This Pride Flag Thing

No one reads this anymore, so it's a good place for me to put down some thoughts about this "controversy" to change the Philadelphia Pride Flag.
I am fully aware that I say these things as a CIS-male with pinkish skin tones - hey, if this is about people of color, I want to be accurate about mine.
I am also aware that just because I am not labeled as a "person of color" my opinion will be considered racist and my thoughts on the matter will be deemed void by an entire group of apologists for the new pride flag.
And that is exactly my issue with it.
The makers of the newly-dubbed "Philadelphia Pride Flag" say that is it meant to be "additive" - not a replacement for the popular pride flag, but an alternative.
But to me that means divisive.
In the way that the brown-striped bear pride flag separated bears as their own subgroup and the blue-and-black striped leather pride flag separated that group from the main, this new pride flag with brown and black stripes added above the rainbow colors is more divisive than inclusive.
The original flag had eight colors that represented sex, life, healing, sunlight, nature, art, harmony and spirit. How does that stop people of color from feeling included? It lists eight concepts that are universally available. People of color can take part in the sex, sunlight and spirit that is represented in the flag created by Gilbert Baker in 1978. There is nothing in the color scheme about skin color or race.
Until now.
This new flag has two stripes that specifically include people of color.
New-Pride-Flag
According to an NBC News article on the flag, Charley Beal, a friend of the original flag’s designer Gilbert Baker, told NBC, "The stripes were not chosen for skin color — they were chosen to reflect the spectrum of color in nature.”
Except that contradicts the official statement made by "More Color More Pride": "a black and brown stripe added on top of the traditional rainbow flag, meant to represent people of color who are ”marginalized, ignored, and even intentionally excluded.”
So which is it?
Are we celebrating the browns and blacks found in nature or are we trying to include a marginalized skin tone by adding stripes on a symbol?
And if we are dealing with race and skin colors, what of other people of color? Are Asians not also marginalized in gay culture? There is a reason "No Fats, No Fems, No Asians" is printed on shirts. It's a thing. So what color do we add for Asian folk to be more inclusive? Or is there no place for Asians on the new Philadelphia flag? Native Americans? Is it too cliche to ask the red stripe to do double duty? Or are native people included in the brown stripe?
Whatever the intent of this flag, it seems to have divided sides within the pseudo-community that gays may want to think exists.
Did it open a dialogue about racism?
I don't think so.
It seems to say, "We've solved the issue; we added some stripes. We're included now."
Except I keep thinking about a Twenty-One Pilots refrain: "Just because we check the guns at the door. Doesn't mean our brains will change from hand grenades."
Does the symbol matter? Maybe. To some.
Does it make Gay Pride more inclusive?
No, I'm pretty sure it just sets People of Color up as a separate group along side the bears, the leather folk, and trans-men and -women, each of whom has their own separate flag for their own separate pride.
I've seen dozens, if not hundreds, of comments for and against this. Nearly every time a white person speaks against the flag, the comments is shut down as a racist. He is told he cannot possibly understand and therefore should voice no opinion. That hardly seems to be stimulating dialogue. Maybe this new flag alternative will bring some awareness. Maybe it just increased the divide.
blog comments powered by Disqus