The Hammer & Sickle [General Discussion]
- Login to post comments
This forum is intended to provide a means of general discussion about an particular issue which we clearly all feel strongly about. Having said that, this will not be allowed to become a forum for personal attacks. Please keep all comments brief and to the point. Comments will be moderated.
Ideally, what will emerge is a revealing discussion about the way we feel about our Hammer & Sickle. Discuss proposals and ideas here, and once you feel you've developed a clear and workable proposal that you feel we should vote on next week, put it in the second forum that is intended for this.
Juan
The Hammer and Sickle, and specifically, the image with the star above it, is not a symbol of Socialism, but of a Socialism gone hideously wrong and twisted in the hands of a neurotic megalomaniac. It would be sad if we were prepared to inflict such connotations on members of our own community just for the sake of a flag in a frame which makes certain people feel 'rebellious' and 'radical'. I'm sure we can find a symbol that unites us and inspires radicalism but doesn't remind some people of their families being ripped apart.
The hammer and sickle certainly could be art within certain contexts. If it were part of an exhibition providing commentary on socialism and/or totalitarianism, it would raise some interesting questions. The gilt frame for instance, seems to suggest that the ideals of socialism have come to represent romanticised, nostaligic, "if only" type sentiments, and, what is more, that socialism has become the domain of the educated middle classes.
Displayed in isolation in the middle of the bar as it is, I feel that the hammer and sickle does not imediately invite this kind of analysis. In this context it comes across more as a straightforward symbol, intended to represent the political position of the college and of it's members as a whole. In the 70's I'm sure the hammer and sickle did represent fairly accurately the radical left-wing tendancies of the majority of the college's members. Today however, I would agree with those who believe that the symbol is outdated, that it fails to represent the majority, and that it is offensive to those who have first hand experience of the type of regime it represents. King's needs a new symbol of it's liberalism and left-wing politics - maybe something to do with Amnesty International for instance. Everyone likes human rights after all - except Stalin.
The 'flag' was put on during the cold war. it must be more controversial at that time than it is now.
To me, this is part of King's college. This is our history. This flag represents our king's radical history.
I still remember on matriculation day when senior tutor threw us a question 'What makes King's college so special?'. My answers are all king's people and their spirits. And the FLAG is a remainder of those who fought before, those who were brave to act against bad things, those who made king's college so unique among all Cambridge colleges. That is why we can enjoy being a king's member. That is why we don't envy trinity's money or john's reputation. We have something that they do not have. We are ones who fight for people's interest. We are ones who dispute bureaucracy and autarchy.
The flag is a snapshot of our tradition in the modern time. Without it, we only thing we are proud of is our chapel.
This unique flag belongs to all king’s people. It lives here. It lives only here.
There are just a few comments I think might be useful to think about.
1. To say that the representation pictures the Soviet Union Flag is slightly simplistic. Under this sign the German Spartakusbund under Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht fought for their ideas. They did not agree with Lenin's harsh control of the opposition, but fought for the liberty of thought of the opposition. (Please historians correct me if I am wrong). There is much more behind this sign than the Soviet Union, although I agree that it takes a large part in its symbolic.
2. If I rightly understood the story behind, it is not a flag that is represented here, but the bar painted in red on which students have drawn hammer and sickle. It would be interesting to see, when this happened. I do not think that students at King's when drawing these supported mass killing, but had in mind something completly different. Students as well as great thinkers (such as Sartre) were once attracted to the idea of the Soviet Union. Even though we are disillusioned now, we cannot deny that once there was some kind of interest and even excitement. The representation can represent the ideas of the Soviet Union, but I think the representation much more symbolises the ideas that some people had before they became disillusioned by the reality of the Soviet Union, because it represents the a hammer and sickle drawn in a Student bar.
3. We should avoid a judgment which is made too quickly. I do understand when people are offended. But I think it is in the tradition of King's to think a little bit wider, to look behind the issues, not to be simplistic. I think that many visitors might be offended by it, simply because they have not thought about it, inquired what was behind this sign. This shows a lack of interest into King's and maybe a lack of curiosity. King's wants to attract curious people.
