Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
G@G Community 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
How Do I Look? 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel & Leisure 
Trending & News 
- Yes, of course it is.Vote A
- No, it's not that's just silly.Vote B
- OtherVote C
I also know that the picture of the flag is missing the St Patty cross. I just typed Union Jack into google images and that was one of the pictures that came up. I don’t pay attention when copy-pasting it.
Most Helpful Girl
AnonymousYes the union Jack also known internationally as the butchers apron is a historic symbol of theft, rape and genocide.
1|12|13- Show AllShow Less
So it was once used as a symbol of atrocities which makes it racist even though the creation of the flag was when England and Scotland molded into one kingdom and was made to represent that unity?
Just because racists use it doesn't mean they define the meaning- Opinion Owner
@Historylover18 Under this flag millions died. This is the flag of British empire and colonialism. Its Like flying the swastika or confederate flag.
And under the Soviet Union, Turkish, and half the flags in existence there was mass repression genocide and persecution. That wasn't the initial purpose of the flags.
In a province of my country, there was a group called the Proud Boys who were flying the Canadian Red Ensign as a Confederate battle flag, and telling immigrants to leave. When I saw this happening I was mad they were attempting to turn a piece of history into a symbol of racism. Why? Under that flag, the Canadians liberated the Netherlands and Belgium from the oppression of Nazi Germany. If a Dutchman from WW2 saw that flag waving in the breeze he would start crying tears of joy, and would probably be just as mad as I was that people were trying to turn what was a symbol of liberty and freedom for the Dutch and Belgians into a symbol of oppression.Should we ban the first stanza of the German anthem because Hitler used it even though that was never the intention of the song? Or should we ban the Russian flag because of the crimes of Russia in Ukraine? How about we ban the Hindu swastika because the Nazis used a swastika. I'm part Irish. My ancestors suffered at the hands of the British, but I wouldn't want to do away with the flag because that was never the purpose of the flag's creation. If we continue to add modernist and post-modernist views to historical symbols, we won't have history
I remember Crusaders marching through the Middle East with crosses on their banners so why not ban those too?
@Historylover18 Nobody sings the first stanza any more. The official Anthem is the third, and I'm not sure about the legal status of the first. The third is the best:
"Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Für das deutsche Vaterland!
Danach lasst uns alle streben
Brüderlich mit Herz und Hand!
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Sind des Glückes Unterpfand;
Blüh' im Glanze dieses Glückes,
Blühe, deutsches Vaterland!"
"Unity and justice and freedom
For the German fatherland!
Towards these let us all strive
Brotherly with heart and hand!
Unity and justice and freedom
Are the foundation of happiness;
Flourish in the radiance of this happiness,
Flourish, German fatherland!"- Opinion Owner
@goaded a 3rd of the world's population was enslaved under the butchers apron, we don't fly the swastika flag so why fly this?
So what country do you come from then? USA? What about all their illegal wars other the years. I think we should spit on the Star spangled banner, urinate on it, wipe our arses on it and burn it.
@TimeSplittersxvc I think you actually have the Constitutional right to do that since it's a protest of the government
Most Helpful Guys
The short answer is "No," but of course, we live in the age of the symbology of symbols. So people invest in symbols the meaning that they choose - as opposed to the one that the maker of that symbol intended - and then proceed to respond according to that subjective understanding.
In the case of the British flag, it was originally intended to reflect the diversity of the United Kingdom. The UK is a "creedal nation." That is a country united by adherence to a common idea or ideas - a "nation dedicated to a proposition" to borrow from Mr. Lincoln.
In Britain's case it is a country in with English, Scots, Welsh and Protestant Irish are united by "loyalty to the Crown." The Crown itself representing not just the monarch but certain ideas that attach to the Crown. (This as distinct from say, Germany for example. A country in which people are united by their common language or nationality.)
