Playing the Anzac card

Emerald Muriwai

If dollars talk, Anzac is shouting from the roof whilst Waitangi sits quietly on the floor.

In New Zealand, people are generally familiar with the key differences between two of the nation’s biggest commemorative days. We start the year with the challenging, ‘radical’ politics of Waitangi Day on February 6th and a few months later we join in with the sombre demands of Anzac Day come April 25th. As our project has uncovered, the media does most of the storytelling on these days and their versions of events come without any accountability for privileging the experiences and emotions of one of these days over the other. 

Through our research, we have been exploring the choreography of the days and the influence different people, social norms and practices have in perpetuating the importance attached to both of these days. There is no denying that both days symbolise loss and coming together for different people across Aotearoa. While we agree that both days solidify important events in New Zealand history, we wanted to investigate why such strong and different emotions were attached to these days. This led me to wonder if Government funding of events on these days might play a role in maintaining these differences.  

Waitangi Day at Waitangi (2014); waiting to board the waka

Waitangi Day at Waitangi (2014); waiting to board the waka

According to the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade New Zealand Waitangi Day (1840)  is ‘the national day’ of Aotearoa, New Zealand;

            ‘A National Day is the date on which a nation of non-sovereign country                   celebrates their nationhood. A National Day will often be declared a                       national holiday in the country the National Day occurs in’    

Of course, by definition this should indicate that Waitangi Day should be esteemed by most New Zealanders as the day that defines the nation – both our research and common sense shows that this is not the case.

Anzac Dawn Ceremony in Fielding (2014); a moment's silence

Anzac Dawn Ceremony in Fielding (2014); a moment's silence

The differences between Waitangi Day and Anzac Day date back to when the Government officially recognised each of the days. The first Waitangi Day was observed in 1934 when Governor-General Lord Bledisloe gifted the Treaty House and grounds at Waitangi to the nation. Waitangi Day did not become a public holiday until as recently as 1974. Anzac Day was first observed in 1916 in commemoration of the landing at Gallipoli in 1915. Anzac Day became a public holiday soon after in 1921.

Although the historic events at Waitangi occurred long before World War One, Anzac Day was given immediate recognition as both a national day and public holiday. It took 64 years for Waitangi Day to become a national day and some 134 years before Waitangi Day was recognised as a public holiday. The legacy of these Government decisions speak for themselves.

So how are the days funded?

Waitangi Day is funded by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage’s Commemorating Waitangi Day Fund.  The fund calls for submissions each year and divides a set budget (approximately $290,000.00) amongst its applicants. On the other hand, Anzac Day appears to be funded through multiple sources including the RSA Poppy Appeal and recently, several different Government-related funds equalling over $17,290,676.00 for commemorations relating to World War One. There is no Anzac Day equivalent to the Commemorating Waitangi Day Fund which makes it difficult to determine the financial ‘cost’ of Anzac Day to the nation.

How are the days promoted?

Information pertaining to the days is held primarily by Government-run websites. The Government has more websites on Anzac-related content than Waitangi, but there is no specific understanding of how or why these differences occur:

Who broadcasts the days?

One inadvertent source of funding for Waitangi Day and Anzac Day is that provided by television coverage. The primary broadcasting agencies for the days are New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho.

New Zealand On Air (NZ On Air) is a government broadcasting funding agency which invests in a range of local television, radio, music and new media content. In a recent annual report NZ On Air (2015) states:

                   In a media world with few global barriers, NZ On Air preserves a place                    for content made by and about New Zealanders – on television, radio                      and online. This local content plays a key role in our cultural identity.

                   We invest over $130 million each year in a diverse range of media for                        both mainstream and special interest audiences – from drama and                            comedy, to music, to specialist current affairs. The flexible NZ On Air                        model is unique. We are not tied to any one platform - we go where the                    audiences are.

NZ On Air records state that in 2015 a funding decision for $108,661.00 was allocated to coverage of Waitangi Day 2016 in a new funding decision to support live coverage of the day through Māori Television. As yet, there is no public record of this being funded by NZ On Air in the past and there is also no evidence of the funding continuing in 2017. In contrast, in 2016 $163,437.00 was reserved for Anzac Day coverage including the Dawn Parade Live (Māori Television) and  the National commemorative service (TVOne) . This funding has been consistently increasing since records started in 1997.

