What does it mean to try to encapsulate a nation in a flag? It means trying to unite a population behind a homogeneous set of ideals, aims, history and beliefs — an almost impossible task. But when passions are aroused, when the banner of an enemy is flying high, that’s when people flock to their own symbol. Flags have much to do with our traditional tribal tendencies and notions of identity — the idea of “us versus them.” Much of the symbolism in flag design is based on that concept of conflict and opposition — as seen in the common theme of red for the blood of the people, for example.
In the morning it rises, hoisted onto a million flagpoles, as “God’s Own Country” sets about creating anew each day the most successful nation yet seen on earth.
This is the Star-Spangled Banner. The most recognizable, loved, hated, respected, feared and admired flag in the world.
From gazing at the flag from the front yard the children would have gone to school and recited: “I pledge allegiance to the flat of the USA and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
In the highly charged atmosphere of 2001 it quickly became either a badge of honor to show you cared, or, by not wearing one, grounds for suspicion of a lack of patriotism. It was of course a false dichotomy, but in the age of the febrile 24-hour news cycle many people opted for safety first.
White signifies purity and innocence. Red, hardiness & valor, and Blue signifies vigilance, perseverance & justice.
The laws and codes of conduct surrounding the treatment of the American flag are staggering in their complexity, symbolism and number. It is in these laws that we glimpse the depth of feeling for what appears at times to be almost a sacred object, and we hear again and again the key words which press the emotional buttons for many Americans, such as “allegiance,” “honor” and “respect.”
The burning of the American flag is a frequent occurrence in parts of the world, notably the Middle East, but it also occurs in the USA. Wherever it happens, the perpetrators are very aware of what they are doing and the emotions it will arouse. Even if they cannot articulate the meaning of their actions, they instinctively know that they are inflicting great insult, which is precisely why they do it. On all occasions there was something childlike about the inarticulate fury that accompanied it. Those doing the burning were obviously expression their often-murderous feelings towards the USA, but I also felt that even in the act they subconsciously knew they were showing their frustration at their helplessness to do anything about the fact that the system they so hate is so successful. The participants were also from cultures which almost make a fetish of honor, and to so dishonor an “enemy” brought great delight.
He appealed, citing the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court eventually ruled 5 to 4 in his favor. One of the judges reasoned as follows: “Though symbols often are what we ourselves make of them, the flag is constant in expressing beliefs Americans share, beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit. The case here today forces recognition of the costs to which those beliefs commit us. It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt.”
On 12 September 2000 the Walmart chain sold 6,400 Stars and Stripes. One year later, they sold 88,000.
Due to his exploits, St George has, in the heraldic traditions of coats of arms that developed in the 11th and 12th centuries, been identified with what came to be considered “English values” — gallantry, honor, bravery — but as he was born in what is now Turkey and died in what is now Palestine, it’s quite possible he never set foot upon the “scepter’d isle,” despite legend saying that he was at Glastonbury one year. Then again, he was never a Boy Scout either, but has become patriot saint of Scouts.
It is not meant to be taken seriously but as a comment on the somewhat chaotic organization skills of the modern civil service occasionally on display in India. Perhaps the lack of a more widespread animosity to the colonialists is symbolic of an increasingly confident India, with the fastest growing major economy in the world, looking to a future in which the Brits and their flag are of diminished importance.
In the 1980 footage of one of the ceremonies when the British flag was lowered for the last time in Rhodesia, as it became Zimbabwe, you see it being allowed to drop all the way into the African dust; the symbolism surely did not escape those present.
The blue background and circle of 12 stars, which now flies from Council of Europe buildings in every European country bar one, dates back to 1955. That year the Council, which was founded in 1949 to bring together the recently warring European “tribes,” finally agreed on a design after rejecting a number of submissions. The other colors had been taken: red for the Soviets, green for Islam, white for surrender, black for mourning, light blue for the UN, so dark blue it was.
In this new Age of Uncertainty some people are reaching back to the old symbols and the old groupings. The Nordic states are increasingly looking to each other for solidarity, and regarding themselves as a regional bloc. This runs counter to the ideology of the EU that sought an end to factions within the continent, striving for an ever closer union.
It is damaging because it causes some people to assume that such a thing as the end of history is possible, and that mankind’s “ideological evolution” must end in liberal democracy. This is as wrong as the Marxist theory of the inevitability of the “law of history” leading to a Communist utopia.
The flag is flown proudly by the state institutions, but the public does not always share that pride in the institutions. Italy remains a nation of regions; many people seem to identify more on a local level, and regional flags are sometimes a more common sight.
Most Europeans are not overtly aware of the symbols: we see the flag of Sweden, not the Christian cross on a flag.
