Mates
Last year, I was invited by “Digger” to submit this article on the treatment of gays within the First AIF. It is with a heavy heart that I have to announce that the Board of the Magazine “Digger” has rejected this article on moral grounds. Nothing to do with the quality of writing or research within the article, just that it might offend the eyes of the membership.
John Laffin, the founder of the FFFAIF, strode the world stage voicing opinions that were very unsafe. Through his powerful scholarship he had the courage to advocate unpopular viewpoints. Any person has every expectation to believe that an organisation set up by this great man would follow bravely where weak hearts fear to go. The pity is that the successors in John Laffin’s organisation cower and cringe at anything that smells of controversy.
This is an appalling outcome for scholarship in Australia. Self-censorship on any unsafe subject is the ideal of the FFFAIF. While the motto of the society proudly proclaims “Dedicated to Digger Heritage” it hides a manifest untruth. The term “Heritage” should be substituted with “Myth” since the perpetuation of the current mythology is the only safe and publishable course.
So it is now “No sex please, we are the FFFAIF”. Gays did not join the AIF and any suggestion is to be suppressed. What a sad day indeed.
I have posted the proposed article below to allow our forum members to make up your minds.
Cheers
Bill
Full Version: The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name
You may have meant to post the article, Bill, but it hasn't appeared.
The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name - Bill Woerlee
In the Edwardian era, when sexual issues were rarely discussed, even less was written to provide records of these attitudes. Society considered some practices, like homosexuality, as so heinous that imprisonment was the only answer. For survival in a hostile environment and in an effort to communicate their desires with each other, men invented various code words. The description of being “earnest”, as popularised by Oscar Wilde in his play “The Importance of Being Ernest”, had similar cache then as the word “gay” has now. “Confirmed bachelor” was another euphemism. Apart from a few sensational scandals, no one knew the real extent of this hidden behaviour.
When the AIF began recruiting men, no one addressed the issue of homosexuality or set out a policy to deal with its implications. To the average earnest man, the lure of an all-male institution would have been irresistible. There is every indication that such men would have been over represented within the AIF in relation to the broader community. Despite social disapproval, very few men were punished for homosexual behaviour, which seems to indicate an attitude of tolerance in the AIF so long as the conduct was not obvious. The key to understanding this attitude was embodied in the Empire’s acceptance of the British Generalissimo, Lord Kitchener, a homosexual with an entourage of like-minded men. Turning a “blind eye” seemed the only sane policy.
Click to view attachment
For those few who were detected, action was swift. Two cases in the Light Horse, that of Pte Charles Hendrick, 9th LHR and Pte Norman Benjamin Marshall of the 7th LHR, outline the consequences of being noticed. Both were discharged from the AIF for the same reason but their motivations were entirely different.
Pte Charles Hendrick came from Wellington, New Zealand. He signed up for service in the 9th LHR on 14 December 1914 with the 1st Reinforcements. As a former stockman, he was short and wiry in build. His swarthy appearance was a result of miscegenation. During attestation, apart from all the usual detail, the medical examiner also noted a tattoo on his left buttock.
Hendrick left Melbourne for Egypt on 6 February 1915 with the "Surada". While military life in Egypt was always demanding, at Mena Camp and then Heliopolis, duties were usually over by early afternoon. Ample leave for the balance of the day was always available and only denied if the man was assigned to specific camp duties. For Hendrick, the offerings of Egypt became so spellbinding that he never wanted to leave. With the forced departure from Alexandria with the 9th LHR to take part in the Peninsular Campaign at Anzac, Hendrick disappeared. He hid around all the seedy bars and hotels of Alexandria as a vagrant to avoid capture. His task was not too difficult as there was a vigorous black market trade in fake identity papers for deserters. It took until 13 June and a tip-off for the Provos to find and arrest him. Within days he was put on board a ship for Anzac where he arrived on 16 June accompanied by 21 days’ loss of pay and 10 days, No 2 Field Punishment, for his pains. At Anzac, Hendrick began to serve out his sentence. Unhappy with his circumstances, a couple days later Hendrick did something so rash on 18 June that it earned him 21 days, No 1 Field Punishment, a rarity for the AIF.
The Turkish attack on 30 June 1915 was enough for Hendrick. For him, Idriess summed up Anzac as: “Of all the bastards of places this is the greatest ba stard in the world.” Hendrick wanted out from Anzac. He had tried nearly everything but still remained. One last attempt. He had to go for the big one. On 1 July, Hendrick offered to sodomise another soldier in the trenches. It was an action that brought the reward of a quick arrest by the Brigade police, a rapid transfer to Alexandria on 7 July, and there, held in detention until taken under guard to Australia, where he was immediately discharged on the day of his arrival. For Hendrick, the war was over. The Army gave the bureaucratic equivalent of “flipping the bird” by stripping Hendrick of any medal entitlements despite having served, however unwillingly, in a declared war zone for two weeks.
Click to view attachment
A few years later, on 25 October 1918, Hendrick rejoined the AIF. The war ended before he could serve overseas again. Hendrick was not beyond lying to the authorities. Upon signing the Attestation Papers in 1914, he put his age as being 35 and yet in 1918 claimed his age was 36, a truly miraculous feat. While Hendrick may have been discharged because of “gross indecency”, the nature of his behaviour indicates it was less a consequence of any lifestyle choice and more a motivation to leave Gallipoli by any means possible provided that it did not include sustaining hideous wounds or dying.
The case of Pte Norman Benjamin Marshall from the 7th LHR is quantifiably different from Hendrick. Marshall was a 21 year old dealer from Ryde when he joined up with the 7th LHR on 24 April 1917. He stood at 1.63m and weighed 60kg, a thin man with blue eyes and light brown hair. It would also be fair to say that while Marshall might have been an enthusiastic soldier he could not be described as one of Australia’s finest. He took a long time to be considered as an efficient soldier, indeed, it took seven months. The cohort in which he signed up with at the RAS Showgrounds in Sydney had already gone to Egypt with the 31st Reinforcements. By November he was considered to be efficient enough to be taken into the 7th LHR with the 34th Reinforcements.
When he arrived in Egypt, he spent a month at the Reinforcements camp before being transferred to the 2nd LH Bde Training Regiment. He stayed there for two weeks, when at the end of March 1918, he received an attachment to the Army’s version of the no hoper squad, the Railway Construction Unit. It was hoped that by a regime of hard work and rough company, Marshall might be transformed from a “Mummy’s Boy” into a man. A month of manly struggle later brought on a case of tonsillitis, which resulted in the hospitalisation of Marshall for over two months. After another spell in the Training Regiment, Marshall finally joined the 7th LHR on 9 July 1918, some 15 months after he enlisted.
Click to view attachment
If Marshall thought he was a welcome figure, he soon found otherwise. Within three days he was sent off for yet more training, this time a month. He was a man who appeared to need a great deal of training. When Marshall returned to Richon de Zion, no more training schools prepared to take him on as a student. Reluctantly, the 7th LHR admitted him into its ranks. Finally Marshall was set to work albeit with the supporting echelon at Richon de Zion where the ANZAC Mounted Division’s headquarters was located, rather than with the Regiment proper which at the resting at Bethlehem.
Within a week, Marshall had already found that there was a vibrant homosexual community at Richon de Zion. He participated in all its activities with the vigour of an enthusiastic young man. On the night of 24 July 1918, his enthusiastic participation came to the notice of the authorities when the Divisional Police caught him in the act of sodomising one of the local lads. Marshall was arrested. No one knew what to do with him. Chauvel interviewed Marshall and concluded that a trial would do no one any good. The last thing Chauvel needed was a scandal blowing up right at the moment when he was planning for the September break out. To avoid any inconvenience, Marshall was placed under guard, sent to Egypt and then Australia, where he was discharged on 3 October 1918. Unlike Hendrick, Marshall received his full medal entitlements.
