The Japanese were indeed our WW1 allies as they are again today, and the symbol on the Australian infantry brigade hat badge, is still a rising sun!

That said I'm not in favor of changing something we fought and died under, just remove the union jack from the corner the symbol of our colonial convict past when we were seen as little better than cannon fodder by our english masters!

And replace that with the Australian coat of arms or the eureka stockade cross, to finally say to that land of our forebears, and where we now need passports and visas to enter, that we have come of age and are ready at long last to cut the apron strings to an empire and antiquated traditions that have no place in a modern Australia.

And shouldn't have when the old dart abandoned us to our fate, and but for our American allies and their massive blood sacrifice, would be now speaking Japanese. And separation reinforced by England tearing up her old trade agreements and joining the EU, deserting us to sink or swim as best we could!

Why, our so called head of state or her immediate representatives will go into battle with us over preferential trade agreements, which currently favor us and not mother england!

Even as thousands of Aussies lay moldering in their graves having sacrificed everything in someone else's wars, defending mother england and northern hemisphere democracy!

Canada hasn't suffered by replacing the union jack with the maple leaf, and become a republic replete with a bill of rights; and should we follow that pragmatic example, have little enough to lose.

Our nearest neighbor is Indonesia, which until WW11, was a dutch colonial possession, and even as recent that was, their flag isn't defaced by a enslaving colonial flag in a corner.

Much the same could be said of the world's largest republic, India; and our chances of completing a FTA with that nation would likely be improved if we cut any remaining symbolistic ties with the old dart!?
Rhrosty.

Rhostry,

Canada is not a republic!

Changeing the flag would just be change for the sake of change. People wanting a different flag are the same people who want to change everything about Australia, ignoring the fact that the the history of Australia, and what has been handed down to us by our ancestors are the very things that make us what we are.

It is a complete myth that Australians fought and died (or were wounded) under the current Australian flag in the two world wars. They fought under the British flag as the Australian one was unofficial and did not become the official Australian flag until the passing of the the Flags Act of 1953 that came into effect in 1954.

Australia views itself as some sort of mature and independent country that 'punches above its weight' on the world stage but still has the flag of a foreign country prominent on its flag; that is not mature nor independent. Not only that, the Union Jack is a constant reminder of the nations violent colonial past where Frontier Wars were fought between the invading colonizers and Aboriginal people who were defending themselves and their lands. Those wars were ignored by history for over a century and a myth of peaceable settlement was promoted (and still believed by some of the more ignorant).

The author of the article tries (weakly) to defend the flag as being representative of Aboriginal people as it has the Southern Cross on it. How insulting to Aboriginal Australians to state that one symbol should be representative of all of us. Such statements reflect a real ignorance of the diversity of Aboriginal people and cultures.

The current Australian flag is tarnished and irreparably so. I have no respect for it and would gladly burn it anytime while it has that reminder of the atrocities committed against Aboriginal people so prominently adorning it.

ttbn sums it up correctly: "change for the sake of change".

A national symbol or icon is not a thing of fashion; it is a logo branding who and what we are.

The rational would have to be thoroughly reasoned before we made even the slightest change to our 'trademark'.

Our historic European beginning is the reason why we have the Union Jack in our flag, not a sense of subservience.
Branding tradition is important for defining our character to those who do not know or understand closely our place in the world.

Why the heck do advocates for change not protest also at the traditional cursive upper-case "C" of the Coca Cola logo

Okay got it wrong, Canada is not a republic, but a completely autonomous federal democracy with a bill of rights and a flag that represents the modern Canada! None of those changes have hurt Canada, but rather the opposite.

We for our part should just go one further and formalize our current position as aliens, with regard to the old dart, where former enemies have more unfettered access and rights than we do!

I believe and for myriad reasons, we should become a constitutional republic, with a superior bill of rights and constitution, than those enjoyed in the UK or Canada, and a flag which unmistakably identifies us as Australian!

Anything less just reinforces all the old forelock tugging master servant stereotypes?

We may well have our foundations in a convict colony, but that is not us now!

And while we need to honor our history not be bound by it, or the iron chains and cat of nine tails that so mark it!

