Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Poppy day: Imperialisms legacy
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
Surely we should be remembering all those during who died as a result of British imperialism throughout the world.
The thousands of working class men who died in the Poppy fields are but a small part of the millions who suffered as a result of the British ruling elites exploitation of weak and vulnerable third world countries. -
Message 2
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
You cannot help yourself can you!
Its Remeberence Day a day for *@>$ sake when we remember lives predominantly lost in WW1(1 million commonwealth lives) and WW2 .That included Indians,Africans,Irish,South Africans,Australians,New Zealnaders etc.You couldnt even wait one day to make your usual crass,bigotted posts could you RyanO?
. -
Message 3
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
[from In Flanders Field by Lt. Col. John McCrae 1915] -
Message 4
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
Dont Feed The Troll.
-
Message 5
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
Dont Feed The Troll.Ìý
Sorry Bttdp !
Vf -
Message 6
Posted by JB (U11805502) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
First, why confine this to British Imperialism?
Second, 'those who died in the poppy fields' is pure Sellar & Yateman, and reminds me of the Tory MPs who spoke during the last NUM Strike of the trouble in the minefields.
Third, there was no 'Third World' until there was a second world which was the term coined for the postwar Soviet sphere. -
Message 7
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
Hi VF.
Its not my notice board. LOL. Feel free to rip his lungs out if you want. But all arguing with it will do is give it a feeling of validation. and self worth.
Best to leave it in its bedroom in the dark till its acne clears up.
-
Message 8
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
Best to leave it in its bedroom in the dark till its acne clears upÌý
As usual Bttdp,you are right!
vf -
Message 9
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
Ryan,
Are you 'Citizen Smith' in disguise?
Do you want the singing of the Red Flag to replace Elgar's 'Nimrod' in Whitehall on Rememberance Sunday?
Why can you only see the suffering of your beloved working class?
Did all officers walk away unscathed? -
Message 10
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
'Dont Feed The Troll.'
Is that a way of denying me free speech? -
Message 11
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
'First, why confine this to British Imperialism?
Why indeed, I agree German and French etc imperialism was nearly as bad.
'there was no 'Third World' until there was a second world which was the term coined for the postwar Soviet sphere.'
The place where the third world would be then, you know what i mean... -
Message 12
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
'Why can you only see the suffering of your beloved working class?
Did all officers walk away unscathed?'
I'm sure you'll agree the working class took the brunt of the suffering. But my point was to expand the picture to include all those who suffered under imperialism. -
Message 13
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
If you are going to troll with the clear intention of insulting people on this day, troll somewhere that might be perhaps more useful for whatever issues feed your hate and and lack of self worth.
Dating sites maybe, erectile dysfunction perhaps. -
Message 14
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
I'm sure you'll agree the working class took the brunt of the suffering.Ìý
Not so. With the exception of senior staff officers, well back from the line, officers and men fought side by side, facing machine guns artillery and gas together. Even senior staff had had to prove themselves in combat at some earlier time.
The life expectancy of a first lieutenant in 1916 was just a matter of weeks. Shorter than the life expectancy of an NCO.
Two of my uncles served in WW1 (as mentioned in another thread). One a sergeant in the HAC, the other an officer in RFC. They were brothers and good friends. They would not have thought of each other in class terms at all. They were farmer's lads doing their 'bit'.
After the war the eldest brother (the sergeant) inherited the farm and went on to employ his younger (ex-officer) brother as his book-keeper/accountant. Both of these men could hand-milk a cow and muck-out a pig-pen. Neither very 'posh' activities.
Your 'class-war' generalities have little validity. -
Message 15
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
I wonder if, on 9 May, the Russians remember all those who died as a result of Soviet imperialism? Don't think so, somehow.
-
Message 16
Posted by scudders1 (U13687172) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
and because of imperialism and so called exploitation,we now live in a country where the weak and unemployed can live in comfort and idiots pick at the past they dont like.
-
Message 17
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
I'm sure you'll agree the working class took the brunt of the suffering.
Ìý
Not so. With the exception of senior staff officers, well back from the line, officers and men fought side by side, facing machine guns artillery and gas together. Even senior staff had had to prove themselves in combat at some earlier time.