Click to view attachment
In both these cases the men were returned to Australia and discharged on landing at the Military District of embarkation. They faced no trial, just rapid removal from the Army. If there was a policy on handling the problems of homosexuality in the AIF, it was to silently rid the institution of any known activity. The AIF appears not to have had the ability to cope with the fallout that might have arisen due to any Wilde like trial. It would appear as though there was very real ambivalence in the senior ranks towards this issue. No one really knew what actions to take due to the lack of official policy. Sending them home appeared to be the safest solution.
For the AIF, an absence of a formal policy meant doing nothing so long as no one said or did anything to bring homosexuality to the notice of the authorities. It was a policy that the Army took into this century some 90 years later. The legal barriers may be down but this issue is still controversial within the Army, with little progressing beyond Hendrick and Marshall. Maybe it is time for acceptance of social realities and some creative thinking and within the Army. It is a subject that people ignore at their peril.
In the Edwardian era, when sexual issues were rarely discussed, even less was written to provide records of these attitudes. Society considered some practices, like homosexuality, as so heinous that imprisonment was the only answer. For survival in a hostile environment and in an effort to communicate their desires with each other, men invented various code words. The description of being “earnest”, as popularised by Oscar Wilde in his play “The Importance of Being Ernest”, had similar cache then as the word “gay” has now. “Confirmed bachelor” was another euphemism. Apart from a few sensational scandals, no one knew the real extent of this hidden behaviour.
When the AIF began recruiting men, no one addressed the issue of homosexuality or set out a policy to deal with its implications. To the average earnest man, the lure of an all-male institution would have been irresistible. There is every indication that such men would have been over represented within the AIF in relation to the broader community. Despite social disapproval, very few men were punished for homosexual behaviour, which seems to indicate an attitude of tolerance in the AIF so long as the conduct was not obvious. The key to understanding this attitude was embodied in the Empire’s acceptance of the British Generalissimo, Lord Kitchener, a homosexual with an entourage of like-minded men. Turning a “blind eye” seemed the only sane policy.
Click to view attachment
For those few who were detected, action was swift. Two cases in the Light Horse, that of Pte Charles Hendrick, 9th LHR and Pte Norman Benjamin Marshall of the 7th LHR, outline the consequences of being noticed. Both were discharged from the AIF for the same reason but their motivations were entirely different.
Pte Charles Hendrick came from Wellington, New Zealand. He signed up for service in the 9th LHR on 14 December 1914 with the 1st Reinforcements. As a former stockman, he was short and wiry in build. His swarthy appearance was a result of miscegenation. During attestation, apart from all the usual detail, the medical examiner also noted a tattoo on his left buttock.
Hendrick left Melbourne for Egypt on 6 February 1915 with the "Surada". While military life in Egypt was always demanding, at Mena Camp and then Heliopolis, duties were usually over by early afternoon. Ample leave for the balance of the day was always available and only denied if the man was assigned to specific camp duties. For Hendrick, the offerings of Egypt became so spellbinding that he never wanted to leave. With the forced departure from Alexandria with the 9th LHR to take part in the Peninsular Campaign at Anzac, Hendrick disappeared. He hid around all the seedy bars and hotels of Alexandria as a vagrant to avoid capture. His task was not too difficult as there was a vigorous black market trade in fake identity papers for deserters. It took until 13 June and a tip-off for the Provos to find and arrest him. Within days he was put on board a ship for Anzac where he arrived on 16 June accompanied by 21 days’ loss of pay and 10 days, No 2 Field Punishment, for his pains. At Anzac, Hendrick began to serve out his sentence. Unhappy with his circumstances, a couple days later Hendrick did something so rash on 18 June that it earned him 21 days, No 1 Field Punishment, a rarity for the AIF.
The Turkish attack on 30 June 1915 was enough for Hendrick. For him, Idriess summed up Anzac as: “Of all the bastards of places this is the greatest ba stard in the world.” Hendrick wanted out from Anzac. He had tried nearly everything but still remained. One last attempt. He had to go for the big one. On 1 July, Hendrick offered to sodomise another soldier in the trenches. It was an action that brought the reward of a quick arrest by the Brigade police, a rapid transfer to Alexandria on 7 July, and there, held in detention until taken under guard to Australia, where he was immediately discharged on the day of his arrival. For Hendrick, the war was over. The Army gave the bureaucratic equivalent of “flipping the bird” by stripping Hendrick of any medal entitlements despite having served, however unwillingly, in a declared war zone for two weeks.
Click to view attachment
A few years later, on 25 October 1918, Hendrick rejoined the AIF. The war ended before he could serve overseas again. Hendrick was not beyond lying to the authorities. Upon signing the Attestation Papers in 1914, he put his age as being 35 and yet in 1918 claimed his age was 36, a truly miraculous feat. While Hendrick may have been discharged because of “gross indecency”, the nature of his behaviour indicates it was less a consequence of any lifestyle choice and more a motivation to leave Gallipoli by any means possible provided that it did not include sustaining hideous wounds or dying.
The case of Pte Norman Benjamin Marshall from the 7th LHR is quantifiably different from Hendrick. Marshall was a 21 year old dealer from Ryde when he joined up with the 7th LHR on 24 April 1917. He stood at 1.63m and weighed 60kg, a thin man with blue eyes and light brown hair. It would also be fair to say that while Marshall might have been an enthusiastic soldier he could not be described as one of Australia’s finest. He took a long time to be considered as an efficient soldier, indeed, it took seven months. The cohort in which he signed up with at the RAS Showgrounds in Sydney had already gone to Egypt with the 31st Reinforcements. By November he was considered to be efficient enough to be taken into the 7th LHR with the 34th Reinforcements.
When he arrived in Egypt, he spent a month at the Reinforcements camp before being transferred to the 2nd LH Bde Training Regiment. He stayed there for two weeks, when at the end of March 1918, he received an attachment to the Army’s version of the no hoper squad, the Railway Construction Unit. It was hoped that by a regime of hard work and rough company, Marshall might be transformed from a “Mummy’s Boy” into a man. A month of manly struggle later brought on a case of tonsillitis, which resulted in the hospitalisation of Marshall for over two months. After another spell in the Training Regiment, Marshall finally joined the 7th LHR on 9 July 1918, some 15 months after he enlisted.
Click to view attachment
If Marshall thought he was a welcome figure, he soon found otherwise. Within three days he was sent off for yet more training, this time a month. He was a man who appeared to need a great deal of training. When Marshall returned to Richon de Zion, no more training schools prepared to take him on as a student. Reluctantly, the 7th LHR admitted him into its ranks. Finally Marshall was set to work albeit with the supporting echelon at Richon de Zion where the ANZAC Mounted Division’s headquarters was located, rather than with the Regiment proper which at the resting at Bethlehem.
Within a week, Marshall had already found that there was a vibrant homosexual community at Richon de Zion. He participated in all its activities with the vigour of an enthusiastic young man. On the night of 24 July 1918, his enthusiastic participation came to the notice of the authorities when the Divisional Police caught him in the act of sodomising one of the local lads. Marshall was arrested. No one knew what to do with him. Chauvel interviewed Marshall and concluded that a trial would do no one any good. The last thing Chauvel needed was a scandal blowing up right at the moment when he was planning for the September break out. To avoid any inconvenience, Marshall was placed under guard, sent to Egypt and then Australia, where he was discharged on 3 October 1918. Unlike Hendrick, Marshall received his full medal entitlements.
