deadhead | 21 Jan 2016 8:15 a.m. PST |
It may just be me, but I was shocked to learn last night that the skeleton found during the excavation of a car park for the Waterloo Museum, later identified as a Hanoverian infantryman, is now put on display in that museum. I've ranted enough in an earlier thread, but feel strongly about this. TMP link I thought the French Hussar at Le Calliou was bad enough, but put that down to the bad taste of a century ago, especially when it came to public exhibition and entertainment of the masses. Is this right? |
Gunfreak | 21 Jan 2016 8:29 a.m. PST |
I gave my reply in the other thread. |
Reactionary | 21 Jan 2016 8:34 a.m. PST |
|
PiersBrand | 21 Jan 2016 8:44 a.m. PST |
Better put all those Mummies back too… Probably quite a few skeletons on display in museums around the world. |
Gunfreak | 21 Jan 2016 8:46 a.m. PST |
And dead prisoners in schools, colleges and universities. |
Ligniere | 21 Jan 2016 9:18 a.m. PST |
Deadhead I'm sure you've heard of Jeremy Bentham at the University College in London….. That's really bad link In this instance it was the wishes of Bentham himself to be mummified and displayed – that certainly wasn't the case of the poor soldier[s] from Waterloo. I think I agree, they deserve due respect – and should be reburied appropriately. |
Martin Rapier | 21 Jan 2016 9:37 a.m. PST |
Whether you may consider it 'right' or not, there are all sorts of rules, regulations and international agreements around the curation of human remains. These vary form one country to another, but in the UK, the critical time period for the application of extra rigorous processes is 100 years (largely following the scandal around unconsented retention of human tissue in hospital in recent decades). These guys are over 200 years dead and in same category as medieval warriors, vikings et al whose bones grace our various museums. Interestingly, there were well in excess of 60,000 (some estimates put it over 100,000) full or partial sets of human remains held by museums alone in the UK. You may of course feel free to approach the Belgian authorities about this particular case. |
Cerdic | 21 Jan 2016 10:15 a.m. PST |
Can't see anything wrong with it, myself. When you dead, you dead. And all that! |
ironicon | 21 Jan 2016 10:34 a.m. PST |
Would you like to be displayed 200 years after you had died in battle? May be we should dig up Arlington and display them. I have to say, personally I'm outraged. Has "modern times" totally warped our humanity? |
arthur1815 | 21 Jan 2016 10:53 a.m. PST |
Personally, I wouldn't mind my skeleton being displayed if it served a purpose, such as helping people in the future to understand the lives of people like me in this era. I would be equally happy for parts of my anatomy to be used for transplants, medical research or training doctors – it's better than simply being reduced to a heap of ashes. I don't see that this soldier's remains are being treated with disrespect; rather, his suffering and experiences are being honoured. A better fate than simply being used as a source of false teeth and fertiliser, which was the fate of many of his comrades and enemies. |
deadhead | 21 Jan 2016 11:01 a.m. PST |
must agree with much of what is said. I certainly want my bits left to medical science, but the family is less convinced. Jeremy Bentham…Oh yes…I know him. I spent 5 years at UCH! They renamed the local pub The Duke of Wellington as the Jeremy Bentham………….PC gone mad. He chose that fate. I would choose to donate organs (but at 62 years and hardly an ideal liver donor…………maybe not to be taken up). I would only ask yet again, does anyone really believe this 1815 Hanoverian would have chosen this? (Which may not matter one hoot 200 years after he died, you may argue) |
Double G | 21 Jan 2016 4:13 p.m. PST |
"It may just be me"…………….IMO, yes it is. |
dibble | 21 Jan 2016 5:23 p.m. PST |
Perhaps they should put the next remains that are dug up in Flanders on display for 'better understanding' instead of him being interred under a grave stone with the words 'AN UNKNOWN SOLDIER KNOWN ONLY UNTO GOD'. Paul |
daler240D | 22 Jan 2016 12:46 a.m. PST |
"too soon", as they say in comedy. |
Edwulf | 22 Jan 2016 1:06 a.m. PST |