Since 1997 NZ On Air has spent $1,425,528.00 on live coverage of Anzac Day and $108,661.00 on Waitangi Day live coverage. NZ On Air also funds content outside of the live coverage of the days. Using the search terms ‘anzac’ and ‘waitangi’ on the NZ On Air website’s funding decisions search tool, the following table was generated.

NZ On Air appeared to have spent more on non-coverage Waitangi Day content than Anzac Day content, however, this is an incomplete picture. Once adding in the cost of live coverage we see that Anzac Day has been allocated at least $1,235,066.00 more in funding dollars than Waitangi Day since 1997. This is a conservative estimate given the limited scope of only using ‘anzac’ and ‘waitangi’ as search terms in NZ On Air’s search engine.

NZ On Air is not the only entity funding broadcasting of our national days. The next largest source is Te Māngai Pāho. Unfortunately, Te Māngai Pāho records only date from 2006-2016 and further only have data for both the national days between the years 2009-2014.

Again, the disparities in funding are huge.  From 2009-2014 Te Māngai Pāho awarded $2,601,798.00 in funding decisions for Anzac Day coverage and just $320,500.00 for Waitangi Day coverage.

Although this brief analysis only scratches the surface, it suggests that disparities created by Government decision-making may impact on current feelings and value of the days. Of course, the days should not be competitors for national importance as they concern different events. Yet our research has addressed that Anzac Day and Waitangi Day are framed and experienced very differently. Despite Waitangi Day being allocated Aoteraroa’s official ‘national day’, it seems that it is less valued than Anzac Day from a Government policy/spending perspective. If dollars talk, Anzac is shouting from the roof whilst Waitangi sits quietly on the floor. There is a lot more work to be done in a journey towards equity in Aotearoa. Indeed, the day where both Anzac and Waitangi are accorded equivalent value will be a day worth celebrating.  

 

The author wishes to thank Tim McCreanor, Margie Wetherell and Alex McConville for their support and contributions. 

Peoples’ passion – wairua, affect and national days

Tim McCreanor

In a world gripped by a rising tide of populist nationalism, high emotion and desperate passions often seem to drive global movements, tensions between countries and policies. Politicians feed off the outpourings of rage, resentment, fear and sorrow while social media magnify the most extreme voices to fever pitch.  

We don’t talk a lot about emotion and feeling in this country. New Zealanders have even been dubbed “passionless” by critics, yet it is clear that, aside from fascination with sport, there are still plenty of live issues that can polarise the nation. There is a mix of pride, defensiveness and denial arising in discussions, challenges and conflict over questions of national identity. This is very clear on the two main national days that New Zealand observes – Waitangi Day and Anzac Day – which are powerful moments in the life of the nation.

Curiosity around these tensions inspired our research team to study the role of affect (emotions and feelings) and wairua at play among those that attend (and some who don’t) events such as dawn services at key memorials. We are interested in how wairua and affect arise in acts of commemoration and celebration and how this influences identity, community relations and national life. National days, even in small communities, bring together many threads of histories, tensions and futures, allowing us to see some of the ways New Zealanders feel, talk about and experience our national identities.

WW1 memorial, Mesopotamia Station, Rangitata Valley, Canterbury.

All around the country people gather, often at monuments, pou, buildings, carvings and statuary to participate in events that include speeches, religious elements, songs, flags, military presence, cultural displays and public activities. Many feelings may be evoked - affect and wairua - that can be seen in how people think about themselves and others. This includes how we see the nation, our place in it and our sense of community. We may talk about difference and disagree as to how we should think about ourselves and how we should mark these days. Events might be organised to manage these differences, to bring them out or to bury them. National days remind us of our coming together and coming apart as a nation.

 
 

Memorial at Kohukohu, Hokianga, Northland

Over the last few years our project has collected multiple forms of data; individual and group interviews as well as video recordings as people experience events. We have looked at the ways in which what we experience is created at these events and how these activities influence the ways we are ‘moved’ at national commemorative events. Participants share with us their fear, rage, hope, joy, despair, frustration and excitement as they reflect on or participate on Waitangi Day or Anzac Day. What emerges are rich, diverse, challenging and passionate accounts of what the events mean to ordinary citizens and how affect and wairua play out in their relationships, identities and community life.

 
3.jpg
 

Waitangi Day at Waitangi

We see bodies, brains, spirit and meaning as entirely entangled. We are interested in complex mixes and patterns of affect and wairua across people and groups over time; it is clear to us that this has social implications.

