Many flags around the world are iconic, think the ones of France, Canada, South Africa, the Nordics, etc.

However, there are some that aren’t as good, like the Australian and New Zealand flags, both of which still retain the union jack with little Indigenous symbolism. Speaking as an Australian myself, our flag isn’t all that great! The Southern Cross is cool, but there is no hint of green/gold, and the union jack just looks tacked on. There are also many flags that look good, but the symbolism represents ideas that you’re against. Think Iran’s flag that draws heavily from their sect of Islam and the theocracy, or the PRC’s flag having the smaller stars representing the people surrounding the larger star representing the one party state. There’s also some that are okay, but a bit boring and hard of distinguish from the rest, and an additional element would make it stand out more.

And purple should be on more flags! Republican Spain during the 1930s had some purple, but they lost the civil war and the flag was replaced.

If you could change the national flags of the world, what would be your flag proposals?

    • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
      22·
      4 months ago

      It’s a trap, a pitfall on the way to actual freedom. Who gave them the idea that they need nations and flags in the first place, if not the colonizers?

      And many of the nations ‘liberated’ by previously colonized people just end up being a tool of their oppressors through neocolonization. Their national government – and even their national identity – are useful tools to be corrupted and controlled by colonizers.

        • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
          11·
          4 months ago

          the necessity of establishing statehood and creating pan-African coalitions to resist the overwhelming might of western finance capital and neocolonialism

          A necessity? Perhaps. But a necessary evil, then.

          National identity is still a bad thing. It should not be celebrated, and it should be abolished as soon as feasible.

            • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
              22·
              4 months ago

              National sovereignty, celebration of indigenous cultures and maintaining the rights of self-determination for all peoples, is the first step

              You can have celebration if indigenous cultures and maintain the rights of self-determination without national sovereignty.

              And, in fact, nationalism very often interferes with the rights of self-determination, because the nation often imposes laws that interfere with it.

              towards genuine internationalism.

              I don’t want “internationalism” – I want post-nationalism. No nations at all, anywhere.

              nations on equal footing and sovereignty

              Fuck nations. People should be on equal footing and sovereignty.

              Nationalism in imperialist countries is exclusively negative. This is what is in service of perpetuating imperialism, and justifying racial supremacy. This is unambiguously an enemy to be crushed.

              All “countries” are imperialist. As soon as you lay claim to territory and exclude others from it, you’re setting up your own little empire. So all nationalism is exclusively negative.

                • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
                  22·
                  4 months ago

                  surely you can see that this is far less consequential than the economic domination levied against west Africa by France and the US, no?

                  But it is still consequential. It is still bad, and it is still wrong.

                  Sovereignty is only secured by the creation of an organized body, a monopoly on force, that can resist external domination.

                  “Internal domination is the only way to resist external domination.” Both should be abolished. I realize that one may be a necessary evil in order to resist the other, but the goal should be for that necessary evil to be as temporary as possible, and it should be abolished as soon as you can safely do so.

                  Saying “fuck nations” in this context seems to be saying you wish to erase all identity and all cultural history, creating a sort of blob of humanity, but this isn’t what I believe you mean

                  It’s kind of what I mean.

                  You don’t need national identity. You don’t need national cultural history. You can have individual identity and individual cultural history. These can be defined by yourself and the others you relate to. There’s no need for them to be defined by a ‘nation’. In this respect, ‘nations’ are merely a way of categorizing and organizing individuals’ identity and culture … and in so doing, it often imposes sharp boundaries and distinctions where there are really just blurred lines and spectrums. You don’t need to divide people into nations in order to have identity and culture.

                  As for how you are classifying imperialism, this is frankly a bit absurd.

                  Is it, though?

                  Every state is its own little empire, enforcing its will against the individuals within it just as more powerful states try to impose their will on other states (and their own people). They demand tribute, extract resources, and enact their will through force just like any empire. Doing it on a smaller scale makes them a less urgent problem, but they’re still a problem.

                  • timdrake@lemmy.ml
                    31·
                    4 months ago

                    It is still bad, and it is still wrong.

                    You have to actually justify the things you say. Anarchism is truly even worse than communisation theory.

                    Every state is its own little empire, enforcing its will against the individuals within it just as more powerful states try to impose their will on other states (and their own people).

                    Read Hegel’s Philosophy of Right or any Winfield and you’ll immediately realize how philosophically incoherent your position is.

                    You don’t need national identity. You don’t need national cultural history. You can have individual identity and individual cultural history. These can be defined by yourself and the others you relate to.

                    Others you relate to! I wonder if this somehow inevitably transforms into national identity!