American flag banned from school

American flag banned from school

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

April 1st, 2006, 5:50 pm #1

When I was in school every classroom proudly displayed an American flag.
Now the American flag has been banned from an American school.
What is this country coming to?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LONGMONT, Colo. Dozens of high school students protested a temporary school policy forbidding students from displaying the U.S. flag as well as flags from other countries amid racial tensions following immigration rallies.

Skyline High School Principal Tom Stumpf said American flags were brazenly waved in the faces of Hispanic students and in one case a Mexican flag was thrown into the face of another student.

"When it involves the American flag and its abuse in vilifying other people, we simply will not tolerate it," Stumpf said. "They were using the symbol derisively as misguided patriotism."

Students were warned about the policy Friday and several were suspended, although Stumpf would not provide details. Then, about 100 students protested during lunch time.

Student Dustin Carlson told Denver station KCNC-TV that he was suspended for two days.

"I'm getting suspended for it and personally I think that's uncalled for," he said. "If this country means freedom, then why can't we fly our own flag? It's ridiculous."

Thousands of high school students Friday in California, Texas, Nevada and other states protested the tough immigration laws proposed in the House. Some waved Mexican flags and carried signs saying "We are not criminals."

On Monday, about 150 high school students, including some from Skyline, protested in Longmont.

"People are taking it to a whole other level," said Laura Avitia. "I don't think they know why we were protesting."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. #
Last edited by Nat on April 1st, 2006, 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

April 1st, 2006, 7:42 pm #2

The problem was not the display of flags. The problem was how they were used . . to taunt, thrown into faces, etc. Any object could be miused like that. I think the warning should have been against any object being thrown at someone or thrust into their face, not against display of flags.

I think the display of the Mexican flag at these demonstrations shows the true intent of the Hispanic population, legal and illegal: As their numbers continue to increase in Florida and certain southwestern states, the push will increasingly be to make these areas Hispanic states. I've read that the Mexican people have always felt that areas such as Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and much of California were Mexican territories that were "stolen" in war by the emerging United States of America. Their desire has always been to right this "wrong" and take back those lands. We may well see the day when the American flag is replaced by that of Mexico . . or by a new flag that melds symobols of both.

You might recall that I spoke before of my prediction that the U.S. would break up into smaller states. If the Mexicans take the southwest . . . the Cubans take Florida . . . if the continued reverse migration of northern blacks back to major cities in the souteast renders that an increassingly black-controlled region . . . and Americans generally remain deeply divided on a number of issues . . . I could see three or four smaller countries evolving out of what is now the U.S.A.

I am currently reading a book, "Empire of Debt", by Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin, in which they describe the rise and fall of empires throughout human history. They state that the United States fits the description of an empire, beginning at the end of WWI and continuing to this day. In examining the conditions that led up to the fall of previous empires, Bonner and Addison claim that the United States appears to be nearing the end of its reign. During the growth phase, "peripheral" states pay homage and monies to the empire state . . but in the decline phase, the empire becomes dependent upon goods and services from the peripheral states, and the trade debt and financial burden of maintaining the empire become onerous. In short, the empire collapses because it becomes dependent for its survival upon others and runs large amounts of debt. Which does describe the U.S. today, with most products (and increasingly, services) being made in foreign countries, the resulting heavy trade deficits, and the crushing national debt that is constantly growing.

So . . . maybe some of these events -- like illegals flooding across our borders -- is just a sign that the end time for our nation is nearing.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

April 1st, 2006, 9:20 pm #3

As I understand it the problem began when immigrants began bringing Mexican flags to school.
And I think about all the Mexican flags I saw being carried and waved at the recent demonstrations.
Kind of makes you wonder just how much these people really want to be Americans.
Reply
Like
Share

John Bayko
John Bayko

April 1st, 2006, 10:47 pm #4

The problem was not the display of flags. The problem was how they were used . . to taunt, thrown into faces, etc. Any object could be miused like that. I think the warning should have been against any object being thrown at someone or thrust into their face, not against display of flags.

