We only had one assignment for this course and that was to write an epitaph for one of the stories with a limit of 66 characters including spaces between words.
For this assignment, I chose to write an epitaph for Herbert Crowle from week 1 of the course. His story stayed in my mind from the very beginning. Injured in the eye as an ANZAC, nursed back to health, then fired upon on the Somme and hospitalized again. So open in what he was telling his wife in his last letter home. Written on his deathbed, yet precise in what he mentioned about gangrene and pain and becoming unconscious. I’m not sure how many soldiers would have been that open with family.
My epitaph – didn’t count spaces at end of each line
Upon his deathbed
Final thought, caring for family
Our loving Bert
As the epitaphs were written by family, I had to think as if I were Beatrice and other family members. What was it that they appreciated about Bert? What had he done to make him a hero in their eyes? How could they convey that in 66 characters?
On his deathbed his final thoughts in his letter home were of caring for his family. This showed me what sort of family man Bert was. He could have written about remembering him as he was before he left to go to war, but he was thinking of them. How they were going to survive without him as he knew he was dying. So Beatrice would have appreciated those final thoughts from her young husband.
I didn’t find this very difficult as I am used to using Twitter with its limit of characters and after reading the epitaph the family did actually write, I wanted this one to be more personal.
Just listening to the introductory video by Bruce Scates has made me see the horror of some parts of war like the four waves of Lighthorsemen at the Nek in Gallipoli being used as a diversion, the use of grappling hooks to drag the wounded back to the trenches – what other horrors will we be shown this week?
Our first four videos looked at physical wounds from returning soldiers:
Hugo Throssell – wounded twice – but became a pacifist and socialist due to war
Gordon Wallace – hot metal blew up in his face but no widow’s pension after he died – he was drunk
Harold Candy – suicide the night before his marriage
Bernard Haines – enlisted age 14 – crippled by age 16
When I visited the Australian War Memorial earlier this year, I found that only those soldiers who died in war or within 6 years of returning were listed on the walls there. I think this should be changed – any soldier, sailor, airman or nurse who dies of wounds caused through war, should have their names on the walls there.
Too often a brave soldier will also be brave back at home – all that mateship and so on and also not talking about the negative aspects of war.
The next four videos looked at the psychological damage of returning soldiers:
Frank Wilkinson – survived war but not peace
Royce Baesjou – died of shellshock – read more about Royce here
Rowley Lording – drug addiction after war
Unknown patient – identified 11 years after the war – a Kiwi with an Aussie slouch hat
All four stories were compelling in different ways but I wonder whether we have really learnt anything since WW1 in the treatment of psychological problems of returning soldiers. Still not enough hospitals to treat them, not enough housing to look after them, not enough jobs for them to help their families.
Rebecca Wheatley and Laura James interviewed Wesley Enoch for this session of the course.
Wesley wrote the play “Black Diggers” after researching how the indigenous Australians were treated before, during and after war.
One way the aboriginal peoples of Australia told stories was through clap sticks – clapping them together, reading the stories told by the painting or etching on the sticks. By “reading” a clap stick you can tell a lot about the culture as well as who owned it.
At the outbreak of WW1, aboriginals in Australia, despite being the original landholders of the country, had no rights under white people government. They were not considered as citizens. So why would they volunteer to enlist and fight for that country who gave them no rights?
The Australian War Memorial have found, so far, about 1300 indigenous people who have served in WW1 in their records.
Why did they enlist?
Part of growing up on a mission station (often run by churches) was the idea of service to your community. Also there was a lot of oppression on a mission station so joining up gave freedom and adventure away from the station. Another reason that is contentious is the idea of warrior spirit – being able to go out and hunt or kill which they were not allowed to do on the stations. These skills showed you were a warrior within the tribe.
Prior to the end of 1916 when a referendum was held, the AIF would not allow indigenous soldiers to join as they were not of European heritage. But after the referendum, this changed. Once the soldier joined the AIF, he was treated the same as the substantially European soldier even though the indigenous man would be treated as different back in his home state.
What were they fighting for?
Treated as a mate and part of the team while in the trenches or desert yet once back home, each state could treat them differently. Earning money while fighting, yet when that money was sent home to family, the aboriginal protector would take the money rather than give it to family.
How were they treated when fighting?
Having one racist person in a platoon or unit was not acceptable as this would stop the unit working as a team especially if the racist would not obey commands from the black leader of the unit.
