Poppies

rick_chasey

It's been done before on here.

I got into a heated argument with an (ex?) military chap on here a year or two ago.

So I shall try and avoid that particular bear trap.

So let's keep it specific.

Fifa didn't want the English football team to wear poppies during an international match. They argued, that poppies are a political symbol, and, according to fifa rules, all political symbols are banned from international football (presumably excluding national flags and national football team badges...)

This has caused some furore in papers I don't really read.

So the question goes, firstly, are poppies a political symbol? I say they are because they are sold by the Britih legion to raise funds. Now that's not to say that because it's political it's inherently bad. It's not easy to argue that poppies on their own are. Nonetheless, it's a political symbol. Turns out, it's quite a popular one.

The second question is - is the poppy thing becoming a broader political and moral issue?

I don't remember the English football team ever wearing poppies and it was never a problem before. My parents never wore them in the UK for various reasons, and it's only in the last two or three years that they have been publicly (by friends) criticised for not doing so < this seems a little much. The John Snow thing last year was similar.

As I understand it, poppies are a way for people to individually and discreetly show respect for people who have died in wars.

lost_in_thought

I think it's a reaction (principally in certain papers) to notions of the repression and dilution of 'british identity'. Simples!

Blandiblub

The weirdest thing for me on this is that England have played >30 matches around this time since the Poppy thing was invented back after WW1. Over 30. This is the first time this has come up - why the fuss now?

At first, I was quite disappointed with FIFA but with so many people now chipping in with opinions to help them look good, I'm very much on FIFAs side - we just look like spoiled brats, whinging until we get our way.

It's just a game of football at the end of the day. It's not the be all and end all of the British Legion's fundraising ability.

asprilla

To be honest, if you want to commemorate ill-equipped Englishmen being sent hopelessly out to a field to be slaughtered than I can't think of anything more fitting than arranging a friendly against Spain.

The poppies are superfluous.

rick_chasey

lost_in_thought wrote:

I think it's a reaction (principally in certain papers) to notions of the repression and dilution of 'british identity'. Simples!

That's probably the nub of the issue.

Seems some people seem to feel it's anti-British not to wear one. Which it shouldn't be.

Strikes me as it gets hijacked by nationalists. Which it shouldn't be.

suzyb

I thought the poppy thing was more international.

I really am ill-educated :oops:

rick_chasey

suzyb wrote:

I thought the poppy thing was more international.

I really am ill-educated :oops:

Where did you think the money went?

EKE_38BPM

suzyb wrote:

I really am ill-edumacated :oops:

FTFY
Edumacated. The word is edumacated.

Clever Pun

being cynical, I got the impression it was to mask over the John Terry's a racist tw@t issue

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

As I understand it, poppies are a way for people to individually and discreetly show respect for people who have died in wars.

That's my understanding of what they are 'for'. I think you need a pretty broad definition of 'political' to include expressing respect for those who have given limbs or their life for their country. I also think it's obvious to anyone with a brain that respect for the soldiers is not the same as endorsing whatever war/peacekeeping mission the solider was involved in when they were killed/injured - the soldiers don't get to choose their deployments.

Given the number of servicemen and women coming home in boxes or with limbs missing*, it's not surprising that the issue is more prominent now than, say, 10 years ago. Some of the very good documentaries that have been broadcast recently, showing life on the front line in Afghanistan, make the issues more difficult to avoid than in the past.

*Excuse me being blunt, but I think this a subject where euphemism isn't helpful.

asprilla

Rick Chasey wrote:

suzyb wrote:

I thought the poppy thing was more international.

I really am ill-educated :oops:

Where did you think the money went?

The poppy is international and wearing it for fallen soldiers originated in the US. Although still used around the world the greatest take up is in commonwealth countries, particularly the UK. In almost all cases poppies are made locally (even Scottish poppies are different to English ones) and sold by local veterans organisations.

suzyb

Rick Chasey wrote:

suzyb wrote:

I thought the poppy thing was more international.

I really am ill-educated :oops:

Where did you think the money went?

I knew it went to a charity, couldn't remember who though.

But I thought other countries did the same thing and respected their war dead by wearing poppies and laying poppy wreaths.

jzed

Clever Pun wrote:

being cynical, I got the impression it was to mask over the John Terry's a racist tw@t issue

Off topic but I can't help a little rendition of John Terry's Ma song everytime someone mentions him....

davmaggs

I think that FIFA were right and I'm a fully paid up supporter of the poppy.

Now that England has become a special case then another nation has the right to a symbol of their choice, and at some point some nasty countries will push for a symbol we'll be objecting to. If they're smart they'll pick a symbol hated by the team they are playing against and really rile things up.

