Thread: Poppies and neo-Nazi Appropriation Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005631
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
This is getting on my tits.
Fuckwit neo-nazi outfits like Britain First, EDL, God knows what other evil little shits, are colonising social media, putting out memes mostly aimed at a non-existent Muslim objection and offence taken to the poppy, along the lines of "If my Poppy offends you then fuck off home".
And people are lapping it up. Fuckwits who don't spend two minutes looking up the source of the poisonous shit they're sharing. Fuckwits who don't question the bullshit they're being sold about the evul Muslamics. Fuckwits who are being manipulated to demonise, to hate, to distrust, and finally to regard a minority group much as the Nazis brainwashed the German population into hatred of the Jews.
It's made me not want to wear one this year - this and the RBL's children's T-shirts bearing the slogan "Future Soldier", admittedly - because I don't want for a second to be associated with these dangerous little shits nor the people who are are too stupid to see how they're being manipulated into sharing neo-Nazi produced material. But my God, you dare not to, or to wear (heavens forfend!) a white one, and you're immediately accused of disrespect and a subject of abuse.
Makes me want to hide away until the whole thing's over.
[ 03. November 2016, 10:13: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Britain First are well known for appropriating something good and putting a nasty twist on it. That EDL are in on the game doesn't surprise me. They are sick people.
What I find more concerning is the general shift in society regarding poppies and Remembrance. There were people on the street interviewed on the news this morning in relation to footballers wearing poppy arm bands, and several of them said that they wear poppies to support the military. What? Poppies are to remember and honour those who died in service, and they are a statement of a commitment to seek a future where we never again send young men and women to fight for us. They have nothing to do with supporting those who are currently serving in the military, nothing to do with what we think of shites like Bliar who sent our troops to fight an illegal war. It's all about the sacrifice of those who went before us into war, doing what they thought was the least worst thing for their nation and families, and for future generations.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There were people on the street interviewed on the news this morning in relation to footballers wearing poppy arm bands
If this is what you're referring to, I think it's an excellent allegory of Britain's relationship to the EU.
Of course poppies and "Poppy Day" have important cultural significance in the UK. But outside the UK, they simply don't.
People in France don't have the slightest idea what these poppies are all about (although they probably wonder why you don't have a bank holiday for Armistice Day every November 11 or celebrate VE Day).
From inside the UK to most normal people, wearing a poppy may seem quite normal. But lots of British citizens seem to be all upset that the rest of the world, embodied in the above instance by FIFA, don't see things the way they do - and adjust the rules accordingly.
[ 03. November 2016, 11:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I've never worn a poppy, and I don't intend to start. It is being changed into a more political symbol, I think, just see the tabloid reaction to anyone who doesn't. There is one footballer who doesn't, and he is regularly vilified for it (James McClean).
I had to laugh at Theresa May in Parliament, she certainly made it political (about FIFA).
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
I've always worn a poppy and don't intend to stop just because the fash are BACAI. That said, FIFA happen to be bang on with regard to this one.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Britain First are well known for appropriating something good and putting a nasty twist on it. That EDL are in on the game doesn't surprise me. They are sick people.
What I find more concerning is the general shift in society regarding poppies and Remembrance. There were people on the street interviewed on the news this morning in relation to footballers wearing poppy arm bands, and several of them said that they wear poppies to support the military. What? Poppies are to remember and honour those who died in service, and they are a statement of a commitment to seek a future where we never again send young men and women to fight for us. They have nothing to do with supporting those who are currently serving in the military, nothing to do with what we think of shites like Bliar who sent our troops to fight an illegal war. It's all about the sacrifice of those who went before us into war, doing what they thought was the least worst thing for their nation and families, and for future generations.
Which is why the RBL had those kids wearing those "future soldiers" T-shirts?
That's the problem here - it's not what it started as. It was always thus; the White poppy started in 1933 because of unhappiness about the way it was becoming militaristic. It keeps on being dragged that way.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
There's an interesting argument from FIFA, that many countries have wars and revolutions, and so on, and presumably they might want to commemorate these by some symbols or other. I can see why FIFA just says no to all of them. I think a Russian player was fined for showing images of Putin.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I've always worn a poppy and don't intend to stop just because the fash are BACAI. That said, FIFA happen to be bang on with regard to this one.
This illustrates the sort of thing I'm talking about here though - half of Facebook would have you shot for treason for even daring to think that at the moment. The slightest deviation from the party line is taken as dishonouring of the war dead and marks the dissenter out as someone who's beneath contempt.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Time to get out my "hated by the Daily Mail" t shirt...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Irish players did display a symbol commemorating the Easter Rising, but I think they were friendly games, and not approved by FIFA.
http://tinyurl.com/j4222xu
But in relation to poppies, you now have a form of bullying going on. Imagine if a BBC newsreader stopped wearing one, there would be demands that they are sacked. In fact, there is an ITV newsreader who refuses, (Charlene White), plus also Jon Snow.
[ 03. November 2016, 11:48: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I've always worn a poppy and don't intend to stop just because the fash are BACAI. That said, FIFA happen to be bang on with regard to this one.
This illustrates the sort of thing I'm talking about here though - half of Facebook would have you shot for treason for even daring to think that at the moment. The slightest deviation from the party line is taken as dishonouring of the war dead and marks the dissenter out as someone who's beneath contempt.
Half of Facebook would probably have me shot for treason the rest of the year as well.
On my first year in the current parish, I had complaints about my not wearing a poppy on my vestments on Remembrance Sunday. I tuck it into the buttonhole of my cassock as a compromise. I forebore to point out that in the previous parish one of the worshippers left four individual poppy crosses by the war memorial, signifying a relative who had died in the Great War and three colleagues who had been killed in Iraq and had been generally complimentary about the tone struck by yours truly on Remembrance Sunday. If he could live without me wearing a poppy on my vestments then basically everyone else can suck it up and deal, IMO.
