( Five minute read)

Down the centuries of human existence we have glorified war.

Remembering those who died in wars is a cornerstone of global culture, national identity, and personal grief, yet the philosophical, social, and political implications of war remembrance are a subject of ongoing debate.

Commemoration ensures that the individuals behind casualty statistics are recognized as human beings with families, dreams, and futures cut short.

It validates the immense grief of survivors and honors those who bore the brunt of political failures or defense obligations.

Memorials and remembrance days serve as visceral reminders of the human toll of conflict.

By confronting the sheer scale of loss, societies are continually warned against the glamorization of militarism and the careless pursuit of armed conflict.

Remembering the fallen keeps historical consciousness alive, preventing the sanitization of war. It anchors societies to the realities of past atrocities, strategic blunders, and the fragility of peace, fostering a collective duty to study history so as not to repeat it.

Shared rituals of remembrance provide a framework for communities to unite across political divides, offering a solemn space for shared grief, reflection, and the reaffirmation of shared values like peace and democracy.

On the other hand remembrance practices—such as military parades, solemn music, and heroic language—can inadvertently romanticize or glorify war.

Over time, the focus can shift from the tragedy of death to patriotic myth-making, making future conflicts easier to justify.

Traditional remembrance often focuses heavily on soldiers while sidelining civilian casualties, who frequently make up the majority of victims in modern warfare.

Furthermore, it can erase conscientious objectors, deserters, and those persecuted by warring regimes.

Governments and nationalist movements often use remembrance ceremonies to foster blind patriotism, justify current military budgets, or rally public support for ongoing and future interventions.

In this view, grief is weaponized for political conformity.

Some historians and peace activists contend that focusing heavily on national remembrance can entrench “us versus them” narratives, keeping historical grievances alive rather than fostering cross-border reconciliation and universal human empathy.

Here are some of the real reasons.

Glorifying war is rarely about the physical violence itself; rather, it stems from the powerful psychological, social, and cultural mechanisms that conflict triggers within human societies.

Strip away the rhetoric of politics and geopolitics, and the glorification of war rests on several deep-seated drivers.

Evolutionarily, humans are tribal creatures wired for survival within a tight-knit group.

War creates the ultimate expression of the “in-group versus out-group” dynamic.

In daily life, individuals carry the burdens of isolation, mundane routines, and personal insignificance. War offers a rare, intoxicating sense of absolute purpose. Individual desires are subordinated to the collective will.

Combat fosters intense bonds (often called camaraderie or matanship). People are willing to die not for abstract political flags, but for the person standing next to them. Societies glorify this selflessness because it represents the pinnacle of altruism—even though it is channeled into destruction.

We should be remembering the peace not the wars

It’s time to replace the Sentinel with the Flame of peace to remember all the civilians that lost their lives.

Nations rarely tell the story of their origins through compromise, trade agreements, or quiet diplomacy.

Those stories are dull. Instead, nations are forged in the fires of conflict.

Myths of struggle and triumph give a population a shared narrative. They establish heroes, villains, and a moral destiny.

A country’s holidays, monuments, and national anthems are disproportionately tied to war because conflict provides a dramatic, high-stakes arc that binds generations together.

War imposes a stark, seductive binary: good versus evil, us versus them, courage versus cowardice.

In a complex, morally ambiguous world, this simplicity is deeply comforting.

War has long been aestheticized in art, literature, music, and cinema.

The scale, drama, and intensity of conflict lend themselves easily to spectacle.

Bullet The

Philosophers like Edmund Burke spoke of the “sublime”—experiences of vastness, terror, and awe that overwhelm the human mind.

War offers a horrific kind of sublimity.

Epic poems, Hollywood blockbusters, and martial music strip away the mud, dysentery, and senseless slaughter, replacing them with noble charges, stoic sacrifice, and grand historical turning poins.

Cultures have historically viewed war as the ultimate crucible for testing national and personal virtue—measuring traits like courage, resilience, honor, and loyalty.

While the public is often fed romantic or moral justifications, elites and institutions frequently glorify war for practical reasons.

Leaders facing domestic unrest, economic stagnation, or declining popularity often find that a foreign threat or conflict temporarily silences internal dissent through “rally ’round the flag” effects.

Historically, war drives technological innovation, manufacturing, and resource acquisition. Entire industrial complexes have a vested interest in maintaining a cultural climate that views conflict as inevitable or noble.

This is the main reason we can’t replace the commemoration of wars.

Just imagine what could be achieved if we celebrated peace, rather than the whealing sirens of war.

So let’s have one last global march bye with one military repsentive from all countries, as Artificial Intelligence is presenting us with one last chance to stop weaponising the values we all live by.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com