For many, the month of November is inextricably linked with a somber air, for it is on the eleventh day of the month, on the anniversary of the Armistice of the First World War, that we celebrate Remembrance Day. Historically in Canada, as well as the UK and other Commonwealth countries, Remembrance Day has served as a time to reflect and honour those whose lives were sacrificed in the bloodshed of the Great Wars.

The red poppy has long been a symbol of Remembrance Day, traditionally worn in many countries. The symbolic significance of the poppy originates in John McCrae’s poem “In Flanders Fields,” where he mourns the death of a friend just buried as a result of the Second Battle of Ypres during the First World War. It is said that poppies were the first flowers to grow in the soil recently turned-over to bury the dead. This, combined with its striking red colour, is reminiscent of the blood that was shed in war. By and large, the poppy serves as a stoic symbol of reflection.

Recently, the Ottawa Sun published an article about Remembrance Day, sensationally entitled “Students don’t care if ‘white poppy’ offends vets.” The article briefly outlines a student movement dedicated to wearing a white poppy as opposed to the typical red one. The white poppy has a long history of its own, conceived shortly after the emergence of ornamental red poppies in 1926. Pacifist groups presented the white poppy as an alternative to the red one, to similarly commemorate the loss of life in all wars coupled with a hope toward ending all wars in the future. In recent times, people feel that Remembrance Day and the red poppy have been used to glorify or justify current conflicts, claiming that several of public ceremonies contain troubling undercurrents of militarism. By wearing the white poppy, people feel as though they are able to express a political message of peace and remembrance while distancing themselves from unsavoury military aspects of Remembrance Day, and furthering the project of world peace.

The Sun’s article has stirred up significant controversy, inciting thousands of comments across various Sun Media news websites where it was distributed. The most common arguments raised against the white poppy tend toward disagreeing with the claim that the red poppy glorifies war. Others believe that the white poppy is disrespectful to veterans and fallen soldiers, who fought ostensibly for the rights and freedoms of citizens. By wearing a white poppy, people appear to be mocking the sacrifices made by men and women who proudly served their countries in times of war. Finally, a subset of people believe the white poppy to be redundant, claiming that messages of peace and armistice are already contained within the message of the red poppy.

In many ways, the white poppy campaign seems to be justified in its claims. In recent years, Remembrance Day seems to have expanded beyond the First and Second World Wars to cover all of Canada’s military conflicts, including those continuing today. There seems to be a rhetoric developing that conflates a message of military achievement with Canada’s legitimacy as a country. In school, I was taught that Vimy Ridge was the defining moment for Canada as a country - that by winning the battle, we had somehow proven that our young nation had reached maturity and was ready to assume a place on the world stage. This sentiment is echoed in Conservative Party’s efforts to review Canada’s history with a focus on military battles, and to introduce this reframed perspective to Canadian education. Increasingly, when speeches are given about Canada’s military history, government officials will relate the battles of Vimy Ridge to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What gets glossed over in these speeches is the massive controversy that surrounded conscription in the First World War, or the fact that the War in Afghanistan circumvented the many legal and ethical standards needed for any justification of war. These speeches do mention Canada’s contribution to the Boer War and how impressive Canadian soldiers looked, but they fail mention that the Boer War was largely a colonisation effort against racialized people, resulting in 25,000 men being shipped overseas as POWs. The fact that 26,000 women and children were left to die internment camps is also generally omitted.

By sanitizing military history, the government’s remembrance services become less of a time to honestly reflect and lament upon the atrocities of war and more as a rally for the Canadian military. It’s critical that even the unflattering aspects of war are examined and emphasized on Remembrance Day or else it will be seized for political goals.

In a similar way, the argument that the veterans of military conflicts have always been fighting for the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens is somewhat dishonest. Certainly in the Great Wars it was an honourable thing for Canadians to come to the aid of an evil and greedy power threatening Europe, but this rhetoric of defending freedoms do not hold true for the conflicts such as the Boer War or Afghanistan that are mentioned above. It’s wrong to claim that every soldier and veteran was fighting for a noble cause when many of our recent military conflicts were caused by issues concerning land claims, resource gains, or cultural power relations. Without explicitly wading into the quagmire or assuming that the authority to judge, there is an important distinction to be made between a just and unjust war.

The white poppy should not replace the red poppy, but it does have its place. As much as people believe that the wearing of a white poppy is a strong political statement on a day with such meaning, so too is the wearing of a red poppy. The difference is that the latter is backed by a dominant majority and the former is not. Regardless of one’s political persuasion, everyone wishes for peace and wishes to honour the dead in some way. The white poppy is an important alternative mode of remembrance that has quietly persisted against the culturally dominant narrative symbolized by the red poppy. It is not inherently disrespectful, anti-militaristic, or divisive. Rather, it is disrespectful of historical ignorance, anti-militaristic in the face of unjust wars, and divisive to those who are more concerned with the colour of fabric worn on their lapel than with their consumption of a dangerous, whitewashed account of history that serves the aims of those who would see these atrocious wars continue.

WRITTEN BY JOHN SAIGLE