IF the hammer and sickle is to be interpreted as a national flag (which is a big IF--IMO, it doesn't count as a national symbol if the nation in question no longer exists), then it's interesting to note that the hammer and sickle in the bar reflects the design for the Soviet flag that was adopted in 1955, two years after the death of Stalin. Therefore, it is possible to conceive of the flag as a symbol of socialism that is independent of any connotations of Stalinism. (Of course, I don't know if Khrushchev et. al. are exactly shining models of leadership).
I really don't think it would be a bad thing to take down this picture, of a flag, in a gilded frame, as I'm not too sure it bears any reflection on the politics that students at King's presently hold. I also don't think it's a cynical move on anyone's part to dissolve the 'radical' history of King's, nor will it if we continue to engage (which may mean different things for different people). It's time to let go, put something else up.
The above point about the fact that this was never used during Stalin's time is an interesting one. Equally, I feel that the historical context of the flag with Rosa Luxembourg etc. moves this further away from advocating Stalinism, and more towards representing radical leftist ideas.
Personally, I found this gilt-framed 'flag' amusing and ironic when I arrived, though it slightly unsettled me too - I'm politically left of centre, but I would hardly describe myself as Communist. On further reflection, though, I came to understand more what having this image up means. For me at least, it represents the break King's made with the traditional image of Cambridge University. If we're talking about peoples' gut reactions to things, we should remember that a lot of people are offended by what they see to be the smug, elitist, old-boys world of Cambridge. This picture is, among many other things, a way of saying that King's College at least is different, and doesn't want to associate itself with that tradition - which was to me, and probably many other state-school applicants, a very attractive feature of King's.
Sorry this is such a long post, but I have one final point. You may think from this that I'm absolutely in favour of keeping the hammer and sickle up, and indeed I wouldn't mind at all if it remained unchanged. However, we have to bear in mind that a visitor won't have read all these e-mails and learned all this historical context, and won't look on the image as a Cambridge student. Perhaps the best route would be to put up an explanatory note next to it, saying that we aren't Stalinist, but that the picture is instead a reminder of our College's tradition of leftist thought and debate, hence the amusing (to many people, it seems) combination of the hammer and sickle, and a gilt frame even John's would be proud of.
Can we not replace our existing flag with another hammer and sickle image, that does not form part of the flag associated with the USSR and is a controversial image for this reason. That way, any dislike of the image would be purely ideological and political (and we at King's do like a political debate), rather than based on dislike of Stalinism.
The swastika is considered a Nazi image, yet the symbol had been present for centuries previously. Due to the Nazism, use of this symbol is taboo, and shows the power of a regime which can adopt a simple image and literally overwrite it's previous history and meaning. Should we let the atrocities of the USSR, under Stalin in particular, be successful in possessing and dictating the meaning of the Hammer & Sickle image for the rest of history?
Firstly, I to be honest hardly ever notice the flag, and find it an interesting topic in conversation when it comes up - slightly amusing, but it doesn't have any particular connotations for me.
I would never have argued to take it down myself, I like it. I find it slightly depressing that people want to take it down and are so offended by something i see as trivial (the framed flag.. not the regime), but that's just my own views. I'm not trivialising what happened, I just don't really consider a hammer and sickle framed in a bar to really mean all of the things that people are saying it does (I don't even really believe it to be a massive emblem of King's radical past - consider: taking an image down wont undo communism, and it wont undo the action of King's people in the past).
However, I do feel that once the debate is raised there can be no real argument for keeping the flag up. After all, it was used by Stalin (actually, it was adopted in 1923 - the USSR adopted it later too in 55, but it was originally introduced in 23). The fact is that it did stand for an oppressive regime which did result in the death of many people. Once that argument is raised I don't see how it can be countered. I don't agree with it being raised, but it is completely valid.