My feelings are mixed. Though I couldn't use words like outrage. It's quite likely that in 2215 ww1 soldiers bones wil be getting the same treatment. If we do give him a decent burial… Does that mean we cant study older ones. They are all worthy of the same respect surely. We going to start burying the bones of Neanderthals and Medieval knights? Still. Something about it leaves an uneasy feeling. But maybe that's because I've spent a lot of time reading, painting and talking about these guys that i have a more sentimental attitude. But then the sight of it does bring home the reality of it all a little more. |
Marcel1809 | 22 Jan 2016 2:15 a.m. PST |
Doesn't bother me, on the contrary, it shows the brutal reality of combat. First you see al the beautifull (reconstructed) uniforms, then you are confronted with the skeleton that was left and forgotten for nearly 200 years… After all nobody (or hardly anybody) cared for the dead soldiers at the time, they were tossed in massed graves, no attempt at identification was made. I find the display fitting within the whole framework of the(excellent) museum at Waterloo. |
dibble | 22 Jan 2016 2:25 a.m. PST |
The remains of Richard III was 'after study, interred. Doing forensic study on the remains is one thing, putting the remains on public display after such study is another. |
Mollinary | 22 Jan 2016 4:03 a.m. PST |
It isn't just you. I too am very uncomfortable about this, particularly as it is so unnecessary. There has been plenty of opportunity to study the bones scientifically, and now they are on display I assume that such study has finished. A cast taken of the bones would be perfectly serviceable as the centre of a display to point out the whole process of excavation and discovery. The same is true for the Hussar of Le Caillou. The argument that they were all buried without care at the time means they are fair game doesn't cut it for me. I know there is no easy answer, and the issue of Pharoes, natives from the colonial period, Philip of Macedon etc all muddy the water. In the end, I think we probably have to make a judgement a case at a time. In this particular case I am not sure any good outweighs our duty of respect. End of rant. Mollinary |
Brownbear | 22 Jan 2016 4:22 a.m. PST |
I don't mind that a skeleton is shown but doubt it had to be a real one. I would have thought that a cast could be taken and that shown and the real bones buried with all the respect it earns. And that would be respectfull to other human remains displayed in other museums worldwide too. |
von Winterfeldt | 22 Jan 2016 6:32 a.m. PST |
go to diverse bone houses of WW1 – there are thousands of human bones on display – I cannot object to a human skeleton displayed in a museum, I cannot see any breech in humanity, what is about interviews of relatives on life tv when one of their closest relatives, children, husband, mother were killed in an horrendous accident?? |
Ligniere | 22 Jan 2016 6:58 a.m. PST |
What does the skeleton teach us about the battle – very little. Maps, uniforms, 3D dioramas, short video clips teach us so much more than the static remains of a poor individual who died in an agonizing way could ever do. If you want to learn something about the shocking horror of war, fire a 6 pound roundshot at a ballistic gel dummy, film it, and show that on repeat….. We owe that poor soldier a decent burial. |
Marcel1809 | 22 Jan 2016 7:35 a.m. PST |
Honour his memory yes like al the others, but bones are just bones, no more no less.and so I get upset about how people can get upset over 200 years bones. |
Ligniere | 22 Jan 2016 7:54 a.m. PST |
Marcel1809 In this case, I believe Gareth Glover undertook valuable research and was able to offer a possible identify for this Hanoverian soldier, a name. That makes this much more than just a collection of bones. If it were a partial skeleton, a few fragments exhumed by a bulldozer, then perhaps…. put the fractured end of the femur on display [or whatever] as evidence of the trauma these poor soldiers endured. But this is virtually a complete skeleton, with a possible identity – give him respect. What do we gain, in our knowledge of the battle, by having his remains on display? |
Gunfreak | 22 Jan 2016 9:42 a.m. PST |