Click to view attachment
In both these cases the men were returned to Australia and discharged on landing at the Military District of embarkation. They faced no trial, just rapid removal from the Army. If there was a policy on handling the problems of homosexuality in the AIF, it was to silently rid the institution of any known activity. The AIF appears not to have had the ability to cope with the fallout that might have arisen due to any Wilde like trial. It would appear as though there was very real ambivalence in the senior ranks towards this issue. No one really knew what actions to take due to the lack of official policy. Sending them home appeared to be the safest solution.
For the AIF, an absence of a formal policy meant doing nothing so long as no one said or did anything to bring homosexuality to the notice of the authorities. It was a policy that the Army took into this century some 90 years later. The legal barriers may be down but this issue is still controversial within the Army, with little progressing beyond Hendrick and Marshall. Maybe it is time for acceptance of social realities and some creative thinking and within the Army. It is a subject that people ignore at their peril.
Hey SG - just getting it ready mate - takes a bit to format it correctly within the parameters of this site. However, it is there now.
Cheers
Bill
Cheers
Bill
Thank you for posting that it's certainly an interesting consideration.
It is a shame that it was censored, perhaps some people are uncomfortable with their own feelings.
It is unfortunate it is an issue one way or the other with "both sides" and not just accepted as an ordinary fact.
Thank you for posting.
It is a shame that it was censored, perhaps some people are uncomfortable with their own feelings.
It is unfortunate it is an issue one way or the other with "both sides" and not just accepted as an ordinary fact.
Thank you for posting.
Bill for the life of me I cannot see why the magazine took expeption to your article. It certainly suggests a rather more tolerant attitude by the authorities to homosexual activity than one may have suspected, both men thoroughly deserving to be booted out or punished for very deliberate actions. I see you think the reason the article was spiked was your suggestion it offends the big butch view of the Anzacs but could it also be your suggestion of official AIF tolerance to the presencs of "Ernests" ? I do have the feeling though that such a subject would be better suited to a wider investigation that a book would allow. Please dont consider this a critisism its not, I just felt that the subject would benefit from a broader perspective of the issues . Gareth
Perhaps one of the reasons this article was refused was that it is very long in statement and short on evidence. You say that Kitchener was homosexual. If true, this is not general knowledge. It requires some sort of backup. A statement such as this is probably not susceptible of proof or disproof, all the more need then for justification of the claim. Likewise your statements with reference to cryptic meaning for " earnest" and " confirmed bachelor". I consider myself fairly well read and have never come across this reference before. References, sources, please. I repeat that these statements may well be true but until they are regarded as common knowledge they will require corroboration. Finally, I think it is a shame that the article was not published, I enjoyed reading it.
Censorship is bad for history, and I am at a loss to see what sustainable objection could be made to your article. Thanks for sharing it with is here.
Many years ago I published a friend's article in our local WFA Branch magazine about the AIF VD hospital in Lewes; perhaps these people would deny publication of this as well? Very strange.
Many years ago I published a friend's article in our local WFA Branch magazine about the AIF VD hospital in Lewes; perhaps these people would deny publication of this as well? Very strange.
Mates
Thanks for your comments. All are deeply appreciated.
Cheers
Bill
Thanks for your comments. All are deeply appreciated.
Cheers
Bill
truthergw
Mate, thanks for your comments - I think.
The reason for rejection was clearly stated in my preamble.
Now to sustain a comment "long in statement and short on evidence", there needs to be an absence of substantive substantiation. Within the essay each individual case is not only fully referenced but copies of entries from the service files are provided. Heck, if this is short on evidence, what else do you want?
As for your knowledge of the usage of English words, this is nothing that can be addressed in a historical essay. I cannot be held responsible for your lack of knowledge in this area. Such usages should be a stimulus for you to track down these terms for yourself. It's fun but it's not part of this essay.
This is a general essay for a general audience rather than a piece of clipped scholastic research. However, it follows all the scholastic requirements by citing references where necessary and following scholastic conventions. The fact that these citations appear almost invisible means I have done my job properly.
Cheers
Bill
Mate, thanks for your comments - I think.
The reason for rejection was clearly stated in my preamble.
Now to sustain a comment "long in statement and short on evidence", there needs to be an absence of substantive substantiation. Within the essay each individual case is not only fully referenced but copies of entries from the service files are provided. Heck, if this is short on evidence, what else do you want?
As for your knowledge of the usage of English words, this is nothing that can be addressed in a historical essay. I cannot be held responsible for your lack of knowledge in this area. Such usages should be a stimulus for you to track down these terms for yourself. It's fun but it's not part of this essay.
This is a general essay for a general audience rather than a piece of clipped scholastic research. However, it follows all the scholastic requirements by citing references where necessary and following scholastic conventions. The fact that these citations appear almost invisible means I have done my job properly.
Cheers
Bill
Bill,
I think his coment refered more to the use of Haig as a Homosexual when there is no proof of this even if in can be infered that he was from the evidence.
Cheers
S.B
I think his coment refered more to the use of Haig as a Homosexual when there is no proof of this even if in can be infered that he was from the evidence.
Cheers
S.B
QUOTE (stevebecker @ Jan 27 2007, 12:22 AM) 
I think his coment refered more to the use of Haig as a Homosexual
Kitchener ...
QUOTE (stevebecker @ Jan 27 2007, 12:22 AM)
Bill,
I think his coment refered more to the use of Haig as a Homosexual when there is no proof of this even if in can be infered that he was from the evidence.
Cheers
S.B
I think his coment refered more to the use of Haig as a Homosexual when there is no proof of this even if in can be infered that he was from the evidence.
Cheers
S.B
I was going to post something about what Haig did to the British infantry, but decided not to.
I think fair points made above.
I am aware that "earnest" and 'confirmed batchelor' were slang I don't have a reference. That part doesn't demand a reference in my opinion as it is passing detail. (Gay in Victorian England referring to prostitutes, a gay-house being a brothel)
Regarding Kitchener it is disputed although IRC there was a contemporary comment on him being like '...all Egyptian officers with a taste for buggery' or something similar. he never married etc. But a single swallow doesn't make spring and after all the article isn't about him. But I think it would be truer to accept it's 'not proven'.
The addition of a question mark below his picture and 'it is thought' would probably cover both camps (Oh dear, no pun intended) and be a fair balance. I don't think this would detract from the article.
For the subject, reference and documentation given does support the view.
The points raised didn't occur to me on reading but I can see good practice and their consideration would be for the better.
I am certain the points were raised in an honest and helpful way and certainly not intended to merely quibble or annoy you.
I am aware that "earnest" and 'confirmed batchelor' were slang I don't have a reference. That part doesn't demand a reference in my opinion as it is passing detail. (Gay in Victorian England referring to prostitutes, a gay-house being a brothel)
Regarding Kitchener it is disputed although IRC there was a contemporary comment on him being like '...all Egyptian officers with a taste for buggery' or something similar. he never married etc. But a single swallow doesn't make spring and after all the article isn't about him. But I think it would be truer to accept it's 'not proven'.
The addition of a question mark below his picture and 'it is thought' would probably cover both camps (Oh dear, no pun intended) and be a fair balance. I don't think this would detract from the article.
For the subject, reference and documentation given does support the view.
The points raised didn't occur to me on reading but I can see good practice and their consideration would be for the better.
I am certain the points were raised in an honest and helpful way and certainly not intended to merely quibble or annoy you.
It is interesting that both the men concerned were dismissed from the Army. It would be fascinating to know how many in total were dismissed for homosexual activity - how many of that total might have been heterosexuals who "bit the bullet" and committed the acts with the desire to escape the war is an interesting speculation.
