Martin O'Neill and Roy Keane

[peadar1987]

I don't wear one because I don't agree with the "support our troops no matter what" association it has, especially in this modern era. As far as I'm concerned, soldiers are not "heroes". They are professionals who do a job, albeit a highly dangerous one. For every admirable human being who puts his life on the line saving his comrades and doing what he thinks is right, there's a Lynndie England, who tortured POWs, or even a Prince Harry, who thinks killing is fun. If somebody wants to know my opinions on the invasion of Iraq or the First World War, they can ask me instead of making assumptions due to my non-wearing of the poppy.

[DeLorean]

Exactly, kind of makes a mockery of the whole original point. Christ could they not man up and refuse to play the game - bet they wont be wearing them anytime soon in Dublin!

Personally I wouldn't feel right wearing one, but being told you shouldn't wear one is just as bad as being told you should. I think of all people Keane and O'Neill are thoughtful and intelligent enough to make their own call on it. If they don't have strong views either way and chose to respect the nation's values, that's their choice. Whether they'd wear them or not in Dublin is completely irrelevant.

[peadar1987]

I don't wear one because I don't agree with the "support our troops no matter what" association it has, especially in this modern era. As far as I'm concerned, soldiers are not "heroes". They are professionals who do a job, albeit a highly dangerous one. For every admirable human being who puts his life on the line saving his comrades and doing what he thinks is right, there's a Lynndie England, who tortured POWs, or even a Prince Harry, who thinks killing is fun. If somebody wants to know my opinions on the invasion of Iraq or the First World War, they can ask me instead of making assumptions due to my non-wearing of the poppy.

Meant to add, that's just the associations I have with the poppy, and it's why I have problems wearing it (the same as I'd have reservations about wearing any symbol that would express unreserved support for the 1916 rebels, definitely not a fan of the catholic theocracy quite a few of them wanted!). If somebody else has a more positive view of the poppy (and there are several perfectly valid ones), then they're more than welcome to wear it.

What I absolutely don't agree with is the "poppy nazism" that seems to be becoming more and more prevalent in the UK media and society at large. One of the things the poppy supposedly represents is the values of those who fought against a regime that tried to make people wear symbols against their will!

[Fixer82]

Personally I wouldn't feel right wearing one, but being told you shouldn't wear one is just as bad as being told you should. I think of all people Keane and O'Neill are thoughtful and intelligent enough to make their own call on it. If they don't have strong views either way and chose to respect the nation's values, that's their choice. Whether they'd wear them or not in Dublin is completely irrelevant.

Indeed I have seen more sensible British people, on the issue of James McClean in particular, say that men fought and died so that people would have the freedom to not wear one if they choose.
I have become accustomed to Irish people on UK tv wearing a poppy but I still feel it a bit disappointing. I see it as support for British troops past and present and I could never do that.

Perhaps Roy and Martin were using heir heads in wearing them and not attracting negative attention. But for me that makes it all the worse.
It's a sad state of affairs when people are wearing such a strong symbol for fear of what will happen if they don't.
Reminds me of something that was happening in central Europe around the 1930's....

[Fixer82]

Meant to add, that's just the associations I have with the poppy, and it's why I have problems wearing it (the same as I'd have reservations about wearing any symbol that would express unreserved support for the 1916 rebels, definitely not a fan of the catholic theocracy quite a few of them wanted!). If somebody else has a more positive view of the poppy (and there are several perfectly valid ones), then they're more than welcome to wear it.

What I absolutely don't agree with is the "poppy nazism" that seems to be becoming more and more prevalent in the UK media and society at large. One of the things the poppy supposedly represents is the values of those who fought against a regime that tried to make people wear symbols against their will!

Not sure where you're getting that info. Marcievicz was a Protestant. Casement was a Protesant....Erskine Childers. Bulmer Hobson.
Connolly and Lemass were arguably atheist. Indeed the 1916 proclamation guaranteed 'religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens'.

[bennocelt]

Personally I wouldn't feel right wearing one, but being told you shouldn't wear one is just as bad as being told you should. I think of all people Keane and O'Neill are thoughtful and intelligent enough to make their own call on it. If they don't have strong views either way and chose to respect the nation's values, that's their choice. Whether they'd wear them or not in Dublin is completely irrelevant.

That's a fair assessment, but I disagree that one would take them off in Dublin is irrelevant,, they know damn well the reaction they might get

[DeLorean]

Perhaps Roy and Martin were using heir heads in wearing them and not attracting negative attention. But for me that makes it all the worse.
It's a sad state of affairs when people are wearing such a strong symbol for fear of what will happen if they don't.
Reminds me of something that was happening in central Europe around the 1930's....

Yeah but that would be second guessing their motives as you don't know their views on the matter. Keane missed a World Cup because he felt strongly about the poor preparation, I'm sure if he felt strongly about this he would have surely sacrificed a half hour of punditry. He's more than entitled to see this in a different way to you and I, it doesn't automatically mean he's gone against his own beliefs for an easy life.

[paul_oshea]

No it's not. It's a symbol and symbols mean different things to different people.

So the black on white symbol means something different to other people? Maybe if you lived in Mars, or havent stepped foot outside your enclave. That's a cop out, especially in the case of the poppy and what it symbolises (in the UK)to someone who preceded to say they (ive lived in the UK....etc).

