Remembrance Sunday is very important to me. My home island was invaded by the Germans in WW2, 13 of whom lived in my childhood home. During my childhood when the gun was sounded for the silence at 11 am, it was expected that all traffic was halted until the gun went off again at the end of the two minutes. My husband and I always respect the silence.You have a very interesting history Floo, I find the period of silence incredibly moving and respect it whenever I can .
At our war memorial, there is one prayer - only one, following last post and floors o the forest.
No-one is forced to pray or stay at the point, the silence having been observed.
Prayers are led by the minister, or a priest of the RC church, or a lay person - depending on the committee who organise the 15 minute ceremony.
Those who wish may then attend worship in the Kirk - thirty feet from the war memorial.
I'm not comfortable with the flags and stuff either - my grandfather fought in the Somme and swore if he ever got near a butchers' apron (union jack) again, he's wipe his a***e with it.
The british national anthem is played at the end of the kirk service after the benediction...for those who wish to acknowledge it.
Many of us sit down instead...that REALLY miffs the Orangemen....the only time the kirk will allow them to wear their 'finery' (for want of a better word( in a Sunday service.
FTR My grandfather fought at the Somme too. Grandfather ended the war as a Corporal, and was wounded twice. He turned down "fast track" promotion to Captain, since the mortality rate of officers was so high.
I empathise with your reaction, Walter. To be honest I struggle though with the use of Remembrance Sunday as a sop of caring by successive govts and political parties.yes, all that sticks in my throat too
I can only repeat my musings of a couple of years ago. Remembrance Sunday was increasingly an older persons commemoration until the Falklands War, which brought the experience of war to another generation. More recently, another generation still, has experienced war first hand, in Bosnia, and in Afghanistan.yes , as a kid at school I fiercely debated against remembrance Sunday as it appeared to glorify war .
Yes there is still a place for Remembrance Sunday. My objection is to the likes of the Murdoch newspapers using the same as an excuse to "bang the drum", and to try to sully anybody who has reservations about the role of our military as some kind of fifth column traitor. I hope that they will prove me wrong this year.
This is where it gets complicated, HWB.
My grandad, born in 1889, was raised RC. He fought in the Somme in 1917....and was jstill of an age to be be recalled....to the least likely thing an RC would do....he was a black and tan in Ireland!
Talk about crazy mixed up kid?
Mind you, unless you wanted to go down the pits, there was nothing else for it, and serving there was a lot less dangerous than going underground, I suppose!
Black and Tan? Could he not have made a conscientious objection?
Should not be dominated by religionI agree - I think that Remembrance commemorations shouldn't become religious services by the back door - as those that died were from all religions and none.
I have attended many cenotaphs and military parades and silently stood in proud remembrance of the fallen on active service until the point the religious people suddenly take over the proceedings . To me it felt like a jolt , a slap in the face , one minute I'm remembering my dad , granddads and uncles and for no apparent reason the assembled crowd are expected to pray to some god or other . At that point I leave and go to the pub.
The act of remembrance totally ruined and usurped . I find it outrageous .
Something else I don't like is the 'mission creep' - I think the November Remembrance events should remain (as they used to be) about those that fought and died in the two world wars - not every British solider in every war and hostility. Why - because both the scale of the slaughter and also that most in the world wars were conscripts, not professional soldiers makes those two wars completely different to all those since.
That seems to treat people's deaths as significant only as part of some question of size. It seems to argue that a death on the Somme is worth more than any number in Basra. It seems to me an oddly dehumanising argument.I don't think so - the scale is important as it is that element that is dehumanising - hence the basic notion of Remembrance - to have the opportunity to remember all those who died in the world wars when the industrial scale of the slaughter means we cannot ever remember them all individually. This nods to the whole concept of the tomb of the unknown warrior - again another key part of the original remembrance.
don't you think that would be like sayingNot really - my personal opinion is that the traditional November Remembrance should be for those who fought and died in the world wars as their scale is totally different to other more recent conflicts. To suggest some kind of equivalence somehow demeans the 'never again' message.
'you can only member dads father at the cenotaph , not your uncle Tom'
Does the Korean war not count?
Something else I don't like is the 'mission creep' - I think the November Remembrance events should remain (as they used to be) about those that fought and died in the two world wars - not every British solider in every war and hostility. Why - because both the scale of the slaughter and also that most in the world wars were conscripts, not professional soldiers makes those two wars completely different to all those since.
Does the Korean war not count?I'm not saying that other conflicts shouldn't be commemorated - but not at this time - the November commemoration should be for the 2 world wars.
There were about 100,000 Brits involved in that conflict with around 1000 casualties.
Not really - my personal opinion is that the traditional November Remembrance should be for those who fought and died in the world wars as their scale is totally different to other more recent conflicts. To suggest some kind of equivalence somehow demeans the 'never again' message.
Not really - my personal opinion is that the traditional November Remembrance should be for those who fought and died in the world wars as their scale is totally different to other more recent conflicts. To suggest some kind of equivalence somehow demeans the 'never again' message.Except surely the 'never gain' message is precisely demeaned by the wars after it, and degrades their specific individual sacrifice?
I think Remembrance Sunday should remember not only those who died in WW1 and WW2, but all the wars since then as well.We disagree then
We disagree then
Except surely the 'never gain' message is precisely demeaned by the wars after it, and degrades their specific individual sacrifice?Not really - quite the reverse - while we simply add the next war and the next British service death (however rare) we somehow create a culture where we simply accept war as a way of life (albeit now professionalised and in far off places) and that all is kind of OK so long as we 'remember' them once a year.
I'm not saying that other conflicts shouldn't be commemorated - but not at this time - the November commemoration should be for the 2 world wars.I was more thinking along your conscripts point.
And again 1000 deaths over a 3 year period is incomparable to 20,000 in one day - there were almost certainly more deaths in the first hour of the Somme than in the entire Korean war.
Not really - quite the reverse - while we simply add the next war and the next British service death (however rare) we somehow create a culture where we simply accept war as a way of life (albeit now professionalised and in far off places) and that all is kind of OK so long as we 'remember' them once a year.
The other problem to my mind is the focus away from the world wars and towards recent conflicts shift the focus away from remembrance and toward a more jingoistic approach to 'big up' our troops. Turning it into something more akin to armed forces day rather than remembrance.
It is clear that others here don't agree - but that is my view - the traditional remembrance commemorations should be for the world wars only.
Not really - quite the reverse - while we simply add the next war and the next British service death (however rare) we somehow create a culture where we simply accept war as a way of life (albeit now professionalised and in far off places) and that all is kind of OK so long as we 'remember' them once a year.thanks prof
The other problem to my mind is the focus away from the world wars and towards recent conflicts shift the focus away from remembrance and toward a more jingoistic approach to 'big up' our troops. Turning it into something more akin to armed forces day rather than remembrance.
It is clear that others here don't agree - but that is my view - the traditional remembrance commemorations should be for the world wars only.
I don't think so - the scale is important as it is that element that is dehumanising - hence the basic notion of Remembrance - to have the opportunity to remember all those who died in the world wars when the industrial scale of the slaughter means we cannot ever remember them all individually. This nods to the whole concept of the tomb of the unknown warrior - again another key part of the original remembrance.
The death toll in more recent wars is small enough for individual remembrance.
So in 14 years fighting in Afghanistan 450 British service personnel died - in the first day of the Battle of the Somme 20,000 died (probably disproportionately in the first hour) - you cannot compare the two.
There is also, in my view, a key difference between a soldier who has freely chosen a career path in the armed forces fully recognising the dangers (but also presumably recognising the benefits of that career) and a conscript given no choice whatsoever.
I think the idea that because you can remember someone individually means their death is less important is morally repugnant. You seem to want to say 'hey, because not enough people died at the same time as you, you aren't as important'Where did I ever say that? I didn't.
yes , as a kid at school I fiercely debated against remembrance Sunday as it appeared to glorify war .
It wasn't until my early 20s I began to see things differently, I cant put a finger on why , maybe I just grew up or perhaps the massive physical trauma I experienced may have had some impact on my thinking.
Where did I ever say that? I didn't.Hoe does being part of a larger number preclude individual remembrance? Why do you want people to make a special effort for some but not others?
In fact it is entirely the opposite - to allow those whose deaths were too numerous to be remembered with the same level of respect as those whose deaths were rare enough to allow individual remembrance.
I understand that because used to feel the same as you & then experienced a shift in thinking.Why should Walter stop attending because people want to make it about religion and exclude the dead and their mourners who aren't? Why would a memorial service for those who died have exclusion as part of it?
I don't watch the Remembrance service on telly, it's too long & I find it boring when I have switched on but each to their own. No-one is obliged to attend a Remembrance service or ceremony so I'd say if you don't like or approve, don't go or watch.
