From Bottleneck.org
Poppy
I sat down here today to write a post about why Laurie Penny is wrong in this blog post for New Statesman, expecting it to be quite complicated, but I quickly realised that the answer, for me, is quite simple. There's nothing mutually exclusive in both being involved in war, and in honouring the dead and injured of war.
Laurie Penny accuses various companies involved in the arms business, and the administration of Great Britain, of being hypocritical by supporting the Poppy Appeal whilst manufacturing arms, and sending people off to fight and die in war.
Now, let's look at hypocrisy, as defined by Dictionary.com:
- 1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
- 2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
- 3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
These definitions all require a pretense by the object being described.
Now let's look at what the Poppy Appeal is all about. The Royal British Legion, the "custodians of Remebrance", have this to say:
- Remembrance Day and the Two Minute Silence have been observed since the end of the First World War, but their relevance remains undiminished. When we bow our heads in reflection, we remember those who fought for our freedom during the two World Wars. But we also mourn and honour those who have lost their lives in more recent conflicts. Today, with troops on duty in Afghanistan and other trouble spots around the world, Remembrance, and this two minute tribute, are as important as ever.
The stated purpose of Remembrance is to "remember those who fought for our freedom" and to "mourn and honour those who have lost their lives." No mention there of remembering the horror of war, or the futility of war, or remembering that all war is bad (though no harm in bearing that in mind either!) I see nothing in remembering, mouring and honouring that is mutually exclusive with the belief that some wars are necessary, and to give Laurie Penny her due, she even acknowledges that "particularly in the case of the Second World War, there were clear moral and practical reasons why conflict was unavoidable."
So in supporting the Poppy Appeal, are BAE Systems and the British administration indulging in a "pretense" that they wish to remember, mourn, and honour the dead? To my mind, that case is unproven. One could be cynical and say that they are well aware that their support is a "desirable or publicly approved attitude", but that still would not necessarily imply that they are holding that attitude as a "pretense." Again, I see nothing to stop one believing in something, whilst still recognising that there is public approval for the attitude one holds, or even that one is benefitting from that public approval.
I suppose what it comes down to is a level of cynicism. I choose to believe that the likes of BAE Systems, whilst making money out of arms, still has it in their corporate soul to spare a thought for the victims of those arms. I choose to believe that the British administration, whilst still sending people to war, might believe that conflict is for "clear moral and practical reasons", and still honour and mourn those who are lost. Laurie Penny unfortunately, seems to be a bigger cynic than I, and would rather believe that, because she doesn't believe in the current conflict, the administration must be sufficiently cold hearted as to only pretend to remember, honour and mourn those lost in it.