I think that there is some kind of inverse correlation between Poppy silliness and "having a fucking clue about what war is like". When I took the Armistice Day commemoration a few days later the Chairman of the RBL began by saying that he and the dead had fought for freedom including the freedom of people who were ignoring the commemoration and doing whatever it was they were doing at 11am that morning.
Unfortunately, there is a section of the population that enjoys feeling righteously aggrieved and the first eleven days of November offers them that opportunity in spades. Being essentially a somewhat vain and self-involved individual I tend to prefer the approbation of my conscience to the good opinion of wankers, so I try to ignore them.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
I will wear my poppy, but if others choose not then it's nothing to do with me.
The whole thing is nonsense and manufactured outrage. Muslims fought in both wars and the poppy is as much about them as anyone else.
I usually PM people who share Britain First memes as many people still don't know they're a nasty far right group. Most people take them down when it's pointed out. Hardcore offenders get put on mute. That said, I don't bother with FB much. It annoys me.
Tubbs
[ 03. November 2016, 12:06: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I will wear my poppy, but if others choose not then it's nothing to do with me.
The whole thing is nonsense and manufactured outrage. Muslims fought in both wars and the poppy is as much about them as anyone else.
I usually PM people who share Britain First memes as many people still don't know they're a nasty far right group. Most people take them down when it's pointed out. Hardcore offenders get put on mute. That said, I don't bother with FB much. It annoys me.
Tubbs
I've blocked one today. Apparently she shouldn't have to check up on whose posts she's sharing because her "heart's in the right place".
At the risk of Godwinning, Hitler would have loved Facebook. He could have had the Final Solution going by 1937...
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I wear one of each - a red poppy and a white poppy.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I've expressed my amazement at the UK's poppy obsession previously on the Ship.
It's gone from marking a particular day to something people in the public eye are expected to wear the whole month. Before you know it, in certain circumstances it will be obligatory all year round.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's gone from marking a particular day to something people in the public eye are expected to wear the whole month.
That's pretty much why I don't wear one.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I will wear my poppy, but if others choose not then it's nothing to do with me.
The whole thing is nonsense and manufactured outrage. Muslims fought in both wars and the poppy is as much about them as anyone else.
I usually PM people who share Britain First memes as many people still don't know they're a nasty far right group. Most people take them down when it's pointed out. Hardcore offenders get put on mute. That said, I don't bother with FB much. It annoys me.
Tubbs
I've blocked one today. Apparently she shouldn't have to check up on whose posts she's sharing because her "heart's in the right place".
At the risk of Godwinning, Hitler would have loved Facebook. He could have had the Final Solution going by 1937...
Shame about her brain ...
Tubbs
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I usually wear a poppy, but not until Remembrance Sunday - it's one of those neat little enamel-badge-type ones.
In the past, if I've been vested on RS, I've worn it on my Blue Scarf.
My adoptive Dad was in the Army (he served in the BEF, but was invalided out just before Dunkirk), and my biological Dad - who I never met - served in the Royal Navy in 1944-45, so it's kind of in memory of both of them IYSWIM, as well as of those who died in WW2 or subsequent wars.
The way in which the poppy wearing has been hijacked by the fascists is despicable, though, IMNSHO.
IJ
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I wear one of each - a red poppy and a white poppy.
I would if I could ever get hold of a white poppy. The only place I know that sells them is Quaker house, but that's over an hour's commute each way from where I live.
I will not berate anyone for their choice to wear one, both or neither. What I will condemn are those cockwombles who think that failure to wear one "with pride" means that one lacks respect. As if respect is only embodied in what you pin to your lapel.
If I do ever wear a poppy, it's as part of a collective shame. Shame that I am part of a race that thinks that war is duty, that thinks soldiers are heroes and that thinks remembrance is to be enforced. I'm currently sat a few yards from the Cenotaph, and it so, so irks me that it is inscribed with "The Glorious Dead". There's nothing glorious about war. Nothing. Not one goddamn thing! Soldiers are both victims and perpetrators (victims when they're killed, perpetrators when they kill), but they are never ever heroes.
And neither are those who take vicarious pride in the actions of others.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
White Poppies are available from the Peace Pledge Union by post. May be a bit late this year, though you could give them a ring.
Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on
:
They also have an authorised seller of enamel white poppies on eBay, but have just advised that the latest shipment in was stopped at customs as, apparently, the RBL have to give permission for any goods to enter the country with a poppy motif
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I'm currently sat a few yards from the Cenotaph, and it so, so irks me that it is inscribed with "The Glorious Dead". There's nothing glorious about war. Nothing. Not one goddamn thing!
This may just be my idiosyncracy, but I always think of that as "The Dead Who Are In Glory" rather than saying there was anything glorious in their being dead, or the way they died. I agree there is no glory in war, and I want no part in glorifying war, but I don't think that the Cenotaph (and countless other memorials around the world) were designed to glorify war, simply to remember the young men and women who died in war - war that they thought was the least bad option, the lesser of evils, the least inglorious action.
Now, I would never want to speculate on the ultimate fate of anyone, that's in the hands of God alone. But, I would consider it pastorally sensible to err on the optimistic side and assume that people are in Glory rather than the alternative.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I'm currently sat a few yards from the Cenotaph, and it so, so irks me that it is inscribed with "The Glorious Dead". There's nothing glorious about war. Nothing. Not one goddamn thing!