I think the display of the Mexican flag at these demonstrations shows the true intent of the Hispanic population, legal and illegal: As their numbers continue to increase in Florida and certain southwestern states, the push will increasingly be to make these areas Hispanic states. I've read that the Mexican people have always felt that areas such as Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and much of California were Mexican territories that were "stolen" in war by the emerging United States of America. Their desire has always been to right this "wrong" and take back those lands. We may well see the day when the American flag is replaced by that of Mexico . . or by a new flag that melds symobols of both.

You might recall that I spoke before of my prediction that the U.S. would break up into smaller states. If the Mexicans take the southwest . . . the Cubans take Florida . . . if the continued reverse migration of northern blacks back to major cities in the souteast renders that an increassingly black-controlled region . . . and Americans generally remain deeply divided on a number of issues . . . I could see three or four smaller countries evolving out of what is now the U.S.A.

I am currently reading a book, "Empire of Debt", by Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin, in which they describe the rise and fall of empires throughout human history. They state that the United States fits the description of an empire, beginning at the end of WWI and continuing to this day. In examining the conditions that led up to the fall of previous empires, Bonner and Addison claim that the United States appears to be nearing the end of its reign. During the growth phase, "peripheral" states pay homage and monies to the empire state . . but in the decline phase, the empire becomes dependent upon goods and services from the peripheral states, and the trade debt and financial burden of maintaining the empire become onerous. In short, the empire collapses because it becomes dependent for its survival upon others and runs large amounts of debt. Which does describe the U.S. today, with most products (and increasingly, services) being made in foreign countries, the resulting heavy trade deficits, and the crushing national debt that is constantly growing.

So . . . maybe some of these events -- like illegals flooding across our borders -- is just a sign that the end time for our nation is nearing.
"[...] the trade debt and financial burden of maintaining the empire become onerous. In short, the empire collapses because it becomes dependent for its survival upon others and runs large amounts of debt. Which does describe the U.S. today, [...]"

Not inevitably. The debt and deficit of the U.S was under control until the current administration. Proper governance (if it occurs) could stabilise the country and restore its economy.

The idea of "empire" is also a more flexible and decentralized concept now than in the past. The E.U, for example, is growing increasingly federalised, not less, and there are trading blocks being formed in Asia, Central and South America, plus pan-government groups such as the World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund, World Health Organisation, and so on are becoming more important and influential.

A very large part of the success of the United States as a world power was the economic growth resulting from the idea of a decentralised federation with a government that could address common problems rapidly. Prior to World War II, the U.S was often considered primarily a union of nations (which, even today, have their own armies) rather than a nation itself - typically referred to as "*these* United States" rather than "*the* United States". The most important aspect was the creation of a gigantic economic block where people, money, and corporations could move freely and without interference.

There are severe difficulties with the process of governance of course, largely because there were few effective models to choose from (pre-empire Rome was closest to what they wanted), so much of it was guesswork. It's a tribute to the creators of the constitution that it worked so well over the years, including various changes for better and worse.

The U.S has moved towards growing centralisation over the years, but that is not inevitable, and "devolution" (as the term is knowin in the U.K, which has spun off governance of Scotland and Northern Ireland to local parliaments) could be applied to the U.S in response to regional interests. This has worked to quell separatists in the U.K, Spain and Canada without breaking up those countries.

However, I think that globalisation is moving the entire world towards a U.S style model, though differing significantly in governance. On the one hand, mostly independent bodies focussing on specific pan-national concerns such as Internet regulation, radio and satellite standards, trade, health and food standards, and so on, which are run more as meritocracies and less as political forums. These are responsible for responding to large scale problems quickly and with needed resources, such as the preparations for a potential "Avian flu" outbreak - the first time in history the entire world has coordinated on such a large scale.

These are things that exceed the ability of even the largest countries in the world to do much about on their own - U.S, China, Japan, India, or any others.

On the other hand is the devolution of local concerns to smaller regions, and often to individuals, and most importantly to groups who are not limited to specific regional areas, and may be as pan-national as regulating agencies. "Regional concerns" are not as regional as they used to be, and the concept of a "region" may gradually dissolve. For example, there was recently a very large rally in support of Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) in New York - almost as far from the former Mexican territories such as California as you can get.

