A flag is a flag

I guess this could be a political post, but I'm just sharing what's tumbling around in my head.

A symbol is a symbol. I don't necessarily put a lot of value into symbols, probably because I don't always understand them unless they are explained to me haha.

Ultimately, the flag and the national anthem haven't done anything for or to me, except act as government-supported symbols of freedom that I have willingly accepted. I don't reject the flag, but I also don't blindly love and admire it. I understand its purpose and role in our society; it is supposed to represent the American people and country to not only us but also the rest of the world. But I also just see it as what it is. A flag. A piece of cloth designed to instill a sense of belonging, comraderie, loyalty, freedom, patriotism, etc.

A flag is a flag. I wouldn't lose sleep over it. It doesn't have a personal meaning to me other than what I have been taught in school. I have a very detached attachment to the American flag. I think the closest things I've ever owned to a US flag were Old Navy shirts with the flag printed on them. And my mom was the one who bought them.

Anyway, to others, the flag represents a lot of things. It represents different things to different people. It makes them experience different feelings. I've probably felt some patriotic feelings here and there, provoked by some circumstances and situations. They were short-lived because, again, I don't hold much value in most symbols.

At this moment, I just see the flag as a flag. It has a history and lots of emotions attached to it. But when we break it down, it is a cloth and a symbol that will one day disappear and be forgotten. Unless by some miracle, humans live forever and keep a meticulous record of all history (doubtful). To hold onto something so impermanent and to hold onto so much anger toward people who do not think the same, it feels pointless. It changes no one's mind to be so angry.

"I wouldn't" does not equate to "You shouldn't."
"I will not" does not equate to "You cannot."

The wider conversation about the flag has boiled down to what people have to do. I think that's the wrong approach. Give people the freedom to show their true colors, and decide if those colors match your own. Maybe some effort in a constructive conversation will help you find some common ground. If you make a person do something you want them to do, then their action is empty.

I saw a quote somewhere on Facebook that sums up what I'm thinking better than I can say it: "Patriotism isn't about making everyone stand and salute the flag. Patriotism is about making this a country where everyone wants to."

It's like how I approach the words "I love you"; there was once a person who expected me to say it on the spot to prove my feelings, but I could not and would not say it. She got frustrated and upset, but I wouldn't budge. Part of it was we were in high school and I had no idea what I was doing or how I felt. But a major part of it was the obligation would have undermined my intention. If I had said "I love you" when she expected me to, then it wouldn't have meant the same. Sure, I would have said it, she might have felt the impact of it, and she would have appreciated it. But my intention would have been to appease her rather than to express how I felt.

Likewise, forcing people to stand and "respect" the flag would just be a coerced act of appeasement.

People get mad about so many things. But I don't know if it's worth it. My anger won't change other people's mind. It just scares or provokes them; the response is defensiveness or retaliation. When someone comes at me angrily, I tend to absorb that anger and to want to return it immediately to make them stop. That's all that has been happening with this "debate." I don't feel like there will be productive movement in any direction. It's just a topic to be angry about.

I have to mention, when Kap didn't stand up last year and set off the storm, I didn't think much of it. He didn't represent me, but I understood why he did what he did. I didn't necessarily agree with him at the time, but I also didn't disagree. My perspective on the situation was "Oh, I see where you're at. You do you." And I was on my merry way. I suppose this may be more of a testament to how not easily inspired I am haha.

Before anyone thinks I willfully disrespect the troops, I support the troops 100%, and I am grateful for their courage, strength, and sacrifices.

However, I haven't stood and placed my hand over my heart for the flag or anthem in many years. I often stand, close my eyes, bow my head, and thank the troops in my head. And I pray for them. That's how I express my respect and thanks. It might not be as public and showy as saluting the flag and all that. But I know how I feel about our troops, and I feel my way of expression is the best for me. Not for others, just myself. Kinda like how some people believe their private one-on-one conversations with God are more fulfilling than sermons.


Sorry, lots of rambling. It's late, and I should have gone to bed two hours ago. But I just wanted to put some words down somewhere.

Symbols are funny. They don't exist until you want them to exist. Then they don't stop existing until everyone forgets about them.

I think I'm blind to symbolism.

I just want to ramble instead of going to sleep. I should sleep. I have to get up early to drive Brother to his class. But I want to ramble and get some thoughts out of my head.

I watched more TYT video clips today because I was bored. Just watched: http://youtu.be/dhp5zuL7Nes

All I saw was Bert and Ernie cuddling on the couch, watching TV. That's still mostly what I see. There may be intended symbolism in there. But what do I know about symbolism in visual or written format? Symbolism was one of the most difficult things I had to struggle with in my English classes (I had sooo many symbolism projects for both published literature and artwork/advertisements), and I think I'm pretty damn good at academic English when I try.

So liberals and conservatives alike attributed symbolic qualities to the Bert and Ernie cover image. Promoting the gay agenda, sexualizing characters that can influence children, and showing support for the gay community are some of the conclusions that people have drawn. Right or wrong, it's still just an image. The only reason you see a symbol there is that you yourself have put the symbol there.

