Interesting WWI piece in today's Guardian

[Norman Potting]

You may or may not agree with the sentiments but I found it interesting and well argued.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rship-sickening-avalanche?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

 

[bazbha]

Interesting is one word for it. I can think of a few more but looking at the newspaper it came from I can't say I'm surprised.

 

[pastafarian]

Really cant agree with that article at all.

It is not about self congratulation and celebration it is about remembrance and commemoration.

 

[Tubby Mondays]

Interesting is one word for it. I can think of a few more but looking at the newspaper it came from I can't say I'm surprised.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Lincoln Imp]

The sad thing is that most public debate about our relationship with the rest of the world, about the European Union, past wars, immigration, trade, has been so hijacked by the Blazer Division of the political right that rational discussion is barely possible. For every quiet and logical man we find ten swivel-eyed, arm-waving romanticists moving the argument into the corner of the room, leaving more than enough space for thin-lipped Guardianistas to peddle their own versions of the truth. The rest of us can but sit quietly, thinking our thoughts and hoping for better times.

Most years I watch at least 11 November ceremony and feel sadness and respect for all who died. The ceremonies move me. They make me think. I hope we have learnt the lessons. I fear that many of those who shout about our wars the loudest, whether they read the Guardian or the Mail, haven't.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Really cant agree with that article at all.

It is not about self congratulation and celebration it is about remembrance and commemoration.

The article doesn't actually use the word celebration or celebratory at all.

And as for people who want to be rude about the Guardian, as someone who has read it regularly for about 40 years, I often find myself disagreeing with articles printed in it, or taking things with a pinch of salt, or recognising the prejudices of the writer. You don't have to swallow everything you read in a paper hook, line and sinker.

Simon Jenkins is one of their columnists I least like, but here I do actually have some sympathy with what he writes. Time will tell, though about the nature of the coverage that comes up. I do, though, thoroughly agree with his dismissal of Michael Gove's stance. The man seems to be an embarrassment even to his colleagues on this matter.

 

[soistes]

I think it's quite a good article and a useful counter-balance to some of the guff currently being spouted about WWI, which is doubtless going to ramp up throughout 2014.
Interestingly, despite all the knee-jerk responses there will probably be on here about it being "typical Guardian" stuff, Simon Jenkins is definitely not a typical Guardian writer; he's their token right-wing columnist (previously editor of the Times and Evening Standard), and often writes articles with a much more free-market, libertarian perspective than you might expect from the Guardian, if you believe the cliches about that paper.

 

[pastafarian]

The article doesn't actually use the word celebration or celebratory at all.

"David Cameron has found £50m to celebrate the Somme, Gallipoli, Passchendaele, Jutland and anywhere else that comes to mind"

I think you understand very well the tone of the article,

"The festival of self-congratulation"
"It will be the British at their worst: sanctimonious, self-congratulatory,"
"to revel in these squalid initial miscalculations is gratuitous"
"Michael Gove, has seized the moment for tub-thumping jingoism"

 

[Buzzer]

Typical Simon Jenkins. His opinion of himself is so high that he assumes to speak for us all when HE apologises. He's got no more official capacity in the matter than me. And I DON'T apologise because there's nothing to apologise for. So there. Put that in your meerschaum and smoke it.

That paper and that man are quite pathetic at times. What makes it all the more ridiculous is that it is a strawman argument anyway. No-one, before Jenkins wrote this guff was being congratulatory about WWI. Everyone knows the horrors on both sides and how futile it all was for Germany as well as Britain. It's similar to their stance on the poppy or the Union Flag claiming that extremists have taken it over and thus they don't want anything to do with it. He's creating the situation in his own mind so that he can be appalled and outraged at all this imaginary jingoism.

Guardian readers note - it's EXACTLY what you accuse Daily Mail of doing to its readers. Both newspapers are of dubious integrity, they're more geared to pandering to the political persuasions of its readers than some noble idea of the truth.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I think it's quite a good article and a useful counter-balance to some of the guff currently being spouted about WWI, which is doubtless going to ramp up throughout 2014.
Interestingly, despite all the knee-jerk responses there will probably be on here about it being "typical Guardian" stuff, Simon Jenkins is definitely not a typical Guardian writer; he's their token right-wing columnist (previously editor of the Times and Evening Standard), and often writes articles with a much more free-market, libertarian perspective than you might expect from the Guardian, if you believe the cliches about that paper.

I'd have to agree, a thought provoking piece. The rhetoric might jar, but the point comes across loud and clear, and a reasonably balanced argument.

 

[daveinprague]

You say there was no talk, but wasnt there a thread on NSC even, concering a coin/medal being minted?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Typical Simon Jenkins. His opinion of himself is so high that he assumes to speak for us all when HE apologises. He's got no more official capacity in the matter than me. And I DON'T apologise because there's nothing to apologise for. So there. Put that in your meerschaum and smoke it.