Hoe does being part of a larger number preclude individual remembrance? Why do you want people to make a special effort for some but not others?Because it is simply impossible to give such a large number the individual remembrance that you can for a small number - and indeed in many cases the dead are simply unknown and their deaths personally unmarked and unmarketable - hence the concept of the unknown warrior.
Why did you wrote so many words to ignore the question? There are millions who died in the world wars who are individually remembered.Read my post.
And as for those killed in all other conflicts, are they all given the Wootton Basset treatment?They are currently and I suspect will be from now on, unless we end up in a mass slaughter conflict.
And even if they are why does that make their sacrifice different? Or indeed mean that they are individually remembered at any specific time?Where did I say their sacrifice was different - read my post - I said that the dead of recent wars get individual respect and remembrance impossible for those who died in the mass slaughter world wars - hence it is, in my view, right and proper that the traditional remembrance events should distinctly focus on those for whom the current individual levels of respect is and was impossible.
Why should Walter stop attending because people want to make it about religion and exclude the dead and their mourners who aren't? Why would a memorial service for those who died have exclusion as part of it?
Read my post.
They are currently and I suspect will be from now on, unless we end up in a mass slaughter conflict.
Where did I say their sacrifice was different - read my post - I said that the dead of recent wars get individual respect and remembrance impossible for those who died in the mass slaughter world wars - hence it is, in my view, right and proper that the traditional remembrance events should distinctly focus on those for whom the current individual levels of respect is and was impossible.
I wear a poppy.Likewise - but always a traditional paper one. I'm not a fan of these glitzy poppies that people buy and use year after year.
I'm not saying that other conflicts shouldn't be commemorated - but not at this time - the November commemoration should be for the 2 world wars.Actually, I would say there have been three World wars. The Napoleonic wars were just as wide ranging in global scope as WW1 and just as significant in terms of their outcome. We seem to have forgotten about the people who fought and died in that war.
And again 1000 deaths over a 3 year period is incomparable to 20,000 in one day - there were almost certainly more deaths in the first hour of the Somme than in the entire Korean war.
Perhaps it is that I don't see it as some sop to make me feel better about tragedy.Nor do I - far from it.
I think singling out the dead as somehow different because some stranger stood on a road as their coffin past by as not really that important in terms of their actions or suffering. I think the compartmentalizing in this way is indulgent and a bit creepy. It allows people to mouth the pabulum of 'never again' while voting in and supporting govts that piss upon that.But the whole notion is already compartmentalising - remembrance events are effectively always about service personnel deaths, and even then just 'our' service personnel deaths.
Actually, I would say there have been three World wars. The Napoleonic wars were just as wide ranging in global scope as WW1 and just as significant in terms of their outcome. We seem to have forgotten about the people who fought and died in that war.At least four - the Seven Years War was also global.
Nor do I - far from it.I note your attempt to poison the well by making some stuff up about my motivation. I disagree with you but I respect it is your opinion. And ultimately this disagreement is meaningless when placed against one death, mourned or not. How we stop the continual march to slaughter is more important.
But the whole notion is already compartmentalising - remembrance events are effectively always about service personnel deaths, and even then just 'our' service personnel deaths.
I am really not interested in your tit for tat arguments - I think I have made my view pretty clear - for me Remembrance Day is about remembering the mass slaughter of the world wars - and in doing so I try to remember all those that died - service and civilian, British and non British (including the countless 'enemy' death, who just like our troops were simply doing what they were told). I try also to reflect on the horror and waste of that carnage and to use that to shy away from any kind of celebratory or jingostic approach.
It leads me to reflect on the fact that we must be very careful about committing to war, and actually to reflect too that in our new mechanised age the deaths from war tend to be disproportionately civilian and rarely 'our' personnel, which is again very different from previous wars. And that the fact that British service personnel may now be pretty unlikely to be killed in conflict should not make us think war is more acceptable as there are likely to still be countless victims who aren't our troops.
To me the world wars are different - due to the scale of the carnage and until another war comes along to match them (I hope it never does) then they will always be different in my mind.
I note your attempt to poison the well by making some stuff up about my motivation.I didn't and I'm not prepared to engage in that sort of tit for tat as I said previously. So discussion of that sort is now closed.
I disagree with you but I respect it is your opinion.I trust you mean respect my opinion - while disagreeing with it. That's fine.
And ultimately this disagreement is meaningless when placed against one death, mourned or not. How we stop the continual march to slaughter is more important.I agree and I do worry that in today's world it is very easy to engage in wars that provide the minimum of risk to British service personnel, zero risk to the wider population, while creating carnage for the innocent local populations in places that we may bomb from afar.
I didn't and I'm not prepared to engage in that sort of tit for tat as I said previously. So discussion of that sort is now closed.You stated that I was doing this as part of a tit for tat argument. I don't think it is, nor do I think that us your motivation. So if you want to retract that accusation, then hurfeckinrah.
I trust you mean respect my opinion - while disagreeing with it. That's fine.
I agree and I do worry that in today's world it is very easy to engage in wars that provide the minimum of risk to British service personnel, zero risk to the wider population, while creating carnage for the innocent local populations in places that we may bomb from afar.
You stated that I was doing this as part of a tit for tat argument. I don't think it is, nor do I think that us your motivation. So if you want to retract that accusation, then hurfeckinrah.I shan't be retracting anything as I don't feel there is anything in my comments that I need to retract.
Your last point I agree with completely but then we still elect people who like to sell arms and bomb people. And I don't see that changing with any mainstream party.True - that said I think the selling arms and bombing people are two separate issues. And actually while I accept that plenty of politicians might like to sell arms (as it creates jobs, influence and tax revenue for the UK) I don't think there are actually many politicians that like to bomb people - they may see it as necessary, but I don't image they like it.
I shan't be retracting anything as I don't feel there is anything in my comments that I need to retract.
By the way what on earth do you mean by hurfeckinrah - I suspect it may be peculiarly Scottish but I am nervous about stepping down that line.
True - that said I think the selling arms and bombing people are two separate issues. And actually while I accept that plenty of politicians might like to sell arms (as it creates jobs, influence and tax revenue for the UK) I don't think there are actually many politicians that like to bomb people - they may see it as necessary, but I don't image they like it.
That you don't feel it is worth retracting a misrepresentation is up to you.Given that I was giving my view on your and my recent posts how can it be a misrepresentation - unless I am somehow misrepresenting my own views.
As for hurfeckinrah. I take it you understand hurrah? And that you can interpolate a word? And the feckin is a softer, generally Irish take on fuckung? Then just put it all together.I understand.
Given that I was giving my view on your and my recent posts how can it be a misrepresentation - unless I am somehow misrepresenting my own views.I wasn't doing tit for tat. Do you want to retract that! Or are you saying I am lying?
I understand.
I wasn't doing tit for tat. Do you want to retract that! Or are you saying I am lying?So you claim - my view was that it appeared you were - hence my comment. Given that it was my view how can I be misrepresenting you? I could just as easily claim you are misrepresenting my view that it was tit for tat by claiming it wasn't. I tend, however, not to demand retractions and apologies at the drop of a hat.
So you claim - my view was that it appeared you were - hence my comment. Given that it was my view how can I be misrepresenting you? I could just as easily claim you are misrepresenting my view that it was tit for tat by claiming it wasn't. I tend, however, not to demand retractions and apologies at the drop of a hat.Yes, I state it wasn't my motivation, and you tell me that isn't true so ergo I must be lying. So again when you want to retract that get back to me.
Anyhow - off for a work dinner so not more tit for tat for a while, and no retraction of my earlier comments ever.
Yes, I state it wasn't my motivation, and you tell me that isn't true so ergo I must be lying. So again when you want to retract that get back to me.FFS , NS get over yourself.
FFS , NS get over yourself.Your problem, caller?
Your problem, caller?how about a nice cuppa tea and a cuddle mmwah !
how about a nice cuppa tea and a cuddle mmwah !The sad thing is that Prof D and I are disagreeing over something essentially meaningless while we kill people and sell weapons to have people killed by regimes that are disgusting
The sad thing is that Prof D and I are disagreeing over something essentially meaningless while we kill people and sell weapons to have people killed by regimes that are disgustingi can't fault that sentiment NS , perhaps the whole world could do with a cuppa tea and a cuddle
why should the focus be so clearly only on Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to the world wars. That really seems to make no logical sense.You have to be in your 40's to even remember the Falklands War. The focus is on Afghanistan and Iraq because most adults can remember them.