In short keep political and charity symbols out of it.

Gallywomack

TBH I perfectly understand the FIFA stance. It's the thin end of the wedge, innit? Allow poppies, and other countries could conceivably start displaying symbols of remembrance that relate to active political bones of contention between football-playing nations. International football can be highly-charged and emotive enough without giving free rein to displays that could be interpreted as nationalistic or political. It's better to avoid the whole issue with a blanket ban.

Edit: Davmaggs - great minds

bigmat

Clever Pun wrote:

being cynical, I got the impression it was to mask over the John Terry's a racist tw@t issue

Nail. Head.

DonDaddyD

The issue is whether the Poppy is a political symbol.

No it is not.

It is an internationally recognised symbol of remembrance for fallen soldiers. In footballing terms I don't think believe it is any different to wearing a black armband.

So no I don't agree with Fifa's ban.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

The issue is whether the Poppy is a political symbol.

No it is not.

It is an internationally recognised symbol of remembrance for fallen soldiers. In footballing terms I don't think believe it is any different to wearing a black armband.

So no I don't agree with Fifa's ban.

Is that not in and of itself political?

As an aside, I thought that it was only remembrance of dead commonwealth soldiers. Where the money goes backs that up.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The issue is whether the Poppy is a political symbol.

No it is not.

It is an internationally recognised symbol of remembrance for fallen soldiers. In footballing terms I don't think believe it is any different to wearing a black armband.

So no I don't agree with Fifa's ban.

Is that not in and of itself political?

No not really. I think a greater mind than mine has to clarify what a political symbol is.

The Hammer and Sickle I would argue is a symbol now synonymous with Communism, ergo Political Symbol.

The Swastika (to channel Godwin) a symbol of the Nazi party, political.

What political stance does the Poppy allude to?

fidbod

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The issue is whether the Poppy is a political symbol.

No it is not.

It is an internationally recognised symbol of remembrance for fallen soldiers. In footballing terms I don't think believe it is any different to wearing a black armband.

So no I don't agree with Fifa's ban.

Is that not in and of itself political?

As an aside, I thought that it was only remembrance of dead commonwealth soldiers. Where the money goes backs that up.

Gotta disagree that the act of remembrance is political. for me at least it is a recognition of the fact the soldiers were ordered into battle and didn't come back alive. We recognise the simple act of courage needed to go to battle and also the second order impacts that a soldier being sent to war has.

I think it is very far from a political act it ranges from a sense of empathy for someone like me who is not directly connected to the military to a moment of morning for those who are affected.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The issue is whether the Poppy is a political symbol.

No it is not.

It is an internationally recognised symbol of remembrance for fallen soldiers. In footballing terms I don't think believe it is any different to wearing a black armband.

So no I don't agree with Fifa's ban.

Is that not in and of itself political?

As an aside, I thought that it was only remembrance of dead commonwealth soldiers. Where the money goes backs that up.

No not really. I think a greater mind than mine has to clarify what a political symbol is.

The Hammer and Sickle I would argue is a symbol now synonymous with Communism, ergo Political Symbol.

The Swastika (to channel Godwin) a symbol of the Nazi party, political.

What political stance does the Poppy allude to?

As I understood it, it is support for the British army.

Let's take a hypothetical example. A nation remembers the dead in a war, where said nation committed large amounts of atrocities. (I'm not saying the British Army has or hasn't, but just go along with me here). That could very easily create a diplomatic nightmare in an international football match - especially if the nation plays the other nation(s) involved in said war. That's what fifa want to avoid.

You can see how it's tricky. Not wearing them for a football match doesn't mean the footballers or the team don't support the cause.

As I and others have said, it's not like footballers have always worn them playing football.

MonkeyMonster

you could in theory probably trace any symbol to a "political" motive

Poppy afai concerned is as fidbod says - it's to recognise those who had to courage to go to war on behalf of those who couldn't or wouldn't (for whatever reason)

It can apply to all countries afaik who wish to honour that ideal.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The issue is whether the Poppy is a political symbol.

No it is not.

It is an internationally recognised symbol of remembrance for fallen soldiers[/b.

Is that not in and of itself political??

Except it is

If you believe it's worn as a symbol of remembrance of fallen soldiers then you must accept that it's a symbol of rememberance for 'our' soldiers not 'their' soldiers. That makes it political. That isn't to say that is a bad thing.....it's just the reality.

In reality it's a symbol which has been adopted as a fundraising 'badge' to raise money for the British Legion to support 'our' soldiers. That isn't to say that is a bad thing.....it's just the reality.

