•••
Dear state Rep. Bjorn Olson: I lived for more than 60 years with a state flag and seal that I had absolutely no role in choosing (”As the sun rose at the Capitol, so too did the new state flag,” May 12). (And BTW, it was a really lousy flag.) I suppose that instead of going with the commission’s design, we could put five or 10 options on the ballot for voting-age Minnesotans to choose from (presumably using ranked-choice voting; otherwise no design would receive a clear mandate). But guess what? The children born next year and the year after that and the year after that would be stuck with a flag they played no role in choosing, and in a couple of decades the people who had no choice in the matter would outnumber those of us who did. So how about we just move on to addressing some actual problems?
Anne Hamre, Roseville
•••
The latest article on the Minnesota flag says of the old flag that “In the background, a Native American man on horseback rides westward toward the setting sun.” What do you see if you actually look at the flag? You see the front of the Native American on the horse. If riding into the sunset you would see his back. You see the Native American and settler looking at each other. That would be impossible if he was riding into the sunset. You see the front of the horse’s head. If riding into the sunset you would see the horse’s behind. You see the front feet of the horse on the plowed ground and the rear feet off the plowed ground. The man on horseback is clearly not riding into the sun. He is riding onto the plowed field. Who at the Star Tribune has closely looked at the old flag?
“Vexillologists, who study flag designs, gave Minnesota’s old flag an ‘F.’” Apparently vexillologists would give at least half of the state flags an “F.” Look at them. The new flag is among the most abstract state flags.
I understand why physicists are “experts.” Why is a vexillologist an “expert”?