Either we give all equal billing (but we don't) or we accept that certain conflicts are so different to all the others that they deserve specific commemoration - and the only two that really stand out since 1914 are, of course, the world wars.If Remembrance Sunday is only for the two World Wars, we'll be able to wrap it up soon. It won't be many years before the last survivors are dead. Plus we are in the process of turning our backs on our European friends and the Great Project that arose from the ashes of the Second World War. We aren't worthy of the people we commemorate on Remembrance Day.
You have to be in your 40's to even remember the Falklands War. The focus is on Afghanistan and Iraq because most adults can remember them.
If Remembrance Sunday is only for the two World Wars, we'll be able to wrap it up soon. It won't be many years before the last survivors are dead. Plus we are in the process of turning our backs on our European friends and the Great Project that arose from the ashes of the Second World War. We aren't worthy of the people we commemorate on Remembrance Day.
You have to be in your 40's to even remember the Falklands War. The focus is on Afghanistan and Iraq because most adults can remember them.
If Remembrance Sunday is only for the two World Wars, we'll be able to wrap it up soon. It won't be many years before the last survivors are dead. Plus we are in the process of turning our backs on our European friends and the Great Project that arose from the ashes of the Second World War. We aren't worthy of the people we commemorate on Remembrance Day.
If Remembrance Sunday is only for the two World Wars, we'll be able to wrap it up soon. It won't be many years before the last survivors are dead.I think that is completely missing the point of Remembrance - don't forget that the primary purpose is to remember those that died - and in the case of WW1 those people have been dead for 100 years.
You have to be in your 40's to even remember the Falklands War. The focus is on Afghanistan and Iraq because most adults can remember them.But this shift away from the world wars towards other conflicts (any other conflicts) is, as far as I see, new. Sure the Falklands was is some 35 years ago now but back in the late 80s and early 90s it would have been as fresh in people's memories as Afghanistan/Iraq is now. But I don't remember in the late 80s and early 90s any significant focus of Remembrance Day on the Falklands (or Northern Ireland or even Iraq 1) - nope the focus was the world wars.
I think that is completely missing the point of Remembrance - don't forget that the primary purpose is to remember those that died - and in the case of WW1 those people have been dead for 100 years.Post of the week.
I was born 50 years after the Somme - I clearly therefore don't remember it - but it is critically important that as a society we create space to remember the industrial scale slaughter in the world wars - indeed I think it is perhaps more important that we do after all those who actually experienced it are dead - while they remain alive they can tell of the horrors - regardless of whether there are survivors left alive we must still remember, reflect and learn. The idea that we would simply 'wrap it up' soon once all the survivors of WW2 have died is appalling - we must continue to reflect and remember - only by doing this do we have any chance of learning.
I think that is completely missing the point of Remembrance - don't forget that the primary purpose is to remember those that died - and in the case of WW1 those people have been dead for 100 years.
I was born 50 years after the Somme - I clearly therefore don't remember it - but it is critically important that as a society we create space to remember the industrial scale slaughter in the world wars - indeed I think it is perhaps more important that we do after all those who actually experienced it are dead - while they remain alive they can tell of the horrors - regardless of whether there are survivors left alive we must still remember, reflect and learn. The idea that we would simply 'wrap it up' soon once all the survivors of WW2 have died is appalling - we must continue to reflect and remember - only by doing this do we have any chance of learning.
The point of Remembrance is to surely remember those who died in WW1, the war to end all wars, and all those who have died in wars since that unnecessary one.Until recently the focus was on the two world wars - and while there have been relatively small numbers of deaths in other conflicts they were not the focus. I think that is the right approach. The two world wars are so massively different to anything else that has happened since that they should be the specific focus for Remembrance events as they were until relatively recently. That's my view. I do not want Remembrance commemorations to slowly turn into a kind of 'armed forces day' - that has a very different focus and if people wish to include remembrance of those who died in other conflicts that can be the focus of armed forces day (or another time) - but 11th Nov, and the nearest Sunday should be about the dead of the two world wars.
Until recently the focus was on the two world wars - and while there have been relatively small numbers of deaths in other conflicts they were not the focus. I think that is the right approach. The two world wars are so massively different to anything else that has happened since that they should be the specific focus for Remembrance events as they were until relatively recently. That's my view. I do not want Remembrance commemorations to slowly turn into a kind of 'armed forces day' - that has a very different focus and if people wish to include remembrance of those who died in other conflicts that can be the focus of armed forces day (or another time) - but 11th Nov, and the nearest Sunday should be about the dead of the two world wars.
In your opinion, I think many people, if not most, would totally disagree with you.Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is mine. I think Remembrance day should return to its original meaning - which was from 1919 to 1939 remembrance of WW1 and from 1945 onwards of both world wars. The addition of 'and all other conflicts' is recent and in my opinion detracts from its significance by sort of suggest that all conflicts that British troops have been involved in since 1914 are somehow equivalent - I don't believe they are.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is mine. I think Remembrance day should return to its original meaning - which was from 1919 to 1939 remembrance of WW1 and from 1945 onwards of both world wars. The addition of 'and all other conflicts' is recent and in my opinion detracts from its significance by sort of suggest that all conflicts that British troops have been involved in since 1914 are somehow equivalent - I don't believe they are.
No, the idea is that deaths and suffering of the individuals is equivalent.But their numbers are so massively different to make the conflicts not close to being equivalent. You can argue till the cows come home which of the non world war conflicts since 1914 was the most tragic/significant etc, but the fact remains that the two world wars are orders of magnitude different to anything else since 1914.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is mine. I think Remembrance day should return to its original meaning - which was from 1919 to 1939 remembrance of WW1 and from 1945 onwards of both world wars. The addition of 'and all other conflicts' is recent and in my opinion detracts from its significance by sort of suggest that all conflicts that British troops have been involved in since 1914 are somehow equivalent - I don't believe they are.
But their numbers are so massively different to make the conflicts not close to being equivalent. You can argue till the cows come home which of the non world war conflicts since 1914 was the most tragic/significant etc, but the fact remains that the two world wars are orders of magnitude different to anything else since 1914.I didn't say the conflicts are equivalent. So why argue against a point that wasn't made?
There is also the point about conscripts vs professional soldiers who have chosen the military as a career. And if we carry on down that line why is the death of a professional soldier in the line of duty somehow different to the death of a police officer or firefighter in the line of duty.
Unbelievable! :o Fortunately it isn't going to happen.Why is it unbelievable - all I am arguing for is that Remembrance day returns to what it used to be - which was firstly remembrance of world war 1 and later of both world wars.
Why is it unbelievable - all I am arguing for is that Remembrance day returns to what it used to be - which was firstly remembrance of world war 1 and later of both world wars.
I am not asking you to agree with me (I doubt that you will) but hope that you will at least listen to my view and respect my right to hold such a view (as indeed plenty of people do).
I didn't say the conflicts are equivalent. So why argue against a point that wasn't made?Fair enough.
You are entitled to your view, but surely every death in all the wars since WW1 are just as tragic as those in that useless conflict, which propelled Hitler to power.But we don't remember every death in every war do we - Remembrance is restricted to the deaths of British (and commonwealth) service personnel.
I'd have thought if the primary aim is to remember those who lost their lives (or were severely injured) whilst on active service representing the UK and its allies (Commonwealth etc) then surely all the various conflicts are relevant in relation to this aim even if the scale of each conflict (and associated losses) and historical circumstances surrounding them do vary.
I'd have thought if the primary aim is to remember those who lost their lives (or were severely injured) whilst on active service representing the UK and its allies (Commonwealth etc) then surely all the various conflicts are relevant in relation to this aim even if the scale of each conflict (and associated losses) and historical circumstances surrounding them do vary.But the primary aim has changed over the decades.
But we don't remember every death in every war do we - Remembrance is restricted to the deaths of British (and commonwealth) service personnel.
if we are too increase scope I would prefer it to be all deaths - civilian or service and not just on 'our side' - as the death of a German conscript who had no choice in 1916 is also tragic regardless of our view on which side was 'right' - and certainly in the case of WW1 it is hard to argue that either was clearly on the right side.
And in a way you are right - we do need remember specifically the needlessness of the slaughter of WW1 and its role in the cause of WW2 - if we start to de-emphasis those world wars from Remembrance commemorations we are another step on the way to forgetting the lessons that we must learn from history.
Hear! Hear!But that is a relatively recent revision of the aims of Remembrance Day - that was never the original aim in 1919, nor the revised aim in 1947.
But that is a relatively recent revision of the aims of Remembrance Day - that was never the original aim in 1919, nor the revised aim in 1947.Stop women voting now, it's relatively recent!!!
Yeah because the people that were killed in the Falklands needed to be killed.Let me rephrase - needless slaughter on a massive scale.
Stop women voting now, it's relatively recent!!!I am simply pointing out (because it is quite possible that some people don't recognise this) that is was never the original intention, nor its revised intention following WW2 that remembrance commemorations should include conflicts other than the two world wars.
