nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why would an Irish person wear a poppy ?

thecommietommy

After all it's for a foreign army, I don't see anyone wearing an emblem for the French, American, Spanish army. Ok some say it's for charity for injured British soldiers, but surely if they join up it's up to the British govt to properly look after them when they are injured and not pestering people expecting charity ?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

bobbysands81

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I read it pretty clearly "Irish Republicans died so Irish people could have freedoms such as to wear a poppy if they want to." We had that freedom anyway.

...and the freedom to wear such emblems is as a result of our inclusive laws and ultimately our Constitution.

Jimoslimos

LordSutch wrote: »

You'd be surprised how many men from the ROI have (and are currently) serving in Irish regiments. Regarding WWII veterans, well nowadays its mostly their next of kin/widows who benefit from the Irish Poppy appeal fund, not forgett Leopardstown Park Hospital in south Dublin which does a great job with many of the elderly veterans.

You ever read any of the military forums here and elsewhere? Indeed there are lots of young men looking to enlist in foreign armies, including the British. However the overwhelming sentiment isn't one of fighting for a noble cause but rather the attraction of seeing "action", better training and development opportunities, etc. Most of the same reasons people (like myself) emigrate for, fair enough but it doesn't entitle me to charity and respect if I return home

I'd argue in many other countries they'd be regarded as traitors, often officially. I don't (unless they engage in armed conflict against the state) but I don't see why I should top up their pension on the back of world war remembrance.

bobbysands81

Sheeps wrote: »

Your comment that Britain started the war of Irish Independence

'war of Irish Independence' - thank you for agreeing with me.

If you're still unclear just ask yourself - Independence from whom?

Sheeps

bobbysands81 wrote: »

'war of Irish Independence' - thank you for agreeing with me.

If you're still unclear just ask yourself - Independence from whom?

You seem to be mistaken. I'm not agreeing with your post where you implied that Britain started the war of Independence. I'm stating that it historical fact that it was the IRA who started the war.

LordSutch

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I'd argue in many other countries they'd be regarded as traitors, often officially. I don't (unless they engage in armed conflict against the state) but I don't see why I should top up their pension on the back of world war remembrance.

But at least you now know where your contribution goes to, (should you buy a poppy in the ROI).

"Regarding WWII veterans, well nowadays its mostly their next of kin/widows who benefit from the Irish Poppy appeal fund, not forgetting Leopardstown Park Hospital in south Dublin which does a great job with many of the elderly veterans".

Feathers

philologos wrote: »

In the Irish case its a mixed bag actually when we consider it honestly including the IRA bombing campaign in mainland Britain despite most people in Northern Ireland wanting to remain in the union or current paramilitary republican violence in Northern Ireland.

But I think now your merging two concepts together: not supporting the British army & justifying all action that was against the army - they're too very different things, if I pass by a Legion collection tin it doesn't necessarily follow that I'm giving that money to the IRA.

Iwasfrozen

bobbysands81 wrote: »

...and the freedom to wear such emblems is as a result of our inclusive laws and ultimately our Constitution.

... and if you take irish republicanism or even independence out of the picture you still have those freedoms. That's my point that republicans have nothing to do with it.

philologos

Feathers wrote: »

But I think now your merging two concepts together: not supporting the British army & justifying all action that was against the army - they're too very different things, if I pass by a Legion collection tin it doesn't necessarily follow that I'm giving that money to the IRA.

No but if you're going to claim that the British were solely oppressors that's simply just not true. The reality is that there were Irish people involved in this conflict. To ignore that seems to be deceit about history. If you're going to bring up the British part of the conflict, give us the whole story.

Fratton Fred

Jimoslimos wrote: »

You do know the difference between the UN and NATO?

Yes, do you?

golden lane

getz wrote: »

custer was a catholic

that's why nobody like him....

Death and Taxes

NinjaK wrote: »

A Gaelic Irishman wearing a poppy is like a Jew wearing a swastika.

In what way? How many Jews served in the SS? tens of thousands of Irishmen served with the British in WW!, and more notably in WW2 when our government cravely hid behind nuetrality rather than oppose the evil of Facism!

Death and Taxes

Manach wrote: »

I'd respect ordinary soldiers of any hue, but my preference would be to wear a O.N.E. charity sticker denoting support of ex-Irish army personnel.

And ignore those Irishmen who fell in war when Ireland as a state did not yet exist, should we hang our heads in shame because our Great-grandfathers fought in WW1? Mine faught in the royal Navy at the battle of Jutland and I am not ashamed of him.

An Coilean

WileyCoyote wrote: »

And ignore those Irishmen who fell in war when Ireland as a state did not yet exist, should we hang our heads in shame because our Great-grandfathers fought in WW1? Mine faught in the royal Navy at the battle of Jutland and I am not ashamed of him.

The Irishmen who fought and died in the Great War should not be ignored, but there are many who would not consider wearing the poppy an appropriate way to remember them when that symbol also represents men wearing the same uniform who shot down those who fought for Irish freedom.

