BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

In the name of the cross.

  
 
pointless and uncalled for
11:08 / 10.06.04
An article here that I have found a bit thought provoking

The St. George Flag

On reading the article I feel that I currently sympathise with some of the earlier sentiments of the author. Not that I am or have been in any way excluded by the flag but certainly that the flag represents a specific domain. Despite the recent change in social attitude towards it I still feel as if there is a stigma attached to it, like it's the Southern Cross of England.

How do you feel about your flag?
Can an exercise in marketing and re-branding really override a catalogue of ills that have been carried out in the name of an icon?
 
 
statisticalpurposes
18:13 / 10.06.04
This article makes a nice point about the fluidity of meaning of symbols. Not only do different people see it differently, but a person's attitude toward a symbol can change dramatically. When I first moved to Montreal I was offended and annoyed, as a non-Christian, by the giant lit-up cross a top Mount Royal that I can see from my apartment. Three years later, its lost most of it’s meaning as a proclamation or imposition of Christianity, and now seems to be more of a symbol of the city for me. Over time, it lost its teeth to my ironic amusement -- "If it actually turns purple when the pope dies, we need to have a pope party!"

My feelings toward the Canadian flag are similarly ambivalent. Sometimes seeing it makes me feel slightly patriotic, almost against my will, but in other situations it seems like yet another empty pacifying attempt at promoting patriotism and national unity.

On my visits to the United States, I remember one of the biggest differences I noticed was the sheer number and size of American flags. It seemed like they flew, tablecloth size, above every commercial building. In Canada, the only places you see flags flying are next to government buildings and at the cottage. And in Quebec, there's hardly a Canadian flag in sight unless it’s accompanied by a more prominent Quebec flag flapping beside it.

(It's also interesting that it was a sporting event that turned the author's opinion about the flag. As a non-sports fan, I find the whole phenomenon fascinating. Masculinity, patriotism, commercialism, narrative and more, all over the world, all the time. Do professional sports freak anyone else out?)

I find it quite remarkable that symbols like flags can accumulate so much meaning and such a wide set of interpretations. How does one symbol become meaningful and another forgotten? Can symbols be controlled and changed by those in power? By those with less power? How can symbols be created (the current Canadian flag in 1965, for example) and suddenly have so much authenticity and meaning?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:01 / 11.06.04
I don't know if it's due to the flags origins on the battlefield, the only time yer average middle-ages peasant was likely to see a flag was when they were fighting for King Harry in a french field somewhere. And the Government have conspicuously stayed silent on this subject, allowing the nationalists to hijack the English and UK flags to the cause of nationalism. Flags are now predominately right-wing tools, often used to try and stifle debate, saluting the flag or arguing over making it an offense to descrate it, the flag visually stands for a load of complex beliefs that people don't then talk about, just assume it exists.

Sorry, will come back to this later when I'm capable of making more sense.
 
 
grant
14:52 / 11.06.04
Talking about complex symbols, if you need something else to help reclaim, detourn or deconstruct the Cross of St. George, remember that George himself was a Palestinian.

---

In a debate over in a Christian forum, when someone was all like, "Muslims are fighting all over the world, where are Christians fighting?" it was satisfying to get all like, "Look, here's a picture of the British Special Forces landing in Iraq. See that flag? See the cross?"

---

In America, we've got pentagrams all over our flag. Stinking occultists.
On the other hand, we also revere it. It's a religious thing. Kids pray to it every morning. It's never allowed to touch the ground, and you're not allowed to fly it at night unless it be lit by floodlights. Notice that it's the only one that never dips in salute during Olympic processions... not allowed. There's even a ritual for the disposing of worn out flags, conducted by a special priesthood, the American Legion.
It's all very, very strange.
 
 
Jester
15:38 / 11.06.04
Well, I personally find the St George pretty uncomfortable... I know a lot of people talk about it being reclaimed from the racist/nationalist element, but I don't see it myself... Maybe that's just my personal aversion to such blatent displays of nationalism... It just seems kind of... well... pointless. Reinforcing ideas about being a part of a nation over and above being part of collective humanity: ideas left well behind us, I feel.