We approach these patterns through the application of Margie Wetherell’s notion of social practice and Helen Moewaka Barnes' wairua approach – this means we look not only at what people say but at what they feel.

 
4.png
 

Anzac Day, Ataturk Memorial, Wellington Heads.

How New Zealanders position ourselves and others in national life, both reflects and drives everyday nationalism, outlining what belonging to the nation means to people and what the nation can mean to its citizens. Feelings are not often talked about in research or, when they are, we might see them as something we experience for a moment and then they are gone. Wairua may be seen as important but too difficult to include as a focus of research. Our team is interested in how these experiences play out, how they work as drivers of everyday nationalism. Our research is enabling us to look at the implications of the many ways we experience and feel about these days; the nature of social relations between Māori and Tauiwi, our attitudes towards war, ideas of our country that we feel comfortable with and those we want silenced.

 
 

Waitangi Day with whanau at Milford Domain, Takapuna

Waitangi Day 2017 has come and gone with the usual deep uncertainty about social justice in the nation.  For Māori the anguish of the history of loss and current disparities seem clear. Expressions of this distress are often seen as that of a few ‘angry activitists’; however our research shows many layers of feelings and experiences as individual Māori, whānau and hapū mark the day. For Pākehā we see a broad mix, from irritation and anger at being reminded of our injustice, and defensiveness over differences in Māori and non-Māori positions in this country, to a determination to work for social justice.

 
 

Anzac dawn service, Fielding

Anzac Day lies ahead with its utopian vision of national unity. While our research sees a common understanding of Anzac Day as a solemn time of respectful remembrance it also points to much diversity.  While we might see the day as a series of commemorations where we are bound together with a shared sense of grief and loss, this is not felt in the same way across citizens, families and communities. Our differences of culture, class, gender, age and life experience contribute to varied meanings and responses from proud adherence to ‘birth of the nation’ and the necessity of war in order to obtain peace to troubled thoughts over the futility and waste of war. The current focus on Gallipoli acknowledges the extreme losses and suffering of families but, it has given rise to the comparative silence on other key times in our history, notably the New Zealand Wars that only finally ended in 1916 with the attack on the Tūhoe community of Rua Kenana. We pick and choose what we remember and too often ignore the memories and moments that might challenge us to think and act differently, the memories we might learn from and build a better future on.

A brief commentary on how media tend to ‘do’ emotion around Waitangi Day

Alex McConville

Waitangi Day.

‘A day of hostility’.

‘A day of conflict’.

…And a day where a ‘few grumpy Māori ruin it for the rest of us’.

For the New Zealand media, these ways of emoting around the day are business as usual. You know how it goes: How will the day be ruined this year? Will the prime minister be allowed to attend and speak? Why can’t it just be a day of celebration? When will they get over it and move on?

New Zealand Herald, 2017

New Zealand Herald, 2017

With plenty of palpable anti-Māori sentiment available in the public (read: Pākehā) domain, these familiar feelings are effortlessly reproduced in numerous ways, year in year out. In 2017, newly appointed PM Bill English is positioned as actively following suit.

New Zealand Herald, 2017                                              Newshub, 2017

New Zealand Herald, 2017                                              Newshub, 2017

Certainly, the media standard story holds that Waitangi Day is obviously a bad occasion, and we (read: Pākehā) are justifiably sick and tired of it. Indeed, for many it may seem as though these feelings are natural expressions of how most people are affected by Waitangi Day. Our research, however, contends that particular ways of feeling and being are matters of practice.

If we accept that the mainstream media play a key role informing the public in matters of cultural and national significance, then we may also accept that they play a central role in the ongoing formation and maintenance of relations among Māori, Pākehā and others. If so, this is problematic. The mainstream media has long been criticised as a site where Pākehā ways of knowing, seeing and feeling are privileged, whilst Māori perspectives are marginalised. As a result, the ways particular events are framed becomes very one sided – as if the media were viewing the world through a settler/colonial lens.

New Zealand Herald, 2012

New Zealand Herald, 2012

From this standpoint, the ways some people feel about Waitangi Day are not the result of natural and obvious worldly truths, but are picked up over time from canonical affective patterns modelled through media and other colonial practices. Moreover, when such institutions repeatedly reproduce these very routine ways of feeling about Waitangi Day, then possible alternative ways of feeling are more likely to recede into the background and potentially fade away altogether.

