Right, that's it. I'm angry.

[philehidiot]

Link: Cambridge students reject a motion to promote Remembrance Sunday as they're concerned it glorifies war.

I genuinely can not believe this tripe. It just shows how detached these idiots are. They should have an education in the meaning of the poppy, etc forced upon them by the university in order that they understand why we do it and the incredible suffering that has enabled their privileged little lives. Pathetic, insulting and downright ignorant.

As if our Armed Forces didn't have enough with lawyers coming after them for accusations from 30 years ago, being shrunk to their smallest size in the last 150 years with no let up in commitments, now the youth are forgetting who exactly it was who wrote and paid the blank cheque for their freedom.

[spacein_vader]

Link: Cambridge students reject a motion to promote Remembrance Sunday as they're concerned it glorifies war.

I genuinely can not believe this tripe. It just shows how detached these idiots are. They should have an education in the meaning of the poppy, etc forced upon them by the university in order that they understand why we do it and the incredible suffering that has enabled their privileged little lives. Pathetic, insulting and downright ignorant.

As if our Armed Forces didn't have enough with lawyers coming after them for accusations from 30 years ago, being shrunk to their smallest size in the last 150 years with no let up in commitments, now the youth are forgetting who exactly it was who wrote and paid the blank cheque for their freedom.

And to prove how free they are you want them force educated to a different point of view?

[ik9000]

No, it's typical of student politics. Idealogy without any grasp of reality. Watch how their views change in the next 5 years. But the trend of this kind of BS is worrying.

[blueball]

And to prove how free they are you want them force educated to a different point of view?

No, but you need educated as to why people like them have the right to have a difference of opinion!

[spacein_vader]

No, it's typical of student politics. Idealogy without any grasp of reality. Watch how their views change in the next 5 years. But the trend of this kind of BS is worrying.

The only trend is that more news outlets go looking for poppy outrage stories each year.

Each year I observe the 2 minutes silence and during it think about the staggering and senseless loss of life on all sides during the world wars, 2 generations decimated by the horrors of combat.

That said, as the survivors from WW2 dwindle I find less and less motivation to buy a poppy.

[peterb]

The only trend is that more news outlets go looking for poppy outrage stories each year.

Each year I observe the 2 minutes silence and during it think about the staggering and senseless loss of life on all sides during the world wars, 2 generations decimated by the horrors of combat.

That said, as the survivors from WW2 dwindle I find less and less motivation to buy a poppy.

It’s not so much about remembering those that were left as those that died, so the 2 minute silence is still relevant (IMHO),

UK armed forces have been involved in some form of conflict or peace keeping tole in nearly every year since the Second World War.

The poppy fund goes the Royal British Legion who support all members of the armed forces who are prepared to put their lives on the line.

Rememberance Roles Of Honour now including the names of those who have died in armed conflict since WW2.

[kalniel]

As always, it pays to look into the detail behind the story. CUSU is a student union, if you've been to uni then you know how students involved in the union and go to these debates tend to self select for non-mainstream, and possibly even minority views. In no way is it representative of Cambridge students as a whole, despite the fact they are supposedly elected representatives (when I was there, it was very obvious that most of us were too stressed with working on our degrees than to be involved with student union stuff).

In terms of this particular motion, I would be amazed if any student union in the country supported a bill which explicitly praised the current armed forces, rather than remembering those who have given their lives. It's not unique to Cambridge. Universities tend to be liberal places, and forcing people to do one thing or another is generally frowned upon - almost all the colleges will be holding services for Remembrance Sunday, and individuals will be free to choose to participate or not, as always. But it won't be forced university wide - which is quite right IMHO.

I also think it would be odd to force non-british people to support British armed forces. The motion was amended in an attempt to make it more inclusive, and this initially got a lot of support, but eventually was rejected for going to far the otherway towards vagueness.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

This is the earliest news article talking about the situation before the mainstream press picked it up on the 10th:

https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/16233

A clash over Remembrance Day occurred at yesterday night’s CUSU Council, the first of the academic year, as attendees overwhelmingly rejected a motion calling for the commemoration of “all those whose lives have been affected by war across the University of Cambridge”

The original motion, encouraging the commemoration of British war veterans, was proposed and seconded by Cambridge University Conservative Association Committee members Tohin Munshi and William Phelps, respectively. An extended amendment rewriting the motion, to frame it around victims of war globally, was put forward by Stella Swain, Cambridge Defend Education activist.

