Flag Burning

[Dän]

We have all seen a lot of flag burning going on recently with protests over cartoons but this isnt neccassarily what this thread is about.

I live in Australia and flag burning isnt a real issue here becuase it just doesnt happen that much, but over the news i see that in a Melbourne University, during Orientation week, flag burning kits were being sold for $5. Thats right a kit inclusive of Australian flag and the goods in which to burn this flag. Now this is just bullshit, i mean i dont really think you should burn the flag of the country you live in, if you are that badly against the government that perhaps you should consider living elsewhere IMO.

Im just interested to see what other people think about flag burning, expecially by residents of the country of which the flag is being burnt.

Dan.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

there are flag-burning kits here in america, or at least there were untill Homeland Security arrested a bunch of people and shut down the factory that was making them

 

[derek]

Simply moving elsewhere will not achieve anything.

I could not care less for the poser qualities inherent in flag burning. It's being a show-off and the folks most concerned with doing it nearly almost have zero idea as to why their country is fucked up.

To try and slap some (amatuer) philosophy upon this:

Does the notion of nationality actually mean anything? If race does not exist, then are we not just a bunch of the same peoples who live in different places?

 

[Norsemaiden]

If the flag of your country is flown proudly for reasons you disagree with, such as wars or the Royal Family/president or sports where the athletes are not even native to your country (but bought) then it would not be a surprise if you would get disillusioned with your country and flag burning is not something you would get very upset about.

 

[Dän]

For me though burning the flag is more of a symbol than anything else. A country like Australia is a very good one and even if you are unahppy with the governance of the country you should not burn the flag as a sign of you dis pleasure

 

[SoundMaster]

As I see it, it's a non-issue. The fact of the matter is that it's a piece of cloth, nothing more. Sure it has symbolic meaning, but that meaning differs depending on who you ask. With that said, it's nothing more than a verbal expression, really.

And, is it NOT better to destroy a symbol of something than to actually vent anger on the actual people/places that the symbol represents?

To outlaw flag-burning is silly, IMO.

 

[Heavenscent]

I would consider flagburning to be an expression of an opinion. Not a brilliant or well thought through one, but it is a statement, thus falling under freedom of speech. Just like the cartoons on Muhammad. Just because an opinion isn't 100% rational or well worded doesn't mean it should be censored.

That's one reason why I don't understand that in many countries buying, selling or owning a copy of Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' is prohibited. Another one being that it is a part of history, and by denying people the right to take knowledge of it, I consider it to be manipulation of history.
Maybe this last bit was a bit besides the point, but I used it to illustrate my opinion on freedom of speech.

 

[Neith]

As I see it, it's a non-issue. The fact of the matter is that it's a piece of cloth, nothing more. Sure it has symbolic meaning, but that meaning differs depending on who you ask. With that said, it's nothing more than a verbal expression, really.

And, is it NOT better to destroy a symbol of something than to actually vent anger on the actual people/places that the symbol represents?

To outlaw flag-burning is silly, IMO.

I agree. I don't really see the issue behind it. As SoundMaster says, it's a piece of cloth, and to outlaw it would be a restriction on our freedom to express ourselves. There was much anger in the western world because their freedom of speech was not well recieved in the Middle East. With this in mind, how can the Western world get annoyed at some individuals for expressing themselves/ their opinions through burning a flag?

 

[Voice of God]

Does the notion of nationality actually mean anything? If race does not exist, then are we not just a bunch of the same peoples who live in different places?

The whole idea of nationstates emerged in the late 18th - 19th centuries. It's all a big scam as far as I'm concerned. A new way to control people as religion started to fail. Non-religious brainwash. Nationality breed patriotism and patriotism breeds fanatics, just like religion does. It's all false. Before the nationalism boom of 19th century, there was no coherent picture of Finnish people for example. Then bunch of academics picked some stuff from folklore and tradition and left out some. They created this somewhat appealing image and said "this is finnish, these people are finnish, we should unite". Nationalism is a belief. Belief is the death of thought, like R.A.Wilson put it.

 

[speed]

The whole idea of nationstates emerged in the late 18th - 19th centuries. It's all a big scam as far as I'm concerned. A new way to control people as religion started to fail. Non-religious brainwash. Nationality breed patriotism and patriotism breeds fanatics, just like religion does. It's all false. Before the nationalism boom of 19th century, there was no coherent picture of Finnish people for example. Then bunch of academics picked some stuff from folklore and tradition and left out some. They created this somewhat appealing image and said "this is finnish, these people are finnish, we should unite". Nationalism is a belief. Belief is the death of thought, like R.A.Wilson put it.