That paper and that man are quite pathetic at times. What makes it all the more ridiculous is that it is a strawman argument anyway. No-one, before Jenkins wrote this guff was being congratulatory about WWI. Everyone knows the horrors on both sides and how futile it all was for Germany as well as Britain. It's similar to their stance on the poppy or the Union Flag claiming that extremists have taken it over and thus they don't want anything to do with it. He's creating the situation in his own mind so that he can be appalled and outraged at all this imaginary jingoism.

Guardian readers note - it's EXACTLY what you accuse Daily Mail of doing to its readers. Both newspapers are of dubious integrity, they're more geared to pandering to the political persuasions of its readers than some noble idea of the truth.

As I said above, as a Guardian Reader myself, and knowing plenty of other Guardian readers, we are actually capable of disagreeing with the paper we read.

The Daily Mail makes things up to suit its own twisted agenda.

 

[Bold Seagull]

As I said above, as a Guardian Reader myself, and knowing plenty of other Guardian readers, we are actually capable of disagreeing with the paper we read.

The Daily Mail makes things up to suit its own twisted agenda.

It's in the 'comments' section, a clear area within the paper for sharing someones thoughts and ideas on something. It's not a factual headline piece, it's an individual's opinion, and not an editorial. I think many people enjoy the Guardian BECAUSE it can be fairly subversive, and eclectic in its views.

 

[soistes]

As I said above, as a Guardian Reader myself, and knowing plenty of other Guardian readers, we are actually capable of disagreeing with the paper we read.

The Daily Mail makes things up to suit its own twisted agenda.

Likewise - I read the Guardian, because I think it's the best of a bad bunch among the UK broadsheets (and because it also has an excellent free online presence), although its sports coverage is poor IMO.

I reckon I rarely agree with more than half of the comment pieces in the Guardian. However, that's probably for different reasons than many other NSC readers -- these days, I find myself much further to the left than most Guardian commentators (including Simon Jenkins).

 

[Buzzer]

As I said above, as a Guardian Reader myself, and knowing plenty of other Guardian readers, we are actually capable of disagreeing with the paper we read.

The Daily Mail makes things up to suit its own twisted agenda.

And any Private Eye reader will tell you that the Guardian is just as bad as the Mail with its rank hypocrisy and twisted agendas - and their respective audiences can be as sceptical or as myopic as each other.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

"David Cameron has found £50m to celebrate the Somme, Gallipoli, Passchendaele, Jutland and anywhere else that comes to mind"

I think you understand very well the tone of the article,

"The festival of self-congratulation"
"It will be the British at their worst: sanctimonious, self-congratulatory,"
"to revel in these squalid initial miscalculations is gratuitous"
"Michael Gove, has seized the moment for tub-thumping jingoism"

I do understand the tone of the article - and sorry I missed a "celebrate". And while I said I have some sympathy with what Simon Jenkins is saying, I do think he has gone over the top. I would just be anxious to maintain the difference between "celebrate" and "commemorate".

My grandfather was one of 10 children - five brothers and five sisters. Of the Brothers, 2 were (very) seriously wounded and one was killed. My wife and I found his name on the amazing monument in the Arras cemetery which carries the names of several thousand men who were buried as unidentified. It's an awe-inspiring place. I would not want to celebrate what they were part of. I would certainly want to commemorate it.

 

[soistes]

It's in the 'comments' section, a clear area within the paper for sharing someones thoughts and ideas on something. It's not a factual headline piece, anyone with even a slither of sense can see this is an individual's opinion, and not an editorial.

And this is a key difference between the Guardian and, say, the Mail -- in the latter, political opinions are subtly (and sometimes not too subtly) pushed within supposedly neutral and factual news articles, through careful choice of headlines and wording, and through a fairly selective and biased presentation of 'facts', typically omitting those bits of the facts that don't correspond with the journalists' prejudices. In the Guardian, there's much less of that -- comment is clearly labelled as such, and can come from a variety of political perspectives. It's also clearly targeted at readers with a higher reading age and education level than the Mail.

 

[Buzzer]

It's also clearly targeted at readers with a higher reading age and education level than the Mail.

As I said and clearly from comments like this, it panders to their readers' egos. And in doing so, you'll swallow any old bullsh*t they tell you as long as you feel morally superior.

 

[jakarta]

It's also clearly targeted at readers with a higher reading age and education level than the Mail.

Guardian Readers, You just can't help yourselves can You?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

As I said and clearly from comments like this, it panders to their readers' egos. And in doing so, you'll swallow any old bullsh*t they tell you as long as you feel morally superior.

What a load of cobblers. Why don't you bother taking any notice of other people's comments. How sad.