That statement/letter was incredibly persuasive, I feel. I think anyone with an ounce of empathy would be able to comprehend his reasoning.
Yeah, it was probably written by someone else but I'm sure he contributed heavily. It'd have to be written by a professional who would leave nothing open to being misconstrued. That's not a sign of James being stupid. It's more a sign that there are a lot of stupid people about and these stupid people happen to be loud.
Fair play to McClean. Very well articulated and hopefully will shush a few ignorant Irish voices/apologiests down here who say it's for WW1 alone and we should all wear them. To those people I say 'NEVEEEEEEEERRRRRR!!!!'
Folding my way into the big money!!!
Danny, it's better late than ever. For two years there has been a void left by his silence which has left him open to ongoing criticism and his 'reasons' have been explained by many of the idiots mentioned in this thread. With the release of this statement he has gained understanding and maybe a lot of respect from some quarters. To say he should not feel the need to release such a statement is highly idealistic. I am sure Whelan told him he had to, something Sunderland should have initiated two years ago. Such explanations end all innuendo and make it easier to concentrate on what they are paid to do, play football. Clubs do not want side issues affecting their brand, particularly highly emotive ones like the wearing or not of the poppy. I would say good work Wigan, Whelan and McClean!Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
The usual suspects, the Telegraph and Daily Mail, are making out there's some major controversy here. Has he really sparked a national fury?... No. Meanwhile, everyone else in the real world, or those with an ounce of human understanding, acknowledge that this shouldn't be such a big deal; that he is being entirely reasonable in his courage and fortitude.
Ah, they get mileage out of it even now. They'll always be out seeking to be offended by whoever's not conforming to their world-view. If it's not James, it'll be someone else they're condemning. It's how their fragile, validation-deprived egos operate. It doesn't matter what James does, so long as he sticks to his principles, as is his civic right. I mean, there should never be an obligation upon someone to explain their stance on something personal like this to uncompromising dolts of whose business it is absolutely none anyway. It would be wrong to consider this a "better late than never" statement on James' part; he never should have had to feel the need to release such a statement in the first place.
Oddly (or maybe not... he is a peculiar character), Lachey appears to have re-setup his Twitter within the past few days in preparation for this, presumably so he can, once again, leech off the back of the potential attention. Although, he did make sure to first rather desperately tweet virtually every mention he could find of himself in the media, both positive and negative, over the last few years, or ever. It's all publicity, isn't it?... How can James be liable for such unsettled behaviour?
It's there. It might be somewhat concealed under the oppressive, paranoiac and Troubled smog of the legacy of decades of surveillance and social deprivation, but it is there alright. Maybe it's unknown because people just don't want to know about it.
Word.
Left him open to ongoing criticism in what way? That would imply the ongoing criticism might be valid; that he's doing something morally suspect or transgressive, no? You acknowledge that the criticism is totally unreasonable, right? He's simply not wearing a poppy. There is no obligation upon him, or anyone, to do so. And I'm sure the best way for clubs to avoid such political side issues affecting their brand in future would be to keep highly emotive politics out of football...
I can see the practical benefit of releasing the statement, certainly - there are a lot of stupid people around - but it should never be considered his moral responsibility to explain to uncompromising thickos an entirely reasonable personal and private choice.
By the way, his cross to assist McManaman, launched to a chorus of boos, was a good'un.
I don't think it does.
The letter was well and carefully written - it will reduce / dilute the criticism he receives, and serve to highlight the stupidity of those who continue to make baseless criticism of him. It's exactly what I was hoping he'd do a year or two ago.
I get that he shouldn't need to explain himself to anybody.
But the point I made then (and now) is that he can say nothing and get insulted by morons, or make some kind of comment/statement, and hopefully make his own life a bit easier.
Maybe Ed Milliband could get James to do his PR?
Granted there is no moral responsibility, however, the team is bigger than individuals and I am sure that was the point Whelan and Co. would have made to him.Left him open to ongoing criticism in what way? That would imply the ongoing criticism might be valid; that he's doing something morally suspect or transgressive, no? You acknowledge that the criticism is totally unreasonable, right? He's simply not wearing a poppy. There is no obligation upon him, or anyone, to do so. And I'm sure the best way for clubs to avoid such political side issues affecting their brand in future would be to keep highly emotive politics out of football...