But the primary aim has changed over the decades.
It was established to remember those who died in WW1 and no other conflicts. That remained the case all the way through until 1947, when the aim was revised to cover both world wars, but again no other conflicts. At some point since then the notion of 'all other conflicts' came in, but this was never the original aim. I'm not sure when this happened - certainly when I was growing up (1970s and 80s) it was still only about the world wars as far as I recall. I haven't been able to find anything definitive, but I think there was some re-evaluation in the 1990s and the 'all other conflicts' part was added around then.
So I guess the debate is about what should be the primary aim - in my view it should be focussed only on the world wars as was originally intended. Others obviously differ in their views.
But that is a relatively recent revision of the aims of Remembrance Day - that was never the original aim in 1919, nor the revised aim in 1947.
History moves on ...Except that the whole point about Remembrance is not to move history on in a kind of 'well that was 100 years ago, history has moved on' way, but to remember and to continue to remember the slaughter on an unimaginable scale that occurred in the two world wars, and has not happened (thankfully) since.
and someone killed on active service in the Falklands is no less dead that than someone killed on active service in Flanders.Except that of course for each tragic service personnel death in the Falklands there were 5000 tragic deaths in the two world wars and 3,500 in the first world war alone. The two are simply not comparable.
If we are to stop to remember any of them then we should remember them all.But we don't - as even now we time out moving backwards at 1914 (or it may even be 1945 except for the world wars - I'm not clear) - why is a death in the Boer war somehow less worthy of our remembrance than a death in the 1920 Iraq conflict or one in Indonesia in 1948. So if we are to remember all, that that should be all, not all since 1914 (or is it 1945).
I am simply pointing out (because it is quite possible that some people don't recognise this) that is was never the original intention, nor its revised intention following WW2 that remembrance commemorations should include conflicts other than the two world wars.except you used it being relatively recent as an argumemt. I simply pointed out that it's a fallacious argument.
Clearly we disagree on whether that much later change was positive or negative but the comparison with votes for women is rather bizarre as I never claimed that all changes are negative - but it is my view that the change in focus of remembrance commemorations is.
Throughout my childhood the memory of WW2 was very much to the forefront as my home island had been invaded by the Germans. Mines were constantly being exploded on the beaches, and even to this day one will be discovered occasionally. Even though I lived with the aftermath of that conflict, and the people directly affected by it, I am still of the opinion all those who lost their lives and were maimed in subsequent wars should be included in Remembrance Sunday.Why not also those who died between 1918 and 1939, or before 1914?
except you used it being relatively recent as an argumemt. I simply pointed out that it's a fallacious argument.I am simply pointing out fact - that when officially set up in 1919 the commemoration was for WW1 only, when revised in 1947 it was extended to WW1 and 2 only. Relatively recently (I think the 1990s) it was changed again to include both world wars and I think (although this isn't exactly clear) other conflicts since 1945.
I am simply pointing out fact - that when officially set up in 1919 the commemoration was for WW1 only, when revised in 1947 it was extended to WW1 and 2 only. Relatively recently (I think the 1990s) it was changed again to include both world wars and I think (although this isn't exactly clear) other conflicts since 1945.
To point out this timeline is simply stating fact, to indicate that what we have now is not what was originally intended is also merely stating fact. To indicate that I think the approach post-1947 is the correct one is an opinion (which clearly other here disagree with) - there is no fallacious argument.
Except that of course for each tragic service personnel death in the Falklands there were 5000 tragic deaths in the two world wars and 3,500 in the first world war alone. The two are simply not comparable.
Let me rephrase - needless slaughter on a massive scale.
Also don't forget that every one of the service personnel that died in the Falklands was a profession who had chosen the armed forces as their career, obviously knowing full well that their primary role is to be in a conflict situation if required.
And again (whether you are implying this or not) one cannot claim some kind of equivalence between a conflict in which 256 service personnel died and one in which 885,000 died. The very fact that the latter is rounded to the nearest 1000 makes that point very clearly.
You seem to be equating the scale of the conflict with the importance of individual deaths: I don't get that I'm afraid, and I suspect the loved ones of those lost in the Falklands felt no less bereaved that the loved ones did for those lost in WW2.But the scale is important because you magnify that individual tragedy and feeling of loss 5000 times.
If the aim is to remember the fallen I can't understand we shouldn't remember all who fell.Including those before 1945 who didn't die in the world wars? They are currently not part of the commemorations - so the event already restricts and limits - it does not cover all who have died in conflicts, only some. So the discussion in a way is how we limit - we might differ in our opinion on that, but both my preferred approach and the current approach do limit those who are remembered. And to try to remember every single person who died in conflict ever would create something so nebulous as to be rather meaningless.
No the individual tragedy is not magnified. It is repeated and each one is worth remembering.But the scale means that the way in which you can commemorate necessarily has to change - see my post above.
But the scale is important because you magnify that individual tragedy and feeling of loss 5000 times.
But the scale means that the way in which you can commemorate necessarily has to change - see my post above.Not from the viewpoint of a nation. We have lits of people who have died defending it. We can commemorate the all the same here.
I think you are overthinking it: people will pause to remember those who fell, and in most cases those doing the remembering will have no personal connection to the fallen and nor will they be processing the numbers killed in each separate conflict - but nevertheless they will pause and reflect, and that is surely the whole point.I agree that each person makes their own decision about how they individually choose to mark (or not to mark) Remembrance events. But there is still the fact that it is an official event, and officially it is scoped in a particular manner and that is, in itself significant.
I agree that each person makes their own decision about how they individually choose to mark (or not to mark) Remembrance events. But there is still the fact that it is an official event, and officially it is scoped in a particular manner and that is, in itself significant.
I agree that each person makes their own decision about how they individually choose to mark (or not to mark) Remembrance events. But there is still the fact that it is an official event, and officially it is scoped in a particular manner and that is, in itself significant.to continue with this argument is futile . It is what it is and each individual will see it as they wish and attach emotion to it as it suits them . I don't remember ever discussing with any other individual what remembrance day means to them, I only care what it means to me .
It is of course both official and personal - and both matter. How each individual marks remembrance day is totally up to them - whether simply thinking about Uncle Bob who died in the Normandy landings through to thinking about all and every person who ever died in war.
It isn't just official though: people who can safely stop what they are doing will likely do so - I remember being in a supermarket one year when they announced the silence and everyone paused.
It is an expression of humanity on a personal level and, as such, the numbers don't really matter if each one matters.
Leaving aside the Prof's egregious use of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy as regards 'scope creep' leads to complaints about and possible actual politicisation of remembrance, it's worth noting that it's factually incorrect in terms of the history as illustrated by the white poppy appearing in 1926.I am well aware of the history of the white poppy, thanks very much - indeed have friends who choose to wear a white poppy now. This is not the only time in which there has been disquiet over politicisation of the Remembrance day commemorations - that doesn't mean that there isn't a debate about it currently (there is) and indeed to reappearance of the white poppy as an emblem of peace is testament to that debate. Actually your own article - albeit rather brief on detail, clearly indicates that the white poppy as a symbol has had two period of prominence (in both cases linked to disquiet about the polticisation/militarism of the commemorations) - one rather early in the history of the events (late 1920, perhaps through to the second world war) and another much more recently - largely in this century.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_poppy
I am well aware of the history of the white poppy, thanks very much - indeed have friends who choose to wear a white poppy now. This is not the only time in which there has been disquiet over politicisation of the Remembrance day commemorations - that doesn't mean that there isn't a debate about it currently (there is) and indeed to reappearance of the white poppy as an emblem of peace is testament to that debate. Actually your own article - albeit rather brief on detail, clearly indicates that the white poppy as a symbol has had two period of prominence (in both cases linked to disquiet about the polticisation/militarism of the commemorations) - one rather early in the history of the events (late 1920, perhaps through to the second world war) and another much more recently - largely in this century.
So you ignore the first time and say that your post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy is true because of you have excluded 50% of the cases.It was you that brought up the white poppy - I never mentioned it. And the white poppy is a symbol of pacifism - sure that is related to what I am talking about, but is far from the entire story. So there are plenty of people who aren't comfortable with how the scope and tone of the Remembrance commemorations have developed over the past decade or so but aren't pacifists - I am one of them, hence the reason I don't wear a white poppy unlike a number of my friends.
Tomorrow morning - the Sunday before Rememberance Sunday; we have a local tradition which started a few years ago and has gained in poularity.Very interesting AM - points well made. Certainly those that died in support of the war effort but not in the military don't get the recognition they deserve. And of course many were also, in effect, conscripts - this guy was told he was to serve in the army, the next guy that he was required to work in the mines.
