It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Time to Change our Flag...?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
HaHA....and how many times have YOU put in your two cents on American issues?

Plenty of times actually, I am just voiceing my opinion as you are.
I never said if it was right or wrong, wich BTW I would never say an american never had the right to do so and if I did I will right now take it back.
BTW I tend only to get involved in amercan issues if they WILL involve my country like say I dunno nuclear war....iraq...banning irn bru...




posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I don't think we should change our flag just because racists fly it. It's the same in every country. Do the Americans change their flag whenever the KKK spout their racism? Britain should keep its flag. It wouldn't be the same without the flag we have proudly had since 1801. We should fly the flag with pride. Just because it is used by the Far Right doesn't eman we should eb ashamed of it.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   
A few alternative UK flags, thanks to the viewers of the Little Britain comedy show.






[IMG]http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/littlebritain/images/flag/countryside.jpg[/IMG




























posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
I don't think the flag matters anymore as we don't fly it for fear of upsetting Muslims and other Ethnic groups, thats Britain today.



Also the Catholic people of Northern Irealand who are still fighting for indepandance, which we will get soon! So the St. Patricks cross will have to come off it!!

[edit on 20-8-2005 by speight89]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
So you're going to dump the Union Jack for a more inclusive politically correct one?

May I suggest one of pure white then.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   


posted by Odium

As I have pointed out before Wales is a principality. It is why the Courts reprosent England and Wales and the Education system is the same in England and Wales but not in Scotland, list of things goes on. Scotland on the other hand is not a principality.



Wales had no explicit recognition in the flag because Wales had been annexed by Edward I of England in 1282, and since the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 was legally part of the Kingdom of England. In the Acts of Union 1707, the flag gained a regularised status, as "the ensign armorial of the Kingdom of Great Britain" en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 10/21/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
So you're going to dump the Union Jack for a more inclusive politically correct one?


- Says who?

I've seen this discussed every now and again (with almost the same point raise on either side each time too) but I have never seen any serious moves by anyone to actually "dump" the Union flag.

Where is this coming from I wonder?



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   


posted by speight89



posted by Bulldog 52

I don't think the flag matters anymore as we don't fly it for fear of upsetting Muslims and other Ethnic groups, that’s Britain today.




Also the Catholic people of Northern Ireland who are still fighting for independence, which we will get soon! So the St. Patrick’s cross will have to come off it!! [Edited by Don W]



I would not count on it, Mr speight89. Removal of the St. Patrick cross from the Union Jack. The Brits are not so quick to give up something they like.

Consider. Henry VIII - once a devout Catholic - wrote a book in 1520 in which he ironically defended the Sacraments including that of Marriage. Pope Leo X was so pleased by the book that in 1521 he conferred on King Henry VIII the title, “Fidei Defensor” translated Defender of the Faith. The book, “Assertio Septem Sacramentorum” was undoubtedly written by Thomas More but it bore Henry’s name as author. Note: this information comes from Wikipedia and is linked below. The author of that article must be Catholic as he refers to Thomas More as “Saint” whereas we Protestants refer to him as “Sir.” Thomas More was elevated as a saint under unusual circumstances - skipping the venerable and blessed steps - casting grave doubts on his qualifications for such a lofty designation.

Times change as they are wont to do, and by 1534, after separating the Church of England from Rome, Pope Paul III revoked the title. Under normal circumstances, the monarch would have ceased the use of the title, but these were far from normal circumstances. As you know, all the English monarchs - except Catholic Mary Tudor - have taken that title during their coronation. In 1545 Henry had a gold medal engraved with his profile and the honorarium Fidei Defensor around the edge, which has been worn by all successive monarchs - except as noted - at their coronation. Beginning in 1714, English coins bear the initials, “FD” standing for Fidei Defensor, in recognition of the title. The Brits will not return the title to the Pope. They will not give up the Cross of St. Patrick from the Union Flag.
en.wikipedia.org...
reformation.org...



[edit on 10/21/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Personally I think NI will go 'two flags' (as to all intents and purposes it already is in many places) for some time before it leaves the UK.
But ultimately I do expect a vote for a united Ireland at some point in the future.
I suppose the Union flag will have to change then.

We may well have a border poll at some point in the next few years, I for one will be very interested in the outcome and for us all to see where we stand at the moment.
I just hope everyone participates (nationalists and republicans boycotted the last on held in 1973).



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamB
Do the Americans change their flag whenever the KKK spout their racism?


unfortunately, yes. every state who's flag had the old confederate battle flag has been forced to change their design in order to appease the ACLU and the NAACP. forget the fact that the flag itself represented states rights and not slavery. oh, and the funny part? several states simply changed from the confederate battle flag to the confederate state flag without a word of protest from the above mentioned groups. makes alot of sense, huh?



