Controversial topic #2 - Flag debate

[mightytiges]

Just prior to Christmas, the Kiwis voted on a new flag design (see left one) which will go up against their current flag (on the right) in a referendum held in March, 2016.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11559764&ref=NZH_Tw

Whether it gets up or not, good on those over there, including their conservative PM, for wanting a uniquely identifiable NZ flag rather than the old colonial/dominion one dominated by a foreign country's flag in the canton. Imagine trying to have a similar flag debate here  .

[🏅Dooks]

Good on them for having the courage.

It's probably insensitive to say this (well, I note this is titled 'controversial topic) but at the last referendum in 1999 re the Republic I said we'd need the majority of the pre-baby boomers to kick the bucket to tip the balance on these sorts of issues.

And compared to then I think we are a much more mature and confident country.

[Penelope]

yeah it was all the old idiots responsible for the cronulla riots.

good luck getting this mob to consider changing the flag to anything else at all

[Smokey]

Good on them for having the courage.

It's probably insensitive to say this (well, I note this is titled 'controversial topic) but at the last referendum in 1999 re the Republic I said we'd need the majority of the pre-baby boomers to kick the bucket to tip the balance on these sorts of issues.

And compared to then I think we are a much more mature and confident country.

 

I love the naivety of the young and starry-eyed.

And FWIW you will find strong support for a republic among the old and senile baby-boomers - we have far better memories of the deathly crimes committed against our best young people by the arrogant English warlords that used our parents and grandparents as cannon fodder than any of you young "mature and confident" worldly know-it-alls.

[WilliamPowell]

Have to agree Smokey

Also, the referendum we had on becoming a republic was always doomed to fail, not because IMHO people didn't want to be a republic.

But because the model (option) was not what the majority wanted. It was a flawed model put forward by the then PM (a staunch monarchist) that was a an insult to the public.

If the model included the public having the right to elect the President, we would be a republic today, not a doubt in my mind.

[Smokey]

Yep.  "The more mature and confident" country has/had nothing to do with it - it's all relevant to the wording of the options.   

[dwaino]

Personally I'm a fan of the Union Jack, it's own history, and the history we inherit by carrying it. It's where we as a country have come from and an identity I would personally not like to forfeit.

[🏅Dooks]

Good on them for having the courage.

It's probably insensitive to say this (well, I note this is titled 'controversial topic) but at the last referendum in 1999 re the Republic I said we'd need the majority of the pre-baby boomers to kick the bucket to tip the balance on these sorts of issues.

And compared to then I think we are a much more mature and confident country.

 

I love the naivety of the young and starry-eyed.

And FWIW you will find strong support for a republic among the old and senile baby-boomers - we have far better memories of the deathly crimes committed against our best young people by the arrogant English warlords that used our parents and grandparents as cannon fodder than any of you young "mature and confident" worldly know-it-alls.

Thanks for calling me young Smokey 

Just to reiterate, I said pre-baby boomer (I.e. born pre 1945) is where the monarchy support is.

But yes, the generations after the baby boomers will (and are)  driving new ways of thinking. Those aged 55 to 70 have largely had there chance to drive change (and done so for better and worse).

But we are comparatively more worldly,  better educated and travelled than your lot were when you were our age.

And as you are beginning contemplate whether  you should try your first seniors meal, we're shaping and changing the world, which is as scary to the baby boomers as it is and was to Australians a generation older than you 

[mightytiges]

Personally I'm a fan of the Union Jack, it's own history, and the history we inherit by carrying it. It's where we as a country have come from and an identity I would personally not like to forfeit.

But Australia has long had its own history and identity separate from that of the UK. We're all not Anglos  . As an Australian-born with mixed ancestries but who sees himself as Australian and only Australian, the Union Jack means nothing to me other than it's a flag of a foreign country.

Furthermore, it's modern historical revisionism to claim the Union Jack is on our flag for "heritage" reasons (I know this is now taught in schools but it doesn't make it any less baseless and simply untrue). The Union Jack is there because it had to be when the flag was first created. No non-British ensign design would've been allowed to win the 1901 flag competition. Our current flag is simply a blue British ensign with stars added as local symbols (i.e. 'defaced') as was required within the British Empire back then. Britain was our superior and we were subservient to Britain, which is what the Union Jack in the canton represents (a standard rule in vexillology). All colonies/dominions of the British Empire were required to have one of these 'defaced' British ensign flags (mainly to identify where merchant ships came from). Canada, India, South Africa, NZ, Kenya, etc ... (a quarter of the land mass of the Earth) all had a 'defaced' British ensign flag too but virtually all have since changed their flag to one of their own.

In 2015, the British Empire is no more and long gone and Australia has, over the past 114 years, systematically separated itself from Britian (the 1986 Australia Act officially made the UK a foreign country to us). We are no longer ruled over by a foreign country, so the Union Jack should go from our flag's canton and from our flag full stop.