I went to the ICA the other day, and the Mall has got hundreds of these oversized flags hanging for the d-day thing, I think... Union Jacks of course... I don't know, I guess that the flag has another function, which is a sort of mark of national respect, like that. But, again, couldn;t we have the respect without the nationalism?

In Mexico City's main square there is this truely gargantuan flag... It's pretty spectacular! I thought it was interesting to find that in a country which is of course the neighbour of arguably the most flagaphilic (?!) nation in the world. And also, of course, in a country which has its definate issues about its national identity and colonialism...
 
 
Linus Dunce
19:09 / 11.06.04
Tibetan flag
 
 
Cat Chant
08:33 / 13.06.04
?? What's all that about, Linus Dunce?
 
 
Linus Dunce
08:59 / 13.06.04
Well, I though that some of the points made about flags and nationalism were a little simplistic and even perhaps provincial, so I thought an image of the Tibetan flag might provide an impetus for more considered debate. What do you reckon?
 
 
Jester
09:15 / 13.06.04
I don't know Linus, I reakon people's feelings about nationalism are going to be inherantly influenced by which particular nation they come from. That's the problem, isn't it? If your are being oppressed on a national scale, a flag and nationalism can become a focus for revolt, even a positive thing. However, talking about the St George or the union jack quite obviously has other implications...
 
 
Linus Dunce
11:12 / 13.06.04
Indeed, and it used to be that the British Union Jack was the symbol of English thuggery and that one rarely saw the St George Cross. But the reappearance of the St George Cross was an inevitable counterpart of St Andrew's Cross -- a symbol of Scottish devolution ... was that a bad thing?

Blame the signified, not the signifier. It's just a symbol, like letters or numbers, albeit a little more loaded. I quite understand how people might find the English flag intimidating -- I sometimes do. But that's no reason to abrogate our critical faculties. And provincialism is rarely a good thing.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:14 / 13.06.04
What do you reckon?

Well, I reckon it's pretty, but as a point rather simplistic. Give us a bit more - do you mean that the national flag has a function as a rallying point for people seeking emancipation? And is that anything more than an extension of the use of the flag as a battle standard and rallying point?

There have been some interesting questions surounding flags lately. The most immediate is the Iraqi flag, or more correctly the interim Iraqi flag - which immediately ran aground as having excluded two important elements - the red, green and black of the Arab nations and the praise of Allah - and having included the colour of the Israeli flag. Note also that Saddam Hussein did *not* create the previosu flag of Iraq - his only emendation was the addition of "God is great" to the design. What is the creation of a new flag saying? Was it intended to unite Iraqis? And what is the point, now, of a "transitional" flag? As far as one can tell, people are having to create their own flags just so they can burn them, as they are not available in shops.

Back in the conquering nation, meanwhile, there is the good old Beauregard flag, more generally known as the Confederate Battle Flag. This historical hangover has recently caused Howard Dean to come a cropper, by suggesting, or appearing to suggest, that the Democrats had to reach out to racists. The ambiguity of the flag is pretty much demonstrated there: when you have one group of people saying that it is an act of federal oppression by Washington to suppress it, and another group of people saying that, whatever the CBF *used* to mean, including independence from Washington and/or the indominable fighting spirit of the South, it has since 1956 been a tool of racism and segregation, you're in trouble. There simply isn't a good way, as Barnes and subsequently Perdue found out, to placate the first group without suggesting to a bunch of others that you and your entire state are racist, or at least complaisant towards racism. People talk about reclaiming the St. George's cross - can you likewise "reclaim" the Southern Cross, or is it best minimised, marginalised and ultiamtely forgotten, like the official Confederate flags?

And on to the St. George's cross. My relationship to it is complicated, although in a very usual way - I live under it, but it isn't *my* flag, so I don't really feel the same way about it as somebody born English would. I think I see the probelm, though - is it hopelessly compromised? Can you think of our display the St. George's cross without referencing a violent strain of nationalism? The answer seems to be yes, but maybe only during football matches. Maybe the question is what we want to express by the St George's flag, what we think we *would* express by displaying it, and how to reconcile these two. I'm wondering whether one issue is that in the specific context of football, the usual meaning (England as a nation) is supplanted by a secondary meaning (England as a football team), which might make somebody with a St George's cross on their T-shirt less menacing because statistically less likely to be a right-wing nutter.

