"Minute's" silence

[Éanna]

Anyone know when did the move from 1 minute to 3 minute took place? Are there now different levels of tragedy, some of which deserve 1 minute and some 3? Really trying to figure where this whole thing came from. Surely the idea of the 1 minute was that it was symbolic- don't see what difference making it 3 mins makes.

[Ruairi]

shure why dont we close down the country for a day like we did for 9/11...

or do asian lives not matter as much as american ones...

[piratemousey]

it depends which corporations you work for.

[A face]

Alot of good the silence did anyway .... apart from ease the consicence of a few of the concerned. Practically, it aint worth a f**k !!

[Éanna]

shure why dont we close down the country for a day like we did for 9/11...

or do asian lives not matter as much as american ones...
as far as I can see the silence was for the europeans/"westerners" caught up in it, not the asians. You should have a look at fox news- they're continusously spouting this rubbish about how the USA is the most generous country in the world and how they've given so much :rolleyes:

[max power]

shure why dont we close down the country for a day like we did for 9/11...

or do asian lives not matter as much as american ones...

i made that point on out own forum.....

200,000 lives- 3 mins silence

3,000 lives- country shuts down for a day.

and as someone said 30,000 dies in earthquake last yr, no mins silence at all.....

so bertie can you lick americas ass anymore to make sure intel and dell don't pull out :mad:

[Troy.McClure]

Didnt John Lennon get 10 minutes of silence when he died?

[pete]

We must have been one of the few offices to stay open for 911 public holiday - didn't really have a choice but to come in.

I must be honest & say i was preoccupied last week & i completely forgot about the 3 minutes silence.

Stick to 1 minute otherwise becomes a bidding game of sorts for different tragedies.

[Éanna]

Didnt John Lennon get 10 minutes of silence when he died?
yeah. but AFAIK it was Yoko Ono who requested that, and it was very much limited to his fans- it wasn't a case of governments telling people to do it

[Éanna]

Stick to 1 minute otherwise becomes a bidding game of sorts for different tragedies.
agree 100% Only problem now is, that we've had some 3 minutes silences, if you go back to one is it saying that previous tragedies were worse in some way? :confused:

[Bluebeard]

I actually have to say this is a very good thread. It has been kind of odd the way that different tragedies have been graded, and, just as interestingly how they have been observed - some of Sunderland's fans chanting "Inger-land" during the John Charles minute recently comes to mind.

I recall that at the beginning of the most recent "Gulf War", a large number of groups arranged 10 minutes of silence for noon on the day the bombs were dropped - no government backing to that, despite Bertie's repeated assurances of his views being anti-war. Perhaps this was one case where we shouldn't have had a silence, but rather raised our voices higher, if that was how we felt.

I reckon that John Lennon would not have wanted the world to stop for him for 10 minutes, but I do think that, where appropriate, a minute's silence is rightful. Three is indulgent and makes a mockery of it as you start to grade tragedy. A full day was ludicrous lick ars*ng - I don't know where else did that on this side of the Atlantic, I don't remember it happening in England, which is where i spent the week immediately afterward, though I could be mistaken.

To my mind there are three chief problems with these nationally announced and inforced silences.
Firstly you require someone with the wisdom of Solomon and the vision of hindsight to spot these catastrophies and to grade their importance and then to pick the moment for the silence - so much happens that we don't hear about until much later, and so much happens over a considerable length of time - think of Rwanda, Burma.
Secondly, one makes a very clear political choice when silences are backed at a governmental level - to create an example, have a national silence for 200 North Korean students killed in an anti-government riot, but not one for 200 Mongolian soldiers killed in an afternoon by a volcanic eruuption. It might seem very far away like that, so change it to France and Italy, or, better again, Cork and Kerry.
Thirdly, there is the feeling of being told what is good for us and what we are feeling, which rankles me personally, and I would imagine many more besides. It is one thing for a minute's silence before a game being agreed upon by the clubs, or at work, or on the media. Being told to have three or the day off by the government is an imposition approaching 1984 standards. I reminds me of Tony Blair going on television and taking it on himself to emote for the nation after Di's death. How many of us really want any member of any Irish government to emote for us or tell us what to feel

I suspect we didn't have any national silence for the Rwandans getting massacred, but I know that there are those who prayed when it happened. I would imagine that when Betty Flynn over the lane dies, there will be no national silence, but she'll be remembered at the next ICA meeting. When Alfie Hale leaves this mortal coil, there will be no national silence, but there will be a minute's silence befoer the next match following at the RSC (or hopefully a ground we actually own).

Ultimately I think that there should be no such thing of a national minute's silence - it is a far better thing to allow it to occur as a private or voluntary thing. And if there is a case where half Mayo falls pray to a meteor crashing into it, killing hundreds, or there is a terrorist attack on Mullingar, then let us have a national day of mourning, and we shall not need our government to tell us to do so, depending on who's good books we wish to be in.

I could say much more, and possibly have said to much already, but this is something I feel strongly (if not necessarily definitively) about. I hope the discussion continues as I hope to continue to be eduxcated by it. Well done once more Éanna

[mypost]

I actually have to say this is a very good thread. A full day was ludicrous lick ars*ng - I don't know where else did that on this side of the Atlantic, I don't remember it happening in England, which is where i spent the week immediately afterward, though I could be mistaken.

Thirdly, there is the feeling of being told what is good for us and what we are feeling, which rankles me personally, and I would imagine many more besides. It is one thing for a minute's silence before a game being agreed upon by the clubs, or at work, or on the media. Being told to have three or the day off by the government is an imposition approaching 1984 standards. How many of us really want any member of any Irish government to emote for us or tell us what to feel.

I suspect we didn't have any national silence for the Rwandans getting massacred, but I know that there are those who prayed when it happened.

AFAIK, only Ireland had a national day of mourning for the American massacre. :( It was optional, and totally ludicrous, but most of the American companies based here were baffled to say the least, and continued working as normal. As it was for mainly economic reasons, the day completely backfired on Bertie in that sense. No, we didn't have a national silence dedicated to Rwandans. People didn't care, because it was far away, and no Europeans were involved.

There is an image from our government and media, that we must obey what the government tells us. So we have to observe a minutes' silence, and if we don't, we're all bad. Of course we care, but really, what are minutes silences gonna do? Nothing.

Minute silences happen in football too often now. You can hardly go to a game now, without having one. When you have them so often, they lose their meaning. Some of them have nothing to do with football, like at the England-Wales World Cup game, when there was a minute silence then because a schooolgirl was recently killed!! Why? :confused: