PDA

View Full Version : What are your thoughts on White Poppies?



b2spirita
09-10-2008, 06:03 PM
As im sure most of you know, In the UK it is exremely common to see red poppies worn around remembrance sunday, as a mark of respect to vetrans. Ive just discovered that there is an alternative, the white poppie, which is explained here http://www.ppu.org.uk/whitepoppy/index.html .

I just wanted to see your thoughts on it.

b2spirita
09-10-2008, 06:03 PM
As im sure most of you know, In the UK it is exremely common to see red poppies worn around remembrance sunday, as a mark of respect to vetrans. Ive just discovered that there is an alternative, the white poppie, which is explained here http://www.ppu.org.uk/whitepoppy/index.html .

I just wanted to see your thoughts on it.

SeaFireLIV
09-10-2008, 06:11 PM
First I`ve heard of it. To cut it short, looks like a Pacifist poppy.

I`ll stay with Red and respect the dead of war.

Treetop64
09-10-2008, 07:23 PM
White poppies are racists... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

b2spirita
09-11-2008, 02:40 AM
The white poppie IS meant to respect the dead of war.

joeap
09-11-2008, 03:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by b2spirita:
The white poppie IS meant to respect the dead of war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well so does the red? Why change it?

Low_Flyer_MkIX
09-11-2008, 03:20 AM
I'd respect someone for wearing a white poppy. I'd be saddened if I witnessed somebody wearing a red poppy laying into somebody for wearing a white poppy. I'd be downright annoyed if I saw somebody wearing no poppy at all laying into somebody for wearing a white poppy.

I wonder how many of our war dead would choose to wear a white poppy if you could ressurect them and give them a choice?

b2spirita
09-11-2008, 03:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by b2spirita:
The white poppie IS meant to respect the dead of war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well so does the red? Why change it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Seeing as clicking the link is too difficult....

The idea of decoupling Armistice Day , the red poppy and later Remembrance Day from their military culture dates back to 1926, just a few years after the British Legion was persuaded to try using the red poppy as a fundraising tool in Britain.

A member of the No More War Movement suggested that the British Legion should be asked to imprint 'No More War' in the centre of the red poppies instead of ˜Haig Fund' and failing this pacifists should make their own flowers.

The details of any discussion with the British Legion are unknown but as the centre of the red poppy displayed the ˜Haig Fund' imprint until 1994 it was clearly not successful. A few years later the idea was again discussed by the Co-operative Women's Guild who in 1933 produced the first white poppies to be worn on Armistice Day (later called Remembrance Day). The Guild stressed that the white poppy was not intended as an insult to those who died in the First World War - a war in which many of the women lost husbands, brothers, sons and lovers. The following year the newly founded Peace Pledge Union joined the CWG in the distribution of the poppies and later took over their annual promotion.


The White Poppy symbolises the belief that there are better ways to resolve conflicts than killing strangers. Our work, primarily educational, draws attention to many of our social values and habits which make continuing violence a likely outcome.

The upshot is that it is a mark of respect to the dead, whilst attempting to distance the milatristic aspects of the ceremonies

JG52Uther
09-11-2008, 05:00 AM
I will continue to wear a red poppy.

mmitch10
09-11-2008, 05:11 AM
I wear a red poppy because I would rather my donation went to the British Legion than the Peace Pledge Union.

GIAP.Shura
09-11-2008, 05:11 AM
Another lesser reason is that some people feel that Haig was an incompetent General whose unimaginative and attritional approach to warfare was a prime factor in the massive number of casualties of WW1, although Haig's name is honored here more for his post-WW1 role as a fundraiser.

joeap
09-11-2008, 06:03 AM
I read the link, I don't see why today red should be seen as a militaristic colour somehow.

Edit: I guess I don't like the implication that those who wore and wear the red poppies are glorifying war somehow. In Canada I never heard of the "Haig" story and it is possible it was never printed on Canadian poppies. Just setting up this alternative seems to mark those who wear it as somehow better that's all. Plus it is no longer necessary today.

OD_
09-11-2008, 06:24 AM
Half the point of the Red Poppy is to raise money for veterans of any of the conflicts Britain has been involved in. I would much rather my money went to something along these lines where it can make a difference than an organisation which I've never heard of and really doesn't seem to have an achievable aim.

LW_lcarp
09-11-2008, 08:21 AM
Red

HotelBushranger
09-11-2008, 08:24 AM
I'll keep with the red.

Worf101
09-11-2008, 08:27 AM
White or red, whatever the VFW sells me or asks me to wear I'll wear.

Da Worfster

Darth_Reagan
09-11-2008, 08:59 AM
I'd never considered that the red poppy in any way glorified war, I saw it as a simple reminder of sacrifices made by individuals. I think people should put the politics to one side and simply remember the real cost of war.

DuxCorvan
09-11-2008, 09:41 AM
White poppies intentionally made to oppose red poppies, is like a declaration as if the red poppy user and sellers were warmongering or something like that, and therefore, like an unconscious way of criminalizing the military.

Were I British, I'd wear a red poppy to support veterans both economically and morally, and not something to surreptitiously -even if unintentionally- call them conscripted murderers.

JG53_Valantine
09-11-2008, 01:32 PM
Red. For the reasons many others have laid about above - I would much rather my donation go towards helping Veterans and their dependants then a bunch of tree huggers with an unachieveable aim. War is part of human nature, killing is not unique to us in nature (however having protesters is...). However terrible it is to say, war has served mankind well. Many great technological, medicinal and scientific breakthroughs have been made during times of war and without these, the world would be a much different place now - we certainly wouldn't be using the "****** collider" as our knowledge of physics woudl be no-where near that advanced.
Sorry for getting a little off topic there!
So, I will definately be sticking with the Red poppy.
V

unreasonable
09-12-2008, 07:32 AM
Red.

Both WW1 and WW2 were just and necessary wars against enemies whom no amount of pacifism could have appeased. Even the alleged "incompetence" of Haig et al, terribly exaggerated in the opinion of most historians who have actually studied the matter, has no bearing on this.

Remember the poem Flanders Fields?

IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.