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.

[–] Grail@aussie.zone 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

[–] Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 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.

[–] Grail@aussie.zone 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.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 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.

[–] Grail@aussie.zone 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.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 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.

load more comments (3 replies)