This may just be my idiosyncracy, but I always think of that as "The Dead Who Are In Glory" rather than saying there was anything glorious in their being dead, or the way they died. I agree there is no glory in war, and I want no part in glorifying war, but I don't think that the Cenotaph (and countless other memorials around the world) were designed to glorify war, simply to remember the young men and women who died in war - war that they thought was the least bad option, the lesser of evils, the least inglorious action.
Now, I would never want to speculate on the ultimate fate of anyone, that's in the hands of God alone. But, I would consider it pastorally sensible to err on the optimistic side and assume that people are in Glory rather than the alternative.
agree entirely
although, if you're going to take the "they thought it was the least bad option line" isn't that problematic when it comes to treating those who were caught up in the "rush to the colours" of 1914 and 1915. They signed up with enthusiasm, thinking it was going to be a laugh. *That they then carried on* until the end fits more closely with your thesis, but it's not the case that a whole generation thought they were doing the least bad thing - not in WW1 anyway. I'd give you WW2.
[ 03. November 2016, 16:08: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Reminds me of the bitter Wilfred Owen lines:
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
(It is sweet and right to die for your country).
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I agree with your comment Alan, for the Canadian context.
And there is a nation to nation context. I was in Washington DC for 11 Nov a numbers of years ago, and found the context of promotion of military very jarring. They do remembrance on a different day I understand.
The white poppy thing has not caught on in Canada, and probably won't. The poem In Flanders Fields by Canadian John McCrae in 1915 is the source of our poppy lore, is always sung to one of the musical settings at services, in schools, in public Remembrance Day ceremonies. If there's one poem that Canadian children know by memory, it is In Flanders Fields. The poppies are red thereby symbolizing blood and loss of life. Although the second part of the poem suggests taking up arms and continuing battle, it is completely overshadowed by the understanding of the slaughter in the trenches.
Poppies in Canada are distributed by the Royal Canadian Legion. November 11 is the day when the ceremonies and services are held, and it is a holiday in many, not all, provinces.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I wear one of each - a red poppy and a white poppy.
Given the author of this post, I can't be the only one who read "a red puppy and a white puppy".
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
if you're going to take the "they thought it was the least bad option line" isn't that problematic when it comes to treating those who were caught up in the "rush to the colours" of 1914 and 1915. They signed up with enthusiasm, thinking it was going to be a laugh. *That they then carried on* until the end fits more closely with your thesis, but it's not the case that a whole generation thought they were doing the least bad thing - not in WW1 anyway. I'd give you WW2.
Were people lied to, mislead into signing up? Were their motives for doing so unclear? Was what they found at the front nothing like what they expected? Did they join up because they didn't want to be thought of as cowards, to save face before friends and family? Did they sign up because friends had been killed and wounded, and they wanted to do their bit so that the earlier sacrifices were not given in defeat? Yes, and more. But, they signed up, and died, "for King and Country" (replace with appropriate phrase for other nations), because they thought it was what they needed to do. Despite all their failings, all the mixed and less than pure motives, they died for their friends, family, nation - and for those who came after them. And, we should still honour them for that. I would extend the same honour to all sides, even the common soldiers of Germany and Japan in the second war.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I wear one of each - a red poppy and a white poppy.
Given the author of this post, I can't be the only one who read "a red puppy and a white puppy".
Haha - I was 'wearing' black and yellow puppies yesterday!
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
I keep seeing the thread title as "Puppies and neo Nazis", an odd combination indeed.
More on the actual topic of the thread, in the US you don't see poppies that often on Nov 11, which in the US is celebrated as Veterans day. Although they are more appropriate for November 11th, poppies are more often seen on Memorial Day, in May. And even then, at least around here, not all that often.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've expressed my amazement at the UK's poppy obsession previously on the Ship.
It's gone from marking a particular day to something people in the public eye are expected to wear the whole month. Before you know it, in certain circumstances it will be obligatory all year round.
Is it not headed that way in Oz at the moment as well (though obviously substituting April for November?) It is here. Also the growth in palpable public staring at you if you are walking about in public without one on.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
From inside the UK to most normal people, wearing a poppy may seem quite normal. But lots of British citizens seem to be all upset that the rest of the world, embodied in the above instance by FIFA, don't see things the way they do - and adjust the rules accordingly.
Damn right. I can see why FIFA are saying no. In expecting to be allowed to wear poppy armbands (and especially in threatening to go ahead and do it anyway), ISTM that the England team are demonstrating the worst kind of cultural arrogance - our wars are more important than other wars, our remembrance is more worthy than other countries', our grief is more real than yours. If any individual players feel really strongly about calling out armistice day as a day of remembrance, then they could take a leaf out of Eric Liddell's book and just refuse to play on that day. And (presumably) forfeit their match fees.
[ 03. November 2016, 20:58: Message edited by: anoesis ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Reminds me of the bitter Wilfred Owen lines:
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
(It is sweet and right to die for your country).
Which in turn reminds me of " We Died because our fathers Lied".
Someone writing in retrospect on behalf of the dead from WW1.
This present day carry on, with accusations of everyone lying in politics, isolationism, and the way the Poppy appeal is now year on year dragged into a murky jingoistic contention. All of this makes me can't help but feel, though truly hoping I'm wrong, that we are, once again, priming ourselves for something catastrophic.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
All of this makes me can't help but feel, though truly hoping I'm wrong, that we are, once again, priming ourselves for something catastrophic.
Inevitable break-up of the UK?
It's been in existence in its current form for just over a 100 years. A mere blip in the grand scheme of things, and yes, some will mourn its passing. I'm mostly equivocal over the lines on the map.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
If that turns out to be the only catastrophe in future the scheme of things then many would be happy to settle for that.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Which in turn reminds me of " We Died because our fathers Lied".
Someone writing in retrospect on behalf of the dead from WW1.
