Poppy Middle Class Death Cult

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

you were more likely to be killed if you were anjunior officer...

Lots of lieutenants and captains killed, because they were platoon and company commanders. Rather fewer as you ascend the ranks after that and moved to the relative safety of the "back office".

Danny Mills, ex England footballer was on BBC Radio last night, and was very reasoned about the football argument. Pat Nevin was on the same programme, although his bit doesn't feature in this podcast. He made some good points as well, what if a player doesn't want to wear a poppy, why should they be forced to? If it is a personal choice, why are the FA and SFA saying all players will wear them? Although apparently RoI wore the Easter Lily on their strip in March, which FIFA are now looking into I believe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04f07m0

Snickers Man wrote: »

Interesting point.

Although a European confederation of sovereign nation states overseen by a democratically and legally appointed Commission which sets ground rules for everyone to adhere to was NOT the stated intention of what the British Army was fighting for in Two World Wars, that was very much the legacy of all that carnage. A determination not to go through all this again and to concentrate on European co-operation rather than conflict.

The EU has been remarkably successful in taking the sting out of border disputes between nation states. OK so they do it by de-emphasising borders in the first place and removing all tariffs between them but the fact is, as the great John Hume said many times "The French are still French and the Germans are still German"

And there's a lot less "sang impur" to "abreuve les sillons" of Verdun and the Somme.

Now the Brits have voted that they "want their country back". Doubtless they think that insularity, xenophobia and colonial expansion were what their boys really died for.

Some might hope that lasting European peace, which has largely been delivered in the 70 post war years, was their real legacy. Which interpretation does wearing the poppy suggest?

Spare me all this bollox about "remembering the fallen" there's hardly anyone alive today with a personal memory of anybody who died in WWI. If your relative was killed in November 1918 and you were five years old at the time (a reasonable age from which to have a conscious memory) you would be 103 now. In which case if you have any memory at all you're doing really well.

it's not about "remembering the dead"; it's about reinterpreting the present. And it always has been.

Indeed

It's also about commemorating and supporting the legacy of all those engaged in British military actions - including those lads responsible for the Bloody Sunday atrocity up North, not to mention the routine intimidation and every day collusion with loyalist death squads..

Takes some serious levels of personal delusion to suppress such realities..

Deleted User wrote: »

Just wording. Picture at the foot of this BBC article

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/37853386

That was a friendly match that fell outside the normal FIFA rules.

Nothing symobolic or provactive in the crest clearly celebrating 100 years.

This annual poppy debate is an annual pain in the arse.

It's a symbol of British imperialism to me and is not just about commemorating the dead.

It has become almost compulsory in the UK over the last 10 -15 years and in my opinion takes away the freedom of choice that their soldiers were supposed to be dying for.

It has become a national jingoistic symbol and I really think that is wrong.
It also adds to the myth that British soldiers fought in places like Iraq and Afghanistan to defend British freedom which is absolute rubbish.

Finally, no need for Ireland to get involved in these things. We don't need the poppy as we have our own remembrance day. As do France, Germany, Netherlands , USA etc who all suffered greatly in the war.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no it didn't. Friendlies still fall under FIFA rules

just as the English, Scottish and Welsh teams want to commemorate the anniversary of the end of wwi

to you maybe, but then you don't see 1916 as a political event.


don't get involved then.

James McClean tried just that,it didn't work out to good for him.


This is the crux of the matter here that in the last 5 years or so that it is been forced upon people.

FortySeven wrote: »

My grandfather might disagree. He spent his teenage years as a ship radio operator. Commonly under fire. He goes to lay a wreath on the local memorial every year to remember friends and family that didn't get so lucky.

My other grandfather fought rommels army through north Africa then fought his way north through Italy with no more intent but to stop the tyranny that was Nazi Germany attempting to take over Europe.

Honourable acts, nothing to do with royals, they were not middle class. They came back on boats full of men missing arms, legs, eyes or mental faculties.

We can question the motives of politicians all day long. This poppy is not for them. It is for the blood left on the battlefield by ordinary men who stood up in the face of fear to protect their families, their countries and their children's futures.

Shame on those trying to make it about something Cromwell did. They didn't have poppies then.

Sickened!

Why are you sickened??


What's Cromwell got to do with it or have I missed that post?


There are plenty of people in Ireland who have had relatives in WW1 and 2 and they remember their relatives in the way they choose because they do not want their cash being used to reward soldiers that served in NI from a hijacked poppy.


Nothing to do with Cromwell.
Shame on them for using dead soldiers from WW1 and 11 to reward their imperial post WW2 enforcers.


Let the British government give them money.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

poppy fascism at its finest.

???????????

What do poppies commemorate? According to the people who manufacture and sell them - the Royal British Legion - they are "worn to commemorate the sacrifices of our Armed Forces and to show support to those still serving today". The artificial red poppy, pinned to the lapel, was originally an American idea, which transferred to the UK.

So let's clear up one common misconception - the poppy may have originally been to commemorate the fallen of WW1, but it now commemorates "the sacrifices of our Armed Forces" and supports the currently serving UK military personnel.

For me, it's an important distinction, as in an Irish context, it celebrates the service of those who fought against the Uprising in 1916 and for the British in the War of Independence from 1919 to 1921. Both my grandfathers fought in the War of Independence, so it always seemed, although I was born and raised in England (from Irish parents), that it would have been ludicrous to symbolise support (and ultimately give financial support) to British soldiers who had been shooting at my grandparents. The poppy also symbolises commemoration of those show served more recently in Northern Ireland, so it's not surprising that northern Catholics don't wish to wear poppies.

I suppose it boils down to family history, so if great-granduncle Ted fought in the Battle of the Somme, then wear a poppy. But be aware that that is only a part of what it symbolises and celebrates. It 'remembers' all UK military service.

In that context, I'd have to agree with FIFA about the use of the poppy on football shirts. It commemorates the service of those who fought against Germany, Argentina and many other countries with better football teams. Would English people be happy to see a German national team take the field with Iron Crosses on the sleeves?