It is interesting looking back 100 years to see the diversity of stories both in the fighting and upon return to Australia. World War 1 was the time when Australia came together as a nation – we were fighting as a country – whether white or black. But now we can see the problems caused upon return like shell shock, beatings of women, break up of families – problems affecting both black and white soldiers. But how did the government help with these problems?
Back home – has it changed?
Whilst fighting, many indigenous soldiers learnt new skills that they wanted to use back home to improve their life on the missions and stations. White soldiers started wanting rights for their indigenous mates – able to go to the pub for a drink with each other.
On our $50 note there is a church on the back which is from an aboriginal station at Raukkan and in it is memorial stained glass windows for the indigenous soldiers who enlisted from that station. They fought for freedom and justice is inscribed on the windows.
There was a spiritual loss for the aboriginal families who lost sons or fathers or brothers – they were no longer in their country. Very few mothers would be able to visit the war graves as they were not citizens of Australia and couldn’t travel even if they could afford it. That is why medals, letters and diaries were very important for them to keep in touch with their loved ones.
With all the upsurge of celebrating the 100 years, there is now a group of people called connecting spirits who will visit these graves in Europe with groups of children and exchange soils from home land and the grave area where they are buried. A way to have a ceremony to connect with their spirits.
My reflection for this week:
This week I have been ashamed to be an Australian, but I know we can’t blame this generation for the sins of their forefathers. Life in Australia for the indigenous people was terrible 100 years ago and there are improvements happening but it is a slow process.
Being a retired teacher who has taught about the aboriginal feel for their country, their oral stories and the passing down of knowledge, I could see how the mothers felt when all they had was a medal or letters or diaries. How disappointed they would be that the mourning ceremonies could not be done properly over their son, father, brother.
So glad that descendants of the indigenous soldiers now have a chance to do the ceremonies and make that connection again.
This, the third week of the course, looks at the other ANZAC – how multicultural was the A.I.F. during WW1?
The stories this week included:
Peter Rados – Greek born Australian immigrant with parents and sisters living in Turkey
Peter Chirvin – Russian born immigrant who died on the ship home after ridicule from shipmates
Cornelius Danswan -first generation Chinaman with an English mother
Abas Ghansar – born in India, came to Australia but could be deported at any time
These four stories showed how the “non white” soldier was treated especially by bureaucracy after the war was over. Having lost so many soldiers in the early battles, the recruitment officers would take anyone during the last couple of years of the war. They were then used as cannon fodder in the battles in Europe. Australia at this time had a form of white Australia policy and made it hard for non white people to live decently in the country.
But as many commenters mentioned, the aspect of pensions also affected the white soldiers. Who got pensions? Why were some cut? Were white and non white soldiers treated differently with pensions?
The next stories looked at the indigenous soldiers here in Australia
Alexander McKinnon – mother received parcel but gratuity went to protector of aborigines, medals to stepmother
William Maynard – one of three brothers sent to war and body is still missing
Rigney brothers – sand of birth country intermingled with sand of death country
James Arden – stood up for his rights and entitlements
All four stories were compelling but for different reasons. I felt for “Cobb” in not receiving her son’s medals but I felt most proud of James Arden for standing up to white authority of that time and in using his entitlements to help his whole community not just his family.
I wonder how the New Zealand government are going to treat my ANZAC soldier who had a father who was Afghan and a mother who was Australian? Find out more on my blog when I have done the research. http://suewyatt.edublogs.org
Back when I was teaching, there was a great resource in schools about women at war. I used it often as it had links to many primary resources as well as interesting questions for researching.
This week our course looks at just this topic. Again we have the silent videos to watch and comment upon.
The first four videos look at women mobilized at the battlefront.
Racheal Pratt who lived through the war but because of injury, it followed her until her death.
Evelyn (Tev) Davies who had such a positive outlook both during and after the war
Elsie Tranter tells us about the final moments of war
Narrelle Hobbes nearly made it home after 4 years surviving the war
The four stories show dedication to the profession of nursing. All four nurses would have had terrible memories of what they were seeing or what happened to them. The most compelling to me was that of Racheal Pratt while researching more of Tev Davies I could see her positive side coming through in her images as well as her letters.
The second group of videos looks at women’s unpaid labour during the Great War
There were over 10000 societies created in Australia and New Zealand during early war time to help send comfort to the men at the battlefront. All this work was done voluntarily and without it, the war could not have been won says one historian. Women were empowered during this time period, especially when the conscription debate started. They also travelled to the home country to help out “our boys” from there.