New Zealand Herald, 2013

New Zealand Herald, 2013

Make no mistake, these mediated emotional practices are highly beneficial for Pākehā. In a colonial context where power and privilege remain with the coloniser, it is advantageous that the range of feelings available for readers to engage with primarily involve simplified decontexualised narratives interwoven with strong emotional stances circulating around Māori as ‘the problem’. This allows for Pākehā to avoid having to go through the process of troubling introspection.

Stuff, 2011

Stuff, 2011

In order to foster a more equitable and inclusive bi-culturalism, popular journalism needs to actively deploy a wider range of emotional experiences for readers to grapple with. For example, how might situating protest action within the context of Treaty breaches look like? Would then deeming them ‘irrational’ remain a viable approach? Perhaps, in this instance, Pākehā anger and frustration might then go on to be constructed as ‘absurd’. What about modelling grief as a justified and understandable response to historical trauma?  Or how about exploring the emotional processes involved around of Māori and Pākehā working together on related issues?

Certainly, there are many emotional possibilities. Currently, however, the very narrow ways in which feelings are deployed around the day ensures debate is limited, and readers are left uninformed. Productive engagement with bi-culturalism requires a broader and deeper approach to reporting issues Waitangi Day raises. Here, the stage will be set such that we may then be able to begin coming to terms with our conflicting histories, emotions, discourses and identities.

 

For further reading see Alex's article ‘Hostility Won’t Deter Me, Says PM’: The Print Media, the Production of Affect and Waitangi Day.

Māori Association of Social Science Conference: Reflections

1.jpg

Māori Association of Social Science Conference: Reflections
Emerald Muriwai McPhee

Last month we were privileged with the opportunity to take our Māori researchers from the Wairua, Affect and National Days project down to the Māori Association of Social Science Conference. The conference theme was Nui te kōrero: Rewriting national narratives which was fitting to both our project and the current thinking space we are in as the project draws closer to our official end date. We ran a workshop on A wairua approach to research and I presented a short piece on Privilege and Denial of the Nation’s Foundation.

Appropriately, the conference started in the wharenui (Te Herenga Waka Marae) with reframing the narrative of Aotearoa’s beginnings with keynote speaker Dr Aroha Harris who introduced us to Tuki’s map:


Tuki's Map by Tuki Te Terenui Whare Pira (1793)

Tukitahua of Ōruru and his cousin Ngahuruhuru were kidnapped from their home in Northland  and taken to Norfolk Island in hopes that they would teach criminals about flax weaving. Unbeknownst to their captors, Tuki had minimal knowledge of flax preparation and instead he attempted to explain where he and his cousin would like to return to. Tuki drew a map of Aotearoa in chalk on the ground which was later replicated into the map above. Tuki's map is the first written Māori map on record as prior to colonisation knowledge in Te Ao Māori was transmitted through oral histories. Tuki's map illustrates the knowledge and values he personally held as tangata whenua of Aotearoa. One example of this knowledge is the spiritual inclusion of  Te Rerenga Wairua (noted as 'Terry-inga', i.e. Cape Rēinga) where Māori believe the spirits of those who have passed ascend to Hawaiki. 

Dr Harris reminded us that our stories needn’t start with Captain Cook’s map. She also reminded us to be aware that much of New Zealand’s taught and written history is taught from Cook's map - rather than from our pre-colonial indigenous history. Cook’s map is highly regarded and yet it represents a commerical and colonial interest in the resources Aotearoa had to offer. In Cook's map there is no apparent presence of the people living in Aotearoa, whereas Tuki’s map details the relationships between peoples of the Hokianga Harbour. Despite having never circumnavigated the islands, Tuki’s map shows knowledge of the significance of Te Wai Pounamu (The South Island).

 
Chart of New Zealand, engraved by I Bayly (1773)

Like many Māori, this talk reminded me that many of us (albeit unintentionally) start our histories at colonisation; in Harris’s words “history is one of the tools of the coloniser”. It is important to acknowledge that reclaiming, retelling and connecting with our pre-colonial narratives is a difficult journey we invest in and for many perhaps, a lifelong process.  Dr Harris illuminated that we, as Māori, possess complexity and sophistication, which equips us to understand the multiplicity that informs our diverse ways of being Māori today.

Many of us are aware of the histories of problematic misrepresentation rising from the stories we’ve been told about ourselves. To many, our existence is resistance. This opening kōrero was refreshing and drew us out from the mainstream national narratives we find ourselves entangled with.