This Forum periodically demonstrates that there is still a significant reticence to openly discuss the sexual history of the Great War. Personally, I find this an interesting subject ( I am probably as prurient as the next man) but I do feel that the study of how this powerful human drive manifests itself in war is totally legitimate. That said, the amount of evidence that can be gathered would seem limited - but well done to Bill for his work in this area. Of course, normal "rules" to validate and present the research should apply.
This Forum periodically demonstrates that there is still a significant reticence to openly discuss the sexual history of the Great War. Personally, I find this an interesting subject ( I am probably as prurient as the next man) but I do feel that the study of how this powerful human drive manifests itself in war is totally legitimate. That said, the amount of evidence that can be gathered would seem limited - but well done to Bill for his work in this area. Of course, normal "rules" to validate and present the research should apply.
Bill,
Interesting article. Through my research on POWs in Turkey I came across a few references to homosexuality. In one case, an Australian other rank attributed his post war homosexuality to having been repeatedly been sodomised by a Turkish officer, initially against his will but later by consent. Back in Australia, this young man later committed suicide after being found to have molested young boys.
The second reference came from Thomas White, author of the book "Guests of the Unspeakable". Though not included in his book, his diaries refer to officers (British and Australian) in the Afyonkarahissar POW camp, holding balls (no, no, I mean dances) with some of the officers dressing as women. While not proof positive of any homosexual activity, White makes it clear he found the practice decidedly off.
Though not often openly referred to, there were instances of POWs being abused on capture or afterwards.
I do know of one case of an AIF ranker being tried by a court in the UK after being found having unlawful intercourse with a swan but that is something of a different matter.
Cheers
Bill
Interesting article. Through my research on POWs in Turkey I came across a few references to homosexuality. In one case, an Australian other rank attributed his post war homosexuality to having been repeatedly been sodomised by a Turkish officer, initially against his will but later by consent. Back in Australia, this young man later committed suicide after being found to have molested young boys.
The second reference came from Thomas White, author of the book "Guests of the Unspeakable". Though not included in his book, his diaries refer to officers (British and Australian) in the Afyonkarahissar POW camp, holding balls (no, no, I mean dances) with some of the officers dressing as women. While not proof positive of any homosexual activity, White makes it clear he found the practice decidedly off.
Though not often openly referred to, there were instances of POWs being abused on capture or afterwards.
I do know of one case of an AIF ranker being tried by a court in the UK after being found having unlawful intercourse with a swan but that is something of a different matter.
Cheers
Bill
Mate,
Yes Sorry Kitchener not Haig.
I surpose with the varst majority of the male populartion under arms as in WWI, there must have been more then one or two that enlistied, which they must have done not only to cover there life style but for the same reasons they all did, for king and country.
S.B
Yes Sorry Kitchener not Haig.
I surpose with the varst majority of the male populartion under arms as in WWI, there must have been more then one or two that enlistied, which they must have done not only to cover there life style but for the same reasons they all did, for king and country.
S.B
Thanks for the article Bill. This must be a snapshot of something which wasn't discussed then, but should be able to be raised now. You've added to the body of knowledge mate.
Discussed recently here
http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...=59579&st=0
For those interested in more on this subject.
Cheers
Kim
http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...=59579&st=0
For those interested in more on this subject.
Cheers
Kim
" Pte Charles Hendrick came from Wellington, New Zealand. He signed up for service in the 9th LHR on 14 December 1914 with the 1st Reinforcements. As a former stockman, he was short and wiry in build. His swarthy appearance was a result of miscegenation. During attestation, apart from all the usual detail, the medical examiner also noted a tattoo on his left buttock."
Where did you get this information? It is not on his file.
Did you have access to other papers?
Slight correction; his mother was living in Wellington and he had served there in the Wellington Mounted Rifles. but he was born in either Auckland or Dunedin in 1886
Christine
Where did you get this information? It is not on his file.
Did you have access to other papers?
Slight correction; his mother was living in Wellington and he had served there in the Wellington Mounted Rifles. but he was born in either Auckland or Dunedin in 1886
Christine
"Confirmed bachelor" was certainly a euphemism for homosexual years ago, but I've never heard "earnest" used in that way.
QUOTE (Mary from Italy @ Jan 28 2007, 05:59 AM)
"Confirmed bachelor" was certainly a euphemism for homosexual years ago, but I've never heard "earnest" used in that way.
I believe that they had all sorts of "code words". After all, it was illegal.
I read that the song "Any Old Iron", was a "secret" homosexual song, although I doubt that it was very secret to anyone who understood cockney rhyming slang.
Googling for the above song I found that other well known songs are also, supposedly, "gay songs":
http://www.q.co.za/2001/2001/03/20-musichall.html
As long as things are secret and hidden and there matters about which men are ashamed, there will be scandal. I remember in college thinking Kitchener was homosexual, simply because of the stuff recounted above. Later, I became aware that many men don't have the same fixation on attaining orgasm as many times as possible or with as many partners as possible and one might, just have other things in life that matter - thus he could have been ... just a man.
I think it was when studying the life of WSC that I realized, here was a man who had power, opportunity and access and yet did not womanize ... much like Roosevelt who carried one great respect for this wife and one great love for his mistress ...
Not every man is a Kennedy ...
The original assertion in the above article is enough to convince me the person is NOT a historian but some level of Gay Activist. If our objective is to find every character in history who might have played with a partner of his own gender without a judgement of their lives ... that is not history, though it might be historical.
We have better things to do with our time. I, for one, support the point that this article should not be published ... it is sensation for sensation's sake.
I think it was when studying the life of WSC that I realized, here was a man who had power, opportunity and access and yet did not womanize ... much like Roosevelt who carried one great respect for this wife and one great love for his mistress ...
Not every man is a Kennedy ...
The original assertion in the above article is enough to convince me the person is NOT a historian but some level of Gay Activist. If our objective is to find every character in history who might have played with a partner of his own gender without a judgement of their lives ... that is not history, though it might be historical.
We have better things to do with our time. I, for one, support the point that this article should not be published ... it is sensation for sensation's sake.
To put it in base terms, I am astounded that men are still judged in this day and age by where they prefer to put their penis.
In the National Service days the phrase was "temprementally unsuited to military service" which allowed the Army to administratively discharge any gay people it could not cope with or even not to take them in the first place (eg Quentin Crisp).
From what I know and have heard the general attitude up until very recently was "don't tell us and we won't ask" unless you got someone in the Provost who had a hang up about it.
This sort of thing is a problem in the army where you have an NCO who is prepared to abuse his position for cheap kicks, especially at the expense of the young and naieve.
From what I know and have heard the general attitude up until very recently was "don't tell us and we won't ask" unless you got someone in the Provost who had a hang up about it.
This sort of thing is a problem in the army where you have an NCO who is prepared to abuse his position for cheap kicks, especially at the expense of the young and naieve.
A link I posted has diverted this topic.
I apologise for this. It was a mistake I will not make again and should have "When in doubt, don't".
Sorry
zoo
I apologise for this. It was a mistake I will not make again and should have "When in doubt, don't".
Sorry
zoo
I'm always astounded by people who go out of their way to tell us (after first making sure their own opinions are made known), that they "have better things to do with our time".
Then why aren't you doing them?
Then why aren't you doing them?
To get right back on track - the subject of this thread is an article recently rejected for publication in a magazine.
