I am getting a real distaste for the modern historian and their revisionist view of the world and how they want to find fault with everything, especially if some group of people want to find good in it. More to the point how they want to do something that I was told never to do and make emotional pleas to the audience. The subject is also one which strikes a little close to my heart, having servicemen and women in my family, and having a long and endearing respect for all of them.
So, the original article which I am arguing against can be found here: http://junkee.com/what-does-glorifying-the-anzac-myth-say-about-our-attitudes-to-violent-men-today/76563, entitled "What Does Glorifying The ANZAC Myth Say About Our Attitudes To Violent Men Today?" It came up on my Facebook feed and I read it and I just could not stay silent about it. I apologise to those of my friends who have different views with regard to this subject but this is something I feel rather strongly about.
Australians at War
During the First World War, the Australian Imperial Forces went and fought in Gallipoli, Palestine and France, among other places, as a part of our "Imperial duty". Our troops did much the same thing in the Second when they went to the Middle East and beyond. This means, in essence, they went to fight and support someone else due to a feeling of familiar bonds. Those who went to Papua New Guinea and fought along the Kakoda Trail were literally fighting to prevent the Japanese invasion of Australia. I am proud to say that members of my family from both sides served in both World Wars, and I will not be beaten back for having this pride.Wars are Horrible
The soldier in war commits acts of violence which are not normal in society, then again wars are not a normal state of affairs. Soldiers are trained to kill their opponents, trained to survive on the battlefield, and trained to follow orders. This is what a soldier does, this is his job, and there is no other job like it. In normal circumstances the soldier would be locked up for committing the acts that they do during war, but during war it is what they are expected to do.Horrible things happen in wars, on both sides, and by both sides. To take a revisionist approach to history and to vilify those who took part does not assist anyone. The amount of civilians killed in wars is tragic, as is the amount of lives lost in general. More to the point, often when a soldier, as a part of a unit, commits these acts they are on the orders of someone who never sees them, but expects the job to get done nonetheless. Most of the men who do follow the orders are ordinary men in extra-ordindary situations. To pick and choose incidents which inflame the emotions to one way or another is not using logic but emotional reasoning, and is bad history.
The author claims, "the violence required of men in war is airbrushed our of the story of ANZAC," a feat I would claim is near impossible considering it is a war and surrounded by violence. I would think that no one would have any delusions that ANZACs performed acts of violence, as has been stated before, they were soldiers and this was their job. To talk about war and not include violence or even consider it would be foolish in the extreme.
Domestic Violence has a Long History
Domestic violence is a horrible thing, but to attempt to try to link it to the commemoration and service of those who served a nation is wrong. Go have a look up "the rule of thumb" and the date on when this was legal to beat your wife. So beating your wife as a part of law had been around since at least the late 1700's. So what we call domestic violence has been around much longer than when the veterans came back from the First World War and to try and blame it on them is to deny all the previous history of it.The men who came back from the First World War came back changed. The experiences that they had could have done nothing more than change them. For some, it was a change for the better, for some it was not. There are indeed reports of those who came back and who could not deal with living in a civilian situation, and some of these no doubt were involved in domestic violence. To paint all of the veterans with the same brush is a gross generalisation.
"Glorification" of the ANZAC Myth
The article talks about "glorifying" the ANZAC Myth, it is not about glorification, it is about honouring those who served. Unless you have served in the military forces in a time of war you have no idea what goes on. There is violence in war, this is undoubted, and the men who have seen war bear the scars of war both physically and also mentally.The article asks whether or not the glorification of the ANZAC Myth normalizes violence in our society by holding up the perpetrators of violence to glory. In response to such statements it can be said that the world has been at war, in one way or another, almost constantly since the Second World War, and that even now is in an undeclared, in some instances, state of war. Violence can be found when a person turns on their television, looks on the Internet, reads a book or in many other places. It was not the ANZAC Myth which has "normalized violence" at all. Violence is pervasive throughout modern media and it is this which promotes it more. If all that can be seen in the ANZAC Myth is the promotion of violence of any kind, then the true source of inspiration which keeps the services going every year, which honours the veterans, rather than glorifying war, has not been found by the author.
The ANZAC Myth has less to do with the glorification of violence and more about the honouring of service. There are key elements which are to be found, which are more important than violence and its glorification. Go talk to a veteran, ask them about their experiences, and it doesn't even have to be a WWII or earlier one either. Ask them about their friends they have lost, what they did, and how it changed them, and decide for yourself whether or not it is glorification when you pay your respects on ANZAC Day or Remembrance Day.
Cheers,
Henry,
No comments:
Post a Comment