days are acknowledging. We are also commemorating the lives of soldiers lost in recent wars: in places such as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. With regards to the conflict against the Taliban in Afghanistan, deceased British soldiers have yet to be honored with a specific memorial. In the eyes of many Afghans, these soldiers, although acting nationalistically for their country, did harm civilians. This becomes a difficult moral issue: where can a line be drawn between honoring soldiers who have died and acknowledging the harm war brings to civilians? However, does a country not have the sovereign right to commemorate those who fought for them? With these remembrance days, individuals are remembering the hardships of war: the suffering of the families, friends and loved ones of all those who perished. The argument that Remembrance Day is not a celebration also stands: it is a time for reflection and to honor the hardships of the soldiers. This 'time for reflection' is particularly achieved with the two-minute silence. As King George V stated in 1919, a two-minute silence's purpose was: "All locomotion should cease, so that, in perfect stillness, the thoughts of everyone may be concentrated on reverent remembrance of the glorious dead." But as the nature of war shifts - generally, countries now declare that they are fighting for other, ‘weaker’ countries - soldiers are becoming more and more known as ‘aggressive’ rather than ‘glorious’. The debate around Remembrance Day in the UK is already embroiled in accusations of ‘poppy fascism’; as militarism becomes further and further resigned to ideological history rather than practice, will the practice of remembrance also diminish? This article was written by Bella Farr . Send an email to [email protected] to get in touch. Photo Credit:Wikimedia Commons