Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
mr-wendel
EchoReflection
that's a good quote. I have to say though, despite the appeal of "rejecting 'tribalism' ", it is (or should be) "undeniable" that some "tribes" are "better" than others. There are reasons literally nobody wants to go to North Korea and people all over the world want to "flee" to countries that are meritocracies and support ideas like freedom of speech, women's rights, freedom of religion, etc. "Nobody" would claim (anymore) that "life is 'better' in countries that still have slaves".
Modern Slavery Stats:
1. Asia and the Pacific: ~29.3 million (6.8 per 1000 ppl)
2. Africa: ~7.0 million (5.2 per 1000)
3. Europe and Central Asia: ~6.4 million (6.9 per 1000)
4. Americas: ~5.1 million (5 per 1000)
5. Arab States: ~1.7 (10.1 per 1000 [highest] )
weregiraffe
There are two kinds of people: The symbol-minded, and the symbol-minded who think they are not.
_DeadFred_
Yep, they're a symbol. When my mom's loved one was overseas, they meant a lot. Symbols are powerful af.
mr-wendel
True that, and therein lies the difficulty in generalizing. No clue what the exact situation is here (Vietnam, perhaps?), but at the human-to-human level I'm glad for it and hope it brought her strength.
nailer
The really interesting thing in the UK is that both team X and team Y absolutely love flags - the right loves putting up English flags in town, the left loves protesting with Palestine and occasional Hamas or Hezbollah flags.
ggm
The point is not just that he's blinded by the flag: He's boldly marching into the void, confident. "wrapped in the flag" is a great saying.
ninjagoo
> He's boldly marching into the void
into the void, or off the edge?
"off the edge" is a clear interpretation of the statue. "into the void" is a bit more of a stretch. IMHO.
But that's art for you. Everyone has their own take on it.
esjeon
I guess “void” here is a bit more like a place you can’t even see (because of the flag).
nickpeterson
I always knew returning void was a bad idea
rob74
I you fall off the edge, you might soon be confronted with the void (of death).
ua709
Worse than a void because a void is not necessarily bad. Walking “off a cliff” rarely ends well.
freedomben
Agree, but that's what we know. The man in the statue is walking into a void from his perspective because he lacks knowledge of his true predicament and is blindly marching forward.
erikerikson
Given that the flag bearer apparently walked on to the pillar, why wouldn't we suspect they can repeat the performance?
ndsipa_pomu
The position of the statue (notably the front foot) make it seem very much "walking unknowingly off the ledge of a tall pedestal" rather than marching into the void. I think there's a difference in that "marching into the void" can be seen as heroic, but unknowingly stepping off a ledge is generally seen as being stupid i.e. not using your senses to inform you about the world, but instead relying on nationalism (the flag) to guide you.
ButlerianJihad
I see that we have presumed the gender and age of this figure, or we’ve accepted the headline as definitive interpretation of it.
IAmBroom
The figure is dressed as a traditional Western business/politician man. The person is also weighty - not at all slim - which is consistent with middle or old age.
Since that's all the info it gives us, it is acceptable to believe what we are shown is what we are "supposed to" see.
When Whistler paints one half of his mother's profile, I just naturally assume she has the other half of her body, too.
ismail
Death of the nation state?
undefined
MisterTea
"It's never steered me wrong!"
forgotusername6
I think it's a reasonable statue. But does anyone else think it's a bit obvious, more so than his other work? Like there is no doubt on the meaning at all, it's all right there on the surface level.
hn_throwaway_99
Strong disagree. First, like many of the other comments mention, Banksy is known for being clever and witty, but not particularly subtle.
But more to the point, while you may think the meaning is a bit obvious, the fact that the flag is unadorned (which/whose flag is it?), and the man is unknown, makes me think this statue could be the ultimate Rorschach test. I'm sure there are tons of people thinking "Ha ha, this is the perfect commentary on all those idiot <people on the other side who I disagree with> wrapping themselves up in their ideology of <patriotism/social justice/cause du jour> as they march <some particular country/society/the world at large off a cliff>".
