I will be wearing a red poppy, in memory of my grandfathers, both of whom served in WW1, and in civil defence in WW2 , and luckily survived (or I wouldn't be here). I never knew my paternal grandfather, but my maternal grandfather was in the Royal Artillery. I remember speaking to him on my 21st birthday, when he asked me was I "having a nice time", which struck me as a curiously phrased question. He then said "On my 21st I was on the Somme, and next year, just for a change, I went to Passendale" (where he was wounded.) He hardly ever mentioned his war service, but it had a lasting effect on me. It doesn't make the conflict less awful or less pointless to wear a red poppy, but I would not wear a white poppy.
First of all, white is universally regarded as a symbol of cowardice. Even if this is not so in this case, and I know that sometimes it takes courage to be a coward, when it can be the right thing to do, but I don't think it helps to promote peace by using white. For me, the sight of ex-servicemen marching past the Cenotaph is enough to bring home the awfulness of war. The poppy petals falling from the roof of the Albert Hall..... Even though we may be assured its not the intention, I think a white poppy would be grossly insulting to the great majority of them.
Secondly, I disagree with their analysis of conflict and dislike their attitude towards those who have protected them, giving them the freedom to act as they do.
The White Poppy symbolises the belief that there are better ways to resolve conflicts than killing strangers.
This is just ridiculous. The Army in Northern Ireland, or in Bosnia to take 2 examples, were there to reduce killings, not increase them. No resistance to Hitler would have meant the virtual elimination of Jews from Europe. Winston Churchill himself, probably our greatest military leader, said jaw-jaw is better than war-war. But sometimes that just doesn't work, and that must be recognised.
Our work, primarily educational, draws attention to many of our social values and habits which make continuing violence a likely outcome.
This is just vacuous wishful thinking, likely to be devoid of serious scholarship. Educational, eh? Like so-called "Peace Studies". Alas, the world is not like that. It's no good saying "be good and play together nicely". The lack of value is revealed by the next sentence:
From economic reliance on arms sales (Britain is the world's second largest arms exporter) to maintaining manifestly useless nuclear weapons Britain contributes significantly to international instability.
Please show me where British manufactured arms are
contributing to instability. I'm not making a defence of the UK weapons industry, but you need more justification than that. Furthermore, ghastly though mutual destruction is to even contemplate, it arguably kept the Cold War cold. Likewise, how peaceful would the world have been if Saddam had had a nuclear capability without being assured of his own destruction? I don't think a white poppy would have stopped him. If the Greenham Common women really wanted to get rid of nuclear warheads from British soil, perhaps they should have picketed the Russian embassy, as it was ultimately the perceived decrease in the threat from the USSR which led to the closure of the base, not their caravans, songs and wire-cutters. By comparison, how did the GDR treat wire-cutters? Oh yes, they shot them.
The outcome of the recent military adventures highlights their ineffectiveness in today's complex world.
So, your solution to Darfur, or the Congo, is what, precisely?
we still have a long way to go to put an end to a social institution, which in the last decade alone killed over 10 million children
The tragic deaths of these children has more to do with the cruel nature of man, rather than the arms industry. Should Saddam-like dictators be free to kill at will? (And don't worry, they'll do it without any help from us.) Why were demonstrators prepared to picket the South African Embassy in Trafalgar Square, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, but not picket the current Zimbabwean Embassy? I'm not defending apartheid, just pointing out what I consider to be inconsistencies.
I realise my comments are not conclusive, but then they are not intended to be. Nor do they offer a guide to a safer world, but again, that is not my intention. I just wish people would think a little harder and be thankful for those who have and those who do protect them still.
Hmmm. I got a bit grumpy, didn't I?