It's this inscription on this memorial outside The Royal Exchange City of London, I feel it should just say.. '' TO ALL THE MEN OF LONDON WHO SERVED....'' Why do they break it down to rank? ''TO THE IMMORTAL HONOUR OF THE OFFICERS NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND MEN OF LONDON'' Unveiled 1920. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/11796
Because many of those men might not feel they are part of those recognized. The mention of them explicitly makes it ... explicit.
Men in a military context would probably be read as meaning enlisted men so your wording would exclude officers and possibly NCOs.
Because they had stringent regulations that forbade fraternizing among ranks. Death doesn't liberate you from rules - though it might, in the afterlife, strip you of rank.
But, this is a memorial to be read by civilians, surely civilians would take '' TO ALL THE MEN OF LONDON WHO SERVED'' to include officers? What about the regular army men and volunteers that 'went out' first before conscription started, would you say they should be mentioned separately to show their not enlisted men? Aside: Did you know, if you did not have a certain amount of 'income' a year, or you did not own property, you did not have a vote in England. That meant many of the chaps in the mud and blood of the trenches were fighting for their own country were they did not even have the vote.
Recent attempts at fiddling? Racial, gender and economic disenfranchisement are enshrined in the US constitution and the election fiddling to which you refer goes back to the earliest period of the republic: The word “gerrymander” was coined at a Boston dinner party hosted by a prominent Federalist in March 1812, according to an 1892 article by historian John Ward Dean. As talk turned to the hated redistricting bill, illustrator Elkanah Tisdale drew a picture map of the district as if it were a monster, with claws and a snake-like head on its long neck. It looked like a salamander, another dinner guest noted. No, a “Gerry-mander,” offered poet Richard Alsop, .....The gerrymander did its job, giving the Democratic-Republicans a bigger state Senate majority in Massachusetts’ April 1812 election, even though the Federalists actually got more votes statewide. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/where-did-term-gerrymander-come-180964118/
Yeah, that's politics. '' earliest period of the republic'' that's when all men were born equal, right?
Created. By the European God. Who wanted all the unfortunately-pigmented peoples to be saved - but not to vote.
