Is a Poppy a Political Symbol.

ballysmate

Uefa Champions League brought to you by Gazprom.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/timothy ... 78666.html

UEFA - It is one of six continental confederations of world football's governing body FIFA

No politics there then.

ballysmate

But I suppose that is OK, because presumably Gazprom pay.

Tashman

Dinyull wrote:

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.

I guess it is, and from that statement it shows the political edge the poppy has acquired, as does this whole argument. I wear mine with pride as the son of a squadie, but that is my choice. THe players that wish to support the RBL are welcome to wear a poppy on their suits I'm sure

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Where else have they served?

mrfpb

Their is a dichotomy created by taking a symbol of remembrance that should represent the war dead and using it as a fundraiser for the veterans of one particular country. I have said before that I wear the red poppy as a sign of remembrance, but I have no family that have fought for Britain. As the offspring of Irish immigrants, maybe I should be up in arms about supporting the RBL, but I think the act of remembrance transcends that.

Me and my brothers (and our school friends in the Irish community) all reached the eligible age to join the army smack bang in the middle of the Troubles, but although one of my brothers was keen it was clear it couldn't happen as close Irish connections were a no-no.

It was made clear to us that signing up at that time was a guaranteed ticket to patrolling Northern Ireland, but a lot of sixteen year old's at the time didn't realise that. I don't hold the ignorance of sixteen year old's as a reason not to remember their service and sacrifice. As Tennyson put it "Theirs not to reason why... theirs but to do and die"

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

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).

"...typically British also inflict death & suffering..."

I see. So the Portuguese and the Germans and the French and almost every European nation (even the Swedes) and countless other nations have been 'inflicting pain and suffering' but we are not allowed to use the poppy as a symbol of our those who suffered!?

Pinno wrote:

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?

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I am not saying that the people may or may not have political ambitions - it's irrelevant. Those who served are simply the pawns in the bigger game - that is a good reason why we should remember them. You've heard the term 'canon fodder'?! Or should they have all been conscientious objectors - that would have stopped Hitler.

Pinno wrote:

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.

Rick Chasey wrote:

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

The poppies grew on the graves of the dead. Is there a better, more apt symbol of death through conflict? No.

Pinno wrote:

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

Rick Chasey wrote:

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

Oh hang on, Germany didn't bomb civilian populations in London, Coventry, Birmingham etc etc etc and there weren't U boats sinking food supply ships coming across the Atlantic. That's that moral relativism and the emotive creeping in and obfuscating debate again, isn't it?

Pinno wrote:

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.

Rick Chasey wrote:

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

You missed the point. I was making a point about subjectivity.

Pinno wrote:

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.

Rick Chasey wrote:

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?

Outside of FIFA, how many people have talked about the British players wearing a poppy at a football game or actively protested?! Besides, the Political Correctness inherent in somebody being insulted (you) on someone else's behalf is completely unfounded if no one was insulted in the first place. Simultaneously, the concept is flawed. Do you get offended when you see USA flags being burnt in the middle East or do you snigger and say to yourself "''they deserve it, those meddling Americans and their pesky US Foreign Policy" ? Ah, I wonder... There's no way you remain neutral on that point, so therefore, it's subjective. We are entitled to the subjectivity that is wearing a poppy.

Pinno wrote:

It...job.

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

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

No one mentioned absolute moralism - No idea where you got that from. I don't hear many detractors (apart from FIFA) and as we know, they hardly set high moral standards.
If there was an act of any description or a comment by a people in a foreign country which may or may not be insulting or offensive towards us, then that is their right. They may have good reason for it. I am not going to tell them not to do it and we have no right to tell them not to do it. I may not agree with it but that is their right.
The poppy isn't a call to arms or a symbol of revolution.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

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.

Good point.

I'm not sure that remembering the sacrifices of say the Luftwaffe or the Japanese military in trying to kill or torture our ancestors would go down too well.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

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.

Good point.

I'm not sure that remembering the sacrifices of say the Luftwaffe or the Japanese military in trying to kill or torture our ancestors would go down too well.

Isn't that FIFA's point?

England in theory could play football against any number of despotic countries and does play against nations Brits have fought and died fighting against (and visa versa).

