Greetings,
I like to think that I am a reasonably open-minded sort of individual. I do not think that some mob of middle-aged men should be determining what is right for women's bodies. I also think that the same women should be paid the same as their male counter-parts for the same job. One could say that I am a believer in equity between the sexes because equality is just not possible because we are different, and this is an awesome thing.
Of course I like to treat people equally as well. Then I get bombarded by articles such as this one: "That's not what chivalry is, but OK" (https://goingmedievalblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/07/thats-not-what-chivalry-is-but-ok/). An article which is written by a qualified individual in academia, and it does a wonderful job of beating up on the male counter-part for their misunderstanding of "chivalry" and how it does not apply today. Well, let me just say, I have some corrections for the article, and some updates which need to be said.
First of all, the aspects of "chivalry" said "Nice Guys" are hitting you with are not the historical versions at all. Yes, there they have it wrong. It is because they have been hit with the romanticised Victorian ideal of chivalry rather than what it actually was. This is a concept, by the way, which is bred into many of us so that we will treat women with respect. That being said, let us move on.
Now we have diffused some of the bit where we understand that the "Nice Guy" has no concept of "real" chivalry, let's look at some places where the author also needs to have a bit of a fact check. The author states that, "War horses, who were big bois, because they had to carry the weight of all that armour, were incredibly expensive, as was armour in and of itself." Yes, armour was expensive and so were horses. On the other hand, armour, as has been soundly proven by actual collections of actual artefacts is not all that heavy. I recommend looking at some of the brilliant research embarked upon by Daniel Jaquet, especially his obstacle run in armour (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzI1UvlQqw) to have an idea about armour in the real world.
With regard to horses, the weight of the horse was to increase the weight of the charge against the opponent, not because the armour was so heavy. Likewise, the destrier was designed for battle, not for wandering around the countryside, which would be the reason for the palfrey for daily work, and not suitable for carrying an armoured man. Once again, in both cases, academia demonstrates its lack of knowledge of actual medieval martial arts and warfare.
Then there is a long list of discussion about various papers of courtly love, however they conveniently stop before the beginning of the 15th-century, so Castiglione, Erasmus and various Renaissance authors conveniently miss out. Thus we miss out on the High Middle Ages and the development of the courtier and his training, and further along the gentleman. So thus the relationship through the Victorian ideals to the modern era is conveniently missed.
Just to finish this particular article off the author signs of with, "The TL/DR? That’s not what chivalry is, and you are being a sexist muppet right now. Off you pop." Great way for an academic of any kind to sign off, trying to stay in with the "in" crowd? Well, you will pretty much marginalise the entire male audience with that one. Even if, like myself, they would be really interested in hearing stories of women's achievements in medieval history and have written about such subjects (https://afencersramblings.blogspot.com/2018/05/myth-debunking-female-combat-training.html).
It is exactly this sort of article which immediately puts men offside with regard to the sexism debate. There is no question of middle ground, there is only one and that states all men are inconsiderate and should be shunned. It is the case that the "feminazi" is just as bad as the chauvinist/misogynist and as far as I am concerned are just as bad as one another. Two extremists, just at opposite ends of the scale.
Where does all of this lead? It leads to some very simple things. There are men out there who do respect women and who are looking out for their best interests the best that they can, and that they are interested in women's history. Of course these same men do prefer not to have the misdeeds of men of the past shoved down their throats nor where their ancestors did things in inconvenient ways.
People are interested in historical and current social phenomenon, but they are much more interesting when the whole story is told so that we can understand how we came to the place where we are now. Not skipping over a couple of hundred years and just saying that something is being used wrongly. They say that only through understanding the past can we not make the same mistakes in the future, well all of that past must be told, not just snippets which suit the social/political rantings at an author's convenience.
