No one at all has talked about government flying a flag. We’ve talked about private individuals flying the flag over private property.
By “objective” I mean a shared consensus across a community of users, that we don’t get to subjectively choose what words/symbols mean as individuals.
I don’t mean objective in the sense of non-arbitrary. Of course the meaning of most symbols is arbitrary. A symbol could certainly mean something different to a different community of users, or to the same community of users at a different time.
But you’re saying that it has become a symbol of “X”, and that whenever you see it flying by itself (okay, private person), you’re saying that it has an unambiguous meaning of “X”.
I just don’t see that.
Context matters doesn’t it? Is the flag on a house on the 4th of July? Is it on a monster truck? Are you in Alabama or California? Is there one flag or ten? Etc.
Gotta read the room.
Except some of the posters seem to be saying that they always will have an asterisk of some sort; that they won’t display the flag by itself, even on their own property.
That means X has won.
I wouldn’t put it quite so pessimistically. But we can’t just declare victory on our side by saying “it doesn’t mean that to me”, we must acknowledge there is a semantic battle to be fought to reclaim it.
Flags over government buildings mean what they always have. Because their context is unambiguously given by the building they’re flying over and what goes on in that building.
Or at least they will until that government has been suborned into something very different from what that flag represented previously. At which time that same flag will mean something very different.
I grant that needing an asterisk (good turn of phrase) is a problem. It ought not be necessary. But it’s not quite this:
… then you’ve accepted that your national flag means “X” …
IMO it’s more:
… then you’ve accepted that your national flag
means “X”is being mis-used by others to mean “X” and I’m not willing to mistaken for a mis-user in this currently ambiguous situation while we’re all tussling over the meaning.
And I really think that’s a distinction worth making. When you drive past a noisy demonstration you can honk your horn in support or in angry denunciation. How you honk matters.
It would be damned nice if traitors didn’t try to take over national symbols. But it’s a play right out of chapter 1 of the populist nationalist authoritarian playbook. And it’s be naïve for ordinary citizens to not recognize that old play as soon as it’s trotted out, not just years later.
I realize that there are a couple of homes that I recall as having flown Trump flags, and posting other offensive MAGA yard signs. I see fewer of those than before and, as best I can recall, none of those are currently flying US flags.
[[quote=“What_Exit, post:128, topic:990270”]
half the posters here are ascribing a meaning to the American Flag that doesn’t exist. Especially in blue states.
[/quote]
I’m in New York State, have been for most of my life. “We are the real Americans and you are not” isn’t the only meaning by a long shot. But that meaning certainly does exist.
I don’t even think that this is a new issue.
Claiming the flag by fascists, yes. (Or maybe not. Isn’t there a photo somewhere of a Nazi rally full of American flags?) Claiming it for specific political positions – I don’t know that that’s new. Certainly the flag’s been used to support pro-war positions for quite a long time. Anybody flying an American flag in a pointed manner around 1970, unless as part of an anti-war protest, was probably in favor of the Vietnam war – because they were trying to paint anybody who wasn’t as unpatriotic.
I took enough back-of-the-head impact from that, that I remember very strongly the day after Obama was first elected; I did some errands and drove through a town that had since 9-11 been flying a whole lot of flags – and thought how very nice it was to feel included in those flags. Because, for much of my life, they’d felt like they were aimed at me. Not immediately after 9-11; but they eventually became, again, rather a pro-war signal; and I thought we were mostly in the wrong war at that point.
Now they sometimes are aimed at me, and for even worse reasons. Not in all contexts. But often enough for me to wonder, if I don’t have clear context.
I don’t think the flag needs reclaiming, as such, yet. But I do think it currently needs explication. And I think that, in order for it not to need reclaiming, it needs to be carried with that explication; at least, when the context isn’t otherwise entirely clear.
Yes, indeed. Push back by flying it, or carrying it, along with something that clarifies your intentions; presuming that it’s safe for you to do so. Could be a Pride flag, could be lots of other things.
