Poppies and the "Heroes Industry" ?

[jean]

What's wrong with the white one ?

I used to think it was the obvious choice, but as it makes a statement in opposition the red one, you do have to be sure that the red poppy has only one meaning, and that glorifying war.

I became convinced - and it's clear from this thread - that the red poppy is capable of multiple meanings.

For that reason, some people wear one of each.

[french frank]

I became convinced - and it's clear from this thread - that the red poppy is capable of multiple meanings.

Yes, a flaw in the argument is that what it has become for one person (or many people) is what it has become for all people. And that is 'What it means' or 'What it has come to mean'. Some people are buying a poppy, as they might buy a lifeboat emblem: to support a charity; some people are wearing a poppy in a rather vague feeling of remembering sombre events in this country's past; some people wear them as a matter of routine, as they send Christmas cards at Christmas; some people wear them because their employers tell them to. I don't think (m)any people wear them to procaim how glorious war is or to celebrate victory over the enemy.

But is there an underlying aim to manipulate people into believing that war is necessary and is undertaken, always, for the noblest of reasons - to secure freedoms for the population and the defeat of evil? And, above all, that wars are always 'won'? In that sense, is it merely a PR exercise to ensure that whenever a war is undertaken, it will have the backing of the population?

What I do think is that a lot of rage has been fomented (rightly so), particularly over recent wars (but also as a result of historical research): the causes, the aims, the bungling (as ever), the deceit and the resultant (unnecessary) suffering. This is what the poppy has come to represent over the years for some people. But not all.

[ahinton]

Yes, a flaw in the argument is that what it has become for one person (or many people) is what it has become for all people. And that is 'What it means' or 'What it has come to mean'. Some people are buying a poppy, as they might buy a lifeboat emblem: to support a charity; some people are wearing a poppy in a rather vague feeling of remembering sombre events in this country's past; some people wear them as a matter of routine, as they send Christmas cards at Christmas; some people wear them because their employers tell them to. I don't think (m)any people wear them to procaim how glorious war is or to celebrate victory over the enemy.

But is there an underlying aim to manipulate people into believing that war is necessary and is undertaken, always, for the noblest of reasons - to secure freedoms for the population and the defeat of evil? And, above all, that wars are always 'won'? In that sense, is it merely a PR exercise to ensure that whenever a war is undertaken, it will have the backing of the population?

What I do think is that a lot of rage has been fomented (rightly so), particularly over recent wars (but also as a result of historical research): the causes, the aims, the bungling (as ever), the deceit and the resultant (unnecessary) suffering. This is what the poppy has come to represent over the years for some people. But not all.

Ample good sense here, for which many thanks. I cannot be certain if indeed there is an "underlying aim to manipulate people into believing that war is necessary and is undertaken, always, for the noblest of reasons - to secure freedoms for the population and the defeat of evil" or that "wars are always 'won'" but, if either is the case, it would be no more and no less then a cynical ploy that needs constant exposing for just what it is; it is certainly not the intent that most people would expect to be behind the selling of poppies in remembrance of war dead and is quite obviously another quite different agenda from that. The "PR exercise to ensure that whenever a war is undertaken, it will have the backing of the population" that you mention might well be part of any such cyncal ploy and it is this which I understand Richard to me when he refers to a PR exercise. Wars are never really 'won'. Had he survived into his early 90s, one might, for example, wonder what Elgar would have felt towards his friend Strauss about the British desecration of Dresden, but I suspect that such feelings would be mired in deep shame and embarrassment rather than representative of the gleeful crowing of the 'victor' nation...

[eighthobstruction]

Ample good sense here, for which many thanks. I cannot be certain if indeed there is an "underlying aim to manipulate people into believing that war is necessary and is undertaken, always, for the noblest of reasons - to secure freedoms for the population and the defeat of evil" or that "wars are always 'won'" but, if either is the case, it would be no more and no less then a cynical ploy that needs constant exposing for just what it is; it is certainly not the intent that most people would expect to be behind the selling of poppies in remembrance of war dead and is quite obviously another quite different agenda from that. The "PR exercise to ensure that whenever a war is undertaken, it will have the backing of the population" that you mention might well be part of any such cyncal ploy and it is this which I understand Richard to me when he refers to a PR exercise. Wars are never really 'won'. Had he survived into his early 90s, one might, for example, wonder what Elgar would have felt towards his friend Strauss about the British desecration of Dresden, but I suspect that such feelings would be mired in deep shame and embarrassment rather than representative of the gleeful crowing of the 'victor' nation...

....a particularly good view ff....

[Flosshilde]

Yes, a flaw in the argument is that what it has become for one person (or many people) is what it has become for all people. And that is 'What it means' or 'What it has come to mean'. Some people are buying a poppy, as they might buy a lifeboat emblem: to support a charity; some people are wearing a poppy in a rather vague feeling of remembering sombre events in this country's past; some people wear them as a matter of routine, as they send Christmas cards at Christmas; some people wear them because their employers tell them to.

