Celtic, Poppies and The Ever-
Increasing Hero-fication of
National Militarism

 

It’s November again, time once more for the country to be engulfed in a national demeanour of solemn remembrance. We’re all expected to remember ‘our heroes’ and the valuable work they carry out on ‘our’ behalf.

We’re told this helps prevent future wars from happening - learning from our mistakes by never forgetting! The idea presumably being that the best way to support those who’ve suffered from armed conflict is to wear a red poppy and remember in silence.

The newly invented tradition of implanting Earl Haig Poppies (EHP) onto football shirts has once again occurred as part of this ever-increasing hero-fication of British militarism. For previously questioning this practice (and its wider agenda), Celtic fans’ ‘anti-Britishness’ has been highlighted in an outraged Scottish press. We’ve been branded “shameful”, “ignorant” and “hate-filled”. The media’s narrow framework (or as sociologists call it, discursive formation) frames the debate as IRA sympathiser opposing UK soldier-hero.

Yet, this narrow framework conveniently prevents the wider legitimate contexts from being discussed. Remembrance Day has become the headline act in a year-round “remembering heroes” production designed to silence critical voices of the UK’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Support the troops! Never forget! Help the heroes! Support the war on terror! Who can object to that? But what exactly does it mean? That’s the point of such PR slogans. They’re meaningless platitudes! Of course, there is something meaningful. But they don’t want us to think about that. As Noam Chomsky states, “You want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy?”

This is where poppies on football shirts come in. In 2007, when the policies of invading Afghanistan and Iraq faced increasing scrutiny – amid increasing body counts and damning inquiries - British army chief, General Dannatt called for greater public support of ‘the troops’. Hey presto, a multi-agency campaign of newly created “support the troops” initiatives emerged.

From homecoming parades and armed forces day, to the X-factor’s song for heroes and Miss England being replaced by a serving British soldier (Combat Barbie), most of our cultural practices have been infiltrated with support the troops ideology. Poppies on football shirts is the mere tip of the iceberg.

Manufacturing consent succeeds best by embedding your ideological signifiers into society’s sacred rituals, and the political elites have always understood this. It is no coincidence, therefore, to discover that most of the ‘nation’s’ sacred rituals have been “helping heroes” since General Dannatt’s call to arms.

Nor is it coincidental that when faced with similar growing scepticism and body counts, the US and Canadian governments established specialised military-PR departments unashamedly designed to ‘re-connect’ citizens to the national military.

The US’s is called Operation Tribute to Freedom, whilst Canada’s is Operation Connection. Central to both PR strategies is the use of sport and other cultural practices in order to normalise and glorify militarism, minimise dissent and entice fresh young recruits to the cause.

Indeed, the similarities between the US’s and Canada’s PR offensive and the recent support the troops initiatives in the UK are remarkable. In the UK, this has led to the unsubtle shifting of the meaning of Remembrance. The EHP, Remembrance Day and their ever-increasing associated events wrap the violent acts of militaristic conflict in cosy patriotism and national duty promulgating the rhetoric of willing ‘heroes’ fighting for “justice and freedom”.

The EHP has transformed from a symbol of never forgetting the victims of two World Wars to symbolising support for our heroes in Afghanistan and Iraq. ‘Hero’ has crept into the daily lexicon of the EHP appeal and undeniably connects to current controversial ‘wars’.

The power of the PR is so strong that to stray from such engulfing orthodoxy risks being symbolically annihilated as a disrespectful lout, traitor or extremist and this is its raison d’etre and latent power – it demonises dissent, or in sociological speak, forecloses doubt.

But supporting the troops is not political they say! Of course, the establishment know only too well that separating military action from its political machinery is a false dichotomy – after all it was they who continually told us that the IRA, Al Qaeda, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigade and ETA could not be separated from political Sinn Fein, the governments of Afghanistan/Iraq, Hamas and Batasuna!

Lord Mawhinney, of the Football League leaves no doubt about the politicised agenda, commenting on his governing body adopting Help for Heroes as its 2009 charity. “The contribution being made by our armed forces around the world is truly humbling. As a nation we do not thank them enough for the sacrifices they make. The Football for Heroes week will provide an excellent opportunity for supporters to show their appreciation for the outstanding work being done.”

Whether we like it or not, we, as football supporters, are incorporated into their politicised message of support and appreciation for the ‘humble work’ being done.

Yet, how can we react? What do we do to dissent? This is the real beauty of such PR – by not reacting, we are assumed to support it, yet if we object, we are labelled ‘terrorist’ sympathisers. Supporting it is not political but questioning it is!

All of this might be excusable if the annual poppy-fest prevented war and actually helped its victims. Unfortunately, it does neither of these well. How many millions have died and suffered since the “War to End all Wars” and the invented tradition of poppy wearing?

Relying on charitable sales of EHPs burdens you and I with a moral responsibility that belongs to the government who sent its citizens to death and maiming in the first place.

Our true moral responsibility is not to righteously remember, but to act to prevent.

The EHP symbolically and materially supports the very thing that has led to the injuries of men, women and children – national militarism.

Don’t take my word for it; Harry Patch, hardly the rabid Provo, was unequivocal when he said, “11 November is just show business. Take the Armistice Day celebrations that night on television; it is nothing but a show of military force, that’s all… war is organised murder and nothing else”.

Some Celtic supporters have no objection to the Earl Haig poppy. However, in common with significant sections within the wider population, many do have legitimate concerns about the symbol.

The Celtic support is a broad church, and as such, the club is duty-bound to ensure that it represents all supporters as fully as it can. The Celtic support’s behaviour reflects (well or badly) on the whole club, and the club must accept that Celtic FC’s behaviour reflects on the whole Celtic support.

The Celtic board insists that football remains non-political, whilst implanting this symbol onto the shirt resulting in the club sending mixed messages to the supporters, thus reducing the efficacy of future club pronouncements on Celtic and political causes.

Of course Willie Angus and other Celtic players fought in World War I and unlike our Hearts FC counterparts, we thankfully don’t celebrate this tragedy. Hearts FC’s official website notes its players’ deaths were “for a cause far nobler than football” and boasts the Somme was “the club’s finest hour”.

Given the shameful pressure placed on these youngsters by Hearts officials “not to shirk responsibility”, alongside the seductive militaristic patriotism pervading the masses at the time – not least stoked up by the salivating press -

I’m relieved Celtic makes no such claims about a ‘cause’ where 20,000 victims perished on the first day alone. This was nobody’s finest hour and anything but a noble and great cause! What was that cause exactly?

Rather than righteously remember, let’s truly respect their memory by questioning the morality of sending millions of youths to their death, of placing our hopes of peace on a charitable symbol that camouflages and endorses the military industrial complex that killed them in the first place and continues its ‘sacrifice’ in our name.

Those who do not support the political or ideological justifications for conflict have a duty to resist and to prevent their voice being hijacked into the “nation’s support for heroes”!

Rather than piously remember with pride, shouldn’t we act to prevent?

Then it may be possible to create the peaceful future that supposed ‘heroes’ are allegedly dying for!


John Kelly