It is like Marcel1809 says, we honour him by showing exactly what he went through he is the representation of those tens of thousands that where wounded and killed in the battle. And i agree the point is even more driven home by the contrasts of the nice clean bright uniforms. While we who read book of the period know of the brutality. Others might not, they do not know that wars have always been as brutal, they have watched saving private ryan. They know the brutality of ww2, they might not know or think about the fact that the napoleonic wars where just as bloody and brutal. It doesn't mater if its an 88 or a 6pdr that takes of your leg, in the end the result is the same. |
Ligniere | 22 Jan 2016 9:52 a.m. PST |
Hopefully, we can agree to disagree….. |
deadhead | 22 Jan 2016 12:13 p.m. PST |
Definitely we can. The question is academic anyway. There is no way the museum will listen to any protests and rebury this poor soul. I only posed the question out of interest, to see how folk felt, and it has produced an interesting discussion, I feel. |
Mollinary | 22 Jan 2016 1:09 p.m. PST |
And I, for one, am grateful to you for doing so. This whole discussion has been very interesting. I note that they have come up with a possible identity for the skeleton. If there are any relatives who come forward, would this alter anyone's views on this question? Mollinary |
I see lead people | 22 Jan 2016 1:53 p.m. PST |
I love an opportunity to feel outraged, uncomfortable, shocked or any other the above emotions mentioned, but this isn't one. The display is in line with lawful conventions governing such matters 1st and foremost. And it has also been done appropriately and in absolute context. I love the shiny uniforms and heroic paintings as much as the next buff, but the reality is not so heroic or glamorous and this conveys that in stark contrast. I feel references to his 'wishes' are moot, as I'm sure being killed, stripped and dumped in a mass pit was a more confronting reality. 200 years ago, those with the least to gain gave the most with no say in the matter. Also remembering these were people His Grace, The DOW considered the scum of the earth. The entire battlefield is a mass grave yard, with tourists crawling all over it like it was a playground…no complaints about that though. MHO of course, but the display is relevant, poignant and provoking. At least those disturbed are aware now the display exists and can avoid subjecting themselves to the experience |
Double G | 22 Jan 2016 3:04 p.m. PST |
"The entire battlefield is a mass grave yard, with tourists crawling all over it like it was a playground……no complaints about that though." So glad you brought this up; not to hijack the thread, but this bothers me 1000% more than a skeleton being on display. Having been to a number of ACW battlefields in the US, it always amazes me to see people (mostly kids) running around, climbing on cannons like they are kiddy rides while their clueless, brainless parents snap selfies to post on Facebook and other moronic social media outlets. I see others with car doors open in spots, radio blaring and yuking it up like they are a comedy club. Show some respect; you wouldn't act that way at a cemetery would you, climbing all over tombstones. At Gettysburg, close to 50,000 Americans died so you clowns could take your kids to the park and treat it like a giant babysitter. When I drive through the park, radio is off, I drive at a conservative speed and respect where I am and what happened there; it's not an amusement park or a playground like I see lead people said; it's a mass grave where thousands of young men were slaughtered, fighting for the right for clueless boobs to come there and treat the place with no respect. Ok, back to the skeleton…………… |
Mollinary | 22 Jan 2016 3:26 p.m. PST |
Double G, It is disturbing, is it not, that even those who are specialists in all this do not know the difference between casualties and deaths? About Seven thousand died at Gettysburg (enough, in all conscience) and maybe another thirty three thousand were wounded). But, on this question, the numbers seem to me to be irrelevant. Each one killed was an individual. This man, for that is what he is, now resides in a museum in Belgium. How would you feel if one of those who fell at Gettysburg was now on display in the magnificent new museum, rather than at rest in the National Cemetery on the battlefield? How would you justify that decision? I do not think I could justify it, which is why I think this corpse should be given a decent burial, rather than be displayed for the 'education' of the rest of us. I know what war involves, I do not need a real cadaver to remind me. Mollinary |
