What do I mean when I say that flag burning is important? I am not saying that flag burning is either right or wrong. I am not saying that I personally condone or condemn flag burning. I am not saying that people should go out and burn flags because it is important to burn them; this isn't about the action of burning the flag. This is about understanding the importance of the idea that is flag burning.

"Our flag honors those who have fought to protect it and is a reminder of the sacrifice of our nation's founders and heroes. As the ultimate icon of America's storied history, the Stars and Stripes represents the very best of this nation," said Joe Barton.

This quote echoes a sentiment shared by a large number of American citizens. In fact, this is the argument I hear most often from those who condemn flag burning. It is this meaning which has been ascribed to the flag over time by us, and by “us” I mean the people of this country, particularly (although not exclusively) those who pass down traditions of “American values” and patriotism. There isn’t much inherently wrong with ascribing meaning and value to an object, but that particular sentiment isn’t shared with everyone. So what does the flag mean objectively?

The flag that we know is red, white, and blue, it has thirteen stripes and 50 stars. The 50 stars represent that 50 states in our union. The thirteen stripes represent that original thirteen colonies. The color red represents hardiness and valor, the color white represents purity and innocence, and blue represents vigilance, perseverance, and justice. Many of you may already know this and if there was a quiz with only this question on it, you would probably get an A. This is the meaning ascribed through research and an understanding of history. I say this to make the point that the way in which we interpret the flag is much an like an additive, while originally it has its older, objective meaning, people like Joe Baron assign additional meaning that, while not wholly objective and agreed upon, is a valid way to interpret the flag. So what about the other side? What about the interpretation of the flag that allows it to be set aflame?

One of the colors of the flag is white. As I said earlier the white of the flag represents purity and innocence, and you have every right to find at least that laughable. We could look at any point in American history, from 1776 until the present day, and say with much confidence that "purity' and "innocence" has not been the American way. And for many people “justice" is also a concept that they have had a different experience with, and not different in a good way. We have native people at Standing Rock being hosed down in freezing temperatures for refusing a potential environmental atrocity on sacred land. We have the family of Walter Scott whose justice remains at a halt because after watching a video of Scott being gunned down as he is RUNNING AWAY from a police officer, one juror “cannot in good conscience consider a guilty verdict." Which seems to be a trend when a police officer shoots an unarmed black man. If these incidents were isolated then it would be fair to argue that they don't quite reflect our nation's principles, nor collective mindset. These situations aren't isolated they are reflective of a historical precedent. How can we have a color that symbolized purity and innocence in a country that has committed genocide, how can we argue justice in a country where black people find themselves staring into an abyss in search of such a thing?

One ought to be able to critique the country they live in without being told to leave, and that's probably the most problematic expressions of disdain towards flag burning. It problematic because it empathizes at no level with the pain people express while flag burning, and it also doesn't express the valid disdain towards the action and the value the flag holds. We must not equate flag burning with hate for the country. I doubt in most situations that hate is the driving factor rather than anger or rebellion, I think the association with hate enables condemners to respond with witty rebuttals rather than thought out argument which isn't helpful for anyone. Mike Rowe demonstrated this in his comments about college students who burn the flag.

"I found myself wondering as to why the President of Hampshire College would allow his students to pay for their tuition with federal dollars – federal dollars provided by the same government whose flag was no longer suitable to fly at his school,” he said.

With so many students paying back much more than what they actually borrow, federal dollars maybe getting them through school but the money that they end up paying back is fueling the country, which in turn gives them an even greater right to criticize the country if they see fit.

It’s imperative for people to empathize with ideas and concepts foreign to them, especially when it comes to the flag. People should never make generalizations based on their own experiences, but those experience aren’t invalid, and when we see the flag on fire the opinions shaped by those experiences come to life, the flag needs to burn so that important conversations can arise, but the people who burn flags and those who stand against it need be willing to doubt what they know and understand about the flag, and be willing to succumb to the complexity of it symbolism. The flag means many things regardless of how anyone feels, but how is that going to affect how you think about people?