This video is supported by viewers like you.
If you too want to help me make more things like this, consider supporting me on Patreon.
Thank you.
The UN flag is not a good flag.
And that is a bit of a problem, as the organization it represents is kind of a big deal.
But before we get to why this flag is not a good flag,
let's first acknowledge what *is* good about it, namely,
its color.
White on a light blue ground
- Pantone 2925, to be exact -
emanates a certain calmness, like clouds against a blue, fallout-free sky.
They create a nice contrast, which helps with recognizing the emblem
- in theory -
and let the UN flag stand out among usually non-light-blue national flags.
Notable exception: Somalia's flag,
which, as a reminder of the UN's role in its transition from colony to independent state,
uses the exact same color scheme.
Another UN flag special feature:
It has no single correct set of proportions.
It's either 2:3
- the most popular choice for national flags -
or 3:5.
And two should be plenty, right?
"Nooooo!"
shouts country not able to bear the UN flag appearing
- due to its different proportions -
slightly bigger than its own, obviously much more greater, national flag.
So the UN, king of compromise,
instead morphs its own flag to fit the proportions of any national flag flown next to it.
Only rule here is that the emblem has to be half the size of the hoist.
So, when in Switzerland, UN flag go like this,
and in Qatar, like this.
So, Nepal, this is your chance to shine.
Okay. That's the good stuff done, now on to the bad:
Let's start with what's on the flag.
*sighs*
On the flag of the UN is the emblem of the UN:
A world-map resting on two olive branches, representing world peace.
The symbolism here is ... weak.
"And so I got to work.
The creation of that design was to be the most important task of my life.
I ached and I fought, until finally: Divine inspiration.
This was to be the everlasting symbol of the United Nations, I was sure of it."
The world map on the emblem on the flag uses an azimuthal equidistant projection,
a term that will tell you next to nothing, but is pretty fun to say.
I'd prefer to say "azimoothal", myself, but
1: "you can't always get" and 2: "what you want",
so onwards we move.
"Azimuthal equidistant projection" is sciencetalk for "a map centered on a specific point
- the north pole in this instance -
from which all other points are at a correctly scaled distance.
The goal here was to provide an unbiased view of the Earth,
in contrast to the oft-used, Greenland-growing, Africa-shrinking, eurocentric Mercator projection.
Doesn't really work, though.
Only the countries near the center, close to the north pole, are somewhat recognizable.
The way south leads deeper and deeper into Distortionland,
where Australia looks like Turkey.
And then, there's the question of which way is up.
The original, unofficial, 1945 design of the UN
emblem had its vertical axis going straight through North America,
making it the only continent the "right", easily recognizable, way around.
That was "corrected" by the time the emblem got official a year later.
Now, it's not North America that's upright,
thanks to the Prime Meridian passing through Greenwich, it's Europe,
which is ... better, question mark?
And there's something else. Notice anything?
That's not the first time they do Antarctica like that. Doesn't make it any easier, though.
Moral of the story:
Putting a map on the - ideally unbiased - UN flag and emblem only creates problems.
You can rotate it as much as you want,
you'll never find an orientation that doesn't put the focus on one
part of the Earth to the detriment of all others.
The only bias-free representation of Earth is a globe,
so until they figure out a way to put a threedimensional object on a twodimensional plane,
we're better off letting maps be maps and flags be flags.
On top of the map conundrum, there's also a design problem.
The UN flag is cluttered.
We have two already overly detailed olive branches,
plus: all the many miniscule geographic shapes of the world.
That's too much stuff.
Here's what you see, glancing at it from a distance:
A light blue flag with *something* white in the center.
No chance you can recognize what's on there.
*The* main function of flags is communication.
Even more so for the UN, whose personnel is often better protected by signs of
the international community than by any weapon.
But when you can't recognize its flag from a distance, that communication gets scrambled.
A good flag is - dare I say it? -
like an emoji:
Simple enough to be easily recognizable, even when really small.
If it takes forever to draw a flag, that's not a good flag.
If you, like I, are now of the opinion that this flag is not a good flag,
the logical next step is to ask:
How can we - in our infinite wisdom bestowed upon us by our internet service providers -
make the bad flag into a good flag?
Well, first, let's get rid of the map and the olive branches.
*sighs*
Much better.
What to put on there now?
We could, of course, make something up out of thin air, but I'd argue we don't actually *have* to,
because there already exists a great historic flag we can steal from:
The United Nations Honor Flag;
either with or without a U, depending on whether you like unnecessary vowels in your words.
Detractors might call it the KFC Flag because ... you know,
but lalala, doesn't count,
the flag has actually been around a few years longer than the fast food chain.
So take that, Chickenman.
The Honor Flag was used unoficially
- as the most influential of countless amateur UN flags -
in a time when the United Nations were not an organization,
but a loose group of countries united in their
dislike of what Moustache Man and friends were doing.
It features a white ground with one, two, three, four red pillars,
representing - based on Roosevelt's 1941 State of the Union adress - four basic freedoms:
Freedom of speech,
freedom of worship,
freedom from want
and freedom from fear.
The Honor Flag is simple, iconic, and stands for something more than just "war bad".
As an enthusiast design, it just never stood a chance against a "professional" one,
straight from the ranks of UN bureaucracy.
So, my proposition:
Take the basic design of the Honor Flag,
adjust it a bit, so the pillars are the same distance from all edges,
but then change the color palette, to the unique blue-and-white of the current flag, and
There.
You.
Go.
The current UN flag is the lowest common denominator;
an obvious and bland design with the goal of not offending anyone
- emblematic for the shortcomings of the United Nations.
Nevertheless, this is an organization with worthy goals that does a lot of good.
It deserves a flag able to match that.