So our leader-in-waiting wants Remembrance Sunday to become ‘British Day’, modelled on US Fourth of July celebrations.
All I can say is: he can try to manufacture a national day if he wants, and I’m not opposed in principle (though I’m not convinced it’d work), but he should leave Remembrance Sunday alone. Surely the point is that that’s an international day, a day when we should put nationalism to one side: indeed, when we might do well to reflect on its dark side, the ways in which it’s contributed to conflict and destruction in the modern world.
You know, I fear that we’re going to be subjected to a stream of Tony-ish bright ideas over the next couple of years as Gordon tries to show us that he isn’t really boring after all. Please, please, spare us…
7 comments on “‘British Day’”
[...] Via Early Modern Notes comes the news that Gordon Brown wants to turn Remembrance Sunday into British Day. Aside from Sharon’s remarks to the effect that this would obscure what is supposed to be remembered on that day [...]
Britblog Roundup # 48…
Our 48 th step into thre breach that is the Britblog Roundup, you nominations for the best blog posts of the past week from the four nations on these Isles. You can make your nominations for next week’s simply by…
Gosh, it’s almost like we need a dashing young historian who’s just written a book on remembering war to concoct some sort of post on this… Let me put my writing shoes on.
I AGREE entirely with the initiator of this “blog” (do I have it right? Is that what it is? So ignorant am I alas in matters internet, or at least in respect of the new language that goes with it ), Sharon Howard, to the effect that the essence of 11 November Armistice Day (no longer observed in the United Kingdom but which must, clearly, be considered as inseparable from the post-Second World War ‘Remembrance Sunday’ in more respects than its proximity to, and in fact dependence upon, in the calendar, the day formerly so observed, the true anniversary, 11 November 1918) is, or was, its international character, thus ruling out immediately the prospect of its celebration as “British Day”, as proposed by our current Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech on inter alia ‘Britishness’, or what used to be called allegiance, or loyalty, making any sense whatsoever.
But goodness gracious (and why am I, for goodness sake, almost alone in saying this, or if not alone the only one so far as I am aware who has provided, in full his reasons, as I intend now to do, for saying it?) is not the overwhelming seriousness of this matter that it immediately calls in question, regardless of his record in his present position, the suitability of Gordon Brown to be our PRIME MINISTER, with all the responsibilities including international ones, that go along with that post (and indeed the suitability of any person who happens to agree with him, and to say so)?
At this point I should add that although I agree that the character of Armistice Day is international, that is not to say that it is ‘international’ in the abstract; on the contrary it relates, as befits an anniversary, to certain specific events.
Alas I am running out of time in the public library. If anyone wishes to discuss these important matters further please contact me peter.judge {at} laposte(.)net, at your service, or let us do it, with permission, on “Early Modern Web”. Thank you.
Peter Judge
Peter: Well I wouldn’t have said it because I really don’t think it’s that serious. Since you are new to this, however, I’ll just point out that this is not a political blog and there are other places where you could make better use of your limited computer time. You might find this link a good starting point to seek out people who want to discuss this kind of thing.
The limit on my time was a time limit in the library.
As I have said I take these things seriously. So I am prepared to spend time on them. Perhaps an indication of this is that I have spent a decade investigating them, and it has involved me in amongst other things several court cases on administrative law issues of one sort and another (all, I must say, as a litigant in person, without legal aid, and involving me in costs of several thousands of pounds that I have had to find entirely out of my own pocket in what is after all a public interest matter).
Gordon Brown has proved that he is either ignorant (which I doubt) or he knows exactly what he is up to and is in league with the all the other bullies in the executive who for whatever reason wish in this ‘free’ country to impose their own view of history at the expense of the law and the facts. There you are that’s subversive talk? No it’s not subversive at all, it is common sense for those who know the facts, and the truth that goes with them.
I am not sure whether that is politics, Sharon, or history and architecture (for these are certainly involved) or some combination of these things.
In any event I take these things seriously and will continue to do so.
I understand from what you say however that so far as ‘Early Modern Notes’ is concerned this matter (which you initiated, not myself) is now, (likewise by yourself) to be brought forthwith to a close? … you may indeed be right, it is not simply my time which is at stake but that of everybody else including your own … but that I take it is invariably, on the the internet, the case, and it is a question, as always of how one sorts out one’s personal priorities.
I know, or think I know, where mine are. In any event, I conclude on ‘Early Modern Notes’ and say farewell, with best wishes for your excellent and amusing site and with my thanks to you for having gone to the trouble of replying to me at all … for many people do not!
Peter Judge
P.S.
Thanks also for the useful web link; your advice has been acted upon forthwith but I get the message ‘don’t hold your breath, it may take me four days to get round to it’ … more time rationing.
Best regards to all, good luck to Britain!
Peter Judge
eter