Presentations from tauira, early career academics and experienced academics continued throughout the three days of the conference. The real value of such a space was the interdisciplinary collaboration that brought us together from what can often feel like lonely siloes of Māori knowledge and development. We heard about the intersection of what it means to be Māori and to be an athlete, or to be an urban Māori, what it means to engage in politics, iwi and hapū level engagement, the history of certain waiata, (re)education and many challenges encompassed in modern indigenous struggles. Uniting these presentations was the idea of voice and a critical awareness of indigenous identity against a context of competing deficits which we have been framed against for centuries.

The second keynote speaker, Professor John Maynard, highlighted the necessity of populating literature with missing narratives of indigenous histories. He spoke about his pride in cultural identity and history, which he sourced from his whānau history through his grandfather’s involvement in the Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association. Professor Maynard also reminded us of the importance of young indigenous people being able to see heroes and positive, relatable representations of their own people.    

 
A collection of some of the 12 books Professor Maynard has published in the past 14 years

The depth and breadth of Professor Maynard’s outputs was impressive but it was what he found most rewarding about publishing that struck a chord. He described his books being passed around families and communities, well-loved and read by those who could see themselves in his stories. It makes a difference when your story is being told from within.

The final keynote was Dr Jo Smith who spoke about narratives of nationhood emerging from Māori television from 2004 to 2014. Dr Smith talked about settling the ‘otherwise beige’ nation state and how Māori television plays a role in framing/agenda setting – not telling us what to think but telling us what to think about. Coming back to Tuki’s map Dr Smith reminded us that many Māori organisations still operate within a ‘Cook oriented’ framework due to Government legislation. For Māori Television this takes the form of answering to competing demands – to authentically represent and support Māori and also to be relatable and understandable to non-Māori through 'benevolent biculturalism'. 
 

Māori Television Logo

Dr Smith's talk reminded us of the value of critically assessing who is setting the agenda, who is occupying the mainstream and how Māori can 'write back to the absence' of representation across so many areas of society. Opening the final day of this multidisciplinary conference with this talk was important, it drew attention to the presence of established and emerging Māori  academics who, at this point of time, may be one of the few (or only) indigenous people holding their ground in our respective fields and disciplines.

 
 

Just as the conference was drawing to an end I had the opportunity to present a brief analysis of some Waitangi Day content from the Wairua, Affect and National Days project. It was a privilege to hear the reflections of other indigenous scholars in the room who presented some useful suggestions and additions for our forthcoming analyses of this data. Most valuable of the feedback was the sense of indigenous solidarity and understanding - we were on the same page and coming from a critical standpoint which centres our worldviews as the default, the given and the perspectives that are most relevant to our peoples.  

Overall the conference experience was engaging and decolonising. Working across disciplines and interacting with indigenous academics of various levels of experience was a privilege as well as a reminder of the sophistication of our peoples and the critical work that we do. Whether we are resisting oppressive misrepresentations or writing back to the absence, MASS provided a safe and cohesive space to discuss, present and indeed, rewrite the diverse narratives we share as Māori in Aotearoa. 

Gallipoli, Te Papa, Wellington

Jade Le Grice

I have to confess I am writing this reflection on my experience of Te Papa’s Gallipoli exhibit seven months after a visit where I penned my initial thoughts, and ten months after my first visit. With some distance from the visit, on the eve of ANZAC day 2016, it seems a timely opportunity to remember, and reflect on the abject horror of war, and the palpable audio-visual narratives I encountered through the exhibit. If you haven’t been yet, I’d strongly recommend going to see it. Not only to admire the gigantic yet curiously detailed soldier giants, constructed by local craftsmen at Weta workshop, but for the carefully curated artistic zones that draw in all of your senses to allow you to experience moments when you feel like you might actually be in a war zone.

You may end up spending a substantial amount of time in the queue, politely waiting, listening to music and playing on your phone, alongside mostly middle aged people with children, as I did. The banal phase of the exhibit is almost like a palate cleanser, preparing you to experience the full ambience and range of emotion the exhibit will evoke in you. The first signpost presenting somewhat lonely white text on a solemnly black background highlights ‘parental guidance recommended’ and cautions those waiting in the queue on the possibility of being ‘disturbed’ by the graphic content drawn from words and images of ‘real’ New Zealanders. The sense of the ‘real’ is often highlighted through the exhibit, evoked by the primary source material that was created by those who were present in Gallipoli during the war, and enhanced to full effect through a realistic yet fabricated assemblage of audio and visual material.