[peadar1987]

Not sure where you're getting that info. Marcievicz was a Protestant. Casement was a Protesant....Erskine Childers. Bulmer Hobson.
Connolly and Lemass were arguably atheist. Indeed the 1916 proclamation guaranteed 'religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens'.

But De Valera (*spit*) and his followers were very much in favour of catholic domination of Irish life and politics, regardless of what the proclamation said. The only universal factor the rebels had in common was a desire for an independent Ireland.

[geysir]

Too late now, the mistakes that have been made cannot be undone, can't edit the title either.
Then it will remain as a permanent stain to your reputation and well deserved I might add :D

[DannyInvincible]

Delaney is much despised in some quarters but he has swallowed a lot of pride in the Keane appointment and to continue to keep Denis O'Brien involved is good work.

Got a chance to watch and listen to his full Newstalk interview with Pat Kenny this morning and was impressed by Delaney. I don't have as strong a disdain for him as I once did. He's always spoken well on the contentious eligibility issue - certainly one way to win over my respect! - and he conducts himself well in interviews. I think it's the dishevelled demeanour that works against him (amongst other things); he just has that look of a cute hoor about him, ready to pull a fast one on you and feed you a load of bull for breakfast, lunch and dinner.


So the black on white symbol means something different to other people? Maybe if you lived in Mars, or havent stepped foot outside your enclave. That's a cop out, especially in the case of the poppy and what it symbolises (in the UK)to someone who preceded to say they (ive lived in the UK....etc).

Of course it can mean different things to different people. Just like, say, the Union flag, or even the Irish flag, symbolises different things to different people. You don't dispute that, surely? Even the swastika, one of the most unambiguously loathed and stigmatised symbols in Western civilisation, possesses various connotations dependent on one's perspectives and circumstances. It's widely viewed as a symbol of good luck in southern Asia, for example.


without the British we would be speaking German!

God bless them; noble protectors of our native, erm, Hiberno-English tongue...


Wear the Poppy, thats fine, but fecking three weeks before, thats a bit much

"A poppy is for life; not just for (near) Christmas."

[ArdeeBhoy]

The Brits haven't fought in any war/conflict worthy of the name since 1945 anyway...

Once the last veterans from then die off, it should be consigned to history probably for good?

[tricky_colour]

Then it will remain as a permanent stain to your reputation and well deserved I might add :D

Dunno if it will be visible on top of the other stains :D

[tricky_colour]

The Brits haven't fought in any war/conflict worthy of the name since 1945 anyway...

Once the last veterans from then die off, it should be consigned to history probably for good?

There is absolutely no need for it?

What is is for anyway, if it is to raise money for charity to those involved then
it proves they were not fighting for anything worth fighting for where people
in need including old soldier have to resort to begging on the streets (and sometimes
inside pubs) sometimes just leaving their tin there, too ashamed to be seem begging.

[SkStu]

I bought a poppy and tried to turn it into heroin. Mad buzz.

[tricky_colour]

Bennocelt, can you please quit sending reputation comments to my private message inbox?

I agrees, I have one downgrading my otherwise unblemished :) reputation.
I am not too bothered about that but it just says "bah" and I don't know what it refers to.
Hence in a tit to tat attack I downgraded his too!!!
He can give it out, but can he take it???

[bennocelt]

I agrees, I have one downgrading my otherwise unblemished :) reputation.
I am not too bothered about that but it just says "bah" and I don't know what it refers to.
Hence in a tit to tat attack I downgraded his too!!!
He can give it out, but can he take it???


Of course I can, give and take no big deal:)

[DannyInvincible]

There is absolutely no need for it?

What is is for anyway, if it is to raise money for charity to those involved then
it proves they were not fighting for anything worth fighting for where people
in need including old soldier have to resort to begging on the streets (and sometimes
inside pubs) sometimes just leaving their tin there, too ashamed to be seem begging.

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori...

The poppy obviously means different things to different people. For some, it might represent the memory of a lost loved one. For others, a jingoistic celebration of (what once was) British global might. For others again, a symbol of the foreign oppressor. And so forth...

The Royal British Legion, who run Poppyfest annually, declare their purpose as being to "provide help and welfare to the serving and ex-Service community and their families". Of course, soldiers are cannon-fodder. When were they ever fighting for an agenda of their own? Whilst there may be a charitable element (and who, other than a downright misanthropic sociopath, could argue with the concept of charity, after all?!), the poppy possesses a double meaning; it is also a useful propaganda tool for those of the establishment who send lower-class men out to do their dirty work. To question the exhibition of the poppy and the wars in which these soldiers are sent off to fight can then become disingenuously twisted or framed as an attack on "our boys". To cast a critical eye over these poor sods out "fighting for our freedom" is simply below-the-belt; unthinkable as far as the terms of the public debate on the matter are concerned. The poppy provides a rosy buffer or smokescreen for those elites who stand to benefit from global warmongering.

This semi-related documentary - it's a critique of US warmongering and propaganda - by Eugene Jarecki on the rise and maintenance of the American military-industrial complex, Why We Fight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight_(2005_film)), is worth a watch for anyone interested in such things:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO7-GBRx1xM

[DannyInvincible]

Anyway, back on-topic; Ray Houghton expresses his thoughts on his two-hour long meeting with Roy: http://thescore.thejournal.ie/ray-houghton-roy-keane-1162209-Nov2013/


ROY KEANE THINKS there’s ‘plenty of players’ in the Irish squad who are better than he was, according to Ray Houghton.

The former Liverpool and Aston Villa midfielder was tasked with interviewing prospective new managers, along with FAI performance director, Ruud Dokter.

Houghton says he met with Keane for two hours when Martin O’Neill suggested he wanted the Corkman as his assistant.

“In that chat I had with him I found him very humble when he was talking about his abilities,” Houghton said on RTE’s Primetime programme tonight.

“I actually put that question to him about handling players and as I was about to go into a monologue about what I think he should do differently he stopped me in my tracks and said you know what, the type of players I was I was a good runner; there’s plenty of players in the Irish set-up better than me. I think he’s learned from his mistakes and I think he’s going to be very good for the Irish set-up.”

Houghton said he had never had a long conversation with his former international team-mate about football before and was surprised by Keane’s depth of knowledge.
“As far as Roy’s concerned, that was purely down to Martin O’Neill. He wasn’t forced onto Martin at all. It was Martin’s decision to ask for him as his assistant and time will tell if it’s the right choice. I personally think it is.

“I spoke to Roy and had a good chat with him for over two hours and he impressed me hugely. I thought what he had to say was excellent, he surprised me and it takes a lot to surprise me in football, I can assure you. He said the right things and I really think he’s earned a great deal from his time at Ipswich and I think he’s going to do really well for the country.

“I must admit I’ve never really sat down with Roy for a great length of time and spoke about football,” he continued. “I obviously knew he was a fantastic footballer who works in the TV industry like a lot of us. But I didn’t realise his depth of knowledge was quite what it was and his depth of knowledge of the Irish set-up.

“I spoke to him for two hours and it could have been another two hours at least such was his enthusiasm and his knowledge and from that point of view I was surprised at the detail that he went into. But I was pleasantly surprised and I think he and Martin will form a very good understanding. There’s no question, having spoken to both of them, they know their roles. Martin is the manager and Roy is there to assist him and we’ll see what develops over the coming months.”

When asked if Keane’s standards were too high for the Championship-level players he led at Ipswich Town, Houghton said: ” All Roy wants is the best for his players. He wants them to go out in training, in matches and produce their best football.

“He’s not asking for anything more from them. He’s not asking for anything they’re not incapable of doing. It’s just having a bit of pride in your country, a bit of pride in playing for a team, going out there and playing to the best of your ability. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. That’s his standards that he wants and it’s up to the players to match those standards. Not just his, Martin O’Neill’s exactly the same.”

I understand the RTÉ panel discussed the new appointments after last night's Champions League game. Don't suppose there's a video of the coverage about?

[gastric]

Can we imagine if O'Neill or Keane refused to wear poppies? Controversy, paddy bashing and side issues becoming headlines. At times, we have to swallow our pride and do what the Romans do. I completely agree with Stutts. When you have a family who are of dual nationality and a country has been good to you, what is wrong with accepting a country's values?

For younger posters on here, it is easy to be idealistic when young, another when you are a bit older and life is a bit more complexed.

[OwlsFan]

Anyway, back on-topic; Ray Houghton expresses his thoughts on his two-hour long meeting with Roy: http://thescore.thejournal.ie/ray-houghton-roy-keane-1162209-Nov2013/



I understand the RTÉ panel discussed the new appointments after last night's Champions League game. Don't suppose there's a video of the coverage about?

Giles spoke about what the role of an assistant manager was under Matt Busby and Brian Clough (i.e. over 40 years ago). He then agreed with Dunphy. Dunphy agreed with Giles and had a complete volte face from his initial position and thought both were great appointments. Brady liked the appointment of O'Neill, wasn't enthusiastic at all about Keane and wondered what he would bring to the job and reminded Dunphy that he had sung similar praises about Trappatoni when he was appointed. Bill laughed.

All I could think of was when Giles said about Keane having been out of the game for two years and having learned from his mistakes:

1967

[tetsujin1979]

the panel discussion is online here: http://www.rte.ie/sport/player/813/485196/

Can anyone explain why Alex Bruce's pic is on the link for the squad announcement?

[paul_oshea]

Of course it can mean different things to different people. Just like, say, the Union flag, or even the Irish flag, symbolises different things to different people. You don't dispute that, surely? Even the swastika, one of the most unambiguously loathed and stigmatised symbols in Western civilisation, possesses various connotations dependent on one's perspectives and circumstances. It's widely viewed as a symbol of good luck in southern Asia, for example.


The Indians and South Asians do not consider the Swatzika in the same form as hitler had it, its been found on ancient scribes and drawings, but it has no context in the same form.

Similarly you cannot compare the Irish flag which is such a divisive thing on the Island of Ireland, with a large number of people, to some symbol.

[tetsujin1979]

The Indians and South Asians do not consider the Swatzika in the same form as hitler had it, its been found on ancient scribes and drawings, but it has no context in the same form.

Similarly you cannot compare the Irish flag which is such a divisive thing on the Island of Ireland, with a large number of people, to some symbol.
in the same vein Lazio fans wave Celtic crosses as a fascist symbol

[paul_oshea]

In the context of the cross, and the amount of Catholics the world over, i doubt at most a few thousand Lazio fans can be called a sizeable divisive number.

