Jump to content

US State and National Flags


GoValpo

Recommended Posts

BlueSky, you probably thought the whole issue was "ridiculous" because it wasn't important to you and you didn't exactly understand it. Southern heritage and pride is taken very seriously, especially in a state like Georgia- and although the flag itself wasn't "old"...the stars and bars stood for enough and represented a certain nostalgia that some refuse to let go of for whatever reasons.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure BlueSky is native to the south, just not Georgia. Either way, I still don't see how the confederate flag is an absolutely necessary to show ones southern pride. If people want to fly the flag on their houses or cars, fine, but all the "Heritage not hate" rhetoric can't explain away the fact that it's a pretty terrible idea to have an emblem in a state-sponsored flag that alienates roughly 1/3rd of that state's population.

Just because there's a history doesn't mean it's all worthy of being proud of. I'm a Saints fan, you can trust me on that. :D

You probably never had any family that played for the Saints and died either, I'd imagine. Kind of changes things. However, I don't want to turn this thread political in any way or form...just wanted to note that the stars and bars is a lot more important to those living in the South than ones who aren't could ever begin to understand. Hell, I am all for it being phased out in certain areas and I understand the history...non-Southerns see it and think "racist" immediately and that's that.

Fair enough. I'm from the South and can take or leave all things Confederate, probably because I was an Army brat who happened to land in the South most of my life. I wasn't "born and bred" in one specific location.

Still, the South is much more than the Confederacy, so why do people focus on that? I guess that's what I don't understand.

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

BlueSky, you probably thought the whole issue was "ridiculous" because it wasn't important to you and you didn't exactly understand it. Southern heritage and pride is taken very seriously, especially in a state like Georgia- and although the flag itself wasn't "old"...the stars and bars stood for enough and represented a certain nostalgia that some refuse to let go of for whatever reasons.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure BlueSky is native to the south, just not Georgia. Either way, I still don't see how the confederate flag is an absolutely necessary to show ones southern pride. If people want to fly the flag on their houses or cars, fine, but all the "Heritage not hate" rhetoric can't explain away the fact that it's a pretty terrible idea to have an emblem in a state-sponsored flag that alienates roughly 1/3rd of that state's population.

Just because there's a history doesn't mean it's all worthy of being proud of. I'm a Saints fan, you can trust me on that. :D

You probably never had any family that played for the Saints and died either, I'd imagine. Kind of changes things. However, I don't want to turn this thread political in any way or form...just wanted to note that the stars and bars is a lot more important to those living in the South than ones who aren't could ever begin to understand. Hell, I am all for it being phased out in certain areas and I understand the history...non-Southerns see it and think "racist" immediately and that's that.

Fair enough. I'm from the South and can take or leave all things Confederate, probably because I was an Army brat who happened to land in the South most of my life. I wasn't "born and bred" in one specific location.

Still, the South is much more than the Confederacy, so why do people focus on that? I guess that's what I don't understand.

Because those in the south liked it alot better when "those people" knew their place.

Why it is still seen as acceptable to basically fly another nation's flag on state or federal property is beyond me...

Stay Tuned Sports Podcast
sB9ijEj.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I don't want to turn this thread political in any way or form...just wanted to note that the stars and bars is a lot more important to those living in the South than ones who aren't could ever begin to understand. Hell, I am all for it being phased out in certain areas and I understand the history...non-Southerns see it and think "racist" immediately and that's that.

"Things are different around here... you just don't understand because you're not from here!!!11!1!!1" aka "The Cleveland Card" :P

Nothing personal to you Cola, but honestly, but the assumption that my having been born north of the Mason-Dixon line precludes me from ever understanding why certain southerners are so attached to confederate paraphernalia is not only completely lame, but has come up literally every time I've had this debate.

I am a card-carrying member of the Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin, one of the many peoples who traditionally recognized the swastika as a symbol of good luck. But if I got a swastika tattoo and then said to Jewish people ":censored: off... it's part of my heritage and means something different to me!" folks would (correctly) think I was a dick. Similarly, the Eye of Providence was a symbol of divine wisdom in Ancient Egyptian culture and associated with Ra, their equivalent of a Judeo-Christian God, but now it makes people think about the illuminati and the new world order. The "peace sign" started off as a symbol specifically geared towards the abolition of nuclear weapons (the "arms" are actually semaphore for "ND" or "Nuclear Disarmament" ) but eventually came to stand for the entire hippie movement. This is the nature of symbols... as time moves on, they evolve and take on new meanings.

My problem with people displaying the confederate flag isn't because I think they're necessarily racist (although the two tend to go hand-in-hand... often), but because it's a mentality that smacks of privilege and arrogance. What the hell makes you (in the general sense, not Cola personally) so great that you get to decided that only the things the flag means to you are what really matter and that implications of slavery that happened under the regime the Confederate soldiers were fighting for, as well as the terrorism committed by groups like the KKK and politicized racism of people like George Wallace simply "don't count" and those who see otherwise should just "get over it"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with people displaying the confederate flag isn't because I think they're necessarily racist (although the two tend to go hand-in-hand... often), but because it's a mentality that smacks of privilege and arrogance. What the hell makes you (in the general sense, not Cola personally) so great that you get to decided that only the things the flag means to you are what really matter and that implications of slavery that happened under the regime the Confederate soldiers were fighting for, as well as the terrorism committed by groups like the KKK and politicized racism of people like George Wallace simply "don't count" and those who see otherwise should just "get over it"?

Because usually, the only argument someone on your side wants to present is the 100% negativity of the flag. They can't and will not see past that.

Every Southerner realizes slavery does no exists and while I am sure there are still some who wouldn't mind seeing it come back, it is the year 2011 and for the huge majority of us- we don't REALLY want slavery to come back nor are we racist. However, we can't accept total revocation of a flag just because it offends a certain group of people- because it stands for much more than that. It represents part of our history. Look, I don't fly the flag in my yard, on my truck, or have t-shirts with the flag on it. However, I would vote against it's removal from state grounds every time because I believe it has its place.

The BET channel on television offends me because it specifically targets one group of people in our country. However, it is accepted as normal in our country. If I was to create WET (White Entertainment Television), I would immediately be labeled a racist and have the NAACP all over me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with people displaying the confederate flag isn't because I think they're necessarily racist (although the two tend to go hand-in-hand... often), but because it's a mentality that smacks of privilege and arrogance. What the hell makes you (in the general sense, not Cola personally) so great that you get to decided that only the things the flag means to you are what really matter and that implications of slavery that happened under the regime the Confederate soldiers were fighting for, as well as the terrorism committed by groups like the KKK and politicized racism of people like George Wallace simply "don't count" and those who see otherwise should just "get over it"?

Because usually, the only argument someone on your side wants to present is the 100% negativity of the flag. They can't and will not see past that.

Every Southerner realizes slavery does no exists and while I am sure there are still some who wouldn't mind seeing it come back, it is the year 2011 and for the huge majority of us- we don't REALLY want slavery to come back nor are we racist. However, we can't accept total revocation of a flag just because it offends a certain group of people- because it stands for much more than that. It represents part of our history. Look, I don't fly the flag in my yard, on my truck, or have t-shirts with the flag on it. However, I would vote against it's removal from state grounds every time because I believe it has its place.

The BET channel on television offends me because it specifically targets one group of people in our country. However, it is accepted as normal in our country. If I was to create WET (White Entertainment Television), I would immediately be labeled a racist and have the NAACP all over me.

1. When the "negativity" are events that have probably killed close to a million people if not more, and represents repression so terrible that it still echoes all these years later, yeah, people tend to focus on that. If you have a pristine Bentley except the engine is missing, it's still pretty damn nice but most people are probably going to pass on it because that one thing kinda spoils the whole package.

2. That's a valid point and it bothers me as well. For example, had the police chief of Atlanta been white when a multi-racial undercover drug enforcement team mistakenly killed a 92-year-old woman, there's no doubt in my mind he would have been run out on a rail. There was outrage towards Atlanta PD - rightfully so given the horrific error and attempted coverup - but few called for the chief to be fired and the rage would have increased exponentially had all those officers been white. None of that opinion is based in racism, it's just the way it is.

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BET channel on television offends me because it specifically targets one group of people in our country. However, it is accepted as normal in our country. If I was to create WET (White Entertainment Television), I would immediately be labeled a racist and have the NAACP all over me.

I really can't believe people are still trotting out this argument in 2011.

Would you have a problem if it were called the Urban Entertainment Network? I ask because back in 1980, when BET was founded "Black" was the common name for the entertainment genres that are now commonly referred to as "urban" (the radio format we now refer to as "Urban Contemporary" would have been called "Black Music" back then, for example).

And honestly, none of the black people I know have anything but disgust for BET's programming. In fact, I have to wonder about the mentality and views of black people of anyone who can honestly watch their programming and still think it's and accurate representation of black culture. Besides, BET is owned by the same corporation (and has been for quite some time) run by the same (mostly) caucasians who run MTV and CMT... the latter of which is, for all intents and purposes, the white people version of BET, right down to the fact that no respectable white person would actually watch it.

Even still, I hardly see how BET's targeting of African-Americans is any different from the way half the channels on cable target demographics (middle-class suburbanites, for example) that are overwhelmingly white. If you have a problem with it, go complain to the Marketing Department at the nearest university since their teachings are the entire reason BET exists in the first place.

2. That's a valid point and it bothers me as well. For example, had the police chief of Atlanta been white when a multi-racial undercover drug enforcement team mistakenly killed a 92-year-old woman, there's no doubt in my mind he would have been run out on a rail. There was outrage towards Atlanta PD - rightfully so given the horrific error and attempted coverup - but few called for the chief to be fired and the rage would have increased exponentially had all those officers been white. None of that opinion is based in racism, it's just the way it is.

I agree, but this is another case where I have to question the usefulness of Atlanta as a baseline as the black community there is very elitist. I'll offer up Ray Nagin and his reputation in New Orleans' black community after Katrina as a counter example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BET channel on television offends me because it specifically targets one group of people in our country. However, it is accepted as normal in our country. If I was to create WET (White Entertainment Television), I would immediately be labeled a racist and have the NAACP all over me.

I really can't believe people are still trotting out this argument in 2011.

Would you have a problem if it were called the Urban Entertainment Network? I ask because back in 1980, when BET was founded "Black" was the common name for the entertainment genres that are now commonly referred to as "urban" (the radio format we now refer to as "Urban Contemporary" would have been called "Black Music" back then, for example).

And honestly, none of the black people I know have anything but disgust for BET's programming. In fact, I have to wonder about the mentality and views of black people of anyone who can honestly watch their programming and still think it's and accurate representation of black culture. Besides, BET is owned by the same corporation (and has been for quite some time) run by the same (mostly) caucasians who run MTV and CMT... the latter of which is, for all intents and purposes, the white people version of BET, right down to the fact that no respectable white person would actually watch it.

Even still, I hardly see how BET's targeting of African-Americans is any different from the way half the channels on cable target demographics (middle-class suburbanites, for example) that are overwhelmingly white. If you have a problem with it, go complain to the Marketing Department at the nearest university since their teachings are the entire reason BET exists in the first place.

2. That's a valid point and it bothers me as well. For example, had the police chief of Atlanta been white when a multi-racial undercover drug enforcement team mistakenly killed a 92-year-old woman, there's no doubt in my mind he would have been run out on a rail. There was outrage towards Atlanta PD - rightfully so given the horrific error and attempted coverup - but few called for the chief to be fired and the rage would have increased exponentially had all those officers been white. None of that opinion is based in racism, it's just the way it is.

I agree, but this is another case where I have to question the usefulness of Atlanta as a baseline as the black community there is very elitist. I'll offer up Ray Nagin and his reputation in New Orleans' black community after Katrina as a counter example.

A fair point.

To the other thing, I see both sides. It's a question of whether overall white-oriented marketing is in effect a "WET network" to use Cola's words. But what do you mean about university teachings?

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BET channel on television offends me because it specifically targets one group of people in our country. However, it is accepted as normal in our country. If I was to create WET (White Entertainment Television), I would immediately be labeled a racist and have the NAACP all over me.

I really can't believe people are still trotting out this argument in 2011.

Would you have a problem if it were called the Urban Entertainment Network? I ask because back in 1980, when BET was founded "Black" was the common name for the entertainment genres that are now commonly referred to as "urban" (the radio format we now refer to as "Urban Contemporary" would have been called "Black Music" back then, for example).

And honestly, none of the black people I know have anything but disgust for BET's programming. In fact, I have to wonder about the mentality and views of black people of anyone who can honestly watch their programming and still think it's and accurate representation of black culture. Besides, BET is owned by the same corporation (and has been for quite some time) run by the same (mostly) caucasians who run MTV and CMT... the latter of which is, for all intents and purposes, the white people version of BET, right down to the fact that no respectable white person would actually watch it.

Even still, I hardly see how BET's targeting of African-Americans is any different from the way half the channels on cable target demographics (middle-class suburbanites, for example) that are overwhelmingly white. If you have a problem with it, go complain to the Marketing Department at the nearest university since their teachings are the entire reason BET exists in the first place.

2. That's a valid point and it bothers me as well. For example, had the police chief of Atlanta been white when a multi-racial undercover drug enforcement team mistakenly killed a 92-year-old woman, there's no doubt in my mind he would have been run out on a rail. There was outrage towards Atlanta PD - rightfully so given the horrific error and attempted coverup - but few called for the chief to be fired and the rage would have increased exponentially had all those officers been white. None of that opinion is based in racism, it's just the way it is.

I agree, but this is another case where I have to question the usefulness of Atlanta as a baseline as the black community there is very elitist. I'll offer up Ray Nagin and his reputation in New Orleans' black community after Katrina as a counter example.

A fair point.

To the other thing, I see both sides. It's a question of whether overall white-oriented marketing is in effect a "WET network" to use Cola's words. But what do you mean about university teachings?

what I mean is that the idea of separating ethnic groups from the mainstream to directly target them is a pretty basic strategy in the marketing world... one that often leads to not-so-positive applications and unfortunate implications... and most marketing people learn it during their first year of college.

To put it another way, what would one even show on a hypothetical WET? Shakespearean plays? Bass fishing? Leave It To Beaver reruns? You'd have to admit it'd be pretty bold to try and encompass so many different lifestyles and social scenes that have little to do with each other aside from the skin-tone of those who participate in them. So why does no one think anything of doing the same with black people (or any other ethnic/minority groups)? The fact that advertisers still, in the 21st century, haven't figured out effective ways to market towards diverse crowds aside from tokenism and other transparent strategies is the entire reason a channel like BET exists... pretty sad when you think about all the people for whom BET exclusively defines African-American culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the Confederacy was is a tricky historical debate. illwauk called it an occupying foreign power, which is certainly one legitimate view. Another is that it was simply a collection of states re-asserting their sovereignty and that by doing so those states formed a new nation (the Confederate view). Another is that it wasn't a government at all, it was just a collection of states that were still in the Union, but engaged in rebellion (Lincoln's view). Historically speaking there is no right answer.