It's not for the footballers to start making those points. It's their position to play football.

How is this not obvious? The fact it is a discussion in and of itself should demonstrate it's political.

Can anyone name a symbol beyond the logo of nationsl football team, the flags of the two teams who are playing and the sponsors logo that other nations have?

Japan is currently having a big debate about how it remembers its WW2 dead. I imagine plenty of nations would object to them putting a memorial symbol for that on their shirts.

pblakeney

Would I have a problem with a Japanese symbol glorifying war? Yes.
Would I have a problem with a Japanese symbol of remembrance for the fallen who were possibly sent against their wishes? No.

pinno

PBlakeney wrote:

Would I have a problem with a Japanese symbol glorifying war? Yes.
Would I have a problem with a Japanese symbol of remembrance for the fallen who were possibly sent against their wishes? No.

It is a very good point but therein lies relativity.

None of this relates to you directly Blakey but as RC refuses to be drawn on the subject (I think, because he knows he will fail), I am going to use it as a reference point. Introducing the concept of Moral Relativism is wholly necessary when analysing historical events. Although it is impossible to make perfect objective judgement, without considering the context of any particular event, we can stray into the infinite realm of subjectivity.

From basic philosophy: The bits that are underlined have been underlined by me.

"Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. It does not deny outright the truth-value or justification of moral statements (as some forms of Moral Anti-Realism do), but affirms relative forms of them. It may be described by the common aphorism: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”.

Moral Relativists point out that humans are not omniscient, and history is replete with examples of individuals and societies acting in the name of an infallible truth later demonstrated to be more than fallible, so we should be very wary of basing important ethical decisions on a supposed absolute claim. Absolutes also tend to inhibit experimentation and foreclose possible fields of inquiry which might lead to progress in many fields, as well as stifling the human spirit and quest for meaning. In addition, the short term proves itself vastly superior in the ethical decision-making process than the relatively unknown long-term.

Relativistic positions may specifically see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (Cultural Relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (Ethical Subjectivism). A related but slightly different concept is that of Moral Pluralism (or Value Pluralism), the idea that there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other (e.g. the moral life of a nun is incompatible with that of a mother, yet there is no purely rational measure of which is preferable).

An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning at all, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory. Some philosophers maintain that Moral Relativism dissolves into Emotivism (the non-cognitivist theory espoused by many Logical Positivists, which holds that ethical sentences serve merely to express emotions and personal attitudes) or Moral Nihilism (the theory that, although ethical sentences do represent objective values, they are in fact false).

Moral Relativism generally stands in contrast to Moral Absolutism, Moral Universalism and to all types of Moral Realism, which maintain the existence of invariant moral facts that can be known and judged, whether through some process of verification or through intuition."

The last point makes the distinction between Moral relativism and Moral absolutism. Something that Rick did not do which underlines his lack of knowledge regarding the subject. It is without doubt that Rick could easily fit the Moral Absolutist description (ironically). I do not know what perspective he is coming from except that it isn't humanist nor environmentalist nor philosophical.

rick_chasey

It's broadly irrelevant since the argument is about perceptions rather than reality given what we are discussing is a symbol which represents a given take on the past.

So it's not so much a discussion around how relativist or not one's take of the past is, more a simpler discussion around other interpretations of a British war related symbol beyond the UK and/or commonwealth shores.

It is a discussion of the current (I.e how the past is remembered) and not the past itself. It just relates to the past.

rick_chasey

If you want to go down the moral relativism route, you really need to think why that's pertinent to the basic question of 'is the poppy a political symbol?'.

That's not a moral question. In fact, I think that's where the problem lies; that it has been turned into a moral question (i.e. by saying anything that suggests the poppy can't be worn in certain instances is to cast moral judgement on the symbol), which is to miss the point. It isn't a moral question. That has nothing to do with it. It's irrelevant.

How people can't see that remembering the dead of active combatants on one side of a war (and therefore, by implication, not the other) isn't political is beyond me. If you can't see that, then arguing is a pointless task.

Keep banging on about how morally upstanding you are by wearing your poppy at inappropriate times if it makes you feel better. It won't bring back the dead.