The major point here for me actually seems to be that it is up in the BAR - which although meant for King's members and guests is probably the most public place in King's. And for me, the argument about a union jack causing offence is valid here - I think a union jack up in the bar would be just as undefendable if someone raised the argument. I think it should be taken down and replaced with something equally tongue in cheek - if you want to continue the spirt of radical king's why not come up with some original artwork of your own that sends a similar message without any connotations to an oppressive regime?? Continue the spirit, do something yourself. Climb the chapel and put christmas hats on the spires or something... Equally, removing it does not imply destroying it - could it not be moved somewhere in King's much less public that would cause much less people offence?
This flag was used 1923-1955: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1923-1955).svg
The flag in the bar looks like the post 1955 flag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1955-1980).svg
Also I respectfully disagree with the points you've made in the proposals thread. I'm not in favour of a satirical picture of Mr. Toad because 1. I've not read the book and 2. The joke would get old after about a week.
And I don't see how a purple hammer and sickle is "even more dangerous" than the current one. No flag is dangerous, except maybe a highly flammable one placed near an open flame.
The 2 flags are still VERY similar, but fair point - after looking at Wikipedia i couldn't recall exactly what the one in the bar looked like.
What i meant was that I can see how some people would be even more offended by something that they could easily see as even more of an endorsement of the symbol than the current one. A Neo-Stalinism if you like, King's style. It wouldn't offend me, i just don't think it would solve the problem. The point is it would still be a hammer and sickle - a flowery swastika is still a swastika.
Mr. Toad was just a suggestion - why i said perhaps or something along similar lines.. just trying to get the ball rolling :)
OK, fair enough. I'm also opposed to the purple hammer and sickle, although for the opposite reason (taking an ostensibly radical symbol and then fancying it up with "ironic" connotations of privilege makes it into too much of a half-hearted gesture towards egalitarianism devoid of any sort of actual commitment).
I'm still against any sort of jokey flag, as jokes get old, but if you want to fight against the old-boy traditions, how about an alternative coat of arms of some sort. Not necessarily satirical, but filled with iconography emphasizing social justice and progress instead of musty medieval symbols.
The two main arguments for keeping the flag which seem to emerge are 1) that the flag/symbol/artwork is a piece of king's history and 2) that it is a symbol of king's radicalism. The last time I checked, traditionalism and radicalism are opposites - you can't have it both ways guys! If this flag is a symbol of tradition and history, then it not radical. A symbol of radicalism needs to be contemporary, and relevant to what is happening in the world today.
Furthermore, I would question exactly how radical kings is an institution. My DoS just pointed it out to me, that a recent study of the socio-economic backgorunds of cambridge students has shown that although King's takes more state school applicants, the average parental income of the students here is higher than that of students of many other colleges. To be perfectly honest I do not feel, as someone with working class, non-university educated parents, that I belong to the majority here at kings. The majority of students here are liberal, certainly, but many of them are also highly priviledged. This institution isnt radical just because some people say it is, or just because there is an inflammatory symbol hanging in the bar.
What is radicalism? It is the advocacy of fundamental change to society. What is tradition? It is a long established custom that has been passed down for many generations. For many generations (of students, which have a generation time of 3 years) many students at King's have been advocating fundamental changes to society. Therefore, we have a tradition of radicalism :).
I play pool loads and never notice the flag. I really do think that people are making too big a deal of this. In the modern age, it seems either that people are far too easily offended or that people are far too happy to believe that people will be offended. I view the calls for taking the "flag" down as part of the whole movement of "political correctness". I expect that not too many people are offended by this. If instead the flag were replaced with a picture of Stalin, fair enough, it should go down. But this isn't a picture of Stalin or any other Soviet leader - it's just a red rectangle with a hammer and sickle in it. You can be offended by that only if you choose to be.
Further to that, it is part of King's heritage. Another modern thing seems to be the wish to erase heritage and tradition. There may be (are) lots of terrible things that came out of Communism and Stalinism, but it happened and we should not deny or hide that. Let it be known that at one point King's was a very leftist college. I am sure that when it was it supported only the positive aspects of this ideology. Don't let the negatives overshadow that.