[DannyInvincible]

Widespread neo-Nazi and white-pride group use of the Celtic cross is well-known. It's one of their most popular symbols. In fact, its depiction can be prohibited within certain contexts in both Germany and Italy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_cross#Neo_Nazi_Usage


In Germany, the Celtic cross was adopted by a prohibited political party (VSBD/PdA) leading to a ban of the symbol if used within a racist context (cf. Strafgesetzbuch section 86a). Although there were doubts on the constitutionality of the ban it was upheld in a decision of the supreme court.

In Italy there is a similar ban, deriving from Legge Mancino (Mancino Act, from the Minister of Interior who enacted the law), although there are some examples of the use of the Celtic Cross as a Roman Catholic Church symbol in Northern Italy.


The Indians and South Asians do not consider the Swatzika in the same form as hitler had it, its been found on ancient scribes and drawings, but it has no context in the same form.

That was my point. Was it not you arguing that what you called a "black-and-white" symbol could only possess one meaning or connotation? And, of course there is a cross-over of context, even if Nazi theory was rather spurious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#As_the_symbol_of_Nazism


The use of the swastika was incorporated by Nazi theorists with their conjecture of Aryan cultural descent of the German people. Following the Nordicist version of the Aryan invasion theory, the Nazis claimed that the early Aryans of India, from whose Vedic tradition the swastika sprang, were the prototypical white invaders. The concept of racial purity was an ideology central to Nazism, though it is now considered unscientific. For Alfred Rosenberg, the Aryans of India were both a model to be imitated and a warning of the dangers of the spiritual and racial "confusion" that, he believed, arose from the close proximity of races. Thus, they saw fit to co-opt the sign as a symbol of the Aryan master race. The use of the swastika as a symbol of the Aryan race dates back to writings of Emile Burnouf. Following many other writers, the German nationalist poet Guido von List believed it to be a uniquely Aryan symbol.


Similarly you cannot compare the Irish flag which is such a divisive thing on the Island of Ireland, with a large number of people, to some symbol.

Why not? The Irish flag is a symbol, after all.

Meanwhile...

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc12/poguemahone85/fa_zps3ed07315.png

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc12/poguemahone85/ifa_zps7120aaae.jpeg

Football and politics, there; mixing...

[geysir]

In the context of the cross, and the amount of Catholics the world over, I doubt at most a few thousand Lazio fans can be called a sizeable divisive number.
The context for Tet's reply is that celtic crosses are part of a symbolism of a culture dating back thousands of years, however, in recent history it has become a symbol used by fascist groups. In a similar vein, the swastika has been an important symbolic part of Eastern spiritual culture for thousands of years and in recent history has been used (in a modified form) by fascist groups.

[paul_oshea]

I'm not sure where the confusion is, or why there is confusion more importantly.

The poppy, might be for some people a symbol of getting high, for a small minority. It doesn't really matter.

However my point is about the poppy a symbol of peace originally supposedly, not some ancient bloody meaning, its worn in the UK as a symbol of support to their Forces. It has no connotation or some link to anything else in the UK by a significant number of people to mean anything else, its pure and simple a symbol of support to the Armed Forces. Whether or not its meaning is peace or what not is irrelevant really, the symbol is a show of support to the British Armed Forces.

*Off topic - DI stop quoting, wikipedia for gods sake. I really don't like people who textbook learn, live the world, learn from people immersed in that culture. I'm pretty sure if you ask the average(educated Indian for example or Pakistani or Bangladeshi on the street about that symbol it will not pop into their head anything you throw up from wiki like above, it will relate to the WWII Nazis.

[geysir]

Only Skstu tried to get high on the poppy.

[tricky_colour]

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori...

The poppy obviously means different things to different people. For some, it might represent the memory of a lost loved one. For others, a jingoistic celebration of (what once was) British global might. For others again, a symbol of the foreign oppressor. And so forth...

The Royal British Legion, who run Poppyfest annually, declare their purpose as being to "provide help and welfare to the serving and ex-Service community and their families". Of course, soldiers are cannon-fodder. When were they ever fighting for an agenda of their own? Whilst there may be a charitable element (and who, other than a downright misanthropic sociopath, could argue with the concept of charity, after all?!), the poppy possesses a double meaning; it is also a useful propaganda tool for those of the establishment who send lower-class men out to do their dirty work. To question the exhibition of the poppy and the wars in which these soldiers are sent off to fight can then become disingenuously twisted or framed as an attack on "our boys". To cast a critical eye over these poor sods out "fighting for our freedom" is simply below-the-belt; unthinkable as far as the terms of the public debate on the matter are concerned. The poppy provides a rosy buffer or smokescreen for those elites who stand to benefit from global warmongering.

This semi-related documentary - it's a critique of US warmongering and propaganda - by Eugene Jarecki on the rise and maintenance of the American military-industrial complex, Why We Fight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight_(2005_film)), is worth a watch for anyone interested in such things:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO7-GBRx1xM

Well as I see it if they fought for a better world they would not have to beg for hand outs, and I do mean that,
I mean we have food banks here in the UK with people being left destitute all to refill empty bank accounts of the super rich.

[DannyInvincible]

I'm not sure where the confusion is, or why there is confusion more importantly.

The poppy, might be for some people a symbol of getting high, for a small minority. It doesn't really matter.