Any subject of interest could be dismissed as 'sensationalism' if that's the way one wants to regard it. But imagine if everyone thought that way: why write about soldiers who died when most lived? Why even mention Victoria Cross holders when most soldiers didn't receive any gallantry award at all? Or deaths by friendly fire when this was relatively rare? Why write about battles when most of the war was spent sitting around in trenches being bored or in back areas resting or carrying out fatigues? And why write about gay soldiers when most weren't? Aren't all these things able to be described as 'sensationalism'?
I don't really want to spend too much time reading endless articles about how roads were constructed 30 miles behind the front line, or how the horses were looked after by the cavalry units while they waited their chance to fight, or how troops filled in the long hours of every day on a troopship. Yet those are some of the everyday 'non-sensational' realities of the war. They just don't make for very interesting reading.
What's 'sensational' to one may not be so to another, just as what may be of interest to one may not be to others.
I have to ask, though, if the fact that an article may be considered by some to be 'sensationalist' is a good reason not to publish it.
Any subject of interest could be dismissed as 'sensationalism' if that's the way one wants to regard it. But imagine if everyone thought that way: why write about soldiers who died when most lived? Why even mention Victoria Cross holders when most soldiers didn't receive any gallantry award at all? Or deaths by friendly fire when this was relatively rare? Why write about battles when most of the war was spent sitting around in trenches being bored or in back areas resting or carrying out fatigues? And why write about gay soldiers when most weren't? Aren't all these things able to be described as 'sensationalism'?
I don't really want to spend too much time reading endless articles about how roads were constructed 30 miles behind the front line, or how the horses were looked after by the cavalry units while they waited their chance to fight, or how troops filled in the long hours of every day on a troopship. Yet those are some of the everyday 'non-sensational' realities of the war. They just don't make for very interesting reading.
What's 'sensational' to one may not be so to another, just as what may be of interest to one may not be to others.
I have to ask, though, if the fact that an article may be considered by some to be 'sensationalist' is a good reason not to publish it.
QUOTE (AndyHollinger @ Jan 30 2007, 12:08 AM)
The original assertion in the above article is enough to convince me the person is NOT a historian but some level of Gay Activist.
Andy,
Having met Bill and his partner I can assure you that he is not a Gay Activist and I think your statement about him is out of line. I don't think it is appropriate for any of us to label other forum members in this manner. If we disagree with his article, it is no reason to denigrate him. You just have to read Bill's many posts assisting other forum members to realise he is a sincere bloke with a deep knowledge of the Australian Light Horse.
Regards
Chris
It's quite legitimate, on any thread, covering any subject, to point out that someone is off-topic, out-of-line, etc. It must be, because I see it often.
In any case, the posting of a photo of a sitcom character, telling others to check out a book (why?) that they may not have, the alluding to another thread as having already covered this subject (when in fact it has not), and the advice to others to get back on-topic is hardly sticking to the subject, or indeed making any serious contribution.
An article was written and turned down for publication on 'moral' grounds. It's the publisher's right to do so, but it's the fact that the publication has now been seen to refuse publication of an article that does not align with the myth of the 'Digger' that is disturbing to some of us.
The few 'contributors' who can't get past their giggly adolescent reaction to the article's subject matter are an impediment to a serious examination of the ramifications of such editorial censorship.
In any case, the posting of a photo of a sitcom character, telling others to check out a book (why?) that they may not have, the alluding to another thread as having already covered this subject (when in fact it has not), and the advice to others to get back on-topic is hardly sticking to the subject, or indeed making any serious contribution.
An article was written and turned down for publication on 'moral' grounds. It's the publisher's right to do so, but it's the fact that the publication has now been seen to refuse publication of an article that does not align with the myth of the 'Digger' that is disturbing to some of us.
The few 'contributors' who can't get past their giggly adolescent reaction to the article's subject matter are an impediment to a serious examination of the ramifications of such editorial censorship.
I agree.Disgraceful Conduct. 
Bryn,
The publishers may have objected not to the content of the top three quarters of the article, but to the generalization of the present day army.
Kim
The publishers may have objected not to the content of the top three quarters of the article, but to the generalization of the present day army.
Kim
Thanks PBI; great to have you on side.
As an aside, I begin to see now how to increase my 'rank' through quantity of posts rather than worrying about quality.
Kim; maybe they did object to the last part. Then again maybe they didn't. Problem is we just don't know the specifics of why it was rejected, so one theory is as good as another.
As an aside, I begin to see now how to increase my 'rank' through quantity of posts rather than worrying about quality.
Kim; maybe they did object to the last part. Then again maybe they didn't. Problem is we just don't know the specifics of why it was rejected, so one theory is as good as another.
Kim
The only feedback I have received which indicated the thinking had nothing to do with the last paragraph. It had more to do with shocking the descendants by publishing negative details about their antecedents despite the fact that the information is freely available and in the public domain. I have heard no more specifics.
Cheers
Bill
The only feedback I have received which indicated the thinking had nothing to do with the last paragraph. It had more to do with shocking the descendants by publishing negative details about their antecedents despite the fact that the information is freely available and in the public domain. I have heard no more specifics.
Cheers
Bill
Bryn
G'day mate
If I keep putting little, meaningless posts, soon I will be a full Colonel, then General, then Fuhrer, then ruler of the universe. I have noticed that harangers and gibberers get to be generals quicker than people who place considered posts. When you hit 300 posts you can go to Skindles and knock up another 1,000 in quick time.
Cheers
Bill
G'day mate
If I keep putting little, meaningless posts, soon I will be a full Colonel, then General, then Fuhrer, then ruler of the universe. I have noticed that harangers and gibberers get to be generals quicker than people who place considered posts. When you hit 300 posts you can go to Skindles and knock up another 1,000 in quick time.
Cheers
Bill
QUOTE (Bryn @ Jan 30 2007, 12:27 AM)
I don't really want to spend too much time reading endless articles about how roads were constructed 30 miles behind the front line, or how the horses were looked after by the cavalry units while they waited their chance to fight, or how troops filled in the long hours of every day on a troopship. Yet those are some of the everyday 'non-sensational' realities of the war. They just don't make for very interesting reading.
Personally I find this sort of info provides a very useful background info; just as vaulable as how 1st Blaknshires tackled the issue of taking out machine gun nests at Folly's Pond. I would be sad to see such inforation removed from the Forum, just as much as I would not wish to deny discussion of other issues (within, of couse, the guiding strictures of the Forum Rules)
As for this thread, I have been following it with interest but not commenting as i can add nothing of value
Stephen
QUOTE (PBI @ Jan 30 2007, 01:25 AM)
I thought that this was supposed to be the Great War Forum...not Hand Bags at Twenty Paces.Personally i couldnt care less what a persons Sexuality is,can we please stick to the Subject.
How are we not sticking to subject?
The subject is homosexuality in the 1st AIF, and the current attitudes of a contemporary society dedicated to researching and commemorating the 1st AIF.
Homosexuality has been discussed on the Forum before, and doubtless will again. The subject appears in many first-hand accounts of the war, and so long as postings are not purient or sexist, then discussions such as this are as valid as any other thread on the Forum (and a darn sight more valid than many)
Stephen,
I didn't mean, or state, that such details should not be included or written about. I meant that it would be pretty boring if they were the only things that were written about.
Bill,
Thanks for the extra details. I recall researching, maybe 20 years ago, a soldier of the 5th Light Horse who had committed suicide. I stated the fact in my work, and was attacked by certain individuals for doing so on much the same basis; his decendants may be offended. Why? What does it have to do with them? Besides which, it's freely-available information that anyone can access.
I didn't mean, or state, that such details should not be included or written about. I meant that it would be pretty boring if they were the only things that were written about.