I understand that the college community can have a tradition of radical politics. The point I was making is that a particular symbol or object can't stand for radicalism indefinitely. There comes a point when it is outdated. For me there is nothing radical about the hammer and sickle. This symbol (just like Che Guevara's face) is plastered on the bedroom walls of so many clueless bourgeois teenagers that its message has become watered down. When I see this symbol, it doesn't inspire me to rise up against the social injustices that are happening today, it just reminds me of a time of great political naivety when so many idealistic youngsters thought that China was the most egalitarian thing since sliced bread (everyone gets a slice - implies sharing - hey, maybe thats it! maybe we should put some sliced bread up there!)
OK, so this is a HUGE topic (both in terms of its personal significance for me, and its historical/political complexity). I hope I do justice to it without ranting for too long... If you want a summary, just read the first sentence of each paragraph ;)
---
As someone who very much identifies as a Communist - of a stridently anti-Stalinist breed - I find that Stalinism is an emotive subject for me. I remember the fact that people who held views similar to mine bore a large amount of Bolshevik repression throughout the history of the USSR, and many like me are still oppressed in China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
I have no desire to see Communism equated with Stalinism, and no desire to let its symbols or terminology fall into disuse due to their association with that regime. Stalinism simply is not Communism by any stretch of the imagination; in fact, if you speak to Anarchists, Trotskyists, Luxemburgists, and other Anti-Stalinist Communists, you will find that there are many different competing theories of exactly how to describe the economic system of the USSR - "state capitalist", "bureaucratic collectivist", "degenerated workers' state", etc. None of them, however, will describe it as anywhere near "Communist".
As such, I have mixed feelings when I look at the flag in the bar - on the one hand it is a hammer and sickle, while on the other it is representative of a Stalinist state. Sometimes when I look at it I feel sad, angry or inspired; sometimes I feel nothing at all, or irony. It's because of this ambivalence that I don't care much about that specific flag as a physical object. I do, however, desire to see some symbol of our progressive/radical/whatever history.
Somebody said at the open meeting that they know some people who have been put off of applying to King's because of the flag; well, I applied to King's precisely because of its reputation and history, and so did Jacob. I probably wouldn't have applied to Cambridge at all if King's hadn't been an option.
In terms of King's not being radical because of the average household income, I don't think that you can reliably measure the political culture of a college purely by its general level of affluence. King's has, like it or not, been a centre for agitation within Cambridge University over the years.
As has been pointed out recently, we are the only Cambridge college with students on the college council - this did not happen by chance. We also regularly have a decent intake of state-schooled applicants - this does not happen by chance. King's still has a greater political culture than most colleges, and this translates into a greater amount of political activity than most colleges.
Haven't you ever wondered whether Trinity students walk past posters advertising meetings on Marxism and ecology, or dissident movements in Iran? While it may be true that there are only a handful of Communists at King's, this is reflective of the general student body's apathy and conservatism - we still remain 'radical' relative to pretty much every other college.
---
Finally, to those who are pointing out that it's the 1955 version of the flag, and using that as evidence that it's not an endorsement of Stalinism, I think you're making a mistake. Stalinism is not generally understood as something which existed only while Stalin was alive, and the USSR was ideologically 'Stalinist' in 1955 as in 1935, even though Stalin was no longer in power. Similarly I think it's broadly correct refer to China as a Stalinist state, since 'Stalinist' is loosely used as a broad term covering all forms of top-down one-party "Socialism in One Country".
I had intended not to get into this debate because, frankly, I think it's stupid even to consider bowing to the objections of those who are offended. There will always be people and things in life who or which will offend you, and frankly, you're going to have to deal with it. As somebody pointed out before, taking a flag down isn't going to remove that which the objectors purport to be taking offence to (i.e. the historical facts, rather than the picture), so what difference will it make?
I'm happy to say openly that I identify with right wing politics. But if this flag is taken down I will find it really sad, for various reasons:
1) Taking it down is the first step in forgetting. History teaches us that the best way to avoid attrocity is to REMEMBER and learn.