I can see the practical benefit of releasing the statement, certainly - there are a lot of stupid people around - but it should never be considered his moral responsibility to explain to uncompromising thickos an entirely reasonable personal and private choice.
By the way, his cross to assist McManaman, launched to a chorus of boos, was a good'un.
Yeah, I'm sure supporters of teams like Chelsea, Millwall and West Ham would respect his choice
There are plenty of English commentators in more liberal / enlightened publications who are getting increasingly concerned at the "my poppy is bigger than yours so I'm a bigger patriot" type of competition that poppy wearing has become. I think it's actally much more of a show of nationalism than it is a sign of respect these days, or rather a fundamentally benign and well-intended gesture has been hijacked by the nationalistic Right to the extent that now this is the most visible variant of the tradition.
I have worn one for about 7 or 8 years now, but I'm almost certain I won't wear one this year. Against this, my wife, only an occasional poppy wearer herself (and a Tan as Bonnie would call her
I merely single out the team for such offensive statements.There are plenty of English commentators in more liberal / enlightened publications who are getting increasingly concerned at the "my poppy is bigger than yours so I'm a bigger patriot" type of competition that poppy wearing has become. I think it's actally much more of a show of nationalism than it is a sign of respect these days, or rather a fundamentally benign and well-intended gesture has been hijacked by the nationalistic Right to the extent that now this is the most visible variant of the tradition.
I have worn one for about 7 or 8 years now, but I'm almost certain I won't wear one this year. Against this, my wife, only an occasional poppy wearer herself (and a Tan as Bonnie would call her
Incidentally, have you considered a white poppy as an alternative?
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Hey, I've called her worse!
White poppy. Good idea. Where can I get one?
As McClean says, if it were only for WW1 and WW2 there'd be no real problem.
But it's for all British soldiers in all wars. Which will inevitably become a jingoistic celebration of British imperialism.
Celebrating the Black and Tans who burnt Cork to the ground, the soldiers in Gibraltar who shot Mairéad Farrell in the back, Bloody Sunday (Dublin and Derry), the collusion of the 1974 bombings of which there is hardly any doubt, the list goes on.....Why any Irishman would wear a poppy is beyond me, for these reasons.
Also, the poppy is (supposed to be) for victims of WW1, but only the victims that were on the right side.
To the best of my knowledge it's not to commemorate any young German soldiers who were sent out to war.
Where's the peace in that?
Commemorate only one side of poor young lads who got caught up in the most unnecessary war there ever was.
If people feel the need to wear a poppy I would urge them to wear a purple or a white one and not one that has been steeped in every war Britain has been in since 1914.
Folding my way into the big money!!!
And before anybody gets it in there about respecting their family etc, my own great grandfather served in WW1.
I imagine most people in Ireland have a family connection somewhere with WW1
Folding my way into the big money!!!
I would actually wager that my lily-livered ancestors didn't at all get involved in the Great War. Too busy selling fruit in Dublin to be worrying about those things.
Stutts, Not really sure where one would get such an item. No doubt the liberals of Islington will point you in the right direction.
EDIT: Here's a good starting point. http://www.ppu.org.uk/whitepoppy/
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
ha ha
Folding my way into the big money!!!
Talking about war dead, when in Germany a while ago stumbled across a war memorial for their dead. Funny, in that we are so used to listening to one side of the narrative.
black forest 060.jpg
The whole concept of Remembrance Sunday and what it stands for is akin to the celebration of a type of founding myth; it's modern-day Britain's version of a national myth, isn't it? A lot of it is illusory and propaganda-centred. If it was simply about remembrance, why the overt pomp, self-congratulation and militarism of the ceremonies? It's really as much about "commemorating" or validating present and future wars, or ensuring a steady future supply of "heroic" cannon-fodder and public good will, in other words.
Of course, all nations have their myths. We have the Easter Rising memorial ourselves, whereby the state/government of the day rather hypocritically on an annual basis glorifies separatist action and force that had anything but broad national support in 1916, whilst simultaneously roundly condemning, from an uninvolved distance with great sanctimony, action or force of a similar nature in the more recent past in the north. Because "things had been different back then"... 2016 will be fascinating.
