Reply to: Red or white?

[BjornMorg]

Poppies used to be the commemorative simple of the loses in the First World War and following that the Seconded World War. I have always worn a poppy up until this year when it seems that it has been taken over by government propaganda promoting the legitimacy of the Iraq and Afghan occupations. I find this year’s adverts rather sickening and nothing about WW1 or WW2.

WHS

[Paddy]

Ex-SAS soldier blasts Poppy Appeal as a 'political tool' - Wales Online

THE true meaning of the poppy is being forgotten as it becomes a political tool to support current wars, a former elite soldier has claimed.

Ben Griffin, the first SAS soldier to refuse to go into combat, also said the use of the word “hero” to describe soldiers glorified war and was an “attempt to stifle criticism” of conflicts the UK is currently fighting.

Mr Griffin’s claims echo an increasing body of opinion that the Royal British Legion’s Poppy Appeal’s promotion by key political and cultural figures is undermining the true message of Remembrance Day.

The Royal British Legion began using the poppy as a symbol for fundraising in the 1920s. Money used goes to help wounded servicemen past and serving and their families.

It also marks Remembrance Day, held on the second Sunday in November, which is usually the Sunday nearest to November 11, the date in 1918 on which World War I ended.

It commemorates the sacrifices of members of the armed forces and of civilians.

But Mr Griffin, who quit the army in 2005 on moral grounds, claims it has been turned into a “month-long drum roll of support for current wars”.

Griffin, who went to school in Machynlleth and Swansea, told Wales On Sunday: “This year’s [national] campaign was launched by inviting The Saturdays to frolic half naked in a sea of poppies.

“The judges on X Factor [at the request of the Royal British Legion] have taken to wearing grotesque poppy fashion items.

“The RBL would say they are modernising and appealing to a younger generation. I disagree. I think that their stunts trivialise, normalise and sanitise war.”

Griffin, now a London ambulance driver who served for eight years in the Parachute Regiment, went on: “The use of the word ‘hero’ glorifies war and glosses over the ugly reality.

“War is nothing like a John Wayne movie. There is nothing heroic about being blown up in a vehicle, there is nothing heroic about being shot in an ambush and there is nothing heroic about the deaths of countless civilians.

“Calling our soldiers heroes is an attempt to stifle criticism of the wars we are fighting in.

[Doggy Styles]

The ones who wear white poppies are more interested in the occasion being about them rather than those who died in war.

This

[vetran]

Two poems accredited with the invention

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

and

Oh! you who sleep in Flanders Fields,
Sleep sweet - to rise anew!
We caught the torch you threw
And holding high, we keep the Faith
With All who died.

Moina Michael

so on the face of it suggests it means continuing the fight, but things change and its used for Remembrance.

White Poppy was introduced in 1993 for peace, and in my opinion could have a day of its own and should leave Remembrance day alone.

[oscarose]

The key is for humans to remove themselves of negative emotions such as anger, greed, and hatred.

With metta,

[Mich the Tester]

You have to admit it's all about pride, and pride in us taking part in the worst wars in history just seems distasteful to me. History is history, what happened happened, and nobody is denying it, but it's not disrespectful to the dead to dare question it. Quite the opposite in fact; I'd say it's disrespectful to the dead to perpetuate the same old lies, starting with the oft repeated "gave their lives".

And that's the problem; the culture is very much one of you're with us or against us; you either wear the poppy with pride like every single person on TV seems duty bound to do for weeks before, or you're a traitorous communist pinko sympathiser - or something.

I do agree that the white poppyists are making a politicial point, so I don't support that either. But I also don't understand why people deny that the poppy is all about national pride in our warmongering past (and present), or glorifying war if you're going to put it that way, when it clearly is.

This is all well and good, but there are 364 other days of the year to make these points.

[Ticktock]

I think honouring those who died in a war implicitly says that war is morally justified in the first place, would be the argument made?

No more than honouring a peace campaigner who was assassinated says that assassination is morally justified.
Don't forget about conscription and the firing sqauds in WWI.

The original article is about protestors in Canada. The Canadian armed forces major role over the past few decades has been to provide peacekeeping forces around the world. By trying to prevent wars, at the cost of their own lives sometimes, are they justifying war itself?

[VectraMan]

I don't see the red ones as glorifying war, just a mark of respect for those who experienced things most of us can't imagine and many of whom gave their lives in defence of the freedom we have today.

You have to admit it's all about pride, and pride in us taking part in the worst wars in history just seems distasteful to me. History is history, what happened happened, and nobody is denying it, but it's not disrespectful to the dead to dare question it. Quite the opposite in fact; I'd say it's disrespectful to the dead to perpetuate the same old lies, starting with the oft repeated "gave their lives".

And that's the problem; the culture is very much one of you're with us or against us; you either wear the poppy with pride like every single person on TV seems duty bound to do for weeks before, or you're a traitorous communist pinko sympathiser - or something.

I do agree that the white poppyists are making a politicial point, so I don't support that either. But I also don't understand why people deny that the poppy is all about national pride in our warmongering past (and present), or glorifying war if you're going to put it that way, when it clearly is.

[Mich the Tester]

I think honouring those who died in a war implicitly says that war is morally justified in the first place, would be the argument made?

I think that's reading too much into a commemoration.

[Ticktock]

Poppies used to be the commemorative simple of the loses in the First World War and following that the Seconded World War. I have always worn a poppy up until this year when it seems that it has been taken over by government propaganda promoting the legitimacy of the Iraq and Afghan occupations. I find this year’s adverts rather sickening and nothing about WW1 or WW2.

I haven't seen the adverts. Are they adverts promoting the wearing of poppies? If so, then it makes sense that they focus on Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Poppy Appeal supports servicemen and their families. There are very few (none?) left from WWI, small numbers from WWII, there will be some more from the Korean, Falklands and Gulf wars, but still a growing number of families and servicemen needing support from recent and current conflicts.

I would guess that a large percentage of their expenditure is going to support those needing it after being involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, even if those conflicts have produced relatively low numbers of casualities. Therefore it would be more honest of them to talk about this when making their appeal.

[d000hg]

I don't think the red one supports the principle of war; it simply recognises that tulip happens, and when tulip happens, some people are brave enough to risk their lives and some of them die.

I think honouring those who died in a war implicitly says that war is morally justified in the first place, would be the argument made?

[Ticktock]

Isn't the issue that the red one supports the principle of war in the first place, and white-wearers (while they may respect those who died) want to make it clear they do not condone war in the first place?

No.

The white poppies are anti-war, but the red poppies are nothing to do with supporting the principle of war - they are about remembering those who died during wars, no matter what their nationality. Those people may have been conscripts or volunteers. It's not about remembering the war, it's about remembering the loss of life.

[Paddy]

Poppies used to be the commemorative simple of the loses in the First World War and following that the Seconded World War. I have always worn a poppy up until this year when it seems that it has been taken over by government propaganda promoting the legitimacy of the Iraq and Afghan occupations. I find this year’s adverts rather sickening and nothing about WW1 or WW2.

[Mich the Tester]

Isn't the issue that the red one supports the principle of war in the first place, and white-wearers (while they may respect those who died) want to make it clear they do not condone war in the first place?

I don't think the red one supports the principle of war; it simply recognises that tulip happens, and when tulip happens, some people are brave enough to risk their lives and some of them die.

[d000hg]

I don't see the red ones as glorifying war, just a mark of respect for those who experienced things most of us can't imagine and many of whom gave their lives in defence of the freedom we have today

Isn't the issue that the red one supports the principle of war in the first place, and white-wearers (while they may respect those who died) want to make it clear they do not condone war in the first place?