The origins of the white poppy are with the British Peace Pledge Union (sidebar: it will be a rare post from me that does not include some link back to wikipedia…). Interestingly, the Peace Pledge Union started as an effort exclusive to men, organizing them to send postcards in opposition to war, “countering the idea that only women were involved in the peace movement”.
Wearing a white poppy is, depending on your source, an alternative or a parallel message to the wearing of a red one. Most sources agree however that the white poppy is intended to be a symbol of peace and nonviolence. And many people who wear the white poppy will choose to wear both the red and the white versions, because around this time of year there are people, myself included, who simply want to be clear on exactly what it is we are marking on Remembrance Day.
I don’t wear a red poppy. The Royal Canadian Legion (who have the trademark on the red poppy a whole separate issue) say that the red poppy stands internationally as a symbol of collective reminiscence. On their website they go on to say that the subject of John McCraes poem In Flanders Fields (the inspiration for the red poppy symbol) is the fear of the dead that they will not be remembered. But I remember the annual reading of John McCraes poem from elementary school onwards. And I remember sitting in the gym and hearing that fear, but also hearing this line: Take up our quarrel with the foe. That line to me speaks of a different subject, the one which prompts me to want to wear a white poppy. I am not not wearing a red poppy with any intent to dishonour the dead, but I do want to use this time to question how best we should honour them. We are asked to contemplate the costs of war but not very often the alternatives to it.
The quote above is from The Currents lead-in to this mornings segment on nonviolence. There was a reasonably meaty discussion this morning regarding the use and appropriateness of nonviolence, and its worth listening to. In Part 2, both guests, Mark Kurlansky and Margaret MacMillan, raised a lot of good questions, such as whether nonviolence gives a moral authority; what to do in the face of overwhelming force; when and how nonviolence is effective (and what to do when it isn’t); and how to stop a leader who is bent on war. There was of course no solution reached in the 23 minute segment. But there were a number of assertions that you could chew on for a while on your own, such as Margaret’s comment that nonviolence only works when there is an opinion that can be influenced (e.g. not a violent dictatorship). And Mark’s response to the question “how do you persuade people to use nonviolence when there is such a likelihood that you’ll get hurt?” with “how do you persuade people to go to war?”
I don’t think war is glorious. I think there are moments of incredible and unthinkable bravery and selflessness. I think there are also many moments of incredible and unthinkable atrocity. War is a failure, and there are not many Remembrance Day ceremonies that, to me, explicitly recognize that.
What do you think?
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
eight comments
I think wearing a white poppy will upset people more then it will promote peace. But go ahead and wear one. Its your right. Evidently a right they died for.
Posted by reighny
November 11, 2006, 1:15 AM
Let's not forget that the Peace Pledge Union spent 1940 sharing platforms with anti-semites and fascists. It's leaders Morris, Ben Greene and the Marquis of Tavistock were all jew haters. Objectively pacifism is always on the side of the bullies and murderers.
Posted by Dave
November 11, 2006, 8:01 AM
sitting in a cafe this morning waiting for the silence. that moment where things get still and the last person to speak feels guilty. you know what? nothing. not a damn thing. there's a gaggle of junior-school teachers sitting beside me complaining about who put what on the white board at work. when im remembering it's not political - although strange to divide the two - it's a thank you for giving up something because you were asked - gf, bf, f, family and the big ole whole life thing that people didn't get to have. put that on your white board loretta.
Posted by tan
November 11, 2006, 11:21 AM
Thanks for posting about this Catherine! I meant to say something about it. I always wore a red poppy until a few years ago when, with Iraq the issue of war became more real to me, and far more confusing. I should admit though that I don't wear a white poppy, out of being afraid of hurting peoples' feelings.
I was surprised that the responses to this post have been mostly angry with the idea of the white poppy. I don't think the white poppy is meant to compete with the red poppy. Maybe we should come up with a red and white striped poppy that says 1) these people died and our lives are very different because of it, and it's vital to remember and honour what they did, and 2) it wasn't good that they died, war is awful, and let's not do it again.
Unfortunately, remembering that soldiers fought and died and sacrificed is often tied to the idea that war is good and glorious. The movement to honour and support troops is sometimes hijacked by politicians trying to justify bad decisions to send people to war unnecessarily, which I think is really terrible. I don't think the red poppy is supposed to signify that war is glorious, but sometimes it is co-opted to say that, and that's what the white poppy is countering.
I feel distressed when I hear of the anti-war movement being accused of hating the soldiers. I think that it is quite recognised in the anti-war movement that soldiers are hurt as much if not the most by war, and part of being anti-war is saying, let's not let these people die. A new slogan I've noticed in the anti-war movement is "Support our troops: bring them home."
Posted by thea
November 11, 2006, 1:28 PM
Whoops I forgot to say: I don't really think it's accurate to say that pacifism is ALWAYS on the side of a bullies and murderers - that's a bit sweeping. For example I would definitely say George Bush is a bully, and I don't think the pacifists side with him. I think in any movement there are inconsistencies and hypocrisies. For example I recently learned that Tommy Douglas, hero to the left in Canada, was a big proponent of eugenics (the horror!).
I'm personally not a pacifist and can see how the ideology of pacifism is often problematic, but in a time when there is so much horrifying and unnecessary conflict, I don't think the pacifists are the ones we should be ragging on.
Posted by thea
November 11, 2006, 1:32 PM
I proudly wear my red poppy. My take on it is that it does not promote war, that it really is for remembrance.
Be they white or red, what poppies represent shouldn't be reserved for these few days in November, but every day of every year. So instead of arguing about the colour of the poppies we choose whether or not to wear, why don't we address society's ignorance of the conflicts that we're going to have to be remembering in November in years from now?
Posted by Madde
November 12, 2006, 4:11 AM
Hey Catherine, did you notice the nice link you got at http://little-ms-me.livejournal.com/3...
Posted by thea
November 14, 2006, 1:08 PM
I hadn't noticed that - thanks Thea, and thanks little_ms_me.
Posted by catherine
November 21, 2006, 10:30 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.