The amendment had initially been accepted with 30 votes in favour, and one against, but the was eventually rejected when it came to the final vote on the motion – with only three votes in favour, and 11 abstentions, after concerns were raised by several JCR representatives that the amended motion was overly vague.

CUCA responded to the events on their Facebook page this evening, writing, “CUSU Council shockingly voted against the motion that they should promote commemorations this Remembrance Day and encourage students to support the Poppy Appeal.”


They pointed to Swain’s amendment, which had struck through large sections of text, saying: “‘British war veterans' crossed out. 'Remembrance Day' crossed out. 'Poppies' crossed out. This is a Students' Union that literally wants to erase our memory and gratitude to war heroes who sacrificed so much for so many.”

Swain countered suggestions of erasure on the part of CUSU, and told Varsity that as she wrote the amendment and does not hold a position within CUSU, “CUCA's lazy claim that their loss was somehow orchestrated by CUSU is, of course, inaccurate”, and “in reality, an accountable body of student representatives simply disagreed with them.”

CUSU President Evie Aspinall also criticised CUCA’s “conflation between ‘CUSU’ and ‘CUSU Council’ which implies that this decision was made by only a few officers”, adding that “CUSU sabbs did not propose or amend the motion or direct Council on how to vote”.

During Council, Swain criticised Munshi and Phelps’ focus on British veterans, and said to Council that “CUSU should reflect the status of the University as an international institution”, which she said “self-describe[s] as a global community”.

Swain told Varsity that “for many people, war is not something that can be consigned to the past, and the original motion's focus on remembrance as 'valorising' war instead of working to end its devastating impact is deeply disturbing.”

CUCA told Varsity that the amendment “had the clear intention of de-emphasising the sacrifices made by our brave armed forces”, and that “we thought we could help raise some money for struggling veteran charities, and the response from CUSU Council was as depressing as it was deplorable.”

Swain argued that it was “vital that we recognise all different background and don’t just focus on British war veterans”, or “just the First and Second World Wars”. She added that there are “many tragedies around the world and instances of terrible violence that we should commemorate and reflect on”, and that it is “important that we think about Cambridge’s place in this, and we do focus on remembering the past, but in a way that is constructive and critical”.

The amendment added that the University should raise awareness of the issue, “not only as a mark of respect and commemoration to the lives lost and affected by war, but also as a part of the active promotion of a global view of institutional memory and Cambridge’s place within this context”.

Speaking to Council, Munshi praised the armed forces, and added that he “[sees] very few, if any students wearing poppies” in the lead-up to Remembrance Day.

Munshi elaborated that “veterans are more likely to be rough sleepers, more likely to be unemployed, and more likely to have PTSD”, and that Cambridge students, “as pioneers of justice … should take up their cause as our own.”

One student asked Munshi “why are you promoting more recognition of Remembrance Day, rather than more support for veterans?”. Munshi responded that “in the Remembrance Day period, poppies are sold”, which is how the Royal British Legion, a charity for British veterans and their families “raises most of its money”.

Phelps, who seconded the motion, argued that “Remembrance Day should be fundamentally apolitical”, but thought “the idea of an international globalist University” seemed “motivated by political concerns”. He added that as Cambridge is “in Britain, funded by the British government … we are of course a British University”.

President of Murray Edwards MCR Tamzin Byrne addressed Council during the discussion, and stressed that she was strongly opposed to the initial motion and the amendment, arguing that “both from a British perspective despite Stella’s amendment”. She elaborated that “much of both motions assume the past tense, whereas… victims continue to be affected by the outcomes of those wars”, and that “there’s no genuine way in which a single campaign from CUSU can properly reflect the things that have happened to those involved in war”.

Byrne pointed students to “many well-run and permanent campaigns within the community more broadly” that serve to address the victims of war.

Connor MacDonald, former President of Emmanuel College Students’ Union waded into the debate, arguing that the motion was not apolitical: “I would tend to agree with those who say that even to commemorate British war veterans is a political act”. However, he then said that “in this country, at this time, 100 years after 11 November 1918, [the idea that] this Council cannot accept and won’t make a statement about… all those who fought and died for us” was “rather damning”.