Mental gymnastics are required to overlook the gulag and the terror and say that “on balance” Communism was a good thing but even now, with the archives opened, there are still many who cannot accept that a faith they have held for a lifetime may have contributed to mass murder. Few people would argue that “on balance” the Nazis, with their full employment and autobahns, were good for Germany, but when it comes to the hammer and sickle, that’s when the mental gymnastics take over. The ideas behind the flags may be part of the explanation.
The Nazis were quite open about the symbolism of their flag: it represented what they believed about superior races, strength, weakness and purity, views which were crushed amid the wreckage of Europe. But the hammer and sickle, in the symbolism if not in the practice of Communism, represents the idea of international solidarity, unity between the urban proletariat and peasantry, and the dignity of labor, even as the lyrics of “The Red Flag” have it: “It gives the hope of peace at last.”
Although it symbolizes Communism, the Red Flag, with hammer and sickle, did not exist during the lifetime of its founder, Karl Marx. Its gradual use began when the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia.
At state level a version of it still flies in China, but there the Party has almost stopped even pretending it is Communist. Instead it embraces a ruthless capitalist dictatorship but uses the machinery and symbolism of the Party to control the people.
To achieve this, he teamed up with Captain T. E. Lawrence and successfully took on the Ottoman Turks. He then expected the Brits to help his cause, but realpolitik was always going to countermand whatever agreements he though he and Lawrence had come to. Hussein had one idea, the British and French had another.
Had he kept the British on side in those years, the borders of the Middle East might look very different now. In the event, Arab neighbors, with alternative ideas about who controlled what, sensed a weakened king and made their move.
Those neighbors were the Al Saud tribe led by Abdul-Aziz bin Saud of the Al-Sauds, who commanded the Wahhabi army in the Najd region to the east of the peninsula. He’d sat out the Arab Revolt, had already conquered what would prove to be the massively oil-rich regions bordering the Gulf, and now looked westward. As long as the British backed Hussein, Abdul-Aziz would not dare take him on, but by 1924 London had tired of the Hashemite leader and his dreams of pan-Arabism. Support was withdrawn and the die was cast. Lawrence would later write that Hussein was “a tragic figure, in his way: brave, obstinate, hopelessly out of date.”
Some of his more radically ambitious supporters wanted to carry on into Transjordan, Iraq and Kuwait, but Abdul-Aziz played a better international power game than had Hussein and knew this would bring him into direct competition with the British. In 1927 he did a deal with London and proclaimed the Kingdom of Hejaz and Nejd. Just 5 years later, in 1932, he announced a new country: the two kingdoms would be united as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
At the time, the crescent moon was the symbol of the Goddess Artemis. The Romans, who centuries later conquered Byzantium, knew Artemis as Diana, and so carried on the tradition of using the crescent as the symbol of the city and also used it on the flag. When the Turkic peoples conquered what was by then Constantinople in 1543, they maintained the symbol, added it to their flags, and it began to become associated with the Muslim world.
The moral of the story might be “choose your battles wisely,” but Hussein’s group believed that only the Prophet Mohammed’s family could lead the new religion of Islam, and that it was better to die fighting for justice than to live with injustice.
Nowadays Chinese law stipulates that the provinces are not supposed to have their own lags. This is partially because the Party knows it is one of the centrifugal forces holding what is a disparate country together.
As with most countries which include the words “democratic” and “republic” in their names, it is neither.
It is a version of the standard Soviet-era flag, which, like standard Soviet architecture, has a directness to it.
We don’t want to fight, but by Jingo! if we do,
We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, we’ve got the money too.
We don’t want to fight, but by Jingo! if you do,
We will probably issue a joint memorandum, suggesting a mild disapproval of you.
Some took this and the idea that Haile Selassie was the 225th direct descendant of King David to be the fulfilment of the prophecy. It therefore followed that he was the second coming of Jesus, Son of Jah, or God.
The 5-pointed star had become “the symbol of African emancipation and unity in the struggle against colonialism.” Sadly, Nkrumah also went on to become one of the first of the new generation of African leaders to shackle their country under their own despotic rule — betraying the ideal of the fight for liberation and all that the new flags stood for.
Throughout their 200 years of independence, the Central American states have endured numerous dictatorships, wars, revolutions, coups, illiberal democracies and breathtaking levels of corruption. In this, especially the latter, they share their experience with the whole of Latin America. Many of the 626M-strong population simply shrug their shoulders until the levels of corruption reach breaking point. The Brazilians even have a phrase — Rouba, mas faz — which means “he steals but he acts.”
As we know, the modern Republic has many problems in its politics, its economy and its favelas, and yet its essence still seems to captivate us through its football, its music and its people. “After a certain age every man is responsible for his face.” Their joyful flag is one of the faces the 200M Brazilians present to the world and it suits them.
Usually flags mean identity; they identify what people are, but by the same token they also identify what they are not. This is why a national or religious flag can have such a hold on our imaginations and passions. But the UN flag doesn’t stand in opposition to an external enemy, which makes it more difficult for us to unite behind it.