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?
I’m going to disagree with you stating that the Alliance Sahel States banding together in the beginnings of a Pan-African coalition is imperialism, pretty firmly. This is, frankly, an absurd position that demonizes what is uncontestably an anti-imperialist coalition for seemingly no other reason than to satisfy a vague moral code you have. In practical terms, there is no way to resist neocolonialism without collective sovereignty. This is not done at the expense of others.
As for sovereignty being a “necessary evil,” I don’t agree, nor do I define it as “internal domination.” States should be temporary, but only in the context of internationalism, ie as a joining of national states in one big international union until state lines are abolished and classes disappear, making states themselves redundant. I’m not going to finger wag Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali, etc. for creating a powerful regional resistance coalition against France and the US.
The next comment is just an odd tangent describing why you don’t think culture is important or relevant. I’m not sure how to respond other than to tell you to speak with indigenous resistance groups, assuming you live in a settler-colony like many of us unfortuantrly do.
As for calling states “little empires,” this is again myopic. States are the means by which one class monopolizes its power. The national revolution creates a weak national bourgeoisie that can generally only be overtaken by the peasantry and urban proletariat. The anatomy of the national revolution is documented extremely well by Frantz Fanon in the work I mentioned earlier. Nkrumah deals with the Neocolonial phase, where external powers continue colonialism via financial means and balkanization.
States can be governed by the proletariat, in which case the majority is organized and are working together for the betterment of the whole. This is how socialism works. By defining a state as a “little empire,” you are making a subjectivist argument, not a materialist one. Same as calling the Alliance of Sahel States “imperialist” for kicking out France and the US. You use buzz words and emotionally charged diction in place of an actual argument, hoping it carries the conversation. This doesn’t hold up to scrutiny though.
You’re deliberately misunderstanding me here, and I have very little patience for bad faith arguments.
They’re not imperialist for kicking out France and the US. They’re imperialist because of the control they exert over their own citizens.
And what is an empire, but the monopolization of power?
Don’t laugh don’t laugh