The ANZACs... Should we remember? (1 Viewer)

[saladsurgery]

hey what about the US

they have more WMD than the rest of the world combined
they have invaded other countries
they have sponsored known terrorists
they have knowingly overthrown democratically elected regimes in other countries and installed puppet dictators

sounds dangerous

for real, pre-emptive strike, let's go

 

[Generator]

*bump*

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/...r-driving-force/2004/11/28/1101577352049.html

Australian nationalism... If not the Anzacs, perhaps the miners? Another myth glorified to suit the needs of those today, though.

 

[Enlightened_One]

Yes, it's a vital part of our history and our national identity.

 

[Generator]

*bump*

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15072327^7583,00.html

 

[White Rabbit]

Should we remember and pay our respects?

Easy answer: Yes.

You're a rude bastard in my eyes if you think we shouldn't

 

[ohne]

Essentially the ANZAC legend is the creation of war Historian CEW Bean. He went to the war front and recorded what he saw in little notebooks. Later he would go back and rewrite. When he got back to Australia he wrote the official war history from his notepads and other things.

Ok CONTEXT...at the time Australia really lacked a national identity. We needed something to be proud of. C.E.W Bean gave this to us in the form of the brave Anzacs.

He acknowledgeed that he often made mistakes, forgot things, could not read his own notes etc. That he changed dates and locations in order to protect the soldiers. He also added things later a long time after the event when he was back in Australia in order to make it more presentable.

It was also noted that he felt it wasn’t his job to criticise the job done by the generals and leaders. Hence much of his work is gloriously patriotic and very uncritical. Most see his love the establishment and leaders in his work...ie he doesn’t criticise.

So in a way the ANZAC legend is a myth. It’s not totally untrue. However its pure accuracy (for example Simpson’s donkey) is very questionable.

During the 1920s Cecil Aspinall was writing the official British history of the period. He painted the ANZAC soldiers in a negative light. In that they were lazy selfish and bad fighters who often ran away.

The Australian government saw this and demanded that they change the British official history. This happened so that the Australian history didn’t look like lies and propaganda and also to sooth over colonial relations. Aspinal was sacked and the ANZAC myth was born.

------------------

Despite this the we should be respectful on ANZAC day. REALLY it should be more about the sadness and often senseless nature of war. It should not be a 'celebration', unless you like the idea of celebrating the death of people.

Excellent post, Asqy. In a way I think we really should look up to Aspinal for reporting things the way they really were. The ANZAC legend really is a myth. I feel it is often manipulated by those who are anti-British or extreme Australian nationalists. I think we should remember that they were ultimately invading another country - you don't see Germany celebrating the invasion of Poland.

The Australian forces were in reality an ill-disciplined unorganised rabble. According to official history officers would often force men out of trenches to their deaths and as Asqy points out many of them refused to obey orders anyway. There is really very little heroic about the gallipolli campaign and while I think we should remember and respect those who died, by celebrating the gallipolli campaign we are really not honouring what really happened.

Another thing about ANZAC day is that it is deliberately misinterpreted by many in Australia as a purely Australian and New Zealand operation where only people from these countries died. But nearly 9,000 French, 21,000 British and Irish and 86,000 Turkish troops died attacking and defending the thin strip of land. And who killed the Turks?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think the 'anzac' legend is as many people have pointed out, is basically a lie.
However, i do believe that these days the concept of 'anzac' is more about 'the australian spirit' (whatever that is) and less about the battle at gallipoli.

It's good that for a while that we can be a little more united.

 

[White Rabbit]

Despite this the we should be respectful on ANZAC day. REALLY it should be more about the sadness and often senseless nature of war. It should not be a 'celebration', unless you like the idea of celebrating the death of people.

I think it is more of comemoration than celebration. ANZAC day services are extremley somber - it rouses alot of emotion in many people. The Ode, the Last Post, the feeling of the occassion. The services are to pay respect and remember. The RSL later on in the day is a different story, but if you look at whos actually there, you do see many are actually returned servicemen from various wars. Then you celebrate those who made it home. It's a very mixed day, but regardless of how you see the ANZAC legand, it's an important day to many of us.

About the ANZAC legend, regardless of it's origin, it gave Australia a national indenity. It's something to be proud of.

 

[ohne]

About the ANZAC legend, regardless of it's origin, it gave Australia a national indenity. It's something to be proud of.

But it is a false legend. Making up stories for national idendity is nothing to be proud of. It just shows how weak Australian national identity really is. Essentially Australia is just a few lines drawn in the sand by some buerecrat, which were former British colonies. What, for example, makes New Zealand or Canada so different from Western Australia or Tasmania that gives us our own "national identity'?

 

[Sweets]

I think ANZAC day is one of the great 'grand narratives' in Australian history. I deffinetly think it should be celebrated. I think most people regardless of their political views feel that way or so you would hope.

It sort of shits me thought when days like today are just munipulated for politcal reasons to stir up nationalism etc.

 

[Enlightened_One]

What a title.

Seeing as though it is Remembrance Day today, I was just thinking about our unofficial national day... I know that days to honour those who have served are needed, yet should they be celebrated to such an extent? Are we reinventing the past in order to redefine the Australia of today? What do you think?

Yes they should be remembered!! enough said.

 

[Iron]

The repetition of the ceremony has seen it generally accepted as a common heritage. But it is a very constructed attempt to create a civil religion, which isnt always bad, but not entirely honest.

