The Poppy and Irish Nationalism
Remembrance Sunday has arrived. Across the north, many will be gathering to pay tribute to dead soldiers of the two ‘great’ wars of the 20th century. Most of those gathering will also pay tribute to the dead RUC, UDR and British soldiers who were casualties of the conflict in Ireland from 1969, as well as British soldiers killed in other conflicts, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of those assembled will also be paying homage to those loyalist paramilitaries who died in the recent conflict in the north of Ireland (many of those gathered will certainly not be interested in incorporating the latter into ‘their’ remembrance services, and some may not be too keen on including those loyal to the Crown who fell in conflicts other than the two World Wars either.)
That is perhaps the most narrative-free comment (if there can be such a thing) that can be made on a day which many will naturally find an emotional one. However, given that the run up to this Remembrance Sunday has once again been marked by a campaign agitating for Nationalist Ireland to conform and pledge its allegiance to Britain’s official date of Remembrance, it is important to respond.
Those participating in the numerous Remembrance Day ceremonies across Ireland today are entitled to do so; indeed, as a republican I must state that one of the darkest days of the conflict was the Cenotaph bombing in Enniskillen which claimed so many lives as people were gathering to remember other lost lives. It was an appalling act in a conflict (like all conflicts) marked by many appalling deeds.
In Britain, the apparent increase in poppy wearing is no doubt linked to the now almost daily news of British soldiers being killed in the latest conflicts involving Britain’s soldiers. That is quite understandable. Some have even suggested that it could be a form of protest at the government policy decisions which led to those soldiers being sent to the very conflict zones from which many are now returning from in coffins. Perhaps that is true, though that presupposes a conscious effort on behalf of the populace to distinguish the soldier from the governing authority which could have repercussions for other remembrance dates (more on that later.)
Yet, as the Guardian has correctly noted, the demand for conformity is disturbing even within Britain, and, in our parochial context, betrays a desire to have a specific narrative legitimised above and beyond others.
The kneejerk unionist reaction to the decision by the Students’ Union at Coleraine to permit the sale of both Poppies and Easter Lilies from the Union shop was entirely predictable as it challenged the simplistic unionist narrative which elevates the commemoration of ‘their’ dead above all others.
That is nothing new. It has become something of an annual tradition for Irish people to be derided for not engaging in Britain’s Remembrance Day ceremonies, almost as if declining to do so was an incomprehensible action. Of course, there are Irish people who do choose to participate, overwhelmingly those identifying themselves as British and/or Northern Irish/Irish, as well as others from an Irish nationalist background who choose to partake in ceremonies which remember not just the dead of the Somme and D-Day, but also the members of the Black and Tans, Parachute Regiment, Black Watch and British Military Intelligence who gained notoriety for their deeds in twentieth century Ireland, as well as those who visited grief on the residents of Amritsar soon after the war to free small nations had concluded.
Some of those from a nationalist persuasion no doubt take the decision to distinguish in their minds the dead from the World Wars from those of others, perhaps choosing to ignore the wreaths commemorating others who wore the British uniforms; others might even take the more sober view that all soldiers are/ were humans, normally from the lower classes, victims of economic conscription as well as compulsory military conscription, all deserving acknowledgement for the manner in which their lives were taken from them.
But a more common reaction within Ireland is to acknowledge the importance of the date for those from a protestant/ unionist background in Ireland and, in the past two decades at least, to acknowledge the deaths of those Irishmen who donned the British uniforms for a variety of reasons during the two world wars, whilst declining to partake in an event which, after all, pays tribute to the very soldiers who implemented the policies and guaranteed the writ of the occupying British forces in Ireland throughout the centuries.
What is often conveniently forgotten in the charge to accuse Nationalist Ireland of not remembering the Irish dead of Britain’s wars in a more visible and pronounced manner is that Irish attitudes to remembrance are considerably more reserved than those of our British counterparts, whether the dead were fighting for Britain or for Ireland, by proxy or otherwise.
Whilst Irish republicans may don Easter lilies to remember our dead at Easter time, the overwhelming majority of Irishmen and women choose not to attach any badges to their lapels in Spring nor Autumn.
It has been suggested in the past that the muted nature of commemorations to celebrate independence in southern Ireland has been a consequence of the IRA’s campaign in since 1969. That may well form part of the answer.
But part of the answer can also be found in the fact that Irish people, unlike their British counterparts, know from their history about the complicated and ugly nature of war due to the legacy of conflict within this island, including the horrific civil war of the early 1920s.
The faces of the dead Asians, killed by Britain’s soldiers in the past decade, make at best a fleeting appearance on our television screens. We do not get to hear the widows (nor widowers) speak nor the children cry in our own language. We don’t hear the stories that turn the individuals from covered bodies into very human beings.
The legacy of conflict in Ireland in the twentieth century has been one that has removed any doubts about the horror of war and made it very difficult to romanticise conflict and indulge in the type of jingoistic, patriotic fervour commonly associated with the British tabloid press.