Understanding is important. You cannot understand the "Nice Guys'" understanding of chivalry unless you look at the entire picture and how it was fed to them. Understand that it is not the medieval version. How can it apply? Understand it is a version of the concept which has filtered through the humanism of the Renaissance and also the Romanticism of the Victorian age to an ideal of what it was. Take these things into account and you will find it is quite positive not only toward women, but people in general. Once there is even a little more understanding between the sexes things will improve quite a bit.
Ask yourself, what does writing the article serve? And please try not to bite the fingers of those who are actually trying to help.
Cheers,
Henry.
Thursday, 14 February 2019
Saturday, 10 November 2018
Another Remembrance, Another Article: Response to: "Comment: The incontrovertible truth about World War I"
Greetings,
Why is it that every time Australians decide to pay respect to their fallen soldiers some journalist has to jump up and down about war and what a waste it is? It happened on ANZAC Day, and big surprise there is an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Peter FitzSimons doing the same thing, you can find the article here (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/comment-the-incontrovertible-truth-about-world-war-i/ar-BBPxljn). Like most journalistic articles about the First World War it focuses on the loss of life during the war and the damage to the soldiers which existed long after the war. Well, the same goes for all wars before and after, including the ones which we are fighting right now as I write.
I have a family history which is somewhat connected with wars. My great-uncle fought and died in France in the First World War, and my grandfather fought in the Second World War. I also have a cousin who is currently serving in the Royal Australian Navy, and I could not be more proud to be related to all of them. Further, I have friends who are or were soldiers, and I am proud to call these my friends. Needless to say, when someone like Mr FitzSimons, who mind you makes part of his money selling books about war, goes and "reveals the truth" about the First World War in such a fashion it tends to strike a nerve, especially on this day of all days. It could have been left for tomorrow, but then it would not have caused an impact and that is what he was looking for.
A person does not write a book about the exact war he is calling a waste without knowing the details of it. What also needs to be known is that this Remembrance Day is not just for World War I, though today is special as it is the centenary of the Armistice, but it is for all wars. It is a time to pay respect for what our servicemen and women have done for us, and also for what our servicemen and women are still doing for us to this day and into the future. Any school-child who has studied their history, and who has sat through the lesson on the First World War knows that the tactics were not appropriate for the technology, and that the loss of life, on all sides of the conflict was severe. An entire generation of young men was lost, what more needs to be said?
To be sure there was a catastrophic loss of life between 1914 and 1918, and I am not sure whether we have really learnt the lessons which this war taught. It sure taught us some lessons which were taken in, but it also delivered some others which were to result in another war some 21 years later, that could be clearly laid at the feet of the so-called "victors" of this war. War and civilisation are something which go hand in hand throughout history and cannot be separated. We have the propensity for killing one another for one reason or another.
However, within that horrible story though, there are stories which can be told which were not even mentioned as they might have showed some level of achievement. There is one, toward the beginning. To put into contrast against Mr FitzSimons, there is another article, "Australian Diggers more likely to have fought as heroes for king than Allies, research shows" (https://www.news.com.au/national/australian-diggers-more-likely-to-have-fought-as-heroes-and-for-king-than-allies-research-shows/news-story/e26f51e39e6d9669ec5bb8eb21e2015f). It discusses how knowing that they were limited to 66 characters on their headstones, the families of the fallen Australians wanted them to appear as heroes, as according to a British study of headstones. To be sure the positive stories and the stories of heroes and self-sacrifice for another are the rare ones, but this is the same for all wars.
To put it in perspective, this day of all days, aside from ANZAC Day, is a day where the servicemen and women should be honoured. They should be placed in positions of honour. On these days servicemen and women should be thanked for their service. Thank for what they have done whether they have seen battle or not, because in joining the services they have committed themselves to putting their bodies on the line if called. This is what it means to be in the military and anyone who has not been in the same situation has no right to be saying anything negative about any service personnel on this of all days.
Cheers,
Henry.
