Football » English » Open Discussion

Tragedy: Finite anniversaries?

By kingjaime - 06-02-2012 17:37

[BVB]

It is hard to illustrate without specifics but let's try to avoid a path into anything too upsetting or political... I'm just wondering, for how long do we continue to mark tragic or otherwise significant events in history? I mean for example, without denigrating the sadness of the Munich Air Disaster, what of all the other historical events we don't mark? The number of specific horrific events that occurred in 1945, just 9 years earlier, visited upon German civilians under the "Allies" banner in WW2, for example. There is no apology or contrite commemoration. But we do mark things like VE Day and such, which not only sort of makes me sick (in the context of not marking or even particularly acknowledging the supremely horrific events which surrounded "victory"), but also I think serves as an annual reminder of conflict with a country we had, prior to WW1 and even still somewhat afterwards, enjoyed a positive relationship with. What might it mean for our regard of other countries if we continued to do the same, for example our relatively huge history of conflict with France? What you think anyway? I suppose it depends on the scale of significance to the tragedy/event but for just how long should we commemorate things before we let them become "a part of history". We'll apparently be marking the Falklands war anniversary, but we don't mark the Boer War anniversary. Is it a question of what particularly suits the establishment, politically or ideologically, to remind everyone about during a given era? Things we'd rather people didn't remember or even know about, just the ones, or specific moments within a larger event, where we consider we were "the good guys"? Being quite into ancient Anglo-Saxon history, the shared culture that involves with Germany (and Scandinavian countries and others) and most specifically the spiritual beliefs, "religious system", I feel sadder about the Massacre of Verden, over 1200 years ago, than I do about the Munich Air Disaster, 54 years ago, not having any literal or sense of connection whatever with it. (Not that I'm not without a sense of compassion for those who do have a connection to it of course.)It is hard to illustrate without specifics but let's try to avoid a path into anything too upsetting or political...

I'm just wondering, for how long do we continue to mark tragic or otherwise significant events in history?

I mean for example, without denigrating the sadness of the Munich Air Disaster, what of all the other historical events we don't mark? The number of specific horrific events that occurred in 1945, just 9 years earlier, visited upon German civilians under the "Allies" banner in WW2, for example. There is no apology or contrite commemoration. But we do mark things like VE Day and such, which not only sort of makes me sick (in the context of not marking or even particularly acknowledging the supremely horrific events which surrounded "victory"), but also I think serves as an annual reminder of conflict with a country we had, prior to WW1 and even still somewhat afterwards, enjoyed a positive relationship with. What might it mean for our regard of other countries if we continued to do the same, for example our relatively huge history of conflict with France?

What you think anyway? I suppose it depends on the scale of significance to the tragedy/event but for just how long should we commemorate things before we let them become "a part of history". We'll apparently be marking the Falklands war anniversary, but we don't mark the Boer War anniversary. Is it a question of what particularly suits the establishment, politically or ideologically, to remind everyone about during a given era? Things we'd rather people didn't remember or even know about, just the ones, or specific moments within a larger event, where we consider we were "the good guys"?

Being quite into ancient Anglo-Saxon history, the shared culture that involves with Germany (and Scandinavian countries and others) and most specifically the spiritual beliefs, "religious system", I feel sadder about the Massacre of Verden, over 1200 years ago, than I do about the Munich Air Disaster, 54 years ago, not having any literal or sense of connection whatever with it. (Not that I'm not without a sense of compassion for those who do have a connection to it of course.)

 

Page 1

 

Reply

Last Message

Re: Tragedy: Finite anniversaries?

By frankzappa - 06-02-2012 22:29

[KERNOW]
President

Don't think of these anniversaries as a way of acknowledging supremely horrific events, but more to remember those involved and effected. There will be people around still who had a grandfather involved in the Boer Wars. There will be many more though that remember a fallen comrade or family memeber from the Falklands Conflict. That is the meter of significance. The Munich Air Disaster affected more than just the families of those involved. Fans of the club, fans of the National team and the world of football as a whole moarned the loss. Because it does not mean much to me (I was born 20 years after it happened) does not mean I can't imagine the effect it had on people very much still alive. It is events like these that open and close chapters in our own lives. They are our comman time line. I remember where I was when I heard that Phil Lynott died, the day Peter Tosh was shot, the day Senna crashed at Imola and, like most, when Diana died. All sad events, all engrained in my mind, and the minds of others. Charlemagne chucks the toys out of his pram 1200 years ago? Yeah, Whatever ;)Don't think of these anniversaries as a way of acknowledging supremely horrific events, but more to remember those involved and effected.
There will be people around still who had a grandfather involved in the Boer Wars. There will be many more though that remember a fallen comrade or family memeber from the Falklands Conflict. That is the meter of significance.
The Munich Air Disaster affected more than just the families of those involved. Fans of the club, fans of the National team and the world of football as a whole moarned the loss. Because it does not mean much to me (I was born 20 years after it happened) does not mean I can't imagine the effect it had on people very much still alive.
It is events like these that open and close chapters in our own lives. They are our comman time line. I remember where I was when I heard that Phil Lynott died, the day Peter Tosh was shot, the day Senna crashed at Imola and, like most, when Diana died. All sad events, all engrained in my mind, and the minds of others.
Charlemagne chucks the toys out of his pram 1200 years ago? Yeah, Whatever ;)

Re: Tragedy: Finite anniversaries?