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

If...
Keep banging on about how morally upstanding you are by wearing your poppy at inappropriate times if it makes you feel better. It won't bring back the dead.

.

On the contrary Mr Chasey:

pinno wrote:

So do you Rick Chasey, (because you can sit there retrospectively saying "tut tut tut" this was bad and that wasn't good and we're so much better now,) think you occupy a higher moral ground? I think you do.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yes.

As an aside, no one suggested that wearing the poppy would 'bring back the dead', what a childish thought. It's a symbol of memorial. A symbol to coincide with commemoration.

rick_chasey

I don't know where I've passed judgment on the past in this thread.

If this is to do with a previous debate we had over whether the British colonial Empire was justified then take it over there.

I'm saying the poppy is a political symbol because it's principally do with one nation's dead war dead. Specifically that anything rememberance of one side of war is inherently political because it is literally taking sides.

It can't not be.

If you want to point score on my apparent moral relativism in respect to History then go ahead, but that's beside the point.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

How people can't see that remembering the dead of active combatants on one side of a war (and therefore, by implication, not the other) isn't political is beyond me. If you can't see that, then arguing is a pointless task.

Not for one moment have I ever considered the memorial to be on one side only.
I think the poppy is to remember ALL the fallen, ergo not political for me.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

How people can't see that remembering the dead of active combatants on one side of a war (and therefore, by implication, not the other) isn't political is beyond me. If you can't see that, then arguing is a pointless task.

Not for one moment have I ever considered the memorial to be on one side only.
I think the poppy is to remember ALL the fallen, ergo not political for me.

Sure but even the act of war is itself political, and a) given not the rest of the world does this specific rememberance and b) it's underpinned fundamentally by the British Legion, it's difficult from the outside to see it as anything but.

And in the context of this - international sport - that is relevant.

rick_chasey

And, fwiw plenty do take sides, hence the discussion of "our boys" and avoiding thinking about the SS soldiers who probably had it coming.

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't know where I've passed judgment on the past in this thread.

If this is to do with a previous debate we had over whether the British colonial Empire was justified then take it over there.

I'm saying the poppy is a political symbol because it's principally do with one nation's dead war dead. Specifically that anything remembrance of one side of war is inherently political because it is literally taking sides.

It can't not be.

If you want to point score on my apparent moral relativism in respect to History then go ahead, but that's beside the point.

You have just contradicted yourself:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Keep banging on about how morally upstanding you are by wearing your poppy at inappropriate times if it makes you feel better. It won't bring back the dead.

I do not wear a poppy. Too many people wear it because it 'is the right thing to do' or as a badge. But, they have a right just as Sikh's wear a Turban and some may construe the Turban as a symbol of conflict because it doubled up as head protection.
I am not gong to tell Sikh's not to wear a Turban - it is their choice.

I do not associate the poppy with the British Legion. I associate it with the killing fields and the graves of the first world war. Others may see it differently - it is their choice to. No one is correct as we are in the sphere of subjectivity and I do not have the right to tell people not to wear it.

If it was a direct symbol of conquest or victory then I might be opposed to it but we can't run around telling people what to think or wear just because someone, somewhere may find offence. That is the problem with Political Correctness - it's as arbitrary as the very thing it's trying to oppose. Hypocrisy in action.

Garry H

Rick Chasey wrote:

And, fwiw plenty do take sides, hence the discussion of "our boys" and avoiding thinking about the SS soldiers who probably had it coming.

1) Are you asking if British soldiers during WWII held the moral high ground over those who volunteered to fight on behalf of an organisation that, at it's heart, had the annhiliation of the Jewish people (among others) as it's philosophy?

2) Are you actually Jeremy Corbyn?

rick_chasey

Mate, what are you on about? Is this about me or question?

Who's taking offence? The question is, is it political? I've seen a few people say "I don't think it is to me", and that's broadly it.

You think because the way you interpret it means that the rest of the world should see it that way. But you're being a bit narrow minded if you think that that's how the rest of the ought out to perceive it. Especially, in the international context, it will literally be seen by a whole bunch of nations who won't see it in the way you do. That's just practical. That you can't see it's political beyond your own narrow interpretation is your issue, not FIFA's.

