UKC

I have empathy for those who have been directly affected by the death of combatants in wars we he have been involved with. But is it any more special this year and if so why?
Any year with a 4,8, 9 or 5 in it is a major anniversary.

In reply to pasbury: 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme which had more than one million men wounded or killed - largest in WW1 I believe.

In reply to pasbury:

It's remembrance of the year when plucky little old Britain defeated the powers of evil within Europe.

In reply to Michael Hood:


Yes, but why are we commemorating the Somme with quotes from Rupert Brooke and not Wilfred Owen. The purpose of these ceremonies with generals, royals, and prime ministers is to tell the old lie to another generation of ardent children.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Well yes Tom, that would be far more apt. Nice work getting those references in there.

Before you start disliking Tom's post, read this:

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/46560

In reply to Hugh J:


No it's not. If anything, the less celebrated anniversary of VE / VJ days are that. But given the rise of xenophobia, condemnation of immigrants and continued aggression in the middle East, it's hardly anything to rave on about.

The fact that too many people miss the point, almost makes it pointless. It's remembrance - thinking about past tragedy so that we won't repeat it again. War has been part of human in history forever, but 102 years ago it got so bad that the consequences were much greater than ever before. High death toll, the crossing of morale ground, and the post-1918 economic disaster and it's eventual consequence in 1939.

In reply to Philip:
I think you totally missed the point of my post there Philip, it was firmly tongue-in-cheek and a dig at the people you highlight in your first paragraph. But, perhaps it wasn't the right occasion to make it?

In reply to Philip:


I think it is the lesson that is often missed and still relevant today, if you punish a whole population because of the actions of its aristocracy or dictators, then 20 years later that population might rise up against you.

In reply to pasbury:

Well...

The Remembrance period of November is over in a flash, costs almost nothing but a little of your time and your empathy, and doesn't line the pockets of commercial companies. It is a sobering time and I don't know of any children who are "taught" that this is a time to revel in our glorious history, but rather to reflect on tougher times for ordinary people.

I find it utterly, utterly bizarre that this same question comes up every single year while we are already a couple of weeks into the over-the-top, overhyped, over-promoted and 99% commercial juggernaut that is Christmas. Yet, we seem to bend over and take it with barely a whimper, handing over the contents of our wallets from late October onwards to feed this cynical money-making exercise. (I love Christmas - AT Christmas, by the way). All the time we are complaining about "poppy fascism" which I have yet to experience in my life.

In reply to Rampikino:

Agreed. It's also a reminder to those kids more concerned about seeing what Kim Kardashian had for breakfast that there was a time when life was far harder; a time when many people we're sent to war without a choice.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



"Glorious?

In the days long gone by
When the 1st S.A.I.
Took part in a battle laborious
‘Mid Delville Wood’s trees
With a vertical breeze
I don’t recollect feeling glorious.
When the battle was o’er
And we’d counted the score

It didn’t feel very victorious

With most of our band
In a far better land
Not one of us said it was glorious.
When a pal fell down dead
With no top to his head
We may have used language censorious
But whatever we said
As we looked at our dead
I’m certain we never said glorious".

Harry Goodwin - A soldier from the First South African Brigade who fought at Delville Wood on the Somme.

However I don't believe the Remembrance Day ceremonies encourage the "old lie" or seek to glorify war. I suggest they do precisely the opposite and drum home the horrors of war as a lesson to future generations.

The really sad part that in the last 100 years it's a lesson humankind hasn't been able to learn.

Did you see the Tower of London popies last year? I went up to see them. I had blandly read histories of great battles and hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, but really had no concept of just what 850,000 people actually looked like. It was a grey November day when I visited the Tower and walked around the moat. There were 850,000 ceramic poppies in it - the number of British and Commonwealth Dead from the Great War.

It was an overwhelming and sobering sight.

