Posted by dryadin 6 days ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Raise_the_Colours https://manchestermill.co.uk/the-men-who-raised-the-flags/
The Union Jack is a symbol of empire and colonialism which the St. George's Cross isn't.
However, the football thing is more recent. If you watch "the Italian Job" from the 1960s, the England fans wave around Union Jacks instead of their own specific flag (as Scotland and Wales fans would). Clearly in the intervening years, England fans have discovered the England flag.
Scottish and Welsh people seem to be a lot more comfortable with their identity than English do. And that includes their flags. I have seen countless bits of research which suggest that ethnic minorities happily identify as Scottish and Welsh in Scotland and Wales, but in England, they identify as British rather than English. I suggest you read Billy Bragg's "the Progressive Patriot". He is an English socialist who has tried to reclaim English identity from the far right, which he is entitled to.
In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the Union Flag is a reminder that the UK countries are ultimately run by England, where there isn’t a true acknowledgement that the countries are culturally different, let alone able to rule themselves.
Within England the St George’s Cross has become a symbol of exceptionalism and superiority, not least because it is prominently flown on nationalist and supremacist marches. Since the Union Jack includes the other countries in the Union, use of St George is often seen as a snub to the other countries.
So England can’t win? No. Correctly so, IMO, because of history and context (I am English).
We do occasionally get billboards with company X saying they support England, but other than that it isn't an issue in Scotland.
Like Billy Bragg says, there is a strong case for reclaiming the English flag from the far right.
The Union Jack in Scotland has a much more complex history, particularly in and around Glasgow where it is connected with extreme loyalism and Orangeism (which is where a lot of the Scottish Reform party vote will come from.) In Northern Ireland, it is hated by a large section of the population. In Wales and Scotland, some independence supporters hate the Union Jack too.
The Union Jack has a strong association with the far right and loyalism, not to mention imperialism and somehow gets a free pass.
Much of that is due to schooling and media conditioning, of course, but the flags mean different things to different people.
Oh, and you'll find it at plenty of football matches, notably Glasgow Rangers, who fly it while singing songs about wanting to be "up to our knees in Fenian blood".
Even the new positioning of the art on a plinth in some open space is enigmatic. If it were a critique of the powers that be, why would officialdom collaborate in propping it up?
“Nations” as synonym for country started appearing only recently, in last two/three hundred years.
Flags have thousands of years of history.
Seriously, this is part of the fun of art. Neither of you are wrong for reading different messages into it.
Communists are blinded by the flag with the hammer and sickle.
Teachers and doctors are blinded by trans ideology and its flag.
Examples abound, but wanna transgressor blanksy knows who butters his bread.
Interesting fact: the creator of the trans flag, Robert Hogge (later known as Monica Helms), used to steal his mother's underwear, then moved on to stealing random women's underwear for sexual reasons, and wrote fantasy fiction about a man marrying a child who doesn't age.
https://reduxx.info/trans-pride-flag-creator-71-announces-ad...
“… and lesbian” aka a male who is attracted to females, aka straight.
For me, nothing has been more clarifying about the trans debate than learning about autogynophilia and realizing that most males who think they are trans are actually straight. Until recently, I had assumed they were mostly males attracted to other males, and I suspect most of the public still thinks that too.
You're going to get a bunch of downvotes, but I'm also going to take the time to personally tell you how stupid this is as well.
So to return the favor, I’ll add a couple of sentences too.
A year ago I would never have made such a comment.
My understanding about the issues boiled down to approximately:
- queer theory is some sort of reasonably academic pursuit that has something to do with gay people
- trans is just gay rights 2.0; clearly anyone who has any concerns is a raging bigot
Neither was a core interest of mine, but they seemed reasonable enough. However, eventually, I started reading about the topic. (I’d recommend Trans by Helen Joyce) and now I feel differently.
I now think JK had it right all along – we all should (and do) have the basic human right to wear whatever we like, and to sleep with anyone who will have us. But what’s being demanded by activists and taught in schools goes far beyond that and involves real contradictions, real risks to children and zero sum trade-offs with hard fought sex specific rights for women.
These issues are things we could talk about so that we all come to a better understanding and make better decisions. But instead wide swathes of officialdom are “blinded by the flag” and have decided, as I once did, that anyone who has concerns is a raging bigot.
Interesingly, so called "gender critical" movement is increasingly pivoting to other conservative or plainly reactionary talking points. For example, the book you are recommending makes a thinly veilded point that "promoters of trans ideology" are rich jewish men, key figure among them being George Soros.
Kishwer Falkner who was big proponent of trans people segregation during her EHRC leadership recently turned to anti abortion activism. And plenty of LGB sans TQ people I've talked to are big fans of "we are normal gays who limit our orientation to the bedroom" talking points while also leaning conservative or reactionary themselves.
This is untrue. Please read the author's response to this false allegation: https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/p/a-wild-ride.
Nothing you’ve said actually addresses any arguments.
Can you actually give a refutation of Joyce’s arguments are you going just going to stick to ad hominem?
Which spate and which nation? The one the local flags were in response to, or the local flags?
It is vague enough to appear deep to those trying to find something deep but not concrete enough to appear as anything that will stick in people's minds for more than a week. Unfortunately a lot of modern art is like this.
Waving a flag is not a problem in itself. You can be proud of being part of whatever group you like and not hurt anyone. The problem is when the flag becomes the prism through which you see the world. Or, as the statue puts it, when you’re blinded by it.