Old models of "empire" don't necessarily hold. They are, in the words of Alvin Toffler, "second wave" concepts in an emerging "third wave" world society. This is the fundamental flaw in the "world policeman" concept of the current U.S administration - and I have to say, something that George H. W. Bush seemed to have an inkling of, and Clinton seemed to understand well.

As political advocate Richard Stallman pointed out, globalisation itself is not good or bad, it merely amplifies things that may be good or bad. The trick is to work with it to facilitate the good effects and inhibit the bad ones. The U.S has the potential to be positioned very well economically in the future global economy if the government can understand and work with those changes.

The trick is to have politicians to can understand. However, even if they don't, it's quite possible that other pressures will become significant enough that they force change to happen well before the breaking point. After all, politicians do tend to want to follow the path of least resistance, and that is likely to mean reform in pieces as it becomes inevitable. I don't necessarily think that U.S politicians have the will to stand together as a group to oppose all globalisation and decentralisation pressures until they all reach a breaking point, leading to civil war, as you suggest.

Should the U.S change as a follower of world pressures, rather than as a leader that it has been, it will likely limp along as another political entity like the others, with maybe a minor economic collapse similar to but less severe than Russia's. More with a wimper than a bang, but ultimately being not too bad a place to live. And who knows, with the loss of an overwhelming rich upper class able to purchase political support, maybe modern socialism will finally arrive in the industrialised country with the greatest number of poor in the world.
Reply
Share

Bob
Bob

April 2nd, 2006, 5:29 am #5

" . . . The debt and deficit of the U.S was under control until the current administration. Proper governance (if it occurs) could stabilise the country and restore its economy."

I wish you were right about that. But I believe the fact is that the U.S. has usually run a national debt . . . though it paled in comparision to that which has occurred the past 20 years. My understanding is that President Andrew "Stonewall" Jackson was the only U.S. President to have a balanced budget . . back in the 1830's . . . . and the federal budget has run in deficit ever since. George W. Bush has just taken the concept and gotten crazy with it.

"A very large part of the success of the United States as a world power was the economic growth resulting from the idea of a decentralised federation with a government that could address common problems rapidly. Prior to World War II, the U.S was often considered primarily a union of nations (which, even today, have their own armies) rather than a nation itself - typically referred to as "*these* United States" rather than "*the* United States". The most important aspect was the creation of a gigantic economic block where people, money, and corporations could move freely and without interference."

However, while the states were independent in certain respects, they were clearly subordinate otherwise to the federal govt. For example, no state was free to decide it would separate from the union. The attempt of southern states to secede was the impetus for the start of the Civil War. And, while the feds will tell you (have told me) that they don't have jurisdiction over this-or-that . . that its a state matter . . . they clearly pull the strings in making states comply (passing state laws the Feds demand) with anything they feel strongly about. Examples being the implementation of the 55 mph interstate highway speed limit (since amended to 65 mph), the seatbelt requirement, implementation of the (child) "Support Enforcement Tracking System (SETS)". Clearly the American states are not independent political entities -- they are the Feds' lackeys.

" . . . . For example, there was recently a very large rally in support of Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) in New York - almost as far from the former Mexican territories such as California as you can get."

Don't be fooled --- with 11-12 million illegals in the U.S. . . and a number of left-leaning American citizens, it is no surprise that these demonstrations in opposition to proposed legislation regulating illegal immigration have been large. These people know that a lot is at stake for them should the law pass. What would you do if you knew a pending law would force you to relocate, lose your job and return to a life of greater struggle? Of course, you would join similarly-situated people and raise hell! That this is occuring now should come as no surprise.

"Should the U.S change as a follower of world pressures, rather than as a leader that it has been, it will likely limp along as another political entity like the others, with maybe a minor economic collapse similar to but less severe than Russia's. More with a wimper than a bang, but ultimately being not too bad a place to live. And who knows, with the loss of an overwhelming rich upper class able to purchase political support, maybe modern socialism will finally arrive in the industrialised country with the greatest number of poor in the world."