Nevertheless, the fact that Irish Nationalism has, over the past decade and more, made space for the remembrance of ‘their’ fallen in the two World Wars is to be welcomed. Sinn Fein has struck a chord amongst northern nationalists by choosing to acknowledge the sacrifice of these dead Irishmen in a separate display of remembrance involving the laying of a laurel wreath to mark the anniversary of the Battle of the Somme. This has permitted Irish republicans to honour the Irish dead of the First World War without participating in official British ceremonies which require paying respect to Britain’s soldiers who republicans were at war with up to 15 years ago.
There have also been a number of other commemorations- organised by former loyalist leader, Glenn Barr- in which the Irish National flag has been flown alongside the Union Flag to signify that those killed in the First World War were from an Irish nationalist as well as unionist background. Such commemorations are to be welcomed as they take steps to remove the political baggage, recognising the complicated nature of Irish involvement in the world wars.
Of course, there has been a negative reaction from political unionism to these developments. Unionist opposition to this is not only hollow but ridiculous. After all, would they prefer republicans to dishonestly pretend to pay tribute to the very soldiers with whom they were- most recently- engaged in a conflict with for a quarter of a century? If the demand is for recognition of the sorry plight of the fallen soldier in isolation to the commands from his authorities, then does that not have consequences for unionist acknowledgment of the plight of the Irishmen and women who gave their lives for Irish freedom regardless of their hostility to those further up the chain of command?
Given that many of the earliest nominal Irish republicans were of staunch Ulster Protestant stock, then the charge to compel all to embrace Remembrance Sunday as a shared remembrance would logically also seek to demand unionist participation in commemorations remembering Irish republicans who died in the cause of Irish freedom. Food for thought indeed!
Remembrance, like so much else in Northern Ireland, is likely to remain a divisive issue for some time to come. But moves by Irish Nationalism to provide (within the Irish nationalist narrative) a space for unionism to commemorate its British war dead of all wars and to genuinely find a place for the Irish Nationalist casualties of the world wars is a progressive step. The poppy will remain what it is. Irish Nationalism should not, nor does it need to, embrace it: rather, it must simply continue to find a space for those who seek to embrace it within its vision of the future.
Vltonia, if you’re referring to me than youre confused, very confused because the question has been repeated several times, as I await an answer.
Please feel free to join Brit in his trawl of the web to find links to support his claim,
Brit,
Links Please,
Sean, shame on you for recognising the court : )
Do you think we should help Brit out looking for links to back up his claim?
Nawwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Brit LINKS
I’ve arrived at this debate very late (apologies – I have a life – or so I’m told, by those who live it for me), but amongst all the arguing, one thing really seems to stick out for me:
Turgon,
someone posted that they wore their poppy for ALL the dead – British/German/Japanese soldiers, all of them. They then went further – Hitler, IRA/UVF members…They asked you did you wear your poppy to remember ALL of these dead. And your answer, for someone who professes to be a Christian, seemed to me to be lacking in something. What was it…? Oh yes. Christianity. Don’t Christians cherish and love all life? Isn’t the loss of one life – ANY life – something to be mourned? Why would you not wear the poppy in memory of Hitler? Or Bobby Sands? Or Billy Wright? Didn’t they all die during war time? Aren’t they deserving of your rememberance at this time of year? Why do you have to think about whether or not one person’s death is more or less worth remembering than another’s? Surely your not advocating a hierarchy of victims here? Seriously Turgon, I have read your posts on Slugger, and whilst I don’t agree with your politics, I have always admired your Christian stance – I even defended you, many moons ago – but I feel, in this instance, that you have allowed your head rule your heart. You immediately jumped in with an attack on the author of the post, and, as has been pointed out, demanded that he condemn certain actions. And since then, you have been back-peddling, name-calling, and engaging in childish man-playing that ill-becomes you. I, and everyone else here, know that you have a problem with Chris and with Kensei. Both are articulate, clever posters, as are you. However, when Chris Donnelly posts about Rememberance Sunday – and I belive he was honest, measured and sincere in what he wrote, and judging by most responses, so did most other people – perhaps your best response should be to acknowledge that first, possibly thank him for giving his views, and then add an ‘HOWEVER’. The whole – WILL YOU CONDEMN – bit does you no favours.
So anyway. Straight yes or no – do you wear the poppy to remember ALL the people who died because of war, Bobby Sands, Hitler and Billy Wright included? Or are only certain dead people worthy of that?
Fin, this is very odd. My “claims” were that the IRA murdered people and that SF supported the IRA (that was its raison d’etre). Not only are this claims wholly uncontentious but you expresssly accepted their truth in a post above in black and white.
Its like me saying to David Irvine – do you deny that there was a holocaust or do you merely deny the 5-6 million number? And him saying neither. And then when I condem the actions of the Nazis he asks for a “link” to prove my claim.
Do you now say that you were lying or mistaken or that I misunderstood you or that you failed to clearly express yourself??