By kingjaime - 06-02-2012 23:03

[BVB]

I'd support a memorial day for Phil Lynott. Is it then a question that once no-one is left who was involved and effected directly or like "once-removed" (say the kids of someone effected), then it... well it doesn't drift away and get forgotten, but perhaps annual commemoration stops? I suppose it depends on the significance. Some things are significant for the ages, such as Charlemagne's actions, or indeed the murder of Wat Tyler. Again I'm not without compassion for those affected by Munich, directly or indirectly, I just suppose, without being facetious, in another two or three hundred years, more people will look back on Verden and Tyler with significance than Munich. But things like them, and indeed specific atrocities committed by the Allies in WW2, rather than being commemorated every year, have never been commemorated. Seems kinda wrong. Perhaps it'll be the extent of the commemoration scaling down over time.I'd support a memorial day for Phil Lynott.

Is it then a question that once no-one is left who was involved and effected directly or like "once-removed" (say the kids of someone effected), then it... well it doesn't drift away and get forgotten, but perhaps annual commemoration stops? I suppose it depends on the significance. Some things are significant for the ages, such as Charlemagne's actions, or indeed the murder of Wat Tyler. Again I'm not without compassion for those affected by Munich, directly or indirectly, I just suppose, without being facetious, in another two or three hundred years, more people will look back on Verden and Tyler with significance than Munich. But things like them, and indeed specific atrocities committed by the Allies in WW2, rather than being commemorated every year, have never been commemorated. Seems kinda wrong.

Perhaps it'll be the extent of the commemoration scaling down over time.

Re: Tragedy: Finite anniversaries?

By frankzappa - 06-02-2012 23:25

[KERNOW]
President

That's it in a nut shell mate. When you're dead and gone and all those that know you (were talking very distant future now, panic over) not a person alive will give a frog's fat ass about you. Unless of course you meet your end in the Tower of London after assissinating the Queen. Then your name will live on long after. It's the way of things. Ever heard of Admiral Sir Cloudesley Shovell? No, thought not. He killed more seafarers than were lost on the Titanic when he ran his Navy Fleet into the Isles of Scilly in 1707. Difference here is that Leonardo di Caprio didn't play him in a Celine Dion serenaded Hollywood blockbuster.That's it in a nut shell mate. When you're dead and gone and all those that know you (were talking very distant future now, panic over) not a person alive will give a frog's fat ass about you.
Unless of course you meet your end in the Tower of London after assissinating the Queen. Then your name will live on long after. It's the way of things.

Ever heard of Admiral Sir Cloudesley Shovell? No, thought not.
He killed more seafarers than were lost on the Titanic when he ran his Navy Fleet into the Isles of Scilly in 1707. Difference here is that Leonardo di Caprio didn't play him in a Celine Dion serenaded Hollywood blockbuster.

Re: Tragedy: Finite anniversaries?

By frankzappa - 06-02-2012 23:27

[KERNOW]
President

Warning: Do not attempt to assissinate anyone! Especially the Quone :DWarning: Do not attempt to assissinate anyone! Especially the Quone :D

Re: Tragedy: Finite anniversaries?

By apwall21 - 07-02-2012 01:13

I imagine that few of the people who shared in those early victory celebrations believed anything except that those who were defeated brought it upon themselves, or that, at least, they were alive to celebrate so celebrate they should. considering how many weren't on both sides, and how close they were as whole nations to not having anything to celebrate in their own tongue at all... hence there was little mind or care to publicly concern oneself with the fate, terrible or otherwise, of those defeated. it is, however a mistake to believe that such treatment of history requires those who acted to be callous or ignoring of the realities of warfare, even in these modern times. But listen, and listen well, you who would revise or attempt to look in modernist views at peoples who are not, and can never be you... Khan didn't care for anyone except those who willingly joined him on the spot. If your peeps didn't, you didn't have peeps at all, and discussion of reparations was made amongst crows and wild dogs, and involved who got what share of your liver. For the most part, we've truly come a long way from those days.I imagine that few of the people who shared in those early victory celebrations believed anything except that those who were defeated brought it upon themselves, or that, at least, they were alive to celebrate so celebrate they should. considering how many weren't on both sides, and how close they were as whole nations to not having anything to celebrate in their own tongue at all...

hence there was little mind or care to publicly concern oneself with the fate, terrible or otherwise, of those defeated. it is, however a mistake to believe that such treatment of history requires those who acted to be callous or ignoring of the realities of warfare, even in these modern times.

But listen, and listen well, you who would revise or attempt to look in modernist views at peoples who are not, and can never be you...

Khan didn't care for anyone except those who willingly joined him on the spot. If your peeps didn't, you didn't have peeps at all, and discussion of reparations was made amongst crows and wild dogs, and involved who got what share of your liver.