Anyway, I tend to not see symbols when I look at or read something. Not unless it's clearly labeled as a symbol or until someone else points out the symbolism. Maybe some symbolism is just too complex for my brain haha; I don't know. But yeah, I don't always see it for myself. Like with Bert and Ernie, I see the symbolism now that it's been pointed out, but I still don't really see it. It's mainly just an image to me. Does it make me feel a little happier on the inside to see it? Yeah, I enjoyed Sesame Street when I was a child; so seeing some familiar characters interacting in a familiar way makes me happy. It makes me happy to see some physical expression of happiness and love, even in the medium of puppets.

I just have to ask: Why can't two males show affection for one another without it being gay or wrong? Yeah, yeah, I know, masculinity and heteronormativity. But really, why? Why attribute anything negative to something that is supposed to increase your level of happiness and closeness to another human being? Hugs have supposedly been scientifically proven to make people feel better, obviously as long as they are consensual and used positively. So why can't two guys do that for each other, whether they are gay or straight? Why does it have to symbolize anything? Why can't it just be two guys supporting each other or being happy in each other's presence?

Yeah, Bert and Ernie could be gay. Who am I to declare what they are? Only they would truly know. (But they're puppets... So I don't think we will ever get a straight answer from either of them.) Yeah, they are cuddling in front of the TV in the image. Why can't we have an image of that? What is the essential wrongness (or rightness) of that image, in and of itself, without the symbolism that we personally attribute to it? When I saw that picture, I just saw two characters cuddling. Two characters cuddling is two characters cuddling. I don't necessarily see right or wrong, good or evil. The most I would assume from that image is that they are watching TV together, or maybe one of them is asleep; I can't see their faces, so I dunno. As for the cuddling, what does that mean? It could mean anything. But why does it have to mean anything to us? I mean, friends cuddle, siblings cuddle, lovers cuddle, anyone can cuddle. Does it have to mean anything more than "I feel comfortable around you" or "I love you"? I just don't get it.

Just so you know, in my head, Bert and Ernie do really like and love each other. It's not like they have been depicted as hating each other.


Words are so powerful. Symbolism wouldn't exist without words. We use words to attach symbols to everything we experience. Words themselves are symbols. What is a word? It's an abstract thing. We can't actually see, smell, taste, hear, or touch it, unless we give it a physical existence by writing it or typing it. Even then, we can't actually touch the thing that we call a word. It's a thought in our head that we learned from our peers, graphite on paper, ink on a canvas, photons on a screen, scratches on a bench. When we touch the manifested letters on that paper or on that bench, it still only exists in our brains. What we touch is paper, wood, metal, atoms. (Well, if we want to get technical, nothing ever actually touches anything.) Atoms aren't words.

It's funny. There is a word--well, there are probably infinitely many--out there that doesn't exist yet. So that nonexistent word doesn't represent or symbolize anything. But when that word gets thought of and starts manifesting in people's minds via social interaction, it's gonna mean something to people. Right now, it doesn't, but one day it will. It has the potential to make money, to destroy lives, to divide people, to do so much good, and to do so much bad. It's a damn word that doesn't even exist yet, but it's got so much potential energy waiting to be released because it doesn't exist yet. Once it comes into existence, all that energy changes into kinetic energy, giving that word speed, force, power, and momentum. And it will have a constant supply of energy until people stop using it and stop believing in its power, existence, or meaning. It's kinda like The Game ("I lost the game"); it doesn't exist until you give it existence. It's crazy that all of this is possible for a currently nonexistent word. The human mind creates so much potential.

So this abstract idea that we call a word allows us to see and experience our world in a way that's different from the typical animal's experience. Without words, we just recognize familiar things, people, and experiences. We recognize that we want more of what gives us a positive experience or feeling and we want to avoid what is negative. With words, we do the same thing, but words simplifies the process and yet can make it so complicated. We can recognize, categorize, organize, discriminate, and manipulate. Without words, hugs between any two people is a positive thing. When you hug someone and don't think about it, you just naturally feel good. With words, the recognition and simplification is "hugs are good because they make me feel good." The complexity, however, results in "two guys hugging is gay/bad" or even "front hugging tempts people into having sex." (That's a real thing. I just learned about the existence of Christian side hugging today.) How do people come to this conclusion?

Without words, you wouldn't believe anything until you experienced it yourself many times to establish a pattern, unless you find exceptions. Then you're just cautious enough to look out for the exceptions, or I would hope so. With words, you just have to believe the person who's telling you something as if it were a fact. You don't need to experience it yourself because someone else supposedly already experienced it for you. How do you know something is true until you make yourself know it's true, rather than having someone else let you know it's true?

Besides, someone else's word might not mean the same as your own word. We just assume that they mean the same thing because we use the same word. But we can't truly know that they mean the same thing.


Blah. I've lost my train of thought. This post was supposed to be about how I suck at seeing symbolism, but I didn't really stick to that. But what else could I say about my inability to see symbolism? I can't see it. So when others see it, I have to look again until I see it. Even then, I just think to myself, "Interesting. I see it, but I don't actually see it. How does this person see this so easily? Why do they see it this way?"

Mm. People and their brains and their ways of thinking. So intriguing what comes out of them.


Oh, I've always found the idea that people can be symbols to be very fascinating. I get why they are symbols to certain people. I can see how. But I still just see them as a person who took on some role or did something that inspired others. Just a person who did something that other people noticed. If no one notices you, you can't be a symbol of anything to others.


Thoughts are too complex to be fully formed right now. It's after midnight. Dang it. Not again. I have to start going to bed early soon, like this week. If all goes well, I start work early next Monday :D