Why is it that every time Australians decide to pay respect to their fallen soldiers some journalist has to jump up and down about war and what a waste it is? It happened on ANZAC Day, and big surprise there is an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Peter FitzSimons doing the same thing, you can find the article here (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/comment-the-incontrovertible-truth-about-world-war-i/ar-BBPxljn). Like most journalistic articles about the First World War it focuses on the loss of life during the war and the damage to the soldiers which existed long after the war. Well, the same goes for all wars before and after, including the ones which we are fighting right now as I write.
I have a family history which is somewhat connected with wars. My great-uncle fought and died in France in the First World War, and my grandfather fought in the Second World War. I also have a cousin who is currently serving in the Royal Australian Navy, and I could not be more proud to be related to all of them. Further, I have friends who are or were soldiers, and I am proud to call these my friends. Needless to say, when someone like Mr FitzSimons, who mind you makes part of his money selling books about war, goes and "reveals the truth" about the First World War in such a fashion it tends to strike a nerve, especially on this day of all days. It could have been left for tomorrow, but then it would not have caused an impact and that is what he was looking for.
A person does not write a book about the exact war he is calling a waste without knowing the details of it. What also needs to be known is that this Remembrance Day is not just for World War I, though today is special as it is the centenary of the Armistice, but it is for all wars. It is a time to pay respect for what our servicemen and women have done for us, and also for what our servicemen and women are still doing for us to this day and into the future. Any school-child who has studied their history, and who has sat through the lesson on the First World War knows that the tactics were not appropriate for the technology, and that the loss of life, on all sides of the conflict was severe. An entire generation of young men was lost, what more needs to be said?
To be sure there was a catastrophic loss of life between 1914 and 1918, and I am not sure whether we have really learnt the lessons which this war taught. It sure taught us some lessons which were taken in, but it also delivered some others which were to result in another war some 21 years later, that could be clearly laid at the feet of the so-called "victors" of this war. War and civilisation are something which go hand in hand throughout history and cannot be separated. We have the propensity for killing one another for one reason or another.
However, within that horrible story though, there are stories which can be told which were not even mentioned as they might have showed some level of achievement. There is one, toward the beginning. To put into contrast against Mr FitzSimons, there is another article, "Australian Diggers more likely to have fought as heroes for king than Allies, research shows" (https://www.news.com.au/national/australian-diggers-more-likely-to-have-fought-as-heroes-and-for-king-than-allies-research-shows/news-story/e26f51e39e6d9669ec5bb8eb21e2015f). It discusses how knowing that they were limited to 66 characters on their headstones, the families of the fallen Australians wanted them to appear as heroes, as according to a British study of headstones. To be sure the positive stories and the stories of heroes and self-sacrifice for another are the rare ones, but this is the same for all wars.
To put it in perspective, this day of all days, aside from ANZAC Day, is a day where the servicemen and women should be honoured. They should be placed in positions of honour. On these days servicemen and women should be thanked for their service. Thank for what they have done whether they have seen battle or not, because in joining the services they have committed themselves to putting their bodies on the line if called. This is what it means to be in the military and anyone who has not been in the same situation has no right to be saying anything negative about any service personnel on this of all days.
Cheers,
Henry.
Tuesday, 30 October 2018
Weapons Control... Not Just Guns
Greetings,
The subject of gun control is not one I usually post about simply because it does not seem to be a subject which it is possible to have a calm discussion about as people become too emotional about it. Before I begin the core of this discussion I will note some important biases which will colour my opinions with regard to this matter. I have a family history with regard to firearms. My father was a part-time gunsmith, both my parents were licensed shooters. I fired my first rifle at the age of 8 years old and was taught my first lessons about firearm safety at the age of 7. I am also a Life Member of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA). With all of these details noted, we move on.
The first thing that needs to be noted is the subject of terminology, we are not talking about guns, we are talking about firearms. Firearm is the term knowledgeable people use when discussing this particular subject, gun is the generic term. Firearm is also the one which appears in the Weapons Act.
