@phoog "I suspect that there weren't any political reasons, that the reasons were practical." Practical reasons are political reasons. All humans activities are political in nature and thus any practical reason is a political reason. Kindly post an answer to the question detailing what you mean by "the reasons were practical".

@DrunkCynic - I was of the same opinion, but the article I quoted in my answer provides enough evidence that it's feasible it was, in fact, based on that flag. No proof, but enough circumstantial evidence to put it in the realm of possibility. That said, I do think this would be a better fit on History.SE

@Sjoerd "The fact that both have 13 red and white stripes doesn't mean that one is based on the other." It means exactly that. There is no premise. That is historical fact. The stripes on the U.S. flag are directly copied from the British East India Company flag: they are identical; the British East India Company flag predates the United States national flag.

@guest271314 - Don't claim more than is provable. Historical coincidences do happen, and there's nothing to prove that this isn't one such example. Or it could have been a pure accident, or a decision by someone without any other significance (random sailor on the ship hoisting something that was handy and not a Union Jack).

@Bobson You, nor any other human, will ever have any would-be power to tell this user "Don't". Too late, already stated they are identical and the latter is copied from or is a direct derivative of the former. Can see with own eyes. Not in this case. And not with flags (heraldry, in general). There are no coincidences. And there are no political decisions made without a reason - even if that reason is poorly considered and has disastrous results - or is not actually found documented historically. That is, your answer could have simply said, "We do not know the reasons".

@guest271314 - You can claim whatever you want, and you can believe whatever you want. But if you claim something is "historical fact", and you don't have any evidence of it, you're wrong. I can say "It's a historical fact the US was founded in 1610 at Jamestown", and I'd be wrong. Everyone can agree that the Grand Union Flag and the East India Company flag were similar or identical. But no one has any evidence to show whether this was intentional, unless you've discovered new documents. Claiming they're the same: valid. Claiming this was intentional: invalid.

@guest271314 Also worth pointing out - the flag in use at the time does not have exactly the same stripes - the Jack ends on a white row (6 stripes tall), but the GUF ends on a red row (7 stripes tall).

@guest271314 All I'm saying is that you have no proof that it was intentional.

So claiming it was deliberate isn't valid.

It's likely.

Yes, we do. They did it. And have not changed it. The former predates the latter. That is proof. Unless you are suggesting that they were entirely ignorant of the EIC flag. You can certainly disagree with the claim that the decision was intentional, though that is not the question. The question is what is the political reason for deciding to do so

So? The Latvian air force used a 45-degree, clockwise swastika in red, white and black starting in 1919. That doesn't mean Nazi Germany's use of a 45-degree, clockwise swastika in black, white, and red in 1930 was intentionally copied from it.

The current US flag is based on the first US flag. The first US flag was based on the Grand Union Flag. Both of those are explicitly documented, I believe, and that's why it hasn't been changed. Whether the Grand Union Flag was based on the EIC flag is unknown, but it's 250 years to late to change it.

The stripes on the U.S. flag are directly copied or derived from the EIC flag. That is not the question; though you can, and should directly refute that at your answer - if you so choose for other readers. There is nothing that you can state that will change that fact from perspective here; though you might be able to convince others that the stripes on the U.S. flag were independently originally designed. The so-called "swastika" design is far older than Latvian or German usage

"There is nothing that you can state that will change that fact from perspective here" - exactly. There's nothing I can do to convince you that your perspective is wrong. But I will absolutely call you out when you claim it as fact to anyone else.

I'm sure flags with red stripes are older than the East India Company, too. How do you know it wasn't copied from one of them?

(Don't bother answering - it was rhetorical.)

You are not calling anyone out. You are being an apologist or protectionist for americana myths (of which there are many; the origin of the U.S. national flag being solely an american design). Which is ok, and expected. There are no coincidences.

What myth? Betsy Ross making the flag with stars in a circle is a myth. But the Grand Union Flag is a fact. It looking like the EIC flag is a fact.

Where's the myth?

(And until you explain the swastika coincidence, there are coincidences.)

Have I claimed that the flag is solely an American design? I'm pretty sure I haven't.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Betsy Ross is part of the myth. The symbol of the so-called "swastika" has been in use in India far before there was a Latvia or Germany

"Have I claimed that the flag is solely an American design? I'm pretty sure I haven't." Then you have dispelled your own point of contention as to "coincidence".

Exactly! They both, independently chose to use an old Indian symbol. It's pure coincidence that they happen to look the same.

You are making the point you contend with. The origin of the so-called "swastika" symbol is India. The origin of the stripes on the U.S. flag is the stripes on the EIC flag. This question asks what were the political reasons for the U.S. deciding to use the stripes of the EIC on their flag.

All I'm claiming is that there's no proof either way. It could be coincidence. It could be deliberate. Even if it is coincidence, it wasn't created in a vacuum - the people who designed it (whoever that was) would have some idea of what each color symbolizes. Maybe a soldier came from Goes and suggested it to someone.

But there's no proof either way. Thus there's no way to know what they were thinking. Which means it's impossible to definitely assign any political meaning to the choice. Theoretical meaning? Sure! Go right ahead! It makes a lot of sense. But you can't prove it, which means you can't state it as fact.

But, to reiterate my earlier point - feel free to believe what you want. If you say that there's proof, or that it's a fact, then I'll say you're wrong. If you say that it's possible, or likely, or even that you think it's true, I'll agree with you.

And that's where I'm going to leave it.

It is already proven. They are identical. The former usage predates the latter usage. The U.S. was certainly aware of the prior usage. You simply deny that fact.