Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

uniderth · 2002-07-27 21:32:54

If humans are going to Mars shouldn't the mission be for humanity and NOT politics. If so there shouldn't be a flag posting or flags on suits unless it would be the flag of Earth. So Americans wouldn't go to Mars or Germans, etc. but HUMANS. What do you think?

Shaun Barrett · 2002-07-29 04:52:33

Hi uniderth and welcome aboard!
I sympathise with your idea but doubt it will eventuate due to human nature. For one thing, what's a "flag of Earth"? I think you'd have a heap of trouble just trying to come up with one flag everybody would agree to.
For Pete's sake don't mention the United Nations, either!! There are several people in this website who wouldn't cross the street to p*** on the U.N. flag if it was on fire!
Your heart is in the right place, uniderth, but I think you've got your work cut out for you!
???

Adrian · 2002-07-30 13:16:18

I imagine that any Mars mission will probably have the same kind of national insignia as the ISS, namely the flags of all participating countries, and with astronauts having their own country's flag patchs on their suits.

As much as I'd like to see a truly international Mars mission take place, America is likely to foot the great majority of the bill and so they'll have most of the astronauts and a big say on flags and so on.

Phobos · 2002-07-30 21:16:16

Maybe the astronauts could wear the flags of their native countries on their sleeves and beneath that one have a patch with an image of Earth sewn on to represent all of the other people of Earth. Anyways, they can take any flag to Mars they want in my opinion as long as they're not swastikas. The last thing we need on Mars are neo-Nazis.

clark · 2002-07-31 07:45:42

Interesting side note regarding the swastika- it is a chrisitian religious symbol, and was hijacked by the Nazi's as a symbol- so of course there is a new, contemporary association with the swaistka.

I could never agree with the sentiments or platforms of neo-nazis, but prohibiting any flag or symbol is nothing more than censorship. If you allow it for this flag, you allow it for all flags- all symbols.

Take a step back for a moment from all the associations you have and look at the opportunity of ALLOWING the swistka to be the first flag on Mars- you suddenly allow for a new meaning, a new association with the symbol to begin. Idealistic, yeah. Practical, probably not. But the point is, the flag isn't bad- it's what the flag represents to us as individuals. See past that and focus on the real causes of concern (in this case, the ideaology espoused by neo-nazi's).

Palomar · 2002-07-31 07:54:07

Interesting side note regarding the swastika- it is a chrisitian religious symbol

*Actually, the swastika originated in India [Hindus]. It was also called "the flying wheel," and I can't recall off-hand what exactly it signified BUT it was ::NOT:: a sinister symbol for the Hindus. I think it represented "the Wheel of Life" or something similar. It has also been found in ancient hieroglyphs here in the Southwestern USA, used by various Native American tribes of long ago. Its use was apparently in a ::NON-::sinister fashion. In fact, the local University [New Mexico State University] faced a huge tumult in the late 1980s [before I moved here] regarding the use of a swastika on that year's campus year-book. Some Native American students had wanted it incorporated into the inside cover. That raised a hornet's nest. The Native American students tried to explain -- in vain -- that their swastika had ::nothing:: to do with that of the Nazis [the Nazi swastika was drawn in REVERSE to the original swastika, and thus it -- the Nazi swastika -- was intentionally made sinister], and was the original symbol of prosperity, life, etc. To no avail.

The swastika is *not* [originally, anyway] a Christian symbol. And it probably would be a good idea not to take even the original symbol to Mars; it's been absolutely ruined by the Nazis.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-31 08:40:36

The swastika is *not* [originally, anyway] a Christian symbol. And it probably would be a good idea not to take even the original symbol to Mars; it's been absolutely ruined by the Nazis.

The swastika is apparently a global symbol used throughout the ages. Scandinavian, Germanic, Chinese, Indian, Native Americans and Mezo Americans all used this symbol (Chrisitian Crusaders painted the symbol onto their shields btw).

The symbol is only "ruined" if we allow for it to be ruined.

Symbol represents meaning. Meaning is what we provide.

Why is "cool" a positive term? Becuase of meaning- we take the word to mean certain things if the context warrants the interpertation of the symbol.

If we plant a flag, any flag on Mars, it becomes a symbol; irregardless of previous historical associations. Will some take it to symbolize some things due to its historical associations? Yes. But so what? Why should we bow to those who are unwilling, or incapable of disassociating themselves from a symbol? It's not our problem, but theirs. They would choose to continue to see that the swastika is a negative symbol becuase they cannot see past the symbol itself.