Double G | 22 Jan 2016 5:04 p.m. PST |
Gee sorry for disturbing you there Mollinary, not 50,000 deaths, but 50,000 casualties (7,000 dead, 33,000 wounded, 11,000 missing; missing = casualty last time I checked); thanks for the fact checking and pointing out my error, something I rarely see anyone do to others here on TMP. |
dibble | 22 Jan 2016 5:16 p.m. PST |
Just like all those 'wanabe Sowjers' who traipse about the Mont St Jean battlefield every year pretending to be fighting for one side or another. Seeing a bunch of Napoleonic wannabies acting like fools on the very site of an almost 50,000 dead battlesite is ing galling. How many WWI reenactors do you see advancing over the pock-marked fields of Verdun? And if someone posts pictures of people doing that very thing, then I say Give em a spade and 48 hours rations each, take them to Salisbury plain impact area that's located in the south of England, tell them to dig deep then get the a couple of Royal Artillery regiments of 105mm light guns to send over a barrage that will last the whole 48 hours. The bloke needs to be interred with a fitting headstone. Paul |
SJDonovan | 22 Jan 2016 6:30 p.m. PST |
Personally, I think children using cannon as climbing frames should be encouraged. |
John Miller | 22 Jan 2016 7:56 p.m. PST |
deadhead: I always considered myself pretty conservative when it came to matters of respect for the dead but I have seen a few displays like that here in the USA and never considered them as disrespectful. I have spent countless hours traipsing the battlefield of Gettysburg for the last 50 or so years and was among those who encouraged their children to sit on the cannons and take their photos. I have never reenacted but I love attending the events and never considered that as disrespectful either. Having many relatives who fought for their country, whichever one it was, I would never knowingly disrespect their, or any other soldiers memory. For myself I would rather see children playing on the cannons than some shopping center or fast food restaurant erected on the battlefield. Going by the divergent comments above as to what is and isn't disrespectful I guess my conclusion would be that it all a matter of personal taste. At wakes and funeral parties in my family everyone imbibes freely, a sort of last farewell for the dear departed, but I am most sure that other "cultures" might find that offensive. Just a thought. Thanks, John Miller |
M C MonkeyDew | 24 Jan 2016 8:03 a.m. PST |
It is disrespectful. That is why displaying the re.axons of your enemies is acceptable if abhorrent. Displaying the remains of those you claim to respect is an affront the against rligion, civility and nature. Bob |
M C MonkeyDew | 24 Jan 2016 10:53 a.m. PST |
…poorly typed from my Android device :) |
14Bore | 24 Jan 2016 4:05 p.m. PST |
Disrespectful I think. Uniforms,buttons and other artifacts but human remains no. |
John Miller | 24 Jan 2016 8:55 p.m. PST |
Would a carte d'mort be considered disrespectful? Its' not exactly displaying remains of course buy seems similar to me. I believe the photos were sometimes displayed in the family homes or in albums. I know it would be frowned upon now days or considered quite eccentric at least. Just wondering what others would think. Thanks, John Miller |
deadhead | 25 Jan 2016 4:33 a.m. PST |
I still find the discussion quite fascinating, indeed increasingly so. It is an ethical/moral dilemma. Bones of an Egyptian Pharaoh are widely accepted (personally I have a problem with it but…) the head of an Aborigine, on display after a century or so, is not. Double standards, but we all apply them. For me it still comes down to the expressed or likely wishes of the "owner" (which of course in UK law is indeed no longer the corpse)
The issue of re-enactors I had not considered. It is not my thing and my favourite time to visit a battlefield is when it is empty. I guess as long as they are not playing at being Leibstandarte AH, they do no harm and can be very impressive individually. They are an educational resource for the kids especially.