2) Remembering a bad thing shouldn't be offensive. Do the objectors oppose Memorial Day? I'm pretty sure that they don't, because it commemorates the heros of the Wars. I fail to see differences here, but then I guess that depends on what you personally believe the picture to be commemorating. I personally connect the picture with past King's students who fought for what they believed in. Yeh, so I disagree ideologically, but I think we should aspire to be as strong, inspired and brave as them, and not wimp out of our one historical monument in the bar because it makes people feel 'uneasy'.
3) Why are people even commenting on what visitors think? Is this not our bar? What if a visitor didn't like the colour yellow; would we repaint the walls?? It's the people who have to live with the picture who should have a say. Family I understand; random people walking through King's who stray into the bar I do not.
Anyway, I hope that nothing I've said is too offensive (God forbid) and I know that to some this is an incredibly sensitive issue, but I just don't see much point in discussing which little bits to remove or replace before we've even established what it is exactly that the objectors object to. For my part, removing the star and / or a plaque would be totally understandable, but removing the picture altogether would be a massive shame.
Sorry for the long post.
Hi,
First, cheers to all for a really good discussion on Thursday. It's great to see people thinking and talking about this again.
I'm sorry if anyone feels imposed upon by this motion. It's not that I want the flag removed out of some glazed-eyed instinct to obliterate all subjects of debate and controversy - I brought this motion forward knowing that it would bring about both.
I reckon that most King's members are, in principle, against having a national flag on the wall of our bar. I don't think that anyone would have produced arguments of the kind 'It represents an ideology, not a state', had the ideology been Zionism, and the state been Israel. That the flag is 'part of our heritage' is also a red-herring, since it was never written in stone that King's would align itself with the radical left. It is entirely possible we could have had an affinity with the new state of Israel - I really hope that someone would be questioning the sense in keeping a flag up for the sake of 'heritage' if that were the case.
I worry that people's political ideals have overridden their principles in the past when they have voted to keep this flag. I think that people at King's are smart enough not to just look for arguments that help them justify to their desire to have this flag on the wall, but also consider the position of others, and try to empathise. I hope that we'll do that this time.
True, The flag no longer represents an existing state. However, the Soviet Union did exist until quite recently, and it is a place where many people were murdered or sent to GULAGs for being Jewish, Ukrainian, gay, or creative-in-a-way-that-questions-the-state-ideology. On that basis alone, I don't think King's is the best place to have this particular flag.
But wait, this flag doesn't represent the 'excesses' of Stalinism. It represents the ideals of the revolution, right? Well you could see it that way, but you'd have to exercise a rather selective memory. The first flag of the USSR that resembles the one we are talking about was drawn up in 1923, that is, after countless summary executions of Polish and Ukrainian POWs by the Red Army, and after thousands of Tsarist (and largely working-class) men, women and children had been forced to flee from Vladivostok to China and Korea (they later were killed or repressed in China - those that escaped made it back to Russia just in time to be killed in the purges). Are we still going to alieve our consciences by saying that the flag represents an ideal which was only later tarnished by Stalinism?
I know that it is difficult to empathise with someone when they say they are 'offended' in the context of an argument - you might suspect that they are pulling their 'trump card' out, assuming a position of unassailable victimhood.
The problem is that I don't think this we are really having an argument. This is me, and a few others, trying (unsuccessfully) to convey in words the deep hurt and confusion that some people feel when they see this flag hanging up in a UK student bar. Please don't think that anyone is against this flag because it challenges their political opinions - I enjoy that, like I am really glad to have the opportunity to talk about this with you and other people in college. The problem with this flag is that, for some people, it doesn't allow time to even consider their opinion, because for those personally invested in the history of the Soviet Union it isn't a work of art or a talking point - it is a punch in the stomach. Alina and Tania, my friends from Vladivostok, had barely anything to say about it. They saw it, their mouths dropped, and they said that they couldn't work out what the hell it was doing here. I explained about the college's affinity with the radical left, but that didn't wash. It's hard to listen to a fluffy-haired 22-year old in one of the most prestigious universities in the world tell you why you shouldn't be offended by us hanging up the flag of the state they lived in, in which, and because of which millions of their compatriots were killed. People were sipping beer and playing pool next to this flag.