Your Grandfather fought at Jutland, thats fine, but do you really expect people whos Grandfathers fought in the Rising or the War of Independance to wear a symbol that represents the army that Killed or tried to kill their relatives?

Conall Cernach

WileyCoyote wrote: »

And ignore those Irishmen who fell in war when Ireland as a state did not yet exist, should we hang our heads in shame because our Great-grandfathers fought in WW1? Mine faught in the royal Navy at the battle of Jutland and I am not ashamed of him.

My great grandfather fought in WW1 too. He was severely wounded at Ypres after being caught on the wire and machine gunned. He carried his bullet wounds to his death more than 50 years later but never once donned a poppy.

His son (my great uncle) also joined the British army and was in a Scottish regiment in time for Dunkirk. He saw action in several campaigns and was decorated many times. After his army days he got a minor job with the Stormont civil service, was a regular with the British Legion and always wore the poppy. Ironically (or perhaps not) this did not prevent him being put out of his house by a Loyalist mob in the late 60s. It seems that all those years of dedication mattered not a jot as he was still a Fenian at the end of the day.

Lelantos

bobbysands81 wrote: »

'The IRA forced the British into a dirty war'.

So you think the IRA started the war?

Here's a strange hypothesis... maybe if Britain had not invaded Ireland then there would have been no war.

Jeez, you've obviously no understanding of what happened up the north.

Your view of history seems to be 50 years long, can you please tell me when this island of ours was last completely "Irish owned"

Celly Smunt

Lelantos wrote: »

Your view of history seems to be 50 years long, can you please tell me when this island of ours was last completely "Irish owned"

I always end up having the same argument with republican heads,trying to explain to them how there is no such thing as the Irish people as such as Ireland is just a combination of various invasions.

If they hate the british they should hate the vikings equally.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

In the Irish case its a mixed bag actually when we consider it honestly including the IRA bombing campaign in mainland Britain despite most people in Northern Ireland wanting to remain in the union or current paramilitary republican violence in Northern Ireland.

And my second question - ?

Are you ok with the people involved with these conflicts and these incidents in particular receiving your cash?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...lagers-coverup

http://www.thenational.ae/news/world...ing-uk-apology

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ore-atrocities

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...detention-camp

Conall Cernach

pmcmahon wrote: »

I always end up having the same argument with republican heads,trying to explain to them how there is no such thing as the Irish people as such as Ireland is just a combination of various invasions.

If they hate the british they should hate the vikings equally.

You don't believe that there is such a thing as the Irish people? Is there a French people, a German people, a Danish people? I, and most other sane people, contend that there is a historic Irish people with a unique culture going back at least 2000 years.

Nodin

Sheeps wrote: »

My point is that Jews fighting for Hitler is ultimately a paradox where as Irish men fighting for the British Army is not.

Any colonised people fighting for the Empire that colonised them is a paradox, and a paradox used by many throughout history.

Chuck Stone

pmcmahon wrote: »

I always end up having the same argument with republican heads,trying to explain to them how there is no such thing as the Irish people as such as Ireland is just a combination of various invasions

By those criteria there is no such thing as British, American, Italian, Spanish etc.

It's a stupid moot point.

Agricola

This thread reminds me of Christmas. Its the same tired old shíte every year, but most people seem to fatten on it.

Sound of Silence

philologos wrote: »

There's nothing myopic about it. The poppy is used globally (not just in commonwealth) to remember the dead at war.

I've explained why it's a myopic view to suggest that the Poppy should be wholeheartedly accepted by everyone. The fact that the Northern Irish troubles are often shoe-horned into the debate clearly indicates that the Poppy remains a sensitive and charged topic for a number of people on this on this forum.

The entire topic seems politically charged and filled with a wry condescension. There's no way of escaping this, whenever Poppy advocates continue to consider those who generally don't concern themselves with the Remeberance, for whatever reason they might have, as being essentially immoral, non-progressive, and "narrow-minded", as you put so delicately. Such an attitude will never win any supporters.

As for it being offensive, sometimes things will he offensive and you have to step over a few sacred cows in the process. The raw fact of the matter is that the IRA had a role in this conflict as did other militants at the start of the 20th century and even before. In many ways it was a war of two sides. Brushing over IRA instigated violence is and shouldn't be appropriate when we're actually considering the reality of what happened irrespective of who that offends.

By it's very definition, one could hardly consider the Rememberance Day celebrations as being a forum for inward looking criticism, as far as the British Military is concerned. Much like Republican memorials, there doesn't really seem to be any real qualification for who is being celebrated. For that reason, Nationalists will often distance themselves from what they would consider an all qualifying celebration of British Militarism. I imagine the same would apply with Southern Unionists when 2016 rolls around.

In terms of the poppy, it was something noticed quite a bit when I was growing up in Ireland even if it was a minority practice. It's not just a British thing to do.