However my point is about the poppy a symbol of peace originally supposedly, not some ancient bloody meaning, its worn in the UK as a symbol of support to their Forces. It has no connotation or some link to anything else in the UK by a significant number of people to mean anything else, its pure and simple a symbol of support to the Armed Forces. Whether or not its meaning is peace or what not is irrelevant really, the symbol is a show of support to the British Armed Forces.

But what does "support" for the British Armed Forces even mean exactly? Even that can mean different things to different people. Does it mean support for their troops? Their memories? Their sacrifices? Their past wars? Their current wars? Their imperial pursuits? Their slaughters?... I'm not sure how whether or not its meaning is "peace or whatnot" is irrelevant. How could it not be? Isn't that the crux of the contention? For some it may represent hope for peace; for others, it represents thirst for war. For you, it represents support for the British Armed Forces, whatever that might entail. Just because you have that opinion, doesn't make it true for everyone.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't wear one myself due to its negative connotations with regard to Ireland and Irish history. Stutts, for example, obviously feels it possesses different connotations to how I might view it. That's his prerogative as a free-thinking individual. I highly doubt he sports one to celebrate imperial warmongering, whilst that is part of the reason I wouldn't wear one; because my circumstances have resulted in me viewing it differently. Perhaps one aspect of his wearing of it is in memory of Irish lives lost during the World Wars rather than it amounting to some explicit support for the British Armed Forces.


*Off topic - DI stop quoting, wikipedia for gods sake. I really don't like people who textbook learn, live the world, learn from people immersed in that culture. I'm pretty sure if you ask the average(educated Indian for example or Pakistani or Bangladeshi on the street about that symbol it will not pop into their head anything you throw up from wiki like above, it will relate to the WWII Nazis.

Apologies, I'll head out with my dictaphone next time. I was merely providing some basic context and background. Wiki's a pretty handy tool for info-searching when it's difficult to find such perspectives in the flesh.


Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited, multilingual, free Internet encyclopedia supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.

:p

Of course your average south Asian immersed in Western culture will be more than aware of the Nazi connotations of the swastika and may well dismiss the conjectured association of the symbol by Nazi theorists with their part of the world as nothing more than crude b*stardisation. I've never been immersed in non-Western south Asian culture, so it would be hasty to assume what the thoughts of those from that culture might be, but they may well have feelings on what would be swastika's "true" symbolism. The swastika is used contemporarily in Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Contemporary_use_in_Asia), after all.

I'm not sure what exactly your point is though. Symbols can mean different things to different people, is all I'm arguing. Some will see "true" meanings where others see "twisted" meanings; it's all just a matter of one's perspective. Are we not in general agreement on that (with the exception of the poppy and its alleged unambiguous meaning by yourself)?


Well as I see it if they fought for a better world they would not have to beg for hand outs, and I do mean that

Well, of course, which just signifies the great myth under which they're sent off to fight.

[peadar1987]

*Off topic - DI stop quoting, wikipedia for gods sake. I really don't like people who textbook learn, live the world, learn from people immersed in that culture. I'm pretty sure if you ask the average(educated Indian for example or Pakistani or Bangladeshi on the street about that symbol it will not pop into their head anything you throw up from wiki like above, it will relate to the WWII Nazis.

I'm the opposite, I'd much prefer someone back up their argument with citations and evidence, not just anecdotes and opinions with no weight behind them.

[paul_oshea]

My evidence is my experience in life, more so than not. I live life as a realist rather than what ifs or what I've read. And generally it has done me well. But if you think reading books is the only way to learn, good luck to you, each to their own. It's kinda the Sarah Palin way of learning geography read some books on culture and customs and think you understand the whole world.

Btw, isnt it the white poppy and not the red one which is the peace symbol anyway? Which completely nullifies the argument that it has many meanings for many different people(s).


I'm not sure what exactly your point is though. Symbols can mean different things to different people, is all I'm arguing. Some will see "true" meanings where others see "twisted" meanings; it's all just a matter of one's perspective. Are we not in general agreement on that (with the exception of the poppy and its alleged unambiguous meaning by yourself)?

The discussion stemmed(good one o hai?) out of something of symbolism related to the red poppy worn in the UK - which coincidentally factually is incorrect I think - and how it could symbolize different things to sizeable numbers of different people. I think we have proven it doesn't, it symbolises the same thing, but its interpretation or how it emotionally attaches to certain people is different.

[DannyInvincible]

But if you think reading books is the only way to learn, good luck to you, each to their own. It's kinda the Sarah Palin way of learning geography read some books on culture and customs and think you understand the whole world.

That's not what Peadar was saying at all.


Btw, isnt it the white poppy and not the red one which is the peace symbol anyway? Which completely nullifies the argument that it has many meanings for many different people(s).

No, it doesn't. I've outlined numerous different meanings or connotations it can have for different people.


I think we have proven it doesn't, it symbolises the same thing, but its interpretation or how it emotionally attaches to certain people is different.

What "same thing" does it symbolise for everyone? You've failed to elaborate. Its possible or alleged symbolism is wholly derived from its subjective interpretation by whoever is doing the interpretation. I mean, some people might even claim it's not political but humanitarian rather.

[Charlie Darwin]

Paul, you're just rambling nonsense now.