You'll never stop the kids climbing on cannon. Mine did, but are grown beyond that now. I agree it is the moronic parents' behaviour and ignorance that riles. But then, anything that gets them to learn about their history……….don't tell an Irishman about wakes at funerals! My dad's send off is still the talk of the family.
Finally I have much sympathy for the error re Gettysburg. Been there, seen the film, read the books and somehow imagined 30,000 dead…totally a guesstimate….considering ferocity of fighting and numbers involved. 7,000 "only" does surprise me. OK 11,000 missing will surely add some. Like First Day of the Somme. Every British kid is brought up on the figure 60,000 fell……easy to think KIA……
|
Ligniere | 25 Jan 2016 11:46 a.m. PST |
Doing research over the weekend into the, probable, remains of Friedrich Brandt, 2nd Bttn Kings German Legion, and came across a Facebook page dedicated to an honorable and dignified reburial for his remains. This is what one contributor, Major Nigel Price, 7th Duke of Edinburgh's Own Gurkha Rifles, wrote
A soldier's thoughts – Peace For Friedrich Brandt by Major Nigel Price, 7th Duke of Edinburgh's Own Gurkha Rifles There is something sacred about a battlefield. It is a place where men have died – for historically it has mostly been men – usually en masse and in the prime of their youth and strength. Often it is a place where history has changed course, like the point on a long march where the compass needle is consulted and a new bearing set. But mostly it is the human element that touches us and sanctifies the spot. The individual stories of courage and struggle; or, where these are not known, our imagination of them. Waterloo is one such place. History was most certainly changed, and we know many of the stories of individual courage. The story of Friedrich Brandt is largely unknown. At best we can take the handful of meagre facts that we have and flesh them out with imagination. He was a young Hanoverian in King George's German Legion fighting alongside the British. He was a private soldier in his early twenties and it seems he had a deformity of the spine. On the afternoon of 18th June 1815, he was with his comrades in the heart of his battalion on the ridge at Hougoumont. At that approximate time and place, he was struck in the chest by a musket ball and his young life ended. None of this is certain, but it is likely. What is certain is that the skeleton believed to be his, now lies on display in a glass case in a museum south of Brussels. Whereas human remains discovered on the Western Front from a century ago are interred with honours, those from the nearby battlefield of Waterloo from a hundred years earlier are fair game for public curiosity. Why is that? Is it because there are less likely to be traceable descendants who might be affronted? Or does the worth of a human life diminish with time? Perhaps it is our imagination that is wanting. Many of us have in our family narrative the story of a relative who died in the titanic battles on the Western Front. There is no need for imagination. My family has such a story, and I remember as a child listening to tales of my Great Uncle Charlie of the Royal Garrison Artillery who died at Passchendaele. Two years ago I visited the superb National Archives at Kew. After a short search I found the original war diary of his battery and sat reading the sparse account of his death. His remains lie in a cemetery a short way from Ypres. My son has been there and placed a wreath in his honour. Charlie was twenty four when he died, a similar age to Friedrich. Friedrich died a century earlier. In the great expanse of time that is nothing. So why is it acceptable for Friedrich's remains to be served up for the musings of the curious? However muted the lighting or dignified the display, it troubles me. I have only experienced one battle. In comparison to Waterloo mine was tiny, with nothing of the historical significance of that monstrous clash of armies on the sodden fields of Belgium two hundred years ago this month. Mine was on the wintry hills overlooking Port Stanley in the 1982 Falklands War, the two battalion night attack to capture the twin feature of Tumbledown and Mount William. Of course you don't have to be a veteran to feel empathy with combatants of a past age. It simply means you don't have to rely on imagination. You know the fear that can desolate a life thereafter. You know the bonds that forever connect you to your comrades in an extraordinary way. Perhaps most of all, you know the poignancy of the moment when you understand that you have lived. I recall the grins that split our grimy faces on hearing of the Argentine surrender. In my immediate circle a small bag of peanuts went the rounds, the only rations left. I remember the taste of my first brew, a mug of tea. Someone recorded the moment. I am standing with Bhim, my second-in-command, the two of us alive in the watery light and savouring the experience. I was twenty five, but unlike Charlie and Friedrich, for me time didn't stop. I sailed home. I married, had children and have lived for three decades since that South Atlantic winter, time in which to grow into the stiffness and chunters that arrive at a certain age. A battlefield is not sacred to a veteran because of its historical significance. Soldiers don't fight for history. Rarely even for country, and certainly not for governments. They fight because their regiment places them in harm's way, and their regiment is family. They fight for their mates. In the last stand, they fight for their lives, or those of their friends. This is why a battlefield is sacred. It is a point in time and space where soldiers confront the most intimate of both demons and angels. It is a place where, however frightened, they face death. Just as a battlefield is sacred, so too are the remains of those who fall there. On that June day in 1815, on that ridge, the young Hanoverian stood side by side with his comrades and faced his terrors and goodness knows what else. He felt the gasping punch of that musket ball. Maybe he understood that he was dying. We will never know, but we can imagine. In the end, it comes down to what we believe ourselves to be. I don't mean the obvious flesh and bones of us. If that was all we were, then maybe displaying his skeleton in a glass cabinet would be acceptable. Rather, I mean the story that we have been, each one of us. Our lives, our laughs, our loves. This is why it troubles me that Friedrich Brandt's remains have been displayed in a glass case. He made his stand alongside his friends. He did his duty. He was so much more than his bones. More than his flesh. More even than the mysterious, unfathomable spirit that once galvanised him. We should honour him for the whole vast unknown story that he was, and bury him with due ceremony. You don't have to be an old soldier to get that. Simply a human being. Major Nigel Price, 7th Duke of Edinburgh's Own Gurkha Rifles
Interestingly, it is believed that, unlike many of the thousands of dead at Waterloo who were given very little respect at the time of their burial, Friedrich Brandt was actually buried, alone, in a shallow grave. Gareth Glover commented the following, in a Huffington Post article: Glover said, the fact that F.C.B. was buried suggests that the soldier was well-liked by his comrades: "You don't do that for someone you don't care about." The Facebook page is called 'Peace for Friedrich Brandt' for those interested |
deadhead | 25 Jan 2016 12:07 p.m. PST |
That is wonderful. What a great find…………….. Will change nothing, alas. There is no mother country now, to protest about this, for a Hanoverian who did his duty. Just convinces me even more…. This is a disgrace… |
M C MonkeyDew | 25 Jan 2016 1:33 p.m. PST |
|
KTravlos | 25 Jan 2016 1:53 p.m. PST |
There is nothing sacred about a battlefield or war, but I just finished reading Tardi's WW1 graphic novels, so might be under the influence. We put on display the skeletons of people who died at Visby hacked to death, at Platea pierced to death, and many other places that also should be sacred. Beyond the fact that we have bulldozed, built over, or grew crops and etc over many of these sacred sites. You are only outraged because he died 200 years. If he had died from a bronze sword 2000 years ago, I do not think you would give a second thought that his skeleton is in the British Museum. No show it off, show it off to show the bloody stupidity of it all. Take the kids show it to them and tell them "This is what we all shall become". If you are lucky kids they will put your bodies in museums and preserve them. If you are not they will bury them, then exhume them to make space for the next burial, throw them in an ossury, and if really unlucky they will put them in lime juice to disintegrate. Or you will become nice fertilizer. Sorry, Tardi got to me, and this whole talk of sacred etc just leaves me jaded. They died on a sacred place, suffocating in sacred mud, cut to pieces by sacred lead, fired by sacred muskets and cannons, while they were sacred pissing themselves, as their sacred officers were yelling them to stand their line. Aye they did do that, but I am not sure if there is anything scared in this. Just madness all around. |