Not just someone, but Kipling, in a collection of Epitaphs of the War 1914-1919
quote:
COMMON FORM
If any question why we died,
Tell them, because our fathers lied.
A complex person, Kipling.
[ 04. November 2016, 11:58: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Common sense and attempts at understanding take a back seat in the season of poppy worship. The poppy has sadly become a signifier of allegiance and political affiliation. It's the reverse of the yellow armband. If you haven't got one clearly on display at all times during the entire month of November you must be an enemy of the state, a morally bankrupt individual and a truly wretched person. The accusations and arguments carry all the weight and clarity of the Brexit debates. There will come a time when the charity will be forced into making comment. When that happens, the game is up.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Alan:
quote:
Poppies are to remember and honour those who died in service, and they are a statement of a commitment to seek a future where we never again send young men and women to fight for us. They have nothing to do with supporting those who are currently serving in the military, nothing to do with what we think of shites like Bliar who sent our troops to fight an illegal war.
I would very much like to think this is the case and has/was for some time my own understanding of it and in this sense is of course very laudable and good. However, only last year the British Legion poppy banners on display had an image of a little girl holding up a poppy with the caption, 'Support my daddy in Iraq'. It was a banner that sat really uneasily with me on many levels. I'm not sure if this was just a local thing here or of it was an officially rolled out campaign for the British Legion. It didn't seem like the sort of thing they usually do.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I see the RBL is not backing down.
The fact that wearing the poppy is solely a British symbol makes it political. Again, this is asking the rest of the world to adopt a wholly British cultural practice. How myopic can you get?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
White Poppies are available from the Peace Pledge Union by post. May be a bit late this year, though you could give them a ring.
Or you can us liquid Tippex to paint white over a red poppy.
[ 04. November 2016, 18:00: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
asking the rest of the world to adopt a wholly British cultural practice. How myopic can you get?
As it's for a game played in England, between England and Scotland everyone involved (possible exception of referee and linesmen) will be British anyway.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
asking the rest of the world to adopt a wholly British cultural practice. How myopic can you get?
As it's for a game played in England, between England and Scotland everyone involved (possible exception of referee and linesmen) will be British anyway.
It's the EU all over again.
If it's a FIFA game it should abide by FIFA rules irrespective of where it's played. It's doubtless being watched all over the place. You don't just get to opt out of the rules when you feel like it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's doubtless being watched all over the place.
By scattered ex-pats. No one else is going to be that bothered by two teams who'll need a miracle to qualify for the finals.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
It's going out live in France on Canal+ Sport, so I'm sure it is elsewhere. UK soccer is followed worldwide.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Is it not headed that way in Oz at the moment as well (though obviously substituting April for November?) It is here. Also the growth in palpable public staring at you if you are walking about in public without one on.
No, not headed that way at all. People are expected to stop at 11 am for silence, but no poppy wearing - if poppies are worn at all, that's on Remembrance Day. You may wear a charity badge, or as we do, a sprig of rosemary, no need to though.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's doubtless being watched all over the place.
By scattered ex-pats. No one else is going to be that bothered by two teams who'll need a miracle to qualify for the finals.
I presume you are playing Devil's Advocate here, Alan, and I don't need to say "that's hardly the point, is it?"
Anyway, while game itself may not ultimately be watched widely, the issues surrounding it have made the news here on the other side of the world, and we are NOT a football-mad or even football-interested country (at least when the football in question is spherical).
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Again, this is asking the rest of the world to adopt a wholly British cultural practice. How myopic can you get?
No it's not. There is no adoption proposed. The RBL is not proposing to ask the rest of the world to wear poppies. It is asking FIFA to respect this "wholly British cultural practice".
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Adopt was the wrong word. "Accept as normal" would be better.
The implication, as viewed from here outside the UK at least, is that the rest of the world should simply understand British cultural practice and make room for it, and is being uppity and rude if it doesn't, whereas any foreign cultural practice can jolly well abide by the rules.
It's like Brits who think everyone else in the world should, by rights, understand English if you shout loud enough.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The implication, as viewed from here outside the UK at least, is that the rest of the world should simply understand British cultural practice and make room for it, and is being uppity and rude if it doesn't, whereas any foreign cultural practice can jolly well abide by the rules.
That point would probably have more weight if we weren't talking about a game invented by the British, played in Britain, with two British teams and watched (largely, I imagine) by British spectators.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Adopt was the wrong word. "Accept as normal" would be better.
The implication, as viewed from here outside the UK at least, is that the rest of the world should simply understand British cultural practice and make room for it, and is being uppity and rude if it doesn't, whereas any foreign cultural practice can jolly well abide by the rules.
It's like Brits who think everyone else in the world should, by rights, understand English if you shout loud enough.
Sometimes I feel like I live in a theme park called "Daily Mail world". I hate it. Pluralism is in critical danger, and the exit doors from this hell are blocked.
[ 05. November 2016, 07:13: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
That point would probably have more weight if we weren't talking about a game invented by the British, played in Britain, with two British teams and watched (largely, I imagine) by British spectators.
Way to prove my point.
The game is being played under the auspices of FIFA and thus should abide by FIFA rules. Your attitude exactly mirrors Brexiters who want simultaneously to have all the benefits afforded by the EU, the Single Market, etc. and the right to opt out as they see fit.
Your attitude also exactly mirrors that of Brexiters in that it seems to think the UK is frozen in the 1950s or earlier. Like it or not, the UK is part of a globalised world. If it wants to pretend, in some mixture of jingoism and nostalgia, that it can flout international agreements because Brittania rules the waves or some such, then fine, but to the rest of the world, this doesn't look patriotic or courageous: it looks petulant and petty - or just plain eccentric. It's about on the level of Icelandic belief in trolls.