I totally agree with you; however, many of these nation states used God--the Divine Monarch if you will, to give religious power to their states.

There is a fragment/line from the Cynics that has been attributed to the great Diogenes of Sinope, in which he renounces all citizenship, and declares he is a citizen of the world. I believe it was the first time such sublime thought was pronounced from the lips of man.

Regardless, the world with free trade and technology, is breaking down national boundaries--at least in the West, and the very idea of nationality is dissapearing every passing year. But it 's hard to say if thats the case for the up-in-comers like the Indians and Chinese. They seem to be pretty tied to national interests first, unlike the West.

 

[Lord SteveO]

Couldn't agree more.

Nationality together with religion can produce a dangerously close minded person. Someone who considers their way to be above all others, and who belives that the divine being is on their side too.
Just look at Christian fundamentalists in the USA to see where this can lead to.

I would rather be considered a citizen of Earth than a citizen of the UK.

 

[derek]

I'm not personally a fan of nationalism, but I'm not sure it creates close-minded people. The ideas behind it are reasonably sound, IMO.

The grey area is whether you believe they have good intentions or if their beliefs are born out of old fashioned xenophobia and idiocy.

 

[Dän]

Couldn't agree more.

Nationality together with religion can produce a dangerously close minded person. Someone who considers their way to be above all others, and who belives that the divine being is on their side too.
Just look at Christian fundamentalists in the USA to see where this can lead to.

I would rather be considered a citizen of Earth than a citizen of the UK.

Fair enough point; but i am rather nationalistic and religous, yet i dont believe that i am close minded at all.

anyways, i think there was already a thread about close mindiness a while ago

 

[Scott W]

As I see it, it's a non-issue. The fact of the matter is that it's a piece of cloth, nothing more. Sure it has symbolic meaning, but that meaning differs depending on who you ask. With that said, it's nothing more than a verbal expression, really.

And, is it NOT better to destroy a symbol of something than to actually vent anger on the actual people/places that the symbol represents?

To outlaw flag-burning is silly, IMO.

I agree with this.

I recall a scene from the movie The American President with Michael Douglas, its kind of cheesy, but it gets my point across well enough:

President Andrew Shepherd: America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the 'land of the free'? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free.'"

 

[OfManAndMetal]

ya man, if you live in america, by now your used to seeing people in other countries burning the red white and blue... nothing we can do about that...

 

[SoundMaster]

ya man, if you live in america, by now your used to seeing people in other countries burning the red white and blue... nothing we can do about that...

And there's nothing we should do about that.

 

[OfManAndMetal]

what can we do? go to war with every country that dont like the U.S.? we cant do that...

 

[Neith]

Haha you almost already are!!! joking though, no offence meant.

 

[OfManAndMetal]

its cool... im not president...

 

[Demiurge]

This article contains knowledge that some of you desperately need: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/

Does the notion of nationality actually mean anything? If race does not exist, then are we not just a bunch of the same peoples who live in different places?

A nation is an ethno-cultural community, which may or may not correspond to a sovereign political entity(a state). Its value is in giving people a unified identity, as opposed to making them atomized individuals with no reason to care about their countrymates. The notion of nationality serves to give people an ethical foundation. One can argue all that he likes that we are all members of the human nation, but it is barely better than stating that a person should view a random African as he does his mother. It is absurd and belongs strictly in an ivory tower. It looks adorable on message boards, though.

The article states it as follows:

The Argument from Identity. Communitarian philosophers emphasize nurture over nature as the principal force determining our identity as persons — we come to be the persons we are because of the social settings and contexts in which we mature. The claim certainly has some plausibility. The very identity of each person depends upon his/her participation in communal life (see MacIntyre 1994, Nielsen 1998, and Lagerspetz 2000). For example, Nielsen writes:

We are, to put it crudely, lost if we cannot identify ourselves with some part of an objective social reality: a nation, though not necessarily a state, with its distinctive traditions. What we find in people — and as deeply embedded as the need to develop their talents — is the need not only to be able to say what they can do but to say who they are. This is found, not created, and is found in the identification with others in a shared culture based on nationality or race or religion or some slice or amalgam thereof. ... Under modern conditions, this securing and nourishing of a national consciousness can only be achieved with a nation-state that corresponds to that national consciousness (1993: 32).

Given that an individual's morality depends upon their having a mature and stable personal identity, the communal conditions that foster the development of such personal identity have to be preserved and encouraged. The philosophical nationalists claim that the national format is the right format for preserving and encouraging such identity-providing communities. Therefore, communal life should be organized around particular national cultures. The classical nationalist proposes that cultures should be given their states, while the liberal nationalist proposes that cultures should get at least some form of political protection.