I'm not asking anybody to change their position on the Soviet Union (I don't really have one other than: 'it's complicated'), but I am asking you to understand that this isn't some rhetorical 'offence' that people are feeling - it's the kind of hurt that leaves you speechless.
Steve
[REALLY sorry for the crazy long post. I wanted to get it all down.]
I also didn't want to enter this debate, but there are two recurring mistakes which are starting to annoy me:
1. Many people are putting flag in inverted commas, as if whether or not it is a flag is a contentious issue. Whether or not the nation still exists, and whether it is on a flagpole or in a frame it is still a flag and people will still link it to that nation.
2. People have often referred to the flag as part of our tradition or heritage. In an establishment as old as ours five and a half years (the flag was only put up after the bar's redecoration in 2004) cannot be considered a tradition. Even if we are looking at generations of students, only last year there were people who could remember the bar before the flag. There may have been a hammer and sickle painted on the wall, but this is not the same as having a flag up.
I think that there are three main arguments in this debate. The first one is that the flag is a piece of art. The second one is that the flag is a symbol of King's history. Finally, the main argument to remove the flag is that it symbolises an oppressive regime.
Personally, I understand very well why many people are offended by its presence in our bar. While Soviet Union is often not viewed as being similar to Nazi Germany, to many people it is. It is similar as Soviet Union, like Nazi Germany, did organise genocides and mass repressions. And many people view the flag in our bar as a symbol of those crimes in the same way as any Jew would view Nazi Swastika as a symbol of Holocaust.
My grand grandmother was killed by the Soviet Government during the Holodomor in 1930's in Ukraine. I don't know how many King's people know about this genocide, so here are just two links if you want to find out more about it:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/28/1196036978721.html (text)
http://www.theage.com.au/multimedia/ukrainefamine/main.html (audio)
I don't think that it is necessary to remind of other repressions that Soviet Regime has undertaken.
Therefore, I believe that the political symbols of the Soviet Union should be treated in the same way as the symbols of the Nazi Germany. I see no objective reason for doing otherwise. If someone does know why I should stand against Nazi Swastika, which represents a regime that killed hundreds of millions, including tens of millions of Ukrainians, on the battlefields of the Second World War and in the concentration camps and, at the same time, should not stand against Soviet Flag, which represents a regime that killed 7-10 millions Ukrainians in less than a year during peace period, please let me know why.
Let's recall now that while we all stand for freedom of speech and freedom of art, we are still aiming to restrict them in a certain way. We would not put Swastika in our bar, neither to express freedom of speech nor to support freedom of art. There are certain topics on which we all agree that extra sensitivity should be applied. While someone might see an art in the Soviet flag, the symbol is too controversial to be displayed in general public premises. It could be displayed on special exhibition, or on some other special occasion, but not in the place where everyone can be exposed to it.
At the same time, we should commemorate the history of King's. However, I do believe that our history is not tied with genocides against Ukrainians, Jews or other nations. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that we do not falsely associate ourselves, as a community, with such crimes against humanity.
It is sometimes said that we not only had radical history, but also specific ties with the Soviet Union. Even if this is true, they were based not on the same ideas as the regime, whose flag we currently have in our bar. I believe that we can commemorate our history and our historical ties, without showing respect for evil regimes.
I don't think we need any symbol in the bar to remind people of the achievements and history of the college.
King's used to be excusively for Etonians for many hundreds of years, a lot longer than it has been assoiated with a left leaning ideology, and there are still a fair number of etonian's present in king's to this day. (i am not one of them)
I think we should take it down, and put something up in it's place, either something compeltely irrelevant, or if mwe must commenmorate the existance of the flag even something that says, there used to be a soviet flag here, but we decided to take it down.
I think that on the whole it would be better to remove it and have a few generations of king's student's mildly dissapointed than to continue to possibly offend people (like the friends of Steve Dowie who he mentioned in his post).
p.s. I'm not trying to say that you can't have a socalist etonian.