Of course with the derth of flags, current and imagined, I consider this all moot anyway. Se la whatever.

Phobos · 2002-07-31 22:06:00

OK Clark let me modify my post to say that I don't want the Nazi swastika flying on Mars! You know the Nazi swastika is easy to identify being that it's usually a black symbol within a white circle imbedded in a red rectangle. So if I see something like that flapping in the Martian wind I will indeed jump to the conclusion that Nazis have indeed landed on Mars.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-07-31 23:54:32

Technically, I suppose, Clark is correct. It's only what the flag stood for that's abhorrent, not the flag itself.
I suppose you could even take it further and say there's nothing inherently wrong with fascism, though it is a system which restricts individual freedoms and is therefore unpopular for that reason alone. Importantly, fascism has become detestable because of its associations with warmongering murderers like Hitler and Mussolini.
In principle, though, nazism in particular and fascism in general need not have become associated with war and genocide. They were political vehicles utilised by the two megalomaniacs mentioned, to further their plans for domination. In fact, I'm sure it is eminently arguable that fascism must always lead to such horrors because it places too much power in the hands of the leader.
The actual fascist system is impersonal at best and inhuman at worst. It essentially stems from the premise that human beings are short-lived and must eventually die, but the state goes on. Therefore the only thing that matters is the state. People exist only to advance the state and their individual lives are unimportant. It's probably the closest humans have ever come to the concept of the hive.
As a system, it probably has advantages for a state in times of intense hardship or if the state is threatened with annihilation from outside. Hitler need not have violated neighbouring countries and he need not have excluded the jews from his "hive". This would have eliminated 99% of the revulsion directed towards nazism, although the brutality perpetrated within Germany by the party in its rise to power would remain. However, that may have been forgotten if the efficiency of the hive had been turned to rebuilding the country instead of the armed forces and the German people had ultimately proven to be the beneficiaries.
Forgive these rambling thoughts which sprang to mind when I read Clark's post. I was just trying to decide whether there might be any justification for fascism at all under any circumstances. Since it is obviously too open to abuse by lunatics, the answer must be no.
As far as a swastika on Mars is concerned, whether it is backwards, forwards, black-on-white, or blue-on-yellow, it's still carrying way too much emotional baggage to be acceptable.

clark · 2002-08-01 08:49:53

I suppose you could even take it further and say there's nothing inherently wrong with fascism, though it is a system which restricts individual freedoms and is therefore unpopular for that reason alone.

Do you feel the same way about the Patriot Act, which also curtails individual freedom?

I was just trying to decide whether there might be any justification for fascism at all under any circumstances. Since it is obviously too open to abuse by lunatics, the answer must be no.

Do you feel the War Powers Act is inappropriate as well? It in effect allows the same thing in our country.

As far as a swastika on Mars is concerned, whether it is backwards, forwards, black-on-white, or blue-on-yellow, it's still carrying way too much emotional baggage to be acceptable.

I wonder if you also feel that way about the Confederate Flag being flown on government buildings... Or what about schools with deragatory team names/mascots for Native Americans or Hispanics?

What if Tawian goes with the US to Mars, should they be denied their flag becuase of the "emotional baggae" associated with it in regards to China?

Where is the line, and how do you justify it?

Palomar · 2002-08-01 14:58:27

Clark: The symbol is only "ruined" if we allow for it to be ruined.

*Is this really such a simple matter which can be handled flippantly?

Clark: Symbol represents meaning.

*Yup. And for 7 decades and probably for a long time hereafter, the swastika will definitely represent a meaning to the Western mind: Nazism.

Clark: Meaning is what we provide.

*Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The meaning of the symbol -- or rather, how the majority of humans perceive said symbol -- is greatly predicated on HOW/in WHAT CONTEXT others have used said symbol. Unfortunately, the Nazis have given the swastika a bad rap. If you don't think this is so, please do fly to Israel and repeat in as easily a manner what you've said here about the swastika to them.

Maybe some day the swastika will be freed up from its having been maligned by the Nazis; I hope so. It was a symbol of prosperity and life for much longer than it was borrowed by cut-throats as their emblem of bigotry, hatred, and genocide. But for now, in the majority of Western minds at any rate, it remains associated with Nazism; that's just a fact. Besides, Neo-Nazis continue to use this symbol, so it's not a "thing of the past" or "a matter of history"...not when it is still currently in use.

Clark: Why is "cool" a positive term? Becuase of meaning- we take the word to mean certain things if the context warrants the interpertation of the symbol.

*True. For the same reason the upthrust-middle finger is a gesture, in certain parts of the world, of contempt.

Clark: If we plant a flag, any flag on Mars, it becomes a symbol; irregardless of previous historical associations.

*The swastika is STILL being used by pro-Nazi groups; this is not a thing of the past or of "previous historical associations."

Clark: Will some take it to symbolize some things due to its historical associations? Yes. But so what?

*If only dilemmas could be resolved with such an air of flippancy.

Clark: Why should we bow to those who are unwilling, or incapable of disassociating themselves from a symbol? It's not our problem, but theirs. They would choose to continue to see that the swastika is a negative symbol becuase they cannot see past the symbol itself.

*I agree with you here, which is why I mention the benign, positive history of the swastika [pre-20th century] whenever I'm able to, and as I've done here. However, it is STILL being used by pro-Nazi groups as an emblem of bigotry, hatred, and potential further genocide. This is fact, it is occurring today, and this fact cannot be denied. People will have to come to terms with all this of their own accord...again, we must recognize that the malignment of the swastika CONTINUES, and the best we can do is point out that its original symbological meaning was that of peace, life, prosperity, etc. and for thousands of years and in multiple cultures had NOTHING to do with anything remotely related to Nazi ideals.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-06 06:49:34

Hi Clark!
Here in Australia, we remain untroubled by a "Patriot Act", a "War Powers Act", and the flying of Confederate flags on government buildings.
I assume the two Acts are related to the war on terrorism and must somehow curtail individual liberties(? ). No doubt many aspects of these Acts must be unpopular if they interfere with personal freedoms. In a sense, this reflects what I mentioned about the possible advantages of fascism in times of external danger to a state. These Acts are possibly fascist to some extent in that they are designed, I imagine, to strengthen the ability of the state to defend itself from attack.
You are right to question such Acts, since a little bit of fascism tends to lead to a lot of fascism! And we know where that road can take us! But a little fascism is deemed appropriate by most states which find themselves threatened because it enhances the ability to fight back. Nevertheless, implementing such measures is playing with fire and I agree with you that drawing the line is very difficult.
I assume the reference to the Confederate flag relates to its association with a state which condoned slavery. Within America, such a symbol would probably be inflammatory to some sections of society and, for this reason, displaying it on public buildings sounds inappropriate. Here in Australia, some motorcycle gangs use it on their jackets as a symbol of rebellion. Most of them probably wouldn't know a thing about its history.
Derogatory names for native Americans or hispanics are undoubtedly hurtful and inevitably counterproductive. Such names exist here too, for aboriginal Australians. A bad thing all round, based on ignorance and a primitive fear of anything "other".
As for the Taiwan conundrum ... you've got me there! But there must be a way to avoid such antagonisms if we think hard enough about them. What can you suggest, Clark?

clark · 2002-08-06 10:05:24

Sorry Shaun, thought you were a Yank, not an Aussie.

Here in Australia, we remain untroubled by a "Patriot Act", a "War Powers Act", and the flying of Confederate flags on government buildings.

The Patriot Act was created after 9/11- it greatly increases the powers of the state and reduces civil liberties, most notably for foreign nationals. The War Powers Act though is a bit older (since Vietnam I think) and allows the President to deploy troops for 90 days without congressional approval (this is how the US was able to invade granada and panama in the 80's, and how we were able to deploy to Saudi Arbaia prior to the first Iraq War). After 90 days, the President is required to seek congresional approval. It is a power that is routinely used by the President but has never been challenged, so the issue of constutionality has never been addressed.

My impression was that Australia is dealing with some censorship issues related to the internet. Also,I keep looking into the refugee crisis from time to time that Australia is dealing with. As with everything, each Society has their own problems.

These Acts are possibly fascist to some extent in that they are designed, I imagine, to strengthen the ability of the state to defend itself from attack.

They are more designed to free the hand of ther State to act prior to an attack- less defense, more offense oriented.

As for the Taiwan conundrum ... you've got me there! But there must be a way to avoid such antagonisms if we think hard enough about them. What can you suggest, Clark?

Ban all national flags, or bring all national flags. I might add that the symbology of planting a flag is to claim territory for the motherland, not exactly somethign we may wish to perpetuate on mars.

Instead of flags, why not a simple monolith statue of some sort, with inscriptions in every major language.

TJohn · 2002-08-06 10:33:19

I like the idea of each astronaut having their country's flag on the suit, but instead of the globe of the Earth, why not have one of those "flat map" of the Earth's surface. I know it might look a little unusual but at least every country will be shown.

Phobos · 2002-08-07 20:39:25

I like the idea of each astronaut having their country's flag on the suit, but instead of the globe of the Earth, why not have one of those "flat map" of the Earth's surface. I know it might look a little unusual but at least every country will be shown.

I like your idea better. Putting a globe on the patch would force you to portray only one side of Earth whereas with a "flat" projection of Earth you could fit in all of the continents.

turbo · 2002-08-08 12:24:21

Why put a globe on the patch at all? How about a depiction of the ship over Mars? Possibly even a stylized logo like the Bicentennial logo on the Viking lander? Something simple a child can draw on a paper airplane's wings to keep the momentum up for generations. How about a white spacesuit boot on the red surface of Mars with the black background of space? No nationality or gender indicated, all spacesuits have boots. Fancier?, okay, how about a gold spacesuited figure bridging the gap between a blue circle for Earth and a red circle for Mars? Bulky suit easy to draw, circles a breeze, use yellow crayon instead of gold, bingo, primary colors and happy kids drawing away.

soph · 2002-11-24 20:19:30

i would like to comment about general exploration and colonization. in my view, humanity on earth needs to be united into a strong, central entity in order for humanity to succeed in expansion. imagine the federation in star trek.

large projects function best with the help of government funds-and a government that truly sought the interests of humanity under one banner would be able to provide these funds. we cannot let one country monopolize commerce or expansion. the whole world needs to participate and share knowledge. and this is coming from a very patriotic american.

i was thinking for a flag, a picture of a spaceship embossed over the sun, a figure that could transcend any one planet where humanity resides and forever represent our origins.

Cobra Commander · 2002-11-25 21:09:02

i would like to comment about general exploration and colonization. in my view, humanity on earth needs to be united into a strong, central entity in order for humanity to succeed in expansion. imagine the federation in star trek.

I was going to leave the 'Swastikas over Mars' issue alone, but this just segues too well into it. I've always thought of the Federation as quasi-fascist. First off, it's a militarized society. It has succeeded in melding humanity into a fairly homogenized whole, which believes itself to be superior to its somewhat barbaric ancestors (us!). This certainly fits with the new man/new society aspect of true Fascism. Strange that so many condemn Fascism on principle but hold up the idealistic vision of Star Trek as something for humanity to strive for.

Regarding symbols, let's forget about the swastika and look at the less-villified fasces, the symbol of Mussolini's Italian Fascist Party, and now the generic emblem of fascism. (In fact, the word fascism derives from fasces.) Now, for those that don't know, a fasces is simply a bundle of rods bound together with an axe. It originated in Rome, where it was used as a symbol of authority and of the strength and unity of the empire. Because of the unity and strength associations, the fasces was borrowed for centuries by other nations, including the United States (there's two great big ones in the Senate chamber, check out C-SPAN). Now, the symbol is much less popular, due in large part to Mussolini's use of it. Of course Fascist Italy is only viewed as unfavorably as it is because of its association with Nazi Germany.
The point being, the fasces symbolise an unpopular political philosophy but I don't see anyone sand-blasting them off the monuments in DC. Symbols mean what we believe they mean, nothing is offensive unless we choose to take it that way. Now I don't think we should go to Mars and plant swastika flags all over, but it would be no worse than planting the hammer and sickle.
Again, I have rambled. I yield the floor.

el scorcho · 2002-11-29 00:05:26

Allow me to jump in on the Confederate Flag/Swastika issue.

Contrary to popular belief, only about 3/10 of the South's population owned slaves at the time of the Civil War. Those who did own slaves usually owned less than five. (The massive plantations with 500+ slaves were quite rare due to the immense cost of slave upkeep. The annual cost for one slave was something like the modern-day equivalent of $60,000-a lot of money in any man's English).

Something a lot of people don't realise about the Confederate flag is that blacks (slave and free) fought under it. Often times, when a slave owner went off to the war, he would take his slave(s) with him. The master's children would grow up with the slave children, so there was a certain bond between the two. If you really study it, you'll find that most of the time there was a mutual respect, so the master and slave often fought together. Blacks in the Confederate army were paid and respected for their duties; they worked as cooks, musicians, and yes, even soldiers.

Also there is the example of the 1st Lousiana Native Guard- a New Orleans-based regiment consisting entirely of free blacks. The Confederate military would not officialy accept them, so they fought Union troops independently in 1862. In March of 1865, after years-long pressure from several prominent military leaders of the day, the Confederate Congress passed a resolution allowing blacks to serve in the military. There are records of several officially enlisted black Confederate servicemen who were present at the Appommattox Courthouse surrender in April of 1865.

But what it really comes down to is that the Confederate soldiers had grown up hearing war stories from their grandparents about the American Revolution- Much the same way I have grown up hearing my grandfather's stories about World War II. The average Rebel soldier was a poor farm boy who had never been more than 20 miles from home, could not read, and therefore had no political motivation whatsoever. Their country was being invaded by a foreign army and they felt obligated to defend it. They saw themselves as fighting the same fight their grandfathers had fought. They could have cared less about slavery.

I have ancestors who fought and died for the Confederacy and I am very proud of them. My ancestors didn't own slaves- they were dirt poor! I fly the Confederate flag for the same reason I fly the American flag- respect and pride for ALL who have fought and died under both banners. I despise the KKK and the neo-Nazis; they have both committed horrible atrocities. But they have also taken a flag that stood for dignitiy, courage, states' rights, and honor and made it into symbol for hatred in America.

It frustrates and angers me that just because of the Klan, I can't fly the Confederate flag without being called a racist and that the swastika is now known as a symbol of evil, hatred, and murder just because some psycho with a bad mustache killed jews under it. These racist groups I have mentioned are nothing but a raving pack of idiots.

So when you see a Confederate flag or swastika, try to look at it in terms of what it was originally intended to stand for. If you let the idiots dominate your thinking, then they win.

Sorry that was so long, but I just feel quite strongly about these things and I had to pull out my soapbox for a minute.

But on the Mars issue, I agree with the simplicity idea. Something people can remember and duplicate easily. Perhaps a Mars Society flag? I like the idea of an astronaut's boot touching down on the red surface. As long as it's sleek and nifty-looking.

clark · 2002-11-29 12:36:04

All this trouble for a flag that will not fly in vacum...

Perhaps it might be more realistic to expect a Standard, instead of a banner, for future martians.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-29 16:03:14

I personally like the Anarchist ?black? flag. Or absence of a flag. The black flag (or implied lack of a flag) symbolizes humanism. But we can't expect everyone to not care for nationalistic symbols. It'd be nice though.

Palomar · 2002-11-29 17:23:36

I personally like the Anarchist ?black? flag. Or absence of a flag. The black flag (or implied lack of a flag) symbolizes humanism. But we can't expect everyone to not care for nationalistic symbols. It'd be nice though.

*Um...black flag? Did you say -black- flag?

Imagines which come welling up to the mind's eye: Pirate flag...insecticide cans...

Nope. Josh, I'm giving you the Lead Balloon Award of the Month for this one.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-29 19:23:48

Actually, the black flag was initally meant to represent hunger and poverty, etc. There was a huge slaughter of anarchists, and some say that black symbolizes dried blood (it's quite black when dry). But I (and many others) find that it means something other flags don't. It means nothing. The negation of all flags.

Though there is admittely pirate usage of a black flag, that doesn't necessarily mean the symbol itself is evil. In fact, one could rightly argue that the black flag has been used by anarchists more than any other people.

Check out the Anarchist FAQ about the Black Flag: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append2.html

(Yeah, yeah. I know. I'm just sharing, really. Most Americans can't take anarchism seriously.)

el scorcho · 2002-11-29 20:58:32

<-----this on a red background should be the mars flag lol.

Cobra Commander · 2002-11-29 21:27:26

<-----this on a red background should be the mars flag lol.

I'm sorry, but if I ever see that flag I might have to PUT a swastika on it. Somehow it doesn't inspire confidence in the government.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-07-27 21:32:54

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#2 2002-07-29 04:52:33

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#3 2002-07-30 13:16:18

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#4 2002-07-30 21:16:16

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#5 2002-07-31 07:45:42

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#6 2002-07-31 07:54:07

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#7 2002-07-31 08:40:36

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#8 2002-07-31 22:06:00

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#9 2002-07-31 23:54:32

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#10 2002-08-01 08:49:53

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#11 2002-08-01 14:58:27

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#12 2002-08-06 06:49:34

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#13 2002-08-06 10:05:24

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#14 2002-08-06 10:33:19

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#15 2002-08-07 20:39:25

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#16 2002-08-08 12:24:21

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#17 2002-11-24 20:19:30

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#18 2002-11-25 21:09:02

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#19 2002-11-29 00:05:26

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#20 2002-11-29 12:36:04

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#21 2002-11-29 16:03:14

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#22 2002-11-29 17:23:36

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#23 2002-11-29 19:23:48

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#24 2002-11-29 20:58:32

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

#25 2002-11-29 21:27:26

Re: Flags and governments - Political and humanity conflicts on Mars

Board footer