Bill,
Thanks for the extra details. I recall researching, maybe 20 years ago, a soldier of the 5th Light Horse who had committed suicide. I stated the fact in my work, and was attacked by certain individuals for doing so on much the same basis; his decendants may be offended. Why? What does it have to do with them? Besides which, it's freely-available information that anyone can access.
I think we have two issues here
1) Why it was n't published
2) Its contents
I don't think many people can say much about 1) apart from the editors themselves. I would say that if it was family issues involved the editors could have asked the author to say "Trooper A" and "Sapper B" or such like. Yes, I accept that the material is available in open sources, but how many people would ferret away like that? The value of the article as vignettes of the seamy side of Army life and historically would not have been seriously compromised. Anyone who wanted to know more could have been invited to contact the authoe through the editors.
As for 2) I think it was an interesting and informative article. I don't think the element on Lord Kitchener was helpful and it detracted from the article as a whole. Yes the article was contentious and the subject matter was sensitive, but I do not think that is a bad thing. I think any inadequacies that other more informed people might have seen in it should have been discussed in letters and other articles in the magazine in a proper academic type way - that is the way knowledge and understanding is increased.
I think we are in danger of getting excessively aerated here. If we can discuss global warfare sensibly surely we should be able to keep the head when discussing peoples sexual peccadiloes and how they affected the Army? I happen to enjoy articles on the byways of the army, like ports, roads, railways, prisons, Chaplains, hospitals etc very much. The acceptance of homosexuality has been one of the most significant social developments of the last 50 years and deserves serious study.
I for one am interested in this from a disciplinary perspective and was looking forward to seeing a learned debate on a par with the article itself. I put forward my own limited knowledge/experience hoping to further this.
The picture of the Bombardier Beaumont character actually raises a serious point. At least one of the authors of "It ain't half hot mum" had been a serving soldier, and although exaggerated he dealt with what he had known and what many others would have recognised. I am sure just about everyone who served in the NS day (and many regulars too) knows of at least one camp or gay soldier who was just there depit it being "against regulations"
The Aussies seem to have had the same unwritten rules as us as far back as the Great War, which is interesting. In some ways it could be argued perhaps the Army was a safer place than civvy street - if the civil police in the UK had caught someone committing sodomy they would have been looking at imprisonment, as it was this soldier was in effect just sacked and could keep his medals.
I would imagine the Australian laws in respect of sexual relations between men were much the same as ours at this period. It would be an interesting addition to the article to compare and contrast handling of these type of activities by the Civil Authorities in Australia with that of the Army and compare both with those of similar Commonwealth Countries.
As to "rank" on the forum - who really gives a damn? it is just a bit of fun
1) Why it was n't published
2) Its contents
I don't think many people can say much about 1) apart from the editors themselves. I would say that if it was family issues involved the editors could have asked the author to say "Trooper A" and "Sapper B" or such like. Yes, I accept that the material is available in open sources, but how many people would ferret away like that? The value of the article as vignettes of the seamy side of Army life and historically would not have been seriously compromised. Anyone who wanted to know more could have been invited to contact the authoe through the editors.
As for 2) I think it was an interesting and informative article. I don't think the element on Lord Kitchener was helpful and it detracted from the article as a whole. Yes the article was contentious and the subject matter was sensitive, but I do not think that is a bad thing. I think any inadequacies that other more informed people might have seen in it should have been discussed in letters and other articles in the magazine in a proper academic type way - that is the way knowledge and understanding is increased.
I think we are in danger of getting excessively aerated here. If we can discuss global warfare sensibly surely we should be able to keep the head when discussing peoples sexual peccadiloes and how they affected the Army? I happen to enjoy articles on the byways of the army, like ports, roads, railways, prisons, Chaplains, hospitals etc very much. The acceptance of homosexuality has been one of the most significant social developments of the last 50 years and deserves serious study.
I for one am interested in this from a disciplinary perspective and was looking forward to seeing a learned debate on a par with the article itself. I put forward my own limited knowledge/experience hoping to further this.
The picture of the Bombardier Beaumont character actually raises a serious point. At least one of the authors of "It ain't half hot mum" had been a serving soldier, and although exaggerated he dealt with what he had known and what many others would have recognised. I am sure just about everyone who served in the NS day (and many regulars too) knows of at least one camp or gay soldier who was just there depit it being "against regulations"
The Aussies seem to have had the same unwritten rules as us as far back as the Great War, which is interesting. In some ways it could be argued perhaps the Army was a safer place than civvy street - if the civil police in the UK had caught someone committing sodomy they would have been looking at imprisonment, as it was this soldier was in effect just sacked and could keep his medals.
I would imagine the Australian laws in respect of sexual relations between men were much the same as ours at this period. It would be an interesting addition to the article to compare and contrast handling of these type of activities by the Civil Authorities in Australia with that of the Army and compare both with those of similar Commonwealth Countries.
As to "rank" on the forum - who really gives a damn? it is just a bit of fun
QUOTE (Crunchy @ Jan 29 2007, 06:56 PM)
Andy,
Having met Bill and his partner I can assure you that he is not a Gay Activist and I think your statement about him is out of line. I don't think it is appropriate for any of us to label other forum members in this manner. If we disagree with his article, it is no reason to denigrate him. You just have to read Bill's many posts assisting other forum members to realise he is a sincere bloke with a deep knowledge of the Australian Light Horse.
Regards
Chris
Having met Bill and his partner I can assure you that he is not a Gay Activist and I think your statement about him is out of line. I don't think it is appropriate for any of us to label other forum members in this manner. If we disagree with his article, it is no reason to denigrate him. You just have to read Bill's many posts assisting other forum members to realise he is a sincere bloke with a deep knowledge of the Australian Light Horse.
Regards
Chris
My point is that the assertion that Lord Kitchener was "gay" is spurious and seemed to be an attempt to bring undocumented attention so the reader would go further. That is the only real issue I had with the article as presented. To me it was a mis-representation of what was discussed.
A couple of other points.
1 - I find no problem with people - soldiers or otherwise - being gay. If we allow women in the army, there is no reason I can fathom we shouldan't - openly - allow Gays.
2 - Gays have been serving since the beginning of time. I am sure many with distinction. I am also sure that many of the historical characters I admire were gay, gayish, sortagay, maybeatonetime gay, kindastraight, fooledaroundincollegebutreally liked girls or whatever ...
3 - Being a Gay Activist isn't altogether bad. What I meant to say - probably left-handedly - was that this was a gesture inside the article to bring attention to Gay's being "normal" or "respectable." If Lord Kitchener was gay and you respect him - then you should respect all Gays. In my own way I was probably saying this isn't history as much as a pointed message because, at least to the extent to which I am aware - Kitchener has not been proven to be Gay.
4 - The amount of PMs I got tell me several things. One, Bill is respected and should be proud that his friends stick up for him when they felt he was maligned. Two, my post CAN be construed to be a negative attack and for this I apologise. Three ... this forum is incredible.
Hi Andy,
Thank you for your reply. Well put.
Its what Aussies call "Mateship"
Take Care
Regards
Chris
Thank you for your reply. Well put.
QUOTE (AndyHollinger @ Jan 31 2007, 12:35 AM)
One, Bill is respected and should be proud that his friends stick up for him when they felt he was maligned.
Its what Aussies call "Mateship"
Take Care
Regards
Chris
Andy
G'day mate
Due to personal commitments I haven't had time to respond to your comments fully. However, I see that there has been a sort of "Road to Damascus" circumstance as you have finally understood some of the nature of the essay.