Demilitarise Cambridge, a new campaign which seeks to end the University’s links with arms companies, said that the proposed motion “intentionally glorified and valorised conflict.” They added that CUCA's "insistence on supporting “British” troops to the exclusion of millions of other victims of war is jingoistic, imperialist propaganda, saying that they hope CUCA “come to terms with the fact that they lost a democratic vote and that an overwhelming majority of students reject their chauvinism.”

I would say look at the names of the associations who put forward the motion and those were against it. Looks like there might have been some politics at play.

My experience has been usually it's probably humanities students, especially,those who tend to do things like politics and history and the like who get really involved in these kinds of things although YMMV.

In no way is it representative of Cambridge students as a whole, despite the fact they are supposedly elected representatives (when I was there, it was very obvious that most of us were too stressed with working on our degrees than to be involved with student union stuff).

This. If anything people tend to get more and more political as a whole as they get older and hence why younger people tend to vote less AFAIK.

[Ttaskmaster]

And to prove how free they are you want them force educated to a different point of view?

There are times when peoples' flawed understanding needs correcting, though...

[spacein_vader]

There are times when peoples' flawed understanding needs correcting, though...

Granted. But forcibly? That's what the OP suggested which is more than a little ironic when talking about freedom.

[Ttaskmaster]

Granted. But forcibly? That's what the OP suggested which is more than a little ironic when talking about freedom.

Freedom from what, though? Do they understand that, let alone what it cost?
Do they value it, even?
I'm betting not, else they'd not be bleating about glorifying war...

Their freedom was won by force, so by force should the appreciation of their freedom be nurtured. I daresay they wouldn't know freedom until it was taken from them... and I'll take their freedom away before I let them rewrite mine.

[kalniel]

Their freedom was won by force, so by force should the appreciation of their freedom be nurtured.

You can't force that though. And should a say, chinese, student be forced to celebrate the british forces?

[Zak33]

"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." or similar.

[philehidiot]

Granted. But forcibly? That's what the OP suggested which is more than a little ironic when talking about freedom.

I see it as identification of a total misunderstanding that needs correcting. They are at an educational institution and as part of that there are mandatory lectures / events they must attend because it's seen as a critical part of learning about the culture, etc. Therefore it's very easy to justify that people do not understand something essential about their culture and need to be educated. If they, once they understand that this isn't about glorification of war and the real meaning behind it, then choose not to support it then I can absolutely understand they hold a different point of view. What they are saying in their statement is akin to "we will not promote pink, because it's grey". But it's worse because they'd not even be here without pink.

[kalniel]

I see it as identification of a total misunderstanding that needs correcting. They are at an educational institution and as part of that there are mandatory lectures / events they must attend because it's seen as a critical part of learning about the culture, etc.

No, I disagree quite badly here. That's not what universities are or should be for. If you want mandatory learning then sort it out by secondary school. There's no guarantee that a kid is going to go to university, let alone one in this country (or are you mandating that all universities in the world should praise the current UK armed forces?)

Inclusion of history lessons up to year 9? Yes, I can support that.

[Lanky123]

I see it as identification of a total misunderstanding that needs correcting. They are at an educational institution and as part of that there are mandatory lectures / events they must attend because it's seen as a critical part of learning about the culture, etc. Therefore it's very easy to justify that people do not understand something essential about their culture and need to be educated. If they, once they understand that this isn't about glorification of war and the real meaning behind it, then choose not to support it then I can absolutely understand they hold a different point of view. What they are saying in their statement is akin to "we will not promote pink, because it's grey". But it's worse because they'd not even be here without pink.

I can assure you a student's union is not in any way an educational institution. The university governing body and sub-departments will set required course content/lectures. A student's union is a collection of self-aggrandising wannabe politicians with the power to do little more than send a few emails. They are pretty much universally ignored by the rest of the student body at all universities I've been to or have spoken to people from.

From the link CAT-THE-FIFTH posted it doesn't sound like anyone on either side felt that remembrance day wasn't worth observing, just a petty spat over wording that the Conservative Association lost and decided to go full tabloid over. I'm not entirely sure which party is more in the wrong, probably both to a large degree and I would imagine playing politics was the main objective for both rather than any real concern for remembrance day. That's just student politics, avoid at all costs if you can help it.