Therein lies the myth (or grand lie) though: that the two "glorious" World Wars in particular were somehow unique and different from all other wars waged throughout history and especially by the headquarters of the British empire; that those whose lives were wasted died in the entirely virtuous pursuit and safeguarding of freedom, rather than for the vested imperial interests of the establishment in charge of a crumbling empire trying to cling on to whatever global/continental power and influence it desperately could during a time of great geopolitical upheaval.
Poppyfest peddles a fanciful but dangerous official narrative and attempts to stifle legitimate debate; valid concerns and questions over war (and past military escapades) are dismissed under the cloak of jingoistic remembrance for "our boys", for how could any reasonable person take issue with the remembrance of the (very neutral) "fallen" who fought and sacrificed themselves for the freedom of generations following?... If you have an issue with the poppy, the implication is that you have a sociopathic problem with the very notions of humanity and empathy. It's quite a social taboo to question even the merits of the World Wars around this time of year. Even my old Wigan-supporting manager in work, an otherwise intelligent and considerate type who wasn't at all ignorant, couldn't get to grips with the notion that someone like James McClean might or could have a valid issue with wearing a poppy. He screwed up his face and would wonder "what McClean was playing at" or would suggest "it was a bit much" or that McClean "was just being a bit of a d*ck".
And still no admission of British Army collusion in the murder of innocents in the north. I'd be of a similar position myself, but it's not simply because we're Irish that legitimate questions can be asked about what the poppy represents. British people can rightfully question it too, and many do, thankfully, as Stutts mentions. I'd further find it tantamount to familial treachery to wear one, but if other Irish people can see some other meaning in the poppy, that's their prerogative.Celebrating the Black and Tans who burnt Cork to the ground, the soldiers in Gibraltar who shot Mairéad Farrell in the back, Bloody Sunday (Dublin and Derry), the collusion of the 1974 bombings of which there is hardly any doubt, the list goes on.....Why any Irishman would wear a poppy is beyond me, for these reasons.
But, but, but, as well as British casualties, the fallen from the colonies are also being remembered this year. They're very keen to stress their memory too now, lest they had ever been forgotten...Also, the poppy is (supposed to be) for victims of WW1, but only the victims that were on the right side.
To the best of my knowledge it's not to commemorate any young German soldiers who were sent out to war.
Where's the peace in that?
Commemorate only one side of poor young lads who got caught up in the most unnecessary war there ever was.
To remember the deaths of those on the "wrong side" would be to explicitly acknowledge and regret their killing, which isn't really in line with the official narrative - "if the war was right, those killings were justified" - or I get the impression it certainly isn't something that the British establishment would want at the forefront of the British public's consciousness anyway, so collateral of that nature is kind of swept under the carpet.
'Football should be proud of McClean's brave anti-poppy stand': http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...d-9849973.html
There is little more rousing or life-affirming than a man or woman standing tall for his or her beliefs. So take a bow James McClean, who for the second time as a professional footballer chose not to join his team-mates in the national display of commemorative poppy wearing when Wigan met Bolton on Friday night.
At least as impressive as his conviction was the powerful letter he penned beforehand to Wigan’s chairman, Dave Whelan, articulating his position. In less than one page of A4, 25-year-old McClean rescued the reputation of the literary sportsman from the pre-Christmas pap peddled by a raft of ubernames in tiresome autobiographies.
Understanding the emotive pull of the red flower of Flanders, McClean must have known he would be booed by the mob. While a Sunderland player two years ago he refused the poppy in a match against Everton.
But no amount of petty hatred fuelled by wholesale ignorance was going to shift him. McClean is an Irishman from a divided city, connected down the generations to a centuries-old struggle against injustice and oppression.
...
Richie Sadlier's article in the Sunday Indo had a relevant little bit in it yesterday. He said that he was an injured 18 year-old at Millwall heading into the ground on match day to watch his club in the league. As he walked in the Den he was harrassed by a group of Millwall support who shouted at him "IRA c*nt."
Quite mental behaviour by some of his own fans. At 18, he was unlikely to have irked his own supports for any reason so the attack was completely unprovoked, regardless of the content of the attack. The content was utter lunacy also. Probably no point in me or Sadlier highlighting this, now that I think of it. Imbeciles like these should be ignored. I would imagine that these men have moved over to UKIP or suchlike party after the death of football hooliganism!
What makes that even more mad, is that I'd hazard a guess that Steven Reid, Tim Cahill and Lucas Neill were some of the integral members of the Millwall squad at the time and all have some Irish heritage.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks