Why Are Black Protestors Now Burning The American Flag In Response To Newly Released Evidence That

What makes burning the American flag different than burning other flags, say the LGBT rainbow flag or burning the Jewish (Israeli) flag?

People burn American flags to bring attention to a statement that they feel is being ignored.Our country is hugely protective of and patriotic about our flag. Our national anthem is about it. It hangs in nearly every classroom in public schools. It can only be disposed of by the military in a special ceremony held specifically for that purpose. When we pledge allegiance, we do so not to our country, but rather to that strip of cloth that has pervaded every aspect of our patriotism.This means that when the flag is burned, there are (understandably) strong reactions. Most of the time, these reactions are negative. The people who burn the flag don’t care about that, though. By giving you a strong reaction in either direction, they’ve created opinion where before there was apathy. They’ve forced their audience to pay attention, rather than just ignoring it altogether. That’s why flag burning is a hallmark of grassroots movements. By burning this flag, we’re almost compelled to give the issue more thought than we would have otherwise, and the attention this garners is often the ultimate desire of these groups.When burning a flag that represents minorities, however, this is lesser factor in the motivation. Rather than burning a flag that represents them, as the American flag represents all american people, they’re taking someone else’s flag and burning it. By burning the symbols of minority, they’re expressing hate for any member of the group and any deviance from the norm. They’re essentially asserting their own faux superiority over the group whose flag is being burned. This is often met with a more harsh response, because it’s a bullying tactic rather than an actual political message, in most cases.That said, I feel as if burning the flag is almost universally met with opposition. I mean, look at Kaepernick. He faced national outrage for not standing when a song was sung about the flag. I imagine he would face much more outrage had he literally destroyed a flag. It’s not as if burning the American flag is accepted or condoned by most. If it was, it would no longer be an effective method of protest. Its very conventionality that gives it its strength serves as a counter example to your claim that it’s considered “OK”

Is burning the American flag disrespectful to the people who fight in the U.S. military?

It’s not disrespectful.I will freely admit that I don’t understand the military or why it does what it does. I’m even confused about how they’re supposed to “protect the borders” by traveling halfway around the world AWAY from the borders. But I suppose if they weren’t fighting ISIS, the Taliban, etc, then the rest of us would be fighting them here in our own back yard, so I guess that clears up SOME confusion.Regardless of their reasons for joining the military, the actions of those who serve are meant to keep our nation safe. Every life that is lost, every life-ruining injury, every horrible scar and wound that every serviceman suffers is a sacrifice made for this nation. The man who has his brains blown out by sniper fire may as well have taken that bullet for me and my family, and the fellow officers who watched it happen, and who must now live with it for the rest of their lives may as well have personally saved me from watching MY family and friends die all around me.So when people invert the flag, or stomp on the flag, or spit on the flag, or burn the flag, they may as well be trampling and burning the sacrifices made by countless men and women, not only around the world, but throughout history. Every man who died to make this nation a reality, and every man who dies to defend it is represented in that flag. Centuries worth of honor, sacrifice, and blood, all to make a better tomorrow for the next generation. And they trample on it. They spit on it. They burn it.So no, it’s not at ALL disrespectful. It’s not dishonorable. It’s not even cowardly. It is something that is so utterly deplorable, so inhuman, that the word for it does not exist in any known language. And the fact that this is LEGALLY allowed to take place is disgusting and makes me sick to my stomach.Freedom of expression, my ass.

Why don't Americans publicly burn flags of other nations?

I thought of a couple extra factors that haven't already been mentioned:Racism. Most Americans' exposure to flag-burning protests has originated from the Middle East. That relationship has never been very easy. Many Americans across the political spectrum consider themselves culturally and morally superior to the Arab world, and so, flag-burning is tacitly seen here as "stooping to their level".Democracy. The paucity of flag-burning isn't uniquely American. Most Western democracies share that trait. It's possible, though not proven, that there's a link. The likely mechanism is that the institutions that make liberal democracy function provide ample built-in venues for the peaceful expression of political dissatisfaction; moreover, these outlets serve as a "pressure relief valve" that prevents such discontent from boiling over. Look at the countries where flag-burning is most popular, and you'll notice a distinct lack of these institutions.Propaganda. Anti-American flag-burning protests are often organized by regimes as distractions from their real domestic issues. They're a modern version of Nazi book burnings. The US government, for all the propaganda it does engage in, governs with enough consent from its people that it does not have to resort to such extreme measures.Power. The actions of most of our rivals, despite the big deal we make out of it, are generally felt as pin-pricks. Bashar Assad can't do all that much to directly hurt American citizens. At worst, he can make our gas prices jump by a dollar, but our economy is much better equipped to handle those fluctuations than his. Even if his citizens fully backed him in declaring a war on us, we'd probably just laugh it off. Same goes for most of our other antagonists, with the notable exception of North Korea. We live in a land of plenty. We have our McDonald's, Budweiser, and the NFL. Not many countries could get us pissed off enough to start burning shit, and those that can recognize that it's not in their interests either to do so.

What should be the flag that represent Tamil people?