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Well if the political reality changes and the union broke apart, i guess you'd have to change it to reflect that, just as we would add an additional star the union section of our flag if another state joined the U.S.

But the vibe I've been getting from a lot Europeans from various posts here is that they're almost afraid now to flag their own flag just to not offend anyone.

edit:

I wonder what would other countries who are former British colonies would do if you changed your flag? Leave it alone, eliminate it from the design, or change that part to match yours?

[edit on 10/21/2006 by djohnsto77]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   


posted by snafu7700


posted by AdamB
Do the Americans change their flag whenever the KKK spout their racism?


Unfortunately, yes. Every state who's flag had the old confederate battle flag [Stars and Bars] has been forced to change their design in order to appease the ACLU and the NAACP. Forget the fact that the flag itself represented states rights and not slavery. [Edited by Don W]



It is disingenuous to say the Stars and Bars did not stand for slavery. As for the discredited but still divisive claims of “state’s rights” that was settled on April 9, 1865, when Gen. Lee surrendered unconditionally to Gen. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia. Obviously, the one thing we did wrong was to end Reconstruction too soon. 150 years have passed and we still have far too many who are not reconstructed.



[edit on 10/21/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

It is disingenuous to say the Stars and Bars did not stand for slavery.


it is disingenuous to present only part of the story. do you realize that the emancipation proclamation only applied to southern states? do you realize that the state of maryland still continued to legally have slaves after the civil war was over? that would mean that the US flag that we presently fly also stands for slavery, would it not?


As for the discredited but still divisive claims of “state’s rights” that was settled on April 12, 1865, when Gen. Lee surrendered unconditionally to Gen. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia.


you are absolutely correct. but those who died under the confederate flag for their belief that the federal government had overstepped it's rights should still be honored. which is exactly why those states continued to carry the design in their flags. the fact that hate groups such as the klan have hijacked those designs in order to further their beliefs and beffudle the historical truth does not take away the respect that those men and women deserve, anymore than the evil things done under the current US flag (including slavery and genocide of the american indians) should take away from the honor of those who have died defending it.



Obviously, the one thing we did wrong was to end Reconstruction too soon. 150 years have passed and we still have far too many who are not reconstructed.


i disagree. first of all, we have come one helluva long way in 150 years, and groups such as the klan cannot change that fact (although they would appear to have you snowed). second, the post-civil war reconstruction was very much like the post wwI occupation of germany. the methods used didnt reconstruct anything....they simply fostered more hatred. if they had treated the south as general grant suggested ("they are our brothers once again"), instead of treating it as a defeated nation, i dont believe it would have taken anywhere near as long for the nation to heal.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   


posted by snafu7700

“ . . do you realize that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to Southern states? [Edited by Don W]



Unlike Bush43, A. Lincoln operated within the law. Lincoln had no power to address slavery in the Northern states. OTOH, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces putting down a rebellion, he did have power over those areas. The Emancipation Proclamation did exactly what Lincoln had power to do: to free slaves in rebel territory as it was captured back from rebels.



Do you realize that the state of Maryland still continued to legally have slaves after the civil war was over?



You are correct, Mr S7700. The 13th Amendment was introduced shortly before the end of the Civil War. It was ramified and declared effective on December 18, 1865. Slavery was legally abolished in all the United States on that day.



You are absolutely correct. But those who died under the Confederate flag for their belief that the Federal government had overstepped it's rights should still be honored.



On that basis, you should honor al Zarqawi and when he dies, Osama bin Laden. Soldiers have not much to do with anything but dying. I have no reason to dishonor a dead soldier. Regardless of what side he was on. Unfortunately, honoring dead Southern soldiers is a not so hidden way to insult African Americans in 2006. For that reason, we ought to give it up.



I disagree. First of all, we have come one helluva long way in 150 years. Second, the post-civil war reconstruction was very much like the post WWI occupation of Germany.



No one occupied Germany after 1918. The peace was too harsh which led to the downfall of the democratic Weimar Republic and the rise to power of Adolph Hitler on von Hindenberg’s death.



The methods used didn’t reconstruct anything . . they simply fostered more hatred. If they had treated the South as General Grant suggested instead of treating it as a defeated nation, I don’t believe it would have taken anywhere near as long for the nation to heal.



In 1876, when Reconstruction ended, the white Southerners began a guerilla war of terrorism waged on America’s blacks. Between then and 1964, when it ended, more than 3,000 blacks were lynched. Hanged to death by strangulation by white’s ashamed to be seen, so they wore sheets and masks. More than 15,000 blacks were beaten so severely they never regained their health. Made cripple. More than 50,000 burn-outs were inflicted on poor blacks who only wanted to vote, to live like other people lived. To enjoy the promise of being an American.

