Is a Poppy a Political Symbol.

kingstongraham

mrfpb wrote:

I wear the red poppy, but I find my stomach turns at any memorial or service that makes reference to "our glorious dead." Where on earth did the 'glorious' bit come from?

From here?

https://allpoetry.com/The-Fourth-Of-August

"For us the glorious dead have striven,
They battled that we might be free."

FishFish

In the service they are glorified. 'Glorious' is a way of saying that without using a perjorative term. English is language where subtlety can be used.

cycleclinic

I think poltics needs to take a holiday. In qt last night people where talking past each other. Huey morgan and zanny talked alot sense to me (my views ard similar) but those who disagreed did not seem to listen. They just came back with there point of view and so it repeats. Debate is meant to be about changing peoples minds. All to often in poltics and the politics of symbols people are talking different languages it seems and the arguements are just exchanged with no development. Some The auidence last nighg went there it seemed to argue. There view point is fixed. If so why bother going. Debate is not about shouting the loudest, it is about persuasion but since many people only get there news and opinion now from voices that sound and think like them there view points become so entrenched that debate is impossible.

pblakeney

thecycleclinic wrote:

I think poltics needs to take a holiday. In qt last night people where talking past each other. Huey morgan and zanny talked alot sense to me (my views ard similar) but those who disagreed did not seem to listen. They just came back with there point of view and so it repeats. Debate is meant to be about changing peoples minds. All to often in poltics and the politics of symbols people are talking different languages it seems and the arguements are just exchanged with no development. Some The auidence last nighg went there it seemed to argue. There view point is fixed. If so why bother going. Debate is not about shouting the loudest, it is about persuasion but since many people only get there news and opinion now from voices that sound and think like them there view points become so entrenched that debate is impossible.

Sums up this site quite succinctly.

Frank the tank

Stevo 666 wrote:

What a load of bollox. Tell F.I.F.A to F.O

Not very often we agree, but on this occasion!

It would not be so bad if F.I.F.A. were a paragon of honesty/fairness.

pinno

Frank the tank wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

What a load of bollox. Tell F.I.F.A to F.O

Not very often we agree, but on this occasion!

It would not be so bad if F.I.F.A. were a paragon of honesty/fairness.

...with huge undertones of politicism.

tangled_metal

QT lost it's way decades ago with the retirement of the old bigwigs. I seem to remember panelists used to debate based on their own views, now the politicians all spout party line. The "independents" all side one way or another. There's a rare independent on it like huey. Even the audience is partisan. The worst of the QT shows have the audience loaded with people obviously from one party or organization. I'm sure I've seen UKIP and union/socialist/momentum loaded audiences before.

pinno

The main problem is Dimbleby. He shuts down on anything that isn't 'in the script'. I think if there was a different chair, the program would be mush better.

finchy

I always wear the poppy, but for once I'm going to side with FIFA here. If one of the British teams gets to wear a symbol of remembrance, then so can any other country in the world. What happens when you get two countries playing each other with a history of conflict? Germany v Poland, Czech Republic or Greece? Russia v Ukraine, Hungary or Georgia? Japan v China? England v Ireland? India v Pakistan? And say that one of the teams wanted to wear their symbol of remembrance for this match because it's their equivalent of Remembrance Sunday - you could quite easily end up with a war of words ("they're glorifying their murder of our people", etc.) before the match starts, a build up of nationalistic tensions and finally violence in the stands.

Unless they do this on a match-by-match basis, deciding which nations deserve to wear symbols, and which ones don't, which matches are too sensitive and which ones aren't, then you have to ban them all. And I don't think that FIFA is awash with expert historians and diplomats who could make that sort of call.

Somehow we coped for years without the England or Scotland team wearing poppies at this time of year. Why do they suddenly have to start now? These acts of remembrance should remain national affairs, they aren't appropriate for international events.

FishFish

I completely agree with finchy. FIFA got it right but use of the term 'political' was wrong.

tangled_metal

It's football ffs! Stop watching it and get into rugby union or league instead. There's more important matters like Trump, Syria and Brexit going on. Well the last one might not be happening we just aren't allowed to know in case it affects our bargaining position!

chris_bass

I agree with Finchy too, in this case it would have been ok to wear poppies but FIFA have to look at all possibilities and treat them the same. You can't let some countries wear symbols and others not. It isn't like if the England football team doesn't wear a poppy then anyone will change the way they feel about anything or remember/recognizse anything 'better'. If anything the whole fuss surrounding this has brought more attention to the appeal than anything else could have.

kingstongraham

If they don't wear poppies for me, I think I might forget.

chris_bass

KingstonGraham wrote:

If they don't wear poppies for me, I think I might forget.

forget what?

dinyull

Luckily for me, one of our neighbours has a flag pole with a "Lest we Forget" flag flying.

St Georges flag the other 11 months of the year...

finchy

Chris Bass wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

If they don't wear poppies for me, I think I might forget.

forget what?

Who are you and what are you doing in my house?

awavey

did I blink and not see it properly,, but was the Cookie Monster actually wearing a poppy on the One Show tonight ?

mrfpb

FIFA now taking it much further:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38077727

(Investigating Wales and NI FAs for fans wearing poppies)

How to make themselves popular!

rick_chasey

Tashman wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

I wear the red poppy, but I find my stomach turns at any memorial or service that makes reference to "our glorious dead." Where on earth did the 'glorious' bit come from?

Glorious meaning worthy is my interpretation. As in their worthy sacrifice

So presumably you're not "remembering" those who were on the other side of the battles in which the 'glorious' Brits died?

Or was their sacrifice also worth it?

--

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tashman wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

I wear the red poppy, but I find my stomach turns at any memorial or service that makes reference to "our glorious dead." Where on earth did the 'glorious' bit come from?

Glorious meaning worthy is my interpretation. As in their worthy sacrifice

So presumably you're not "remembering" those who were on the other side of the battles in which the 'glorious' Brits died?

Or was their sacrifice also worth it?

--

Assuming that "good" overcome "evil", then no. But you will find that most people involved had no hatred for their opposite numbers. Japanese excluded. War is sad. End of.

ballysmate

Must admit that my thoughts are with "our" sacrifices. The ceremonies invariably take place at a cenotaph in little towns and villages up and down the country with the names local people who died carved in memoriam.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tashman wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

I wear the red poppy, but I find my stomach turns at any memorial or service that makes reference to "our glorious dead." Where on earth did the 'glorious' bit come from?

Glorious meaning worthy is my interpretation. As in their worthy sacrifice

So presumably you're not "remembering" those who were on the other side of the battles in which the 'glorious' Brits died?

Or was their sacrifice also worth it?

--

Assuming that "good" overcome "evil", then no.

In which case, it's easy to see why it could be construed as political.

I mean, I know people from around Northern Ireland for whom, to their relatives, the poppy is a sign of the British oppression, specifically in relation to bloody Sunday. To them wearing a poppy would be an insult to those who were killed in it.

So you can see why it's not a neutral memory and why it is political, and so FIFA rules with an even hand in that respect.

rick_chasey

What I do object to is the literal abuse people in the public eye get for not wearing one.

None of anyone's business.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

In which case, it's easy to see why it could be construed as political.

I mean, I know people from around Northern Ireland for whom, to their relatives, the poppy is a sign of the British oppression, specifically in relation to bloody Sunday. To them wearing a poppy would be an insult to those who were killed in it.

So you can see why it's not a neutral memory and why it is political, and so FIFA rules with an even hand in that respect.

I can see where that would come from but I think it is flawed.
The poppy (to me) is a remembrance for those who died in war. We were not at war in N.I.

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tashman wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

I wear the red poppy, but I find my stomach turns at any memorial or service that makes reference to "our glorious dead." Where on earth did the 'glorious' bit come from?

Glorious meaning worthy is my interpretation. As in their worthy sacrifice

So presumably you're not "remembering" those who were on the other side of the battles in which the 'glorious' Brits died?

Or was their sacrifice also worth it?

--

The poppy represents a symbol of memorial for the British people (some parts of Northern Ireland aside). It's how we pay respect to those who died.
Men and women got sent into war. They aren't the politicians. They are not responsible for the decisions that lead them there. You could analyse every conflict that ever happened, does this diminish the deaths of those who served just because the conflict they were involved with was on a dubious premise?
The poppies grew on the graves of those who died in the carnage of the first world war. Perhaps it symbolises both the futility of war and the ineptitude of the 'Donkeys' who ordered them to 'go forth'. For me the poppy represents just that - the lions lead by Donkey's and the crass and the horrific, the mindless, the futility, the seemingly cold and careless manner to which millions were sent to their death in the stodgy ebb and flow of the ground based stalemate of the trenches.
Those men died for little reason. We should have simply guarded the front because the naval blockade was far more influential and critical to it's outcome.
So there you have it. My subjectivity is borne from studying the first world war. K Clarke, AJP Taylor, Schama et al and therefore that subjectivity recognises the poppy as a symbol of the 'great war'. For others, it may be different but that is erroneous and flawed.

So is this another case of someone getting insulted or offended on some one else's behalf when I have heard nothing from anyone foreign or in any foreign press about the home nations wearing the poppy at a football game?
It is not a representation of political decisions, it is not a representation of Empire (god forbid), it is not a representation of victory - if someone one wants to see it that way without consideration of the fact that we see it as a symbol which represents those who died, for whatever political reason in whatever particular conflict, then that is their subjective opinion. You cannot legislate nor make decisions based on the possibility of a the subjective.

Now, if the poppy was a symbol of conquest, that may be a different matter but for the most, it is not and attempting too distort the poppy as a symbol of conquest is rather disingenuous and quite frankly, insulting to those who died and those families that lost one of their own.

It's high time, you: Rick Chasey and I had that discussion about moral relativism.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

In which case, it's easy to see why it could be construed as political.

I mean, I know people from around Northern Ireland for whom, to their relatives, the poppy is a sign of the British oppression, specifically in relation to bloody Sunday. To them wearing a poppy would be an insult to those who were killed in it.

So you can see why it's not a neutral memory and why it is political, and so FIFA rules with an even hand in that respect.

I can see where that would come from but I think it is flawed.
The poppy (to me) is a remembrance for those who died in war. We were not at war in N.I.

British legion money still goes to those British soldiers who were stationed there.

Tashman

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tashman wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

I wear the red poppy, but I find my stomach turns at any memorial or service that makes reference to "our glorious dead." Where on earth did the 'glorious' bit come from?

Glorious meaning worthy is my interpretation. As in their worthy sacrifice

So presumably you're not "remembering" those who were on the other side of the battles in which the 'glorious' Brits died?

Or was their sacrifice also worth it?

--

I never said that at all. It's just my interpretation of the language. Personally I think FIFA had a point with their original point, as it was England vs Scotland thouigh it really wasn't going to affect anybody else, but investigating the fans is out of order

rick_chasey

Tashman wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tashman wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

I wear the red poppy, but I find my stomach turns at any memorial or service that makes reference to "our glorious dead." Where on earth did the 'glorious' bit come from?

Glorious meaning worthy is my interpretation. As in their worthy sacrifice

So presumably you're not "remembering" those who were on the other side of the battles in which the 'glorious' Brits died?

Or was their sacrifice also worth it?

--

I never said that at all. It's just my interpretation of the language. Personally I think FIFA had a point with their original point, as it was England vs Scotland thouigh it really wasn't going to affect anybody else, but investigating the fans is out of order

Well which is it?

rick_chasey

Pinno wrote:

The poppy represents a symbol of memorial for the British people (some parts of Northern Ireland aside). It's how we pay respect to those who died.

Yes. It’s how Britain remembers its own war dead. In wars, where typically British also inflict death & suffering on the other side (‘cos that kinda the point).

Men and women got sent into war. They aren't the politicians. They are not responsible for the decisions that lead them there. You could analyse every conflict that ever happened, does this diminish the deaths of those who served just because the conflict they were involved with was on a dubious premise?

In the context of ‘is the poppy a political symbol’ I don’t really see how this is relevant. The people involved may or may not have political ambitions. But the act of war is inherently political.

The poppies grew on the graves of those who died in the carnage of the first world war. Perhaps it symbolises both the futility of war and the ineptitude of the 'Donkeys' who ordered them to 'go forth'. For me the poppy represents just that - the lions lead by Donkey's and the crass and the horrific, the mindless, the futility, the seemingly cold and careless manner to which millions were sent to their death in the stodgy ebb and flow of the ground based stalemate of the trenches. Those men died for little reason.

Right. Who’s said otherwise? No-one is arguing this.

We should have simply guarded the front because the naval blockade was far more influential and critical to it's outcome.

in that Britain was starving Germany & Austria-Hungary ; and so by definition were killing some of them

My subjectivity is borne from studying the first world war. K Clarke, AJP Taylor, Schama et al and therefore that subjectivity recognises the poppy as a symbol of the 'great war'. For others, it may be different but that is erroneous and flawed.

We all had to study them at school, and I also studied them at Uni. Big deal.

So is this another case of someone getting insulted or offended on someone else's behalf when I have heard nothing from anyone foreign or in any foreign press about the home nations wearing the poppy at a football game?

Now, if the poppy was a symbol of conquest, that may be a different matter but for the most, it is not and attempting too distort the poppy as a symbol of conquest is rather disingenuous and quite frankly, insulting to those who died and those families that lost one of their own.

Which is it Pinno? Do you not like people getting insulted on other people’s behalf, or are you insulted on behalf of those who died and their families?

It is not a representation of political decisions, it is not a representation of Empire (god forbid), it is not a representation of victory - if someone one wants to see it that way without consideration of the fact that we see it as a symbol which represents those who died, for whatever political reason in whatever particular conflict, then that is their subjective opinion. You cannot legislate nor make decisions based on the possibility of a the subjective.

It’s a remembrance symbol for those who died on one side of a war, and not the other. More specifically, it’s a symbol that is used by the British Legion to raise funds for their own (former) soldiers. Those same soldiers who may or may not have been involved in killing people from other countries as part of their job.

It's high time, you: Rick Chasey and I had that discussion about moral relativism.

It’s high time that you understood that your absolute moralism doesn’t work in a world which is relative. Just because you think it’s not political, doesn’t mean the rest of the world doesn’t.

To be crystal clear, no-one here is saying it’s something that ought not be remembered. The question is it appropriate in international sporting events? What’s remembrance got to do with football or sport generally? Why does remembering the dead soldiers have to happen at an international sporting event?

dinyull

Tashman wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tashman wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

I wear the red poppy, but I find my stomach turns at any memorial or service that makes reference to "our glorious dead." Where on earth did the 'glorious' bit come from?

Glorious meaning worthy is my interpretation. As in their worthy sacrifice

So presumably you're not "remembering" those who were on the other side of the battles in which the 'glorious' Brits died?

Or was their sacrifice also worth it?

--

I never said that at all. It's just my interpretation of the language. Personally I think FIFA had a point with their original point, as it was England vs Scotland thouigh it really wasn't going to affect anybody else, but investigating the fans is out of order

Sectarianism is still alive and well in some parts of Scotland.