That being so, we like many other nations, need to bury a shameful past and emerge like a phoenix from the ashes of a deplorable history and the union jack that flew over it, and move on, rather than remain captured by it?
Rhrosty.

I have a brother in law, hanthony 'ancock, not 'is real name ou migrated here wiv 'is parents as ten pound poms. Hand to this day retains 'is haccent and right proper henglish.

Hand was attracted among ovver fings like the fare and a white Australia policy and the trappings of empire, which included the ensign and God save the queen as our then national anthem.

But like most of 'is countrymen resists any change that more formally presents us as Hawstralians. And thus far 'as refused citezenship.

And therefore enjoys rights not given to Hawstralians, when in the UK. And after resisting citezenship hand hany hand hall the responsibilities that go wiv hit, his very vocall hon hissues like this, where he his adamant that there must be no change!
Hand not to beat around the 'ouses, his pobably overrepresented along wiv 'is veiws, hin similar opinion polls, hand hopinion pages?

Hif honly hawstralians could vote or participate hin referendums? Some hof that may change?
Rhrosty.

Regardless of whether changing the flag would be change for change sake, the idea that "Changing the flag would blunt Australia's future" is just a silly and juvenile claim. There is no evidence that any other nation changing its flag had its future blunted.

All that would happen with a change in flag would be that a group which sees their world view wrapped up in a symbol would be upset and another group who failed to have their preferred design adopted would also be upset. Everyone else would just get on with life as normal.

It is quite clear that large number of Australians don't view the national flag as the one and only way to show you are Australian, just look at the flags that are flown at international sporting contests involving Australia.

I think the New Zealand exercise in flag changing should give us a fair idea of the waste of time and money this is.

Maybe we should name our country "boaty mcboat face"?

Anyone who has problems with a flag that represents our history in the corner of our OWN flag, chosen by Australians, would not be happy in heaven. All this squawking about a few convicts is laughable in face of the fact of the stategic reason the Empire settled this continent, and the fact that a Western, democratic, thriving society was establish amidst barbarity. I am proud of my British ancestry, and also proud of the fact that we keep ties with our beginnings, while still being a totally autonomous nation.

@ttbn, the beginnings of this nation are Aboriginal, not British. Simple fact that so many get wrong. As to 'barbarity', yes that is a apt description of how so many Aboriginal people were treated by the invaders.

Minotaur,

No. There was no aboriginal nation; there were tribes, family goups mainly, who fought when they came across each other. There were about 700 different speech groups. Nothing national about them. They were wasting a good country when their counterparts in other countries were trading and building civilisations. That's why they lost the land. For the times, settling was not 'invading', and the same people in Wesminster who declared the continent to be 'terra nullius' were the same people who decreed that the natives were to be to be treated with respect and not harmed (unlike the Spanish or other empire builders who set about annihilating the the natives of countries they colonised). Too many people these days compare the actions of the past with contemporary mores; particularly those who are almost totally ignorant of Australia and British history. There were some atrocities against
aborigines, but they have been wildly exaggerated by left wing, and one communist, modern historians, who also created the 'noble savage' image for a harsh and cruel people. Also, the idea that the Great South Land, as it was called long before it was named Australia, should have been left in the Stone Ages is patently absurd.

ttbn...that there was no united Aboriginal nation means nothing. Europeans did not discover Australia and nor were its origins something that came from them. To claim that Aborigines were 'wasting the country' is an extremely ignorant view that clearly shows you have not done any research into Aboriginal history. Aboriginal people were highly adapted to their environment, wherever that may have been across such a vast continent. They often had complex land and resource management techniques honed over thousands of years. Why don't you read some Bill Gammage or Bruce Pascoe?

As to decrees that originated in Britain, well they were summarily ignored in the reality of the Australian experience. Or perhaps you believe that kidnapping people is treating them with respect. That infecting people with smallpox is treating them with respect. That stealing their lands and murdering them in cold-blood was treating them with respect. Annihilation of Aboriginal peoples and cultures happened and is recorded history. Your mention of the 700 languages that have been reduced to around 150 is a pretty graphic example of the annihilation that went on for over a century.

Finally, your use of the small 'a' for Aborigine/Aboriginal is a sign of just how little you know or respect the issues. Thanks for demonstrating that so well.