[Stalin]

Who is it we (Australia) owe a trillion dollars to?

http://barnabyisright.com/resources-articles/who-owns-our-debt/

You don't get rules by war  , you get rules economically

Who owns that 73% foreign debt...

[Francois Jackson]

Who is it we (Australia) owe a trillion dollars to?

http://barnabyisright.com/resources-articles/who-owns-our-debt/

You don't get rules by war  , you get rules economically

Who owns that 73% foreign debt...

cares

[Stalin]

Mt cares in his last part about ownership of Australia

Australia owes a trillion dollars to someone... 'All other'

WGAF what's on the flag

[dwaino]

Personally I'm a fan of the Union Jack, it's own history, and the history we inherit by carrying it. It's where we as a country have come from and an identity I would personally not like to forfeit.

But Australia has long had its own history and identity separate from that of the UK. We're all not Anglos  . As an Australian-born with mixed ancestries but who sees himself as Australian and only Australian, the Union Jack means nothing to me other than it's a flag of a foreign country.

Furthermore, it's modern historical revisionism to claim the Union Jack is on our flag for "heritage" reasons (I know this is now taught in schools but it doesn't make it any less baseless and simply untrue). The Union Jack is there because it had to be when the flag was first created. No non-British ensign design would've been allowed to win the 1901 flag competition. Our current flag is simply a blue British ensign with stars added as local symbols (i.e. 'defaced') as was required within the British Empire back then. Britain was our superior and we were subservient to Britain, which is what the Union Jack in the canton represents (a standard rule in vexillology). All colonies/dominions of the British Empire were required to have one of these 'defaced' British ensign flags (mainly to identify where merchant ships came from). Canada, India, South Africa, NZ, Kenya, etc ... (a quarter of the land mass of the Earth) all had a 'defaced' British ensign flag too but virtually all have since changed their flag to one of their own.

In 2015, the British Empire is no more and long gone and Australia has, over the past 114 years, systematically separated itself from Britian (the 1986 Australia Act officially made the UK a foreign country to us). We are no longer ruled over by a foreign country, so the Union Jack should go from our flag's canton and from our flag full stop.

Blood has been spilled and victories have been won for that flag. There will be no tradition if it is just thrown out every generation or two. If the flag is changed I'm sure in another 50 years we will raise the question again because it doesn't mean anything to so many of us that haven't seen it fly for anything meaningful. Take the anthem for example. The majority who want it changed are those who remember singing God Save Our Queen at school. Then there are those of us who have known nothing more than Advance Australia Fair and consider the thought of changing it sacrilege. Sure I'm Anglo (actually more Saxon than Anglo but still) and I couldn't really give a stuff what ethnicity someone has descended from, what Australia considers the UK as or what any other country has done, to me it is a very important part of where this country has come from.

[1965]

Another myth I'm sorry.  "Blood has been spilled and victories have been won for that flag" is just factually incorrect.


from http://www.ausflag.com.au/red_ensign.asp

Our opponents in this debate like to rewrite history and pretend that our current national flag - the blue Australian ensign - has been our national flag forever and that people have "fought and died" for it. This is one of their prime arguments against change, and they use it very emotively. They ignore the Red Ensign, despite its overwhelming use in Australia and overseas during the first half of the 20th century.

There are many problems with this argument. The first is that the blue ensign became Australia′s national flag only in 1954. Prior to that date, its use by ordinary citizens was strongly and actively discouraged. The blue flag was not some glorious and romantic flag of the people, but an instrument of Government, much like the Coat of Arms.

This meant that the public didn′t officially have a flag to fly other than the Union Jack, which is what many people did. In this official vacuum, if anyone wanted a more Australian symbol they used the red ensign as a de-facto Civil Flag. It was not strictly correct, but it happened at every level of the community, including the Armed Services.

The second problem with this argument is that members of the Armed Services in Australia never "fought and died" for a flag anyway. They fought and died for our country - a subtle but important difference.

The third problem is that there is a wealth of pictorial evidence which proves that the red ensign was the flag which both the public and members of the Armed Services overwhelmingly related to and "adopted" as Australia′s de-facto national flag prior to 1954. This period of course includes both World War I and World War II.

and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_White_Ensign

The Australian White Ensign (also known as the Australian Naval Ensign or the Royal Australian Navy Ensign) is a naval ensign used by ships of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) from 1967 onwards. From the formation of the RAN until 1967, Australian warships used the British White Ensign as their ensign. However, this led to situations where Australian vessels were mistaken for British ships, and when Australia became involved in the Vietnam War, the RAN was effectively fighting under the flag of another, uninvolved nation.

[dwaino]

Thanks for the link and clarification that wars have been fought, the country has been represented by and international competitions have been won with that flag since '54 

You need to also re-read my post in regards to the anthem for the subjective nature of my opinion and why I think that way.

Military ensigns are often different for every nation too, doofus.