Ìý
Except to the extent that in those days, the "working class" formed the majority of the population, and could thus be said to have borne the brunt in numerical terms. I haven't seen any evidence to support the contention that they bore a disproportionate share of the load.
I suppose demographic change would mean that "the brunt" of modern conscription would fall on the middle class. -
Message 18
Posted by vera1950 (U9920163) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
RyanO,
no one is denying you freedom of speech,after all we have fought wars to ensure you retain that right.
By the same token others have the same right to disagree with you or choose not to join in with your debate.
If you feel you need a day to remember the downtrodden then you are at liberty to do so.What you are not at liberty to do is hijack the day we are specifically remembering our dead in conflict.
If you do not agree with us doing that ,you need not be a part of it.But try not to be offensive about it.
If you are so concerned about the have nots there are numerous ways you could make a contributn to relieving their plight and I suggest your energies would be better directed at doing just that. -
Message 19
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
Regarding the 'British ruling elites exploitation of weak and vulnerable third world countries', I think every 'ruling elite' in a position to do so has had no hesitation in doing just that since history began.
You are just jealous because the Irish ruling elite were always too busy with the more important business of fighting each other to ensure that none of their rival Irish ruling elite could ever attain that position.
Before you start yelling 'Brit', I am an Irishman, but with both eyes OPEN. -
Message 20
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
Surely we should be remembering all those during who died as a result of British imperialism throughout the world.
The thousands of working class men who died in the Poppy fields are but a small part of the millions who suffered as a result of the British ruling elites exploitation of weak and vulnerable third world countries. Ìý
Ryan, why pick rememberence day of all days to post this? Can you not see that the timing is at best crass and worst actively offensive? I'm sure you wouldn't stand up during a wedding and make a Johnathon Ross comment about the bride, or complain during a funeral that the deceased owed you money. Have some sense of decorum and realise that there's a time and a place for everyhting. Had you asked next week in a less aggressive tone, I'm confident that this could have been an interesting topic, instead it just looks like another attempt to slag off your enemy.
Your desire to limit this to only British oppression also demonstrates a certain one-eyedness which is unlikely to lead to a reasoned debate. -
Message 21
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
Urnungal,
Except to the extent that in those days, the "working class" formed the majority of the population, and could thus be said to have borne the brunt in numerical terms.Ìý
In numerical terms, in the first world war, that is undoubtedly true. The "working class" were probably 80% of the UK population around that time.
What I was objecting to, in Ryan's mischievous posts, was the subtext from his simplistic Marxist perspective, that the 'imperialist toffs and capitalists shamelessly exploited a radical and informed, proto-revolutionary working class' (not his words, but that is usually the upshot of his argument, on these boards)
My point was that while acknowledging that the various British classes were indeed different in many ways; in the important matter of the war, they were generally united by a common anti-Hun patriotic perspective.
In this respect the British Army was subtly different from the French (who supressed munity by shelling their own troops) and the Russians, who were in complete chaos after 1916.
I suppose demographic change would mean that "the brunt" of modern conscription would fall on the middle class.Ìý
You may well be right in that supposition. The problem with such a comparison from then to now, is that there is little agreement among demographers and sociologists about the social divisions in this country and how they should be classified.
Goldthorpe and Lockwood have done away with the the old 'middle' class altogether (now called 'intermediate'), and Marsahall (in Social Class in Modern Britain) is critical of the old Marxist and Weberian classifications.
The Registrar General's six-class categorisation (with the skilled workers further sub-divided into 'manual' and 'non-manual') is empirically useful but theoretically weak.
The experts seem unable to agree whether such a thing as a 'middle class' still exists, although it is a term still used in common parlance -
Message 22
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Thursday, 13th November 2008
This question, to a certain extent, ties in with something in which Im curious.
What was the 'death ratio' as compared the different units, for example Infantry, Artillery, Cavalry???
Was there ever a figure published.
Having today, finally brought my local Roll of Honour, up to date on my Memory stick, I realised that (for my locality), the majority of killed seem to be Infantry, which I would, of course, expect. I've found a number of Artillery also, and then it seems to be, either Naval ratings or those who died (of various causes) whilst in service at home.