As the U.S. is heavily in debt, yet does not have real money to pay the debt (just this paper currency that is being wildly printed, leaving us vulnerable to runaway inflation), how shall we pay them? By surrenduring our lands to them? Our physical resources? If they called the debt in tomorrow, the U.S, would have no adequate means to repay . . so this looks like economic slavery to me . . . becoming a colony of the new powers . . . the new empire(s) . . seems like a legitimate possibility.
Reply
Share

Adelle
Adelle

April 2nd, 2006, 7:24 am #6

President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) had been a Major General in the War of 1812 and became a national hero when he defeated the British at New Orleans. Unlike previous Presidents, he did not defer to Congress in policy-making but used his power of the veto and his party leadership to assume command. His tag was "Old Hickery" because of his strict discipline on a forced march from Tennessee to Natchez, Mississippi and back. His men began to say he was as tough as hickory and the nickname stuck. He died at his home near Nashville, Tennessee in June 1845. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson

Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was born in Clarksburg, in what is now West Virginia,on January 20, 1824. During the "War between the States" he was the most revered of all Confederate commanders, next to Robert E. Lee. In the fight at 1st Bull Run his command were so distinguished that both the brigade (1st Brigade, 2nd Corps, Army of the Potomac) and its commander were dubbed "Stonewall" by General Barnard Bee. After the battle of Chancellorsville, reconnoitering at night, he was returning to his own lines when he was mortally wounded by some of his own men. Following the amputation of his arm, he died eight days later on May 10, 1863, from pneumonia. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Jackson

As I have said here before, I don't think that "those" USofA will simply fall to pieces either in another civil war, a race war or the way the USSR did. Unlike the USSR, the USA have room to evolve which can also be a little chaotic.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

April 2nd, 2006, 1:34 pm #7

History appears to be another of your many talents Adelle.
I hope you will join us often here in our new format.
And body-freedom issues are still quite welcome here.
Reply
Like
Share

Melissa
Melissa

April 2nd, 2006, 2:49 pm #8

As I understand it the problem began when immigrants began bringing Mexican flags to school.
And I think about all the Mexican flags I saw being carried and waved at the recent demonstrations.
Kind of makes you wonder just how much these people really want to be Americans.
The reason the pledge of allegiance says "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America" and not the original line "I pledge allegiance to my flag" is because at the turn of the 19th/20th century people were worried about the Italian and Irish immigrant populations flying the flags of Ireland and Italy and people thinking that "my flag" that they were swearing allegiance to being one of those and not the US flag.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

April 2nd, 2006, 2:53 pm #9

"[...] the trade debt and financial burden of maintaining the empire become onerous. In short, the empire collapses because it becomes dependent for its survival upon others and runs large amounts of debt. Which does describe the U.S. today, [...]"

Not inevitably. The debt and deficit of the U.S was under control until the current administration. Proper governance (if it occurs) could stabilise the country and restore its economy.

The idea of "empire" is also a more flexible and decentralized concept now than in the past. The E.U, for example, is growing increasingly federalised, not less, and there are trading blocks being formed in Asia, Central and South America, plus pan-government groups such as the World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund, World Health Organisation, and so on are becoming more important and influential.

A very large part of the success of the United States as a world power was the economic growth resulting from the idea of a decentralised federation with a government that could address common problems rapidly. Prior to World War II, the U.S was often considered primarily a union of nations (which, even today, have their own armies) rather than a nation itself - typically referred to as "*these* United States" rather than "*the* United States". The most important aspect was the creation of a gigantic economic block where people, money, and corporations could move freely and without interference.

There are severe difficulties with the process of governance of course, largely because there were few effective models to choose from (pre-empire Rome was closest to what they wanted), so much of it was guesswork. It's a tribute to the creators of the constitution that it worked so well over the years, including various changes for better and worse.

