War memorials and much of the associated ''memorialisation'' response, particularly from some senior decision-makers, tended to make future wars more likely, Prof Richard Jackson warned yesterday.
Prof Jackson, of the University of Otago-based National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, was commenting in a talk given as part of a conference on ''War Memorialisation and the Nation''.
He emphasised he was discussing not only war memorials themselves, but also the wider social context in which wars such as World War 1 were ''memorialised''.
At some war memorial sites in New Zealand and Australia, and in some recent World War 1 commemorative events, there was a tendency to see the two nations as having a long tradition of wars, going back to the Boer War.
The traditional war ''memorialisation'' response often highlighted a contrast between friends and enemies, and state-sanctioned violence was viewed as a normal activity.
Such concepts tended to make participation in future wars more likely, he warned.
When some things were being remembered and highlighted, other matters were being overlooked and ''silenced''.
''The violence of poverty kills far more than direct violence ever does,'' he added.
When considering sending troops to counter Islamic State forces in Afghanistan, some people had appealed to a noble tradition of past wars to argue for Western participation. However, IS fighters also believed God was on their side.
During a lively discussion after his talk, other conference participants said some commemorative events and memorials reflected a sense of personal loss, and highlighted the shortcomings of war.