In other words, I'm guessing you probably felt the meaning was "obvious" because you filled in the blanks in the above madlibs-style statement in a way that feels obvious to you, and I think folks on "the other side" would probably fill in the blanks with the exact opposite notions in a way that feels "obvious" to them.
gerdesj
The flag is unadorned and I think you can extend your interpretation to include the proliferation of flags which have a minimal "history".
Banksy is from Bris'l which is sort of north Somerset (Somerset keeps on morphing faster than a sci-fi shapeshifter).
Cornwall has had a white cross on a black flag since 18something. Devon decided to adopt a black edged white cross on a green flag. I remember seeing Devon flag car stickers in the '80s - its a little older than that. Somerset now has ... a flag. Yellow and red I think.
No idea why because people can't decide what it is! The land itself knows exactly what and where it is but the political boundaries ebb and flow with the phases of the moon. Is Avon included ... what is Avon? Ooh, BANES - Somerset? Not today thank you. It goes on. Anyway, do Devon and Somerset and co really need a flag? No of course not.
What we really need is a Wessex flag, which will take over Mercia ... and a few other regional efforts ... and end up as a red cross on a white background. Then we could munge that with a couple of other flags and confuse the entire world with something called the Union Flag.
Then we can really get complicated ... hi Hawaii!
Nicook
Never considered that, but mentioning flags that have minimal "history" pushed me in a totally different direction about some modern political transnational movements lol.
mootothemax
> what is Avon?
Welsh for river.
jen20
> which is sort of north Somerset (Somerset keeps on morphing faster than a sci-fi shapeshifter).
The seats in parliament that represent it and the local authority structure have changed, of course, the same as everywhere else in the country, but the boundaries of Somerset have remained constant for a long time.
Bristol is absolutely not "North Somerset" as a general case (though certain suburbs do extend into Somerset counties, but on that basis Bristol is as much "South Gloucestershire").
> Ooh, BANES - Somerset? Not today thank you. It goes on.
Bath has always been in Somerset and "BANES" literally stands for "Bath and North East Somerset".
ndsipa_pomu
Hard disagree that Bristol is North Somerset.
I'm often surprised that Bristol (a lefty city) is surrounded by very right-leaning areas, but I suppose that's the nature of a bubble. I don't think it makes a huge amount of sense to try to lump us in all together, at least politically.
As an aside, it still annoys me when websites put "Avon" as the county - it no longer exists and even the Post Office does this and they're the ones who should definitely know about it.
As far as flags go, I'm very much against the "flag-shaggers" who go around putting up England's St George Cross flag - most of the time, the flags are seen as threatening to minorities which is very much NOT the general Bristolian attitude. (I actually live in St George, Bristol, so somewhat ironic that I'm cross about that flag).
vintermann
There's nothing subtle about the things Banksy attacks either, in this case flag-shagging. Yes, he's about as subtle as a sledgehammer, but so what? We are definitively not living in an age of subtlety. Why should opposition be subtle when power isn't?
If anything, I'm more surprised Banksy didn't depict literal flag-shagging.
squigz
The ambiguity - that this could apply to anyone, that people are so caught up in their belief of choice - is part of the obviousness, at least to me. I would expect more people to be aware of this, than to actually believe that it's talking about, say, Americans in particular.
usefulcat
I do agree that it’s obvious in the way that you describe. But I still think it’s a point worth making—that it could apply to anyone. Because I don’t think that thought is likely to occur to a lot of people, regardless of their particular belief of choice. And that is a problem.
anon373839
One can’t say that proposition is obvious to the population at large. Else, “we” (as in Earth in 2026) would have very political dynamics. So maybe Banksy felt inclined to do a public service announcement.
buddhistdude
if it was so obvious to most of us, we wouldn't be having this problem.
Pay08
> I would expect more people to be aware of this
You'd be very surprised.
throwaway894345
I'm guessing most would assume this is about nationalists, and I don't think even the nationalists would imagine Banksy is on their side?
gkoberger
I think you'd be surprised. People interpret art how they want.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musicians_who_oppose_Donald_Tr...
pstuart
I'm tempted to agree, specifically because of the depicted flag waver. That person embodies the leadership of the status quo, and nationalism is a core component of that.