If you want to harp on about the Britishness of British soccer played by British teams, stop playing international fixtures where British teams will encounter nasty foreigners who don't know their place.
[ 05. November 2016, 07:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Your attitude also exactly mirrors that of Brexiters in that it seems to think the UK is frozen in the 1950s or earlier.
Of course one feature of the 1950s and earlier (if nostalgia about that period is to be believed) is that there existed more formal, less slovenly forms of dress; I'm sure it would have appeared quite odd that one might transfer one's poppy from a suit to games kit. I can't help but think that the belief that wearing a poppy while playing sport is somehow de rigeur is a sign of declining sartorial standards.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
And your point is?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
If we were frozen in the 1950s I suspect this wouldn't be an issue. (I stand to be corrected, but poppies on sports kit seems to be a recent thing.)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
It wouldn't be an issue because the world was a different place then.
You seem to be keen on perpetuating the 1950s by arguing that 2010s international soccer fixtures are in fact (or should be) carried out under some sort of moral licensing agreement dictated by Britannia™ whereby Britannia™ benevolently allows the foreigners to imagine they have independent international bodies to run a proprietary Britannia™ item (soccer) and can have their own rules - provided always that the actual owner (Britannia™) can flout these rules to reassert its cultural hegemony at any time it chooses to, with no consequences and certainly in no way setting a precedent for other licensee nations to do the same.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You seem to be keen on perpetuating the 1950s by arguing that 2010s international soccer fixtures are in fact (or should be) carried out under some sort of moral licensing agreement dictated by Britannia™ whereby Britannia™ benevolently allows the foreigners to imagine they have independent international bodies to run a proprietary Britannia™ item (soccer) and can have their own rules - provided always that the actual owner (Britannia™) can flout these rules to reassert its cultural hegemony at any time it chooses to, with no consequences and certainly in no way setting a precedent for other licensee nations to do the same.
No. I just want FIFA to be reasonable. Not sure how much we'd have to bung them for that, though.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Perhaps the question is more of consistency in enforcing the rules. FIFA ban political, religious and personal statements on kit - in this case it's a personal statement (the poppies are neither religious nor political, but as RBL and Poppyscotland admit the decision to wear a poppy is personal). I'm sure I've seen plenty of other occasions when footballers make personal statements on their kit - most commonly a black armband when someone has died. What is the fundamental difference between wearing a sign of respect for a former team mate, fans killed in an accident, or millions killed in war?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The third of those counts, in the prevailing climate, as political, as opposed to the other two.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
The RBL are explicit that it's about one set of war dead, not a general remembrance. So the poppy is already political even by the lights of the RBL. It is also politicsl when eorj by those of us who do so for a wider reason than the RBL would be happy with. The poppy is political whichever eay you analyse it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Every country in the world commemorates those who have been killed or injured in war. The date they choose to do so varies, though 11th November is one of the most common (especially for those nations involved in WWI). The particular way they do so varies, though again poppies are a common feature in many countries (especially the Commonwealth). I struggle to see how an act of remembrance, something that at sometime or another during the year is practically universal, is political - regardless of the current climate. Though I have previously said that the poppy is a particular issue where poppies are associated with opiates rather than Flanders Field.
On the other hand, I've never seen a FIFA objection to flags and other similar national symbols (and hence by definition political) on shirts.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
The RBL are explicit that it's about one set of war dead, not a general remembrance. So the poppy is already political even by the lights of the RBL.
Apart from the fact that poppy sales raise funds for veterans (and their families, and the families of those who died) in the nations they are sold in, in what way is the poppy worn in memory of a particular set of war dead? I've certainly never heard anyone suggest that the poppy I buy is only in remembrance of Scottish war dead - and, I personally wear a poppy on Remembrance Sunday in memory of all war dead, civil and military, of all nations.
Maybe RBL is significantly more focussed on English war dead, but it's been 20 years since I've had contact with the RBL (which was, admittedly, only with people selling poppies).
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
What the Royal British Legion says about this year's poppy appeal:
quote:
This year, The Royal British Legion is asking the nation to Rethink Remembrance by recognising the sacrifices made not just by the Armed Forces of the past, but by today’s generation too.
For many people, Remembrance is associated with the fallen of the First and Second World Wars. While we will always remember them, the Legion wants to raise awareness of a new generation of veterans and Service personnel that need our support.
Rethink Remembrance this Poppy Appeal.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
in what way is the poppy worn in memory of a particular set of war dead?
The RBL, which as far as I can see has a strictly enforced monopoly on remembrance poppies in the UK, explicitly states quote:
The Legion advocates a specific type of Remembrance connected to the British Armed Forces, those who were killed, those who fought with them and alongside them.
Wikipedia says: quote:
they are most common in the UK and Canada, and are used to commemorate their servicemen and women killed in all conflicts since 1914...(the) "Poppy Appeal" ... supports all current and former British military personnel.
It also notes the controversial nature of poppy-wearing in Northern Ireland.
How would you see things if it were an England-Northern Ireland international fixture?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Your attitude also exactly mirrors that of Brexiters in that it seems to think the UK is frozen in the 1950s or earlier.
Of course one feature of the 1950s and earlier (if nostalgia about that period is to be believed) is that there existed more formal, less slovenly forms of dress; I'm sure it would have appeared quite odd that one might transfer one's poppy from a suit to games kit. I can't help but think that the belief that wearing a poppy while playing sport is somehow de rigeur is a sign of declining sartorial standards.
You're such a stuffy old fart, aren't you, Anglican't? You put me in mind of the Major in Faulty Towers.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
in what way is the poppy worn in memory of a particular set of war dead?
The RBL, which as far as I can see has a strictly enforced monopoly on remembrance poppies in the UK, explicitly states quote:
The Legion advocates a specific type of Remembrance connected to the British Armed Forces, those who were killed, those who fought with them and alongside them.