And some people, I'm certain, wear them "to procaim how glorious war is or to celebrate victory over the enemy." The problem with wearing a poppy for a reason of one's own is that the person who, for example, wears one for the simplistic reason of celebrating victory or remembering 'heroes' is likely to ascribe the same reasons to others, & won't be aware of the subtleties of their reasons for wearing a poppy. Wearing any sort of emblem suggests that you endorse its simplest 'official' meaning. The complexities of ones personal ideas aren't apparent.

[jean]

And some people, I'm certain, wear them "to procaim how glorious war is or to celebrate victory over the enemy."

But that is not, in fact, the poppy's simplest 'official' meaning.

[MrGongGong]

I think it's impossible to wear an obvious symbol of something and proclaim that it's for a reason other than the one that it has come to symbolise.
I'm very fond of fish BUT if I put one of those fish logos on the back of my car everyone will assume that i'm some kind of evangelical Christian :YIKES:
I'm sure there are many who donate money but don't wear the badge.

[ahinton]

But that is not, in fact, the poppy's simplest 'official' meaning.

Stating that "some people...wear them 'to proclaim how glorious war is or to celebrate victory over the enemy' may not be incorrect, even though such proclamation and/or celebration is utterly wrong, but you are nevertheless correct to observe that this is not "the poppy's simplest 'official' meaning" - nor indeed should it be so, since it is supposedly a symbol of remembrance of those who died as a consequence of war; wearing one as such a remembrance symbol does not of itself constitute any kind of endorsement of the declaration of or participation in war and I have no doubt that many who do wear it at this time of year deplore wars past and present.

[french frank]

But that is not, in fact, the poppy's simplest 'official' meaning.

Unless it's the one you happen to believe is the 'simplest'.

[jean]

But it is not 'official'.

It is never stated by the British Legion or any organ of the State, or of any other state, that it is.

I find this image quite moving. Am I just being naive?

[Serial_Apologist]

I think it's high time this anti-war opera, composed starting in 1917 by a British composer of working class origins, was re-broadcast.

http://www.havergalbrian.org/thetigers.htm

http://www.havergalbrian.org/thetigers_1.htm

[amateur51]

Well Mr.GG, once again I am reminded why I have put you on ignore and I am cursing myself by breaking my own rule and choosing to view your post, simply because the title of your thread immediately got my blood boiling. As an ex-forces man myself, I know how much Remembrance weekend means to those who served in the forces,and to their families, in war time and peacetime. You only need stand at the Cenotaph on Sunday, as I have done many times, or in the Albert Hall on Saturday evening as the Poppies fall from the roof, to understand that.

But you never will, because you seek to cheapen everything with your cynicism. You cannot accept that people wear their Poppies as a mark of respect and remembrance for those who have died, and are dying still. This is not about politics. It is about showing respect and remembering for those who have died in the service of our country. It is as simple as that. And of course the Poppy Appeal raises large sums of money which go toward the work of the British Legion to care for veterans, and the families of those deceased and gravely injured. Oh, and your columnist is wrong- Remembrance Sunday is for the dead of ALL wars,as he should know if he had bothered to pay the slightest attention. If he can't even get such a basic fact right, he should stay in his ivory tower and not trouble us with his reprehensible views.

It is what- two weeks in the year, if that, when you and your ilk have to put with this offensive display of Remembrance, and every year, the same shit comes out from the same quarters.

I'll tell you what, matey:- An RAF Policeman that I knew was killed in Iraq. Why don't I introduce you to his parents, so that you can try this spiel on them. Perhaps then you would understand.....

Christ I am glad I have you on ignore, but I just had to respond to this. You should be ashamed of yourself, and so should that pathetic excuse for a journalist.

Although I am kicking myself for viewing your post, I promise you I shan't make the same mistake again.

It's a shame that such a dignified and thoughtful discussion has to be spoiled by this post.

This is exactly why we're all here in the dungeon.

[MrGongGong]

I think it's high time this anti-war opera, composed starting in 1917 by a British composer of working class origins, was re-broadcast.

http://www.havergalbrian.org/thetigers.htm

http://www.havergalbrian.org/thetigers_1.htm

indeed

[amateur51]

But it is not 'official'.

It is never stated by the British Legion or any organ of the State, or of any other state, that it is.

I find this image quite moving. Am I just being naive?

Not in my view.

[amateur51]

I think it's high time this anti-war opera, composed starting in 1917 by a British composer of working class origins, was re-broadcast.

http://www.havergalbrian.org/thetigers.htm

http://www.havergalbrian.org/thetigers_1.htm

A masterpiece is revived ...

http://www.stratfordeast.com/oh-what-a-lovely-war