My reason for making the claim (and I could and probably have used plenty of other examples)was not to do with the legitimacy of SF but in illustrating the absurdity of failing to distinguish between the moral responsibility of an murderer and his co-conspiractors, on the one hand, and a passive (including tacit) supporter of a murdere on the other.
In any event see below if you need a link to prove what you have already agreed is true??
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/05/world/irish-rebel-defends-brighton-bombing.html
“I’ll try again, Brit. Turgon feels that he can include the ordinary German footsoldier in his commemoration but not Hitler. Why not? The point I make is that Hitler probably never pulled the trigger but a footsoldier did. Unless you publicly divorce yourself from the action of your government then it is presumed that you support them. You can’t support a la carte. Like what bit of the Falklands/Malvinas debacle did you NOT support? BTW ‘guilty’ means ‘not innocent’ and ‘footsoldier’ means ‘ordinary soldier’” PH
Some German footsoldiers fought bravely and within the laws of war in various theatres acrosss Europe and beyond. They were conscripts and some opposed Hitlers anti-semitism, his aggressive war, and may have been supporters of Social Democrats or even Communists. I have no problem commemorating their deaths. Nor the deaths of German civillians who were killed in bombing raids etc.
Other “ordinary” German footsoldiers raped women, tortured and mudered civillians and committed other war crimes. In many cases they did so deliberately / voluntarily and under no compulsion or threat. Of couse I cannot and wouldn’t commemorate or honour such people. Whether Hitler pulled a trigger or not is immaterial to his moral guilt.
I totally reject your contention that “Unless you publicly divorce yourself from the action of your government then it is presumed that you support them”. Apart from the absurdity of expecting people to go around “publicly” identifying every policy and action they disagree with this is very arbitrary given that many people in most countries, probably the majority, did not vote for the government. Even for governments and policies that are supported this does not mean each and every action is supported – I supported the invasion of Iraq does not mean that I supported or bear responsibility for the murder or rape of civillians by British soldiers (any more than wanting the Red Army to defeat the Wehrmacht implies any support for war crimes committed by its soliders which were tolerated or even encoured by the command). Furthermore there is a difference (which I am trying to convey to Fin) in the level of responsibility for a crime which one participates in and which one supporters. To take a different example to the SF one, imagine a murderous racist attack supported by local Neo-Fascists who cheer when they hear of it. The latter are clearly scum but no one holds them guilty of the murder or expects that they should be imprisoned for life along with the perpetrator.
You absolutely can and must support a la carte. Human beings organise and operate through collective entities, political parties, pressure groups, charities and Trade Unions. It is a good, sensible and neccesary way of organising but inevitably there will be things that you do not agree with. In some circumstances you may take public action and other times you wont but it would be ridiculous to resign from the organistion in view of one disagreement. I have profound disagreements with Labour Party policy on, for example, the fox hunting ban and religious hatred laws, but I am not doing to resign my membership. This does not make me responsible for those policies.
See the attached article for some further enlightenment on what it means and does not mean to “support”.
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/11/proisrael.html
I personally supported the Falklands war, a war of liberation against a right wing authoritarian junta against the will of the people of the islands. That doesn’t mean I supported each and every action by the British armed forces in that war. Let alone in wars or conflicts which took place before I was born!
Seimi,
Whilst not wishing to interfere with your mewling little piety feat with an Turgon, perhaps you’d accept that an individual decides to engage in an act of remembrance for reasons which are personal, internal and subjective. I, for instance, wear my poppy to remember innocent victims of conflict and British and Allied forces from 1914 to the present day, with a heavy focus on the latter. I certainly don’t wear it for people who died in the pursuit of political objectives opposed to the UK and her interests. Frankly, sod them.
I don’t think that makes me a bad person, or that I’m missing the point of the poppy, whatever subjective rationale you may wish to attach to the poppy on my lapel. Being thoroughly politically consistent is very rarely pretty for the onloooker.
Does it mean I’m politicising the poppy? For myself, absolutely, but I don’t seek to prescribe reasons for other people to wear it. They do it for different reasons, and good luck to them.
Nabidana,
Thanks for your quite condescending post.If you took the time to read my post, then surely you can see that I was merely asking Turgon to respond to a question put to him by another poster. I also wanted to make it clear that I wasn’t attacking him in any way. If that wasn’t clear enough, then I apologise to you, personally, for my ‘mewling little piety feat.’ Now, back to that life….
Seimi,
You’re quite right, the iPhone doesn’t convey nuance very well, and my opening line was a bit of a bollocks. My genuine apologies, up too early, and I shall remind myself of that when I post again. (slaps self on wrist).
I didn’t think then, nor do I now, that you were attacking him, but I also don’t think that the act of wearing the poppy has to be a universal act of remembrance, though of course it can be.
As an aside, I don’t see what being a Christian has to do with anything.
Nabidana,
I don’t think the wearing of the poppy has to be a universal act of remembrance either, but someone else did, and they asked Turgon the question. I was just interested in Turgon’s thoughts on that question, given his strong Christian background.