My Roll of Honour, covers the locality betwwen August 1914-February 1916. (This is, as far as my resarch has reached, so I am up-to-date)
The reason for my curiosity, is that although by February 1916, compulsory service was the order of the day, If I had been required to join one of the services, (based on casualties appearing in the local paper I would probably have opted for the Navy, as there are only a handful from this locality. (Of course, 1916, was the year of Jutland).
I've been reading the account of one local casualty, who was actually removed from his regiment, to make up the numbers of another. I don't think I'd have liked that idea. -
Message 23
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Friday, 14th November 2008
'Ryan, why pick rememberence day of all days to post this? Can you not see that the timing is at best crass and worst actively offensive?'
No, it is about remembering the dead so what about the millions of deaths caused by British imperialism? Are they not as real as those who died in the trenches? Are they not as valued as human beings?
The answers I’ve had so far are revealing as to people’s approach to this question. There seems to be a hierarchy of concern where people who suffered under British imperialism are to be forgotten. -
Message 24
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 14th November 2008
No, it is about remembering the dead so what about the millions of deaths caused by British imperialism? Are they not as real as those who died in the trenches? Are they not as valued as human beings?Ìý
Do you have particular criteria for accounting them? Like, deceased from alcohol poisoning in Hong Kong prior to the transfer? Then again, would you extend similar courtesy to the milions of killed by Marxists of all stripes? Would you not value those as human beings? Should we remember everybody who is dead by now for any reason whatever? -
Message 25
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 14th November 2008
Good points suvorovetz.
And let's not forget all those millions killed by Western civilization which, of course, originated in Ireland.
RyanO - you have a lot to answer for. -
Message 26
Posted by lindavid (U10745308) on Friday, 14th November 2008
we are remembering all those who fell so we can have the freedom to express free speach and live in freedom.
you i expect have not been to war, i have and you will find that people like me are more anti war than you think.
start up a movement for the remembering of your cause, its your axe to grind and you have the freedom to grind it paid for by the fallen, i suspect most people will exercise their freedom to not bother with your cause.
its when people like you winge that i wish Hitler had won so your sort could be sent to a camp or shot out of hand. -
Message 27
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Friday, 14th November 2008
I await a post from RyanO on the deliberate mass starvation so often associated with his Communist pals.
In all cases, deaths in the millions, often tens of millions.
In Russia under Lenin, worse still under Stalin, under Mao in China, in Cambodia, in Ethiopia, under Mugabe even.
Funny how we never hear much from his type on these, the worst of 20th Century mass murder, only beaten by Nazi Germany. -
Message 28
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 15th November 2008
Second, 'those who died in the poppy fields' is pure Sellar & Yateman, and reminds me of the Tory MPs who spoke during the last NUM Strike of the trouble in the minefields.Ìý
-
Message 29
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Saturday, 15th November 2008
The thing that gets me is why does everyone seem to expect a higher standard of behavior from the British?
Ok, France has an empire butchers people at a rate of knots over throws established rulers and makes innocent black people speak French and no one blinks an eye.
We do exactly the same only instead of having to speak French we make them play cricket and theres indignation all round? Why? What the chuff did they think we we're doing it for. You run an empire to make a profit not to make peoples lives better.
Two faced jealousy I call it. -
Message 30
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Saturday, 15th November 2008
Well said backtothedarkplace.
Does RayanO think of all the working class Brits that died working to build railways roads and irrigation systems for India not fogetting the schools and hospitals that indians flocked to in droves.
He loves to blame the British for everything, but what about Stalin and his forced labour how many of his own did he send to death camps.
I wonder? -
Message 31
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Saturday, 15th November 2008
<quote.He loves to blame the British for everything</quote>
Yes, he does.
No lodgings for Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem?
The fault of the British and their holidaymakers booking up early
Apollo 13's near destruction?
The fault of the British,faulty oxygen cylinder nobbled by Mi5
Obesity?
Britains fault for exporting the cooked breakfast.
Laura's voting off the X factor?