The U.S has moved towards growing centralisation over the years, but that is not inevitable, and "devolution" (as the term is knowin in the U.K, which has spun off governance of Scotland and Northern Ireland to local parliaments) could be applied to the U.S in response to regional interests. This has worked to quell separatists in the U.K, Spain and Canada without breaking up those countries.

However, I think that globalisation is moving the entire world towards a U.S style model, though differing significantly in governance. On the one hand, mostly independent bodies focussing on specific pan-national concerns such as Internet regulation, radio and satellite standards, trade, health and food standards, and so on, which are run more as meritocracies and less as political forums. These are responsible for responding to large scale problems quickly and with needed resources, such as the preparations for a potential "Avian flu" outbreak - the first time in history the entire world has coordinated on such a large scale.

These are things that exceed the ability of even the largest countries in the world to do much about on their own - U.S, China, Japan, India, or any others.

On the other hand is the devolution of local concerns to smaller regions, and often to individuals, and most importantly to groups who are not limited to specific regional areas, and may be as pan-national as regulating agencies. "Regional concerns" are not as regional as they used to be, and the concept of a "region" may gradually dissolve. For example, there was recently a very large rally in support of Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) in New York - almost as far from the former Mexican territories such as California as you can get.

Old models of "empire" don't necessarily hold. They are, in the words of Alvin Toffler, "second wave" concepts in an emerging "third wave" world society. This is the fundamental flaw in the "world policeman" concept of the current U.S administration - and I have to say, something that George H. W. Bush seemed to have an inkling of, and Clinton seemed to understand well.

As political advocate Richard Stallman pointed out, globalisation itself is not good or bad, it merely amplifies things that may be good or bad. The trick is to work with it to facilitate the good effects and inhibit the bad ones. The U.S has the potential to be positioned very well economically in the future global economy if the government can understand and work with those changes.

The trick is to have politicians to can understand. However, even if they don't, it's quite possible that other pressures will become significant enough that they force change to happen well before the breaking point. After all, politicians do tend to want to follow the path of least resistance, and that is likely to mean reform in pieces as it becomes inevitable. I don't necessarily think that U.S politicians have the will to stand together as a group to oppose all globalisation and decentralisation pressures until they all reach a breaking point, leading to civil war, as you suggest.

Should the U.S change as a follower of world pressures, rather than as a leader that it has been, it will likely limp along as another political entity like the others, with maybe a minor economic collapse similar to but less severe than Russia's. More with a wimper than a bang, but ultimately being not too bad a place to live. And who knows, with the loss of an overwhelming rich upper class able to purchase political support, maybe modern socialism will finally arrive in the industrialised country with the greatest number of poor in the world.
It's interesting that Canadians have more confidence in the US then we Americans do but I'm going to have to agree with Bob on this. I think the US is going in the crapper. I'm not saying it will whither and die but its days of being a economic power house and world leader are over.

I think countries have life cycles like everything else and history is filled with great empires which rose and fell. In my opinion the US reached it's zenith in the 1960s and has been on the slide ever since. In the '60s we had the resources to put a man on the moon, fight a major war, and develop much of the technology the world uses today- including microchips and the internet. But today we can't even keep our worn-out outdated space shuttle flying.

We use to be a major manufacturer and exporter and the label "Made in the USA" was respected around the world. Today, nearly everything we buy is made in China or somewhere else while our northeastern cities are filled with thousands of closed abandon factories. Even our once booming auto industry is on the verge of bankruptcy.
Reply
Like
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

April 2nd, 2006, 3:29 pm #10

The reason the pledge of allegiance says "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America" and not the original line "I pledge allegiance to my flag" is because at the turn of the 19th/20th century people were worried about the Italian and Irish immigrant populations flying the flags of Ireland and Italy and people thinking that "my flag" that they were swearing allegiance to being one of those and not the US flag.
I don't care where immigrants come from, if you are going to adopt a new country you should show it respect by adopting it's flag.

I heard mexican students took down the American flag in front of their school, turned it up-side-down and put the Mexican flag above it. They should know that acts like this is going to turn even immigrant sympathizers away from their cause.
Reply
Like
Share