My point was that symbols have different meanings to different people. Some symbols have very fixed meanings - like the Roman salute, the Nazi swastika - while others are far more open to interpretation, like the poppy which can be as innocent as "keep our boys safe" or as malignant as "kill those paddy facks". I'm not sure why you're so resistant to this basic concept and even more baffled by your resort to "life experience" to deflect from the fact you've talked yourself way into an argument you haven't really thought through.

[paul_oshea]

No, because i live here, and i know what it symbolises, and that relates to my last point, you live in Ireland CD and read about it and what not, but don't really understand or have a clue yet you felt you could empathise with someone living in a country who wears it for whatever reasons, which we still dont know. Your point was nothing to do with symbols but understanding why someone living in a country would wear a poppy, thats how this all started!

My point hasnt changed CD, there may have been other offshoots, but its relative to what you posted originally. How is it completely understandable for someone to wear a poppy just because they live in the country where it's sold to support that countries armed forces, you never answered, just jumped back on an advanced original discussion now.

DI, if you took 10 people and showed them a picture, that picture might mean 7 different things for 7 people, and the same for 3. It means absoloutely nothing.

What Peadar was trying to say was that because I'm not backing up with wiki he wouldn't take any heed of my point. Thats his opinion and Im not too bothered about it, however he paints around it.

I'm also open to the point that I answer different posts at different times, not necessarily succintly either, because i dont have time to sit back and check over and formulate posts. I reply quickly so its probably a bit more confusing. I don't have time like you CD to quote on quote and all that crap :P Maybe to you becasue you cant understand it it comes across as nonsense :)

[Charlie Darwin]

No, because i live here, and i know what it symbolises
No, you live in England and you know what it symbolises to English people, although even so not everybody agrees. You're very correct that I live in a different country where the symbol has different connotations.


How is it completely understandable for someone to wear a poppy just because they live in the country where it's sold to support that countries armed forces
I said it's understandable that he doesn't see a reason not to wear a poppy. He didn't really elaborate on the "I live in England, etc" and I didn't push it, I just assumed he had his own reasons that were more nuanced than what he posted.

[Stuttgart88]

For what it's worth, I wouldn't wear one myself due to its negative connotations with regard to Ireland and Irish history. Stutts, for example, obviously feels it possesses different connotations to how I might view it. That's his prerogative as a free-thinking individual. I highly doubt he sports one to celebrate imperial warmongering, whilst that is part of the reason I wouldn't wear one; because my circumstances have resulted in me viewing it differently. Perhaps one aspect of his wearing of it is in memory of Irish lives lost during the World Wars rather than it amounting to some explicit support for the British Armed Forces.Thanks Danny.

I'm here 14 years now. I started wearing one about 5 years ago. I felt it was more of a churlish statement not to wear one than it is a positive statement to wear one. If I lived in Ireland I probably wouldn't wear one. If I did I'd be making a strong message whereas here I think I'm simply making a passive gesture. (by here I mean London, not foot.ie!)

Most people wear them here without really over-thinking any of the potential political dimensions. Some UKIP heads and Tory nutjobs probably see it in a more malign sense.

The vast majority of people here that wear a poppy just see that historically British and other soldiers made great sacrifices to fend off totalitarianism or other badness. Of course, that's the nice explanation - WW1 was more about a land grab or a grab for influence and power when fault lines were fracturing in Europe and it was in the UK's interests to side with their allies. That doesn't matter though - kids were sent to a brutal death.

And of course many here were fed a diet of propaganda during The Troubles too. But still, at WW1 there was a tragic loss of young lives in a way that thank God none of our children will ever have to go through. Part of wearing a poppy is remembering that. I would say that my UK friends almost to a man - in fact including a soldier who served in NI - would agree that at Bloody Sunday and throughout the Troubles the army and their State acted terribly. But in light of the terror of the WW1 trenches and that so many kids are/were returning home from Afghanistan in boxes or missing limbs, whatever I feel about what happened in Ireland isn't enough for me not to show a little respect in the country I live in. If I lived in New York I wouldn't not take part in a passive mark of respect to those who died in the Twin Towers because of what the US did in Central and South America - which I happen to feel very strongly about.

The world is a messed up place. I can't think of any former colonist that hasn't got a dark past.

I think poppy wearing can be a little like football: generally pretty benign but gets hijacked for political expediency by some.

[tetsujin1979]

My evidence is my experience in life, more so than not. I live life as a realist rather than what ifs or what I've read. And generally it has done me well. But if you think reading books is the only way to learn, good luck to you, each to their own. It's kinda the Sarah Palin way of learning geography read some books on culture and customs and think you understand the whole world.That's patently ridiculous, you're assuming that your interpretation of those experiences is correct, so anyone with a different viewpoint on the same experiences is wrong by default. The vast majority of learning is done through reading. Are you saying all of this is wrong, because the person involved didn't actively experience the Renaissance/American Revolution/World War II?

[DannyInvincible]

No, because i live here, and i know what it symbolises, and that relates to my last point, you live in Ireland CD and read about it and what not, but don't really understand or have a clue yet you felt you could empathise with someone living in a country who wears it for whatever reasons, which we still dont know. Your point was nothing to do with symbols but understanding why someone living in a country would wear a poppy, thats how this all started!