Clearly it depends on your actual object-level position on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Or in general, what specific nationalisms you mean when you talk about being "blinded by nationalism".
And that's the main reason why I think this is a mediocre piece of art. Very few people actually are genuinely anti-nationalist for all possible human groups that have some sense of themselves as a nation. All anti-nationalist rhetoric is implicitly aimed at a specific nationalism that someone has a problem with - and also everyone knows this. So everyone wants to use the blank slate of bansky's featureless flag as a canvas upon which to paint a nationalism they don't like in order to discredit it. And I personally think that's boring. Maybe engendering that reaction was itself part of Bansky's artistic vision, but I still don't think that makes for good art.
Personally I don't mind it. I think it would be difficult to convey well thought out points in art (the world is too complicated) and it's fine that they're just fun visual wordplays.
You wouldn't criticise a newspaper political cartoon for taking liberties with reality; these are basically the same.
There are many examples of the same thing: Andy Warhol and the soup cans and screen-printed portraits with different color backgrounds or Led Zeppelin and English folk hard rock songs that have hobbits in them are two of them.
Eventually, it's hard to even process their work in the context of how predictable and trite it seems to be a few decades later.
Plus the execution is also part of the art.
Unfortunately, they often don't meet that bar, so the message has to be in a form they can understand.
There's no point to complexity or subtlety in art anymore, or even any kind of symbolism at all. Anything that needs to be interpreted, that doesn't have a single objective meaning which gets spelled out for you. Flag man is silly. Everyone is twelve now.
(I'm a fan of Banksy because he isn't afraid to speak out against the blatant murder carried out because of flags and nationalism)
There are fights worth fighting: for example there are 300 million women alive who have undergone forced genital mutilation. 300 million ain't cheap change. There are also hundreds of millions of people who applauded the killing of 1200 young civilians who were enjoying life at a music festival "because it's resistance".
Applauding the killing of young unarmed civilians, genitally mutilating women and turning a blind-eye to a regime slaughtering 30 000+ of its own unarmed civilians is where I personally draw the line and consider there are maybe more important things to complain about than, say, "the patriarchal western society built by heterosexual white men" or some other woke non-sense like that.
Now to be honest Banksy did art criticizing war overall, not just war started by the west. So a generous reading could consider that he also criticizes things like the 800 000 deaths during the Hutu vs Tutsi war.
But still overall: lots of balls from western artists when it's about criticizing the west, but tiny tiny nuts when it's about, say, attacking the ideology that is responsible for 300 people enjoying music at the Bataclan and then getting slaughtered.
But these people can live with their own conscience: I speak up and I've got mine.
The moral posture you're criticising is not actually a thing, I personally don't know of any Western intellectual who criticises the West but is fine with FGM for example. But it seems that the fault you find in them is that when they criticise the West, for example, they don't also add a list of grievances against all the other countries (but surely they'd have to speak for 10 hours every time they open their mouths?).
It's also funny how you take the 30,000 Iranian civilians killed at face value, but don't talk about the wrongs of the British empire. And you didn't even mention North Korea once. You see the issue with your reqs?
Art will always be about speaking truth to power, and that power will usually be the one closest felt. There's not much value in a swede speaking truth to Nigerian warlords.
Not sure there's much conscience in Banksy making anti-national chauvinist memes whilst not identifying as any sort of nationalist, but there's even less in dismissing all criticisms of one's own society's treatment of, say, women because some other societies treat them worse.
For all that I don't think posturing graffiti artists are the saviours of humanity, it's difficult not to notice that the groups that actually are tackling FGM are practising Muslims and super-liberal NGOs (in that order) and that the people who raise it to deflect from criticisms of their own society are not represented at all in those efforts. Or are actively campaigning to get women's escape routes from those countries shut down.
Can't really lecture others on losing their sense of perspective about the magnitude of injustices either when a week ago you were expressing outrage at checks post history creatives depicting certain characters in LOTR as non-white!?!
Or maybe, we should look at the problems in our society and try to make it better, instead of just shouting into the void about things we, as nations, can't and wouldn't be and perhaps, shouldn't able to change?
You are wrong.
“Rage against the machine” by doing what the machine wants type thing.
Historically, the black flag is strongly associated with anarchism, anti-state politics, revolt, and rejection of national authority.
Had he colored it in the union jack, then I would've said it was nationalism, and the person is blinded by nationalism.
But. This is Banksy, black-and-white Banksy, so there may be no symbolism behind the black flag, but it's just very interesting. I can't accept that he would not have considered the color of the flag.
But from an American perspective a guy wearing a suit while carrying an "anarchist" flag wouldn't be inappropriate, either.
We anarchists with careers do in fact exist. There are probably dozens of us outside of tech, even!
If I had to ballpark it, I’d guess something like 1:5 people in tech are broadly aligned with me politically (meaning “less extreme, but directionally similar”) while maybe 1:100 would self-identify as an anarchist and 1:500 both self-identify and align fully with me.
Does that help?
Banksy has some specific and not random sense, this one.. shallowly could be considered IMHO ? (..and being installed Banksy style too). Convenient. "Attributed" could be second-order too (Memex). ?
The whole piece is great - https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/hakim-bey-t-a-z-the-...
Or if you have 5 mins to spare, the album version with Bill Laswell is even better - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt9vMF01Pd8
both the blinding and defiant fist are intentional. there is only one way to die and he controls it