Political Crossfire Forums

[Vryheid]

In the latest madness out of the UK the English national flag has been deemed "racist". The UK has an incredible crime problem that that is skyrocketing every year but the left-wing government at the moment is more concerned that prisons have "insufficient provision for foreign national prisoners." It also has discouraged the use of the English flag as it could offend rapists and murders of foreign origin.

From the BBC:

Charity pin at jail 'not allowed'

Staff working at a jail which has been told it needs to make substantial improvements have been advised against wearing St George's Cross tie-pins.

A report into Wakefield Prison said the English national flag could be "misinterpreted" as a racist symbol.

Chief inspector of prisons Anne Owers said the tie-pins, bought by prison officers to support a cancer charity, were a cause for concern.

She recommended that "staff should not wear unauthorised tie-pins".


English National Flag Deemed "Racist"

Any thoughts?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Staff working at a jail should do their jobs primarily. That means they should stop wearing St George's Cross tie-pins if it causes disturbance.

Besides, crime is down in Britain. Don't start playing the "shock, horror, crime is up" drum please!

Crime overview



Overall crime levels apparently fell in the UK last year.

[alex.rj.martin]

Vryheid wrote: In the latest madness out of the UK the English national flag has been deemed "racist".

I must say, i could not find a word choice better than 'madness' for this atrocity to English pride. I live in Singapore, a country that, on it's national day has it's flag hanging on every gate, every apartment balcony, every car and every room. Am I offended? Hell no. I am pleased that I am living in a country in which the citizens feel proud to be a part of something bigger.
Singapore citizens feel they have a responsibility to love their country and all it does for them, and it celebrates this on a daily basis, inspiring, not offending expats who live here. I think the same should go for Britain. It's our country, and foreign residents are very much welcome, and I doubt they have any real problems with UK citizens being happy for being part of a great country.
As for that atrocity about a year ago of Blair's plan to have a black stripe on the flag is just...an embarassment. Black people are a part of a community. The flag represents the group of nations that are components of the UK. I'm quite sure that British black people would feel more offended that the Labour government feels they need to be 'patted on the head and told it's ok' than the fact that their skin colour isn't on the flag. Oh tony...you absolute prat :roll:

[Ssushi]

While lots of European countries fly their flags, there is in many of them still a feeling within some of the residents that the flag is too nationalistic. Personally I think this crazy but the UK is not the only country with this issue and in other countries I've heard the observation from nationals...

[Eton]

Maybe English people are beyond such petty notions of identity - at least that is what I would like to think.

Europeans can wave the flag around because it doesn't mean as much to them ironically, two world wars have knocked the nationalist s**t out of them - perhaps the only good thing about the wars.
However in the UK we have too many nationalistic people, if we let them go around waving the flag it will be like Mosely's black shirts marching down the street.

Furthermore you don't have to be foreign to be offended by the English flag, it was afterall the symbol of those bloodthirsty knights Templar - and that is enough to offend me.

[Guest]

Eton wrote: Maybe English people are beyond such petty notions of identity - at least that is what I would like to think.

Europeans can wave the flag around because it doesn't mean as much to them ironically, two world wars have knocked the nationalist s**t out of them - perhaps the only good thing about the wars.
However in the UK we have too many nationalistic people, if we let them go around waving the flag it will be like Mosely's black shirts marching down the street.

Furthermore you don't have to be foreign to be offended by the English flag, it was afterall the symbol of those bloodthirsty knights Templar - and that is enough to offend me.

If it was not for that 'nationalist s**t' as you put it i find it hard to believe we would have won the two world wars, the first in particular.

As i have seen many times before you see yourself as a European first and British second, but is that just not another form of nationalism? (or continentism? :P) you seem to be proud of and like being European based on European culture (which you can not say is no different to African, Middle Eastern like you do with England and 'people of the same educational background' as your self in Europe) and the European way of life.

Nationalism can be a good thing as it establishes an identity within a group and instils a sense of being part of something bigger and in turn makes people want to help there fellow countrymen and thing that can do this is not a bad thing. You can not denounce all nationalism as 's**t' , ok maybe some people see them selves as part of a wider group, like your good self, than they did say 50 years ago but that wider group is still a form of nationalism for it is enclose with a geographical area.

But I will concede that Nationalism can be a bad thing, a very bad thing in fact and history has taught us this with the rise of people such as Mosely and it does need to be kept in check but I believe a well educated population can not be seduced by the more extreme elements of it which lead to hatred of other groups just for the sake of it.

[Jajo]

BTW the above was me i did not know you could post as a guest....

[johnz]

Vryheid wrote: In the latest madness out of the UK the English national flag has been deemed "racist". The UK has an incredible crime problem that that is skyrocketing every year but the left-wing government at the moment is more concerned that prisons have "insufficient provision for foreign national prisoners." It also has discouraged the use of the English flag as it could offend rapists and murders of foreign origin.