The British are to blame for being instrumental in developing television.
Im sure there are more
Vf -
Message 32
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 15th November 2008
"Imperialism" is a problematic term. It can be just as accurately applied to the Assyrians' drive to integrate its "karum" (client ports) territorially and thereby establish one of the world's first recorded empires, as it can to the Romans, or indeed the British more than a thousand years later, or in fact multi-national companies' attempts today to control affairs hitherto the reserve of government. Remembering its "victims" therefore, while nominally an apparently empathic and humanitarian gesture, is really a ludicrous project to undertake.
Ryan O, in raising the issue using the Irish/British dichotomatic stance, actually reinforces the folly of such a proposed action. As this often - but not always - erudite discussion discussed on an Irish-based website illustrates
the vexed issue of Irish involvement in Britain's empire and how it should be remembered (if at all - according to some contributors) itself highlights an issue which I personally feel does not receive the inspection it deserves amongst British analysts of their own "imperial" history. Namely - to what extent was Britain as a colonial power ever really an empire at all?
It matched traditional empirical models in its drive to gain territories faster and more securely than anyone else. It most definitely matched all empirical contemporaries (as bttdp refers to obliquely above) in its drive to centralise profit distribution from its ventures within a domestically based elite - not the Roman model, by the way, at least for the majority of its existence, which preserved the notion of the elite but drew members for that elite from within its "colonial" outposts (check out birthplaces of the Roman emperors). But when push came to shove and the "empire" found itself politically obliged either to follow through on its social programme or dissolve itself it chose the latter course, and restyled itself a "commonwealth" (a very ironic term given the history of wealth distribution hitherto amongst its "members").
However we are on much safer ground when we call Britain a colonial power. There can be no quibbles with that term as it does not pretend to anything other than what it is. Britain acquired and exploited colonies - end of story - and when such a policy became untenable it abandoned it (and many dependent colonial subjects in the process). When it embarked on its bellicosity, along with other colonial powers, in 1914 it was this status - a rich colonial power - which gave it both the confidence to participate in global warfare and the reason to do so too. When I personally examine the period I do not see empirical strategy employed as much as a bunch of colonists, would-be colonists and ex-colonists hoping to rekick their colonialism, all squaring up for a long-anticipated showdown.
So what do we remember on November 11th and why? We are right to remember the millions of naive and innocent people forced, duped and otherwise dragged into a conflict over interests which had never yielded them much dividend, even in Britain itself. We are right to remember the pathos of a "war to end wars" which ironically can now be seen as the root of the huge majority of subsequent wars. We are right to lament tragedy.
But we are wrong to dress our remembrance up in the garb and manners of a military and state-run enterprise. We are wrong to employ nationalism in the expression of that remembrance (or even opposition to it, Ryan O). We are ultimately wrong to pretend that by "remembering" the "fallen" in one "great" war, we provide closure (as the modern expression goes) for the grieving relatives of our military dead when the machinery of such killing continues unabated in our name.
For me, Remembrance Day has more rights than wrongs about it, and it is crass and insulting of Ryan O, for example, to traipse over the sensitivities of others as he intended to do with this provocatively opened thread. His original suggestion, as I have already said, is neither an intelligent alternative nor even innately intelligent in its own right. But Remembrance Day is not a subject which should be deemed out of bounds by any means. We, all of us, when confronted with the social pressure to wear or not wear a poppy, should immediately recognise that what we are really being invited to participate in is an analysis of historical relevance and the First World War has a modern relevance far more complex than the "day of remembrance" in its stage-managed format invites us to contemplate.
To the proverbial Martian the ceremony at the Cenotaph would suggest we have decided to utilise our alleged empathy with the grief war incurs to glorify bellicosity itself. I'm with the Martian on that one - and as an earthling rather disappointed. -
Message 33
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 15th November 2008
We are ultimately wrong to pretend that by "remembering" the "fallen" in one "great" war, we provide closure (as the modern expression goes) for the grieving relatives of our military dead when the machinery of such killing continues unabated in our name.Ìý
The First World War has always featured prominently because it was the impact of that war which was the major starting point for Remembrance Day (and particularly this year, with the centenary), but it is by no means exclusively about the First World War, but - as I thought (albeit wrongly, it appears) - about that and all wars since... including in Ireland. Indeed in Jersey, as well as the ceremony at our own cenotaph for the dead of the two World Wars, even the memorial to the six grenadiers killed at the Storming of La Rocque Battery in 1781 gets a wreath laid on it.