Ettie Rout – sexual health reformer behind the battlelines
Lizzie Armstrong – masseuse and tour guide organizer
Hilda Williams – civilian nurse who died after the armistice
Mary Chomley – looking after POWs through the Red Cross
To me the most compelling was that of Nurse Hilda Williams – a civilian who volunteered when she probably knew there was a chance she would die. But I was also extremely inspired with Ettie for thinking ahead to what life was going to be like for these men and their families when they returned home with VD and other sexual diseases. Mary and Lizzie were very impressive with their efficiency and organization skills.
Readers: Have you heard of other experiences perhaps closer to home of women at war? There must be many unsung women heroes who stayed at home to do their part.
Most people couldn’t visit the cemetery where their son or daughter or father was buried after war whether it be World War 1 or World War 2 or more recent wars. Bodies were not brought home to be buried so where could the family grieve?
In Australia, we have many memorial avenues where each tree represents a fallen soldier, or honour boards at RSL clubs noting the names of each person who took part in the war. We also have lots of war memorials in small towns noting those people who served in war from that particular town, not just those who died. Sometimes the small hall in a town is a memorial for the dead or hospital wings named for the fallen. In Britain some stones also include the address of the fallen soldier. Distance was such a big factor in finding somewhere to grieve for the family members.
Tombs of the unknown soldier also allow people to grieve for either an individual or a group who have fallen.
The War Grave Commission wrote a book “Where the Australians rest” describing the cemeteries of where the WW1 dead were buried and this was available to families.
A new term I learnt was fictive kin – the example of a soldier visiting the parents of his dead mate after or during war. A way of grieving with his family even though you are not related by blood.
Who did the soldiers write home to? Generally it was the mother. Who wrote to the soldiers – usually the mother, maybe brothers and wives but how often did fathers write?
Therefore most of the open grief was shown by the women in the family – but how did it affect the fathers? Maybe they felt they couldn’t show their grief – stiff upper lip and all that. Mother’s grief was paramount, maybe because she gave birth to the child who had now died as a soldier.
Fathers often had to sign the form to allow their sons to go to war if they were under 21. Imagine the grief and guilt he must have felt when they didn’t return.
Some middle class families created scrapbooks or memorial books about the life of their son as a way to remember his life up till his death in war.
But very little is known about the working classes and how they grieved for their dead – very little personal memorabilia around.
Readers: If you have lost someone, not necessarily due to war, how have you shown grief? Was it different for a male partner?
Monuments tell both political and personal stories.
Professor Bruce Scates introduced us to the monuments at Chunuk Bair, Gallipoli. This is the place where the ANZACs tried to reach from the day they landed in Turkey but failed. It was known as Hill 971.
The first Allies buried at the cemetery near the top of the hill were New Zealanders. From there they could see the Dardanelles and the Narrows. The first monument erected at Chunuk Bair was put up by the New Zealanders in 1925 and is the National Monument for New Zealand. This was a great political move – the Allies have now taken over the land they could not take during the war.
In 1992, the Turks raised a monument in the same area to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who lead the Turkish forces in 1915.
How do those left behind mourn those lost in war?
Mrs Irwin, mother of George, corresponded with the Red Cross throughout the war, then visited Gallipoli after war to find out more and make a rubbing of her son’s name on a monument.
Judge Higgins, father of Mervyn, travelled to Palestine to find a small cross, erected a large celtic cross and then started campaigning for disarmament.
Bert Crowle sent a letter to his wife while on his deathbed. Very blunt but showing love for family. His personal monument, erected by his wife and his brother, still stands.
Emily Luttrell pleaded for assistance to visit her son’s memorial in England when she was aged 66. The Government said no.
Reflect and connect
After a few videos, we are being asked to reflect on what we have learnt or feel so far. This is my first reply.
I think the most compelling of the stories to me was Bert Crowle who, even on his deathbed, was thinking of the future of his family. I wonder if he had sent home letters prior to this one and whether they were so very blunt about what was happening to him. Or did he gloss over the real aspects of war and it was only on his deathbed that he felt the need to share the negative and more personal side? How well did the government look after his family once he was dead?
Readers: Do you know of other ways people grieve, bereave or commemorate? Do you have any personal experiences?