Print

Print


--part1_e6.135c0555.27f22412_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 3/27/01 8:06:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:


> >  Donald Childs, "Stetson in The Waste Land," Essays in Criticism," April,
> >  1988.
> 
>     That's the article I cited in my Monday post, and Rick is correct about 
> Childs' information. I don't have the article with me at work to quote from 
> it, but Childs quotes stories from the London newspapers of the time about 
> the parades that were held in London in April, 1916 to honor the Anzacs 
> (who 
> had landed at Gallipoli in April of the year before). As Childs reports it, 
> the Australian troops, and ONLY the Australian troops, marched through 
> London 
> in the Anzac parade. In the newspaper story that Childs quotes, the Anzacs 
> 'slouch hats' are specifically mentioned. 
> 
>      Another Anzac parade was held in London in 1919 as a final tribute to 
> the Anzac troops before they made a final return to Australia. That was 
> right 
> about the time of the Near East Conference, called to settle the 
> territorial 
> dispute (over the Dardanelles and Smyrna) between Turkey and Greece. So 
> Childs implies that the combination of the Anzac parades and the Near East 
> Conference, all held in London,  inspired TSE to use the Anzacs as his 
> Gallipoli symbol.
> 
I stand corrected and aplogize. It just sounded weird, because the Gallipoli 
campaign was such a disaster one couldn't imagine anyone on the allied side 
holding victory celebrations. Also, the question of why the Australians would 
be singled out when they were a relatively small part of the multinational 
force. What does Childs say? Below, possible answers from the OED, though 
they may not be his answers.

Anzac, of course, doesn't mean Australian, and if the troops were Anzacs, 
they weren't "ONLY Australians."  The word is an acronym for Australia and 
New Zealand Army Corps (OED). In Australia and New Zealand, Anzac Day is a 
national holiday, celebrated 25 April. This commemorates the landing in the 
Dardenelles of troops from Australia and New Zealand (25 April, 1915). The 
OED isn't clear on whether Anzac Day is celebrated only in Australia and New 
Zealand or also in England. I think maybe not on a regular basis in England, 
if there were celebrations in 1916 and 1919, but not in 1917 and 1918. It 
might be a bit weird anyway for Londoners to be turning out to honor the 
Anzac troops who fought in the Darndenelles but not at the same time honoring 
the English troops who fought in the Dardenelles.

pat


--part1_e6.135c0555.27f22412_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial Narrow" LANG="0"><B>In a message dated 3/27/01 8:06:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
<BR>[log in to unmask] writes:
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">&gt; &nbsp;Donald Childs, "Stetson in The Waste Land," Essays in Criticism," April,
<BR>&gt; &nbsp;1988.
<BR>
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;That's the article I cited in my Monday post, and Rick is correct about 
<BR>Childs' information. I don't have the article with me at work to quote from 
<BR>it, but Childs quotes stories from the London newspapers of the time about 
<BR>the parades that were held in London in April, 1916 to honor the Anzacs 
<BR>(who 
<BR>had landed at Gallipoli in April of the year before). As Childs reports it, 
<BR>the Australian troops, and ONLY the Australian troops, marched through 
<BR>London 
<BR>in the Anzac parade. In the newspaper story that Childs quotes, the Anzacs 
<BR>'slouch hats' are specifically mentioned. 
<BR>
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Another Anzac parade was held in London in 1919 as a final tribute to 
<BR>the Anzac troops before they made a final return to Australia. That was 
<BR>right 
<BR>about the time of the Near East Conference, called to settle the 
<BR>territorial 
<BR>dispute (over the Dardanelles and Smyrna) between Turkey and Greece. So 
<BR>Childs implies that the combination of the Anzac parades and the Near East 
<BR>Conference, all held in London, &nbsp;inspired TSE to use the Anzacs as his 
<BR>Gallipoli symbol.
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial Narrow" LANG="0"><B>I stand corrected and aplogize. It just sounded weird, because the Gallipoli 
<BR>campaign was such a disaster one couldn't imagine anyone on the allied side 
<BR>holding victory celebrations. Also, the question of why the Australians would 
<BR>be singled out when they were a relatively small part of the multinational 
<BR>force. What does Childs say? Below, possible answers from the OED, though 
<BR>they may not be his answers.
<BR>
<BR>Anzac, of course, doesn't mean Australian, and if the troops were Anzacs, 
<BR>they weren't "ONLY Australians." &nbsp;The word is an acronym for Australia <U>and 
<BR>New Zealand</U> Army Corps (OED). In Australia and New Zealand, Anzac Day is a 
<BR>national holiday, celebrated 25 April. This commemorates the landing in the 
<BR>Dardenelles of troops from Australia and New Zealand (25 April, 1915). The 
<BR>OED isn't clear on whether Anzac Day is celebrated only in Australia and New 
<BR>Zealand or also in England. I think maybe not on a regular basis in England, 
<BR>if there were celebrations in 1916 and 1919, but not in 1917 and 1918. It 
<BR>might be a bit weird anyway for Londoners to be turning out to honor the 
<BR>Anzac troops who fought in the Darndenelles but not at the same time honoring 
<BR>the English troops who fought in the Dardenelles.
<BR>
<BR>pat
<BR></B></FONT></HTML>

--part1_e6.135c0555.27f22412_boundary--