Introduction
Majority of people living or have lived on this planet have been a part of some major conflict. Either that would be World War I, The fall of the Twin Towers or in recent the ISIS attacks. From these attacks death and sorrow fall upon the victims, their families and the whole nation itself. Society places a big deal on remembering these conflicts, and through the use of monuments, and days of remembrance, the members of society come together and reflect on the death and sorrow. In this essay I will be discussing the why and how different societies remember conflict and the functions of such remembering. In the essay I will be mentioning why monuments are of high importance to society and why we need to gather at such monuments. Collective memory and why it is important for members of society to gather at these monuments to reflect on the past. The idea of building a national identity to help remember the fallen. And finally, I will be discussing the functions of remembering and the ideal of memory. In this essay I will be focusing most of my examples on Australia, more in particularly the ANZAC’s and ANZAC day. Also, Germany and how they were able to rebuild themselves from the Holocaust. I will be examining and researching other researchers/ anthropologist’s papers and essays and putting together my argument that by societies remembering their conflicts that they are able to rebuild and continue functioning as a society for the future generations.
Body
Across the country of Australia and many places around the globe, you can find monuments and memorials in significant parts of said country or city. The most complex one we have in Australia and the most significant one is the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. But why are these artefacts of our past erected in the first place? As said by many scholars discussing about the remembrance through memorials, they stated that through materialising past conflict that stories and narratives come together to form a memory (Beckstead, Twose, Levesque-Gottlieb & Rizzo, 2011, page 195). Whether that story is of triumph and victory, or of defeat a monument paints a picture inside people’s heads. By constructing these memorials, people in society can come together and create a social memory, and society puts a high importance on societies past conflicts. I agree that we should put a high importance on such memorials as it serves a reminder for future generations of our countries past, the sacrifices that were made from families and to remind said future generations on what might happen if war and conflict does arise in the future. In the paper by Beckstead, Twose, Levesque-Gottlieb & Rizzo, it is mentioned multiple times about the materials that are used in these monuments. They quoted “The use of hard, long-lasting materials such as concrete, brick and mortar […] (Macdonald, 2006)” (Beckstead, Twose, Levesque-Gottlieb & Rizzo, 2011, page 195). I do believe this it does make sense to construct monuments out of durable materials as it reflects to society how much sacrifice means to them and that the governing bodies responsible of the construction don’t want the public to view that we do not care about the fallen victims of war crimes. But I sometimes think that in the next 100 years or so, should future generations continue remembering past conflicts. In the next century, should Australia continue to have an ANZAC day and Remembrance Day? As stated before memorials are created by stories and narratives from past conflicts either victories or defeat. So, should future Australians remember the time when the ANZACS landed on that beach and were slaughtered? Teaching this history to children at a young age and emphasising that you should never ever do this is a good idea, as without this prior knowledge, history can repeat itself. But should future generations continue to remember a huge military mistake? Arguably I don’t think we should, but for the sake of not repeating history it should be remembered. As quoted by George Santayana in Barbara Tint’s paper “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (Tint 2010: 329)
Monuments are not just an intimate object that sits in a park. People of society interact with them that creates a Collective memory. Paez & Liu (2010: 207) describe the construction of Collective memory as ‘shared memories of relevant public events’. When people from society come together at these monuments a collective memory forms as stories and narratives from past wars are shared. These can be in the form of services or through history. Paez & Liu (2010: 105) quoted that “Collective memory is widely shared knowledge of past social events that may not have been personally experienced but are collectively constructed through communicative social functions (Schuman & Scott, 1989)”. This quote in itself is extremely true as we have all gone to an ANZAC service and we