In reply to Rampikino:


I would have liked to have given you unlimited likes but...
You are quite right with your comments about Christmas. In fact I noticed that as far back as mid September SCS were advertising "delivery in time for Christmas". Shortly after that a Christmas tree started appearing in their adverts. I honestly believe there should be an embargo on the sale of Christmas merchandise and advertising until late November at the earliest. It is commercialism at it most repugnant.
(Sorry, I didn't mean this to turn into a rant about Christmas)

In reply to pasbury:

It is important this year that we grasp how important it is to stop people like Trump and Putin. Think about what could happen if those two take on China. A reasonable estimate would be two hundred million dead and a billion people maimed, traumatise and homeless.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

You don't need to invoke a war with China. They are already or potentially harming people. Electing Trump has legitimised for many people (and Brexit in this country) racism, misogyny and intolerance.

Poppy-ism should extend down to small levels as well as up to big events.

In reply to pasbury:

I think it changes through time.

As a kid in the 70's I recall everything coming to a halt at 11am - cars and buses pulled over, shops fell silent.

It then seemed to lose some meaning in the 80's. But with Gulf 1 and the subsequent sojourns into the Middle East, the last of the WW1 veterans passing away and WWII and Korean veterans now passing I think it is important that both wars, and what caused them are remembered and in the public consciousness.

Likewise, I think in a Playstation generation, it helps younger people relate to the fact that we are still sending young men and women to fight and die on behalf of the country, and that the outside world is not a sanitised video game.

It also reminds politicians of the enormity of what they are asking the forces, and their families to do.

I went to see Anthropoid on Friday night at the little cinema in the medieval guild house in Shrewsbury. It's a taxing film to watch towards the end.

When we merged, there were numerous lads dressed in full WW1 uniform - part of Jeremy Deller's installation "We're Here Because We're Here". All stood silently.

You could not hear a squeek - it brought home the horrors visited onto mainland Europe by the Nazi and their collaborators, and how lads just out of school not only died in 14 to 18 but in 39 to 45.

I tend to avoid the "plucky little Britain" idea- it's wrongheaded and it ignores the carnage meted out to the European population, but it is useful opportunity to pull people up form what are quite privileged and secure lives and to think and ask questions.

In reply to Philip:




I'm sorry, and it's not something that I want to have any sort of a row about, but I disagree. Remembrance is about remembering the individual sacrifices of all those who gave their lives for their country, in all circumstances, in conflicts, wars and troubles right and wrong. It is an apolitical act of remembrance by the nation, collectively and individually.

It serves inevitably to remind of the tragedy as a whole, but that is not its purpose - it is not a recurring lesson not to repeat the errors of the past, it is a time to remember those who died. If there is a lesson, it is not to forget.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


You are without doubt an absolute toilet. What are you on about? Trump and bloody Putin.

Putin wants to combat the ever growing threat of ISIS and extremist Islam, not engage in another drawn out Cold War with another superpower.

In reply to digby:


Misogyny like Bill Clinton did numerous times, and oh yes which Clinton lied for, manipulated and discredited the victims for.... Good one.

It hasn't legitimised anything. And again it's a matter of opinion on the racism. And I don't really see any of you liberals spewing your pish about the wall Kenya is already building with Somalia.

Brexit is purely a different situation and hasn't legitimised anything of the sort. Again it's giving people the ability to speak out against huge watered down constituencies that would have lost their voice.

There is such a thing as "too tolerant". And controlling immigration isn't about a race.


Some people might be arseholes. But then some of you lefties are arseholes too.

In reply to nniff:




Spot on. And I would add, just for the liberals, individuals on both sides of all ethnicities and religions, and nationalities. Right, or wrong. Fathers, mothers, sons and daughters died in all sides.

(Yes for you liberals, they only had "binary genders" it wasn't like today's world of socially constructed make believe spectrum of genders)

In reply to Bootrock:


Explain that one to Alan Turing.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Being gay isn't about being in a "spectrum of gender". Just means your a dude that likes other dudes. Being a dude, that's still a "binary" gender.

In reply to Bootrock:

What, exactly, is a liberal?

It's not a phrase used over here but sprayed around in the US with a great deal of venom.

