- Yes, of course it is.
- No, it's not that's just silly.
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
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.
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 reasons
- Show AllShow Less