I live in England too, but what does that matter? I've seen all types of different people wearing poppies of late. Likewise, I've seen all types of different people not wearing poppies. There are a whole myriad of reasons as to why or why not, I'm sure. Aren't you the one, and not Charlie, jumping to judgment and conclusions? You think you know why everyone is wearing a poppy. Just because you might live near or amongst some wearers, and possibly may have spoken with some others, it doesn't give you any greater right to assume or insight into all wearers' motives.


How is it completely understandable for someone to wear a poppy just because they live in the country where it's sold to support that countries armed forces

Because it may have another meaning for that someone.


DI, if you took 10 people and showed them a picture, that picture might mean 7 different things for 7 people, and the same for 3. It means absoloutely nothing.

It means that a symbol can mean different things to different people, no?


What Peadar was trying to say was that because I'm not backing up with wiki he wouldn't take any heed of my point.

That's not quite what he said either.

[DannyInvincible]

I'm here 14 years now. I started wearing one about 5 years ago. I felt it was more of a churlish statement not to wear one than it is a positive statement to wear one. If I lived in Ireland I probably wouldn't wear one. If I did I'd be making a strong message whereas here I think I'm simply making a passive gesture. (by here I mean London, not foot.ie!)

Jesus, Stutts, next you'll be declaring for OWC! :p

[Stuttgart88]

Eff off!

[passinginterest]

I blame the bad spelling and grammar in the thread title for leading it so far off topic...

[DannyInvincible]

I blame the bad spelling and grammar in the thread title for leading it so far off topic...

Something nice and incendiary to get things back on topic: http://pogmogoal.com/the-blog-reel/guest-post-misery-merchants-back-aboard-the-bandwagon/15523/


Misery Merchants Back Aboard the Bandwagon

They’re calling them ‘Box-Office. The unveiling of Martin O’Neill and Roy Keane as Ireland’s new management has sparked a frenzy of interest in the home friendly with Latvia. Yet, if the duo weren’t in place next week, if there was no appointment, Irish ‘supporters’ would stay away in their droves. Billy Keane of Back-Post.com wonders if the Irish team would be better off without the event-junkies.

I never really liked Geography in school. Who really gives a sh*t about ox-bow lakes and flood plains and such things. My Geography teacher was a cardigan loving, socks and sandals wearing hippy with chalk dust billowing from his moustache whenever he spoke. I never quite took to him. I do remember a time when he stubbed his toe on the projector screen stand. That was funny. Serves him right for wearing sandals to work. Amidst the throbbing pain and fumbling, the projector stand collapsed on him pinching the skin between his thumb and forefinger and sent him into an alternate reality with the agony. I was on the floor laughing at this stage watching him change colour as he tried to keep his fury from erupting in a torrent of red hot expletives. Hilarious. He also did this annoying thing that teachers do when they say the first syllable of a word and encourage you to finish it. Vol-cano. That really annoyed me.

I refer to my old Geography past because I was recently struck by a time-faded image, in my minds eye, of ‘the water cycleʼ from lessons gone by while in the Aviva Stadium for the last game of the current qualifying campaign. You know the one. The sun heats up the surface of the sea, the water evaporates into the air and is carried by the wind, the water vapour cools and condenses and eventually falls back to earth as precipitation, it flows down the mountains in rivers and streams and makes its way back to the sea for the cycle to begin again. Most people are quite familiar with this cycle from living in Ireland where we get our fair share of rainfall during the year. Weʼre famous for it across the globe.

Science can explain this by examining the gulf stream, prevailing winds and cold fronts meeting warm fronts over Irelands mountains and valleys but they donʼt live here on a day to day basis so exactly how much weight you can give to these theories is up to each of us to decide. I for one am not completely sold on this sciencey, objective, evidence based hocus pocus but thatʼs just me.

“I have another theory that may have slipped through the net in the world of scientific research. I propose that Irelandʼs level of rainfall is pushed into the higher numbers by the condensation from the mouths of half of Irelandʼs football supporters.”

Itʼs a water vapour by-product from the bitching and moaning, criticizing and condemning, berating and whinging shower of misery merchants who show up to these qualifying games. Add to that the steam off the ****e that I hear from the vocal idiots at these games and Iʼm truly dumbfounded as to how Ireland doesnʼt have a monsoon season around international game weeks.

It came to a head for me in the Upper South Stand at the start of the Ireland/Kazakhstan game. The teams were lining up for the national anthems. I was in my seat and not a sinner within ten rows of me. Looking around with an uninterrupted view confirmed that the stadium was mostly empty seats. Less than half full. I felt sorry for the team to have to come out and play a competitive game in front such a sparse crowd. Every empty seat represented a gravy train bandwagonner that decided to stay home this time. These people are in every walk of life. I just didnʼt realize that there was such an amount of them in the Irish football crowd.

These people are not supporters. They are only interested in following success around and trying to claim part ownership of it. It doesnʼt cost them a thought to abandon a cause if things start to go tits up. They most likely ʻwere always interested in rugbyʼ when Irelandʼs rugby team were doing well and ʻhad been following the boxing for yearsʼ when Bernard Dunne was fighting for a world title and Katie Taylor was winning Olympic gold. Unfortunately itʼs these ****s that make the most noise. They can define what the general consensus is and alter the perceived mood of the football public. The level of criticism aimed at the Irish team and management by these ****s during the last campaign was nothing short of criminal. From the disgruntled numpties in the stands to the gentlemen’s club punditry on RTE, the efforts of both players and manager were torn to shreds in a storm of post match analysis and character assassination.