In reply to Bootrock:

There have been non binary genders forever http://listverse.com/2015/10/21/10-examples-of-nonbinary-genders-throughout...

In reply to Rampikino:

Agreed.

Regardless of your political persuasion or your views on war everyone can take a moment to remember the millions upon millions of lives that were lost in the world wars.

What you think about the loss is up to you but I think it makes our society more conscious to at least remember it.

In reply to Bootrock:
In my opinion it's seriously bad form to use a thread about rememberance day to pedal a political view.

In reply to Bootrock:

Nasty reply.

Clinton's message was 'It's the economy stupid', not it's the Mexicans, Chinese, Somalis etc

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


Ohwell. I wasn't the only one. But there you go. I wouldn't really count this as a thread about rememberence as there's a fair few arsehole comments in it, and political views, before my post. So it's fair game.

In reply to Philip: I find WW1 much more poignant than WW2. The Nazis were an evil that needed to be defeated, and because nobody stopped them when it would have been (relatively) easy, it took a huge cost in humankind.

But WW1 was just a re-shuffling of the power map between dynasties/countries. No absolute need for it at all - and what did all those people die for - as far as I can see, pretty much nothing.

I also think that the meaning of Remembrance day will change as we get fewer and fewer survivors. Now, there is still some sense of the loss of individuals (for WW2 at least). Eventually I think it will become more like - this is what happens when countries and politicians f*** it up - millions die - don't do it again.

In reply to pasbury:

I'm with you on this. I bought a poppy and observed two minutes but we've got to the point we are remembering every battle, every year. Maybe it's all harmless and just serves to increase funds for good work by the Royal British Leagion but I worry "remeberance" has become so diluted it is risking becoming meaningless.

In reply to Bootrock:
Fair enough, you're not the only one and you've got every right to but that's just my 2p s worth.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

You do have a point though. Consider my neck wound in.

I will say that rememberence has changed for me, and I have mates that feel the same. As well as remembering the obvious 1st world war, and the second, it can be used to remember relatives, loved ones or friends who have served in conflicts from that point. Although the underlying reason will always be to remember the Great War, it has to move with the times, conflicts such as the 1st Gulf war, Iraq Afgahanistan and other conflicts or peace keeping, or in these sad times, suicide, as the rate of former servicemen and women killing themselves has increased.

But my mate made a good point to also to remember those that lost their lives contributing or serving the public to, Firefighters, Police Ambulance staff, Merchent Navy etc, whichever had effected your life or loved ones.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Yes, and amongst our modern tragedies there are still uplifting signs of hope and humanity:

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/200/cpsprodpb/F3D4/production/_92402426_reun...

In reply to Michael Hood:



This rings true for me too. The stark horror of staying in more or less the same places for four years just murdering each other on an industrial scale for.....what? It's a complex thing but this is a big part of Remembrance Day for me, sane and civilized people decided en masse that this was a desirable course of action.

In reply to Bobling:

youtube.com/watch?v=yZT-wVnFn60&

In reply to Michael Hood:


It's also the 60th anniversary of the Sinai War. For some reason we seem less keen to remember that one, despite somewhere from 1500 - 3000 people dying. No further comment.

In reply to pasbury:

I always made an elaborate effort to commemorate Remembrance tide properly and still make a personal act "for the pity", but this year I didn't wear a poppy and when the Union Flag was carried past me in church I experienced a frisson of horror. I feel we are being encouraged to revel in the emotional charge associated with the commemoration. As a nation it is doing us no good. It's time to move on.

In reply to Pete Pozman:
Move on from what?
Even WW2 is still a living memory for a large number of people.
Then there's the numerous wars, peacekeeping and police actions since then.
Should people not remember those affected by these events?

In reply to pasbury:

I've been to the FRCC act of remembrance on Great Gable for the last couple of years and found it quite moving. I think that the fact that it originates with people commemorating climbing friends that they've lost brings home the sense of the lives wasted in a way that - to me at least - a lot of more "official" things don't.