With regards to our Weapons Acts, as we have one for each state and territory of Australia. Almost every time there is some sort of mass shooting in the United States or elsewhere, people get up in arms about tightening our weapons laws. Why? Did it happen in Australia? How will tightening our weapons laws prevent something from happening in another country? Further, it should be noted that the last time we had a mass shooting in Australia, primarily in 1996, the Port Arthur massacre, and then in 2014 after the Lindt Cafe siege, some 18 years apart. Incidences such as these are used as "evidence" for the need for tighter weapons laws. In both instances the weapons were illegally obtained, thus obtained outside the law so tighter weapons laws would not have stopped them anyway.
Likewise to compare the SSAA and the NRA is ludicrous. Both organisations have their similarities but they also have their stark differences. From my own personal point of view, I am proud to be a member of the SSAA, I would never become a member of the NRA. I personally think that what the NRA does is push the bounds of the reasonable way too far. Needless to say Australia does not have gun ownership enshrined in its constitution unlike the United States, and this aspect is what gives the gun lobby in the United States its power. The gun lobby in Australia is not such a fearsome beast.
What needs to be noted is that the legislation in each of the states and territories in Australia is a Weapons Act not a Firearms Act. What does this mean? What this means is that they do not just cover firearms but other weapons as well. Crossbows are legal in Queensland so long as you are licensed, in New South Wales they are prohibited, they are not firearms. Swords are fine to be carried in a normal bag and taken care of as any other piece of sporting equipment, and so long as you are not waving it around in public without a good reason you will not be hassled about it. In Victoria, they need to be locked away in a lockable container in a similar way to firearms. This goes for the blunt weapons we use for medieval and Renaissance recreation as well. At one point in time consideration was made toward legislating bows, but was considered too difficult to enforce.
Firearms may be the popular target when it comes to the Weapons Act, but it does not mean that government agencies are not looking to restrict other weapons. This is one of the reasons why it is vital that anyone who is involved with any sort of weapons whatsoever is careful and treats them with respect. All it needs is for someone to draw the wrong sort of attention and restrictions can be brought against other weapons not just firearms.
When you consider your support for tougher firearms laws, or weapons laws as the case truly is consider what you are really asking for. Consider what you are asking the politicians to do. Consider that they may decide that the weapons which belong with your medieval and Renaissance hobby are too dangerous and you should not be able to use them anymore, or not without severe restriction. When we take action for a cause we should always consider what sort of flow-on effect this may have with other aspects which are related to that cause, things are more connected than you realise. It also means that we should all take care to ensure that we do not perform any action which may draw any unwanted attention our way. There is always someone willing to get annoyed with any excuse with what we are doing.
Cheers,
Henry.
The subject of gun control is not one I usually post about simply because it does not seem to be a subject which it is possible to have a calm discussion about as people become too emotional about it. Before I begin the core of this discussion I will note some important biases which will colour my opinions with regard to this matter. I have a family history with regard to firearms. My father was a part-time gunsmith, both my parents were licensed shooters. I fired my first rifle at the age of 8 years old and was taught my first lessons about firearm safety at the age of 7. I am also a Life Member of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA). With all of these details noted, we move on.
The first thing that needs to be noted is the subject of terminology, we are not talking about guns, we are talking about firearms. Firearm is the term knowledgeable people use when discussing this particular subject, gun is the generic term. Firearm is also the one which appears in the Weapons Act.
With regards to our Weapons Acts, as we have one for each state and territory of Australia. Almost every time there is some sort of mass shooting in the United States or elsewhere, people get up in arms about tightening our weapons laws. Why? Did it happen in Australia? How will tightening our weapons laws prevent something from happening in another country? Further, it should be noted that the last time we had a mass shooting in Australia, primarily in 1996, the Port Arthur massacre, and then in 2014 after the Lindt Cafe siege, some 18 years apart. Incidences such as these are used as "evidence" for the need for tighter weapons laws. In both instances the weapons were illegally obtained, thus obtained outside the law so tighter weapons laws would not have stopped them anyway.
Likewise to compare the SSAA and the NRA is ludicrous. Both organisations have their similarities but they also have their stark differences. From my own personal point of view, I am proud to be a member of the SSAA, I would never become a member of the NRA. I personally think that what the NRA does is push the bounds of the reasonable way too far. Needless to say Australia does not have gun ownership enshrined in its constitution unlike the United States, and this aspect is what gives the gun lobby in the United States its power. The gun lobby in Australia is not such a fearsome beast.
What needs to be noted is that the legislation in each of the states and territories in Australia is a Weapons Act not a Firearms Act. What does this mean? What this means is that they do not just cover firearms but other weapons as well. Crossbows are legal in Queensland so long as you are licensed, in New South Wales they are prohibited, they are not firearms. Swords are fine to be carried in a normal bag and taken care of as any other piece of sporting equipment, and so long as you are not waving it around in public without a good reason you will not be hassled about it. In Victoria, they need to be locked away in a lockable container in a similar way to firearms. This goes for the blunt weapons we use for medieval and Renaissance recreation as well. At one point in time consideration was made toward legislating bows, but was considered too difficult to enforce.
Firearms may be the popular target when it comes to the Weapons Act, but it does not mean that government agencies are not looking to restrict other weapons. This is one of the reasons why it is vital that anyone who is involved with any sort of weapons whatsoever is careful and treats them with respect. All it needs is for someone to draw the wrong sort of attention and restrictions can be brought against other weapons not just firearms.
When you consider your support for tougher firearms laws, or weapons laws as the case truly is consider what you are really asking for. Consider what you are asking the politicians to do. Consider that they may decide that the weapons which belong with your medieval and Renaissance hobby are too dangerous and you should not be able to use them anymore, or not without severe restriction. When we take action for a cause we should always consider what sort of flow-on effect this may have with other aspects which are related to that cause, things are more connected than you realise. It also means that we should all take care to ensure that we do not perform any action which may draw any unwanted attention our way. There is always someone willing to get annoyed with any excuse with what we are doing.
Cheers,
Henry.
Tuesday, 11 September 2018
Fit, Healthy... and Thin?
Greetings,
Weight-loss seems to be a big topic no matter where we go these days. I can understand the urge to get fit and also the urge to get healthy, the urge to get thin, on the other hand, I don't understand. Being fit and healthy extends and improves your life simply because your body is able to work better. Simply as a result of getting fit and healthy there will be an aspect of weight-loss, but the obsession with weight-loss is not so great. Sure it is advertised for our the female counter-part as fashionable and necessary to be fashionable, but is it really healthy?
In general, the upper scales of fitness require some level of muscle, and muscle is heavy. One of the issues that every person who embarks upon weight-loss in the traditional manner encounters is that they change their diet and exercise and actually put on weight rather than take it off to begin with. This is because muscle is more dense, and thus heavier than fat, as you exercise you build muscle, which is going to make you heavier, but is necessary to burn fat. It is also necessary to move your limbs and other parts of your body. If you do not have some muscle mass you cannot be counted as fit.
Further can you be counted as healthy if your body is not getting the necessary nutrition that it requires? Fad diets and pills do not teach you how to eat properly. They may get you to lose weight, and lose weight fast, but what happens once you are off them? Will the same eating habits return? Yes, changes in diet are often necessary, but this must be combined with exercise, and the exercise must have somewhere to draw its fuel from. This means eating healthy. Often we must train ourselves to eat healthy and then stick to the training, this is a harder and longer process, but it is far more effective in the long run.
What needs to be noted is that we are not all meant to be shaped like super-athletes or supermodels. This is a good thing. There is variety in body shape, and people are not all the same shape, nor will they ever be. Aiming for these images and becoming obsessed with these shapes results in depression and obsession. The most important thing is loving the skin that you are in. This is in two ways, it is accepting what your body-shape is, and also treating it right.
There are ways of measuring what shape we should be and many graphs including the Body Mass Index, or BMI, the question is whether these graphs take into account all body-shapes and peculiarities. It is known that the BMI does not take into account bodies which are carrying large amounts of muscle. So, it is important that your shape is measured properly to get the correct measurements.
Are you happy with your current state of fitness? Are you happy with your current state of health? If you want to do something about these two then you really should. Focussing on aspects like simply losing weight is too focussed as it does not take into account the bigger picture. Losing weight must accompany a bigger picture for it to be a healthy process with a healthy end. Give yourself a realistic goal, give yourself a real reason and it is more likely that you will make it.
Remember, dieting yourself to thinness is not necessarily dieting yourself to health. Thinness is not health. Health is health.
Cheers,
Henry.
Weight-loss seems to be a big topic no matter where we go these days. I can understand the urge to get fit and also the urge to get healthy, the urge to get thin, on the other hand, I don't understand. Being fit and healthy extends and improves your life simply because your body is able to work better. Simply as a result of getting fit and healthy there will be an aspect of weight-loss, but the obsession with weight-loss is not so great. Sure it is advertised for our the female counter-part as fashionable and necessary to be fashionable, but is it really healthy?
In general, the upper scales of fitness require some level of muscle, and muscle is heavy. One of the issues that every person who embarks upon weight-loss in the traditional manner encounters is that they change their diet and exercise and actually put on weight rather than take it off to begin with. This is because muscle is more dense, and thus heavier than fat, as you exercise you build muscle, which is going to make you heavier, but is necessary to burn fat. It is also necessary to move your limbs and other parts of your body. If you do not have some muscle mass you cannot be counted as fit.
Further can you be counted as healthy if your body is not getting the necessary nutrition that it requires? Fad diets and pills do not teach you how to eat properly. They may get you to lose weight, and lose weight fast, but what happens once you are off them? Will the same eating habits return? Yes, changes in diet are often necessary, but this must be combined with exercise, and the exercise must have somewhere to draw its fuel from. This means eating healthy. Often we must train ourselves to eat healthy and then stick to the training, this is a harder and longer process, but it is far more effective in the long run.
What needs to be noted is that we are not all meant to be shaped like super-athletes or supermodels. This is a good thing. There is variety in body shape, and people are not all the same shape, nor will they ever be. Aiming for these images and becoming obsessed with these shapes results in depression and obsession. The most important thing is loving the skin that you are in. This is in two ways, it is accepting what your body-shape is, and also treating it right.
There are ways of measuring what shape we should be and many graphs including the Body Mass Index, or BMI, the question is whether these graphs take into account all body-shapes and peculiarities. It is known that the BMI does not take into account bodies which are carrying large amounts of muscle. So, it is important that your shape is measured properly to get the correct measurements.
Are you happy with your current state of fitness? Are you happy with your current state of health? If you want to do something about these two then you really should. Focussing on aspects like simply losing weight is too focussed as it does not take into account the bigger picture. Losing weight must accompany a bigger picture for it to be a healthy process with a healthy end. Give yourself a realistic goal, give yourself a real reason and it is more likely that you will make it.
Remember, dieting yourself to thinness is not necessarily dieting yourself to health. Thinness is not health. Health is health.
Cheers,
Henry.
Saturday, 18 August 2018
Vietnam Veterans: Denied Again
Greetings,
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Vietnam veterans have been denied the right to march through their state capital as was reported on the local news (https://www.msn.com/en-au/video/sport/vietnam-veterans-denied-permission-to-march-in-brisbane/vp-BBM52OZ). So once again, these men who went to fight in a war because their government told them to. To fight in a war which was unpopular almost across the globe. To fight in a war that many of them still suffer from. The acknowledgement of their service by the public in Brisbane is being denied.
While the march may cause some traffic issues for some and thus be an inconvenience. It may also cost some tax-payer money to close the roads and have the extra police involved to close these roads and ensure that the crowds are controlled. Do these men and women who went to war because they were told to and did their jobs, and served their country not deserve it? They have already paid their dues in blood and anguish, in lost friends and family, and this is not to mention those who would march in the place of someone who did not come back. All of their service should be honoured.
The Vietnam War, or the Vietnam Conflict as some would like us to call it, was one of the most divisive wars in our history. It divided nations between those who supported the act of going to war against communism, against those who opposed the war fighting for another country. We see much of this war from the point of view of the United States and we see much of the division which happened within that country. What we do not see much of is what happened in Australia at the same time. We do not often see or hear of what the Australians did in Vietnam. Is this the reason why our veterans are so easily forgotten? Is this the reason why their march is so easily denied? Because they have not made documentaries and movies to rival their American counterparts? All veterans of all wars should be honoured, regardless of which side they fought on. Their service should be honoured.
How can it be so that such a march can be so easily denied? How many other marches have been denied? How many of the people in the marches which have been given permission have been veterans? Yes, it does make a difference if they are veterans or not. They have served their country and their service needs to be honoured. It is not the glorification of war as some might accuse, it is the acknowledgement of the service. It is the honouring of men and women who did a service to their country. These are men and women who we should be standing up and being proud of. These are men and women who we should be making every effort to ensure that their march goes ahead without a hitch rather than denying them permission. This is about showing respect to these veterans.
The Brisbane City Council simply needs to make sure that this march can happen. It needs to happen. It needs to happen to give due honour to these veterans and respect the service that they have done for this country.
Cheers,
Henry.
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Vietnam veterans have been denied the right to march through their state capital as was reported on the local news (https://www.msn.com/en-au/video/sport/vietnam-veterans-denied-permission-to-march-in-brisbane/vp-BBM52OZ). So once again, these men who went to fight in a war because their government told them to. To fight in a war which was unpopular almost across the globe. To fight in a war that many of them still suffer from. The acknowledgement of their service by the public in Brisbane is being denied.
While the march may cause some traffic issues for some and thus be an inconvenience. It may also cost some tax-payer money to close the roads and have the extra police involved to close these roads and ensure that the crowds are controlled. Do these men and women who went to war because they were told to and did their jobs, and served their country not deserve it? They have already paid their dues in blood and anguish, in lost friends and family, and this is not to mention those who would march in the place of someone who did not come back. All of their service should be honoured.
The Vietnam War, or the Vietnam Conflict as some would like us to call it, was one of the most divisive wars in our history. It divided nations between those who supported the act of going to war against communism, against those who opposed the war fighting for another country. We see much of this war from the point of view of the United States and we see much of the division which happened within that country. What we do not see much of is what happened in Australia at the same time. We do not often see or hear of what the Australians did in Vietnam. Is this the reason why our veterans are so easily forgotten? Is this the reason why their march is so easily denied? Because they have not made documentaries and movies to rival their American counterparts? All veterans of all wars should be honoured, regardless of which side they fought on. Their service should be honoured.
How can it be so that such a march can be so easily denied? How many other marches have been denied? How many of the people in the marches which have been given permission have been veterans? Yes, it does make a difference if they are veterans or not. They have served their country and their service needs to be honoured. It is not the glorification of war as some might accuse, it is the acknowledgement of the service. It is the honouring of men and women who did a service to their country. These are men and women who we should be standing up and being proud of. These are men and women who we should be making every effort to ensure that their march goes ahead without a hitch rather than denying them permission. This is about showing respect to these veterans.
The Brisbane City Council simply needs to make sure that this march can happen. It needs to happen. It needs to happen to give due honour to these veterans and respect the service that they have done for this country.
Cheers,
Henry.
Tuesday, 14 August 2018
The Smoker: A Dying Breed
Greetings,
The following is something that I wrote after having an experience and a chat with some people while in the centre of Brisbane, Queensland. I am not advocating anyone taking up smoking at all, just asking you to have a look at the situation from a different perspective. I have tried to be as objective as possible with regard to this post, but it is a little difficult.
A further note, I sent this to the editor of the Courier Mail for one of the Letters to the Editor not long after I wrote it with no response. Obviously policy does not allow an even-handed or even counter-argument view on a subject as divisive as smoking.
Cheers,
Henry.
The following is something that I wrote after having an experience and a chat with some people while in the centre of Brisbane, Queensland. I am not advocating anyone taking up smoking at all, just asking you to have a look at the situation from a different perspective. I have tried to be as objective as possible with regard to this post, but it is a little difficult.
A further note, I sent this to the editor of the Courier Mail for one of the Letters to the Editor not long after I wrote it with no response. Obviously policy does not allow an even-handed or even counter-argument view on a subject as divisive as smoking.
The Smoker: A Dying Breed
The smoker is a breed of human which is dying out, in both
senses of the word. They are subject to the threats of cancer, emphysema and
other life-threatening diseases and infections. But they are also subject to
other hazards, social disgust, legal ramification, and taxation. Likely, while
the former are good reasons to “kick the habit”, as has been coined in modern
speech; the latter are also likely to force the smoker out of his
ever-dwindling breed.
While quitting smoking has been seen, and is, the healthiest
alternative, a new breed of smoker has emerged, “the vaper”. These individuals
suck on vapours produced from different flavoured fluids. The studies show that
this is a healthier alternative, but is it only time until society turns
against these individuals as well?
Amongst the smoking breed there are those who take their
habit as some sort of stand, often against some authority. Like a quiet form of
protest they smoke as a stand for their habit, forgetting the original reason
they started. These are what could be called the “hard-core” smokers who will
defend their habit as any other might theirs.
The considerate smoker is one who will ensure that they are
away from non-smokers, or are in the company of other smokers. They will do
their best to ensure that their habit has the least effect on those around
them. If in mixed company, they will do their best to ensure their smoke is
blown away from non-smokers. They will always ensure that their butts are extinguished
properly and also disposed of properly. Yet they are lumped in with those with
no consideration.
The inconsiderate smoker lights up where they feel like
regardless of the company and regardless of the feelings of others. They have
no consideration for the effect their smoke may have on others. They may even
be offended if their inconsiderate smoking is pointed out to them and thus will
react angrily and with no remorse.
Smokers have been banned from playgrounds, which is sensible
so they do not have an effect on the young lungs of children. Smokers have also
been banned from bus stops, public transport, public buildings and most covered
areas. The considerate smoker would absent themselves from most of these
without legislation in place; yet they are chased away and threatened with
legal action.
The result of these bans is that we see smokers clustered
together like social outcasts. Areas have been designated for smokers and
smokers congregate in these areas to smoke. Ironically, some non-smokers will
approach these spaces and complain about the smoke. Just as with any group of
people, there are also the “radical non-smokers”.
The true bane of the smokers’ existence is both the “radical
non-smoker” and the “radical ex-smoker”. Like evangelicals they feel it is
their purpose in life to convert or persecute smokers wherever they may be
found. They are mortally offended if they can smell smoke on a breeze and will
expect the smoker to move regardless of the situation. They will quote evidence
of the damage and cost of smoking, even though this is now evident, often in
graphic detail, on every pack which is bought. What they do not realise is that
they harm their cause taking such a stance.
Nicotine is a drug, pure and simple, and an addictive one at
that. Alcohol is also a drug, and a poison, yet smoking products are taxed and
legislated against far more strongly, even though it could be proven that the
damage caused by alcohol is far more costly.
What is also not known is that some of those smokers are
doing it for their health. For some it is a simple and relatively quick form of
pain relief when access to other drugs and pain relief are not available. For
others it provides a measure of stress relief in situations where other methods
are not possible.
Smokers are a dying breed, and they know it. They know the
risks of their habit. They are not all the same and they do not all smoke for
the same reasons. Unless you have been in the smoker’s shoes you do not know as
much as you think. Have some consideration before you speak out against their
habit, our “nanny state” may decide that your habit or hobby is too dangerous
and anti-social next.
Cheers,
Henry.
Respect not Glorification An Answer to: "What Does Glorifying The ANZAC Myth Say About Our Attitudes To Violent Men Today?"
Greetings,
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.
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.
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.
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,
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,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)