We remember the miners who died in the twentieth century, particularly those in the local area, some of whise remains remain unrecovered, underground. Yes, our war memorial has far too many names on it...but when the total of those lost underground or on the surface is addrd up, that number surpasses it.
Tomorrow morning, two 'glennies' - miners lamps - will be lit and placed on the communion table in the Kirk for morning worship.
Then they will be carried and placed each side of an obelisk which commemorates the miners who died.
A wreath will be laid, silence observed, and a lement played on the pipes.
The sacrifice of lives to coal was every bit as final - and vital to the war effort.
Later in the afternoon, those ex-miners still fit enough, and some of the rest of us as well, will climb a small hill near the Kirk - not a natural hill; the 'bibg'; last remnant of the spoil from mining, now green and tree covered.
On top, two rough iron girders - part of a pit prop - are shaped into a cross - the 'miners cross'.
We'll lay a wreath and observe silencer; some of us wil
l pray as well.
There are many types of rememberance, and a lot to remember.
It was you that brought up the white poppy - I never mentioned it. And the white poppy is a symbol of pacifism - sure that is related to what I am talking about, but is far from the entire story. So there are plenty of people who aren't comfortable with how the scope and tone of the Remembrance commemorations have developed over the past decade or so but aren't pacifists - I am one of them, hence the reason I don't wear as white poppy unlike a number of my friends.
And given that my whole argument throughout this thread has been that the remembrance commemorations should be about the two world wars, rather than other conflicts - in other words the situation from 1947 to the 1990s then something from a period before that (the first main white poppy campaign) isn't really relevant.
I think that is completely missing the point of Remembrance - don't forget that the primary purpose is to remember those that died - and in the case of WW1 those people have been dead for 100 years.But why? They are all dead and it won't be long before most of the people that knew them will all be dead. We don't remember the people that died in the Napoleonic Wars or the Crimea do we and nobody complains.
I was born 50 years after the Somme - I clearly therefore don't remember it - but it is critically important that as a society we create space to remember the industrial scale slaughter in the world wars - indeed I think it is perhaps more important that we do after all those who actually experienced it are dead - while they remain alive they can tell of the horrors - regardless of whether there are survivors left alive we must still remember, reflect and learn. The idea that we would simply 'wrap it up' soon once all the survivors of WW2 have died is appalling - we must continue to reflect and remember - only by doing this do we have any chance of learning.So what you really want is a day to reflect upon the horror of war and what it does to people. I couldn't agree more and that is why its scope needs to be about more than just the British and Commonwealth soldiers who died in the two World Wars. In fact Remembrance Sunday actually falls short in respect of remembering "the industrial scale slaughter in the world wars" because we seem to gloss over what our country did to Dresden and Hamburg and what our allies did to a number of Japanese cities.
But why? They are all dead and it won't be long before most of the people that knew them will all be dead.But the whole point is that we are remembering the dead (most of whom died 100 years ago) regardless of whether we personally knew them. Heaven help us if we feel that commemorating the millions who died in the world wars somehow 'times out' 'We remember them' isn't meant to mean until their generation is all dead and we stop remembering them.
We don't remember the people that died in the Napoleonic Wars or the Crimea do we and nobody complains.True - but we never did - we would not be stopping an established commemoration. Also neither come close in scale to the industrial level slaughter in the 2 world wars.
My point is that, if you want Remembrance Sunday to remain relevant, it has to be about more than the people who died in the two biggest wars of the Twentieth Century.I disagree - even if you add the small numbers who have died in conflicts since 1945 which is the approach the deaths in the world wars massively dominate - they represent over 99% of the deaths being commemorated. So in effect what you are saying is that to make it relevant you have to focus on the 0.4% - if that is the case then we have a problem as a society.
So what you really want is a day to reflect upon the horror of war and what it does to people. I couldn't agree more and that is why its scope needs to be about more than just the British and Commonwealth soldiers who died in the two World Wars. In fact Remembrance Sunday actually falls short in respect of remembering "the industrial scale slaughter in the world wars" because we seem to gloss over what our country did to Dresden and Hamburg and what our allies did to a number of Japanese cities.I agree - the focus should not be on British service personnel deaths, but all deaths in the two world wars. But in this respect there is a much greater problem when we include more recent conflicts - with the levels of resources we have in our military it isn't uncommon that British service personnel can be involved in conflicts, barely see any casualties yet cause massive destruction and death.
Likewise - but always a traditional paper one. I'm not a fan of these glitzy poppies that people buy and use year after year.
Which is why most of the "glitzy poppies that people buy and use year after year" have the year that they were sold as part of the "glitz" so you can identify the cheepskate bastards!It reminds me of Red Nose Day. I bought my Red Nose for the first one and I hadn't lost it when the second one came around, but the gits changed the design, so if I'd worn it, it would be obvious that I was a tight fisted bastard.
My feeling - so it’s completely subjective - is that the rise in ‘poppy fascism’ has something to do with collective guilt at the futility of the conflicts we have been involved in.although I wear a poppy what pisses me off is the BBC who appear to insist that every man and his dog who appear on live telly MUST wear a poppy at all costs .
Which is why most of the "glitzy poppies that people buy and use year after year" have the year that they were sold as part of the "glitz" so you can identify the cheepskate bastards!There seems to be a new trend this year - the dual purpose campaigning poppy - as worn by Alex Salmond recently - effectively a poppy superimposed on a Scottish saltire - I mean WTF!
although I wear a poppy what pisses me off is the BBC who appear to insist that every man and his dog who appear on live telly MUST wear a poppy at all costs .I agree - it should be completely personal choice. Once people feel compelled to wear them the whole reason for them is devalued.
I imagine some sap of an intern running round the studios with a box of poppies pinning them onto anything and everything that's going to be in shot . I'm surprised they're not pinned on peoples backs just in case they turn round.
There seems to be a new trend this year - the dual purpose campaigning poppy - as worn by Alex Salmond recently - effectively a poppy superimposed on a Scottish saltire - I mean WTF!outrageous. Mind you its typical of that failed self promoting would-be king of Scotland . If I were him I'd be embarrassed to appear in public in the first place , never mind the 'poppy'
https://twitter.com/euanmccolm/status/528885956364206080
outrageous. Mind you its typical of that failed self promoting would-be king of Scotland . If I were him I'd be embarrassed to appear in public in the first place , never mind the 'poppy'You can even buy ones with the poppy next to the badge of your favourite football team.
You can even buy ones with the poppy next to the badge of your favourite football team.And poppies are now being described as 'Great gifts'
And poppies are now being described as 'Great gifts'Or how about a poppy poop bag holder for picking up dog turds!!
Since when did a symbolic marker of remembrance for those that died in the world wars become a 'gift'.
https://www.poppyscotlandstore.com
Or how about a poppy poop bag holder for picking up dog turds!!fuck me, they must have some fresh-out-of -uni prospective advertising agency executive on their books sitting in a little office coming up with 'blue sky thinking' money spinning ideas with no understanding or respect . Or maybe its just me?
https://www.poppyscotlandstore.com/poppyscotland-home-gifts/poppyscotland-pets/poppyscotland-poop-bag-holder.html
Always important that our pets remember the 1.2 million service personnel (that's just the British) who died in the world wars - or is this for all the animals that died!
You can also get a personalised Father's day mug!
fuck me, they must have some fresh-out-of -uni prospective advertising agency executive on their books sitting in a little office coming up with 'blue sky thinking' money spinning ideas with no understanding or respect . Or maybe its just me?No it isn't just you - but sadly this speaks volumes about the shift from what Remembrance used to be - solemn reflection and remembrance of those that died in the world wars and also to reflect on the horrors of war more generally, towards a 'get behind our boys (and girls)', 'show your support for our plucky troops' jingoistic patriotism and militarism. The irony being that jingoistic patriotism and militarism (in many countries) was a major factor in the cause of WW1 and the fall out from WW1 being the major cause of WW2.
I find the products odd (golf balls?) but if people buy them and it contributes to supporting ex service people, I'm not sure I can object. I note many of the football ones have sold out, and it's not a new thing to think of the two things as being connected, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0245n4h. It's either a good cause to you or it isn't and I am not sure there is a 'right' way to remember the dead. There feels an element of snobbism in the judgement.But the primary cause here is remembrance, not raising money. And given that virtually all of those remembered are themselves now dead (either during the world wars or subsequently) the need for fundraising is massively diminished compared to how it used to be. And if it about raising money for 'our boys and girls' - i.e. for current troops, then count me out as they are professionals and their funding does and should come from the tax payer. And otherwise there are new charities that specifically focus on current troops - most notable the massively successful 'Help for Heroes'. Sadly Remembrance and its campaign have kind of morphed into Help for Heroes with a more recognisable symbol, which I find sad.