Southern whites practiced terrorism on a grand scale for nearly a 100 years in all the 11 states of the Old Confederacy. It was a time officially labeled “Jim Crow.” Economic domination enforced by terror.

No thanks Mr S7700. Reconstruction ended too soon.


[edit on 10/21/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Unlike Bush43, A. Lincoln operated within the law. Lincoln had no power to address slavery in the Northern states. OTOH, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces putting down a rebellion, he did have power over those areas. The Emancipation Proclamation did exactly what Lincoln had power to do: to free slaves in rebel territory as it was captured back from rebels.


Not so fast there bud, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus nationwide, including the north and arrested anti-war protesters and journalists from the north.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

Unlike Bush43, A. Lincoln operated within the law.


i knew bush would come into this somewhere....even though he has nothing to do with the question at hand.



Lincoln had no power to address slavery in the Northern states.


sure he did. he simply chose not to go there until the southern rebellion had been put down. he needed all the support he could get from the states that chose to stay with the union.



The Emancipation Proclamation did exactly what Lincoln had power to do: to free slaves in rebel territory as it was captured back from rebels.


read it again. it freed slaves from all southern states effective the date it was signed....not as they were recaptured. the EP was a tool of warfare, nothing else. Lincoln made it very clear from the beginning of his first presidential campaign that he had no intention of freeing the slaves.....he only did so once it became apparant that it was a necessary action to win the war.



You are correct, Mr S7700. The 13th Amendment was introduced shortly before the end of the Civil War. It was ramified and declared effective on December 18, 1865. Slavery was legally abolished in all the United States on that day.


exactly. which means that, by your original interpretation, the US flag stands for slavery every bit as much as the confederate flag does. afterall, slavery existed under the US flag for a hundred years before the civil war began.




On that basis, you should honor al Zarqawi and when he dies, Osama bin Laden.


did they or do they wear uniforms? do they follow a uniform code of military justice? anyone who intentionally targets civilians is a terrorist. period.



Soldiers have not much to do with anything but dying. I have no reason to dishonor a dead soldier. Regardless of what side he was on. Unfortunately, honoring dead Southern soldiers is a not so hidden way to insult African Americans in 2006. For that reason, we ought to give it up.


that is because you have been brainwashed to believe that alternative history by the likes of people like jesse jackson. you want to talk about racists? that man takes the cake. the only thing he cares about is lining his own pocket, and he does it at the expense of his own people. do you know the only difference between people like jackson and the grand dragon of the KKK? their skin color. that's it....they are made of the same mold in every other way. believe me, rev. king is spinning circles in his grave over what has become of his "dream."




No one occupied Germany after 1918.


umm, ok. you might want to pick up a history book and pull your foot out of your mouth. this is the medal awarded to americans who were part of the occupation force between 1918 and 1923:

medal



The peace was too harsh which led to the downfall of the democratic Weimar Republic and the rise to power of Adolph Hitler on von Hindenberg’s death.


extremely oversimplified, but other than your incorrect statement about allied occupation, relatively correct.



In 1876, when Reconstruction ended, the white Southerners began a guerilla war of terrorism waged on America’s blacks.


first of all, if you are going to quote me, do not cut out the middle part of my statement in order to fit your argument better. second, once again you have not read your history. a very small minority of white southerners began the guerilla war in 1865, when general nathan bedford forrest refused to honor general lee's surrender (you might note that this man is the founder of the KKK). that number grew exponentially as a result of the very harsh reconstruction policies of the post-lincoln government. my personal belief is that if mr. lincoln had lived, the country would have been a much different place.



Between then and 1964, when it ended, more than 3,000 blacks were lynched. Hanged to death by strangulation by white’s ashamed to be seen, so they wore sheets and masks. More than 15,000 blacks were beaten so severely they never regained their health. Made cripple. More than 50,000 burn-outs were inflicted on poor blacks who only wanted to vote, to live like other people lived. To enjoy the promise of being an American.


i neither deny nor condone these tragedies. and yet they are a direct result of the way reconstruction was handled by the post lincoln goverment.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Getting back to the thread (changing of the Union flag)

i think it should be changed, due to it doesn't reflect the Union of Great Britain and Ireland anymore (thats what the St.Patricks cross represents).

im more in favour of a sort of tricolor for the UK now cause it will be hard to introduce the Welsh Dragon into the flag (i remember the DUP wanted the Red Hand of Ulster added to the flag aswell).



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I really ought to stop being amazed at the extent to which people get all worked up over pieces of cloth. Einstein said "flags are a reminder that man is still a herd animal", and I think this sums up my feelings. As for people dying for pieces of cloth... it is on its face absurd but I'm sure plenty of people will continue to revel in absurdity. Demonstrations of flag-waving are never a good sign: the ubiquitous touting of the Eng-er-lund flag last summer was one of the worst things about being in the World Cup (apart from having an overrated team, which meant having to endure the outpourings of disappointment when they suffered the inevitable crash and burn). And as people have already mentioned, flags always seem to get co-opted by the far right groups in every country.