The reason for the furore is driven by the tabloid press desire to sell newspapers. Part of this is the need to have a 'cause' to promote. The papers have decreed that it is socially unacceptable to be seen in November without a poppy on and will hound anyone who disagrees.That isn't to say that is a bad thing.....it's just the reality.

bigmat

The poppy is very clearly linked to World War 1 - poppies grew in Flanders' fields, they are worn in this country around the anniversary of the armistice. Certainly when I was growing up, they were worn in remembrance of those who died in the world wars (unofficially, those allied forces who died...). In recent years it does seem to have become a wider symbol relevant all who have died in war, but still I would argue those on our side.

Ergo, for any country that we have been at war against, the poppy is a political symbol. If the upcoming friendly was against Germany, I don't think FIFA's approach would be objected to quite so vociferously. To be honest, FIFA have got it right in this case. An international football shirt should be adorned with the national crest, a player's number, and the manufacturer's logo if you must. Anything else strays into the grey area of "is it or isn't it political" and should therefore be prohibited.

This whole shootstorm seems to be a remarkably convenient way of sweeping Terry's ill-thought comments off the back pages.

rick_chasey

In Northern Ireland poppies have become an issue.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/symbols/unionloyal.htm

Pretty sure in a Celtic Aberdeen match there was a banner that opposed the players wearing poppies.

It clearly can be a divisive issue, and FIFA don't want that.

rick_chasey

BigMat wrote:

This whole shootstorm seems to be a remarkably convenient way of sweeping Terry's ill-thought comments off the back pages.

Probably.

I feel it's part of a growing trend, whereby not wearing a poppy is becoming increasingly stigmatised in certain parts. You'd have to be pretty thick skinned to be a guest on BBC New in early November without a poppy...

DonDaddyD

The British Army is not a representation or a symbol of British Politics. By extension neither is the Poppy.

The Poppy does not represent politics, a political party or a political movement. The Poppy has nothing to do with British Politics, it has everything to do with British nationalism, which shouldn't and isn't banned by International Football.

The Poppy on a football shirt is no different to a black armband, both are symbols of remembrance. That's where their significance and meaning stop.

bigmat

Rick Chasey wrote:

BigMat wrote:

This whole shootstorm seems to be a remarkably convenient way of sweeping Terry's ill-thought comments off the back pages.

Probably.

I feel it's part of a growing trend, whereby not wearing a poppy is becoming increasingly stigmatised in certain parts. You'd have to be pretty thick skinned to be a guest on BBC New in early November without a poppy...

Absolutely agree, an environment has been cultivated where not wearing a poppy in November is more of a statement than wearing one. Perfect situation for the FA to exploit. I bet John Terry wears a poppy - he's very British you know. And I'm sure he's respectful to those who have fallen in war (as opposed to those who have fallen in terrorist attacks).

rjsterry

TailWindHome wrote:

If you believe it's worn as a symbol of remembrance of fallen soldiers then you must accept that it's a symbol of rememberance for 'our' soldiers not 'their' soldiers. That makes it political. That isn't to say that is a bad thing.....it's just the reality.

Why? Are people really so blinkered that they can't extend their respect to 'their' soldiers as well? Obviously that's a lot easier to say about past wars than current conflicts, and particularly if it's not your son/husband who hasn't come back alive, but still.

As for the football, yes, it's obviously a load of faux righteousness from the tabloids, and it's not as though anyone will think the England team don't support the cause because they aren't actually wearing poppies during the match.

davmaggs

Ok DDD, let's try another way of looking at this.

If the Russians decide that they want their dead/injured servicemen recognised on their arm and they play against Georgia (whom they invaded fairly recently and took those casualties) then do you think that the Georgians will be happy with a military remembrance being displayed?

FIFA decided years ago that these kinds of debates get very complicated so it is best to completely avoid and stick to playing football.

walkingbootweather

Pretty much anything can be adopted as a symbol. Take for instance the swastika, which was used innocently back to classical times before being adopted by Nazis in 1930s.The white poppyoriginally intended as an alternative or complementary to the red, has come to be associated with pacifists. It might be argued that the colour of the poppy worn is therefore significant.

I'm sorry, I think this is minefield (forgive the pun), and FIFA were on this occassion correct.

On TV, everyone (especially BBC) seems obliged to wear a poppy, yet walk down any street and probably no more than about 10% of the population is wearing one.

There are many ways of remembering the fallen, and symbols aren't necessary. There are more important things to consider than whether or not our footballers wear a poppy during the game (people in other professions might not wear a poppy for a variety of reasons), for instance whether or not our Captain is a racist.