At the outset, let me say that I am no "Gay Rights" activist. I am a person who believes that every human should be given the ability to express themselves in whatever way they feel appropriate so long as it doesn't impinge on a fellow human's right to do the same. If that means that I take up the issue of sexuality as a legitimate expression of being human and it coincides with Gay Rights per se, then so be it, we are aligned with a similar cause. You are entitled to criticise what I have written without any physical or psychological punishment inflicted upon you. I respect that right and as Voltaire said, would defend your right to say it even though I am hostile to that opinion.
We then also come to another philosophical viewpoint - burning a book is no argument. In this case, suppression of an article is no argument. I was asked to write the article. In the process of discussions, I let the commissioning editor know what the article was to be about and asked if this would be acceptable. When I received a positive response, I wrote the article. It was only after submission that the society's committee stepped in and suppressed the article for spurious reasons. I have no beef with their right to do so - they own the magazine and they can print what they like. No argument with that at all. I have not demanded that they accept it. By the same token, I have the right to let people know about an article that was rejected and the grounds upon which it was rejected. That is my right. If it belittles the committee's decision, and thus by implication the people who made that decision, then that is the consequence of making the decision in the first place which they were well aware of when making that decision. This decision was freely arrived at with no gun held to any head. Thus they are free also to accept any criticism that flows from the decision to suppress on ideological grounds.
Just to remove any thoughts that my posting this article on this site was a surreptitious "attack", when I received the rejection, I did the courteous thing and informed the organisation that I would be posting this on the internet and proceeded to cite the 3 fora employed. The committee has not been ambushed nor is its right to reply restrained on any of the fora. It is here that they are more than welcomed to debate the issue with me rather than in some private conclave with only a decision announced. Here is the right spot to test the veracity of the decision. By giving full details, I have made it very clear that I am ready to publicly debate the issue come what may. You have availed yourself of this Andy and I have responded accordingly - hopefully as courteously as you would expect of other interlocutors.
"Sensational" is a term you employed. This is an "eye of the beholder" comment. However, today's sensation is usually tomorrow's accepted wisdom. The thoughts you hold today would have led to the gallows two hundred years ago as sensational and revolutionary. However, brave people pushed the envelope and now what you consider is accepted wisdom was sensational in days of yore. Celebrate the sensational for that is what makes you secure in the rights and privileges you hold today.
Cheers
Bill
G'day mate
Due to personal commitments I haven't had time to respond to your comments fully. However, I see that there has been a sort of "Road to Damascus" circumstance as you have finally understood some of the nature of the essay.
At the outset, let me say that I am no "Gay Rights" activist. I am a person who believes that every human should be given the ability to express themselves in whatever way they feel appropriate so long as it doesn't impinge on a fellow human's right to do the same. If that means that I take up the issue of sexuality as a legitimate expression of being human and it coincides with Gay Rights per se, then so be it, we are aligned with a similar cause. You are entitled to criticise what I have written without any physical or psychological punishment inflicted upon you. I respect that right and as Voltaire said, would defend your right to say it even though I am hostile to that opinion.
We then also come to another philosophical viewpoint - burning a book is no argument. In this case, suppression of an article is no argument. I was asked to write the article. In the process of discussions, I let the commissioning editor know what the article was to be about and asked if this would be acceptable. When I received a positive response, I wrote the article. It was only after submission that the society's committee stepped in and suppressed the article for spurious reasons. I have no beef with their right to do so - they own the magazine and they can print what they like. No argument with that at all. I have not demanded that they accept it. By the same token, I have the right to let people know about an article that was rejected and the grounds upon which it was rejected. That is my right. If it belittles the committee's decision, and thus by implication the people who made that decision, then that is the consequence of making the decision in the first place which they were well aware of when making that decision. This decision was freely arrived at with no gun held to any head. Thus they are free also to accept any criticism that flows from the decision to suppress on ideological grounds.
Just to remove any thoughts that my posting this article on this site was a surreptitious "attack", when I received the rejection, I did the courteous thing and informed the organisation that I would be posting this on the internet and proceeded to cite the 3 fora employed. The committee has not been ambushed nor is its right to reply restrained on any of the fora. It is here that they are more than welcomed to debate the issue with me rather than in some private conclave with only a decision announced. Here is the right spot to test the veracity of the decision. By giving full details, I have made it very clear that I am ready to publicly debate the issue come what may. You have availed yourself of this Andy and I have responded accordingly - hopefully as courteously as you would expect of other interlocutors.
"Sensational" is a term you employed. This is an "eye of the beholder" comment. However, today's sensation is usually tomorrow's accepted wisdom. The thoughts you hold today would have led to the gallows two hundred years ago as sensational and revolutionary. However, brave people pushed the envelope and now what you consider is accepted wisdom was sensational in days of yore. Celebrate the sensational for that is what makes you secure in the rights and privileges you hold today.
Cheers
Bill
Tintin
G'day mate, and thanks for your comments.
Out the outset, let me say that I take the rank issue very seriously. I am in the process of working out a method of making a 1,000 meaningless posts to become a full Colonel. This is no laughing matter. We old hands take this very seriously.
Now the important things are out of the way, let's deal with less significant issues.
The points you raise in your discussion piece are all valid. We are now dealing with issues of judgment rather than scholarship per se. Since I have only received second hand information from the Committee, there has been no ability to discuss or address the issues mentioned in the form that you sensibly mention.
Yes, I could have modified the article to assist fitting in with the committee's angst but this opportunity was not granted. I am not an unreasonable person and if sensitivity was at issue, then we could have come to an accommodation in a manner similar to your suggestion.
In relation to the article itself, it was not written to provide a neat vignette that is suitable as eye candy but little else. I wanted people to question their own accepted beliefs on a very uncomfortable subject. There is a great deal unsaid in this article with details written in such a way as not to appear prurient or disrespectful and yet stir debate. What has happened here is an excellent outcome. No point in writing something that becomes a sausage wrapper tomorrow. There is plenty of that around.
Similar to the book I am in the process of writing - aspects of it will challenge conventional views of Light Horse participation within the Great War. Information that was suppressed to make cowards appear as though they are heroes has been dealt with in the text. Generals who falsely claimed accolades have been exposed as empty in their claims while even one bears the stigma of craven although during his life he remained a celebrated hero. Chauvel, Gullett and Bean actively participated in the cover up. Now it can be revealed.
So too with this subject which again Chauvel actively covered up during his tenure.
These issues should be freely discussed as now there are no people to offend. Relatives might feel aggrieved but that is a small price to pay. It will not impact upon their day to day life, nor lower the esteem the living have from their friends or colleagues. So the harm is minimal. The open discussion of these issues allows people to address their real fears or confirm beliefs in the present. The reality is that history belongs to the living as it is our current national dialogue. It cannot be weighed down by the dead hand of the past.
So when we write history, it should inform, amuse and excite the reader. As a sub text, it should excite further interest in the subject raised either as a historical or philosophical issue. At the end of the day, the success of a piece of writing is the impact it has on the lives of people.
I hope that my piece has had that impact.
Cheers
Bill
G'day mate, and thanks for your comments.
Out the outset, let me say that I take the rank issue very seriously. I am in the process of working out a method of making a 1,000 meaningless posts to become a full Colonel. This is no laughing matter. We old hands take this very seriously.
Now the important things are out of the way, let's deal with less significant issues.
The points you raise in your discussion piece are all valid. We are now dealing with issues of judgment rather than scholarship per se. Since I have only received second hand information from the Committee, there has been no ability to discuss or address the issues mentioned in the form that you sensibly mention.
Yes, I could have modified the article to assist fitting in with the committee's angst but this opportunity was not granted. I am not an unreasonable person and if sensitivity was at issue, then we could have come to an accommodation in a manner similar to your suggestion.