It's not bowing down to political correctness. It's not about being politically correct. Being politically correct means you don't refer to your gay colleague as a 'poofter' or hand your black colleague a spear and a zebra skinned shield for the office fancy dress party. And quite right too. But that's not what this is about. It's not about offence. You're the only person talking about being offended and insulting people.

I'm answering the question. It's political, for the reason I've said.

rick_chasey

Garry H wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

And, fwiw plenty do take sides, hence the discussion of "our boys" and avoiding thinking about the SS soldiers who probably had it coming.

1) Are you asking if British soldiers during WWII held the moral high ground over those who volunteered to fight on behalf of an organisation that, at it's heart, had the annhiliation of the Jewish people (among others) as it's philosophy?

2) Are you actually Jeremy Corbyn?

I'm illustrating the point that it's political. In that I don't believe people when they say they think about "all soldiers and all who died in wars" because, fundamentally, a lot of bad people do die in wars who don't deserve any memory. Ergo, it's political.

rick_chasey

I just can't see how a single nation's war dead memory can't be political in an international context, however well meaning it is. I haven't heard anything persuasive. Just some BS about me being moralistic or morally relative, which I think misses the point.

Garry H

Don't you think then, perhaps, it may simply just mean different things to different people? Some see it as absolutely political (Our lot beat you lot), some may just see it as a way of commemorating the sacrifice of long lost relatives and others of similar background.

sungod

the two aren't mutually exclusive

Garry H

sungod wrote:

the two aren't mutually exclusive

Not necessarily, I agree. If only I could draw a Venn diagram...

rick_chasey

Garry H wrote:

Don't you think then, perhaps, it may simply just mean different things to different people? Some see it as absolutely political (Our lot beat you lot), some may just see it as a way of commemorating the sacrifice of long lost relatives and others of similar background.

Clearly. But I'm not talking about people's individual meanings. Nor is the question asking that!

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

How people can't see that remembering the dead of active combatants on one side of a war (and therefore, by implication, not the other) isn't political is beyond me. If you can't see that, then arguing is a pointless task.

Not for one moment have I ever considered the memorial to be on one side only.
I think the poppy is to remember ALL the fallen, ergo not political for me.

Sure but even the act of war is itself political, and a) given not the rest of the world does this specific rememberance and b) it's underpinned fundamentally by the British Legion, it's difficult from the outside to see it as anything but.

And in the context of this - international sport - that is relevant.

You really are trying to make this difficult. And trying to make things political.
It is a remembrance for the fallen. Not the war itself. And certainly not for those who started it.

If anything, international sport is much more political. By it's nature it is divisive and "us" against "them".
Any symbol, any item, can be made to be political. If you wish it to be so.

pblakeney

A tenuous link to cycling.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... ode=fhsp20

Garry H

Youm mean your interpretation of the question.

ti_yred

Christ I've read some stuff on the internet in my time but this really raised my eyebrows...

Is the poppy a political symbol?

In my opinion (just mine), as someone who served in the British Army and whose Great Grandfather served and died at the Battle of Arras in 1916, the Poppy is not political. It is simply a symbol of remembrance. That's it.

Both my Great Grandfather and I chose to join up, my Great Grandfather enlisting at the age of 36 in 1915 leaving behind a wife and three children to do what he felt was right, I, securing a guaranteed vacancy at 15 1/2 and joining straight from school. Not because of my Great Grandfather ( I had no knowledge of him at this time) but because I wanted to serve my country as a Soldier.

We both served in conflicts, him in Northern France, me in the first Gulf War and Northern Ireland.

I wear the poppy to remember him, three lads I served with and died in different places at different times and all the others who served and suffer the mental scars of their service.

I have PTSD. I live with it and with depression as a result of my service. I am not alone.

The poppy allows me to demonstrate my feelings of loss and sorrow for my fellow servicemen.

It, like many other symbols (the swastika is a good example) have been hijacked for many means.

Sod all the pshrink stuff and all the philosophy. Next time you see a veteran wearing a poppy - ask them what it means to them. You wont get political or philosophical answers. You'll be told its to remember. Their comrades in arms. Their friends who served. Ask them - you will get an honest answer whether you like it or not.