The British flag is an amalgam of the English flag - the Cross of St. George - and the Scottish flag - the Cross of St. Andrew, and including the colors from the flags of all four British nationalities. Thus, one would think that it represents diversity - not racism. (Racism is also a problem of definitions. It is NOT the same as "bigotry." The former is an ideology, the latter a bias.)
So then people point to the British Empire as an example of the racism the British flag supposedly represents. This ignores the fact that the empire was, as someone once said, "acquired in a fit of absent mindedness." It was not assembled as an ideological imperative, but rather as an accidental outgrowth of British efforts to trade with the world.
No matter, when the empire was dissolved - and there are still fourteen territories that actually want to remain colonies, as indeed no doubt Hong Kong would have loved to remain one as against what it has now - the Commonwealth was born. The head of the Commonwealth being the British monarch, British flag and all.
The Commonwealth, under the SYMBOLIC - there is that word again - headship of the Queen, is so racist that Mozambique, a sub-Sahrana (read "black") African country that was never a British colony, asked to be allowed, and was subsequently allowed, to join. It was allowed to do so only if it pledged to improve its human rights record, by the way.
Bottom line, racism just ain't what it used to be.
0|60|0
Well the fellow who dislikes the English flag has some good valid points but he is in my opinion still wrong
He equates it to the confederate flag in the US and while I get his point they aren't equals as we are taking about a national flag with several hundred years of history compared to a battle standard used by an army on the losing side of a civil war
Not equal and not a good comparison
His arguments have two sides the current usage and the historical usage
The current usage honestly is the stronger of his arguments and is where the comparison with the confederate flag comes into play
There is no doubt that the usage of the English flag the St. George's Cross that is in the video not the Union Jack in the picture is a symbol widely used by by the skinhead hooligan racist types in England same as the confederate flag is widely used by racists in the US
But one is a national flag and has legitimate usage that has nothing to do with race the other does not really have any legitimate use
However I think in most official functions the Union Jack will be the flag used anyway? But St. George's Cross remains the official proper flag of England where Union Jack is the flag of Great Britain
If it was decided not to officially use the English flag it would not stop the racist types from using it if anything it would likely solidify their usage of it
There is then the historical usage and he mentions the crusades it was not used as a flag there as it wasn't a flag yet it became the flag after the English knights who fought in the crusades wore garments with St. George's Cross on it but maybe that is just nitpicking but a thousand years ago is that really relevant any longer? British imperialism and colonialism is more relevant and more recent and certainly full of horrors but would it not predominantly have been the Union Jack or it's predecessor that would have been flown? I think it is not specifically St. George's Cross that would be the symbol there
So yes he does have some points but he is also a bit off target on some of them and ultimately I think he is wrong even if he is wrong for good reasons0|50|0- Show AllShow Less
I mean that it is not an actual flag of any current proper organisation entity or nation it is a battle standard of an army on the losing side on a civil war that was quite a while ago
The English flag by contrast is still the current proper English flag it is the flag that denotes England the confederate flag does not denote anything currently in existenceNot just nations but organisations and entities as well
The European Union has a flag for example
The Palestine flag I would say has a legitimate use as they are if not a nation then at least trying to be one it is a specific active grouping
Now a flag like say the one of the empire of Austria-Hungary no longer has a legitimate use or that of Yugoslavia and a great number of other flags
Mind you when I say no legitimate use I mean outside of teaching history they will always have a place thereWell, would you think it ok for a Slav to fly a Yugoslavian flag then? I think people use flas to represent something, a sense of identity, unity, and for political reasons (ie the people who fly the confederate flag tend to want more states rights). I think those are valid uses, but it seems we disagree on that point?
I don't really see Slavs wanting to most of them don't think too kindly about those days when they were forced to be nice to each other when they really hate each other
But that is maybe specific to that one
I don't think it is a good reason to fly flags representing things that are gone
I am not advocating outlawing it or anything it just seems... Stupid
If it is an actual symbol of something active it would be different if there was actual real movement or organization who used it as their official symbol it would be different
But it is not
Lol.