However, I don't believe - and I have never known it to be claimed - that Remembrance Day is supposed to provide any sort of closure, and it is BECAUSE British servicemen and women are still fighting and dying that the event remains so relevant. -
Message 34
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 15th November 2008
Well, that was one of the central elements in my objection to how the act of remembrance should be managed and officially expressed.
It is not an invalid or morally bankrupt stance to limit the act of remembrance to the concept of a bellicose nation regretting that its servicemen and women regrettably must die in the prosecution of foreign policy through military means. But if it that is what it is then those who manage it should be honest about their motive.
However, should it mean something more (and it is invariably portrayed by even its managers as meaning something rather more than what I have just said) then it is, or at least should be, also an open invitation to analyse whether foreign policy is always something worth dying for, to cite just one deviation from the official portrayal.
When I see less shapers of foreign policy laying wreaths than I do at the Cenotaph I will be more inclined to the view that it is a worthwhile exercise. In the meantime it strikes me that it is a laudable sentiment hijacked by cynical politicians, and that is to its detriment. For one thing, inviting accusations of hypocrisy is seen by people like Ryan O as an invitation also to hijack it - albeit scurrilously - for their ends too.
It should be above all that. -
Message 35
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Sunday, 16th November 2008
In the meantime it strikes me that it is a laudable sentiment hijacked by cynical politicians, and that is to its detriment.Ìý
To me,its a time I refect and think just how lucky I have been.Im 33 now,when you look at the ages of a lot of the dead,they were just kids.My Grandfather is very close to passing away and yet I can take comfort from the fact that he has had a good life and raised a good family.This was something denied through war for many,their lives cut short.That is the reason that I buy my poppy,and observe the 2 minute silence.In terms of Britain,their sacrifice enabled Britain to be the country it is today,with the privedges and standard of living I enjoy.
Thats just my two penneth,but I see your point Nordmann
Vf -
Message 36
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Sunday, 16th November 2008
‘Do you have particular criteria for accounting them?’
Nice attempt to dissipate responsibility S.
The British were conducting an imperialist war in 1914, vying for dominance over France and Germany. So the poppy commemoration is directly connected to their imperial machinations.
British imperialism was responsible for millions of deaths and suffering thru its policies during the 19th and early 20th centuries, including: the growing and importation of opium to China which was enforced against the wishes of the Chinese government causing millions of deaths; the rebellions in India which caused hundreds of thousands of deaths (estimates of several hundred thousand and up to several million died). Britain was also involved in oppression in Africa and Asia in which there were large numbers of casualties (at least 100,000 in Kenya, many thousands in SA), the introduction of concentration camps, dum-dum bullets and atrocities like Amritzar.
Poppy day is an attempt to gloss over these events and pretend that Britain was only about saving democracy and freedom which is nonsense. -
Message 37
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Sunday, 16th November 2008
‘we are remembering all those who fell so we can have the freedom to express free speach and live in freedom’
Complete bunkum lindavid. WWI was a war between competing imperialists. Britain ran an empire in which millions suffered.
British soldiers had maintained this empire by campaigning all over the world against native rulers and governments.
Millions perished in China and India alone in the wars which Britain conducted in order to enforce its rule and bolster its exploitation of those countries. -
Message 38
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Sunday, 16th November 2008
‘We are wrong to employ nationalism in the expression of that remembrance (or even opposition to it, Ryan O).’
I am not employing nationalism in opposition to Remembrance Sunday. I am pointing out the hypocrisy involved.
‘it is crass and insulting of Ryan O, for example, to traipse over the sensitivities of others as he intended to do with this provocatively opened thread.’
I did not intend it, it is inevitable. But who else is going to point out the hypocrisy, you? seemingly not, not at least until the subject has been broached in the first place.
