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; } } }

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

Comments

ejmaztec

Aodh Rua wrote: »

Given that the state was the British colonial state, it's a truism that the British Army was "the legitimate army of the state". What next; the IRA was "the legitimate army of the Irish Republic" (which is, of course, the name of the state of the First Dáil 1919-1921, and is of course very distinct from the Republic of Ireland, which came into existence in 1949)? What's your point?

The British state in Ireland was never the legitimate state of Ireland or of the Irish people. Perhaps if you genuinely believe this (and I doubt you really do) you can cite an election which gave it a legitimate right to rule over all the Irish people since 1603?

Even today, its support base in Ireland is from people who self describe as "British" and who claim descent from the British state's settler-colonial plantation in the seventeenth century. It is by virtue of the British Army's "foreign army" status that the nationalist community was able to turn/be turned against it quite rapidly after 14 August 1969, despite its seemingly benign arrival as "defenders" of the same people on that date.

Elections weren't the norm in those days, not even in the UK.

Iwasfrozen

Aodh Rua wrote: »

Given that the state was the British colonial state, it's a truism that the British Army was "the legitimate army of the state". What next; the IRA was "the legitimate army of the Irish Republic" (which is, of course, the name of the state of the First Dáil 1919-1921, and is of course very distinct from the Republic of Ireland, which came into existence in 1949)? What's your point?

The British state in Ireland was never the legitimate state of Ireland or of the Irish people. Perhaps if you genuinely believe this (and I doubt you really do) you can cite an election which gave it a legitimate right to rule over all the Irish people since 1603?

What are you talking about? Democracy is a modern concept that didn't exist in those days. Britain ruled Ireland by right of conquest which was about as legitimate as you could get. Over time the concept of the nation state evolved until Ireland gained it's independence. You can't blame the English for not implementing modern conventions like democracy and universal suffrage in 1603!

Furthermore Ireland was not a "colony". It was a constitute part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It was part of the state. Not a colony. No more then the Blasket islands are a colony of Dublin.

Aodh Rua wrote: »

Even today, its support base in Ireland is from people who self describe as "British" and who claim descent from the British state's settler-colonial plantation in the seventeenth century. It is by virtue of the British Army's "foreign army" status that the nationalist community was able to turn/be turned against it quite rapidly after 14 August 1969, despite its seemingly benign arrival as "defenders" of the same people on that date.

Nationalists perceive the British as foreigners. Unionists don't. Power lies where people believe it does. This is just an example of that.

Nodin

Japer wrote: »

Most people in(........)of Hitler.

What part of this post did you not get?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81513969&postcount=360

Chuck Stone

Japer wrote: »

Most people in Europe are glad the British stood up and fought the Nazis.

And they should also be glad the Soviets and the Americans fought the Nazis or the British wouldn't have stood a chance.

If crazy Adolph hadn't attacked the Russians Britain would likely have been crushed by the Nazis.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What are you talking about? Democracy is a modern concept that didn't exist in those days. Britain ruled Ireland by right of conquest which was about as legitimate as you could get. Over time the concept of the nation state evolved until Ireland gained it's independence. You can't blame the English for not implementing modern conventions like democracy and universal suffrage in 1603!

Furthermore Ireland was not a "colony". It was a constitute part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It was part of the state. Not a colony. No more then the Blasket islands are a colony of Dublin.

Nationalists perceive the British as foreigners. Unionists don't. Power lies where people believe it does. This is just an example of that.

Algeria was a department of France. Does that mean it wasn't a colony?

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

Algeria was a department of France. Does that mean it wasn't a colony?

Algeria was never considered part of France. We were one kingdom among three in the United Kingdom. That's what the name meant.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Algeria was never considered part of France. ......

Rrrreally?

From 1848 until independence, the whole Mediterranean region of Algeria was administered as an integral part of France, much like Corsica and Réunion are to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_rule_in_Algeria

Shortly after Louis Philippe's constitutional monarchy was overthrown in the revolution of 1848, the new government of the Second Republic ended Algeria's status as a colony and declared in the 1848 Constitution the occupied lands an integral part of France. Three civil territories—Algiers, Oran, and Constantine—were organized as French départements (local administrative units) under a civilian government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_rule_in_Algeria#Under_the_French_Second_Republic_and_Second_Empire_.281848.E2.80.931870.29

Snowie

thecommietommy wrote: »

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 ?

and how many Irish men joined the english army because the irish government sat on the fence? Lots.

Aodh Rua

ejmaztec wrote: »

Elections weren't the norm in those days, not even in the UK.