Well, I do accept Sangeetha answer but I am answering considering the fact that a Flag represents the uniqueness and/or traditions of a particular city.The Flag which I have chosen should be along the lines of the below and I will explain why I have chosen the below,The above figure is a Peacock feather and is the “National Bird of India”Even though Peacock is the “National Bird of India” its also the Vahana of Lord MurugaThe state of TamilNadu has numerous Murugan temples and we ஆறுபடை வீடு which is the six abodes of Lord MurugaAmong the 18 Mahapurana, the largest is the “Skanda Purana” which is devoted to Lord MurugaThe above symbol is also chosen keeping in mind the Symbolic Representation of Lord Muruga’s Vel which explains three important aspects of lifeDepth of KnowledgeBroadness of MindSharpness of Knowlegde and I am relating the above three aspects to the “Peacock Feather”Is this a secular answer ?No. My main thinking was around the cultural aspects of Murugan temple(which is Hinduism), and the above said three points can be practiced by any individual irrespective of caste, color, gender and religion and its in this regard I show that the answer is not completely religiously biased.Should Tamilnadu need a Flag ?If one think the answer is YES, then according to me every Indian state should have a Flag and in essence it would be very difficult and hence better to drop this plan.But on the contrary its very common to see Global HQ to host flags of their subsidiaries and if we decide to have a Flag every other Indian state needs to have it and represent India as a whole with the uniqueness of its state in terms of culture and heritage.

Why did the United States lose the Vietnam War?

The US did not lose the Vietnam War. It was not our war. It was the South Vietnamese vs. the North Vietnamese. In Tet of ’68 the Viet Cong essentially ceased to exist. Johnson and later Congress would not allow the U.S. forces to capture North Vietnamese logistical bases in North Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. This allowed the NVA to continue operations in the South that they would not been able to otherwise. Wars cannot be won by airpower alone. After the American people got tired of being lied to by both the military and the Johnson administration, they elected Nixon to the presidency. Nixon made the decision to withdraw the military from South Vietnam. When the Soviets saw that Congress had reduced their support to 5% of previous levels, they increased their support of the North by 400%. The result was that the South could not buy repair parts or ammunition. The North now had an influx of new Soviet equipment including tanks, trucks, massive quantities of munitions that they had never had before.So the bottom line is that after the U.S. left then pulled the rug out from the South, the Soviets gave the North all they needed to overwhelm the helpless South.

How is #TakeAKnee perceived by politically conservative communities in the US?

All very good answers.I will add this that I just discovered recently and adds more fuel to the fire…Did you know that the NFL is tax exempt? Yep. Did you also know that your tax dollars are paying for their luxury hotel stays, travel and fancy stadiums? Yep.The self-entitled, clueless “adults” playing a child’s game for millions upon millions of dollars. They are just disillusioned assholes. They have no idea what they are actually upset about or how to fix the problem (read: most sjw and liberals).The American Flag and our National Anthem have ZERO to do with race or the false victimization of blacks. It is all about unity, strength and honor. And these bumbling idiots should stick to what they do best - kick/throw a ball around a field and shut the fuck up.EDIT: A few other thing about this that rub me wrong:How is this wrong? Player banned from wearing cleats as memorial to 9/11 (NFL rules out player's patriotic cleats)And this is cause for fines: Banning players from supporting worthy causes such a breast cancer and ending domestic violence (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...)But these worthless low-lives are just fine and dandy in the eyes of the NFL: NFL Arrest-Database - NFL Football - USA TODAYAnd then these morons have the gull to insult the only country in the world that could provide them with this lifestyle and privilege. They repulse me. Absolutely pathetic. I will never, ever watch the NFL again.

Should Trump change the Constitution to strip Americans of citizenship and deport them for flag burning?

How many Americans have actually read the “Constitution”, “The Articles of Confederation”, or “The Federalist Papers”.First AmendmentCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.The freedom of the press, protected by the First Amendment, is critical to a democracy in which the government is accountable to the people. A free media functions as a watchdog that can investigate and report on government wrongdoing. It is also a vibrant marketplace of ideas, a vehicle for ordinary citizens to express themselves and gain exposure to a wide range of information and opinions.Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)The way our new President and his cabinet have been behaving is anti-American.In Arizona the legislature is pushing around a bill that would charge protesters that are present or remain at a protest turned destructive under the RICO Act. This would mean violators would be charged with a felony. Is this constitutional, probably not. Trump continues to malign the press, is this constitutional, it is until the Press is obstructed or punished, penalized or threatened.Trump violated centuries old decorum multiple times prior to taking office. Violations of “One President at a time”, while not illegal did disrespect the peaceful transfer of power from one Administration to the other. General Flynn was hung out to dry for most probably acting at the behest of the President.Our President is planning the dismantling of key long supported departments of the Federal Government. He has not offered to debate or request input or comment from the citizenry. There has been zero suggestion of studying the potential damage to our country, why? This behavior could be considered treasonous. These actions directly violate citizens rights. What of citizens who are protected in some manner by Federal Agencies?The greatest threat to our nation is that each state would be given the right to legislate on issues which to gate have been Federal legislative issues. Could you imagine having fifty different sets of regulations and laws.“The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.”—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)