0
   

Is flag-waving stupid and immature?

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 09:50 am
Setanta wrote:
Quote:
Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the orginal Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousing, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).


The Pledge of Allegiance: A Short History.

Wow, fascinating!! I didnt know that.. Bet not many people do.

Ah, the hint in it at a whole true American tradition, which has been lost in times, and purposefully forgotten I'm sure as well...

(As an exchange student in the 50s, my father lived with a socialist reverend in Detroit. He was a Good Man.)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 09:50 am
Re: Is flag-waving stupid and immature?
Laughing True, dat..

Thomas wrote:
McTag wrote:
This is a new phenomenon in the UK, that national flags be flown everywhere. We used to be more restrained. My own view is that it shown immaturity and sometimes xenophobia.

It's no more inane than having 22 people run after some stupid ball in the first place. Some things in life just aren't supposed to be rational. <shrug>
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 09:59 am
I think it's silliness too.....
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 10:00 am
Religious "socialism" has a long tradition in North America. The most celebrated example is Tommy Douglas in Canada. I've told the story of the CCF, the NDP and Tommy Douglas in these fora many times, so i'll just advise readers that a search for Tommy Douglas+bio will produce a fascinating read. Tommy Douglas was a Baptist minister before he got involved in politics and formed the first socialist government in North America.
0 Replies
 
kitchenpete
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 10:09 am
Personally, I find it very difficult to understand why a flag is such an emotional subject.

If someone burned a Union Flag, I'd assume they were objecting to something done by the current government or business or...someone else...but I don't see it as representing the state of "being British" any more than a picture of the Queen does.

As McTag points out, the British have their own reasons for feeling alliegance to the country and the things which it stands for, which is entirely independent of these things.

On the other hand, when indicating membership of the tribe (England - St. George cross; UK - Union Flag) then I do see it as being a reasonable thing to use. We have very little to connect us to "community" these days, and this is one thing we can use.

There is of course a part of me which is very "unpatriotic", for example in 1996, when Germany knocked England out of the Euro 96 football tournament, it crossed my mind that for all the dejection I saw around me, there must be lots of happy Germans and felt happy for them. No lie, though I didn't mention that out loud to many people!

As an Arsenal fan, in the World Cup I'll be following Germany, France, Ivory Coast, Holland, Spain and Brazil...as well as England...on the basis that each will have players I know from my own "tribe"!
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 10:13 am
Football, soccer in the USA because we have to different, is the only acceptable form of war.

Wave your flag!

Joe(The wounds are only hurt feelings)Nation
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 10:34 am
Quote:
This is a new phenomenon in the UK, that national flags be flown everywhere. We used to be more restrained. My own view is that it shown immaturity and sometimes xenophobia.



In the Sixties when the American flag was international bonfire fodder, I noted that the Union Jack was prominent on souvenirs and on shopping bags for souvenirs--as well as mini-skirts and bikini bottoms and rompers for toddlers.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 12:52 pm
Noddy24 wrote:
Quote:
This is a new phenomenon in the UK, that national flags be flown everywhere. We used to be more restrained. My own view is that it shown immaturity and sometimes xenophobia.



In the Sixties when the American flag was international bonfire fodder, I noted that the Union Jack was prominent on souvenirs and on shopping bags for souvenirs--as well as mini-skirts and bikini bottoms and rompers for toddlers.


Last week in B & Q, I saw that the England flag can be purchased on a DOORMAT! In a choice of two styles! Well.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 01:16 pm
British soldiers (and their families) get their food decorated with a Union Jack in the cafeteria of a nearby big furniture house (not IKEA): witnessed that this afternoon.

(Germans didn't get a flag, tough :wink: )
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 02:17 pm
McTag--

Quote:
Last week in B & Q, I saw that the England flag can be purchased on a DOORMAT! In a choice of two styles! Well.


A doormat made in Hong Kong?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 02:45 pm
Noddy24 wrote:
McTag--

Quote:
Last week in B & Q, I saw that the England flag can be purchased on a DOORMAT! In a choice of two styles! Well.


A doormat made in Hong Kong?


Doubtless. I will check. Walter, do you want me to buy you one (or both)? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 03:13 pm
Some countries are more mature about symbols than other countries.

