There is a diversionary aspect to
the present flag debate. It’s not always easy to know what our attention is
being diverted from though. An atmosphere of general bewilderment and indifference
is emerging while our politicians try to outdo each other in their flag-changing
frenzy. The semantics fly while the country is being divided. The political
debate, we are told, is “won in the centre”, but the rhetoric comes from the extremes.
A university publication I read
recently states that “Burning and other forms of dishonouring the flag are
against the law and therefore a popular form of protest.”[i]
Comments like these have the feel of legitimatising such actions and square with
the whole move to dump what we have for something else.
In Canada, when the
maple leaf flag was forced through Parliament, it was without adequate public
consultation. The Union Jack was deliberately forced out. We could be in for something
similar. It is clear that it is not going to be an objective debate. Of course
if the majority want to go in a certain direction and are given a say then it
is difficult to argue against, even though the majority is not always right. But
at the moment the majority are just too ill-informed. We have come through years
of being deprived of an understanding of our current flag and this is one
reason why many people have not developed any strong reason to hold onto it. One
could be forgiven for thinking also that some variety of Republicanism is waiting
in the wings for the outcome of this debate.
In schools, students are given
flag-changing activities such as “write a letter to the editor about whether
the flag should be changed or kept as is”. Even at this basic level, there is not always adequate
discussion or research put in. But do 15 year olds, for instance, really care?
Should they even be burdened with the issue? Are there not more important
things to concentrate on? In fact, what often ends up happening is that the students
just share their misunderstandings and drum up some drivel about colonialism,
“cutting the apron strings”, unfairness and the Maoris…and ultimately they really
don’t know what they are on about. It may be good for school art departments as
they work on different designs and colours, but for astute observers of
political history it is worrying since there are blatant ideological influences
at work.
None of the various alternatives will
satisfy everyone and there is doubt about the way some of them are being promoted.
It is said sometimes that the current flag is an anachronistic relic of
colonialism, “red, white and blue…speak of the colonial past”[ii].
In particular, blue seems to be under attack. The description of the flag’s
blue background by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage is criticised as “a
limp, after-the-fact justification”. Apparently New Zealand has moved on, the
flag is old and we are not British anymore, so why keep it? But is “new” a
satisfactory argument? The flag is only a little over 100 years old. It’s still
relatively young. There are plenty of other flags which have been around
longer. The Danish flag is the oldest at about 400 years old.
The move by the present Prime
Minister to scrap the flag is a form of cultural vandalism. One thing which comes
through loud and clear is a determination to change it. However there is no
need. For those wanting to change it, the Union Jack has to go and at the heart
of the matter is a dislike of the obvious symbolism of the existing flag and a strong
desire to move away from our roots, including recent European, Maori and
Polynesian Christian roots, and certainly from traditional European roots. Sadly,
the most vociferous and ideologically-driven in our society give only lip
service to representative democracy while vying for power, like bullies in a
playground fighting over law-of-the-jungle power. People are tempted to avoid
the word ‘conspiracy’ through fear of being labelled something or other, but sometimes
it’s just plain fact. And it is correct to be concerned that it could it be the
thin edge of the wedge - first the flag, then the national anthem, and, over
time, the Westminster system of government, common law, and what else if we let
it all go? The current push involves a clear attempt to deliberately dismantle
New Zealand’s cultural heritage, along with the childish game of name-calling -
“right wingers”, “rednecks”, “conservatives’, etc. and watch-this-space for new
labels such as “flag changing sceptics” or the like. I have even heard some avid
promoters of change (such as one radio commentator), say things like “I get so
angry when people just don’t want to change!” i.e. for him it’s all about
emotion, not rationality.
If the main goal is be totally
multicultural and globalist then it is logical to change the flag. And why stop
there? To be consistent it would also be necessary to change the national
anthem to something more ordinary, the governmental system to some kind of
republican mess, and British common law to the relativist values of global
governance. And, in the process, attempt to represent every race under the sun
- which really means representing no-one because you can’t represent a thousand
disparate cultures. You can only do something like stick the equivalent of a
maple leaf (fern or whatever) on to a flag to represent the environment because
people groups can’t be represented in this context.