I am uncomfortable with the use of flags or national symbols as worn by Salmond or Leo Varadkar ( http://www.thejournal.ie/leo-varadkar-poppy-shamrock-3684354-Nov2017/ ) but I don't remember a golden age when there was not a form of jingoism about remembrance. That England and Germany will at football match wear armbands, as Rhiannon posted, feels both right and wrong to me. As might be obvious, I am deeply conflicted on this. As a a pacifist, I struggle with how we approach this as it has always seemed too nationalistic to me.I am glad that you feel uncomfortable about this, but I find it tricky to reconcile this part of your post with the earlier part that claimed:
The primary cause in raising money from poppies isn't and has never been 'remembrance'. So that they sell the dog poop bag to raise money seems not really different to me.That is arguable not true as much of the money raised supports (or supported in the past) building and maintaining remembrance sites, educational activities and also events that allow ex-service personnel to visit the war sites, often also involving ex service personnel from the enemy.
That is arguable not true as much of the money raised supports (or supported in the past) building and maintaining remembrance sites, educational activities and also events that allow ex-service personnel to visit the war sites, often also involving ex service personnel from the enemy.
It is of course true that the monies also helped to support those injured or left behind, but the vast, vast majority of those are now dead (even if you allow for the mission creep of adding new conflicts from 1945 onward). In the 1950s (for example) there would have been literally millions of people who were close relatives of those that had died and in need of support or injured in conflict themselves. Today that number will have dwindled to perhaps a few thousand, and there are new charities specifically developed to support them anyhow.
Strangely when I wrote that I was deeply conflicted on this, that meant that I was deeply conflicted on it, so pointing out that I might be a 'tad conflicted' seems odd. I think though that there is a difference between something you might see as tasteless such as the dog poop bags and something that is about some form of nationalist statement.Sorry let me rephrase and perhaps you can clarify in case I have got that wrong.
Sorry let me rephrase and perhaps you can clarify in case I have got that wrong.
I took you comment that you were deeply conflicted about nation flags being included with the poppy - I was talking about the conflict between being uncomfortable about a poppy plus a saltire, but not about a poppy on a dog poo bag.
For the record I am uncomfortable about both - you are correct that conflating remembrance with nationalism (as in the saltire) is wrong, but I also think that taking such a poignant symbol and trivialising it in the manner of the dog poo bag is also wrong, firstly because its is disrespectful, but secondly because (just as with the national symbol) it fundamentally jars with what the poppy symbol is there to represent. Both are equally bad in my view.
As covered in the post as a pacifist there has always been elements of jingoism for me in out remembrance.Upthread the White Poppy was mentioned - its history is specifically linked to the pacifist movement. Out of interest as a pacifist, do you chose to wear a white poppy rather than a red one, as a number of my friends do?
That Germany and England are about to play a football match where they were armbands with poppies seems the right message but the wrong theatre.I think this is rather appropriate and poignant - and I think it is right that both sides will wear the poppy and hopefully that the dead from both sides in the world wars will be remembered. I think this is better than some previous (and somewhat confrontational) instances whether the English FA wanted unilateral wearing a the poppy and allowed Daily Mail-type plucky Brits against those diabolical foreigner narratives to develop.
Again if you support the 'cause' though it seems to me you end up accepting the dog poop bags if they work.Work as what - as a symbol of solemn remembrance - somehow I struggle to see how they can. If you mean by raising money - well of course they raise money - but the question then must be asked of an organisation, 'what are you raising money for' and also 'are all money-raising approaches fine, provided they bring in cash'. I think the British Legion is struggling with the first question, and I hope the answer to the second is - no - there are some things that we should not do (or sell) even if it raises money.
And again as I coveted while the football poppies seem odd, they aren't in terms of the history of teams like Hearts.Yes, of course I understand that - and it might be reasonable were these badges restricted to teams that had a particularly poignant connection to the WW1, but that isn't the case - you can get them for pretty well any club.
although I wear a poppy what pisses me off is the BBC who appear to insist that every man and his dog who appear on live telly MUST wear a poppy at all costs .
I imagine some sap of an intern running round the studios with a box of poppies pinning them onto anything and everything that's going to be in shot . I'm surprised they're not pinned on peoples backs just in case they turn round.
Upthread the White Poppy was mentioned - its history is specifically linked to the pacifist movement. Out of interest as a pacifist, do you chose to wear a white poppy rather than a red one, as a number of my friends do?
I think this is rather appropriate and poignant - and I think it is right that both sides will wear the poppy and hopefully that the dead from both sides in the world wars will be remembered. I think this is better than some previous (and somewhat confrontational) instances whether the English FA wanted unilateral wearing a the poppy and allowed Daily Mail-type plucky Brits against those diabolical foreigner narratives to develop.
Work as what - as a symbol of solemn remembrance - somehow I struggle to see how they can. If you mean by raising money - well of course they raise money - but the question then must be asked of an organisation, 'what are you raising money for' and also 'are all money-raising approaches fine, provided they bring in cash'. I think the British Legion is struggling with the first question, and I hope the answer to the second is - no - there are some things that we should not do (or sell) even if it raises money.
Yes, of course I understand that - and it might be reasonable were these badges restricted to teams that had a particularly poignant connection to the WW1, but that isn't the case - you can get them for pretty well any club.
Thanks for this very open post - raises very interesting questions and gets to the heart of the issue.Thanks for your honesty on this. As I've mentioned previously I do wear a traditional red poppy, and therefore contribute to the poppy appeal. I do not wear a white poppy as I am not a pacifist. I also do not contribute to Help for Heroes as a do not like their approach which seems largely militaristic (support our 'professional' troops).
I wear no poppy - even before the term 'virtue signalling' was invented I felt that it was virtue signalling. I contribute to both funds but me wearing a poppy of whatever colour seems to me useless other than making me feel good.
The problem with the poppy at the football is we are back at it being a form of virtue signalling. That UEFA have accepted it wasn't a partisan signal is good but we end up at random poppies because we can.I'm not entirely comfortable with this either, but see it as much better in a bipartisan way than a partisan manner, as had been suggested in the past.
I doubt any club that existed at the time of the WWs was untouched by tragedy. I am sure that almost any club now has ex servicemen supporters. If people see that as a valid way of showing their support then fine with me. again not my choice.But you could say the same about virtually any organisation in which case why not poppy superimposed on the Sainsbury's logo etc etc. While it isn't disrespectful in the manner of the dog poo bag it still does not seem appropriate, and less so when aligned with a symbol with clear political overtones - e.g. Salmond's poppy on a Scottish saltire.
I agree that the wearing of the armbands is better as bi partisan rather than partisan but were I not to be the useless footballer that I am, and were to represent a country, it feels now as if any non wearing of the poppy is made some form of treason.That's right and same with the BBC.
But you could say the same about virtually any organisation in which case why not poppy superimposed on the Sainsbury's logo etc etc. While it isn't disrespectful in the manner of the dog poo bag it still does not seem appropriate, and less so when aligned with a symbol with clear political overtones - e.g. Salmond's poppy on a Scottish saltire.
The reason I mentioned that perhaps Hearts was more reasonable than others is due to the fact that their players volunteered en masse at the start of the war in a deliberate move - I assume that is what you are referring to.
That's right and same with the BBC.
What I find most disquieting about all this is that the recent development that not wearing a poppy seems tantamount to treason has happened at exactly the same time as the focus of the poppy has shifted from remembrance of the dead of the world wars towards getting behind our troops in ongoing conflicts. No coincidence I feel.
But surely, as we have already coveted, the poppy has 'clear political overtones'? I don't agree withDalmond's approach but were one of my friends from the Outer Hebrides to wear something similar to mark the sheet numbers of dead from there, I would struggle to see what was wrong. Again with Varadkar's shamrock poppy, it doesn't feel 'as bad' as the Saltire.Firstly I'm not sure that remembering the dead has overt political overtones, although I fully accept that there are many political overlays. However the point isn't about whether the poppy in itself is political, but whether others 'hijack' it (as it is seen overwhelmingly as a 'virtuous' brand) with an entirely different political campaign - and one that is far, far more controversial.
And yes, as already posted the story of the Hearts team seems to create a justification for the symbol but I'm not sure then what standard you need to justify such a badge.I'd struggle to go beyond Hearts - they were the trailblazers of volunteering en masse - other might have followed, but it is really Hearts alone who stand out in this respect.
Firstly I'm not sure that remembering the dead has overt political overtones, although I fully accept that there are many political overlays. However the point isn't about whether the poppy in itself is political, but whether others 'hijack' it (as it is seen overwhelmingly as a 'virtuous' brand) with an entirely different political campaign - and one that is far, far more controversial.
I'd struggle to go beyond Hearts - they were the trailblazers of volunteering en masse - other might have followed, but it is really Hearts alone who stand out in this respect.
