Many flags around the world are iconic, think the ones of France, Canada, South Africa, the Nordics, etc.
However, there are some that aren’t as good, like the Australian and New Zealand flags, both of which still retain the union jack with little Indigenous symbolism. Speaking as an Australian myself, our flag isn’t all that great! The Southern Cross is cool, but there is no hint of green/gold, and the union jack just looks tacked on. There are also many flags that look good, but the symbolism represents ideas that you’re against. Think Iran’s flag that draws heavily from their sect of Islam and the theocracy, or the PRC’s flag having the smaller stars representing the people surrounding the larger star representing the one party state. There’s also some that are okay, but a bit boring and hard of distinguish from the rest, and an additional element would make it stand out more.
And purple should be on more flags! Republican Spain during the 1930s had some purple, but they lost the civil war and the flag was replaced.
If you could change the national flags of the world, what would be your flag proposals?
Generally a collective of people acting as a community. Of course it is all the worst things too, but it doesn’t have to be. I think a big problem is that the borders meet each other due to how many humans are on a planet this size. But imagine an infinite landscape where nations are far apart. When you arrive at one, you may find a group of people that like to collectively offer a set of protections and provisions. They also might have a set or treaties with nearby nations so each can benefit from each other’s resources.
Idealism, I know, but I’m just expressing that nations as a concept doesn’t necessitate the bad parts.
Not just idealism, pure fantasy:
That does not describe the real world in any way. Not even an ‘ideal’ world. It’s not even physically possible. (And people accuse us anarchists of living in idealist fantasy land!)
In the real world, land is not infinite. Anytime one group (whether you call it a nation or a community or whatever) tries to lay claim to a portion of the land to the exclusion of all others, that’s an act of violence – because it’s ultimately only enforceable through violence. Our finite earth belongs to us all. They did not create it, and they have no right (except ‘might makes right’ violence) to take portions of it away from you.
I explicitly pointed out that it was idealism. You’re barking at the moon. It’s like getting mad at a physics instructor for saying “imagine a frictionless surface and purely elastic collisions”. The point is to extract those things that can distract from a rigorous concept.
I’m not implying in anyway that this is the real world. Rather that the negative things associated with nationalism are not inextricably linked to the concept of national identity. If you don’t see it that way, fine. But this act like you think I meant this was a possible representation of the world we live in is just silly.