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.
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.