It's all got rather complicated, hasn't it? But I guess it all seems to boil down to the fact that some people are offended by a Soviet flag, and some aren't. So just a quick question - and I'd really appreciate it if people would try to answer it - who would be as offended if we painted the star out? I don't want to appear simplistic, but surely this solves the main problem at least?
To some extent, King's reputation is historically built around this flag; by attempts to restore it by students when taken down by the College, in the prospectuses that were sent out by KCSU, and within the University as a whole. I oppose the removal of the flag.
There is no hegemonic interpretation possible of its meaning, for many in Russia (but certainly not all: I am a fan of Brodsky and Solzhenitsyn), it represented hope in humanity's common future, the symbols themselves are testaments to the popular (populist?) ideals of the revolution and break from the autocratic regime of the Tsar. Stalinism cannot be equated with Communism, nor Marxism, nor even Leninism. Attempts to impose interpretation upon this flag are themselves illiberal, and I prefer the hermeneutic possibilities that it provokes including in this debate.
I would propose as an alternative measure that, as in a museum, a plaque is erected beside the flag with wording to be decided, which may indicate the history of the flag, its relation to King's radicalism, the debates that have surrounded it.
Symbols are not symbols in themselves, but depend entirely on the context in which they are presented. Even that most reviled of symbols, the swastika, is a widespread symbol of luck in India (both clockwise and anti-clockwise). Our duty is to inform interpretation of the flag by intelligently creating the context in which it sits.
Tristam
As far as I am concerned it can stay: as an historical artifact/curiosity, as a symbol that is understood not to support those bad things that happened in history, and that does not imply that King's students would support any of those, but as a symbol for some pieces of ideology that one can agree or disagree with, but that are not inherently bad, and that some people, inside and outside of King's, are genuinely and truly inspired by. But I'm happy to let the votes decide!
As one of a minority of students who remembers the bar from before it was redecorated, I'd like to stress that when the hammer & sickle symbol was painted by students it was always on its own, without a star. It was intended as a symbol of the leftwing radicalism that is an important part of the college's history, and still survives in some respects today. The symbol was certainly not intended to denote support for the USSR or Stalinism. I do not know why a specifically soviet symbol was chosen to be framed, the fellows never explained that to us.
Personally I'd like to see a return to the symbol as it was, yellow-on-red with no star. Unfortunately the two-vote system complicates matters - if I'd rather change it than keep it the same, but I'd rather keep it the same than replace it with a King's flag, how am I supposed to vote in the first poll?
James
Of course the flag is just a symbol if you have no experience of soviet/post-soviet life. For many of the Western Europeans and North-Americans who are predominant in this college, this flag means nothing more than 'the left', 'communism' or 'radicalism'. While they are entitled to their opinion, I'm asking you to give precedence to the feelings of those who have a direct connection to the Soviet past and find our hanging this flag up offensive, even though they are in the minority.
Why? Because a reaction to the flag that is based on experience is, I reckon, going to be more emotionally charged (and this is about respecting others' feelings) than that of a Briton/American who has never been east of their youth hostel in Berlin.
The fact that it had to be pointed out to many people at the first open meeting that this was indeed the flag of the Soviet Union and not a (sic) 'communist flag' depresses me immensely. What right do we have to be telling current members and future applicants that this thing up on our wall is not a thumbs-up to the murders of 7 million Ukrainians, but a 'symbol', if half of us only found out last week what the flag of the USSR actually looks like?
To me, this flag represents different things in different contexts:
On a war memorial in Vladivostok, it represents a state whose history is complicated, to which the people living there will always be connected.
On the wall of a student bar in the UK, it represents a kind of eye-wateringly lame, Banksyesque 'radi-cool' that for some reason you only find among the middle-classes of affluent countries, a non-ideology which is as vacuous as it is insensitive to those for whom political symbols aren't just pictures.
- Login to post comments
I think it's a piece of art that has obviously spiked up a lot of discussion over a number of years. If that discussion ends up being dominated by those that take offence, then of course it will be removed. However, lets think about how much discussion it has roused. No denying, then, that that truly is art.