Paul Rouse: Failing to take politics out of the poppy
A general view of a poppy on the Liverpool jersey last year.
There is a notion that English soccer teams put the poppy on their jerseys to honour the men who died fighting in the British armed forces in the Great War.
This is only partially true.
It is true that the emergence of the poppy as a symbol of remembrance happened after the Great War. Amid the churn and devastation of that horrendous conflict war, the poppy had thrived even against the chaos of bomb blast. It can be found in a famous poem – ‘In Flanders Fields’ – which was written in May 1915 by Lt Col John McCrae who lost a friend at the Battle of Ypres.
McCrae wrote: “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.” McCrae used the poppy to convey ideas of the survival of hope irrespective of circumstance.
It is clear that the imagery of the poppy in the immediate aftermath of the Great War was rooted in the emotion of profound loss rather than in any narrow politics.
But the story does not begin and end with emotion. Instead, it became inherently political and the poppy is much more than just a simple, neutral remembrance of those who died in the Great War.
If it were, it would be beyond reproach, just as there is something very moving at remembering those who gave their lives in fighting fascism in World War II.
The Royal British Legion (a British Armed Forces charity that fundraises through the annual sale of poppies) sets out the meaning of the poppy: “Wearing a poppy is a show of support for the service and sacrifice of our Armed Forces, veterans, and their families. It represents all those who lost their lives on active service, from the beginning of the First World War right up to the present day. It also honours the contribution of civilian services and the uniformed services which contribute to national peace and security and acknowledges innocent civilians who have lost their lives in conflict and acts of terrorism.”
This obviously must include the violence of Britain’s colonial wars. The brutality and repression of the conduct of the British army in Ireland is just a local version of a phenomenon that extended far beyond these islands.
Take, for example, the suppression of the Mau Mau rebellion by Kenyans opposed to colonial occupation in the 1950s. Documents at the National Archive in London, and in other holdings, reveal how the British Army was deeply implicated in a system of mass repression (including murder and torture) of the Kikuyu, Embu and Meru populations. No more than Ireland, this is not ancient history; there are many people from those years who are living witnesses to their horror.
In this context, it is obviously a value judgment on behalf of each individual whether they wish to support the “service and sacrifice” of the British armed forces in all its wars.
The Royal British Legion, itself, appears to obliquely acknowledge this and the objections that some people might have: “Wearing a poppy is still a very personal choice, reflecting individual experiences and personal memories. It is never compulsory but is greatly appreciated by those who it is intended to support.”
But it is clear that the reality to being free to eschew wearing a poppy is much more complex than that. The poppy is everywhere on British television at the moment. And it is present in a way that makes it obvious that someone who is not wearing one in – for example – a television studio covering a soccer match is clearly making a statement of choice than involves a conscious decision.
Everyone knows this. And to say otherwise is to ignore the scale of the abuse that is now heaped on those who decline to wear a poppy on a point of principle each November.
Ask James McClean.
Surely if someone is making a political statement in not wearing a poppy, then it must logically follow that wearing a poppy carries obvious political associations, at the very least implicitly.
FIFA used to think so, too. Indeed, wearing the poppy was seen as an obvious infringement of FIFA’s Rule 4 that all “equipment must not have any political, religious or personal slogans, statements or images”.
Back in 2016, FIFA refused a request made by the English FA for their players to wear poppies in a World Cup qualifier match in November against Scotland. As it turned out, the English FA ignored FIFA and the English players wore armbands with poppies on them. The Scottish players did the same.
The upshot was that the English FA was fined some £35,000 by FIFA.
Through all of this, the FA claimed that the “poppy is an important symbol of remembrance and we do not believe it represents a political, religious or commercial message, nor does it relate to any one historical event.”
It was a view that did not impress FIFA. Claudio Sulser, the chairman of the FIFA disciplinary committee, said: “It is not our intention to judge or question specific commemorations as we fully respect the significance of such moments in the respective countries, each one of them with its own history and background. However, keeping in mind that the rules need to be applied in a neutral and fair manner across FIFA’s 211 member associations, the display, among others, of any political or religious symbol is strictly prohibited. In the stadium and on the pitch, there is only room for sport, nothing else.”
In this respect, it is worth remembering that the FAI was fined almost €5,000 after the Republic of Ireland team wore an Easter Rising symbol on their jerseys during a match with Switzerland in 2016, the centenary of the Rising.
The claim that the poppy is not a political symbol in this instance is not sustainable. Nonetheless, the hue and cry was immense, notably from the usual suspects. The then British Prime Minister Theresa May said: “I think the stance that has been taken by FIFA is utterly outrageous”; the ‘Daily Mail’ wrote repeatedly in a style of performative patriotism which of course laid bare just how political poppy-wearing was.
Of course, the hypocrisies of FIFA are such that within a year they had changed tack. New 'guidance' was issued by FIFA in 2017. This essentially said that teams were permitted to wear poppies, so long as the opposing team and competition organiser agreed to it.
The fine from 2016 was never paid by England. And all could now pretend again that it was just about remembrance and not at all about politics.
But the other thing that is interesting about all of this is the extent to which this relationship between soccer and the poppy is such a recent one. It is only since 2012 that every Premier League team has put the poppy on its jerseys.
Indeed, before 2009 it was very rare for footballers to wear poppies, let alone that it should have been co-opted as a form of jingoistic remembrance where conformity was obligatory for anybody who did not wish to be slaughtered in the abattoir of modern media.
Is this really the best way to remember those who died in the Great War? Or the best way to pay tribute to those who fought the Nazis in World War II?
Wearing the poppy now sits very much in the spirit of the age in England. As ‘The Economist’ put it last year, ”the very meaning of 'Englishness' is changing before our eyes”: “Today’s nationalism is radical and angry; flags are everywhere.”
The poppy has changed, too, before our eyes. And to present it as being outside politics is absurd.