Minotaur,

The word 'aborigine', denoting native people of any country is a common noun, whose first letter should not be capitalised under rules of the English language.The person who started the capital A nonsense for Australia's aborigines was a complete dill. And it has nothing to do with respect! As for the rest of your claims, it seems that you are reading incompetent and untrusty activists rather than serious, honest historians who back their writing with references to original documents. That's what I do. But you have the right to be totally wrong, and I would not have said boo about your ignorance if you had not addressed your post directly me

ttbn, is the best you can come up with? It has been accepted for decades now that when writing about Australian Aboriginal people the 'A' is capitalized. To not do so, using the excuse of English grammar rules, is truly disrespectful and a using a pathetically weak excuse.

That was a woeful attempt to turn my comments back on me too. I note you make absolutely no reference to any historians at all and accuse me of using 'activists'. I didn't realise Henry Reynolds could be considered an activist. Nor others such as John Maynard, Nicholas Clements, John Connor, Jospehine Flood, Bain Attwood, Rosalind Kidd, Bruce Pascoe, Marcia Langton, Peter Sutton, Richard Broome, Max Griffiths, Murray Johnson, Ian Mcfarlane and the list goes on.

Who are you going to cite...Keith Windschuttle?

Minny,

Yes. Several of your heroes are activists, and you are clearly a good little, brainwashed evangelist for the lefty Australia - basher brigade. Drones like you are two a penny around here.

ttbn...seriously, that post is even worse than your previous one. You clearly don't have any sort of ability to offer a well-researched or considered refutation. Instead you resort to insult and attempted denigration as a means of trying to divert attention. Once again your extreme limitations are on show and it is obvious there is little point engaging you any further.

Forget all the fatuous arguments. Just hold a referendum on whether the flag should be changed. If the vote is No, then that's it for now. If the vote is Yes, put it out to a nationwide competition, as was done for the current flag.

Hi Minotaur,

I typed up all the letters of the Protector here in SA [on: www.firstsources.info], from 1837 through to 1912, and 'Aboriginal' etc. is always spelt with a capital 'A', unless I missed one or two, or my memory fails me over nine thousand letters.

Early respect :)

You airily suggest that " ....As to decrees that originated in Britain, well they were summarily ignored in the reality of the Australian experience. "

Not in South Australia. Perhaps you can cite just one 'decree' that was ignored ? Anywhere in Australia ?

It's so easy to make the most vapid accusations, isn't it ? If that's all you have, it may be wiser to wait until your gun is loaded before you pull the trigger, so to speak.

Joe

Loudmouth's post -

Loudmouth to Minotaur

You airily suggest ... As to decrees that originated in Britain, well they were summarily ignored in the reality of the Australian experience. "

Loudmouth - I also await Minotaur's response to your post?

Hmm, let's see...Phillip was given instruction that Aborigines' lives and livelihoods were to be protected and friendly relations with them encouraged. Didn't take long to ignore that and orders were given to kidnap Aborigines and kidnap they did. Perhaps kidnapping was part of developing 'friendly relations'...or was part of protecting Aborigines?

As to 'protecting' livelihoods, well that was summarily ignored as resources were plundered and lands stolen (often forcibly) from those who were the rightful custodians. Ahh, but that was ok though as it was done to protect the lives and livelihoods of the invaders. Ignore your orders people, we need the land and resources more than those 'savages'.

I wonder if 'protecting' Aborigines included not unleashing disease upon them. Ahh, nope...smallpox, arguably deliberately released, wreaked havoc among the Eora population in 1789.

It is notable that when John Bowen was sent to Tasmania to establish a colony in 1803 he was not given instructions regarding Aboriginal people. Experience had shown that any decrees could/would be ignored. We now know that almost an entire population of around 7000 Aboriginal Tasmanian people were virtually wiped out in less than three decades of European occupation. I suppose it could be argued that the decree of martial law that allowed the 'legal' killing of Aborigines was at least obeyed.

Only the naive or historically blind would state that 'good' relations were a feature of European invasion and decrees to protect Aborigines were adhered to.