How can multiculturalism be represented on a flag? Firstly, the issue
is not how much or little one appreciates other cultures. I appreciate many
aspects of many cultures and engage with people of different cultures on a
daily basis. Most of us do nowadays, especially in a city like Auckland. People
close to me are from other cultures. You can have a lot of fun with other
cultures. However, adopting or totally embracing a different culture from my own
is another matter. They enjoy theirs and I enjoy mine, including whatever I
want to mix in with it. But Kiwis now are becoming unsure of who they are and
what their culture is. Your fellow-Kiwi now could be your cobber who you’ve
known from way back, played rugby with and gone fishing with and whose family
has known yours for several generations, or a foreign-clad figure dressed in
black from head to toe and with hardly any knowledge of where they are. Both
are now classified as “Kiwis” if they are citizens or are born here. It just encourages
confusion. And what kind of culture do immigrants find here when they do come
and look around? What kind of identity, character or example do they see in the
people who have lived here for generations? Do they see a people who don’t know
who they are and who appear to have no heritage? People who can’t agree on a
flag? If so, then it’s a case of “anything goes” and “we have a right to do
whatever we want”.
There are Kiwi qualities to be justly
proud of and to aspire to, even though we don’t always attain to them, things
like ingenuity, resilience, pragmatism, self-sufficiency, fairness, honesty, egalitarianism,
integrity, empathy, a dislike of formality and pretentiousness, friendship for
genuine and not ulterior motives, love of freedom and the outdoors and of
adventure and achievement, loyalty, a pioneering spirit, independence, and individual
ownership of land. Some of these are the qualities we admire in the All Blacks,
in our farming communities, and in various sporting or business achievers who do
well and contribute back to the community. And there are negatives – too
easy-going in certain instances where you need the opposite, shyness and
reserve, cynicism, hedonism, etc. However, we also have the English language
and a host of English-based institutions. From these, primarily, came our
governmental system, our respect for freedom, and our distaste of corruption,
nepotism and control. The blessings of freedom were hard fought for and won
over centuries, and the struggle mostly took place in that little country in
the Northern Hemisphere which, whether we like it or not, we are still
intimately connected with. How many true-blue Kiwis, or anyone living here, would cold-shoulder the
Queen if she popped in for a visit? Even those who hate the monarchy will
normally show a modicum of respect. The nation must acknowledge its heritage, while
also respecting the newcomer who is willing to contribute towards it and towards
building it into something even greater in the future, in cooperation with neighbour
countries and cultures.
So what does the current flag
really say? There is some rich symbolism in it. Here is the crux of the matter.
Here are the main points of contention.
- The Southern Cross which seafarers used, the traditional mariner’s guide in the Southern Hemisphere and a symbol of the beauty and promise of a new land, relevant to both European and Polynesian.
- The crossed cross. This was, in ancient language[iii], the first and last letters of the alphabet and represented one of God’s names (“the first and the last”). It also has eight points, eight being the number of perfection, of completion, and the number of Jesus Christ. The crossed cross goes back to antiquity, beyond the political entities of England, Scotland and Ireland, and some say it goes back to the times of Stonehenge. Either way there is deep symbolism in it.
- The colours are symbolic of the Trinity – blue for the God the Father, white for the Holy Spirit, red for Jesus Christ. These colours were also used symbolically in the old tabernacle of Moses. Blue represents love and heaven and freedom (an open sky and the beauty of the sea), white represents purity, and red represents sacrifice and justice.
- The three crosses are symbolic in Christian theology: the white cross of the Abrahamic covenant and Jacob’s crossed hands blessing Ephraim and Manasseh, the red broken cross, (broken because the commandments were broken) representing the Mosaic covenant, and the red cross of Calvary, superseding the others and representing forgiveness, hope, redemption, and new life arising out of the New Covenant of Christ’s blood.
- The three Union Jack crosses represent historic persons who actually lived: St Andrew of Scotland, St Patrick of Ireland, and St George of England. They were real national figures, not just legends.
Finally, it seems that at a time
when we should be being a little careful with our national debt levels, expenses
and things, I would have thought that a budget shouldn’t really be wasted on
changing something unnecessarily. While some think it is worth it, spending
millions on a flag change is almost offensive when we consider the needs in other
areas such as health. It also seems a rather pathetic example for others (refugees/children)
to follow…but then I’m not an economist. Someone will find a reason.
We have worked hard in this
country at building a sense of fairness. By all means keep it. Be kind to the “strangers
in our midst”. But don’t compromise our heritage. Will our children thank us
for ditching our culture and history? Or will they, or our great grandchildren,
follow our example and indulge in more cultural destruction, maybe calling for yet
another change of flag at some future
date. Perhaps they might even look back and criticise this generation for a lack
of common sense.
I suggest a vote with the feet –
a boycott of the first referendum. The country and future generations will have
to live with what is changed now, so if New Zealanders must
change the flag then they should make sure that’s what they really want. They also
should know exactly what they might be letting go of.
Guy Steward is a teacher, a musician, and a freelance writer. He has degrees in music and theology.