On the other hand, I do worry a bit that some people these days are turning acts or remembrance into a bit of a secular religion, with symbols that have to be shown due respect and rituals that have to be performed correctly, all of which makes me a bit uneasy, particularly given that it's inevitably tied up with how we view the armed forces.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
I have always observed the Remembrance since the 60s but it really ought to be a personal choice whether to join with it. I find very distasteful the extent to which the media are orchestrating almost the worship and creating a fashion to be seen doing it, and a public requirement. Having said that I've always found the broadcast of the Cenotaph ceremony moving too.

I try to make it to the Gable act each year and it is indeed very moving, and for the benefit of people who haven't, the point is made there every year to remember all victims of war.

In reply to baron:

Others on here have articulated my qualms very clearly. I am worried that Remembrance has becomes another populist nationalist expression. The sort of thing, like Diana's funeral where people whip themselves up. Plenty of "grief" but precious little dignity.
I don't remember it being such a spectacular affair when I was a young man ; that's when our dads and uncles had mostly been in the war and WWI veterans were in their sixties.
There seems to be a an overblown quality to what we are doing now which is inappropriate and lacking in the stark solemnity the act of Remembrance requires.
Let's have one last big commemoration in 2018 then let it go.

In reply to Pete Pozman:
I certainly agree with the majority of your post.
Just not sure how we 'let it go' when it's called remembrance?

In reply to Pete Pozman:

You appear to overlook the fact that the Remembrance commemorations are not now seen as solely relating to the First or Second World Wars. It is also an act of Remembrance for those who have been sacrificed in even more recent conflicts. Sadly there will always be such conflicts as long as humanity exists.

In reply to FesteringSore:

I think I'm appealing for quiet dignity; a de-escalation of the emotional charge that seems to be required in these hyped up times. We need to get our heads out of the past and be trying to look to the sort of future they sacrificed for. As I said, there was far less spectacle when I was younger. People didn't wear their poppies in October for instance.

In reply to Bootrock:


That is a good point, and could also include fisherfolk, farmers, miners and so on, who also lose their lives in the national interest.

I suppose the main difference is the sheer scale of the 1st and 2nd WW deaths, the brutality of them, and the fact that many didn't have much choice.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Excellent points. Remembrance Day seems to be much bigger now than it ever was back in the 70's, 80's and 90's. It's strange that the further in time we move away in time from those World Wars the greater the need to commemorate them seems to become. There are no surviving veterans from World War One and the number from World War Two are rapidly dwindling. We should never forget these men but it does seem appropriate to let the whole Remembrance spectacle naturally wind itself down. Of course there is another reason that Remembrance has been deliberately brought to such prominence in modern times. It has been hijacked as a means to try and legitimise Britain's participation in the United States' oil wars in the Middle East.

As for the sort of future they sacrificed for, it's another valid concern. Getting back to World War One in particular and all those working class young men who had no idea what they were fighting for and in many cases had no choice about being there either. It is tragic to think that they died to preserve an archaic imperialist class system that is still oppressing their descendants a century later.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

It is tragic to think that they died to preserve an archaic imperialist class system that is still oppressing their descendants a century later.

The death rate amongst junior (and indeed senior) Officers was far higher than amongst private soldiers.
The percentage amongst the aristocracy that died effectively put an end to the "Lord and Servant" situation that existed prior to WW1.
Also the mechanisation and the extension of education across all social groups which was necessary for the military to pursue the war led to a vast number of people being emancipated from servant-type jobs.
Women in particular proved their equality in many areas, and this was a great help with regard to achieving the vote.

In reply to Removed UserBwox:

The 2nd was on a completely different scale to the 1st.

65 million dead not including Stalin's purges v 15 million roughly.

Remembrance day very good but should be all war dead, it's one of the devices used to reinforce a sense of a Nation state.

In reply to Removed UserBwox:

It does there are Bevin boys ( or there were until 2012) and Woman's land army representatives at the Cenotaph service.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

>
By introducing universal suffrage for those men and suffrage for women under the aged of thirty in 1918 and universally ten years later?