That’s sufficient context on its own. So, at least in the USA, is flying it over the post office, or in an ordinary fashion at the school, or waving it at a Fourth of July or Memorial Day parade.
Flying it at one’s house is actually IME unusual enough in the USA that further context is necessary.
I’m not. I’m saying that when I see it flown by a private person without other context I don’t know whether it has that meaning of X. But it certainly occurs to me that it might.
That was my take away from your post, that the Amercan flag was as toxic as a swastika.
Honest question…where in what I wrote did you see that?
I’ve looked at it many times now. I see no mention of the American flag. None. Not even in context to the post I responded to.
No, it was a reductio ad absurdum of the notion that an individual can use a symbol to mean anything they choose, regardless of what other people generally understand it to mean.
To play devil’s advocate, the thread centers on the American flag. But I thought your meaning was clear. The point of a reductio ad absurdum is to apply a principle to an extreme case (the swastika), to show the flaw in the principle. The entire point is that the primary case under consideration in the thread (the American flag) is not that extreme, so the flaw in the principle is less obvious.
So, after perusing this thread, and knowing I’m in a particularly “science-y” and academic community (where Hawaiian shirts have a specific Cold War implication), I’ll ask the SDMB at large . . .
Has this flag been co-opted? I haven’t seen it in public yet, but have mine at the office.
Tripler
Context available on request–but I’m curious what first impressions are.
The funny thing about swastikas is: I have a bunch of co-workers who really don’t see it as a verboten symbol. I’ve had more than one co-worker who’s painted it on the hood of their car. To a Hindu who was raised in India, the good associated with the symbol can outweigh the bad others associate with it.
For reference, this is the design they painted on their hood:
This is in Texas, so I guess I could kind of forgive someone for thinking the owner of the car might be a Nazi of some stripe if that is painted on the hood. But I in turn would assume the person thinking that at best wasn’t well versed in world religions, and at worst may be primarily motivated by fear. If someone jumped to the conclusion the car’s owner was absolutely a Nazi without any other very strong clues, I’d think them even dimmer.
Symbols are pretty wildly interpret-able, you bring a lot of your own context when you try to interpret them. Always try to accept that you may be missing out on the presenter’s context.
But I’m guessing that they deliberately chose a version that minimizes the resemblance to the Nazi version.
The thing is, though, it’s impossible to beat the assholes. If it became common and generally accepted here for people to display that version (red and curvy with dots) for its older religious significance, neo-Nazis would inevitably start using that version as a dogwhistle with plausible deniability.
It’s like the problem with “niggardly”. You can’t just stubbonly say it’s ignorant to deprecate its use, because if it’s acceptable to use it, the racists will use it as a (none-too-subtle) dogwhistle.
A lot of people have had extremely good reason to be frightened of people wearing/using swastikas.
I’m aware that the symbol has been used otherwise for millennia. I was not aware that adding dots to it makes it Hindu. I would suggest making your friend aware of likely misinterpretations.
Clearly they painted it backwards so that anyone seeing them in the rear view mirror would be able to easily identify the threatening hate symbol! /s
I find that hard to believe. I’m pretty sure there’d be enough context to discern most neo-Nazis from Hindus if they tried that.
I’m reasonably sure they’re aware of possible misinterpretations and are making a conscious choice to use it anyway.
Good question. My first impression is that it’s part of the Bicentennial buzz of a half century ago (which was sufficiently intense that I kept the PA “Bicentennial State” vehicle tag with the 76 date sticker that became surplus for me, though it does a useful job hiding the hole for the outdoor spigot shutoff). Not that I’m sure it’s supposed to be, just that that is my first impression. I’m interested to read in your cite that it actually has such early provenance and didn’t originate with Bicentennial buzz at all.
This is new to me. Former failed boy-scout here who remembers that there were a few rules about displaying the flag. What it this about putting a light on the flag?