are taught what has happened to Australian soldier’s and why we are all gathered here today. As most major conflicts in Australia have happened before most of us were born, we don’t know what happened and we can’t exactly feel bad for the loss of the fallen. But somehow when we are in that group environment we can generate feelings of sorrow and pity. In Tint’s (2010: 241) Paper about Collective memory, she argues that collective memory is a significant construct in considering societies with a long history of conflict. I disagree with this statement as Australia is only a new country and the Australian Military has not fought in many wars. In the context of other societies such as America and Germany (in which these countries have a rich past full of different conflicts), then this statement would apply. As collective memory has to meet the requirements of having past experiences and for people to be social in these, Australia can fall out of having a collective memory if we do consider the statement. I believe that no matter what country or society, you do not need to have a long history of conflict. Said society just needs to be in a conflict and have the members of said society engage socially in sharing these past conflicts, no matter if it had a positive or negative outcome. When society is in the presence of a collective memory in a case such as a Memorial Day, not much is said about the opposing side. A brief section of a service is dedicated to what our nation’s military has done and not a lot about who we fought. Rafi Nets (Nets, 2013: 211) argues that when a narrative is adopted in the collective memory, it shapes the psychological and behavioural reactions of each party positively towards itself and negatively towards its rival. I disagree with this argument as collective memories should only focus on the victories or defeats of said society/ country and not to think negatively on the other. In memorials we shouldn’t be fixated to think on the negatives that has happened by our rivals. But it does make you think that if this statement was true, what the rivals would say about us? Over time stories get manipulated and changed like a game of Chinese Whispers. I believe that we shouldn’t worry too heavily on our rivals in conflicts as it does damage their identity as a nation and it manipulates future generations minds on what they might think of said nation. For example, with the Holocaust and Germans, back in World War 2 there were negative associations with them, but now that times have changed we tend to think less about Germans now and their past.
Just like every individual person on this planet has an identity, so do nations and societies. As quoted by Gareth Evans (2011) “The sense of national identity is never stronger than when countries are at war […] or remembering war”. When us Australians remember the wars the we have fought in, the ANZAC’s and other war narratives, we get a sense of pride that we are a part of this great nation. The idea that we are mates in battle and we all know that mates never let you down and they are always by your side. Even relating themselves to war stories such as Simpson and his donkey, going out in battle and bringing back wounded soldiers. But what is Australia’s true identity? Clemence Due’s paper about the Australian Identity in wars, he mentions multiple times about the Aboriginal and Torrens Straight Islanders, and how us white Australian’s celebrate ANZAC day, priorities our ANZACS. Due quotes “Australian identity prioritises white belonging as the dominant mode of belonging in Australia” (Due, 2015: 28). This is great counter argument to most scholars writing about image and identity. Coming back to Paez’s and Liu’s paper about Collective Memory, they mention that collective memory maintains a positive image of the group (Paez & Liu, 2010:105-106). Us as Australians have been brainwashed and manipulated into thinking that the ANZAC’s were the true hero’s and by celebrating ANZAC day (and other Australian holidays), that this was our nations identity. In Due’s paper he mentions that when John Howard was Prime Minister, he reinforced how important it was to remember the ANZAC’s via ANZAC day and how it was important to Australia’s national identity (Due, 2015: 25). Due argues that this could be seen as white washing our Australian identity. I agree with Due’s arguments in his paper, and I agree that us as a nation of Australians should be more conscious. When narratives of conflict are discussed there is almost a certain objective behind the discussion. What most scholars have said in their own research papers is that it increases nationalism (Beckstead, Twose, Levesque & Rizzo, 2011:196) when discussing about war memorials and when in a group gathering at memorials it reinforces values and attitudes of the community towards those deeds. This in itself helps with the National and societal identity.