Yet in May 1613 the British colonial community gerrymandered the entire Irish parliament, through creating new boroughs with British Protestant "majorities", and thus took control of the parliament of an entire country where they were by no means a majority, or even a numerically strong minority.

Why would they care enough about doing such a thing if "elections weren't the norm in those days"?

Elections were very normal in those days. They were so important that the franchise was severely restricted and 1613 witnessed a British Protestant overthrow of the democratic parliamentary system in Ireland as it then existed.

Aodh Rua

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What are you talking about? Democracy is a modern concept that didn't exist in those days.

A remedial understanding of world history, or even European history, would say otherwise. Ever hear of the Greeks?

Perhaps you're looking for other English words to express what you're trying to say? If this is the case, you must try harder to engage with the English language.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Britain ruled Ireland by right of conquest which was about as legitimate as you could get.

It wasn't, so please stop talking ahistorical rubbish.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Furthermore Ireland was not a "colony".

Yawn. Troll elsewhere.

Sunnyisland

Snowie wrote: »

and how many Irish men joined the english army because the irish government sat on the fence? Lots.

And how many Irish men joined the English army out of a nesserity of getting money to feed there families? Lots.

I would recomend some people here watch stumpet city, It might help you out a bit.

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

Rrrreally?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_rule_in_Algeria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_rule_in_Algeria#Under_the_French_Second_Republic_and_Second_Empire_.281848.E2.80.931870.29

Yes, what ever the french constitution said it was well known among French people that Algeria was a colony. The situation isn't similar to Ireland at all, the english have had a presence here for most of our recorded history. To compare a french colonial acquisition in Africa to the British isles is ridiculous.

Although I do see your point, I would compare the French/Algeria situation more to the American/Hawaii case.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, what ever the french constitution said it was well known among French people that Algeria was a colony. .....

...and whatever the British system said, it was and is well known amongst Irish people that Ireland was a colony.

Iwasfrozen

Aodh Rua wrote: »

A remedial understanding of world history, or even European history, would say otherwise. Ever hear of the Greeks?

Perhaps you're looking for other English words to express what you're trying to say? If this is the case, you must try harder to engage with the English language.

Are you seriously comparing the political structures in Greek antiquity to Cromwellian England?

Aodh Rua wrote: »

It wasn't, so please stop talking ahistorical rubbish.

Care to elaborate?

philologos

To clarify, I'm not an apologist for Britain. I'd happily criticise anyone in respect to praising certain things in British history. An example was correcting someone about "how great" Oliver Cromwell was. I just extend criticism to how people glorify certain events of Irish history.

As for the poppy, I don't have one yet, and I didn't last year, but many myself included wear it to remember war and its futility. I think that's a good thing to remember. Having a day or a season in the year to consider that is a good thing. If the proceeds of the poppy go to assist retired folk from the army who need assistance sobeit. That doesn't conflict me in the slightest.

As for Nodin's disgust faux or otherwise at me holding this view as a Christian I guess I'd question if he understands what the gospel means in terms of showing grace to others.

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

...and whatever the British system said, it was and is well known amongst Irish people that Ireland was a colony.

Nope. The English/British can trace their foothold in Ireland all the way back to Strongbow. They had a legitimacy the French lacked in Algeria.

recylingbin

I wouldn't wear a poppy because I am not British or trying to seem like I'm erudite and different.
Even if I was British, I wouldn't wear one. The sales of an emblem once a year to pretend that something is being done for the people who are perceived as keeping them free by fighting in a war is a measure of how poorly that country treats its former armed forces.

If they really cared, the vets wouldn't have to depend on charity.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

To clarify, I'm not an apologist for Britain. I'd happily criticise anyone in respect to praising certain things in British history. An example was correcting someone about "how great" Oliver Cromwell was. I just extend criticism to how people glorify certain events of Irish history...

Yep. And again the question - would you extend that spiel to the Africans, Greeks and Indians?

philologos wrote: »

As for the poppy, I don't have one yet, and I didn't last year, but many myself included wear it to remember war and its futility. I think that's a good thing to remember. Having a day or a season in the year to consider that is a good thing. If the proceeds of the poppy go to assist retired folk from the army who need assistance sobeit. That doesn't conflict me in the slightest..

But you stated you won't wear a lilly and don't seem to bother with a white poppy. Would you donate funds to former members of the republican movement?

philologos wrote: »

As for Nodin's disgust faux or otherwise at me holding this view as a Christian I guess I'd question if he understands what the gospel means in terms of showing grace to others.