Hi Minotaur,

Okay, you got me there - allowing squatters to move out and grab land would have been in conflict with the instructions to maintain friendly relations.

No, I don't think there is conclusive evidence that smallpox was deliberately spread: there seems to have been an epidemic spreading down the NSW coast from the North, just as there was later in about 1828, from The Gulf down to the western rivers and down the Darling and Murray. And another epidemic down the WA coast before settlement.

7000 people in Tasmania ? I hardly think so. 2000 maybe, and maybe only 1000. It's nota very big island, and much of it was and still is uninhabitable.

Joe

Care to back up your comments about your alleged low population of Tasmanian Aborigines Joe? I've never seen anyone but you claim such low figures.

Hi Minotaur,

The environment of Tasmania is not particularly friendly for hunting and gathering. Half the state, it seems, has always been uninhabitable. On the other hand, it would not, perhaps ever, have suffered droughts. My understanding is that the Indigenous people there did not eat shellfish, a major component in any other coastal diet. I could be wrong :)

Across Australia, if we ignored droughts, populations would have varied around half a million, or about one person for every fifteen square kilometres. Because of droughts, I suspect it would have been a lot less, i.e. each person required, on average, more space than fifteen sq. km. - much less along rivers, much more in deserts.

Although it is a bit like comparing apples and oranges, and very roughly, I would suggest that the population of Tasmania in 1800 might have been a couple of thousand. Sealers/whalers would have taken a steady supply of women (and some men) from Tasmania's northern coast, across to all the island groups across southern Australia, and the SW corner of New Zealand, and perhaps elsewhere.

Out of a population of a couple of thousand, there would have been only a few hundred young women. The removal of many of them would have caused major disruptions to population maintenance. Of course, diseases for which people had no immunity would have killed many people, as they were doing across the world until penicillin and streptomycin: like other populations, the Tasmanian Indigenous population would have needed very high birth rates to maintain itself, and with many women gone, that would have become impossible.

If you have evidence of other ways by which the population was reduced, for which there is evidence, please share them.

Cheers,

Joe

Umm, Joe, I'm a Tasmanian Aboriginal historian (in Tasmania) and can tell you first-hand that your statement that 'half the state' has been uninhabitable is simply false. Upon the arrival of the invaders in 1803 there were people inhabiting almost every area of the state. The Europeans recorded nine seperate nations and their territories covered every part of Tasmania. Naturally the 'boundaries' of each nation were not 'fixed' as we know them as today and there was a lot of seasonal movement for many (although not all). The Tasmanians practiced 'fire-stick' farming and knew how to manage the resources found all over the island. And they ate plenty of shellfish, what do you think coastal middens consist of? They may not have eaten scale-fish though...well, after about 3000 years ago anyway (although that is highly debatable and one that still goes on).

The archaeologist Rhys Jones, who did much of the ground-breaking work into pre-European Aboriginal Tasmania, estimated that there was a population of 5000 (and stated it was a conservative estimate). More recent work by Plomley, using more up to date information, calculated that the population was approximately 6000. That correlates with George Augustus Robinson's estimates of 6000 - 8000. Two colonial estimates put the number as high as 10 000. Historians Henry Reynolds and Nicholas Clements put the number at 7000 and most historians accept the 7000 figure. I'll stick with those who have done the research.

Clements' research into the Black War verified almost 1000 Aborigines died in the conflict with Europeans. You can add to that those deaths not recorded and even a conservative estimate could arguably double the 1000. Interesting that you note the effect of whalers and sealers Joe and there's little doubt that they had a devastating effect on the Aborigines of the north eastern Tasmania. Notably, Aunty Patsy Cameron (and I use the term Aunty as I know her and it is the respectful way to refer to an elder) played down the destructive role of the whalers/sealers in her book Grease and Ochre. I do not agree with her findings.

Finally, there is nothing to support your low population estimates at the time of European invasion. If there had been 2000 or less they would have been wiped out very quickly and as it stands around 300 'full-blood' Aborigines were 'rounded up' by G.A. Robinson during the early 1830s, which immediately gives no support to your low numbers Joe. And either does the research.

Hi Minotaur,

Okay, I'll take your figures as authoritative.

Cheers,

Joe