It's an issue of when the flag was created and what it stood for then. The rainbow flag was specifically created to represent the LGB community (back when trans wasn't considered so much a separate thing from being gay). Indigenous people weren't a group originally considered to be included in the flag because it was specifically about sexual orientation, and that's why the inclusion of the trans colors made sense too, since our current understanding has shifted to how being transgender is about gender presentation and not sexual orientation. So both of those were added to flag not only as a show of support to include those communities, but as a statement about how all minorities are united in the issues they face.

Kinda like how the old American flag with the 13 stars for the 13 original colonies would still be inclusive of the entire 50 states today since they're all part of the US, but it doesn't get used because they kept changing it to include new states as they were added to represent the entirety of the US.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 14 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I get it, but also I think it may not be so great an idea. I like the rainbow pride flag including everyone. If you start adding extra things, then that's also implying anything not there isn't included, which I disagree with.

Personally, I'm a straight white man, but I also identify with the pride flag because I want to include and accept all people. For some reason many straight people think it excludes them, but it doesn't really. Everyone should have pride in who they are, it's just certain people weren't socially allowed to for a long time.

I guess if these things make people feel like they're included more then it's alright, but I just think it's better to say the pride flag is all-inclusive. (This is doubly true because eventually it will have to become a mess of a design.)

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 10 months ago

I know what you mean, and I agree to some extent.

The original pride flag was made with a specific purpose in mind - which was opposing oppression of the gay community in all its forms. It wasn't meant to include anybody else just by virtue of the circumstances in which it was made. It's also why there's like 500 other flavors of Pride flags (like the Trans flag that the trans colors on the inclusive flag are derived from). From that perspective, the original Pride flag and the new flag weren't made to include you as a straight white person any more than the American Flag was made to include Norwegians. And that's okay, because those flags symbolize a specific group of people, just like the Lesbian Pride flag doesn't include gay men or straight women. You can absolutely still identify with the Pride flag or support other groups for the exact reason you stated, and you don't need anybody's permission to do that, but it is important to remember and respect that not all spaces are meant to include everyone all the time.

I think what we need is a new, universal flag that can be focused specifically on the act/idea of being inclusive. And maybe the rainbow Pride flag will (and already has) changed meaning to be that new inclusive flag. It feels like it's been moving in that direction with the adoption of flags like this one, but I wouldn't want to assume something and accidentally appropriate an item that has cultural identity to a group. But, like you said, there's no reason to keep slapping competing colors and meanings on top of it if it already means being all-inclusive, and by slapping more stuff on there it implies that it isn't.

We either need a new flag specifically for inclusiveness, or just use the original rainbow flag to mean that. Slapping other stuff on it is giving me a headache from clashing colors.

[–] snek@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Exactly. The point of the rainbow flag was the rainbow, and the people who created these new grotesque flags missed the point by miles and miles.