7 comments:
No country has ever changed its flag unless it has been exposed to religious or ethnic takeover or division, are we to be expecting a takeover in years to come, even the changing of the Canadian flag was done quickly and forcefully by the French majority in parliament at the time, the answer is yes we are bringing is so many of the Islamic faith that they could control the country in a few years through numbers alone they have 4 times the birth rate that others have.
Thank you, Guy, for the most informative comment on the flag I have read since the issue was announced. The symbolism, history and the values inherent in the present flag are entirely absent from the curriculum in almost every school. Many I have spoken to have only the vaguest notion of its origin or relevance. I sincerely hope the content of your message is widely distributed and appreciated.
Please let us think very carefully before we sit by and let our original flag be replaced by the whim of our Prime Minister, who seeks this as an everlasting legacy to his ego.
Our flag, like our country, is still new, and holds traditions and ideologies, which we would want to be handed down to our children and their children. By all means, let us be proud of our silver fern and all black flags representing our excellence in the sports field and cultural achievements.
I am sure the majority of our immigrants are only too happy to acknowledge the existing flag as the one they accepted when choosing this country as their new home.
Mostly OK until it goes off the rails by making the simple symbolism of our flag into a convoluted theological exercise. Having lived under that flag for 83 years I have never been exposed to such extreme nonsense before. The Union flag shows where we have come from, the stars where we are going and blue the oceans that surround us.
What could be easier to understand, or more fitting?
Maoris chose and begged Britain for years to look after them after Hongi Hika started the Maori Musket War which was on its way to the extermination of the Maori race, eventually Britain agreed and Maoris were granted peace for the first time in their existence.
After the treaty came Hone Heke's Flagstaff War, another Maori war quelled by the British.
Third came the Maori Wars for Sovereignty, started by Ngatiruanui of South Taranaki 1853 who was joined by Te Atiawa in 1854. It took a whole 7 long years for Taranaki settlers holed up in New Plymouth before Government finally faced up to its responsibilities and counter attacked in 1860 and it is this overdue counter attack which is now twisted to become the so-called "Land Wars". Never-the-less, Britain regained peace.
Fourth came the Waikatos storming north to take Auckland in 1860, with the written and vocal promise to kill every White man, woman and child. Three long years later in 1863 Government finally pushed them back over the Maungatawhiri Stream to return peace only to be blamed in later years as being the first to cross the Maungatawhiri Stream in the so-called "Land Wars", resulting, as in Taranaki, apologies and $multi-millions of tax-payer funding in compensation to the perpetrators, the Kingites who started the wars in the hope that "Maori Law will prevail".
Now the politically correct have brainwashed the public into believing the British are to blame for these Maori Wars, they are attempting to remove the symbol from our flag responsible for retaining peace and order to our beautiful country, the Union Jack.
If the Union Jack is removed, what will be next? Constitutional change?
The Constitutional Advisory Panel last made attempt to encourage Constitutional change to that of Bolivia. In Bolivia private property and cars were confiscated, put into the Community and if previous owners wished to retain their use it is necessary to rent from the Community, proceeds of rent split 50/50 between Government and indigenous people. Tribal Law was also installed. Bolivia is now the poorest country in South America.
New Zealanders greatest problem is that they do not know their own history, allowing corruption to trample them. The above history authenticated by "The Realms of King Tawiao", by Dick Craig.
You are fooled into believing the Treaty is our founding document. Write to Archives NZ, Wellington, requesting Queen Victoria's Royal Charter of 16-11-1840; the document which split us from New South Wales, founded NZ a separate British Colony, gave us our first constitution, own Government, English law only and our own courts to administer English law only
G. Graham
A very academic treatise of doubtful quality! Guy Steward uses more ‘engineered’ & wildly imaginative explanations for our current flag’s design than even the Red Peak supporters have managed to invent for theirs!
If he’s right, the original flag designers must have spent a considerable amount of time researching and pondering the design in great detail. In reality, here is what happened as described on the MCH site:
By 1865 Britain was worried about the legal status of naval ships being used in the New Zealand War. So they passed a law that ordered all ships used by the colonial government to display the Blue Ensign with the badge of their colony in the fly. This led Governor Grey to establish what that badge should be.The Seal of New Zealand was suggested, but was too complicated. The Southern Cross was also put forward. The words ‘New Zealand’ were suggested, which were shortened to good old ‘NZ’ and agreed to by Grey. But in 1869 Governor Sir George Bowen,5th Governor of New Zealand, thought we needed a permanent badge. So he tasked Lieutenant Albert Hastings Markham to come up with a design. Markham was based in Australia on the HMS Blanche where some flags were already using the Southern Cross.
Chris, you have only given a little history of how it was chosen in NZ. The article was focusing mostly on some of the history and meaning of the Union Jack part of the flag, which is what was most researched about.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.