USA runner waves Mexican flag

Never thought I would see the day when actual intelligent people were lamenting shows of patriotism at the freaking Olympics!!

The Olympics are about the last event in the world where patriotism is SUPPOSED to be hyped. Maybe the world cup for soccer (imagine a world cup winner for Italy running around the stadium with an Italian and French flag).

How would some of you react if a kid who grew up in college station or Oklahoma pull out an A&M or OU flag after a touchdown.. Arent they just individuals playing a sport?
 
I would think that was lame and stupid - waving OU/Aggy flag.
Don't feel that way though from Leo because no one here has yet to prove any malice from him towards the US for waving two flags.

He obviously has an affection for his birth country. You can disagree with him displaying that affection after his race, but some of you act like after his race he immediately masturbated, pissed, and took a dump on the US flag before hoisting the Mexican flag.

Dude meant no harm to the US.
 
Nationalism has a more complex recent history in Europe, so someone from Europe may look at such displays differently (both American and Mexican displays).

This is a cool topic. I like seeing what everyone thinks.
 
So you provide proof from Wiki? Isn't Wiki an opinion base website to begin with?

biggrin.gif
 
MWA
I think Fly explaining the strawman theory shows why so many posters got so hostile and angry.

As other posters have pointed out none of the posters and including the Mexican American that i quoted in the OP reacted to a degree that explains the hostility exhibited and explained by Fly
 
The Texas pledge is so amorphous as to be meaningless. You pledge allegiance to a flag. Period. What part of the history of the state are you pledging allegiance to? I have lived here all my long life and have seen immense changes for the good. Women allowed to serve on juries, Mexican Americans getting treated like humans (they frequently weren't where I grew up), blacks getting to vote and eat in the restaurants where they cooked all the food, etc.

If the pledge is to the continued betterment I have witnessed, fine. But it is not a pledge of anything but support for a flag. A lot of the history is nothing to brag about.

Re the comanches and apaches: I wouldn't pledge allegiance to the Comanches either. IN spite of the fact that many of them were, I am sure, really nice people.
 
How old are you, blacks have been able to vote in Texas for at least 140 years. Now if you are talking about the Jim Crow laws and the discrimination and trouble blacks had in voting then that would put you around 60-70 years old.

Dam you are ancient, I had you much younger then that....
 
Is this really such a big deal?

It's not to me.

People are either way too sensitive or are just looking for things to get mad about.
 
I'm a fan of Leo and I've watched him run numerous times from 8th grade on. The flag deal was a minor irritation for me.

But the notion (expressed by several on this thread) that patriotism is a form of civic immaturity or small-mindedness is a bigger deal.
 
Patriotism has recently been little more than an obvious public display designed to manipulate others. As if wearing a flag lapel pin makes one a true American. Or adhering a cheesy magnetic sticker saying that you support the troops.

I'm leery of those who make a little bit too much noise in telling me how patriotic they are. Because they usually aren't, and are using their patriotism as a means to further some objective.
 
Texas Pledge: paraphrased, I pledge allegiance to thee, one state under god and indivisible. That is pretty much it. Note the historical inaccuracy: we are divisible by virtue of the annexation treaty. So we are pledging to a state which is allegedly under god and can't be split up.

AS for blacks voting, you are technically correct, sort of the way the Soviet constitution guaranteed all those rights to the folks who lived over there. For all practical purposes, most blacks here were denied the franchise. White primaries, intimidation, etc. And there were the lynchings on occasion, meant to keep the folks apprised of where they actually stood.

I'm 64 and grew up during the JIm Crow times and it often seems to me that people who came of age after the 1960s really have no idea what an oppressive place this was for many before Lyndon Johnson, the dark one in the eyes of modern conservatives, lowered the hammer on the south.

I love the place but it has a lot of warts and I am not inclined to demand that people wrap themselves in flags and run around bragging about how their country is number one. There are a lot of great places to live in the world, a lot of places which have freedom, where you can make a living and live peacefully without worrying about criminals tearing up your neighborhood. This is one of them. There are others.

AS for the fellow waving the Mexican flag, he was expressing his love for two countries. I could point out a lot of problems in Mexico, but it isn't my country.

Re the comanches: comparing a pre industrial, stone age society with the epitome of western civilization (in its own eyes anyway) is kind of unfair, no?

As for the spaniards, they really screwed up Mexico: abolishing human sacrifice and cannibalism was totally at odds with traditional religious practices among the zen envirommentalists who occupied the empire when they got here. Which is perhaps why all the other natives helped the spaniards?
 
Huis
exactly. notice the use of the word STATE, which contradicts your claim that we only pledge to a Flag doesmn't it?

can you cite a credible source that verifies this annexation treaty you mentioned that says we are divisible or can be>

.
 
Huis:

I was just giving you a hard time abotu your age......I knew what you were talkling about and it was dark times, don't think the conservatives were the only ones that had issues with racism, plenty of liberals had issues as well. It was not some come to Jesus thing for LBJ, it was a way avenue for him to win the White House which he proved he would do at any cost. Very similar to the current president, truth be damned, full speed ahead!
 
Article IV Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution negates it. The notion that Texas could divide into five smaller states was a result of the issues facing the U.S. during the time of annexation such as the balance of slave & free states. The Compromise of 1850 took care of that issue. Also, Texas was quite a bit larger than any other U.S. state at that time in terms of territory. I think Missouri was the largest in area prior to the admittance of Texas. So, can Texas now divide into smaller states? No. But, it once was a reasonable proposition and possibility. No longer. Just makes for good conversation. Kind of like the erroneous notion that some people hold that states that Texas is the ONLY state which can fly its flag at the same height as the U.S. flag. Not true, but it sounds good.
 
Thanks CPF
Our pesky Constitution again.
bow.gif


I guess that means the Texas Pledge of Allergiance is NOT just to our flag
and I guess that means we are indivisible.

Interesting that NO where in our pledge does it say, I pledge to the flag
"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."


I have always liked the part about honoring our flag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top