....to ask what you think of white poppies (Remembrance-related)?

[PlumpingUpPartridge]

I had been dimly aware of the existence of white poppies but hadn't really given them much thought until DH mentioned them this weekend. I checked out the website and saw this:

linky

I liked this quote:

"In 1933 the first white poppies appeared on Armistice Day (called Remembrance Day after World War Two). The white poppy was not intended as an insult to those who died in the First World War - a war in which many of the white poppy supporters lost husbands, brothers, sons and lovers - but a challenge to the continuing drive to war. The following year the newly founded Peace Pledge Union began widespread distribution of the poppies and their annual promotion."

I am very happy to express my admiration and respect for those who died in wars, but I don't particularly want to see any more wars. I don't know what the alternative is, but I'd like to see more effort go into finding it.

I've been sifting through the threads and noticed some anti-white poppy feeling (along the lines of 'it's disrespectful'). I didn't grow up here so don't have childhood experience to guide me on this. Please can you tell me what you think of it and, if you think it's disrespectful, why?

I'm not a journalist by the way, just curious and trying to be impartial

Fairy - he also knew he would get good pay and a good pension. And he got the choice to decide whether he wanted to do this or not. Conscripts got none of that. And had the near certainty they would be involved in war and perhaps just the hope they would be primarily involved in humanitarian efforts or non-fighting/non-danger roles (my father volunteered, he wasn't conscripted, and while he was in a non-fighting role (initially. He was issued with arms when he was in Burma but never had to use them) it wasn't a non-danger role.

I'd like to know what the political statement being made by red poppy wears is too please, no-one seems to have answered that.

I'm wearing mine in remembrance and gratitude. As are most of the people I know. Who is wearing it as a political statement, and what is that statement?

The RBL doesn't 'assume' it is the custodian of Remembrance. It is. That honour was bestowed upon them around the same time it reformed under Royal Warrant.

London alone has donated a million pounds so far in poppy sales - well done London. Seems an awful lot of people donating simply to make a 'political statement' doesn't it?

There is nothing political about the poppy or Remembrance Day, that slur is only ever brokered by people who refuse to wear one for themselves for their own political reasons.

The RBL is not the custodian of remembrance. Remembrance is not within the crown's gift.

The repeated statements from some people that the red poppy is not political just confirm my own view that it is often worn by the unthinking.

oftern worn by the unthinking

And yet, celticlass2 hasn't answered my questions around the Iraq war and what she would have had the personnel deployed there do.

Good pay? Are you seriously having a laugh? Do you have a clue? Honestly you know nothing! Don't mention pensions yet either because they are just about to be messed with!

It's so good in the Forces, that I've just paid £109 for a cooking stove for DS1 because they don't provide one, not even a basic one. So it's either that or eat cold ration packs when you are camping out in the Winter! Oh, yes he paid £129 for his day sack! He had to pay for his own compulsory track suit, to the tune of £60, in the first week of training. He has to have name tags oh his uniform. Guess what? He has to buy them.

They had a shortage of kit when he joined, he didn't get enough pairs of boots. His feet were always wet,so he ended up with a foot infection. DH and I, and he, have bought so much kit for him that in years gone by they would have been given but they aren't now!

Like I say, if people stop choosing to join, we will go back to conscripts. Would you rather that?

The RBL doesn't 'assume' it is the custodian of Remembrance. It is. That honour was bestowed upon them around the same time it reformed under Royal Warrant.

Who bestowed that honour on them please, eve? I don't believe that anyone has the right to call themselves the custodian of Remembrance or to tell anyone else that that is their job.

The difference (as posted upthread) as I see it is (copied and pasted)...

*Isn't the difference between those who have made their own decision about joining the forces, understanding all that that entails, and those who were conscripted and very ill-prepared?

I am not saying that both don't deserve remembrance, but that there is a material difference in the reasons for individuals going to war.*

It's all about personal choice.

I've never ever seen anyone wearing a white poppy, not heard of them or purple poppies until this thread.

Celtic, you appear to be explicitly comparing British troops with Nazis & calling that the truth.
If that's your view of the truth, you are woefully ill informed.
Drawing a distinction between conscripts & volunteers is misguided - were it not for the volunteers there'd still be conscription.
The ranting about the Legion grows ever shriller. It reminds me of Churchill's aphorism "a fanatic is one who can't change their mind but won't change the subject."

Celticlass2. The argument of the so called 'Nuremberg Defence', "I was just following orders" does not apply to Iraq or Afghanistan.

During the Nurmeberg Trials it was decided quite rightly that only those with sufficient knowledge and access to the national decision making process could be held accountable for the crimes of a country. That is why leading members of the Nazi Party and the SS were put on trial, not ordinary soldiers of the Wehrmacht as they did not have the knowledge or control of circumstance to be liable for the invasion of Poland, the Holocaust etc.

If the same ordinary soldier of the Wehrmacht had however taken an active role in killing Jews or civilians in France for example, then that is a crime they could be held liable for as it was within their power to affect.

The difference is clear.

Therefore transferring that principle to Iraq, the average soldier in the British Army cannot be held responsible for a crime for taking part in the invasion of Iraq even if the invasion later turns out to be illegal, however if while in Iraq they knowingly killed civilians then they are guilty of war crimes and should be dealt with accordingly.

Would any of the poppy wearers/RBL supporters care to address the point I made?

So, because someone went off their own bat and wasn’t made to go, they’re less worthy of remembrance somehow? By that logic that applies to anyone who signed up pre-1916 (and those from Ireland throughout both wars). Plenty of those men left behind well paid, professional jobs to earn a bloody pittance, freezing half to death, being infested with lice, away from their friends and family. They went because they felt it was their duty to go, not because they were obliged to.

Thinking that soldiers now sign up knowing what they’re signing up to- do you think they hand them a crystal ball in the recruitment office? Someone signing up in 2000 for a four year period (standard afaik) was pretty unlikely to be aware that war would be declared on Iraq within that time, or even the overthrowing of the Taliban in Afghanistan before that. Even if you decided that you didn’t agree with the war that had cropped up, refusing to serve would mean you’d lose your job, your home, pension, and potentially your freedom; how many people here would do that? Who knows what could happen in the next few years. New recruits are going in now knowing that our involvement in Afghan is at an end, as is the Iraq War. Those promoting appeasement in the late 30’s weren't to know what was lurking around the corner, so why don’t we allow soldiers the same benefit of the doubt?

Janine, I'm not sure that it's possible to address your point - you say that you believe the bad deeds conducted by the British forces outweigh any good that they have done. I disagree, though I think the use of ex soldiers as auxiliaries in Ireland in the 20s was a policy that wasn't thought through.
On the other side of the coin I'd suggest defending Britain from German aggression twice, liberating Europe from occupation, protecting the citizens of Belize, Bosnia & Kosovan, seeing fair play in Rhodesia for the elections, liberating the Falklands, peacekeeping in Cyprus, anti drugs patrols in the Caribbean, providing air/sea rescue cover for the UK, aid during the tsunami, aid in the foot and mouth crisis, the recent floods & mountain rescue, just off the top of my head.
Humanitarian work by fighting forces.

Janine

I don't know enough about that time/The Troubles to comment.

I could talk of guidelines the Army are told to follow when engaging but I'm sure evidence could be provided where the opposite happened in NI. If you want to link to any information on a 'semi official policy', I'd be keen to take a look to understand more.

What I will say is this. There are good soldiers and bad soldiers (and airmen/women and naval personnel.. but we always default to the Army in these discussions which must be intensely annoying to the others).

Lots of people hero worship Alexander Blackman. I think he should be jailed for a very long time and cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would think any differently. Same with Danny Nightingale.

That doesn't mean I can't remember the 'good guys' on one day a year and show support for them... With the knowledge that there are some 'bad guys' too... As in any walk of life.

Off the top of my head: the British imperial project, which was made possible by the British armed forces. The empire was made possible through military conquest and maintained through brute force. Many, many societies still bear the scars of that conquest and the centuries of oppression and exploitation.

And the 'few bad apples' doesn't hold up in the Irish case. The military authorities considered reprisals against civilian populations natural, lied about their extent and actually praised the soldiers for their restraint. (note: this was the British Army, not the Auxiliaries, which is a whole other, even more shameful kettle of fish).

The military authorities considered reprisals against civilian populations natural, lied about their extent and actually praised the soldiers for their restraint.

What period of time are you talking about?

I don't hold the whole of the military responsible for the poor actions of a few. Many hundreds of thousands have passed through the military in the last 100 years, the vast majority of them, by far, have been good people.

You shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush.

One of the nice things about the white poppy is that it allows the focus to be on the individual not on the institution.

My nephew is in the army and has done the tours to Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest. Yes, that means he is regularly going into danger, and his parents dread the knock at the door every day.

However, he's the first to disclaim any idea that he and his colleagues are all heroes, and points out that they get a lot of benefits out of it. For instance, he's been taught to drive big lorries and has an HGV licence - that's training that would cost thousands out in the big world and will stand him in good stead when he leaves the army. Because he has subsidised living costs, he's been able to buy a house - most of his contemporaries have no hope of that. And he points out that a lot of his colleagues enjoy going on tours of duty: yes, they may get shot at, but they get to play with lots of boys' toys, they don't have to deal with the daily grind of child care, shopping etc, they get their meals put in front of them and entertainment laid on, and they get boasting rights when they come back.

He doesn't see why they should claim any special virtue in relation to their work conditions and susceptibility to having their leave cancelled, because there are plenty more public service jobs where the same applies.

And he reckons that his mates who have been injured very much appreciate people who donate to support them, but they're really not bothered whether they wear a bit of red paper.

Janine, do you hold the whole of the Irish/Northern Irish people to blame for the atrocities committed by the IRA/UVF?

Re- custodians of Remembrance. When the BL became the RBL it was asked to become the National Custodian of Remembrance (note the capital R) for the nation - ie to coordinate donations made, poppies made and sold, ceremonies arranged, the Cenotaph ceremony etc. As National Custodians they, their members and their employees bring Remembrance Day to the Nation so that councils/Local Authorities/Parliament etc don't have to.

But the crown doesn't have 'rememberance' in its gift.

There is a difference between remembrance (verb) and Remembrance (noun) is the point I think Eve is trying to make.

The IRA/UVF were not the forces of the state, Eve. Unlike the British Army.

meoverhere the 1920s.

The British Army NOW are not the same British Army as THEN Janine - so I don't judge (or withhold help from) service people of today because of the actions of service people (following the instructions of the Government) back then. Holding grudges isn't my style.

Meoverhere, that's right

Eve is making the point she always makes. my typing ability and the limitations of my iPad mean that capitalisation doesn't always happen and I'm fine with that.