Not quite a monopoly, Poppyscotland doesn't appear to have any corresponding statement that poppies relate only to remembrance of Scottish (or British) armed forces. Though, funds raised do support armed forces, and their families, in Scotland.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Not quite a monopoly, Poppyscotland doesn't appear to have any corresponding statement that poppies relate only to remembrance of Scottish (or British) armed forces.
quote:
Poppyscotland provides life-changing support to our Armed Forces community (...) The Scottish Poppy Appeal raises over £2 million each year. This, combined with our other year-round fundraising, enables us to provide tailored support and funding to thousands of ex-Servicemen and women (...)
and most tellingly of all quote:
In June 2011 Poppyscotland merged with our sister charity The Royal British Legion (TRBL), which operates in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, to form the largest charity group supporting the Armed Forces community across the whole of the UK
Source.
I guess the only reason they quote:
continue to operate as a distinct charity within the TRBL group of charities
is because charity law, and the charity register, are distinct in Scotland as compared to England.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The question wasn't "what does money raised selling poppies support?" but "what does wearing a poppy mean?". Those are different questions, ISTM. That the money raised goes to supporting men and women in the armed services and their families in the countries the poppies are sold in doesn't mean that the reason for wearing a poppy is to support current service people. Poppies are worn to remember those who have died (and, hence, by definition not to support current troops).
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I don't think there can be any question that the poppy symbol in the UK is understood, and meant to be understood by those that attempt to keep a monopoly on it, as a symbol relating to any other personnel than those of the British armed forces, and this is made abundantly clear by their websites.
More broadly, the poppy as a remembrance symbol has only ever been recognised as such (according to the Wikipedia page) by the perceived victors in the two World Wars.
The symbolic value it has acquired in the UK is pretty much unique to UK culture.
None of that makes poppies, or wearing one, inherently wrong.
I do however fully share the reservations of those who feel it's become all but mandatory to wear one in the UK, and with regard to the FIFA spat, I maintain that it's entirely out of place in an international football fixture with rules on inappropriate displays.
The UK's refusal to comply with FIFA's strict application of its rules in this respect looks arrogant and jingoistic to outsiders, and embodies an unfortunate sense of the UK being entitled to break the rules when it suits by virtue of some sense of historic superiority (see Anglican't's posts above for exmaples).
From this side of the Channel, this resonates very unfortunately, and very loudly, with the various positions taken as the Brexit fiasco is unfolding.
If this stubbornness somehow improves the UK's own sense of self-identity (which apparently means leaving how poppies go down in Northern Ireland to one side) it does so at the expense of international openness - something I'd have thought you of all people, Alan, as an ardent Remainer, would be in favour of.
There are places to commemmorate a country's fallen in its wars and to do so in ways that make sense nationally. An international soccer fixture is not one of them.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Example of a more appropriate national commemoration which, incidentally, makes the symbolism of the poppy in the British psyche incontrovertibly clear, emphasis mine: quote:
Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red was a work of installation art placed in the moat of the Tower of London, England, between July and November 2014, commemorating the centenary of the outbreak of World War I. It consisted of 888,246 ceramic red poppies, each intended to represent one British or Colonial serviceman killed in the War.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
This year Remembrance Day coincides with the centenary of the Battle of the Somme. Having had a grandfather of whom family history recounts was deafened by the big guns in that battle* it has personal significance.
The RBL insistence that we remember all injured service men means we are being asked to remember veterans and widows from the Gulf Wars, which have a whole lot of other baggage - specifically an alcoholic self-immmolating neighbour† who fought in the First Gulf War and whose son died in the Second Gulf War. The focus of the RBL feels a lot too little too late.
* He survived and lived into his 80s, very deaf and difficult to hold a conversation with having lacked ear drums since WW1. But having taught WW1 poetry over the last few years I now wonder how a member of the BEF ended up on the Somme and keep meaning to go to Kew Public Record Office to read his military record. I also worked out he was 19 when WW1 started.
† That neighbour died in a house fire, caused by a dropped cigarette or match. A party in the street set off his PTSD and a drinking bout, as usually happened, this time he didn't survive.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
It matters not how large are the records,
Documenting the sufferings of war,
For they could go thrice around the World,
Yet still we,ll vote for more.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I've just returned from a trip to our local town centre shopping precinct, and I took the opportunity to see how many people were wearing poppies. Interestingly, the majority were not wearing them (though it's a cold and north-windy day, so the poppies might have been hidden by an extra layer or two of clothing!).
IJ
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
This year Remembrance Day coincides with the centenary of the Battle of the Somme.
And the RBL are selling a pin that shows both the poppy and le bleuet. I'm wearing one.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The implication, as viewed from here outside the UK at least, is that the rest of the world should simply understand British cultural practice and make room for it, and is being uppity and rude if it doesn't, whereas any foreign cultural practice can jolly well abide by the rules.
You mean like the foreign cultural practice of women covering their hair, which FIFA has recently permitted? Allowing people to play football in turbans and hijabs is the right thing to do (and there's at least as much political content in the wearing of a hijab as in the wearing of a poppy.) So why not a poppy?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So why not a poppy?
Are you suggesting that the poppy is some sort of religious symbol that believers in, oh I don't know, "nationalism", are obligated to wear by their holy scriptures?
Or are you talking bollocks?
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The implication, as viewed from here outside the UK at least, is that the rest of the world should simply understand British cultural practice and make room for it, and is being uppity and rude if it doesn't, whereas any foreign cultural practice can jolly well abide by the rules.
You mean like the foreign cultural practice of women covering their hair, which FIFA has recently permitted? Allowing people to play football in turbans and hijabs is the right thing to do (and there's at least as much political content in the wearing of a hijab as in the wearing of a poppy.) So why not a poppy?