‘For one thing, inviting accusations of hypocrisy is seen by people like Ryan O as an invitation also to hijack it - albeit scurrilously - for their ends too’
So what are you saying N, is the subject out of bounds for discussion or not? If it is then why do you find it necessary to attack the messenger? If there is hypocrisy involved then why not just say so and stop trying to pander to people who do not want the question raised in the first place? -
Message 39
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 16th November 2008
Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:19 GMT, in reply to Nordmann in message 34
Nordmann, I take your point. For me, though - and, I think, for many others - it remains a moving and meaningful ceremony, whatever the motivations of the Powers That Be. -
Message 40
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 16th November 2008
The British were conducting an imperialist war in 1914, vying for dominance over France and Germany. So the poppy commemoration is directly connected to their imperial machinationsÌý
That's an interesting interpretation. Do you have any evidence that the British set this whole thing up? -
Message 41
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 16th November 2008
Re: Message 32 and 34.
Nordmann,
excuse my ignorance but as a Belgian I think to understand that Memembrance Day is a remembrance of the deads of all the wars in which Britain took part? I am on shaky grounds about that concept then, while I first thought that it was the same as our 11 November remembrance and as the one in France. 11 November on the occasion of which we have both in Belgium and in France a legal holiday. On a meeting with Germans near 11 November some were wondering why we had a holiday. It was our delicate duty to enlighten them.
I first want to say what 11 November means for the Belgians (about what I am even not sure and it can be that it is nowadays also a remembrance for the two Worldwars) and what it means for me personally.
I think for the Belgians it is (and in that they are "lucky" (question of rightness) to have had a German invasion and occupation, the same for the French) the remembering of the "fallen" in the defence of their national territory.
For me it is the remembrance of all the "suffering" of mankind in their struggle to evoluate (hmm I see now for the first time in my dictionary that it is "evolve") to a more decent society in which "all" of the citizens have their fundamental rights.
For me too, as you said about "Remembrance Day", "11 November the Armistice Day" "has more rights than wrongs about it".
As for "the social pressure to wear or not to wear a poppy"? In that time of the year you are sure of those who wear it, that they are British? (Or is it for the whole Commonwealth?) For me it is a British custom, which is foreign on the continent, but I recognize the value of it and I respect it, but for me it is just another "custom" as many others. And BTW I can understand the "social pressure to wear or not to wear" as it is of all! societies. My late mother, who was a bit deaf at the time, asked me what they said through the loudspeakers in the supermarket, asking for a minute silence (I think to remember that it was about the Belgian Dutroux, the child murderer). As she was speaking a woman next to us hissed: "Quiet!". I answered to my mother loud and clear: Don't listen to all that tripe of the supermarket it's just but balderdash. Just to say that I am not pleased to be obliged by some people to do the same of what they do. Even at my 65.
Warm regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 42
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Monday, 17th November 2008
'That's an interesting interpretation.'
Its certainly not a novel idea.
'Do you have any evidence that the British set this whole thing up?'
Set what 'whole thing' up? -
Message 43
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 17th November 2008
Paul :
The original "Remembrance Day" was, indeed, created to remember (rather than "honour" in my view) the dead of the Great War, and the poppies (pre-plastic ones had the words "Haig Fund" on the black centre) were sold to help fund rehabilitation, sheltered workshops etc for those who had served in the Great War. It was (logically) extended to include those who served etc. in WWII, but in my youth it was rarely (if ever) claimed to refer to those who suffered and died in later wars, still less those from earlier wars. I wonder if that aspect has come originally from the American view of Veterans Day, by the way.
Not all veterans were in favour of wearing poppies - there were those who shared the view of Eric Bogle's veteran in "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda" (historically incorrect though that song may be), for example, my great-grandfather, a Mons veteran, became quite profane on the topic of poppies "those £$%^£&*$ think more of those £())*+ poppies than they did of my pals' lives" was about his mildest sentiment he would express on the subject. -
Message 44
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 17th November 2008
Hi Nordmann,
One of the blokes from two men and a trench has publish a book regarding this which I read a few months ago, well, nearly a year.
he linked the rememberence services of today to the recovery of the Unknown soldier. The original Cenotaph was assembled as part of this and intended primarily to be a temporary structure. it became a foucus of grief for the thousands who had lost a loved one and had no known grave to mourn at. There was a public outcry when the original cenotaph was to be removed and it was repalced with a permenant version.
To an extent the public expression of individual grief has been hijacked by the establishment into the current event.
While still supporting the public display to me the more moving event used to take place the night before at the Albert Hall where one poppy was dropped from the ceiling for every solider who died in both world wars and every war since. It rained red for minutes and the poppies form drifts on the floor. I cant watch this on the TV any more. Have a bit of difficulty in explaining to a four year old why I'm crying.
If it has to be done away with and sooner or later it probably will be, times and fashions change then IMO it should be replaced with a digital counter that should be welded to the wrist of every prime minister so that everytime after he goes to check his watch he knows how many people have died because he fancied looking good. -
Message 45
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 17th November 2008
Set what 'whole thing' up? Ìý
Aren't you accusing the British of launching WWI to dominate France and Germany? -
Message 46
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 17th November 2008
I am not employing nationalism in opposition to Remembrance Sunday. I am pointing out the hypocrisy involved.
Ìý
Why? -
Message 47
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 17th November 2008
RE: Message 43.
Gil,
and now I was thinking in the first reading that it was Nordmann, who answered
Thank you very much for your enlightenment about the British point of view and the history. Now when you say: my great-grandfather at Mons, it reminds me that we already once years ago discussed about Belgium and your, if I recall it well, visits to Mons.
Warm regards from your friend,
Paul.
PS and BTW: How is it with your chickens? -
Message 48
Posted by vera1950 (U9920163) on Tuesday, 18th November 2008
RyanO,
think what you like about Poppies and Rememberance Sunday but DO NOT presume to think or tell me that I must see it as you say it should be viewed.
I will see it as I want to, if you think that is misguided ,so be it., but your view in my opinion is both crass and utter tosh.
Whatever you think of Britain and its past let me say it acted in contet of the times and cannot be judged by todays rues and regulations and is no more guilty of anything than other imperialist nations of the same eras.
And furthermore it is my country, and I love it ,warts and all. -
Message 49
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 18th November 2008
Ryan O's assertion with which he kicked off this thread, as I have said, is simply scurrilousy intended and devoid of any real sense except as a provocative statement.
To accuse Britain of acting "imperially" when it embarked on military action in 1914 is like accusing an elephant of being grey. If Britain, which styled itself an empire, had decided to remain neutral in the conflict it would still have been behaving "imperially". For that matter, if it had decided to relocate to Canada at the time and attack the USA it would even still have been having "imperially". The problem is in the word - one that on the surface has some grand and damning connotations, especially to those who dabble in the language of political philosophy but dare not pursue the subject in case it rattles a few of their tribal and inherited prejudices. But when it is analysed it is found terribly wanting, both as an adequate description of British foreign policy in the lead-up to the war and as a significantly distinguishing factor separating Britain's conduct of its diplomacy and war effort from that of any other leading power at the time.
Ryan O is interested only in attacking the notion that Britain's war dead deserve commemoration on that basis alone. He thinks that by suggesting they be considered victims of "imperialism" instead then he has scored a point against what he considers British ignorance on the part of its citizens and triumphalism on the part of its leaders. His mistake is in presuming ignorance, which he does based on another mistaken notion that November 11th is a product of the state. That the state has managed it, and indeed has often warped or blatantly utilised the original motive for it when the occasion suited, is sufficient for him to consider himself justified in debasing it. His gripe, as usual, is against Britain and not imperialism per se. Otherwise he would have made his point much more intelligently.
He just needs to learn a bit more history. And he most definitely needs to broaden his political vocabulary. Provocation is not always a bad thing, even ill-mannered provocation. But unless it is well deserved, and shown to be well-founded, it defeats its purpose. -
Message 50
Posted by vera1950 (U9920163) on Wednesday, 19th November 2008
what he needs Nordman is several terms in a house of correction and hopefully he will acheive a level of graciousness.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.