In Defence of ‘Flagshaggers’ COUNTRY SQUIRE MAGAZINE

Listen to this article

CSM EDITORIAL

A new kind of war is being fought in Britain, a cold war of symbols. Its front line is not in any foreign field but in the streets of villages and towns, and its weapon is the flag. On houses and in pub windows, the St. George’s Cross and the Union Jack are appearing again.

To the political cliques of London and other big cities, this is a vulgar spectacle, a sign of atavistic thinking. The approved response is a weary sigh, a careful condemnation of its ‘contentious’ nature, or, from the more spiteful corners of the left, a schoolyard taunt—‘flagshaggers’. The word itself is a little masterpiece of contempt, designed not to argue but to humiliate, to paint a man’s love of his country as a kind of sexual perversion.

This is not politics. It is pathology. To see a flag and think only of bigotry is to confess one’s own intellectual bankruptcy. It is to ignore the plain, human truth that a man without a tribe, without a place, is a man half alive. What the metropolitan mind cannot grasp—or will not—is that for millions, this piece of cloth is not a declaration of war against others, but an affirmation of the self. It says: I am here. This is my place. I belong.

The ‘professional’ commentator, whose Britain is a network of ideas and dinner parties, sees the flag as an abstraction, a problem to be debated. The man who fixes the boilers and lives in the house his father lived in sees it as a fact, like the street he walks down. When he feels that his world is being dismantled by people who do not know his name, when he is told his history is a crime and his identity a shame, his response is not to write a column. It is to raise the one symbol that cannot be argued with, that states its case in silence. It is a defensive gesture. It is the gesture of a man planting his feet and saying, no further.

History, which the present regime seems to regard as a record of its own virtues, tells a different story. The flag has always been the tool of the powerless before it is the trophy of the powerful.

Consider the rebels of 1381. When the peasants marched on London, they did not march under the banner of a theory. They marched under the Cross of St. George. It was not the king’s flag; it was England’s flag. They took the national symbol for themselves and used it to demand a place in the nation. It was an act of reclaiming. The man who flies the same flag today from his terraced house is doing the same. He is taking it back from the politicians who use it for empty ceremony and the intellectuals who have rejected it as unclean. He is making it mean something real again.

And then there is the charge of racism, the automatic sneer that saves the thinker the trouble of thought. The history of the flag mocks this cheap accusation. The men who came from the West Indies on the Empire Windrush came as British subjects. Many carried the Union Jack on their very persons. They had every right to it. They claimed their place under its symbol. To now call that symbol inherently vile is not progressive; it is a historical betrayal. It erases their claim and their story.

The fault is not in the flag, but in our failure to make the story it tells large enough, generous enough, to include all who have a right to be in it.

The fast-rotting Labour government has a choice. It can continue to listen to the sneers of its favoured voices, to treat this quiet, mass display of identity as a form of hooliganism. It can widen the breach between the country and the governing class until it becomes unbridgeable. Or it can do the difficult work of politics (while, pre-IMF, it still has a chance). It can look past the symbol to the thing it represents: a fear of loss, a need for dignity, a desire for roots in a world that feels increasingly rootless.

The flags are not a threat. They are a signal, and it is a simple one. It says: We are still here. Do not forget us. Do not erase us.

A nation that cannot understand the patriotism of its own people is a nation cutting its own throat. And to answer a cry of belonging with a jeer is not sophistication. It is the act of a fool.