Three minute silence

[mikewilkes]

I may well get flamed for this but I find it insulting that for some reason you had a 3 minute silence for the tsunami victims.
Why is it that all the people who died in 2 world wars and countless other theatres since are only entitled to 2 mins.
Because of their sacrifices I am allowed to post this type of comment. Before anyone asks, yes I was in the forces and saw active service where friends did not come back!!
I am not suggesting that this was not a disaster.

 

[Evadne]

You shouldn't get flamed, people should judge what sort of person you are by what you say and do.

 

[aluijten]

Actually I was just discussing this with my collegue. Why three minutes. In Holland we mostly have one minute. Is the gouvernment coming up with new ruling, stating how many minutes of silence for a given number of victims...
I'm ambigious about it all, The silence thing of WW1 and WW2 is because we want people to remember the horror. In this case people shouldn't be silent, they should help raise funds for ALL the needy people and animals in this world. The funny thing is that atr current there is a overflow of help in Indonesia and no help in Somalie, both victim of the same Tsunami.
I mean for an inividual it doen't matter if you die alone of starvation by yourself of with 1000 others, you're dead in both cases...

Arno /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[jimi]

I admire your courage in saying this, and must admit I have similar sentiments. I have no wish to detract from the horror of events and cannot overstate my sympathy for those affected.

However I sometimes feel that the growing extent of such public expressions of grief perhaps are indicative of the less caring side of society in general.

 

[jhr]

Whilst I don't entirely disagree with you, there is an article in the Grauniad today, by Blake Morrison (not exactly a rampaging communist) which argues cogently why it was right to observe the silence on this occasion.

In general, I feel that the increased tendency to denote a period of silence for every tragedy that occurs, irrespective of scale, runs the risk of cheapening the ceremonies on Remembrance Sunday. However, this tragedy was on a massive scale and I felt it was right to observe it.

I didn't feel the same about commemorating 9/11 or the Madrid Bombings (2 recent examples) because I felt that, however ghastly the tragedies - and they were appalling - they didn't merit such a ceremony. In any event, surely Remembrance Sunday should be a suitable time to commemorate the victims of terrorism as well as those killed in wartime?

 

[aitchw]

Whilst your indignation is entirely proper I think it matters more that we all stop and reflect on the situation. The duration of the silence is indicative of a tendency these days to go OTT in displays of sympathy but the huge response to appeals for aid by the public suggests that this disaster, at least, has really got through to us.

I hope and pray this generosity of spirit is shown to other victims in other places.

 

[capricorn]

Likewise I'm not really sure what the silence was intended to achieve. I sat quietly at my desk for 3 minutes and that's made things better for the hundreds of thousands of people who have had there lives wrecked somehow ?

I'm very respectful of the Armistice Day silence and I feel it very appropriate that we take a couple of minutes every year to reflect on the horrors of war, our ability to inflict suffering on each other and the sacrifice others have made for us.

I think this is a very different situation, when the world has done all it can to help then maybe that's the time for quiet reflection and sorrow, right now surely there must be better ways for us to help and show we care. These people don't need our sympathy and our silence, they need our help and they're going to need lots of it for a long time to come.

 

[graham]

The way I see it on remembrance day we have the 2 minute silence to remember those that have given their lives as theres not much else we can do for them.

In the case of the Tsunami victims it is the survivors that need a helping hand.The dead are dead lets concentrate on helping out those struggling to cope with the aftermath.

I refused to take part in the 3 minute silence,I dont think the survivors will give a $hit about that. but maybe the donation I made may make a small difference.

 

[mikewilkes]

Exactly my point.

The first I knew about this 3 minute thing was when I looked at the Beeb News website about an hour ago. As I am 7k miles away I did not know anything about it.

 

[aitchw]

I hope your refusal to take part did not encroach on the observation of the silence that others were entitled to.

It is normal for those of many faiths to pray for the dead as well as the living. You may not share their beliefs but please don't ridicule them. As far as the survivors are concerned you are wrong to believe that they will not appreciate the prayers of others. Most of them will be devout Christians, Moslems or Budhists for whom prayer is an integral part of their lives, more so than ours.

I hope that should I ever suffer in such a way that someone somewhere will say a prayer for me and those I hold dear.