SJDonovan | 25 Jan 2016 3:25 p.m. PST |
We are wargamers. We refight the major battles of history, battles in which thousands of men died, by playing with toy soldiers and rolling dice. I'm not sure we are in a position to lecture anyone on respect for the dead. |
Ligniere | 25 Jan 2016 4:26 p.m. PST |
So by that logic being a wargamer somehow entitles one to be dispassionate and disrespectful. This discussion has nothing to do with playing with toy soldiers…. And it shouldn't be linked with the hobby. It has everything to do with showing respect to the memory of Friedrich Brandt who died tragically on June 18, 1815. And honestly I don't care if the remains are not of Friedrich Brandt – they were someone, someone that mattered. |
SJDonovan | 26 Jan 2016 12:31 a.m. PST |
How on earth did you get dispassionate and disrespectful from that? Your logic is your own and has nothing to do with what I said. |
PhilinYuma | 26 Jan 2016 11:14 a.m. PST |
Dibble's remark about Richard III's remains being interred reminds me that you don't see the modern remains of anyone powerful in a glass case, only folks who have no relatives to complain. It is also interesting to consider that the bones opf this poor Hanoverian bloke are now the property of the museum or whoever loaned them to it. Post mortem slavery? "If I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of an an old museum That is for ever Luneburg." And yes, my cadaver will one day end up on a slab being hacked at by some medical student, but that is because I chose it to be that way. Cheers, Phil |
basileus66 | 26 Jan 2016 10:24 p.m. PST |
The exposition of the remains of a soldier in a museum exhibition might have an educative purpose. Many times we look at the battles of the past as pictures, as stories, almost as fiction. Nothing focus the mind of the observer as contemplating the effects of the battle. A skeleton is a poignant reminder that battles are not just narratives we reconstruct in books, pictures or movies. |
42flanker | 26 Jan 2016 11:35 p.m. PST |
Not just soldiers become skeletons. We will all become bare bones in the end- unless we are burnt. For a memento mori, a plaster cast would surely do; Or a mannequin showing wounds resulting from period weaponry; The watercolours of Charles Bell. These are all within the gift of modern museum technology. Showing the skeleton is mainly appealing to the macabre. To my mind,a philosophical justification is pretty thin. Even when I was thirteen and visited the Waterloo for the first time, I was confused by why the skeleton of the so-called Hussar at Caillou was exposed in a case- especially in a Catholic country. I thought it strangely disrespectful and a bit tacky. Just because the mass of the victims of Waterloo- and virtually every battle until WW1- were disposed of as carrion, doesn't mean these individuals could not be treated with respect. Shortly afterwards, I started digging up dead Romano-Britons. They were not treated with much respect. I took the lead from my elders and betters. They were objects of academic curiosity- and teenage pranks. We knew it wasn't cool, really, but did it anyway. The site was a good place to meet girls. All very Gothic. |
PhilinYuma | 30 Jan 2016 9:53 p.m. PST |
Well, I just got a new insight into this issue. My father, brothers, I and three of my boys served; a few of us saw combat, but none of us suffered more than a bump or two. None exposed the rest of us to a decision on how their remains would be disposed of; none of us became "some corner in a foreign field". In fact, not one of my large, extended, and confusingly multiracial family has died since I arrived in the US over fifty years ago, and I fully expected to start the trend in the next few years. Yesterday, however, my boy's partner went to awaken Ariana (Kat) my teenage, honorary granddaughter and found her dead. She will be cremated, but her estranged, Catholic father will not allow her ashes to be scattered (the Church now permits cremation but not the scattering of ashes). And I don't really give a shit. All I know is that one of the loves of my life is dead. What happens to someone's corpse is a lot less important than how they are carried in the memories of those who loved them, and those who had no one are simply dust and ashes. So join me, fellow members, in a final toast to Kat. She described herself as a "Bold, Bright, Beautiful, Black Babe". She was all of that. Phil |