Well, the Empire did like to say it "christianised" folks, so you aren't the first to be an apologist for it.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope. The English/British can trace their foothold in Ireland all the way back to Strongbow. They had a legitimacy the French lacked in Algeria.

....O deary me......

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

....O deary me......

That's told me.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's told me.

...age/passage of time does not grant legitamacy or change the fact of colonisation....rather obviously.

doolox

Our republic has failed in several substantial ways. Socially in enslaving unmarried mothers in the Irish Gulags of the Magdelen Laundries which went on for several decades and ruined the lives of many women.
Also the lives of many orphan children were ruined by the slave labour camps of Artane , Goldenbridge etc. Financially by the failure to regulate at a critical time the supply of money to inexpert borrowers which led to our present mess, and culturally by imposing an alien langauge on the anglophone majority in this country who have spoken English for the last 150 years and havent a clue of Irish but are made to feel like second class citizens for this inabiliity.

I'd wear a poppy because I had two Uncles who served in the British armed forces during WW2 both of whom were absolute gentlemen, unlike that republican sympathisers I have met at the height of the troubles

Nodin

doolox wrote: »

Our republic has failed in several substantial ways. Socially in enslaving unmarried mothers in the Irish Gulags of the Magdelen Laundries which went on for several decades and ruined the lives of many women.
Also the lives of many orphan children were ruined by the slave labour camps of Artane , Goldenbridge etc. Financially by the failure to regulate at a critical time the supply of money to inexpert borrowers which led to our present mess, and culturally by imposing an alien langauge on the anglophone majority in this country who have spoken English for the last 150 years and havent a clue of Irish but are made to feel like second class citizens for this inabiliity.
..............

...but you don't have a problem with a state that imposed far worse on far more and did so well into modern times? Funny attitude.

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

...age/passage of time does not grant legitamacy or change the fact of colonisation....rather obviously.

The fact is Ireland wasn't colonised though. We were one kingdom in three of the United Kingdom and the second largest of it's constituent countries.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Yep. And again the question - would you extend that spiel to the Africans, Greeks and Indians?

My position doesn't require me to believe that Britain is perfect. The reason the poppy is even worn is because of John McCraes poem written in 1915. You know that as well as I do.

But you stated you won't wear a lilly and don't seem to bother with a white poppy. Would you donate funds to former members of the republican movement?

I don't commemorate the Easter rising of 1916 so I don't see why I would buy a lily. I don't remember telling you that I didn't though. The red poppy is fine. It gets the point across.

Well, the Empire did like to say it "christianised" folks, so you aren't the first to be an apologist for it.

No. Bible believing evangelicals by and large used the scope of the Empire to proclaim Christ crucified and resurrected. Read about David Livingstone who went to Uganda to share about Jesus knowing for sure that He would die. Likewise there were missionaries who went to cannibal islands who were eventually converted because they realised it was Jesus that motivated more people to come when they kept killing them. You should read about the London Missionary Society rather than posting ignorance. Those people are to me real heroes. They died for something far greater in fact.

I'm not an apologist for the long gone British Empire. I am certainly incredibly grateful for people who used it to proclaim the Gospel just as I'm grateful that Paul used the Roman Empire to do the same. It didn't mean he was an advocate of the persecuting authority he was under.

Sound of Silence

philologos wrote: »

Again that's tripe. I don't care if you wear it or not. What I do object to is ignorance about the topic or claiming its anti-Irish. Every year on boards.ie we see the same nonsense trotted out time and time again.

I'll be honest here and say that I have no idea what qualifies as anti-Irish any more. The lines between legitimate criticism and blind hatred have become so blurred that it's pretty pointless in calling it out. The topic itself evokes some kind of weird and twisted version of Poe's laws, where the lines between and parody and reality are pretty non-existent.

This might not be the case for everyone. I've spoken to a well known Unionist poster on this site who claims that being Anti-British essentially boils down to being "overly critical" of the UK.

What ultimately matters is respecting the views of individuals, as long as their capable of providing a reasonable arguement.

The republicans didn't much endear themselves to them or those who disagreed with them in Northern Ireland either. Not to mention a bomb campaign in central London, Guildford, Brighton and numerous other locations. The problem I have with your assessment is that it is one-sided and leaves much of the truth out.

And whilst I've continued to address the inherent flaws in the British Military, you will notice that not once have I urged you or anyone else here to wear an Easter Lilly. Clearly that's what differentiates us two. I happen to understand that the Easter Lilly can often be an inherently political or emotionally charged symbol, even when some of it's advocates claim otherwise; and for that reason I will never wear it, nor shall I ever condescend to someone who refuses to honour the memory of "our Nation's martyrs".

What's interesting is that throughout your argument you've continually urged me to ignore the less admirable actions of the British Military in favour of it's seemingly more apparent triumphs. Has the irony of this evaded you completely? Forgive me, but I will continue to explain to you that the British Armed Forces have written their own history in Northern Ireland, quite often in blood, but most often in it's quite favourable approach to collusion.

Whilst I can no doubt look admirably at the actions of service people both here in Ireland and in Britain during the First and Second World Wars, I simply can't ignore the conflict in Northern Ireland at a whim, especially when it's had such a profound and lasting impact on my Community.

It's not a celebration it's mourning! At the Anglican remembrance service a key point is the futility of war.

I've already addressed this point in a response to LordSutch.

As I said already the day when Irish identity isn't based on what isn't British will be the day when we've put all this nonsense beyond us. A sentiment which is characterised in the remembrance, to move on from the past into a more stable future even if that is uncertain or unattainable.

I've already discussed the topic of Irish ethnicity with you before. I had even posted a link to one of my previous comments.

When the Nationalist community is continually urged to ignore frankly huge swathes of Irish history in favour of a few select instances of British generosity, then it's going to be pretty difficult to begin reconciling our differences. The microcosm of Anglo-Irish relations which is the Stormont electorate will give you an idea of how painful and slow this dialogue continues to be.

When people ask us, in the interest of a faux progressive attitude, to simply treat the whole topic with a nonchalant approach, I can't help but feel that the lives of all those lost during the Troubles are pretty much cheapened and forgotten. What has been learned? We've only managed to come this far by actually addressing issues, rather than ignoring them.

seanhalpin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The fact is Ireland wasn't colonised though. We were one kingdom in three of the United Kingdom and the second largest of it's constituent countries.

I must interject here.

Contrary to popular delusion (thanks to deValera-ite propaganda) Ireland was not a colony by any stretch. It was part and parcel of the home nations with representation in parliament INCLUDING catholics from 1829 onwards. It was not some far flung colony in Africa or the Far East. We were an integral part of the UK.
You cannot retrospectively apply modern standards to the actions taken by the Government 100 - 150 odd years ago. Something which is a favourite pastime of the 800 years brigade.
By the standards of the time, the UK Government was probably the most liberal and progressive goverment in Europe. Proof of this being that the didn't at all ban nationalist moevements like the Gaelic League and the GAA.

I can tell you if were were under France or Spain, we wouldn't have enjoyed such liberties. We'd be begging to join the UK.

GRMA

philologos wrote: »

To clarify, I'm not an apologist for Britain. I'd happily criticise anyone in respect to praising certain things in British history. An example was correcting someone about "how great" Oliver Cromwell was. I just extend criticism to how people glorify certain events of Irish history.

As for the poppy, I don't have one yet, and I didn't last year, but many myself included wear it to remember war and its futility. I think that's a good thing to remember. Having a day or a season in the year to consider that is a good thing. If the proceeds of the poppy go to assist retired folk from the army who need assistance sobeit. That doesn't conflict me in the slightest.

As for Nodin's disgust faux or otherwise at me holding this view as a Christian I guess I'd question if he understands what the gospel means in terms of showing grace to others.

Utter rubiush.

The Poppy is used by the British establishment as a powerful propaganda tool for "our brave lads" in Iraq or whatever imperialist jaunt they are off on. Its nothig less than a recruitment drive and an attempt to link the superheroes who are off murdering in the middle east, who murdered in Ireland, kenya etc by linking them and portraying them as the same as the people who fought in WW1 and WW2.

If you really wanted to remember the "futility of war" you wouldnt wear a British Nationalist symbol like the poppy, which glorifies the British army but would instead wear something like the White Poppy.

Another thing, it takes an extraordinary amount of double think for people to refuse to wear Lilies because they have been "tainted" yet would wear poppies - if one is tainted the other surely is, or does the British army's hi-jinks in Kenya, Afghanistan, The North etc etc etc not matter?

Sound of Silence

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The fact is Ireland wasn't colonised though. We were one kingdom in three of the United Kingdom and the second largest of it's constituent countries.

The colonisation did not fulfil the objectives set out by both the Scottish and English settlers. It did, however, lay the boundaries for the divisions which still remain evident to this day in their many different guises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland

Chuck Stone

GRMA wrote: »

Another thing, it takes an extraordinary amount of double think for people to refuse to wear Lilies because they have been "tainted" yet would wear poppies - if one is tainted the other surely is, or does the British army's hi-jinks in Kenya, Afghanistan, The North etc etc etc not matter?

Cognitive contortionists.