They don't stop people wearing a cross either
But none of those are pinned to their shirts
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I've just returned from a trip to our local town centre shopping precinct, and I took the opportunity to see how many people were wearing poppies. Interestingly, the majority were not wearing them (though it's a cold and north-windy day, so the poppies might have been hidden by an extra layer or two of clothing!).
IJ
I was on welcome duty at church on Sunday and poppies were few and far between. Next Sunday, Remembrance Sunday, everyone will wear one, but I'm not seeing much evidence of them yet.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So why not a poppy?
Are you suggesting that the poppy is some sort of religious symbol that believers in, oh I don't know, "nationalism", are obligated to wear by their holy scriptures?
I assume the reference is to the FIFA rules banning items that are religious, political or personal. So, logically, if someone wears a hijab for religious or personal reasons that would be banned on the same basis as someone wearing a poppy for political or personal reasons. As far as I can see since the rules apply to shirts, shorts, boots, even underwear (at least if there's any chance of that being seen) then they should also apply to headwear.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I've just returned from a trip to our local town centre shopping precinct, and I took the opportunity to see how many people were wearing poppies. Interestingly, the majority were not wearing them (though it's a cold and north-windy day, so the poppies might have been hidden by an extra layer or two of clothing!).
IJ
I was on welcome duty at church on Sunday and poppies were few and far between. Next Sunday, Remembrance Sunday, everyone will wear one, but I'm not seeing much evidence of them yet.
A few members had ceramic poppy pins on Sunday, but no paper ones on display. If not for this thread I probably wouldn't have noticed. But, by previous years experience (noting I've not been here the last two years) the general wearing off poppies by more than a few percent of the population* only occurs on Remembrance Sunday and Remembrance Day.
* excluding anyone who happens to be on TV at any time since Halloween
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
]I assume the reference is to the FIFA rules banning items that are religious, political or personal.
They ban religious symbols as defined by: quote:
any symbol, including archetypes or artwork, used by a religion or used to represent a religion or religious disposition, not including symbols forming part of a National Flag or the Official Member Association Emblem of the respective country of a Member Association.
You could, perhaps, argue that a headscarf or a turban is 'a symbol used to represent a religious disposition', but groups other than Muslims culturally wear headscarves, and all the pictures of Sikh footballers seem to be wearing a patka, not the full turban (quite what they do about the other 4 Ks is a matter left for the reader).
But FIFA, in a rare display of common sense, appear to have realised that their rules were effectively banning whole religious and racial groups from ever playing affiliated football, whereas the 'poppy ban' doesn't prevent any British footballer from taking the pitch. So, not analogous at all.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So why not a poppy?
Are you suggesting that the poppy is some sort of religious symbol that believers in, oh I don't know, "nationalism", are obligated to wear by their holy scriptures?
I assume the reference is to the FIFA rules banning items that are religious, political or personal. So, logically, if someone wears a hijab for religious or personal reasons that would be banned on the same basis as someone wearing a poppy for political or personal reasons. As far as I can see since the rules apply to shirts, shorts, boots, even underwear (at least if there's any chance of that being seen) then they should also apply to headwear.
The difference is that for Sikhs and for at least some Muslim women the Turban or the Niqab is regarded as mandatory and that if you asked them to choose between playing football and following the dictates of their religion, they would be obliged, in conscience to follow the dictates of their religion. But absolutely nobody, not even Nigel Farage, believes that anybody is obliged in conscience to wear a poppy on their football kit. Now, I agree with you, that the poppy is relatively innocuous. But, if you allow the poppy, on what grounds do you stop, say, the government of Russia putting the insignia of the Great Patriotic War on their kit. And how, exactly, does that work when a Russian team, with the insignia of The Great Patriotic War run out of the tunnel for a qualifier against, say, Lithuania in Lithuania where memories of the Red Army's activities during the Second World War are not, to be fair, all good ones. And if the Russians get to wear their insignia for The Great Patriotic War then, surely, the Lithuanians get to wear their insignia of the Baltic SS Divisions and their gallant, if doomed, campaign to keep the Bolshevik hordes out of the Lithuanian Motherland. And so on, and so forth.
It's a football match. Can we not just take the reverence of the players for the gallant dead of the two world wars as a given and get on with the bloody football?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
But absolutely nobody, not even Nigel Farage, believes that anybody is obliged in conscience to wear a poppy on their football kit.
I'm not convinced that Farage, or some similar UKIP loony, hasn't tried to turn the poppy into a political statement. Anyone who has as much contempt for democracy and British society as Farage et.al. is capable of practically anything. But, then again, I don't think we should be judging a symbol by what a few knobheads say.
quote:
Now, I agree with you, that the poppy is relatively innocuous. But, if you allow the poppy, on what grounds do you stop, say, the government of Russia putting the insignia of the Great Patriotic War on their kit.
Well, one could say that a symbol worn in remembrance of all dead, in all wars, with a committment to work towards ending war is non-political in the way that a symbol commemorating the soldiers of one side who fought in a specific war isn't.
But that does, I admit, bring us back to the OP and those who wish to appropriate the poppy as a symbol of something different from what it is. By trying to turn the poppy political they have created the problem for British football teams (and, presumably other sports if their international bodies have similar rules).
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, one could say that a symbol worn in remembrance of all dead, in all wars, with a committment to work towards ending war is non-political in the way that a symbol commemorating the soldiers of one side who fought in a specific war isn't.
Perhaps, but if there's one thing this thread incontrovertibly shows, it's that the British poppy isn't it (even if that's what's in your mind in wearing it).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
We have this thread because it's because it's become something other than that (if I'm following Karl's rant accurately).