The first soldier encountered is Lieutenant Spencer Westmacott in gigantic proportions, nursing a bloodied hand, while his face is contorted in a pained grimace, reaching out with a gun in sheer determined desperation. His narrative is communicated through projected written text and audio conveying a grim tone and accompanying grim music. While recovering from the initial affective changeover from boredom to quiet horror in the presence of depictions of raw pain and desperation, the darkness in the room beset a curious sense of morbid fascination. I found myself wondering, ‘are those actual hairs on the soldiers face and hands? The uniform must be heavy to wear, it looks so starchy. How did they get those perfect wrinkles on his sleeve?’ Pulling my attention away from this focus on the detail in order to focus on the ‘spirit’ of the exhibit, I moved over to the next zone, chastising myself for not taking it as gravely serious, as I should. Further exhibits document the story of Lieutenant Spencer, someone I have come to understand as a clearly articulate person with an authoritative title, who has pulled a sense of sympathy from me as a consequence of learning the horrors he had to endure.  Written in partially emboldened, capitalised text, a somewhat unexpected sentence jumps out in front of me – “So ended THE MOST GLORIOUS DAY of my life”. I can’t recall the context of this statement, but reading it brings on a sense of confusion, at understanding how delight can manifest in the most horrific of circumstances. I suppose victory and achievement is the goal of each side in a war, and despite a likely constant affective battle with a sense of persecution and victimisation, there are still affective breaks brought about through opportunities for triumph and glory.

It might be useful to mention here, how the affective power of these displays were cushioned, enhanced, or reduced by the presence of other spectators. Many of my fellow spectators were walking around quietly and respectfully as stories and war logs were broadcasted to foreboding accompanying orchestral music. At various stages I heard men behind me noting how young the boys were going to war, and watched as children snuggled up to their parents in the more intimate audio spaces, noting one child crying. In the presence of the morose yet respectful emotional tone of those around me, coupled with the dimly lit setting, the space felt cavernous. I also noticed moments of awe, particularly palpable on one child’s expression in response to their mother explaining that 'these were real people' motioning towards the displays of giant soldiers, which was highly amusing. I could just imagine being a child and telling my teacher and friends at school that I went to Te Papa and found out there used to be huge giant soldiers at the war in Gallipoli.

Affective resonances were not confined to boredom, horror, awe, morbid fascination, misery, quiet contemplation, amusement, and confusion – the physically interactive displays brought about a further range of affect. Compelling snippets and emotionally evocative quotes conveyed the soldier’s experiences and sense of complete abjection, and questioning life itself. At one stage of the exhibit, a corridor was developed to look, feel, and shake like a life sized trench, with life sized video projections of soldiers darting across the wall – utterly thrilling! The speakers were vibrating to mimic the sound of cannons or gunfire, with haunting echoes. This audio, visual, and physical sensory onslaught was simultaneously compelling, moving, and brought about a distinct sense of total chaos. Another particularly visceral physical display depicted the account of someone being so weak, ‘they fell into the latrine (basic toilet) and couldn’t get out’ – shadowed images of men, the emboldened text, and physical structure of a well-used latrine evoked a sense of abject disgust in me, and prompted me to recall an experienced of having campylobacter, and falling asleep on the toilet floor. A much less extreme experience, but the most I could relate it to, nonetheless. There were interactive drawers that you could pull out and see a mixture of original and recreated items from the war experience – including meagre food and beverage supplies, complete with requisite flies, ants and mould. Forgetting the exhibit context, and thinking more of my stomach, I thought ‘eww.. is that it?’ then it dawned on me that soldiers would not have had any other choice and I was prompted to feel slightly listless, and forlorn, before moving to see what further meagre supplies were in the next box, waiting as the person beside me had moved on to another and there was no chance I would step on their toes. Opening a box to see hand knitted woollen hats and scarfs carefully packaged for their recipient brought about a pang of sadness, in feeling the level of care and effort someone had gone through for their special someone, who may not be alive to receive it.

Moving through the latter stages of the exhibit, red poppies were quietly introduced to the background imagery, marking a shift in phase towards depictions of battle, and abject living conditions, towards those responsible for nursing the wounded, the men who died, and those who were left behind. Leaving the exhibit I was moved by the images that depicted a sense of quiet despair, and moved towards a greater sense of reverence for the hardship and struggle these men endured, but also felt quite bitter at the futility of war, greed, power, and domination that circumscribes the conditions for war to occur in the first place.