RDF/RSS Feed
Atom Feed
It’s Veteran’s Day in the U.S., which is a day of remembrance for more than those who died–remembrance also of those veterans who came home and quietly set about rejoining the fabric of civilian life–who became, or returned to being, farmers, carpenters, plumbers, police officers, parents, and so on.
Fictionally, veterans have had interesting “remembrance”…sometimes as foolish, self-centered old men boring everyone with their stories of wars past and demanding privileges that (on examination of their war record) they didn’t deserve…sometimes as heroes looked up to by the community for leadership. In real life they’ve been reviled (as some were during and after ‘Nam), nearly canonized into faux sainthood, neglected (all too often), used for photo ops by ambitious politicians (all too often), and treated in all the various ways non-veterans have been treated.
Arturo Pérez-Reverte, in his books about the fictional Captain Alatriste, does a fine job showing the veteran’s view from inside–in this case inside 17th c. Spain, where the underpaid (and sometimes unpaid) Alatriste struggles to survive, having to become a hire-sword to keep bread in his mouth between campaigns with the tercio. Veterans in some societies are seen as a liability, a menace, and in others as a resource.
In Paks’s world, veterans find the same mix of reactions, depending on whose veterans they were and where they are. When there’s not a war on, as Kipling pointed out so eloquently, nobody wants the soldier around, and when there’s a war on, the old soldier may be wanted or unwanted, depending. One of the men killed at Fort Hood last week had been trying to get back into the military for years–and finally did–and finally died. In Paks’s third campaign year, in Sheepfarmer’s Daughter, the Duke called out everyone he could, including some of his old veterans who had settled down in the north. And some of them died.
There is no single day set aside in Paks’s world to honor those who served in the past, the living and the dead. That was a deliberate choice, made knowing it would bother some people. Each military group has its own tradition, and some of those do have a ceremony of remembrance that includes its living, but not-active, veterans. Others shrug off those who retire.
Makes for interesting side-stories sometimes. Something may come of it (though it hasn’t yet.)
Comment by Rachel — November 11, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
One of the things that makes honoring veterans complicated is that they all feel differently about how they should be honored. My best friend was a marine sniper and served 3 tours in Iraq, and he strongly prefers not to be recognized on Vetren’s Day (or in general), while my grandfather who served in WW II appreciates the recognition. This difference in how the veterans feel also influence the reactions of the people around them, which makes the whole situation more complex.
I tried to write about the difficulties of veterans dealing with civilians, but it didn’t turn out very well. I would like to see what kind of story you could come up with.
Comment by elizabeth — November 11, 2009 @ 11:04 pm
You’re right, Rachel…and I think recent vets are, in recent wars anyway, least likely to want recognition while they’re still young. For any given vet, it can change with age, and also with a variety of cultural/political things and personal experience in the war. But I don’t think any veteran resents simple respect. I went through some prickly years on this myself…but as time has passed, I am both humbled and grateful for expressions of respect from others, whether vets themselves or not. (Except politicians who are using it as a photo op kind of thing. Ick.)
Comment by Kip Colegrove — November 12, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
My father was a veteran of combat in the Pacific theater of World War II, and a veteran of many other interesting military experiences. From his manner of serving while on active duty, from his stories, and from the manner of his decline in later years, I formed a simple rule-of-thumb standard for evaluating the heart of a society: how does it treat veterans? (Later I added to this, how does it treat prisoners, especially those with a military and/or political aspect? At present I’m thinking of adding, how does it treat sick people?)
Comment by Patrick — November 12, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
I was recently on a week-long meditation retreat. I’ve never been a visible veteran. I don’t think Vietnam veterans tend to be. But there was a fellow there that I hung with who is also a Vietnam vet, and it became a topic of conversation. This other fellow, at some point, thanked me for serving in Viet Nam. I was dumbfounded. So dumbfounded I gave him the finger. (wonder he didn’t punch me) But I thought he was goofing on me. Probably all the sitting meditation.
The thing about the accidental, citizen warrior is, I don’t really want gratitude for having served in a war… but I appreciate the respect for having served. That’s what I thought I was doing when I was 19, serving my country. Now the fact that it wasn’t a Good War? At the age of 62, I’m not sure there is such a thing. And soldiers know that better than anyone, especially better than the politicians.
Comment by elizabeth — November 12, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
It’s interesting, the situations in which veterans sometimes recognize one another without having said anything obvious before then. On the eve of the first Gulf War, I was traveling, and found that in the airport reserves still in civvies headed for their assignments, active duty personnel, and us veterans were all locking eyes and giving each other mental acknowledgment.
I think the lack of desire for ‘gratitude’ is, at least in part, revulsion at the way it’s been fulsomely handed out by politicians making political hay. And we didn’t do it for the gratitude, though yeah, the respect is really nice. What nomilitary need to understand is that in our system, it’s the civilians who decide which wars to send us to…so if they don’t like what they did, they should look in the mirror.
Comment by elizabeth — November 12, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
Kip, my current position is “How does society treat those who are powerless to prevent bad treatment?” Veterans, especially those wounded; prisoners; children; the disabled; foreigners; the “different.” When it’s “safe” to mistreat an individual or a group…does society do it, or play fair?
Comment by Elizabeth D. — November 15, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
My father-in-law died in 2003, and was a veteran of WWII and Korea. He was decorated, and had served in the Philippines in the liberation force. He had started to show signs of Alzheimer’s, but in September of 2001 the symptoms became acute: in his assisted living home in Brooklyn, he tried to rescue the residents because he thought “the enemy” was coming through the doors. It was quite a burden to carry. He and his brother had both served in the South Pacific, and they were both very much against the wars in Vietnam and the Gulf war, because they believed those wars were aggressive and political, not defensive, and also because they felt that their family had already given in WWII and earlier wars. They also didn’t like the body counts of Vietnam, or firing on retreating soldiers in the Gulf war, which violated common sense. After WWII and Korea, as civilians, they did not vote for anybody who would put us into a war, but that didn’t stop the politicians at the top. My father-in-law also wondered what we were protecting, the U.S. or special interests, such as oil, or shipping routes for big business. He only lost his opinions when his memory went.
When he died, he was buried in one of the National cemeteries, near his brother who had died only a few months before him. We were very satisfied with the honor guard and short ceremony at the cemetery, and it was an honor to be present. I have always thanked veterans for their service, but I agree with my father-in-law about how war is conducted.
Comment by elizabeth — November 15, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
The Greek poet Theognis wrote, over 2000 years ago, that peace nourished the farmer even on the rocky mountain, but war impoverished the farmer even in the fertile plain.
War is brutal, cruel, destructive to people, possessions, animals, and land…and very, very expensive. It is also ubiquitous in human history, with very few exceptions (and those cultures were rarely free of violence–they just lacked the resources and organization for war.)
Most wars that we know of–that we have enough facts about–were started for stupid reasons, though the defensive response may have been necessary for survival. Fear makes lousy decisions. One war-driver is population growth, but every side is convinced that its population is the one that should prevail.
At the very least, anyone proposing a war should have absorbed a lot of the lessons of history (I can think of those who shrugged off the lessons of history as irrelevant…), should have a very clear view of the cost (monetary, psychological, etc, etc.) of war. Most such people don’t, and that’s not just Americans.