 

[Becky]

The first time we publically expressed our collective grief was at the funeral of Princess Diana. It was then a new phenomenon, and very much emotion driven. The more people left flowers outside the gates of Clarence House (it was there wasn't it), the more people copied them. So the whole thing snowballed.
This time, the media has been repeatedly holding a kind of competition about how much each country has contributed to the disaster fund, and themore they do it, the more people give. It is another version of the same collective emotion. Colin Powell was on the News saying that the American public would give proportionately more than other countries, and G Bush has sent two ex-Presidents to travel round and get peoples money. It is sadly the belief that if enough people do something, then it must be right.
Saying that, I still put down my iron for 3 minutes.
In mitigation of those who did willingly keep the silence, this was a randon occurrence. For a change, Man had nothing to do with it. That perhaps is why so many people felt so shocked.
But it is the living who need the help, not the dead. So had over your money /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Talbot]

IIRC there was an official statement along the lines that we were having a 3 minute silence because that was what our european brothers were doing.

Personnally I agree only 2 minutes for the dead of the world wars civilian and military numbering in their millions, whereas a 3 minutes for the dead of the tsunami was wrong. Dont get me wrong, I think what happened in asia was a tradegy that has probably still not been fully assessed - let alone what may happen due to disease and lack of counselling - but what is needed here is assistance not people standing around doing nothing for 3 minutes. It would have been more appropriate to donate that 3minutes pay !

It was my understanding that the original reason for the 2 minutes silence was for people to remember the dead, and to reflect on the fact that this had been inflicted by other people - as a means to make people reflect before going to war , although this does not appear to have been very successful!

 

[snowleopard]

i entirely applaud the idea of a silence to show respect and solidarity but, like others, i feel that 3 minutes is too much in comparison to the traditional 2 minutes for the world wars, especially as in the latter case many of those who died deliberately put themselves at risk for the sake of others.

it seems there is a constant escaltion of symbols of grief. the bunch of flowers at a crash site has now become a shrine to be renewed for months or years, a public silence is held after every major accident so of course a really big accident needs a longer silence. do people believe that anything less than a public display of grief means we don't care?

 

[Joe_Cole]

I must admit that I forgot about the silence as I was busy. This is NOT because I am indifferent to the horrors of this disaster, but I did not particularly feel "moved" to partake on this occasion. However, I have opted to make a donation.

When 9/11 happened I chose, and wanted, to observe the 2 minute silence. However, I didn't make a donation. Horses for courses I suppose.

I am not sure that my silence would achieve anything and, despite comments elsewhere, I would never wish my silence to be interpreted as a prayer in any way whatsoever.

 

[Koeketiene]

Agree completely.

Guess it's all part of this PC 'holier than thou' attitude that seems to be flavour of the month at the mo.

 

[muminator]

Snowleopard, my sentiments exactly.
If society does, for some reason(mistaken, I think), feel that we must display our grief publicly, surely the best way to do that is by putting our hands in our pockets and helping those who are left behind.

My daughter lost a friend from school, so the silence in her class was very poignant.

Sue

 

[rhinorhino]

Hear Hear!
Just another manifestation of the victim culture.

 

[billmacfarlane]

I refused to participate in it. Each year I stand for 2 minutes to remember the war dead who fought and died, including some of my relatives, to give us a future. But to stand for 3 minutes to remember or "honour" the victims of an appalling, act-of Nature, tragedy, I think is absolutely pointless. I mean not a shred of offence to anyone reading this who may have been affected by the tragedy. I just happen to think that I can't see the point of "honouring" the victims. I can see the point of honouring some of the people whose stories are just starting to emerge, who saved countless lives by their bravery. But I don't have to stand in 3 minutes silence to do it. If everyone who stood today, walked on to their nearest bank and gave some money instead that would be much more practical. Because it's the living that need our help. Not the dead.

 

[Ships_Cat]

Our Prime Minister here in NZ has strangely announced that she hasn't decided yet whether or not we will have a day of mourning /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif.

So, of course, we are all still patiently awaiting instructions as to whether we should be crying, looking glum, smiling, laughing or observing some silence time (or not).

{Edit: just corrected my split infinitive in case TCM notices it /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif.}

John

 

[Brucey]

This is such a complex issue, I agree with many of the comments above and for the record I took 2 mins out at my desk today (just because 2 mins is what I have always taken) I understand that we were not honouring bravery although there has already been loads but I felt I should take time to think about the horror and to reflect on how lucky I am to be sat doing a job I enjoy having earlier dropped my children at School. I have made a donation and done some fund raising, what really gets on my nerves is politicians on the TV bragging that they are donating £X millions of pounds or matching the public donation - ITS OUR MONEY we want our taxes sent to these fellow humans! (Rant over)