It’s a good thing they died at Gallipoli : australianpolitics

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago (3 children)

The article is, for the most part, actually quite good. But it makes a few key mistakes, and the inflammatory title is exemplary of this.

The Ode is not meant to glorify the actions of the soldiers who died. It's supposed to remember their lives and the fact that they died.

A certain very vocal section of Australian society uses ANZAC Day as a glorification of war and of our soldiers, but that is not the day's intent. It is supposed to be a sombre reminder of why we shouldn't throw away our soldiers' lives. It comes at it from a different angle, but ultimately supports the same conclusion this author wants to reach.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I disagree. Its deliberately inflammatory and offensive. I only leave the post here as responses such as this one have value.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Haven’t read the article and generally not a fan of ANZAC day …

But something I appreciate and like to point out is that the Melbourne war memorial is very much a tomb, literally based on the original mausoleum. It is in many ways an undeniably sad and somber place. I’m sure many find heroism there, perhaps through Australia’s culture war of the ANZACS, but it’s fairly hard to unsee the tomb once you see it IMO.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

Ok, read the article, and liked it. I personally don’t know what interactions transpired between the allies and post-war Türkiye, which seems to be a glaring hole given the focus on post war reparations policy in Germany, but still the point is well made that lionising those of the past without any appreciation of their cultural context gets pretty dumb. Moreover when any discourse on what is to be learnt about war is excluded.

The mention of Pankhurst was on point too. Back on the Melbourne war memorial, I was pleased to see an exhibit on her in their new-ish museum.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The moment that we allow the present day armed forces to participate in the ANZAC day parade, what intent you claim was once there is lost. You cannot say that war is bad, and that we should not have soldiers sailing to foreign lands to kill people, and at the same time permit the minions of Dictator Charles to parade around in their dress uniforms. Many of those soldiers marching today participated in the forever war in the middle east. They did not learn their lesson from Gallipoli. All those ANZAC day parades, year after year, and they did not learn. They will never learn so long as the present day military is permitted at ANZAC day, glorifying the violent institution that they inherently are. That very vocal section who glorifies death and violence are the same people organising, participating in, and attending the parades. Anyone who learned their lesson either stayed home today, or protested.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

That very vocal section who glorifies death and violence are the same people organising, participating in, and attending the parades.

-Source, my feelings.

Countless people participate to acknowledge the efforts and sacrifices of those who died serving their country. Even when we were taught about it in schools the focal points were sacrifice and mateship of those that served and still serve. Present day service members also attend to acknowledge those that came before them. Plenty of it is nationalistic nuthugging but your willingness to just make up generalisation and whatever claims to suit your point is frankly just gross.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Mate, you're being inflammatory for inflammatory's sake now, and downvoting everyone who doesn't agree with every word of your precious article is just childish. If you want people to think about the matter, then scolding them for wrong think is counterproductive.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

downvoting everyone who doesn’t agree with every word of your precious article

What are you talking about?

I like Zagorath's comment, that's why I upvoted it. I don't care if someone doesn't entirely agree with Me, I still upvote a good comment.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And you downvoted every comment even slightly critical of you as well. Disingenuousness is not a good look if you want your views to be taken seriously.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

What are you talking about?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is a very 2024 take on history, complete with unnecessary references to trans people to grab the attention of the modern reader. Blanket condemning every Allied participant in the war and portraying them as evil, whilst glossing over the German people's complicity in the creation and rise of the Nazi state because they were "desperate", displays a level of nuance and research nowhere near that which is required to cover such a deeply traumatic period in human history. Overly-emotional, intentionally controversial writing like this does absolutely nothing to further your cause or improve society; it just pushes people further into their respective corner and encourages hatred for the other side. I wish people like yourself would understand this and put more effort in.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Antiwar sentiment is not new, and pro-trans sentiment isn't new either.

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/latenightlive/the-history-of-australian-pacifists,-protestors-and-deserters/13849952

https://honesthistory.net.au/wp/phillips-richard-australia-anzac-day-and-the-official-silence-about-anti-war-opposition-in-wwi/

The central purpose of Australia’s WWI centenary celebrations is to saturate the population with militarism and patriotic propaganda in preparation for new imperialist wars. In line with this agenda, the ruling elite and all its political agencies do their utmost to downplay, distort and cover-up the real history of 1917 and, in particular, the lessons of the Russian Revolution, the most significant political event, not just of that year but of the 20th century.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/postcolonial-blog/2021/oct/26/alan-tudge-is-dead-wrong-anzac-should-be-contested-as-it-always-has-been

Next, Anzac – and its special day – have always been contested. Since 1916 many war veterans (not least the original Anzacs who protested against the politicisation of the war they fought) have refused to take part in commemorations. This year Douglas Newton’s new book about the soldier and objector Private Edward James Ryan highlighted the deep divisions among soldiers and broader society about Australian involvement in the first world war.

https://readingaustralia.com.au/books/the-one-day-of-the-year/

Undoubtedly one of Australia’s favourite plays, The One Day of the Year explores the universal theme of father–son conflict against the background of the beery haze and the heady, nostalgic sentimentality of Anzac Day. It is a play to make us question a standard institution – Anzac Day, the sacred cow among Australian annual celebrations
Date of Publication 1958

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If you'd have written the article along the same lines as you've written this comment. With a more considered tone, even reference to a play to expound a point, then the reception of the real message your wishing to convey would be so much better.

The Medium article only adds hate and hyperbole to the subject, this comment started to build a context for treating ANZAC in a different light. Instead of berating the reader to think differently, invite the reader.

