Aboriginal rapper Adam Briggs claims that our
National Anthem needs to be changed because
"The Song Sucks." He's taken the words of the
anthem apart sentence by sentence and claims
that words like - "young and free,"ignores
Aboriginal heritage. 11 State of Origin stars
also refused to sing "Ädvance Australia Fair,"
before the series opener.

There are many people it seems, not only
our Indigenous people, who object to this
anthem not representing them and want to see
either the words changed or a new anthem found.
One that would be more inclusive. We've had this
anthem for decades - should we change it or get a
new one, or keep it as is?

Your thoughts please?

I think welcome to my own country sucks actually. This 'rapper' obviously does not mind taking tax payer money via the vile abc to line his pockets and enjoy the benefits of colonisation. Of course the abuse of women and kids at epidemic levels among his own people doesn't stop the virtue signalling. Lefty academics have obviously been able to transfer their hate of decency on to this character along with the rest of the victim industry. Thank God for decent people like Jacinta Price who actually care about her own people rather than the lowlife leftist ideologues.

runner,

So you don't approve of the rapper, or the ABC
or Aborigines in general?

Okay.

What about the subject of this discussion -
our national anthem? - what are your feelings on
our Indigenous people's objections - do they have
any valid objections? What are your thoughts on
that? That's what this discussion is about.

Some time activist actions do more harm than good, this is such a move
We have a long way to go, but have come a very long way
IF activists want to get behind a very much needed change this is it
Find out how the rights to the Aboriginal flag became private property, insist it be made free, so all could share it
Or as with the red cross, see another come about fast

Dear Belly,

It seems that objections are being raised to
our anthem - Ädvance Australia Fair," because
some Indigenous people are claiming the words
of the Anthem do not reflect them.

Foxy

'What about the subject of this discussion -
our national anthem? - what are your feelings on
our Indigenous people's objections - do they have
any valid objections?'

Do we then take into account objections from Chinese, muslims, greeks, italians, Christians, Buddhist? I am opposed to those who have made great gains by victimhood (aboriginal activist) gettings such a large say on 'OUR' abc. They do far more to divide and destroy this country than to bring it together.

As national anthems go, ours is pretty uninspiring.
It's far from the worst, but I'm sure we could do better.

Foxy,

"It seems that objections are being raised to
our anthem - Ädvance Australia Fair," because
some Indigenous people are claiming the words
of the Anthem do not reflect them."

The words of the anthem do not reflect anybody particularly - that's the point of equal rights, isn't it ? Nobody left out when everybody else is mentioned, but nobody singled out when nobody is mentioned ?

Jesus, as if there aren't far, far more serious issues to try to resolve. This year, around 180 Indigenous people will suicide, which actually slows down any population growth to zero, not to mention, of course, the cutting short of lives which could have promised so much.

Australia IS a young country - 118 years. Before then, it wasn't a country but a gaggle of colonies for 113 years. And before that, a conglomeration of 500 language groups and perhaps 10,000 clans for sixty thousand years, each jealously guarding their own territory. So Australia has been one country for 118 years. It's a young country.

Anything else to whinge about ? How about the fact that Harold Thomas has the intellectual property rights to the Aboriginal Flag that he designed, and can contract with whoever he likes to market it ? Or should there be two sets of intellectual property law, one for Indigenous people, one for other' ?

Joe

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

It is not my favourite song, but we did vote for it.

It may not be great, but it is a damn sight better than anything this peanut has ever done, or would want.

It is about time welfare consuming aboriginal industry was closed down

[Deleted for abuse.]

Here are ten things you should know about
Advance Australia Fair:

http://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2017/01/31/10-things-you-should-know-about-advance-australia-fair1

Here's Verse 2 of the original:

"When gallant Cook from Albion sailed
To trace wide aceans o'er
True British courage bore him on
Till he landed on our shore
Then here he raised Old England's flag
The standard of the brave
With all her faults we love her still
"Britannia Rules The wave"
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia Fair."

There you are. Things changed in 1984, and we
ended up with a slightly different anthem.

Now there's discussion about chainging it again
because of the words "young and free," which to
some has bad undertones. As do the words
"Advance Australia Fair," that some seem to think
refers to our previous White Australia Policy.