Flags are literally a statement of identity, but I think that comes in two distinct flavors:
1. The national flag which is planted in a state of ownership and assimilation 2. A protest flag to state to others that they are not alone in their protest.
I could be missing something but I think it is effectively this simple.
zarzavat
I'm pretty sure the piece is a commentary on the recent phenomenon of people of a right-wing political orientation hanging up the England flag everywhere, to the consternation of local governments who have to spend money taking them down.
From a British perspective there's no ambiguity, flag shagging is a right-wing activity.
inglor_cz
Every single left-wing march flies a lot of flags as well, only they are different flags.
Political movements in general don't seem to be particularly immune to flag shagging, only the colors vary a lot.
But I am pretty sure that Banksy means right-wing flag worship as well. He is a master of "provocative conformism" and wouldn't produce anything that would get him into a real risk of controversy. His art is very fine-tuned to the sensibilities of the English and American chattering class; same recipe for success as Paul Krugman or Malcolm Gladwell.
rjinman
Is it? Most people I know who have flags proudly displayed are left wing and their flags are usually one of: the Palestinian flag, the ukrainian flag, the LGBT rainbow flag, or the trans flag.
arduanika
> the fact that the flag is unadorned (which/whose flag is it?), and the man is unknown, makes me think this statue could be the ultimate Rorschach test
This is part of what's obvious. The whole thing, including this oooh aahh Rorschach part, is obvious. It's thoughts that we all had in high school, and it is hack.
hn_throwaway_99
Lol, right now this comment declaring "the oooh aahh Rorschach part is obvious" is literally just below another comment declaring that the sculpture could only reasonably be interpreted as being anti-nationalist. So thanks for proving my point.
leourbina
And yet here here we all are taking about it. Art is about inciting a response, and he’s done it. Whether we think he’s a hack or not is irrelevant - he has the world’s attention.
undefined
tene80i
Not sure we think of Banksy as being particularly subtle. Innovative and impactful, sure - but the message is usually quite clear, no?
tialaramex
I don't think most of his work is trying for subtle? First thing that came to mind: "Slave Labour" is pretty obvious, it's a kid operating a sewing machine to make Union flags and it was painted on an actual pound shop. Were you unsure of the message? Even something like "Silent Majority" isn't difficult, the comic book "V for Vendetta" makes the exact same point just Banksy painted it as a mural.
EMM_386
> "in September 2025, Banksy painted a mural on the Royal Courts of Justice depicting a judge bludgeoning a protester with a gavel"
His other works aren't subtle.
thinkingemote
it gets people talking which many of those who like it consider to be the primary point. In other words, it's not great public art, it's basically government approved engagement bait or engineered pro-establishment viral messaging and it's very successful at that! (but it doesn't inspire and elevate that art should aspire to)
nickthegreek
> engineered pro-establishment viral messaging
I don’t understand this. What speaks pro-establishment in this piece?
chroma
It was installed in the middle of a street owned by the government. Police are guarding it to prevent vandalism or removal. Both the Westminster City Council and the Mayor of London have praised the statue and called for it to be preserved.[1][2]
If the man holding the flag had been wearing a thawb instead of a suit, or if the statue had been of a woman, I think the establishment's response would be quite different.
1. From https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y9wlnwl85o "We're excited to see Banksy's latest sculpture in Westminster, making a striking addition to the city's vibrant public art scene. While we have taken initial steps to protect the statue, at this time it will remain accessible for the public to view and enjoy."
2. From https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/30/world/europe/banksy-londo... "Banksy has a great ability to inspire people from a range of backgrounds to enjoy modern art. His work always draws great interest and debate, and the mayor is hopeful that his latest piece can be preserved for Londoners and visitors to enjoy."
teekert
If one can read this as pro-establishment, it's proof that the the art is indeed not so obvious as suggested above :)
pjc50
I would like people to be clearer what they mean by "establishment" here, because that sort of person tends to think of a stockbroker who went to Dulwich as "anti-establishment".
pirate787
In the UK the establishment is generally unsettled by the display of the English flag.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/29/uk/st-george-flag-england...
tim333
The statue in particular I think is not bad as art. Certainly it had a lot of people looking at it - a hundred of so when I visited, more than most public art. I thought it more inspiring as in suggesting rising above nationalism than most of the other statues in the area which mostly are of are general types who got the position by being born in the right class and fame by telling troops to kill people.
kimixa
I think the sheer number of people below arguing it might not be about nationalism shows this sort of "Obvious" direct work may still be needed.