The symbol is not the substance.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 03:51 pm
McTag wrote:
Walter, do you want me to buy you one (or both)? :wink:


Might be a good idea - I'll burn this one shortly Laughing

http://i4.tinypic.com/111pheh.jpg
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 05:21 pm
I'd not seek too much behind it. Not everyone weaving a flag or ddoing something similarly ridiculous at a game is Xenophobic or has extreme nationalistic tendencies. Far from it, I think.
Actually, I'd leae those people be, as long as they keep to waving flags around in the stadium that is. Overt racist remarks and violence, which also happens, is of course a big no (And definitely a sign of xenophobia and nationalism, imho).
Why leave the flag wavers be?
a) It is hard to seperate merely enthousaistic supporters from the people mentioned above.
b) Forbidding it will not only not work, it might actually have an averse effect(and make those people forbidding it look paranoid)

Naj
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 05:39 pm
If people want to wave their countries flag, fine by me. Doesn't embarrass me or anything.

Boisterous as I am here, I'm pretty low key out in public, so I'm not sure if I've ever actually waved a flag or not. I'll readily admit to getting choked up on occasion.

It's a helleva lot better than a lot of other things I see people do in public. Stuff that makes me want to slink away from the general area.

Like when people start dancing at concerts. Jesus H. Christ. I'd like to wave a bat at their heads.

buncha hippies, settle down willya?
0 Replies
 
flushd
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 09:17 pm
I'm not keen on flag-waving. Even here, when the flags and mini-flags and painted faces of red-and-white come out at Canada Day. I don't like it. It's okay though. It's not often.

I do have a special pride about living in Canada. It is my home. I feel lucky. Not better, simply lucky to be born somewhere in peace and with opportunity.

Legion flags: I do get a little spark inside when I see them up. I also get a big smile on my face when I see flags flying in a yard: Canada/USA combos, or Canada/Fleur-de-Lis combos, any combos! Smile
Please do not wave it in my face though.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 09:21 pm
Fast thread...

Joe. Why is it that the Left, who I'd readily agree are better educated folks in general, can't see the trap they step in repeatedly? The Right aligns themselves with a beloved symbol, so what does the Left do? Politically, what should they do? Again, politically, should they:

a) Proudly align themselves with this same beloved symbol, while explaining their collective philosophy more closely resembles the principles behind it?
b) Abandon said symbol as meaningless and accuse those who don't of ignorance and immaturity?
c) Turn full circle and burn that very symbol in effigy of their disapproval?

Wake up Lefty (collectively). Anti-American doesn't sell well here in the United States. You need not diminish your message at all to avoid such obvious traps. By allowing the right near exclusive "rights" to values (whether deserved or no) like Patriotism, Catholicism; you're spotting them much of the "ignorant masses" vote. Ever wonder why the party for the little guy, in a country dominated by little guys, doesn't dominate every race? Look in the mirror. Clever ways of calling people stupid are no more likely to educate them than screaming IDIOT in their face. When do you recall anyone learning anything from being told they're stupid? IMO, stupidity is demonstrated daily by smart folks who should know better, but seemingly won't do anything about it.

Teaching folks your strategy for defending the ideals and principles symbolized by by flags and crosses would go a lot further towards not alienating a healthy chunk of the folks you need to get elected, than ridicule ever will. If there's nothing wrong with the principles of "liberty and justice for all" and that's what our Flag is supposed to represent… and you feel it no longer does… than it is you who's doing these principles the greatest harm by abandoning their symbols to those you feel misrepresent them to the masses. It's no different with crosses. Censure the wrong-doers and false prophets convincingly… rather than ridicule the majority of the Nation you mean to rule.

Alternately; you can keep running fools like John Kerry to pretend briefly that he isn't part of your gang with "John Kerry, reporting for duty (with a big salute)"… "I will kill the terrorists" which sounded as phony as it did rehearsed… no more believable than his stage-faith. In which case; you can keep running nail bitingly tight races against opponents you truly believe represent the minority.

It's funny, really. It seems the left will forever be shooting their own feet every time the right lays claim to something cherished. If the right were distributing $100 bills; the left would move to enact laws to abolish the hated Benjamin's and those with the most passion would show up to burn theirs in public. Even if they wouldn't; their predictably hyper-polarized responses would make it simple for the Right to illustrate them as such. Trap sprung again... and again... and again... Think about it.

McTag: it strikes me as odd that a man could defend the symbol of royalty in the same post as he ridiculed a symbol of freedom… even if you were joking. But seriously; these are not the symbol.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 09:22 pm
Great history Set, thanks. I wouldn't object to revising the revision.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 09:24 pm
We don't abandon the symbol! We are critical of what some people would have it stand for. Education imparts critical thinking.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 09:25 pm
"The Left" - Horse hockey. I'm of the left, and I fly a flag above my home. Who is this left that you people talk about, that does everything in unison, like breath, hate America, etc.?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/15/2024 at 10:28:00