It's up to the individual. I assume not every British person would wear the Poppy. I've had relatives fight in the British Military, but no one in my family would feel any desire to wear the Poppy.

Celly Smunt

Conall Cernach wrote: »

You don't believe that there is such a thing as the Irish people? Is there a French people, a German people, a Danish people? I, and most other sane people, contend that there is a historic Irish people with a unique culture going back at least 2000 years.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

By those criteria there is no such thing as British, American, Italian, Spanish etc.

It's a stupid moot point.

in an official sense yes,in a cultural sense no.

Chuck Stone

pmcmahon wrote: »

in an official sense yes,in a cultural sense no.

Are you implying that culturally there is no such thing as the Irish but there are the British, Spanish, Italian?

tbh

In wiser days, my darling rosebud, blown
To beauty proud as was your mother's prime,
In that desired, delayed, incredible time,
You'll ask why I abandoned you, my own,
And the dear heart that was your baby throne,
To dice with death. And oh! they'll give you rhyme
And reason: some will call the thing sublime,
And some decry it in a knowing tone.
So here, while the mad guns curse overhead,
And tired men sigh with mud for couch and floor,
Know that we fools, now with the foolish dead,
Died not for flag, nor King, nor Emperor,—
But for a dream, born in a herdsman's shed,
And for the secret Scripture of the poor.

munchkin_utd

the general populace shouldnt wear the poppy simply because it is an irrelevant symbol to an irish person living 100 years since the last time that Irish people fought in a war in reasonable numbers, and for most of us it wasnt anyone in our families anyhow who did.

And even then (if somehow you want to spend a full 2 weeks wearing an emblem to remember your great great great grandad/ uncle) its a moot point if the poppy is an appropriate symbol to wear to symbolise remembrance of that conflict seeing as the current craze and fashion in wearing it is to do with our neighbouring country's returning body bags from Iran and Afghanistan and not with a sudden blossoming of renewed pride in older battles and wars - and sign of support for those putting their lives on the line this minute in the middle east.

Personally, and despite the fact that I know someone out there at the moment in Afghanistan, I just don't see any reason for me to wear the poppy to support the british campaign in the middle east which essentially is why the footballer are wearing it in the past couple of years and cheapening the symbol of the poppy as a remembrance of historic past events.

Sound of Silence

Lelantos wrote: »

Your view of history seems to be 50 years long, can you please tell me when this island of ours was last completely "Irish owned"

What do you mean by Irish owned. Most Unionists seem pretty pedantic about this point.

Do you mean Indigenous owned or Anglo-Irish owned? I must insist that there is no real difference between the two, as our Anglo-Irish posters are quite hasty to point out. Therefore one could argue that the Island was unified when we were part of the United Kingdom, and we had our own devolved Parliament. Perhaps that would qualify as being Irish owned, and the boundaries of what constituted "Ireland" were quite clear.

Then again, most Southern Unionists are quick to point out that the British did not rule us, which would run contrary to your initial point, that we have never been self-governed. Therefore, we have always governed ourselves during the Union. Therefore, governing ourselves outside of the Union would seem quite natural, would you think.

Do you wish for me to make this even more convoluted?

Lelantos

Sound of Silence wrote: »

What do you mean by Irish owned. Most Unionists seem pretty pedantic about this point.

Do you mean Indigenous owned or Anglo-Irish owned? I must insist that there is no real difference between the two, as our Anglo-Irish posters are quite hasty to point out. Therefore one could argue that the Island was unified when we were part of the United Kingdom, and we had our own devolved Parliament. Perhaps that would qualify as being Irish owned, and the boundaries of what constituted "Ireland" were quite clear.

Then again, most Southern Unionists are quick to point out that the British did not rule us, which would run contrary to your initial point, that we have never been self-governed. Therefore, we have always governed ourselves during the Union. Therefore, governing ourselves outside of the Union would seem quite natural, would you think.

Do you wish for me to make this even more convoluted?

Please do as your basic point is incorrect & you are going off on a beautiful tangent

Sound of Silence

Lelantos wrote: »

Please do as your basic point is incorrect & you are going off on a beautiful tangent

My basic point is incorrect? Care to elaborate on that?

Sheeps

Nodin wrote: »

Any colonised people fighting for the Empire that colonised them is a paradox, and a paradox used by many throughout history.

You are correct in that there would be a contradiction if you had a colonised nation fighting for an oppressive empire for the continued colonisation and oppression of the nation and it's people.

If however you had those same colonised people fighting for the oppressive nation against a common enemy that paradox is no longer applicable. Irish soldiers fighting in Irish men in Irish regiments of the British army in World War 2 is a perfect example of this. It's no different to honouring the Irish who fought in World War 2 with the Americans or Canadians for that matter.

World War 1 is also an example of this to a lesser extent, although you could undermine this point by the fact that there was an element of people going to war for glory which had arguably tied in with strengthening the British Empire. This however was also also the case on the German side, so there was still a common enemy and for this reason the logic same should apply.