SideburnsOfDoom
> I think the sheer number of people below arguing
That says more about "the people below" on HN to me. There's a strong strand of contrarian, pseudo-intellectual sophistry. I.e. it's "clever" to talk yourself out of seeing the obvious.
Jtarii
I think a good old fashined "we are all fucked" is warranted now and again.
It's also referencing the recent flag controversies in the UK over the past year.
BoggleOhYeah
Have you seen the state of the world? Why would you go through the trouble of being subtle nowadays?
schoen
I misparsed this headline as
(Statue (of a man (blinded by a flag (put up by Banksy)))) in central London
It is intended to be
((Statue (of a man (blinded by a flag))) (put up by Banksy)) in central London
tolerance
The actual headline is more coherent but I'm not too fond of it either.
You really don't see any good ol' fashioned short and sweet headlines that read best to the ear in a Mid-Atlantic accent anymore.
vscode-rest
Banksy erects central London statue of man blinded by flag, maybe?
tolerance
"BANKSY'S NO PATRIOT—SO SAYS NEW STATUE"
petesergeant
> Banksy erects central London statue of man
It's an offence against public decency however you slice it!
rapnie
For Youtube: No one knows TERRIBLE message behind statue that suddenly appeared. Until NOW.
pnt12
New statue in London. Banksy, maybe.
saltyoldman
I was like, that's horrible how did this flag cause someone to go blind... Did it like fall on the guy when Banksy was putting it up? oh. duh...
declan_roberts
Things were more fun when they were actually transgressive and not just the established doctrine of those in power.
_hark
Yeah. The safety of the message is underwritten by its state sanction.
monooso
In what way is this statue state sanctioned?
declan_roberts
It's on display in downtown London dude. Also who do you think paid for it?
MrBuddyCasino
Banksy was never subtle, but this one is extraordinarily ham-fisted. Very meme-able though.
Integrape
My grandma and your grandma, Were sittin' by the fire. My grandma told your grandma "I'm gonna set your flag on fire"
CapitalistCartr
I have a hardhat, high viz vest, lanyard, and $600 toolbelt because I'm an industrial electrician, but they get me into a lot. My face becomes invisible; I become "The Electrician".
criddell
A while ago I read about Todd Lappin making his personal car look like a work truck as an urban camouflage project.
> This urban camouflage guise is very useful for parking in yellow zones, urban/industrial exploration, and crime deterrence. And the thing is… it really works!
nullc
The free coffee is a nice bonus.
irthomasthomas
Trust HN to turn a banksy into a Rorschach test.
The statue is in Westminster, right by Whitehall. The heart of British government. It depicts a figure in a suit, marching off a ledge, completely blinded by a flag.
Who wears a suit and marches through Westminster under a flag?
- Businessmen? No. Merchants have no country.
- Officials? They wear suits but don't march
- Old-guard politicians? Rarely march or flag-wave with any conviction.
So who are we left with? The populist. The Nigel Farage archetype. The suited firebrand who wrap themselves in nationalist fervor, stoke the rabble, and blindly march everyone right off a cliff.
Banksy isn't known for complex, multi-layered messaging. He is popular precisely because he uses visual shorthand to say plainly what the general public is already thinking. There is no hidden 4D chess; it's just blunt satire about blind patriotism.
Edit: This also explains why the government is happy to keep this particular Banksy on display.
atcol
So predictable. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48002674
drcongo
I like the fact that one can scroll through the comments here and instantly spot the Brits who have just a tiny bit more context.
nickthegreek
The piece states that it appears to be molded fiberglass. But is anyone aware of any more in depth analysis of its materials/possible production technique? Was the pillar barren on top before?
ZeroGravitas
The pillar is fiberglass too, I believe.
There's a (mostly terrible) documentary about a previous bansky "statue" deposited in London that, in one of its better moments, tracks down the people who actually make statues for artists like banksy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Banksy_Job
edit: I feel I should clarify that this is not an official Banksy documentary. He made "Exit Through the Gift Shop" which is an amazing film which I highly recommend to anyone.
Animats
Aw, it's Fiberglas? Not bronze and stone?
The Wall Street Bull was a guerilla art piece too. It's a real bronze. Weighs about three metric tons. It's hugely popular, although it's been moved a few times. Banksy's work should be replicated in bronze and stone and placed permanently.
tim333
I went to have a look at it. It appears to be one piece, probably fiberglass on a wooden frame, probably it was loaded on a flatbed truck with some sort of crane arm and put there. I don't know if it was just weighted at the bottom or fixed some how.
undefined
wartywhoa23
Banksy's "anonymity" is a total farce at this point, thoroughly supported by those in power.
Lerc
I'm not sure what you mean by "Those in power" there are lot's of people who know, but recognise that he has chosen anonymity and see no value in putting a name to the person.
It's not so much a secret as it is simply not public.
plewd
Not sure what you mean by "not public", given that you can just search it up and find a Reuters article from March giving out his full name and background.
watwut
Simple logic, if you make an anti-nationalist-war point and current mainstream politicians are against the war, you are just an establishment stooge.
qingcharles
Good. I'm glad most of the media have come to a gentlemen's agreement to not blast his name everywhere. Adds a little more fun to the world. Even this statute is staying for now, the local council, bless them, have decided to leave it in place for the near future.
ytoawwhra92
Reuters published a lengthy "unmasking" in March of this year and nobody really cared.
I think his name not being blasted everywhere has more to do with it being thoroughly uninteresting than any gentlemen's agreement.
tim333
I was going to say
>less than two months after a journalism investigation into Banksy’s true identity was published
gives a false impression. The daily mail published his name and photo in 2008 https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-3478606/Scientists-sa...
his remaining semi anonymous does make it harder for the authorities to send him fines for graffiting stuff though.
toyg
Who cares? Are you similarly triggered by The Rock or Alemao? Banksy is Banksy.
axus
Tracking Bansky is a favorite spy software sales demo given to authoritarian governments.
arduanika
Yeah, but we won't really know for sure until he sells some of the genesis block.
badgersnake
The point appears to have whizzed a couple of feet over your head.
ivankirigin
What is the emblem on the flag? Don't know. What is he fighting for? Don't know. How is he blind? What doesn't he see? What is behind or ahead? Don't know.
Being cynical that all effort is wasted is played out at this point. Fight for something real. Name what you're against. It should be easy in the UK.
undefined
ninjagoo
It's an interesting piece. Makes one think about all those folks that have a lot of pride and vanity for a place that they had no control over being born in. The luck of the draw.
And very likely had very little to do with the current state of the place. Pride at age 21? Meaningless vanity, like being proud of being born with a silver spoon. Pride at age 80? Sure, if it was a life well-lived.
arduanika
[flagged]
kelnos
Such anger and contempt, for no good reason. If we're going to be calling names, I think the "twelve-year-old" moniker fits your attitude better.
arduanika
It's only "for no good reason" if you think art doesn't matter.
ninjagoo
> This is a core tenet of the Rawlsian religion, of which you are a (probably unwitting) fanatic.
Ouch. How warped does one's thinking have to be to call "A theory of justice" (1971) for pluralistic, democratic societies, a "religion"?
It seems to me that right-wingers love hyperbole and rhetoric, without addressing the meat of the matter.
Your post is no different, being entirely free of reason. A good day to you, Sir.
undefined
undefined
arduanika
[flagged]
pjc50
.. what?
arduanika
I'm reacting to the supernatural claim -- this lottery in an antechamber before birth. The commenter had likely absorbed that claim from the culture, without ever realizing it could be questioned. (That's how all religions work, not just this one.) My blasphemy provoked outrage and confusion, which is understandable, because we've retrofitted our whole society around this particular supernatural story, and to hear it challenged will naturally cause fear and cognitive dissonance.
Clear enough?
gopperl
There's no luck involved in the fact that you were born to your parents, as they were to theirs. It is right to be proud of the achievements of your ancestors who have, over countless generations, toiled and strived to deliver the place that we were so fortunate to inherit from them. It reminds us of our responsibility to defend and improve that place for the coming generations of our people.
ninjagoo
> There's no luck involved in the fact that you were born to your parents, as they were to theirs.
You did not choose your parents, country, ancestry, class, era, genes, language, or inherited institutions. You may be inseparable from those facts, but you did not earn them.
> There's no luck involved in the fact that you were born to your parents
> we were so fortunate to inherit from them.
> It is right to be proud of the achievements of your ancestors
You have to be careful to not fall into the trap of borrowed glory: treating an ancestor’s achievement as your own personal merit, or using ancestry to rank yourself above others.
> toiled and strived to deliver the place that we were so fortunate to inherit
> our responsibility to defend and improve that place for the coming generations of our people.
So then Native Americans have a stronger claim than European descendants? Or is that a standard to only be applied moving forward?
That's also like the caste system in India: only children of brahmins can be brahmins, children of shudras can only be shudras. One is superior to another by inheritance, not merit.
That's ugly and abhorrent.
> It is right to be proud of the achievements of your ancestors
gopperl
>Are you claiming to have controlled where and to whom you were born?
My parents did. Their parents did. My children will.
>you did not earn them
My parents did. Their parents did. My children will.
Everything I have today has been hard-earned by my ancestors. Everything my children have will be hard-earned by my ancestors and I. We earned them.
>These two statements appear to be contradictory
Only if you believe such things to be due to purely random chance. I can feel 'fortunate' that my parents got me the bike I really wanted for Christmas, but there's no randomness in my parents working overtime and budgeting responsibly that made it possible.
>And what was your contribution to those achievements to justify this pride?
I am a part of the same collective, the long and continued story of my people. I am proud of those who came before me.
>You have to be careful to not fall into the trap of borrowed glory
You have to be careful not to fall into the trap of nihilistic individualism. You are part of something much bigger than yourself. Be suspicious of anyone trying to sever your connection to your people and your history.
>Are you implying that the place belongs more fully to descendants of earlier inhabitants than to newer members of the community?
That makes sense, yes. To your example, I would say that Native Americans have very little claim to the modern USA as practically everything was built by Europeans. They failed to defend their lands and were successfully conquered. In the same way, it would be absurd in my view for the majority non-White population of London (almost all of whom are very recent colonisers) to gaze around at the infrastructure and architecture and think "We made this."
>Are you then also ashamed of their crimes?
Sure, but not nearly as ashamed as our enemies would like us to be. Isn't it funny how we are supposed to recoil in shame and horror with the constant reminders of the worst parts of our people's history, yet we are condemned for also proudly owning our best?
kelnos
I think that kind of pride is pointless and unproductive.
I think it is right to be grateful to your ancestors for their achievements in ultimately giving you the life that you have.
But proud? Hubris lies down that path.
Re: luck, yes, it is absolutely luck that you were born to the parents you were born to, located in the place you were born in. I think you have the sense of the luck direction flipped from what GP meant. If you look at it from the perspective of your ancestors, then sure, your birth wasn't luck: it was a choice (or an accident, I suppose).
But from the perspective of you, it's luck: you didn't get to choose the circumstances surrounding your birth. You got lucky in that sense; you could have instead had bad luck and been born on the streets in a third-world country to a drug-addicted single parent with no money and no prospects.
gopperl
>you could have instead had bad luck and been born on the streets in a third-world country to a drug-addicted single parent with no money and no prospects
No I couldn't, it's totally impossible for the embryo formed by my mother and father to have teleported into the womb of a junkie on the other side of the world. I was always and only going to be born to my parents.
I do agree that it feels like we're arguing different things, as I know you know this. And I am very suspicious of people who argue the "luck" angle here as it is usually an attempt to erase my entire history and assert that some random "unlucky" starving Ethiopian has just as much right to be in my shoes instead. When zoomed out, this can clearly be weaponised as a justification for mass migration.
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
Rather than try to score points for team X (or against team Y), I'll quote one of my favs. Please generalize as needed to suite your perspective.