I think that inevitably - change will happen.
Personally, I think we can do better. We can
and should find words that have meaning for
everybody. An anthem that would bind us all
together as a nation - and put a lump into
our throats when singing it. Obviously the
current anthem doesn't do that for many of us.

I'm not fussed. But I think that change is
inevitable.

runner,

If you can't contribute anything more
than insults please go on to your own
discussion stop lowering the bar on
mine

Foxy I suggest if you can't handle opinions other than your own that you stick to watching the abc and leave olo. You seem to have no problem with your mate Steelies disgusting slurs. You really should take a good look at yourself.

runner,

Come on. You were the one who got personal with
Steele - calling him a facist, marxist, nothing of
substance to contribute.
You just can't help yourself. You throw those labels
around like confetti. I just don't feel like cleaning
up after you any more - especially not on my discussion.
Go nuts on your own.

Now back to the topic ...

Here is a link that explains what the rapper Adam Briggs
has in mind:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/11/australias-national-anthem-is-just-not-that-good-briggs-tells-qa

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted. Related to posts above that have been deleted.]

Get over it. There won't be a change of anthem because a few fruitcakes don't like it. The idiots who don't want to sing it don't have to sing it; neither does anyone else. Once again, the idiotic media has given oxygen to a few galahs who are nobodies.

As runner suggests, the made-up ceremonies of a small section of the community are rubbish as well. Who bloody cares! Surely there are more important things than anthems or near-naked poeple jumping around in a cloud of smoke to discuss.

Belly, I hear you.
Here's a thought, because as I understand it, the flag was actually designed or created by someone else, or has something to do with someone else and I believe all the hoo haa is about them 'owning' it.
Have I got it right?
Well the answer is simple.
Why don't the [Deleted] get together and do what the 'white man' does and have a competition between themselves to design a new one, and hey presto, they killed two birds with one stone.
They created a flag that THEY liked and brought it back under their control, and at the same time removed the prestige and income from an un-deserving, opportunistic and un-related entity.

The Italian state as we know it now was brought together in 1861. A republican anthem rivalled a monarchist one, but the republican one, 'Il Canto Degli Italiani', was recognised and adopted officially eighteen months ago, in December 2017. A young country with a young anthem.

Joe

I've just
watched channel 10's take on the subject with an
interview with the Seekers and their song - "I Am
Australian" being suggested as a suitable
replacement and reading the lyrics it is difficult
to argue that it isn't more inclusive and an
accurate representation of our past.

"Ädvance Australia Fair" was penned in 1878 by Scottish
born Peter Dodds McCormick. It replaced "God Save The
Queen" as our national anthem in 1984 after a plebiscite
to choose a new anthem was carried out in 1977.

Back in 1977 the choices for a new anthem were -
"God Save The Queen," "Advance Australia Fair,"
"Waltzing Matilda,"and "Australia Song."

The results of that plebiscite were:

"God Save The Queen," (18.78% )
" Advance Australia Fair," (43.29%)
"Waltzing Matilda," (28.28%)
"Australia Song," (9.63%)

I recall
the young schoolgirl in Queensland who refused to
stand up for the national anthem - "Advance
Australia Fair" - on the grounds she thought it
was not inclusive of Indigenous Australians.

As punishment she received a lunch-time detention, and
was told she needed to sign a written apology, or she
would risk suspension.

The story didn't end there. Young Miss Nielsen's decision
sparked a bitter debate in the media with Alan Jones
and Mark Latham, in particular firing barbs at the year
four student for being a "brat" and saying she should
be sent to a special school for students with
behavioural problems.

We can also see from the posts on this thread that this is
an emotive issue for some.

I was hoping that instead of mindlessly "rattling off"
that maybe it is time we reviewed the national
anthem and put one in place that is more inclusive of
all Australians and one that is more accurately
reflective of our history.

Do you think it's time for a change?
If not, why not?
If you voted in 1977 - which one did you select?

Do you think young Miss Nielsen was brave or
disobedient?

Would you prefer our children to follow blindly or
question authority in a healthy and informed way?

Here's some of the verses from the Seekers
song - "I Am Australian," :

" I came from the dream-time
From the dusty red-soil plains
I am the ancient heart
The keeper of the flame
I stood upon the rocky shores
I watched the tall ships come
For forty thousand years I've been
The First Australian"

"I came upon the prison ship
Bound down by iron chains
I bought the land endured the lash
And waited for the rains
I'm a settler, I'm a farmer's wife
On a dry and barren run
A convict then a free man
I became Australian"

"I'm a daughter of a digger
Who sought the mother load
The girl became a woman
On the long and dusty road
I'm a child of the Depression
I saw the good times come
I'm a bushy, I'm a battler
I am Australian"

"We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We'll share a dream
And sing with one voice
I am, you are, we are Australian. "

This song definitely brings tears to my eyes and a
lump to my throat.
It would be my choice as a replacement.

Foxy for no other reason than I never liked the anthem and because I too like your selection, yes change it
Change too our flag and become a republic
At that time sign a bill of rights [we need one] and be as inclusive as we can to all Australians from every background
Did not understand the subject included such changed

Dear Belly,

It's interesting.

Adam Briggs who performs as "Briggs"
is apparently making quite an impact not only
here in Australia but overseas as well -
especially in the US. He's quite a personality.
An Indigenous Australian rapper, record label
owner, comedy writer and actor, signing with
Golden Era Records in 2009 before co-founding the
hip-hop duo - A B Original in 2016.

He's appeared on several TV series and is a
regular cast member of "The Weekly with
Charlie Pickering.

There's more at -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briggs_(rapper)

I'm not surprised that you like the "" I am
Australian" Seekers song. Many feel that its
quite moving, inclusive, and an accurate
representation of our past. Others say
Peter Allen's "I Still Call Australia Home"
speaks to them. Others have their own
suggestions.

On things for sure - this debate is gathering
momentum. The TV channels and the media are
paying more attention to it now.

cont'd ...

My apologies for the typo. Here's the link again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briggs_(rapper)

1. "I am Australian". Wasn't this song used commercially by Telstra to flog mobile services? Not exactly a rich and vibrant history (see l'Armée du Rhin). And as I recall, after the Feds used it in citizenship ceremonies they were forced to pay the Seekers a royalty. Imagine them getting a cut each time its played at the Olympics - gold indeed!

2. "For forty thousand years I've been
The First Australian"

The song's a bit out-of-date. The current meme is that they've been here for 60000 yrs. And it keeps going up. Perhaps, if we had it as the anthem, we could increase the number by 1000 each Australia Day - you know, just to keep the natives happy.

3. "Do you think it's time for a change?" Some nations have the quaint idea that the anthem should have some historic meaning eg France, USA, Britain. Changing with the fashion of the day seems a little juvenile, although that probably reflects our politics at the moment. Here's a thought. Lets change it every year and make the winner of the JJJ poll that year's anthem. What could go wrong.

4. Personally, I preferred Waltzing Matilda over AAF when given the choice way back when. I still think its the better reflector of Australian character and it has a genuine history. And it would be embraced by the so-called First Aussies. After all its about a slightly drunk (jolly)bloke who steals from others and then dies trying to evade the law. Surely the natives could identify with that :)

When ever I hear "I Am Australian," I feel that someone from the multicultural authority is pouring some sort of political slime over me.

Talk about a cheesy bit of gooey rubbish, no thanks.

The current meme is that they've been here for 60000 yrs
mhaze,
You're a little behind there, the last one I heard is up to 80,000 now !

Indi, do they realise they are doing their cause more harm than good by trying to exploit their connection to this country.
Mankind has been around for as long as it has been, and they have moved around the world criss-crossing the globe during their/our existence.
And still do today.
It is arrogant to keep promoting the mantra that 'this is our land'.
Well in fact it's not, and it never was.
If we are to take a literal and objective view of this mantra, some would say that any previous 'tenants' were just that and were in fact transients, with no intention of settling and making this, or any land, 'home'.
The abo was nomadic, and as such, moved around.
They had to confine themselves to specific areas, to protect their immediate surroundings for hunting and survival purposes.
They NEVER OWNED ANYTHING.
They were squatters, at best.
This does not entitle or afford them the right to make any demands on any lands.
On the other hand moving on to current laws and beliefs, not ones presumably so old, that have no value or bearing in today's laws and life, we find that in fact those who 'bought' and 'payed for' a piece of land, can honestly says, with hand on heart, and clear conscience, 'this IS, MY, land'.
Why we have to kowtow to these wannabees is beyond me.
By today's laws and standards, I want to see a receipt or document showing when they purchased this country and how much they paid for it.
Until then, I say to those making these unrealistic and unjustifiable claims, shut the f#*k up and go back to the bush you hold so dear.
80,000yrs?
Why stop there?
Wait a while and someone will declare the obvious; that they are direct descendants of Adam and Eve.
As far as pissing contests go, you'd find it hard to top this one.

I am tempted t try walking on very thin ice, it is my nature, see truth matters
YES I was confronted by those who refuse to sing what is in the end, a rather boring Anthem
We have said sorry, started welcome to country, come a long way
The truth is not far enough, yet
Look at the recent election, we can all, surely, see people voted against a social reform package
Know, for every one who approves of that protest ten do not [remember folks do not all want to weep forever over others crimes]
With The very best intentions, this action has, it has you know, like the change Australia day stupidity, turned heads away from a true need to improve our first nations lives

Writer, satirist, and comedian Ben Pobjie
sums up the topic of - "Australians All
Let Us Discuss If Australia's Anthem Is
Any Bloody Good Or Not," in his article for
10 Daily that he wrote on 13/06/2019.

Pobjie writes that nobody wants to defend
"Advance Australia Fair,"for 2 reasons.
One it makes you look like you have terrible
taste in music and - two, - usually people who
defend it - are spittle-flecked
culture warriors more bent on resisting any
change at all than spruiking the merits of the
song.

He tells us that - it's not that great a song,
but it's not that bad either. There are better
anthems in the world, and there are ones which
are much worse.

He gives as an example the British National
Anthem - "God save the Queen." Not only is it deathly
dull to listen to - it's not even a song about how
great the country is. It's a song about how great
one specific woman is whose status she owes entirely
to the coincidence of heredity rather than actual
achievement. Pobjie tells us that the British
anthem is an ode to subservience, to archaic tyranny
and that Australia's anthem beats it into a cocked hat.

He tells us that national anthems are generally not great
songs, and lets be frank - they're not supposed to be.

He points out that there are even worse and weirder
anthems out there. The Dutch national anthem he says
isn't just about their monarch, it's actually written in
the first person from the perspective of William of Orange
and relates his struggle to win independence from Spain.
"A Prince I am of Orange," or "O that the Spaniards rape
thee."

The Greek Anthem he says begins terrifyingly with the
words - "I shall always recognise you by the dreadful
sword you hold." Then the Spanish Anthem has no words
at all.

According to Pobjie the Golden Standard of
national anthems is France's - "La Marseillaise."
It's a great tune - but the words are a call to a
bloody revolution

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

"La Marseillaise" features lyrics like - "They're
coming right into your arms to cut the throats of your
sons, your women!" and "Let an impure blood water our
furrows." Patriotism is wild-eyes bloodlust. But the
French sing it with pride.

Americans don'g sing the "Star-Spangled Banner"with
swelled chests and tears in their eyes because it's
such a great song. They do so according to Pobjie because
they believe their country is the best.

This cuts to the heart of the criticisms of "Advance
Australia Fair," that it doesn't properly represent our
country in particular from the perspective of
Indigenous Australians such as those footballers who
declined to sing the anthem at last week's State of Origin
game.

It is easy to see their point. Even non-Indigenous
Australians feel the song is not particularly representative.
Imagine how it must feel when you are a member of the
dispossessed marginalised community listening to a song
written by a white guy that does not acknowledge the
country's original inhabitants.

It's a decent argument. That "young and free"bit seems
particularly on the nose nowadays for many people.
Many of us aren't free at all, and we're hopelessly
divided. But, as Pobjie points out - national anthems
aren't supposed to be true. They are supposed to be
positive.

Our anthem describes Australia as a wonderful place to
live for all Australians of all races and backgrounds.
It does not reflect reality. Perhaps we need to change
the country, not the song?

After all the words, "For those who come across the
seas we've boundless plains to share," is pretty dishonest.

We are going to have to deal with the fact that national
anthems are both aspirational and a little bit deluded.
Pobjie asks - "Is America truly the land of the free and the
home of the brave?"

Anthems are not mirrors. They are self portraits of what we
wished we looked like.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

And like the picture of Dorian Gray - as we get more
and more corrupted and decadent our national
anthems remain lovely. That is their purpose.