In reply to FesteringSore:

Exactly. Our main parade went to both our equivalent of the Cenotaph and our Boer war memorial.

In reply to krikoman:

As an aside I believe Savile was a Bevin Boy.

In reply to FesteringSore:


Is there a miner (minor) joke there somewhere?

In reply to krikoman:

No, just an observation.

In reply to krikoman:


Good point, though I was really thinking of the period since the end of the war.

In reply to Bootrock:


Fixed that for you.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Yawn.

In reply to Rampikino:



why is it a sobering time for you ?
do you actually reflect on anything in the present , like say MILLIONS who's life is torn apart in Syria ? (just one example of many conflicts at the moment..)
this isn't anything against remembrance, just against making it appear what it is NOT.
(the start of hypocrisy.. )

In reply to jondo:

Hello Jondo,

Could I just check? Are you angry at my post because of perceived hypocrisy or just more generally angry with the thread and other people?

If you actually want a response to your questions please contact me away from the thread and I will give you a response that ought to address your queries.

M

In reply to Rampikino:
Why angry?
I asked you what is so sobering? If it is too personal you do not have to answer here or elsewhere.
I further inquired if the sobering process causes you to reflect deeply on the uk involvement in current wars or the uneccessary slaughter of the gulf war. It is not personal against you just an inquiry into certain attitudes that are prevalent.

On a related note, I think that the social 'system' or tendency to shame people for not wearing poppies is the same system that shamed people for not wanting to fight 100 years ago.

In reply to jondo:



...because your post(s) come across as particularly angry.

I made an offer, you seem to have declined. If you are questioning the theme rather than me personally perhaps reply to the thread and not throw your hypocrisy implication directly at someone you don't know?

In reply to Rampikino:



obviously i do not know you, the hypocrisy was directed at some people who just conform to some social appearances or use it to express other things like nationalism, for many others it is a personal experience related to family or friends who lost their lives. I was interested (perhaps a bit aggressively) in the word 'sobering' since it implies some revelation or personal development in this context.

governments around the world often use remembrance as a political tool , as masses rally around something (doesn't matter what) it is easier to influence them with messages.

In reply to Rampikino:

Give that man a metaphorical medal.

Succinctly put, sir.

I dont give two hoots whether its a "special anniversary" or not, those men and women and animals deserve my unresounding respect and they get it.

And my kids know to do so also.

As stated - Christmas comes galloping afterwards and fudge me lets have us a party...yet make a bit more of an effort to celebrate those who secured the life we have and people are like "why"

So you dumbasses can say and believe what you want and not have your opinions given to you.

Thats why.

In reply to pasbury:

i also have utmost respect for those who lost their lives willingly or unwillingly forced in to war, bot human and animal, however the phrase 'lest we forget' seems to have little bearing on anyone. Are we not almost always at war, loosing more lives, have we not already forgotten?

In reply to Pesda potato:


hey, skynet hasn't taken over yet..

In reply to SChriscoli:






sounds like you would prefer people not to have opinions that differ from your own.

In reply to jondo:

Not my meaning - if it reads like that.

We enjoy the freedom to choose and vocalise (relatively) our own opinions and thoughts in a free and safe environment. We can be critical of our leaders and peers without fear of retribution.

That is a right that was borne and won by those that fought for it.

As the adage goes "I might not like, nor agree with anything you say, but I'll fight for the right for you to say it"

I'd like peoples perceptions to be changed regarding Remembrance to feel like I do about it - but if you dont, then fine. Dont make a song and dance about it and expect to be apreciated for it

In reply to jondo:

It'll be a long time coming. I think there were a number of Skynet launch failures in in the 70s

In reply to Pesda potato:

I think I remember Tony Blair making comments to the effect that he wasn't much interested in History (strange, when you think he shared the same History teacher as Rowan Atkinson). He is the living proof that politicians seeking fame and treasure will always repeat History

In reply to wercat:

youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY&