Reviving American Unity and National Pride Through Flag Regulations
The anticipated resurgence of “common sense” in America is causing quite a stir. Already, there are complaints that the most straightforward concepts are being treated as problematic.
Consider the “one flag” policy recently enacted by the State Department as part of a series of executive orders.
The directive is clear: “Starting immediately, only the United States of America flag is authorized to be displayed at US facilities, both domestically and internationally, and featured in US government materials.”
It’s astonishing that this has sparked controversy. Even more baffling is how we arrived at this point.
After all, the pledge of allegiance is straightforward: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Historically, agreeing to pledge allegiance to a single flag has been justified. The nation has had its reasons for nearly fracturing over such matters.
However, we should reflect on what citizens have been expected to pledge allegiance to in recent years.
Each year, as pride events have expanded from parades to pride week and now pride month, US federal buildings and embassies around the world have opted to display the “Pride” flag. A flag that has unfortunately evolved into something increasingly convoluted.
Once a simple and cheerful emblem of gay liberation, it has undergone perplexing redesigns.
And as the “Black Lives Matter” movement gained momentum, the rainbow flag underwent further alterations, with black and brown stripes added. The rationale was that the original flag omitted representation for black individuals.
This led many to ponder what the other colors represented. Was the orange and red meant to denote individuals with excessive tanning, or perhaps white lesbians who had spent too much time in the sun?
And what about the meaning behind the yellow stripe? Regarding the blue and purple stripes, assuming the flag conveys racial representation reflects a remarkable level of absurdity.
Yet, embassy buildings across the US flew this flag regardless.
Then came the addition of a triangle, followed by a circle inside it. These symbols were intended to broaden the flag’s representation — the idea being that the original flag was somehow insufficiently “inclusive.”
Thus, transgender individuals, “non-binary” folks, and “asexual” persons were symbolically represented through the introduction of a triangle and a small circle.
If there was one thing that Americans ostensibly clamored for in recent years, it was heightened public expression of pride from those less interested in sexuality. A long-standing injustice addressed, no doubt.
How did we tolerate this absurdity for so long? And why?
The same issues apply to the push for government buildings to display BLM flags.
Besides being one of the most significant financial scams in contemporary American history, the BLM movement has also proved intensely divisive.
It quickly shifted from raising awareness to becoming a revolutionary and anti-American force.
Aside from acquiring multiple luxury homes, what accomplishments did BLM leader Patrisse Cullors and her associates achieve?
Very little — except for efforts to further divide the nation. The fact that numerous institutions, from government entities to religious organizations, fell for this trick is something future historians may find perplexing.
But the mystery is not so deep. These movements long ago shifted from advocating for rights to pursuing revolutionary anti-American objectives. That was their goal.
One of the most frequently read authors in American colleges recently has been Afro-Caribbean French Marxist Frantz Fanon.
Fanon, recognized as one of the least impressive writers of the post-war period, was also a fervent revolutionary.
As an “anti-colonial” writer, he described the actions of the colonialists in ways that mirrored what he and his followers aimed to do in reverse.
In a speech in Paris back in 1956, he articulated that taking over a nation also means dismantling its systems of reference.
Could there be a better description of what has transpired in America in recent times?
Even President Trump recently mentioned “two genders” when he intended to say “two sexes.” “Gender” has been labeled a “construct” for years.
As such, it is a construct we should actively reject. Or as Mrs. Tim Walz (remember her?) might say, we ought to “turn the page” on it.
But that wasn’t the sole aim of the cultural revolutionaries in recent years.
As Fanon noted, to dismantle a nation, it is vital to erase its “cultural patterns.” The goal is to “destructure” the society, ensuring that its “values are flaunted, crushed, and emptied.”
We all witnessed this deliberate attempt. Years in which the American Founders were publicly vilified. Years in which we were told that racial identity was paramount.
And years in which we were instructed that even fundamental norms — such as biological sex — had to be obliterated.
We were even told — from the pages of the New York Times — that this nation was not founded when we believed it was, but instead began in 1619. Some schoolchildren in America were taught this distorted version of history.
The objectives of the cultural revolutionaries aimed at dividing and tearing apart this country nearly bore fruit.
However, what has been done can indeed be undone. What has been dismantled can be rebuilt.
I can’t think of a better way to commence this reconstruction than by reaffirming the foundational norms of this nation. Embracing a set of shared values that foster collective ambitions, all pursued under one flag.