 

[Korn]

What a title.

Seeing as though it is Remembrance Day today, I was just thinking about our unofficial national day... I know that days to honour those who have served are needed, yet should they be celebrated to such an extent? Are we reinventing the past in order to redefine the Australia of today? What do you think?

Of course we should remember & by the title of the thread it appears u dont, but I dont get that from ur post

 

[supercharged]

I hate it when some arseclowns say "blah blah blah my great grandfather died for our country on the the shores of gallipolli so we can enjoy the freedoms we have today". What a load of complete bullshit. WW1 was not even a world war just a war in europe and some colonies in the middle east. Australia is on the other side of the world and life would have been just the same if it never got involved in invading the turks for the good of the Queen of England and her merry colonial subjects.

 

[Korn]

I hate it when some arseclowns say "blah blah blah my great grandfather died for our country on the the shores of gallipolli so we can enjoy the freedoms we have today". What a load of complete bullshit. WW1 was not even a world war just a war in europe and some colonies in the middle east. Australia is on the other side of the world and life would have been just the same if it never got involved in invading the turks for the good of the Queen of England and her merry colonial subjects.

Why does Gallipolli get so much media attention, what about the other battles that the ANZACS served in, like the Battle of Ypres

 

[jennylim]

I hate it when some arseclowns say "blah blah blah my great grandfather died for our country on the the shores of gallipolli so we can enjoy the freedoms we have today". What a load of complete bullshit. WW1 was not even a world war just a war in europe and some colonies in the middle east. Australia is on the other side of the world and life would have been just the same if it never got involved in invading the turks for the good of the Queen of England and her merry colonial subjects.

i actually think it's really, really sad that so many people died truly believing that. such a waste of lives. that war was useless fullstop. although i think that the kokoda trail, war in the pacific and so on WAS probably in defence of australia. anzac day isn't just a gallipoli day now, it's pretty much just a remembrance day of all soldiers who have ever died in conflict.

 

[Jake_434]

You do not join the ADF to learn how to kill. Of course, it is a skill you must learn, but it is not the main purpose.

DEFENCE. Think about that word for a moment.

Anyway, I'm joining for the opportunities, not because i'll have a chance to satisfy my human lust for battle. [/sarcasm]

I stopped reading here because I have something to say about it.. So ignore this if it's already been covered.

It's about your comment "You do not join the ADF to learn how to kill. Of course, it is a skill you must learn, but it is not the main purpose." I'm a member of the Australian Defence Force, and you're wrong. Anyone who joins the Forces must be prepared and willing to take someone elses life. But granted- you did concede it is a "skill you must learn". But I like to think of it more as an artform

Then you go on to say "DEFENCE. Think about that word for a moment." How is this defence implemented? FORCE. Think about that for a moment. Now think "Defence Force".Without force, and the ability to kill and debilitate the enemy, we would have no defence.

Although there may be many different Corps in the Defence Force, if you really think about it- they are all in support of the Infantry. And the Infantry's role is to seek out and close with the enemy, to kill or capture him...

Now you're thinking "But wait Jake.. I may be in support of the Infantry, but that doesn't mean their job description is my job description." And I'm going to tell you "Oh but it is." Because as a member of the Air Force, the Navy or the Army in whatever Corps you are in whether it's a Clerk or Gun Number, your secondary role will always be that of an Infantryman. And that is to seek out and close with the Enemy. To kill or capture him.

 

[Korn]

I stopped reading here because I have something to say about it.. So ignore this if it's already been covered.

It's about your comment "You do not join the ADF to learn how to kill. Of course, it is a skill you must learn, but it is not the main purpose." I'm a member of the Australian Defence Force, and you're wrong. Anyone who joins the Forces must be prepared and willing to take someone elses life. But granted- you did concede it is a "skill you must learn". But I like to think of it more as an artform

Then you go on to say "DEFENCE. Think about that word for a moment." How is this defence implemented? FORCE. Think about that for a moment. Now think "Defence Force".Without force, and the ability to kill and debilitate the enemy, we would have no defence.

Although there may be many different Corps in the Defence Force, if you really think about it- they are all in support of the Infantry. And the Infantry's role is to seek out and close with the enemy, to kill or capture him...

Now you're thinking "But wait Jake.. I may be in support of the Infantry, but that doesn't mean their job description is my job description." And I'm going to tell you "Oh but it is." Because as a member of the Air Force, the Navy or the Army in whatever Corps you are in whether it's a Clerk or Gun Number, your secondary role will always be that of an Infantryman. And that is to seek out and close with the Enemy. To kill or capture him.

How, about if ur an officer in say administration or the pay corps, how often do they see battle?

 

[Jake_434]

Hypothetically.... If all Infantry troops were unavailable and it was suspected that enemy were in the area, there is nothing to stop said officer from going on a patrol with a section of clerks. Just one example of many situations that could arise. But in a typical day- no, they would not see it.

And I've read a little further and I have something else to say about all that country A and country B bullshit. There doesn't always have to be a right and wrong party Mr Asq. Country A feels it should invade country B. Good for them. And of course there is going to be a reaction. This is probably going to be country B counter-attacking.

or arrest someone for murder becasue you think they may kill someone...

No.. But they might be arrested for conspiracy if there is enough evidence.

 

[Korn]

anyways these posters are as funny as

This shows extreme bias, not only are they from the same source but that source happens to be a commercial site, therefore it is trying to sell something