As mentioned early the reason why we remember conflicts is so that future generations won’t make the same mistakes. That statement in itself is true, but that isn’t entirely the reason why we remember. We don’t remember whole wars and conflicts from start to finish. As said by most historians “History is written by the victorious”. But at often times we are not taught to remember the defeats of conflicts and war. We are not told to remember what happened at Gallipoli to the ANZAC’s. Often times it may seem odd to try and forget about the past. We as individuals have all been through something terrible in our lives. The same can be said about nations and conflict. Past conflicts can resonate with a country for generations. An example of this is Germany and the Holocaust. For the past 3 generations we still have a negative connotation with the Germans, and they know it themselves. After the Holocaust, the people of Germany wanted to forget what has happened, and it was considered taboo if a German was proud of their country at the time. In a paper written by Wagoner and Bresćo they state, “The past becomes a tool for creating change or stability as well as promoting or inhibiting conflicts” (Wagoner & Bresćo, 2016: 3). I agree with this quote as it does and can relate back to the example of Germany. Today in schools, young German children have their past conflicts drilled into their heads. But remembering the past can sometimes become a negative. In Brady’s & Bresćo’s paper, they argue that with conflicts it can imply bringing the past into the present and with it the old scares, grievances, resentments, hatreds and senses of revenge (Wagoner & Bresćo, 2016: 3). We shouldn’t live in the past and remember what country did what to us. Marcie Mersky argues that there are many who argue that it is best to turn the page (Mersky, 2016: 2). I agree with Mersky’s arguments in her article. Sometimes it is best for us to leave the past behind in order not to get caught up in revenge thinking. I believe that in order for a society to continue functioning after a major conflict, they have to forget about what they did and move on. A perfect example of this and is one they I have mentioned before is Germany. They were able to move on from their past conflicts and were able to rebuild and rebrand themselves as a good country and society.
In the case of forgetting a conflict, a war between Britain and Korea occurred in 1950 to 1953. Britain wanted to forget about its conflict. It was only recently in 2014 that a memorial was erected, dedicated to the Korean war. Grace Huxford states that forgetting is a vital component in understanding post-war societies (Huxford, 2016: 198). I disagree with this statement as societies shouldn’t be forgetting conflicts in the first place. Forgetting is not a vital component, it should be remembering. What use is forgetting a conflict and moving on like it hasn’t happened at all. In the case of Britain in this war, roughly about 40,000 servicemen were involved in this war and about 1000 died. How can you just simply forget that? In Due’s paper about National identity, he summarises that us Australians didn’t recognise the aboriginals and service women in the wars and we were prioritising our ANZAC’s. Similar views can be said about the men that died in the Korean war. It is now only recently that we are remembering these other parties in conflicts. Huxford states that reinstating ‘forgotten voices’ into the historical narrative has been a central feature of social history (Huxford, 2016: 196). And I do believe that this is true in the 21st century. Us as Australians are now recognising the work and service that the Aboriginals and women have done in our conflicts. Huxford quotes from Cynthia Enloe, post war periods are fraught with gendered decisions about which selected images are privileged over others (Huxford, 2016: 198). I agree with this quote as this has been true for most of the 20th century. It is only that we are acknowledging this. Monuments of these are now erected in memory of them and their work. You can see them clearly around Australia, as of recently in Adelaide, a memorial and statue of the Aboriginals the fought in our countries wars is now erected. We as a society are now remembering what was once forgotten.
Conclusion
Many societies around the world have been involved in one conflict or another. In this essay I have argued the importance of remembering conflicts, through the use of monuments. I have related these monuments to the people of society and how these people coming together to form a social memory is a key and good way of remembering. I’ve stated that just like us individuals, a nation has an identity. By remembering our conflicts, we are building a national identity. I’ve given an example of this with the ANZAC’s and ANZAC day, and how us Australians remembering the fallen on this day, it creates an identity for our society, in this case it is mateship. I’ve also discussed why we remember our past conflicts and its functions. We remember not just to pay our respects, but to ensure that these conflicts will not happen again with future generations. In this regard, I have talked about what happens when a society tries to forget about its past conflicts and have used the example of the Korean war and Britain ignoring it. In my honest opinion, we have come a long way since the 20th century. Not only has globalisation helped us to become friends with different nations, but it has also aided in remembering our past and ensuring that future conflicts do not happen again. I believe that us as a society should continue to remember our fallen soldiers, nurses and service men and women no matter what the pigment of your skin is. And as time goes on, we should be remembering what was forgotten and to form a social memory with what was forgotten.
Word count: 2700