For the most part, we've truly come a long way from those days.

Re: Tragedy: Finite anniversaries?

By kingjaime - 07-02-2012 01:43

[BVB]

"hence there was little mind or care to publicly concern oneself with the fate, terrible or otherwise, of those defeated" Is true, of course a lot of details of that fate wasn't known at all until a great deal of time later. If we were specifically referring to the aftermath of WW2, let's not misunderstand that I'm especially speaking of atrocities committed against civilians, including children, whereas the term "defeated", to me, infers combatants (or supporters). No such distinction was made, perhaps best summarized by the comment of Maria Shapoval on what she witnessed/experienced of the Red Army. So I understand the short-term jubilation, I understand somewhat the medium-term form of commemoration, but in the long-term, present day, where information about what went on pretty much from the point of the landings, during the push and in the aftermath has become more and more accessible... Actually, as I write, perhaps that's my issue with some things; the form of commemoration. Or, even more simply, the extent. I'm satisfied to conclude that's what bugs me: Some things being so extensively commemorated, others not at all. I'll probably sleep better for quantifying that for myself."hence there was little mind or care to publicly concern oneself with the fate, terrible or otherwise, of those defeated"
Is true, of course a lot of details of that fate wasn't known at all until a great deal of time later. If we were specifically referring to the aftermath of WW2, let's not misunderstand that I'm especially speaking of atrocities committed against civilians, including children, whereas the term "defeated", to me, infers combatants (or supporters). No such distinction was made, perhaps best summarized by the comment of Maria Shapoval on what she witnessed/experienced of the Red Army.

So I understand the short-term jubilation, I understand somewhat the medium-term form of commemoration, but in the long-term, present day, where information about what went on pretty much from the point of the landings, during the push and in the aftermath has become more and more accessible... Actually, as I write, perhaps that's my issue with some things; the form of commemoration.

Or, even more simply, the extent. I'm satisfied to conclude that's what bugs me: Some things being so extensively commemorated, others not at all.

I'll probably sleep better for quantifying that for myself.

Re: Tragedy: Finite anniversaries?

By apwall21 - 07-02-2012 08:17

I would say that what likely happens is that people who never lived it the first time who celebrate things like V-Day 60 years later, can miss the root cause that probably most people had to celebrate at the time, and why those who lived it most often still celebrate, which was that there was no more official war, so that the terrifying mess of mangled bodies both living and dead, should be stopping it's flow. I seem to recall most of the interviews of people who spoke about those first impromptu celebrations being sentiments of "thank god the organized death is done." Even from some of those whose nations lost. The basic celebrations of those friendships which were cut short and those likely safely extended with peace, now get mangled with political (and otherwise) desires of a new generation with no understanding of such fears and sorrows, and the outcome can be plastic sheen remembrances which seem to celebrate the death inflicted, not the lives. Hence a psychological conflict arises in which the conflicting knowledge that a friend's death was wrong but also possibly beneficial (his life for mine), meets with what appears to be a wholly wrongful party over the Death of the opposition (as perhaps opposed to a celebration of liberation from the fear caused by the perceived actions of enemy), whose death is also at once a conflict of both wrong and possibly beneficial. And so we are possibly left with, "but if killing is good, aren't you saying that such atrocities are being silenced properly?" And so such conflict arises. I think. As for atrocity, this is not new and I think there is no good answer. The ending of one atrocity seems a fair reason to celebrate, though while man is king there may always be atrocity. I think it is a fair question to be asking, as it appears almost universal (or if you believe the Bell Tolls for You, is...) "How do you remember atrocity?"I would say that what likely happens is that people who never lived it the first time who celebrate things like V-Day 60 years later, can miss the root cause that probably most people had to celebrate at the time, and why those who lived it most often still celebrate, which was that there was no more official war, so that the terrifying mess of mangled bodies both living and dead, should be stopping it's flow. I seem to recall most of the interviews of people who spoke about those first impromptu celebrations being sentiments of "thank god the organized death is done." Even from some of those whose nations lost. The basic celebrations of those friendships which were cut short and those likely safely extended with peace, now get mangled with political (and otherwise) desires of a new generation with no understanding of such fears and sorrows, and the outcome can be plastic sheen remembrances which seem to celebrate the death inflicted, not the lives.

Hence a psychological conflict arises in which the conflicting knowledge that a friend's death was wrong but also possibly beneficial (his life for mine), meets with what appears to be a wholly wrongful party over the Death of the opposition (as perhaps opposed to a celebration of liberation from the fear caused by the perceived actions of enemy), whose death is also at once a conflict of both wrong and possibly beneficial. And so we are possibly left with, "but if killing is good, aren't you saying that such atrocities are being silenced properly?" And so such conflict arises. I think.

As for atrocity, this is not new and I think there is no good answer. The ending of one atrocity seems a fair reason to celebrate, though while man is king there may always be atrocity. I think it is a fair question to be asking, as it appears almost universal (or if you believe the Bell Tolls for You, is...) "How do you remember atrocity?"

 

Page 1