Flags are a piece of cloth, that has been mentioned was a banner to take to war.
What draws the ire is that the current flag, still identifies Australia as a colonial outpost of the English, and I as a POM find it rediculous, that there are those that still cling to the skirt of the mother country

<But why, Cherful, would the aboriginals care for this flag or another? They lived without one for about 50000 years and it did not make them any less happy - perhaps we can learn from them!

Flags evolved from warfare - they were initially used to identify the battalions on the battle-field. Is it not time yet to say "enough is enough"? Posted by Yuyutsu,>

Yuyutsu

My reference to the Aborigines was because two or three times in the last few years they have burnt the Australian Flag whilst holding up their own Aboriginal Flag. I was suggesting to them that maybe if we all voted on a new design for the Australian Flag would they then be willing to accept conciliation under one flag which they would have a say in voting for. After all they keep calling for reconciliation I just thought it may at least unite all the ethnic groups here under one Australian flag if they were all consulted on the design. I thought maybe it could help in uniting the nation in that respect.

Dear Cherful,

I was not aware of the existence of the aboriginal flag - what a shame, it only goes to show how aboriginals were corrupted by the western ways. So long as they keep one foot here and one foot there, I'm afraid they will not be happy.

Notwithstanding the aboriginal plight, I wonder when the rest of us will wean ourselves off the flag-habit and with it the whole silly phenomena of national identity (but as I wrote above, that wouldn't be our first priority because we still have worse vices than nationalism).

While I find the use of the word 'academic' as a veiled insult somewhat irritating, I think in this case it's worth exploring. I've spent quite a bit of time with academics in humanities departments, focusing on areas including Australian history and nationalism. The basic trend in many current historiography programs is useful: rather than reading the history books and looking at monuments to see what is celebrated, look to see what is NOT celebrated. Look to fill in the gaps. The trouble is that, when one focuses on this for too long, one forgets to look at what is celebrated and why. Too many academics become 'black armband' historians because they're too busy looking in the shadows.

A few thoughts in this case.

Firstly, the rather odd claim that 'genocidal policies' began on 26/01/1788 doesn't really hold up to reason. Governor Phillip did not set foot on Australian soil and immediately start slaughtering the natives. Indeed, his policy was that they be treated well. This may well have been ignored, and certainly history suggests that it didn't last long. Holding up the 26th of January as the birthday of a genocidal policy is a little emotive and dishonest.

Secondly, I find the condemnation of nationalism a little shallow. Certainly nationalism can lead to racism, including a belief that one race is inherently superior to another. This, in turn, can lead to atrocities. In its most basic form, however, nationalism is a sense of national identity and a desire to advance the cause of the nation, whether in a nation-state or not. Nationalism led to the Federation of Australia, which worked out pretty well. As for flag-waving Aussies being racist, I wonder what other indicators could sit alongside flags on cars as equally linked to racism. Socio-economic status? Geographic location? Choice in car manufacturer and engine capacity? Favourite beer? I don't dispute the veracity of the research, but I do wonder about its intent - and what WASN'T researched.

Hmm ... maybe those humanities lecturers are bringing about their own undoing by insisting that we look in the gaps.

Anne Robinson's article expresses the typical attitudes of the chardonnay sucking Gucci Socialists with which Australia is presently infested.

The pose they strike in their compulsive desire to feel intellectually and morally superior to everybody is, that Nationalism is dead, and Internationalism is the new indicator of brahmin caste identity. Nationalism equates in the trendy mind with Racism, which is the new heresy for those who believe in moral absolutes. It also denotes membership of the lower order hoi polloi, to whom the trendy's claim leadership over, but to whom they totally despise.

Therefore, the card carrying psuedo-intellectual parvenu must never express pride in country and people, but must always strive to dump on ones own, while appauding the efforts of failed cultures to barge into Australia, whether we want them to or not.

It is indicative of Anne's attitudes, that she actually hurrumphs at the sight of Australians flying their own flag on Australia Day. What she probably hates most, is that little Union Jack in the top corner. She has never made the connection, that the very best countries in the world, to whom the illegal economic migrants of the world are desperate to join, are those settled by the British.

This hatred of their own culture and people, is why most Australians totally despise the left wing internationalists like Anne. It is also the reason why the Labor party's membership is dropping by thousands every year. Working class Australians are noted for their patriotism to their culture and people, and since the present leadership of the Labor party appears to hate white Australians, they can hardly be surprised if Australians vote with their feet and leave what was one the Party of the working class.

Just taking a sideways-on view of this thread for a moment, how do the good folk who support flag-based nationalism feel about a recent thread that discussed the possible secession of Western Australia?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13041

The reality is that borders between countries - and hence the flags that are used to identify the people within those borders - are, historically, quite fluid. A comparison of school atlases from, say, the 1900s, 1930s, 1950s and today will testify to that. Economic issues, religious differences, war and the post-war "allocation" of territories, all have had an influence on the lines that are drawn from time to time.

So "allegiance" to a particular flag is on its own a nonsense. There has to be a second-level, people-driven need to be part of a specific, identifiable sub-section of humanity. Personally, I would be just as happy to identify with pre-Federation NSW, as I am to identify with Australia as a whole. I'd prefer one without a Union flag in its top corner, but hey, it isn't that important unless you take symbolism to the nth degree, and pretend that it represents a form of oppression.

And while there is a sub-set of the people who use the flag as a convenient emblem of their aggression to "otherness", they tend to be otherwise inarticulate. Best to ignore them rather than make a fuss over them, in my view.