I would say that this is the core demonstration that flags are to do with herd instinct: one of the defining features of which is hostility towards non-herd members.

As for what the Union Flag stands for outside the UK, I suspect that there are roughly two camps on this one: those who did well out of the British Empire/Commonwealth, and those who did not. I doubt very much that the people of Iraq, for example (who have been occupied by British forces for roughly half of the last century) look on it with affection; and even in Australia there are plenty of people who would like it removed from their flag, I believe.

Is it time to change the flag? Let's wait until Ireland unites and then we can think about a more inclusive symbol. And btw, I could not see ANY of the flags people have linked to on this thread, which is mildly annoying.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   


posted by Nygdan

Don't forget Mr. Philpot, the Dutch have gone so far as to 'ban' their flag because racists have picked it up. I think what they've done is restrict its use among groups of youths or something, because its unthinkable that a nation can actually ban its own flag. Especially the Union Jack, that thing's all over the world, its practically history itself. But it wouldn't be the worst motivation to want to include the Welsh in the national flag. [Edited by Don W]



The “Star-Spangled Banner” is the national anthem of the US with lyrics written in 1814 by Francis Scott Key. Key, a lawyer, who witnessed the British Navy bombard Fort McHenry in Baltimore, MD during the War of 1812. Few Americans know (or care?) the British attack on Washington DC was in retaliation for the earlier attack and burning of York, now Toronto, then the capital of Canada by Americans. The Star-Spangled Banner was made the national anthem by a Congressional resolution on 3 March 1931. No rush. The Ft. McHenry garrison flag had fifteen stars and fifteen stripes, and it came to be known as the Star Spangled Banner Flag. There were 18 states in the Union by 1814, but we were not much concerned then with such mundane issues. That flag had to have been adopted by Congress after 1792 and before 1796, when Tennessee came into the Union as the 16th state. The poem soon attained wide popularity when sung to the tune “To Anacreon in Heaven.” The origin of the tune is obscure, but it may have been written by the English composer John Stafford Smith. en.wikipedia.org...

In the 1960s, Vietnam War protestors found one quick way to agitate the establishment was to burn an American flag in public. Legislators around the country rushed to “protect” the flag from desecration as if it was a religious artifact or a sacred relic.

Fortunately from my POV, the Warren Supreme Court said “No,” it is an element of “free speech” and therefore protected by the 1st Amendment. I say it is a self-limiting practice based on a cost-benefit analysis, as flags are rather costly. It is still against the law to burn a flag you do not own.


[edit on 10/22/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I should add that on a personal note, when I worked as a musician on cruise ships a few years ago, one of my most detested duties was to play in what was known as the "friendship parade", a truly nauseating display of jingoism. I should add that the security and safety officers on the ship (who were also, as I am, British) refused to take part in this loathsome ritual, which involved members of the production show cast dressing up (one, of course, as Uncle Sam) and leading a short parade through the central atrium of the ship. The crew (or as many as could be spared from immediate duties), who came from many different countries, would wave flags (usually the Stars and Stripes, but if you complained, they might find you another one) and join in the parade and then one of the singers in the cast would lead everybody in patriotic songs.

I didn't have as much clout as the security and safety officers and therefore expressed my displeasure by playing the gig with the darkest possible scowl I could muster, and quoting "Deutschland Uber Alles" at intervals throughout the gig, which got me a smile and a thumbs-up from the bandleader... none of the guests ever noticed... but if they tried to film me during this demeaning ritual, I would stare into the camera with undisguised hostility, which usually meant they panned away.

Funnily enough, most of the passengers were Texans. And of course they loved it. Especially when we played "Deep in the Heart of Texas", a syrupy sentiment coupled with a nursery tune.

There was also the immensely amusing "passenger 'talent' show" in which almost every week (particularly in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and then often as the invasion of Iraq started to look like a particularly Bad Idea) some cretinous dotard would want to sing bilge like "It's A Grand Old Flag" or "Proud To Be An American". I'm not quite sure if I've got the title right of the latter song: usually chosen by those too young to be actually approaching senility, but nonetheless reality-impaired in many ways, it's by some dreary Southern rock band, I believe, and has an especially pompous pause where the singer intones. "... and I'll stand UP! (pause) NEXT to you, and something something something..."

The band was invariably multi-national, and often had several east European members, who were almost always the sweetest, most cultured people who ever drunk anyone under a table. I mention this because they really had much more of an eye for propaganda than most self-satisfied Westerners... and in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, one of them said to me, "it's frightening. It's like a much slicker version of what the Russians would come out with just before they did something wrong."

Flags. They help you not think.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join