When I went to vote, by the way, I noticed that the BNP's logo was a bit of crappy clip art splashed with the colours of the Union Flag - is that similarly compromised?
 
 
Linus Dunce
14:26 / 13.06.04
Haus, I think you missed the point of my flying the Tibetan flag. It certainly wasn't just because it was pretty. If you look upthread, you'll see statements like this:

Flags are now predominately right-wing tools

and it was this kind of sweeping statement I was trying to confound. I was trying to provoke a better debate rather than resolve one, to which, BTW, I don't think there is an easy answer. Having said that, I'm afraid I'd rather jumped ahead of the questions you have posed me, but I think if you contemplate the Tibetan flag for a moment the answers will come to you.

The BNP logo -- until maybe the mid-90s the English far right used the Union Jack as their own. One hardly ever saw the St George Cross. So maybe the question is moot.
 
 
Jester
21:40 / 13.06.04
Linus: I don't think I am being provincial. I am saying that wherever you are in the world, a nationalistic symbol has a completely different significance for the oppressor (past or present) and the oppressed (past or present). Not to mention that the topic summary dictates that we must talk about the st george...

Also, flags themselves are actually a western european contrivance, arn't they, historically? They are inherantly loaded and can't be divorced from the colonial/military/tribalist thing.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
07:48 / 14.06.04
Not to mention that the topic summary dictates that we must talk about the st george...

Not really, I wanted to refer to that as it a) related to the article and b) is something that I can comment on in a reasonably intelligent manner. If other posters want to bring in other flags in a similar way then they are welcome to. There is no must to this.

Also, flags themselves are actually a western european contrivance, arn't they, historically?

I'm going to say no to this. There is significant evidence that flags were in existence in Ancient Egypt and were a very dominant part of iconism of feudal mechanisms in Asia. This is during pre-contact dynasties.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
10:58 / 14.06.04
statisticalpurposes - Oddly enough I feel far, far more patriotic to the Canadian flag than the St George. Even the Union Jack is capable of engendering a little bit of national pride under the right circumstances.

Flags are now predominately right-wing tools, often used to try and stifle debate, saluting the flag or arguing over making it an offense to descrate it, the flag visually stands for a load of complex beliefs that people don't then talk about, just assume it exists.

I'm not sure that they are predominant to the right-wing (given the crass amount of marketing that involves them) but it certainly seems very easy for someone to sermonise under a flag about the values that it represents without actually telling anyone what they are.

Maybe that's just my personal aversion to such blatent displays of nationalism... Jester

Can you think of our display the St. George's cross without referencing a violent strain of nationalism? Haus

Answering these two together for sake of ease.

I feel sympathetic about displays of nationalism with a rider about a certain type of defending. It just makes me question what makes someone want to speak out so loudly about their own identity in relation to a state, particularly if it isn't associated with specific event where England is an identifiable participating group or reason for patriotism. There is a level of usage which isn't attached to violent patriotism (i.e. the rugby seemed to go peacefully as does the cricket on a regular basis) but that's the bit that newsreaders refer to as the peaceful majority. However, it seems, from observation, that there is an easy transfer through a grey area to the actions that are most definitely wrong with an element of once in never out.

It's a little difficult for me to express but in anecdotal form I feel bought to question the motives of someone who adorns their house/car/whatever in the St. George, especially outside of international sports season.

When I went to vote, by the way, I noticed that the BNP's logo was a bit of crappy clip art splashed with the colours of the Union Flag - is that similarly compromised?

I would be inclined to say no. In the same way that the original Star Wars trilogy isn't marred because Lucas crapped on them with I, II and probably III I feel that it doesn't have a direct attachment. Mainly I would suspect that this is due to the historical implications. There is something about the way that the United Kingdom has been portrayed and thus by logical extension the Union Jack. In contrast England and the St. George has had many bad deeds carried out in their names and so much of this by people with no given authority to do so. I would have to theorise that a heavily image based media has a lot to do with this.

bad analogytastic
 
  
Add Your Reply