From the BBC:

Charity pin at jail 'not allowed'

Staff working at a jail which has been told it needs to make substantial improvements have been advised against wearing St George's Cross tie-pins.

A report into Wakefield Prison said the English national flag could be "misinterpreted" as a racist symbol.

Chief inspector of prisons Anne Owers said the tie-pins, bought by prison officers to support a cancer charity, were a cause for concern.

She recommended that "staff should not wear unauthorised tie-pins".


English National Flag Deemed "Racist"

Any thoughts?

i live a stones throw away and its not even in the local newspaper, thats how significant your story is.

[alex.rj.martin]

Eton wrote: Maybe English people are beyond such petty notions of identity - at least that is what I would like to think.

Europeans can wave the flag around because it doesn't mean as much to them ironically, two world wars have knocked the nationalist s**t out of them - perhaps the only good thing about the wars.
However in the UK we have too many nationalistic people, if we let them go around waving the flag it will be like Mosely's black shirts marching down the street.

Furthermore you don't have to be foreign to be offended by the English flag, it was afterall the symbol of those bloodthirsty knights Templar - and that is enough to offend me.

The British are not asking to 'wave their flag around', marching round the streets of London. but damnit they should at least have the right to enjoy their national identity. as Quest said Nationalism can be a good thing as it establishes an identity within a group and instils a sense of being part of something bigger. If people are not proud of their country...if people can't be proud of who they are then how can you expect them to have any sense of social responsibility?

[Eton]

alex.rj.martin wrote: Eton wrote: Maybe English people are beyond such petty notions of identity - at least that is what I would like to think.

Europeans can wave the flag around because it doesn't mean as much to them ironically, two world wars have knocked the nationalist s**t out of them - perhaps the only good thing about the wars.
However in the UK we have too many nationalistic people, if we let them go around waving the flag it will be like Mosely's black shirts marching down the street.

Furthermore you don't have to be foreign to be offended by the English flag, it was afterall the symbol of those bloodthirsty knights Templar - and that is enough to offend me.

The British are not asking to 'wave their flag around', marching round the streets of London. but damnit they should at least have the right to enjoy their national identity. as Quest said Nationalism can be a good thing as it establishes an identity within a group and instils a sense of being part of something bigger. If people are not proud of their country...if people can't be proud of who they are then how can you expect them to have any sense of social responsibility?

That is simple, we have an unwritten social contract along the lines promoted by Locke and others. We agree to respect each other's liberty, pay taxes, conform to the norms and values of the day and in return the state provides order and public services. We don't need a national awareness to do that just a civic conscience.

Jajo: What ever good nationalism brings it is far out weighed by the negative.
Furthermore I do not believe that WW2 was a clash between German nationalism and British nationalism, my own view is that we did what we did because it was the right thing to do plain and simple.
Furthermore, though I do consider myself a European and proud of it because Europe is doing the right thing in uniting and it is something that my generation is involved in rather than something my ancesters did - something I cannot claim credit for. I also consider myself to be a true englishman, who does not need to bang on about his identity but rather just quietly goes about his business. All this 'we should be proud to be English/British crap' is a symptom of the increasing americanisation of our way of life.

Not for me dear fellow.

[Eton]

Quote: If it was not for that 'nationalist s**t' as you put it i find it hard to believe we would have won the two world wars, the first in particular.

And is that a good thing? The First World War was not worth the life of a single soldier much less the one million British Empire trrops who died and the 8 million other young boys who were slaughtered on the alter of nationalism.

[angusrae]

The sad fact is that some people view the St George Cross as a symbol of racism. This is a problem which lies within the English mind-set which seems to shrink from embracing their heritage. This in turn allows their national symbols to be Hi-jacked by extremist organizations. However we view a nation its flag or symbols cannot be viewed as racist. (with a few notable exceptions.)

I will always be proud of my nation's flag and the traditions which it symbolizes the English need to be the same.

[alex.rj.martin]

angusrae wrote: The sad fact is that some people view the St George Cross as a symbol of racism. This is a problem which lies within the English mind-set which seems to shrink from embracing their heritage. This in turn allows their national symbols to be Hi-jacked by extremist organizations. However we view a nation its flag or symbols cannot be viewed as racist. (with a few notable exceptions.)

I will always be proud of my nations flag and the traditions which it symbolizes the English need to be the same.

I'm English/Scottish. I have lived in England, Scotland, Germany, Poland, China and Singapore. And a few words:

I could not agree more.

[Jajo]

Eton wrote: Quote: If it was not for that 'nationalist s**t' as you put it i find it hard to believe we would have won the two world wars, the first in particular.

And is that a good thing? The First World War was not worth the life of a single soldier much less the one million British Empire trrops who died and the 8 million other young boys who were slaughtered on the alter of nationalism.

I did not say it was a good thing, what I was saying is that the First World War would have been lost if it was not for the sense of nationalism that recruit people in the first two years of the war and helped prevent mass desertion, which was the case with the Russians who during the Brusilov Offensive lost 1 million men to desertion.

And unfortunately the loss of life from the Empire was a necessary evil this being due to the nature of wars of attrition which resulted from the intrinsic advantage the defenders have in trench warfare.

And yes it is easy to say it was not worth the life of one soldier but when one is attacked most sane people would say that one defends ones self.

[angusrae]

Jajo wrote: Eton wrote: Quote: If it was not for that 'nationalist s**t' as you put it i find it hard to believe we would have won the two world wars, the first in particular.

And is that a good thing? The First World War was not worth the life of a single soldier much less the one million British Empire trrops who died and the 8 million other young boys who were slaughtered on the alter of nationalism.

I did not say it was a good thing, what I was saying is that the First World War would have been lost if it was not for the sense of nationalism that recruit people in the first two years of the war and helped prevent mass desertion, which was the case with the Russians who during the Brusilov Offensive lost 1 million men to desertion.

And unfortunately the loss of life from the Empire was a necessary evil this being due to the nature of wars of attrition which resulted from the intrinsic advantage the defenders have in trench warfare.

And yes it is easy to say it was not worth the life of one soldier but when one is attacked most sane people would say that one defends ones self.

Just slightly :ot: :wink:

[Jajo]

Eton wrote: alex.rj.martin wrote: Eton wrote: Maybe English people are beyond such petty notions of identity - at least that is what I would like to think.

Europeans can wave the flag around because it doesn't mean as much to them ironically, two world wars have knocked the nationalist s**t out of them - perhaps the only good thing about the wars.
However in the UK we have too many nationalistic people, if we let them go around waving the flag it will be like Mosely's black shirts marching down the street.

Furthermore you don't have to be foreign to be offended by the English flag, it was afterall the symbol of those bloodthirsty knights Templar - and that is enough to offend me.

The British are not asking to 'wave their flag around', marching round the streets of London. but damnit they should at least have the right to enjoy their national identity. as Quest said Nationalism can be a good thing as it establishes an identity within a group and instils a sense of being part of something bigger. If people are not proud of their country...if people can't be proud of who they are then how can you expect them to have any sense of social responsibility?

Jajo: What ever good nationalism brings it is far out weighed by the negative.
Furthermore I do not believe that WW2 was a clash between German nationalism and British nationalism, my own view is that we did what we did because it was the right thing to do plain and simple.
Furthermore, though I do consider myself a European and proud of it because Europe is doing the right thing in uniting and it is something that my generation is involved in rather than something my ancesters did - something I cannot claim credit for. I also consider myself to be a true englishman, who does not need to bang on about his identity but rather just quietly goes about his business. All this 'we should be proud to be English/British crap' is a symptom of the increasing americanisation of our way of life.

Not for me dear fellow.

Nationalism is a spectrum not a single principal or action, to this end one does not need to say that the bad out ways the good of a spectrum due to the fact that one does not need to embrace the bad part of the spectrum. Therefore I put it too you that you can have nationalism in a state which never has to lead to the persecution of another state based solely on that nationalism or more generally you can have the good without the bad.

[Eton]

Jajo wrote: Eton wrote: Quote: If it was not for that 'nationalist s**t' as you put it i find it hard to believe we would have won the two world wars, the first in particular.

And is that a good thing? The First World War was not worth the life of a single soldier much less the one million British Empire trrops who died and the 8 million other young boys who were slaughtered on the alter of nationalism.

I did not say it was a good thing, what I was saying is that the First World War would have been lost if it was not for the sense of nationalism that recruit people in the first two years of the war and helped prevent mass desertion, which was the case with the Russians who during the Brusilov Offensive lost 1 million men to desertion.

And unfortunately the loss of life from the Empire was a necessary evil this being due to the nature of wars of attrition which resulted from the intrinsic advantage the defenders have in trench warfare.

And yes it is easy to say it was not worth the life of one soldier but when one is attacked most sane people would say that one defends ones self.

We would never have had to go to war if it were not for the raging nationalism sweeping europe at the time. It perfectly underscores why the process of european unification is so glorious, we are giving the finger to nationalism once and for all...I hope.

Those Russian soldiers who deserted were heros in my mind, to be slaughtered for what?...Holy Mother Russia and Czarist autocracy no f***ing thanks. Also, did we not actually declare war on Germany in WW1?

[Jajo]

Eton wrote: Jajo wrote: Eton wrote: Quote: If it was not for that 'nationalist s**t' as you put it i find it hard to believe we would have won the two world wars, the first in particular.

And is that a good thing? The First World War was not worth the life of a single soldier much less the one million British Empire trrops who died and the 8 million other young boys who were slaughtered on the alter of nationalism.

I did not say it was a good thing, what I was saying is that the First World War would have been lost if it was not for the sense of nationalism that recruit people in the first two years of the war and helped prevent mass desertion, which was the case with the Russians who during the Brusilov Offensive lost 1 million men to desertion.

And unfortunately the loss of life from the Empire was a necessary evil this being due to the nature of wars of attrition which resulted from the intrinsic advantage the defenders have in trench warfare.

And yes it is easy to say it was not worth the life of one soldier but when one is attacked most sane people would say that one defends ones self.

We would never have had to go to war if it were not for the raging nationalism sweeping europe at the time. It perfectly underscores why the process of european unification is so glorious, we are giving the finger to nationalism once and for all...I hope.

Those Russian soldiers who deserted were heros in my mind, to be slaughtered for what?...Holy Mother Russia and Czarist autocracy no f***ing thanks. Also, did we not actually declare war on Germany in WW1?

We did declare was yes but only after we asked the Germans to hold to Belgian neutrality and they did not so we joined to protect them which really would in your view be a good thing I suppose as are we not going to help our European neighbors?

'we are giving the finger to nationalism once and for all...I hope.' no we are not, all we are doing is creating a larger area to be nationalist about, instead of French, British or German nationalism we will have European nationalism.

And the people who deserted where deserting for exactly the reason you said and what i was trying to point out is that if such desertion had happened on the British and French lines the war would have been lost. However it did not and a big reason for this is a feeling of nationalism towards the country they where defending but the Germans raised 17 million me via nationalism as well and it is a double edged sword but that does not mean we should reject it entirely.

As i said in the other post, nationalism is not all bad or all good it has been responsible for some great things one can trace the Protestant Reformation back to German nationalist felling and I would hardly say that was a bad thing. Great music and art has come from it, i love the 1812 overture and the march of pomp and circumstance. Most things have two sides and we have to except the good ones and reject the bad ones not reject something because it has a bad side.

[alex.rj.martin]

Jajo wrote: Eton wrote: Jajo wrote: Eton wrote: Quote: If it was not for that 'nationalist s**t' as you put it i find it hard to believe we would have won the two world wars, the first in particular.

And is that a good thing? The First World War was not worth the life of a single soldier much less the one million British Empire trrops who died and the 8 million other young boys who were slaughtered on the alter of nationalism.

I did not say it was a good thing, what I was saying is that the First World War would have been lost if it was not for the sense of nationalism that recruit people in the first two years of the war and helped prevent mass desertion, which was the case with the Russians who during the Brusilov Offensive lost 1 million men to desertion.

And unfortunately the loss of life from the Empire was a necessary evil this being due to the nature of wars of attrition which resulted from the intrinsic advantage the defenders have in trench warfare.

And yes it is easy to say it was not worth the life of one soldier but when one is attacked most sane people would say that one defends ones self.

We would never have had to go to war if it were not for the raging nationalism sweeping europe at the time. It perfectly underscores why the process of european unification is so glorious, we are giving the finger to nationalism once and for all...I hope.

Those Russian soldiers who deserted were heros in my mind, to be slaughtered for what?...Holy Mother Russia and Czarist autocracy no f***ing thanks. Also, did we not actually declare war on Germany in WW1?

We did declare was yes but only after we asked the Germans to hold to Belgian neutrality and they did not so we joined to protect them which really would in your view be a good thing I suppose as are we not going to help our European neighbors?

'we are giving the finger to nationalism once and for all...I hope.' no we are not, all we are doing is creating a larger area to be nationalist about, instead of French, British or German nationalism we will have European nationalism.

And the people who deserted where deserting for exactly the reason you said and what i was trying to point out is that if such desertion had happened on the British and French lines the war would have been lost. However it did not and a big reason for this is a feeling of nationalism towards the country they where defending but the Germans raised 17 million me via nationalism as well and it is a double edged sword but that does not mean we should reject it entirely.

As i said in the other post, nationalism is not all bad or all good it has been responsible for some great things one can trace the Protestant Reformation back to German nationalist felling and I would hardly say that was a bad thing. Great music and art has come from it, i love the 1812 overture and the march of pomp and circumstance. Most things have two sides and we have to except the good ones and reject the bad ones not reject something because it has a bad side.

:clap:

[Eton]

Jajo, you seem to be implying that nationalism is good because it made millions of young men fight in the trenches and get slaughtered.

As for Belgium, all the great powers had promised to respect her neutrality in any war not independence, but that is just pedantry. The point is, it was just an excuse, Britain went to war in 1914 for the same reason she went to war in all the previous wars of the last 400 years - to maintain the balance of power.

Were all those deaths worth maintaining the balance of power -no. It was Wilhelmine Germany not Nazi Germany afterall.