Please consider writing another article, I think you have something of value here.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

The reply contains only 12 of My own words. The rest is links and direct quotes. Information that already exists out there, and some of it has existed for a long, long time. I've grown frustrated with the continued state of affairs after a hundred years of people ignoring these criticisms. I have become aggressive and impatient. I don't think I could write something in My own words which approaches these issues without rage, without removing all that is unique in My interpretation of events. If you think a better article can be written, I invite you to write it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what the point of this reply is. I never claimed that anti-war sentiment didn't exist at the time. None of what you've just quoted has anything to do with my criticisms of your writing.

The Nazi state discriminated against all kinds of minorities, yet the one group you specifically chose to mention (other than the obvious choice of Jewish people) was trans people. It is very obvious why you chose that particular minority group, given how topical trans issues are in modern society. Attempting to sway people through this kind of emotional manipulation is lazy writing and only plays well to the echo chamber.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I mentioned trans people because I am trans. And because the very first Nazi book burning was of the texts from the Institute of Sex Research which concerned practices for trans healthcare. Attacking trans women was a high priority item on the Nazi agenda. And I paid attention to it, because all My articles are written from a trans perspective. People like Me have been speaking from trans perspectives for a hundred thousand years. If you have not seen discussion of trans people until recently, it is because until recently we have been silenced. I am not some cisgender person pushing a political agenda (What agenda???), I'm a person living My own truth and speaking to that truth. It's clear you have a problem with that. Perhaps it would serve you better not to explain what your problem with talking about people like Me is.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

I'm a person living My own truth and speaking to that truth.

Not in this instance. You're making sweeping and unfounded generalsations about very large and diverse groups of people with whom you have absolutely zero connection.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

I'm locking this post. There has been some good discussion within the comments, but I don't believe the linked article is in good faith, and the discussion here is heading off the rails.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Conflating the foot soldiers supporting their mates and brothers with the big knobs running the circus, isn't fair, however true the historical context is.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There were Australians at the time who supported their brothers. They said, "stay home." And there were also Australians at the time who said "Let's go kill people in the name of honour", and who encouraged their brothers to a miserable death. Australia never conscripted for World War One. Everyone who died in those trenches chose to be there. Everyone who died in those trenches was a killer. Everyone who died in those trenches after telling his mates to enlist was a killer of his brothers.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I suggest you go work on your narcissistic personality disorder some more, and stop being a dick.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

As much as I think what this person is arguing is grotesque, I agree with their reply. This was probably a bit needlessly personal tbh.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It was in response to needless thoughtlessness in describing the ordinary soldiers who fought overseas. There were myriad reasons they went to fight, and calling them all killers of their brothers is just gross. Most honestly thought they were serving their country and their fellow Australians. I'm sure the OP knows that, so his reason for posting this distorted rants about the people with the least power in the situation is purely for attention. If he just wanted to discuss the historical facts, he could have posted it on any other day, but he wanted to get our goat. Well, he got mine.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago

I'm nonbinary. You're referring to Me as "he", but My pronouns are "They/Them". Please edit your comment to avoid misgendering Me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Fuckin hell, that's a bit personal, innit?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Your comments in this thread to date are a single sentence reply, moaning about downvotes and a direct insult. Go back to reddit if this is your idea of participation.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Oh, I'm sorry. Am I supposed to waste more words on obvious rage bait and a poster trying to kick up a fuss for attention to meet your approval? The OP posted an inflammatory piece on a solemn day of remembrance, and is surprised that their extreme take on the ordinary men and women who died in the war is considered a bit much? The 'direct insult' is a direct observation. In their bio they say they have narcissistic personality disorder, and their responses have been consistent with that, which is not good for their mental health or pleasant reading.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't think OP is surprised at all by the responses, based on their replies here which have mostly been attempts to further debate the point they are (poorly) attempting to make. I think they wanted to get attention and create discussion and that's part of the reason why the piece is so imflammatory. As I see it there are two ways to respond to this: you can get mad and post low-effort, off-topic replies as you've chosen to do (the average redditor response) or you can actually attempt to engage with the person and critique their writing/argument where applicable to draw out a less hysterical, more nuanced response from them. Most of the replies in this thread are an example of the latter and are contributing to the discussion. Yours achieves literally nothing other than making you feel like you "won" on the internet today. I really don't understand why people like yourself use discussion-based social media if you are incapable of having a discussion about anything even remotely controversial. You just shit up the discourse and make these platforms worse for the rest of us.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 months ago

They're also misgendering Me. And they say they read My bio, so at that point you have to believe it's intentional, right? Hm, someone who misgenders Me and attacks Me for My mental health, who refuses to behave civilly and instead posts one sentence inflammatory responses, all in defence of the armed forces. I think we may be dealing with a nazi.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Apparently any clown can write an article these days. Like WWI started because Britain had some weight to throw around; with a quick reference to reality with the “a dead duke” line. Clearly an article aimed at inflaming rage click via shitting on service members. Using those who died in horrific condition to prop up their shitty career and political opinions. ANZAC day remembers those who died in war. You don’t need to agree with every conflict this country has been in to acknowledge those who’ve served it.

Also pro tip, if you’re a journalist (or blogger hopefully) and your article unironically includes “this is BAD” then you’re a hack writing for a (paywalled lol) rag.

Edit: just to flex some journalistic skill that may come close to surpassing the author of this articles; have a look at the authors post history. You know, where they casually admit to emotionally manipulating people into seeing their pov. Trash article by a trash human.

Australian Politics

Rules

Recommended and Related Communities

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.