Lincoln maintained that no state could leave the Union, therefore the states that formed the CSA were simply in rebellion. After the war ended, however, there was a snafu. See, Lincoln stuck to his guns and stated that since the states that made up the former CSA never left the Union under his interpretation they still had all the rights and privileges that came with being a state in the Union. That's why Lincoln's proposed plan for reconstruction was so lenient. Just a new state constitution that outlawed slavery and a loyalty oath from 10% of the population was enough to get a former Confederate state re-admitted to the Union under Lincoln's plan. While this might seem lenient, it was in keeping with his view that the former CSA had never legally succeeded.

When Lincoln was shot and the "Radical Republicans" took control of the reconstruction process, however, they wanted to 1) make the former CSA pay and 2) fundamentally alter southern culture, mostly as it related to race relations. To do these things they couldn't keep towing Lincoln's "they never left" line. They had to treat the former Confederate States as if it was a conquered country, which meant retroactively accepting that the successions of 1860-61 and the formation of the Confederate States of America constituted a legal set of procedures which established a new, sovereign nation between the years 1861 and 1865. Basically the Radical Republicans, now that they won the war, went back and accepted the Confederate view of succession, which allowed them a wider range of authority over the south then had been the case had they accepted Lincoln's line of reasoning that they were still states in the Union and deserving of the rights that came with that.

So what the Confederacy was is tricky to answer. In fact its near impossible, given that the United States government's line on the matter changed once the war was over.

So rather then get hung up on what it was from a technical stand point (because no one's ever going to win that historical debate) I prefer to look at what it was within the context of American history. A mistake. A hiccup in the grand republican experiment that is the United States of America. Whatever your view of the CSA is, even if it's the most racially sensitive "states rights" interpretation out there, there's no denying that the CSA engaged in an act of treason (or several, depending on how you look at it). Even if you think that treason was justified, the Confederate battle, naval, and national flags represent a government that was formed by people who decided that they no longer wanted anything to do with the United States. If you're a southerner who's also a proud American I don't see how you can fly any Confederate standard.

It's kind of the same view I have towards French Canadians who only fly the Quebec provincial flag and scuff at the idea of flying the Canadian flag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oklahoma had a different flag between 1911 and 1924. The 46 stands for Oklahoma entering the Union as the 46th state.

800px-Flag_of_Oklahoma_19111925svg.png

It was changed because red flags with stars were seen as being reflective of communism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unrelated, but I'm trying to post a new topic and it won't let me, does anyone know how to? Thanks!~Dan

Because you need to make at least 3 posts first. EVERY SINGLE NEW MEMBER EVER HAS ASKED THIS!!!! :grin:

For any further questions, bring it into the FAQ thread. You will find that in the Forum Announcements section.

25yzwqg.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the flag of the city I live in (Thunder Bay).

Those that like the Astros rainbow jersey or the Canucks 'V' jersey may like this flag.

500px-Flag_of_Thunder_Bay.svg.png

"Just when I thought you'd said the stupidest thing, you keep on talking" - Hank Hill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BET channel on television offends me because it specifically targets one group of people in our country. However, it is accepted as normal in our country. If I was to create WET (White Entertainment Television), I would immediately be labeled a racist and have the NAACP all over me.

I really can't believe people are still trotting out this argument in 2011.

Would you have a problem if it were called the Urban Entertainment Network? I ask because back in 1980, when BET was founded "Black" was the common name for the entertainment genres that are now commonly referred to as "urban" (the radio format we now refer to as "Urban Contemporary" would have been called "Black Music" back then, for example).

And honestly, none of the black people I know have anything but disgust for BET's programming. In fact, I have to wonder about the mentality and views of black people of anyone who can honestly watch their programming and still think it's and accurate representation of black culture. Besides, BET is owned by the same corporation (and has been for quite some time) run by the same (mostly) caucasians who run MTV and CMT... the latter of which is, for all intents and purposes, the white people version of BET, right down to the fact that no respectable white person would actually watch it.

Even still, I hardly see how BET's targeting of African-Americans is any different from the way half the channels on cable target demographics (middle-class suburbanites, for example) that are overwhelmingly white. If you have a problem with it, go complain to the Marketing Department at the nearest university since their teachings are the entire reason BET exists in the first place.

2. That's a valid point and it bothers me as well. For example, had the police chief of Atlanta been white when a multi-racial undercover drug enforcement team mistakenly killed a 92-year-old woman, there's no doubt in my mind he would have been run out on a rail. There was outrage towards Atlanta PD - rightfully so given the horrific error and attempted coverup - but few called for the chief to be fired and the rage would have increased exponentially had all those officers been white. None of that opinion is based in racism, it's just the way it is.

I agree, but this is another case where I have to question the usefulness of Atlanta as a baseline as the black community there is very elitist. I'll offer up Ray Nagin and his reputation in New Orleans' black community after Katrina as a counter example.

A fair point.

To the other thing, I see both sides. It's a question of whether overall white-oriented marketing is in effect a "WET network" to use Cola's words. But what do you mean about university teachings?

what I mean is that the idea of separating ethnic groups from the mainstream to directly target them is a pretty basic strategy in the marketing world... one that often leads to not-so-positive applications and unfortunate implications... and most marketing people learn it during their first year of college.

To put it another way, what would one even show on a hypothetical WET? Shakespearean plays? Bass fishing? Leave It To Beaver reruns? You'd have to admit it'd be pretty bold to try and encompass so many different lifestyles and social scenes that have little to do with each other aside from the skin-tone of those who participate in them. So why does no one think anything of doing the same with black people (or any other ethnic/minority groups)? The fact that advertisers still, in the 21st century, haven't figured out effective ways to market towards diverse crowds aside from tokenism and other transparent strategies is the entire reason a channel like BET exists... pretty sad when you think about all the people for whom BET exclusively defines African-American culture.

Yes, and occasionally most irritating. My last name is a slightly Frenchified version of a fairly common Hispanic last name that changed to its current form sometime after my ancestors arrived in southeastern Louisiana a couple of hundred years ago. I'm not Hispanic* and don't speak a word of Spanish yet occasionally receive Spanish-language marketing materials clearly aimed at Hispanics. So perhaps more than the average white Smith or Jones, I have at least a small inkling of what it's like to have people make unfounded assumptions about you.

* Some people have somehow been offended by this simple statement. One time I got the response, "What's wrong with being Hispanic?" Well, nothing. I'm not saying anything negative about Hispanics, simply stating that I'm not Hispanic.

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna actually post something on flags, since every flag thread degenerates into a political pissing contest, mmmkay?

On the FOTW website, there is an image posted of a new flag proposal for Nevada.

us!nvkrp.gif

Known as the "Karp proposal", after the retired defense contractor that designed it.

Symbolism was layed out as follows:

Overall symbolism: The dominant design element is the snow-capped mountain, which represents how Nevada got its name. Nevada is Spanish for "snowcapped."

Colors: The colors silver and blue represent the official state colors. Silver represents Nevada's history as a producer of silver and the state's nickname is the Silver State. Blue represents Nevada's lakes and clear skies. White represents snow.

Snowcap: The shape of the snowcap suggests an arrowhead, symbolizing the state's Native American history and culture.

Star: It is taken from the current flag. It represents Nevada's five key natural resources and five major industries.

Personally, I like this idea. It would be unique to see silver-gray on a state flag

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also this proposal for Utah floating around out there.

us!ut01.gif

Apparently the Salt Lake Tribune held a flag designing contest back in 2001, and this was the winning entry.

EDIT: Here is a link to five flag proposals for Vermont. Personally I like the 4th one down out of these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm... I like the symbolism of the Nevada design, but it seems like it's too much a blocky picture and less a flag. Same thing with that Utah design.

Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop!

KJ BrandedBehance portfolio

 

POTD 2013-08-22

On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said:

When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.