The collective’s opinion need not be static. My argument is that the flag’s original intent needs to be defended. I don’t wish for it to permanently become twisted into something that represents the auth-right.
It still baffles me as to why they would even touch it in the first place. It’s opposed to everything the auth right stands for.
The principles represented in the past by the Gadsden flag don’t have to be permanently bonded to the literal flag. Symbols are tools, and if a tool is damaged by misuse then it should be replaced with one suited appropriately to the task.
The Gadsden flag as it was originally intended is a historical context now. The damaged modern reputation for the Gadsden flag is the crazy stuff done by the proud boys and alt-right groups that wave the Gadsden flag at all of their rallies. Mourn it if you must but it’s too late to try and protect this symbol from having its meaning warped, it happened years ago.
I think if you want a modern example of a symbol that stands up to oppression you don’t have to look any further than Pride flags
The Gadsden flag as it was originally intended is a historical context now. The damaged modern reputation for the Gadsden flag is the crazy stuff done by the proud boys and alt-right groups that wave the Gadsden flag at all of their rallies. Mourn it if you must but it’s too late to try and protect this symbol from having its meaning warped, it happened years ago.
I appreciate your viewpoint; it is fair. I will continue, for the time being, to fight for the flags original meaning, as I haven’t lost hope.
I think if you want a modern example of a symbol that stands up to oppression you don’t have to look any further than Pride flags
While I wholeheartedly support the movement behind the original Pride flag, I’m not so certain about the new one – they appear to be more interested in ideas of equity, rather than equality.
I’m afraid you’ll have to be more specific what you mean by “more interested in equity, rather than equality”. To me, and as far as I know the reason for, the new design of that newer flag is resistance to oppression through collaberation. The opposite of “divide and conquer”, since often times disparaged groups have difficulty seeking fair treatment due to their small relative portion of the population.
I’ve seen the rainbow gadsden flag before. To me, as someone who is not a fan of modern use of the gadsden flag because I think it means more by association than design, it seems more like an attempt to repair the reputation of the Gadsden flag than anything else.
I’m afraid you’ll have to be more specific what you mean by “more interested in equity, rather than equality”.
The ethos of the new flag, from what I can tell, appears to be about singling out certain groups for special treatment (equity), rather than everyone being treated equally, and fairly.
the reason for, the new design of that newer flag is resistance to oppression through collaboration
I apologize if this is ignorant – I am trying to understand – but is this not the ethos of the original flag? I understood it as a symbol to collect these marginalized groups to then give them a voice to advocate for societal, and legal equality.
To me, as someone who is not a fan of modern use of the Gadsden flag because I think it means more by association than design, it seems more like an attempt to repair the reputation of the Gadsden flag than anything else.
This is a fair point. I personally think that it is rather redundant, anyways; the original Gadsden flag already encompasses equality, and liberty, as its core values. Originally speaking of course.
Pride flags are kinda loosey goosey across which two pride flags mean which pride-related thing, since there are no consistent rules to it and there are many of them, so you aren’t exactly wrong that the first pride flag means that, however, many people just think of it as the flag for gay men.
The new flag (I’m not actually an expert on this history of this so forgive me for being inexact) I believe was created to coincide with a change in strategy, from a focus on just sexual minorities collaberating against oppressors, to a focus on “let’s find anyone else the oppressors are targeting and work with them too.” Not an effort to get them special treatment, but to signal explicitly that all sexual minorities, gender minorities, racial minorities, feminism, and anyone else can be/should be/are all on the same team and we will have each others back, and stand together against oppressors.
Tld;dr I tend to think of it as “The gangs all here, and you aren’t capable of stopping all of us if we work together”
The new flag (I’m not actually an expert on this history of this so forgive me for being inexact) I believe was created to coincide with a change in strategy, from a focus on just sexual minorities collaberating against oppressors, to a focus on “let’s find anyone else the oppressors are targeting and work with them too.” Not an effort to get them special treatment, but to signal explicitly that all sexual minorities, gender minorities, racial minorities, feminism, and anyone else can be/should be/are all on the same team and we will have each others back, and stand together against oppressors.
If it is simply a resistance to authoritarian oppression, then wouldn’t that simply come back around to the Gadsden flag? A collective that lacks individual equality in liberty is, by definition, oppressive.
The collective’s opinion need not be static. My argument is that the flag’s original intent needs to be defended. I don’t wish for it to permanently become twisted into something that represents the auth-right.
It still baffles me as to why they would even touch it in the first place. It’s opposed to everything the auth right stands for.
The principles represented in the past by the Gadsden flag don’t have to be permanently bonded to the literal flag. Symbols are tools, and if a tool is damaged by misuse then it should be replaced with one suited appropriately to the task.
The Gadsden flag as it was originally intended is a historical context now. The damaged modern reputation for the Gadsden flag is the crazy stuff done by the proud boys and alt-right groups that wave the Gadsden flag at all of their rallies. Mourn it if you must but it’s too late to try and protect this symbol from having its meaning warped, it happened years ago.
I think if you want a modern example of a symbol that stands up to oppression you don’t have to look any further than Pride flags
I appreciate your viewpoint; it is fair. I will continue, for the time being, to fight for the flags original meaning, as I haven’t lost hope.
While I wholeheartedly support the movement behind the original Pride flag, I’m not so certain about the new one – they appear to be more interested in ideas of equity, rather than equality.
As an aside, in my research I came across this:
A happy middleground between the two? 😜
I’m afraid you’ll have to be more specific what you mean by “more interested in equity, rather than equality”. To me, and as far as I know the reason for, the new design of that newer flag is resistance to oppression through collaberation. The opposite of “divide and conquer”, since often times disparaged groups have difficulty seeking fair treatment due to their small relative portion of the population.
I’ve seen the rainbow gadsden flag before. To me, as someone who is not a fan of modern use of the gadsden flag because I think it means more by association than design, it seems more like an attempt to repair the reputation of the Gadsden flag than anything else.
The ethos of the new flag, from what I can tell, appears to be about singling out certain groups for special treatment (equity), rather than everyone being treated equally, and fairly.
I apologize if this is ignorant – I am trying to understand – but is this not the ethos of the original flag? I understood it as a symbol to collect these marginalized groups to then give them a voice to advocate for societal, and legal equality.
This is a fair point. I personally think that it is rather redundant, anyways; the original Gadsden flag already encompasses equality, and liberty, as its core values. Originally speaking of course.
Pride flags are kinda loosey goosey across which two pride flags mean which pride-related thing, since there are no consistent rules to it and there are many of them, so you aren’t exactly wrong that the first pride flag means that, however, many people just think of it as the flag for gay men.
The new flag (I’m not actually an expert on this history of this so forgive me for being inexact) I believe was created to coincide with a change in strategy, from a focus on just sexual minorities collaberating against oppressors, to a focus on “let’s find anyone else the oppressors are targeting and work with them too.” Not an effort to get them special treatment, but to signal explicitly that all sexual minorities, gender minorities, racial minorities, feminism, and anyone else can be/should be/are all on the same team and we will have each others back, and stand together against oppressors.
Tld;dr I tend to think of it as “The gangs all here, and you aren’t capable of stopping all of us if we work together”
If it is simply a resistance to authoritarian oppression, then wouldn’t that simply come back around to the Gadsden flag? A collective that lacks individual equality in liberty is, by definition, oppressive.