Actually I do wonder whether the British legion are in all this - they are custodians of the poppy 'brand' - presumably they have to give permission for the poppy to be used alongside any other symbol.
I think as already stated this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument but I am conscious that as we get close to the time of remembrance that the argument feels academic in the pejorative sense. The dead march endlessly past.I ask you to reflect on the fact that (probably) in 2001 we were asked, for the very first time ever to include service personnel in an ongoing major conflict in the Remembrance day commemorations. Remembering those who died in conflicts that had ended is not the same as being asked to stand in support of service personnel currently engaged in an ongoing conflict.
I ask you to reflect on the fact that (probably) in 2001 we were asked, for the very first time ever to include service personnel in an ongoing major conflict in the Remembrance day commemorations. Remembering those who died in conflicts that had ended is not the same as being asked to stand in support of service personnel currently engaged in an ongoing conflict.Thank you, I will indeed reflect. I think that reflection is all we are left with.
Absolutely the question of what are you raising money for is relevant, but to me if you agree with the cause the method is secondary.I don't agree - I think the two are related. If your manner of raising funds does not align with your fundamental aims then you have a problem.
Secondary doesn't mean irrelevant.But if it works counter to your primary purpose then you should rethink.
But if it works counter to your primary purpose then you should rethink.Sorry, again I said secondary not irrelevant. You analogy seems to me to address it being irrelevant.
How do you respond to my analogy about the charity that campaigns against exploitative child labour in the developing world?
Sorry, again I said secondary not irrelevant. You analogy seems to me to address it being irrelevant.All I am asking you to do is to indicate your view on my analogous example. Do you think that the charity is justified in selling clothing produced using exploitative child labour as it helps raise funds in to support their primary purpose, which is campaigning against exploitative child labour in the developing world?
All I am asking you to do is to indicate your view no my analogous example. Do you think that the charity is justified in selling clothing produced using exploitative child labour as it helps raise funds in to support their primary purpose, which is campaigning against exploitative child labour in the developing world?and I didn't say it was either of those. Just irrelevant since I haven't said that marketing is irrelevant just secondary here. So I am at a loss as stated now three times why arguing against something not said is relevant.
It isn't a hard question - nor is it a trick question.
and I didn't say it was either of those. Just irrelevant since I haven't said that marketing is irrelevant just secondary here. So I am at a loss as stated now three times why arguing against something not said is relevant.So why are you still failing to answer the question. I am trying to ascertain how you balance primary and secondary considerations - earlier in the thread as far as I could see you were implying that the type of product being marketing was irrelevant if you supported a cause - see reply130:
Because it is an irrelevant question to what I stated was my position. As explained three times. So if you want to talk about what you have in your head but not on my posts, off you go. I won't beI am talking about what is in your posts - hence the reason I quoted directly from your posts. If the method of raising money is always secondary to the importance of the cause then all methods are fair game. I don't think that is the case and I think there are cases where a method is so misaligned with the primary purpose of the charity that the method becomes determinative - in other words it cannot be accepted regardless of its success in raising funds for the primary purpose.
The men who make the poppies are disabled ex-servicemen who have all been incapacitated by injuries suffered on active service.
Most are, through these injuries, incapable of working outside their sheltered environment.
The charities that reciewvbe a share of the income are NOT like Help for Heroes which has been shown to be a business which has, on occasion, if I remember rightly, acted in what was very close to an illegal manner.
The money also help to provide prosthetics and other material aids.
So far as I am aware the money collected pay no-one a wage/salary.
If these guys waited for fhe Goverments, of whatever political stripe, in power since WWI to provide the services that the proceeds of the sale of poppies provides 90% of those needing those services would probably get no more than their funeral expenses paid.
Buy a poppy, even if you don't wear it - haven't these casualties of war suffered enough to give everyone the freedom to bitch about what or who is remembered on November 11!
I'll shut up now before I say something that I will well and truly regret!
Good advice Owly - that is exactly what I have done.
Now for my own personal gripe.
At the Cenotaph ceremony the military band will play Nimrod. Elgar wrote Nimrod as an expression of friendship - one of the Enigma Variations which celebrated the friendships of those close to him. Nimrod celebrated his publisher, August Jaeger, with whom he had long walks discussing other music. It is music of love and fellowship, not solemnity and tragedy. The meaning and message of Nimrod have been distorted
Fifteen years or so later, with WW1, Jaeger's family were forced to change their German name to Hunter.
Odd thing happened today on the poppy-day front that I don't recall ever happening before.
Kids attending primary schools (in East Dunbartonshire) were asked to wear something red and bring a £1 donation. Of course my grand-daughter (10), wanting to both comply and not be the odd one out, had nothing red to wear so something red was bought which ironically cost more (Tesco being the beneficiary) than the £1 donation. Seems somehow incongruous to me
Yes, I get that not wearing a poppy can be seen as a form of virtue signalling but I've been doing it for so long that if I were to wear one it would seem a form of double reverse virtue signalling. (How complex things can be).This "virtue signalling" bollocks that we hear of so much these days is a right-wing sneer against anyone with any principles at all. It should be ignored.
This "virtue signalling" bollocks that we hear of so much these days is a right-wing sneer against anyone with any principles at all. It should be ignored.
Odd thing happened today on the poppy-day front that I don't recall ever happening before.ALl seems very odd - I suspect some teacher is getting rather confused.
Kids attending primary schools (in East Dunbartonshire) were asked to wear something red and bring a £1 donation. Of course my grand-daughter (10), wanting to both comply and not be the odd one out, had nothing red to wear so something red was bought which ironically cost more (Tesco being the beneficiary) than the £1 donation. Seems somehow incongruous to me
Good for him. I think some dim-wits are confusing it with red nose day.
In general, I don't disagree but then there is this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-41930507
Me remember fallen ;D
In general, I don't disagree but then there is this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-41930507
This "virtue signalling" bollocks that we hear of so much these days is a right-wing sneer against anyone with any principles at all. It should be ignored.We've found somebody who's never seen Comic Relief or Children in Need.
ALl seems very odd - I suspect some teacher is getting rather confused.
Wearing something red is usually associated with Comic Relief/Red Nose Day, which is many schools sits in exactly the same box as Children in Need Day (which is this coming Friday). I guess what is going on is someone is mixing up those two with Remembrance Day - and thinking that red is a common link. Nonetheless, rather inappropriate.
If your grand-daughter didn't have something red herself, perhaps she might have borrowed something from a friend rather than having to buy something new. However you'll be all set for Red Nose Day which will be in March (or is it every other year?!?).
Whenever my kids had to do the 'wear something red' cobblers we headed for the charity shops. Ditto 'dress as an evacuee' 'dress as a farmer for harvest' etc etc etc.I think I'm done with this thread now , I shall simply say . Remember who you want how you want. Or not .
My eldest got a gorgeous red silk Monsoon cocktail dress for a fiver which her sister now has. Bonus!
Sorry, back on topic...
I didn’t mean to offend. The red dress was for Red Nose Day. Never known schools to do anything other than sell poppies (red and white) and observe the silence.Likewise although I don't think white poppies have ever been on sale at the schools my kids have attended.
I didn’t mean to offend. The red dress was for Red Nose Day. Never known schools to do anything other than sell poppies (red and white) and observe the silence.sorry Rhi
FTR my family are from the East End. We don’t forget.
I'm sure no offence taken Rhiannon, your was interesting and the red dress from charity shop was a real result!Leslie Garret; ah ! We were at school together , what girl ! ;) ;) ;)
My kids are grown up and away but I don't remember them having to dress up on a school day, sounds like fun. They had events for charities and poppies were on sale around Remembrance Sunday.
Mel C & Leslie Garrett are performing at the RAH tomorrow. Don't watch it but if I could tune in just for them I would. Not saying I'm great fan but like both.
Anchorman's post on maybe previous page was great. I too wear both poppies but so far don't have one of either, did buy a red one but it fell off. Went to mums and to shop early this morning but will be popping out later on and will buy another. I have a 'permanent' enamelled white poppy but will donate something.
Read that Nicole Schlerslinger was castigated online for not wearing a poppy last week on x-factor (which I don't watch). She said she had one but it fell off and I have no difficulty believing that's possible, happens to me every year. It's a bit much that EVERYONE on TV feels obliged to wear one, lots of people say the same but it appears they are criticised if they don't! Can't win.
I took you comment that you were deeply conflicted about nation flags being included with the poppy - I was talking about the conflict between being uncomfortable about a poppy plus a saltire, but not about a poppy on a dog poo bag.