In relation to the article itself, it was not written to provide a neat vignette that is suitable as eye candy but little else. I wanted people to question their own accepted beliefs on a very uncomfortable subject. There is a great deal unsaid in this article with details written in such a way as not to appear prurient or disrespectful and yet stir debate. What has happened here is an excellent outcome. No point in writing something that becomes a sausage wrapper tomorrow. There is plenty of that around.
Similar to the book I am in the process of writing - aspects of it will challenge conventional views of Light Horse participation within the Great War. Information that was suppressed to make cowards appear as though they are heroes has been dealt with in the text. Generals who falsely claimed accolades have been exposed as empty in their claims while even one bears the stigma of craven although during his life he remained a celebrated hero. Chauvel, Gullett and Bean actively participated in the cover up. Now it can be revealed.
So too with this subject which again Chauvel actively covered up during his tenure.
These issues should be freely discussed as now there are no people to offend. Relatives might feel aggrieved but that is a small price to pay. It will not impact upon their day to day life, nor lower the esteem the living have from their friends or colleagues. So the harm is minimal. The open discussion of these issues allows people to address their real fears or confirm beliefs in the present. The reality is that history belongs to the living as it is our current national dialogue. It cannot be weighed down by the dead hand of the past.
So when we write history, it should inform, amuse and excite the reader. As a sub text, it should excite further interest in the subject raised either as a historical or philosophical issue. At the end of the day, the success of a piece of writing is the impact it has on the lives of people.
I hope that my piece has had that impact.
Cheers
Bill
The information in Bill's article may be irrelevant to some and that's more than fine, however it does hold interest to others and I can't quite see the reason why it was rejected. I wouldn't suppose to put words into the mouths of those who made the decision but by their actions it would outwardly appears that they believe the article may impune the reputation of the 'bronzed anzac'.
For my opinion, I found it very interesting. No, I'm not a 'gay activist' but I do have a gay Great Uncle who served in the AIF during WW2, whose 'straight' brother had to jump in and protect him from severe beatings and who was finally discharged for being gay - even after serving his country honourably (at El Alamein and New Guinea).
He eventually had to move back to England where it was more acceptable to be gay (his words, not mine) and has spent all his remaining years performing volunteer work caring for the terminally ill. He was also an accomplished dancer and pioneered mud-brick house building in Victoria. He's still lives happily in England, well into his 90's and writes letters prolifically to all his family.
Yes - this subject does have merit.
Tim L.
For my opinion, I found it very interesting. No, I'm not a 'gay activist' but I do have a gay Great Uncle who served in the AIF during WW2, whose 'straight' brother had to jump in and protect him from severe beatings and who was finally discharged for being gay - even after serving his country honourably (at El Alamein and New Guinea).
He eventually had to move back to England where it was more acceptable to be gay (his words, not mine) and has spent all his remaining years performing volunteer work caring for the terminally ill. He was also an accomplished dancer and pioneered mud-brick house building in Victoria. He's still lives happily in England, well into his 90's and writes letters prolifically to all his family.
Yes - this subject does have merit.
Tim L.
QUOTE (Bill Woerlee @ Jan 30 2007, 06:02 PM)
Andy
G'day mate
"Sensational" is a term you employed. This is an "eye of the beholder" comment. However, today's sensation is usually tomorrow's accepted wisdom. The thoughts you hold today would have led to the gallows two hundred years ago as sensational and revolutionary. However, brave people pushed the envelope and now what you consider is accepted wisdom was sensational in days of yore. Celebrate the sensational for that is what makes you secure in the rights and privileges you hold today.
Cheers
Bill
G'day mate
"Sensational" is a term you employed. This is an "eye of the beholder" comment. However, today's sensation is usually tomorrow's accepted wisdom. The thoughts you hold today would have led to the gallows two hundred years ago as sensational and revolutionary. However, brave people pushed the envelope and now what you consider is accepted wisdom was sensational in days of yore. Celebrate the sensational for that is what makes you secure in the rights and privileges you hold today.
Cheers
Bill
My judgements were soley directed at the comment about Lord Kitchener. The rest I found interesting and informative.
QUOTE (Bill Woerlee @ Jan 30 2007, 12:03 PM)
Bryn
G'day mate
If I keep putting little, meaningless posts, soon I will be a full Colonel, then General, then Fuhrer, then ruler of the universe. I have noticed that harangers and gibberers get to be generals quicker than people who place considered posts. When you hit 300 posts you can go to Skindles and knock up another 1,000 in quick time.
Cheers
Bill
G'day mate
If I keep putting little, meaningless posts, soon I will be a full Colonel, then General, then Fuhrer, then ruler of the universe. I have noticed that harangers and gibberers get to be generals quicker than people who place considered posts. When you hit 300 posts you can go to Skindles and knock up another 1,000 in quick time.
Cheers
Bill
Missed this little gem.
Didn't know rank mattered so much. The harangers and gibberers you refer to, that enjoy posting in Skindles, include serious historians and moderators who also like the lighter, humourous side of the forum.
Or have I got it wrong? Would you like to spell out what you were trying to say.
Kim
QUOTE (Max @ Jan 29 2007, 04:29 PM)
To put it in base terms, I am astounded that men are still judged in this day and age by where they prefer to put their penis.
Indeed, it's a travesty. I once had a holiday job in a butcher's shop but I was fired for putting mine in the meat mincer.
She was a very nice girl but the butcher fired her too.
Boom boom.
Steve
QUOTE (Devils Own @ Feb 2 2007, 11:04 AM)
Indeed, it's a travesty. I once had a holiday job in a butcher's shop but I was fired for putting mine in the meat mincer.
She was a very nice girl but the butcher fired her too.
Boom boom.
Steve
She was a very nice girl but the butcher fired her too.
Boom boom.
Steve
Steve
As is generally proved to be the case, the oldies are always the goodies
Andy
QUOTE (Max @ Feb 2 2007, 11:42 AM)
Steve
As is generally proved to be the case, the oldies are always the goodies
Andy
As is generally proved to be the case, the oldies are always the goodies
Andy
Wasn't it the bacon slicer though?
Bill Woerlee posted:
Kim responded:
Kim
Rank matters - ooh, about this . much. As one of the gibberers (I certainly ain't a 'haranguer') who enjoys the humour and sometimes surreal lunacy of UAS as well as the serious stuff, such as this here, I must point out that postings in UAS count zero towards your fuhrer points score I'd probably be uber-fuhrer by now otherwise 
Jim
(Sorry, I realise this posting adds another point to my fuhrer score....)
QUOTE
When you hit 300 posts you can go to Skindles and knock up another 1,000 in quick time.
Kim responded:
QUOTE (Ozzie @ Feb 1 2007, 12:05 AM)
Missed this little gem.
Didn't know rank mattered so much. The harangers and gibberers you refer to, that enjoy posting in Skindles, include serious historians and moderators who also like the lighter, humourous side of the forum.
Or have I got it wrong? Would you like to spell out what you were trying to say.
Kim
Didn't know rank mattered so much. The harangers and gibberers you refer to, that enjoy posting in Skindles, include serious historians and moderators who also like the lighter, humourous side of the forum.
Or have I got it wrong? Would you like to spell out what you were trying to say.
Kim
Kim
Rank matters - ooh, about this . much. As one of the gibberers (I certainly ain't a 'haranguer') who enjoys the humour and sometimes surreal lunacy of UAS as well as the serious stuff, such as this here, I must point out that postings in UAS count zero towards your fuhrer points score
I'd probably be uber-fuhrer by now otherwise Jim
(Sorry, I realise this posting adds another point to my fuhrer score....)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.