The poppy ceases to be what it should be when:
- people are called "unpatriotic" for not wearing it
- when people wear them to "support our troops"
- when what should be solemn events where poppy wreaths are laid at memorials become jingoistic celebrations of military
- etc, etc, etc
That's even before we get to the nazi scum in Britain First or EDL using the poppy.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Can you reasonably get hold of a poppy that doesn't explicitly commemorate British and Colonial forces' war dead?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It's a bit of red paper and black plastic (with a bit of green paper to make a leaf if you're south of the border). It doesn't explicitely mean anything. The meaning is what our culture applies to it.
But, they aren't sold saying "support our troops" or any of the other stuff - though it appears the RBL has been a bit lax on that front. The funds raised go to support military personel and families in the UK, but I don't see that as directly related to what the poppy symbolises - any more than Tesco getting money for a loaf of bread changes the symbolism of that bread being broken at Communion.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The bits of the relevant websites quoted here say otherwise.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I'm getting a bit worried by all the non-paper poppies proliferating around. If someone buys a jewellery poppy, money goes to the jewellery manufacturers as well as the appeal, and it only goes once. You'd have to be pretty mean and efficient at storing to make a paper poppy last several years, but the pins can come back year after year.
Whatever the wearer intends them to mean.
[ 07. November 2016, 19:16: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
There is a difference between a religious symbol and a political symbol - namely that a particular religious dress rarely/never suggests an affinity with a political or nationalistic cause.
If you don't think the poppy is politicised, consider a symbol commemorating the war dead from a nation you don't like. Imagine Iran playing Iraq at football and one or the other wearing some symbol commemorating their war dead. Imagine Japan and China playing and there being a symbol commemorating Nanking. Imagine Turkey and Armenia playing and there being a symbol about the Armenian genocide.
It is only the British who seem to think that the rest of the world should be forced to participate in their war dead commemoration on the football pitch. Somehow the fact that other people might like to remember their own dead - and that this might be problematic - seems to pass by those who want to take offense.
Eutychus, there is only one way to wear a poppy but to refuse to participate in the ridiculous British "festival of remembrance" militaristic nonsense*, and that's to wear a white poppy. And if you don't like the Peace Pledge Union, make your own.
*part of the problem is that we've forgotten what it is that we're supposed to be remembering, which originally was WW1, but gradually morphed into supporting all those who died in military service since. When do we stop? Somehow it has been acceptable to allow those who died in the Boer Wars of the 1890s to be forgotten, but those who died in 20 century wars are destined to be anuually and liturgically remembered forever. Why?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm getting a bit worried by all the non-paper poppies proliferating around. If someone buys a jewellery poppy, money goes to the jewellery manufacturers as well as the appeal, and it only goes once. You'd have to be pretty mean and efficient at storing to make a paper poppy last several years, but the pins can come back year after year.
As with many other things in modern life, this just shows what really matters is broadcasting to the world in general that you're supporting a particular cause rather than that you've actually donated anything of substance to the cause.
To me the tragedy is that the NT seems to clearly teach (IMO) that giving is a private thing that one shouldn't be boasting or drawing attention to, and yet the socially acceptable forms of giving (in and out of church) involve signalling that you're doing something over actually doing it.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... we've forgotten what it is that we're supposed to be remembering, which originally was WW1, but gradually morphed into supporting all those who died in military service since. When do we stop? Somehow it has been acceptable to allow those who died in the Boer Wars of the 1890s to be forgotten, but those who died in 20 century wars are destined to be anuually and liturgically remembered forever. Why?
Because when the Great War kicked off it was dubbed The War to End all Wars Then, when it was finally brought to a halt, the sheer scale of the loss and damage got people,(rather naively), thinking that such a calamity can never be repeated.
I'm not sure the poppy was ever meant to symbolise the futility of war. Sacrifice and honour maybe, which would have made it militaristic from the outset.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I passed the table selling stuff today - a T-shirt with something like "Standing with our Troops" on it - it isn't on their web site. That doesn't look like remembrance or supporting the ex-military who are not well supported by the country to me.
And on the web-site they are selling white poppies for the Somme. That is not right. Cornflowers, fine. But the PPU's poppies, not right.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I went to make my contribution for the couple of days wear today, making sure I had the right money for the donation - and they had packed up completely. I don't know wher else they will have them.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I think we passed peak poppy last year, when poppies seemed to be everywhere, including poppies on cars. This year I noticed many people who didn't appear to be wearing a poppy but when I looked closer I could see that they were wearing an unobtrusive small enamel poppy badge.
I don't know whether this is because the enamel badges are more convenient and less likely to fall off, or whether ostentatious poppy wearing is falling out of favour.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
This year I noticed many people who didn't appear to be wearing a poppy but when I looked closer I could see that they were wearing an unobtrusive small enamel poppy badge.
I don't know whether this is because the enamel badges are more convenient and less likely to fall off, or whether ostentatious poppy wearing is falling out of favour.
Or secret option C, that people have to look harder to see that they've bought the more expensive version....
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
My enamel poppy badge was £1, which is what I'd put into the collecting tin for a paper one.
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
I buy the pin badges because paper ones fall off. Simple.
Ironically this year I then lost the pin badge. On Friday I was in our local supermarket and the poppy seller there was selling knitted ones which she had made, so I bought one. Same size
as a paper one but it doesn't fall off.
I think the paper ones were less of a problem when I was a child, as everyone only wore them to go to the service and then took them off again. There was no expectation of wearing them at any other time.
[ 14. November 2016, 12:16: Message edited by: Gill H ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I think we passed peak poppy last year, when poppies seemed to be everywhere, including poppies on cars.
You mean like this kind of thing ?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0