I agree - it should be completely personal choice. Once people feel compelled to wear them the whole reason for them is devalued.Agreed. I haven't bought or worn a poppy for years. This is not, as far as I'm concerned, an insult or calculated comment on anything or anybody. If it is thought to be so by others, then that is their problem, not mine.
Likewise although I don't think white poppies have ever been on sale at the schools my kids have attended.
Each year we seem to go through crazy numbers of poppies as they are bought, lost, more bought, more lost by various kids. The key is to have enough to ensure that each child has one for the Remembrance Sunday parade that they attend with their cub/scout groups. Too many times we have arrived in town for the event to discover, to our horror that the last poppy has just vanished. And do you know the one place where it is pretty well impossible to find a poppy for sale ... the Remembrance Sunday parade!
With respect, Owlswing...my grandadad might well have been classed as a 'leftie', by your definition, having rejected both the poppy and the butcher's apron as a result of his experience in the Somme in WWI."sometimes you have to fight to be a man"
He would have no truck with militarism , imperialism, jingoism or the rest...the warmongering donkeys turned him into a pacifist.
With respect, Owlswing...my grandadad might well have been classed as a 'leftie', by your definition, having rejected both the poppy and the butcher's apron as a result of his experience in the Somme in WWI.
He would have no truck with militarism , imperialism, jingoism or the rest...the warmongering donkeys turned him into a pacifist.
There's no conflict. The former appears to subvert the poppy message to make a political statement especially when sported by well known Scottish Nationalist. The latter doesn't.
A thought occurs
What would have been the consequences of the Nazis Adlertag being successful and not cancelled? It was, by all accounts quiote a close thing.
No it wasn't. The Germans were never close to being in a position to launch a successful invasion, not with the equipment they had at the time.
Have you evidence to support that claim?The German invasion plan included towing barges of men and equipment across the English Channel. These were flat bottomed canal barges and they would have capsized if - say - a destroyer steamed past them at speed. Thus Germany needed to completely neutralise the Royal Navy and for that the first needed complete air superiority. They never even came close to that.
The German invasion plan included towing barges of men and equipment across the English Channel. These were flat bottomed canal barges and they would have capsized if - say - a destroyer steamed past them at speed. Thus Germany needed to completely neutralise the Royal Navy and for that the first needed complete air superiority. They never even came close to that.
Thanks to the R A F - even 'Stuffy' Dowding admnitted that the vistory in the Battle of Britain was a damned close thing.Dear Mr Owl
FFS - a large chunk of the Navy was kept busy for most of the war doing nothing mnore thast waiting for ONE German ship to hit the high seas - Tirpitz!
If Tirpitz had sortied just as the barges exited the Channel ports the very existence of your high speed destroyers would be in doubt.
I set up a 'possible' scenario, had Hitler not shifted his attention and the Luftwaffe to Russia the outcome could have been as I suggested. The Army on ouir home islands would not have lasted more than a fortnight - there weren't enough of them.
Even meglomaniac Churchill admitted just how close we had come to defeat - in 1940 the Home Guard was still training with broomstcks because there were not enough rifles available to arm them.
The German invasion plan included towing barges of men and equipment across the English Channel. These were flat bottomed canal barges and they would have capsized if - say - a destroyer steamed past them at speed. Thus Germany needed to completely neutralise the Royal Navy and for that the first needed complete air superiority. They never even came close to that.
We could probably find it if we searched the internet. It's what I've always been given to understand. Still the navy was a dangerous place to be, ships regularly torpedoed & where do you go if you ship's torpedoed except into the sea and maybe drowning.
A thought occurs
What would have been the consequences of the Nazis Adlertag being successful and not cancelled? It was, by all accounts quiote a close thing.
So instead of June 1940 being the beginning of our stand alone it would be the beginning of life under the Nazis in the UK.
How many of the lefties posting on this Forum are the sons and grandsons, daughters and grandaughters of, 1940's lefties? In the above scenario there is a very good chance that those parents and grandparents would be treated exactl;y as the lefties in the Reich and the othetr Occupied Countrieds - death in a concentration camp.
There would be no Brirish Jews - dead in the Concentation Camp too.
Newspapemen and women, gays, the mentally ill, the physically deformed all murdered.
Twins sent for Dr Mengele to experiment on.
Can anyone see isolationist America of 1940 lifting a finger to help? I certainly can't; how many of their politicians, between 1939 and 1941, kept going on about "not getting dragged into another European war and having good ol' American boys killed for something that was not America's fight."
Oh they would fight in the Pacific from December 7, 1941 but what use would that be to Britain? None.
Why did this scenario not come to be? Because of all those men and women who stood up and said NOT ON MY WATCH! Men and women who fought, died, were wounded and mutilated, who endured the Blitz, who lost friends and family to defeat Hitler.
The people we remember with every poppy we buy, with every second of the two minutes silence.
Is that too much to do to thank these people whio ensured that we can have an argument over what the poppy stands for rather than being worked to death as slaves in a Nazi factory?
No it wasn't.
FFS - a large chunk of the Navy was kept busy for most of the war doing nothing mnore thast waiting for ONE German ship to hit the high seas - Tirpitz!
If Tirpitz had sortied just as the barges exited the Channel ports the very existence of your high speed destroyers would be in doubt.It would have been engaged by the British Home Fleet (of battleships). It would not have lasted long.
I set up a 'possible' scenario, had Hitler not shifted his attention and the Luftwaffe to Russia the outcome could have been as I suggested. The Army on ouir home islands would not have lasted more than a fortnight - there weren't enough of them.By the time Hitler shifted his attention, autumn was upon us and the weather not conducive to towing barges across the channel. The Germans ran out of time to subdue the RAF and the Royal Navy.
Even meglomaniac Churchill admitted just how close we had come to defeat - in 1940 the Home Guard was still training with broomstcks because there were not enough rifles available to arm them.Ever heard of propaganda?
I don't think you have any verifiable evidence for that statement.
I have to admit to be completely at a loss as to what you mean here by 'lefties'. There are few people on here who would argue that fighting WW2 was wrong, note as a pacifist I am one of them but then it's a bit more nuanced than your strawman about that.
Sorry that is not what I meant.Then good for them! And to be fair, Tories, despite some of their best efforts, are not Nazis.
Anyone professing the kind of anti-tory sentiments that are frequent on here, if thgey expressed similar sentiments in a Brutain under tghe Nazis would be considered, at the very least, communist sympathisers.
Then good for them! And to be fair, Tories, despite some of their best efforts, are not Nazis.
Apart from all the history books I've read on the subject, no.
Start with Len Deighton's "Fighter".
I'm not talking about today, but 1939-45 and the way the nazis saw it.Then why mention 'lefties' today or what it meant then as if they weren't fighting. I don't get what you are trying to say.
OK, the nazis were further to the right than the Tories, but at that time the analogy fits, they saw any kind of socialist (maybe this is a better word than leftie) equalled communism
Then why mention 'lefties' today or what it meant then as if they weren't fighting. I don't get what you are trying to say.
The anti-tory sentiments expressed here if expressed after a successfull German invasion in 1940 against the Nazis would have had fatal consequences for those expressing them.No, because you appear to be saying that people expressing opposition yo what Boris Johnson has just done are supporting the Nazis.
I am NOT saying that those here would suffer but those living in 1940 post a German invasion. The .list drawn up of those to be executed immediately the Germans landed in England is clear evidence of this.
Is that clear enough for you?
No, because you appear to be saying that people expressing opposition yo what Boris Johnson has just done are supporting the Nazis.
I've never seen you talking bollocks before but this time I think you are deliberately misreading what I am saying.I have to admit I'm guessing what you mean because as pointed out, it seems so unclear. Why mention lefties then and now in such a confused way and be unwilling to explain what you mean?
As a result I'm out of this thread; which I have no doubt was your intention.
#209 - and where do you think my analysis of it comes from if not books written by historians, military memoirs, etc? It certainly did not come off the back of a matchbox!Your analysis doesn't really conflict with mine. All I'm saying is that the Germans couldn't invade Britain without first neutralising the Royal Navy. The only way they had to neutralise the Royal Navy was to gain air superiority. Even in the darkest days before they switched to bombing cities, we could have withdrawn all the aircraft to airfields out of range of their fighters. Once they switched to bombing cities, they had basically thrown in the towel with respect to invasion.
Whatever the answer it does not alter the fact that Remembrance Day should not be a religious ritual, or seen as a glorification of war (any war), a justification of organised violence (the use of troops/veterans - see Zimbabwe - Tianamin (sic) Square etc).You won't get any disagreement from me on that one.
It should be exactly what it says on the tin - a day to remember those who died and those who wished they has died and those who , despite horrific mental and physical injuries, continue to live life and to be as close to their pre-injury selves as they can and, perhaps even more those whose injuries prevent them from living in the community that they suffered their injuries to protect.