In the wake of Ireland’s performance in the Euros and the subsequent heavy defeat to Germany, the chorus of requests for Trapʼs head was embarrassing and bordered on betrayal. For a man who narrowly missed out on a World Cup place to a piece of blatant cheating in a playoff with France and successfully brought Ireland through the next qualifying campaign for the Euros to be marched on in this manner was shameful.

Trap was appointed to do a job. He did it how he saw fit. He was successful in doing that job. Not everyone agreed with the way he went about it, myself included, but I would not call for his sacking because he lost against the likes of Spain, Italy and Germany.

Expectations were inflated and distorted. Maybe it’s because of the golden generation of football fans who grew up with Jack Charltonʼs success and Mick McCarthyʼs World Cup heroics in Japan and South Korea. I am also of that generation so I understand what it’s like to experience an Ireland team competing on the world stage and holding their own against the best. It’s easy to yearn for those days and lament these ones but with a bit objectivity, the gulf in quality between the squads at Jack and Mickʼs disposal and players that Trap had is glaringly obvious. I only wish I had realized how spoilt I was at the time of the 1990 and 94 world cups and beyond.

It doesn’t sit well with me that Trap was dismissed in the manner in which he was. It gives the impression that his reign as Ireland manager was a failure when in reality it was roaring success. I felt as if the noisy nay-sayers bullied Trap out of the job. The animosity towards him was completely undeserved when in the cold light of day it was a miracle that Trap achieved a World Cup play-off place and Euro qualification with the worst Ireland team in living memory. This is not to disrespect the players. They give their all every time they pull on the jersey and I applaud them for it but the harsh reality is that they are just not good enough collectively or individually to compete at any sort of level. Thatʼs just the way it is at the moment.

Going back to that night at the Aviva, I stood for the national anthem with a bit of a knot in my stomach because of the lack of attendance. My Facebook friends will remember a bitter update accompanied by a picture of the empty stadium. However, that feeling wore off as the match got underway and another feeling gradually took itʼs place. As I looked around at the fans who had bothered to come to the game a few thoughts came to mind. I was glad that it was only the actual supporters here. I hadnʼt heard a whinging misery merchant since I arrived which was a nice change.

Maybe this is way forward. Let the ****s stay at home. They have no idea what it means to support the team anyway. They donʼt appreciate the effort and pride that these players represent when they go out on the pitch. The people here are the people who I want to sit with. The people here are the ones who stayed back after the Euro games to sing the team off the pitch regardless of the crushing defeats. The people here are the ones who are consistently voted the best supporters in the world is spite of the whinging contingent that stays at home. It occurred to me that I was happy to sit in a half empty stadium.

I propose that we reduce the capacity of the Aviva by half. Then it will never be a question of being half empty or half full. It will always be full. Full of real supporters.

A fair amount of bitterness there - a lot of it over-simplified and sanctimonious - but especially for the poor old Geography teacher!

[peadar1987]

Paul, that's not what I was saying, you attacked DI for citing wikipedia (or indeed, making any sort of citation). I prefer documented and reviewed evidence to anecdotal evidence when you're trying to make a rational argument, as the latter is incredibly subjective. You say you know all about the symbolism of the poppy from living in the UK and being immersed in the culture. Well Stutts lives here too, and he takes different symbolism from it. I live here as well, have an English parent and dual nationality, I have a different interpretation again.

[Stuttgart88]

Yeah, but I don't live in Dollis Hill like Paul does :)

[IsMiseSean]

Since ye're all talking about poppies. Ray Houghton is the first person I've seen on Sky Sports not wearing one this year.

[paul_oshea]

That's patently ridiculous, you're assuming that your interpretation of those experiences is correct, so anyone with a different viewpoint on the same experiences is wrong by default. The vast majority of learning is done through reading. Are you saying all of this is wrong, because the person involved didn't actively experience the Renaissance/American Revolution/World War II?

I read at college and learnt nothing, I worked for 2 years and learnt everything.

*Everything is relative to what i had been reading at college. I'm just saying that personally thats how I learn, I'm not saying if you learn through reading you don't learn, but definitely experiencing something learns you better, again in my opinion, than reading. Give me practical over theoretical anyday.

Stutts you could have saved a lot of needless posts had you said that earlier :)

Peadar I know your father is english and you live there, apologies I thought it was a veiled attempt to discredit my posts.

From personal experience the people I work with aren't the people I mix with. I meet people from all walks of life through various avenues, wrt to the poppy I'd say I've seen a lot of it.

DI, in Manchester would you see many South Asians wearing the poppy, be objective, bar maybe nepalese I mean?

[Charlie Darwin]

The one thing you don't seem to have learned is that your experience is not universal.

[peadar1987]

I see your point Paul, but citing stuff isn't really a conflict between practical and theoretical. Wikipedia is under constant review, and the people who edit the articles about the symbolism of the Celtic cross, for example, will be people who have experience, or at least have carried out research, into far-right culture. I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about with regard to the poppy, clearly you do, even if I don't agree with your interpretations, but anyone can say whatever they want about their own subjective experiences. Giving sources and citations outside of that does give extra weight to what you're saying.