So, No, Pobjie tell us that there is no need to change
the national anthems unless of course everyone wants
them changed. However, he says if we really want the
words to match the reality of our country then we need
to get to work on making our country a better place.

Much food for thought.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm out of breath after reading Foxies last comment.
That was one marathon of a comment.
I thought I wrote some long'ens.
I've gotta hand it to her, an 'A' for effort.
Whew!

I would now like to share the national anthem
of my ancestors in both languages. Lithuanian
and English:

Tautiska Giesme. National Anthem.

Lietuva, Tevyne musu Lithuania, our dear homeland
Tu didvyriu zeme Land of worthy heroes
Is praeities Tavo sunus May your sons draw strength
Te stiprybe semia From your past

Tegul Tavo vaikai eina May your children always
Vien takais dorybes Choose the paths of virtue
Tegul dirba Tavo naudai May they work towards your good
Ir zmoniu gerybei And that of all people

Tegul saule Lietuvoj May the sun of Lithuania
Tamsumas prasalina Disperse darkness
Ir sviesa ir tiesa And may light and truth
Mus zingsnius telydi Guide our footsteps

Tegul meile Lietuvos May the love of Lithuania
Dega musu sirdyse Burn in our hearts
Vardan tos Lietuvos So that in the name of Lithuania
Vienybe tezydi. Unity will blossom and shine.

__________________________________________________________________

This anthem was written in 1898 by Vincas Kudirka. It officially became the National Anthem in 1919, a year after Lithuania
declared its Independence. It was re-instated in 1989
shortly before the re-establishment of Lithuania's
Independence and once again confirmed as the National
Anthem in the National Anthem Act, 21 October 1991.

cont'd ...

Vladimir Putin is still eyeing not only Lithuania
but all the former Soviet - occupied countries
with greedy eyes. That's why to those countries
belonging to the European Union is so important.

"He gives as an example the British National
Anthem - "God save the Queen." Not only is it deathly
dull to listen to - it's not even a song about how
great the country is. It's a song about how great
one specific woman"

Well anyone who's given it 5 seconds thought will agree with that.

OTOH anyone who's given it 5 minutes research will know its utter rubbish:

1. Its not about one women. The name changes back and forth depending on the gender of the current monarch. It refers to the institution of the monarchy, not the current holder.
2. The second verse makes it clear that the monarch is seen as a symbol for the country. God save the queen means God save us all which is indeed the words in the second verse.

_______________________________________________________________

""La Marseillaise" features lyrics like - "They're
coming right into your arms to cut the throats of your
sons, your women!" and "Let an impure blood water our
furrows." Patriotism is wild-eyes bloodlust.

As I alluded to previously, La Marseillaise was originally the "Chant de guerre pour l'Armée du Rhin" ("War Song for the Rhine Army"). It was written to bolster the army as it tried to defend the revolution from European assault in 1792. At that time it was a revolution worth defending (until the socialists inevitably screwed it up). The victories of the revolutionary armies were immense. They weren't about bloodlust but about freedom and liberty. That's why the song remains dear to French hearts.

These anthems, along with the Star-Spangled Banner reflect the nation, its history and character (even if the character is merely aspirational) in ways that AAF doesn't.

So Waltzing Matilda.

____________________________________________________________

"That's why to those countries
belonging to the European Union is so important."

Being in NATO is the best protection of the liberty of the Baltic States. The EU is utterly useless in resisting Russia, even if it wanted to.

mhaze,

Ben Pobjie's tongue-in-cheek article was merely
just that. It's meant as a satire.

I agree that joining NATO is the best protection
for the Baltic States. But it might be questionable
currently, due to Trump's unpredictability.

Nevertheless -

Thank You for bothering to read what I posted.
And for your contributions. They are appreciated.

cont'd ...

mhaze,

I can't help but wonder if you
were to stop people in the street - how many
would be able to tell you (here or in the UK)
what the other verses to "God Save the Queen,"
are, or what they mean, apart from it being a song
about a particular woman, as Ben Pobjie said?

And as for the French national anthem - Pobjie
does have a legit claim - the words are bloodlusty.
No two ways about it. It's a great tune though.
Did you know that it was banned by Napoleon and by
Louis XVIII because of the revolutionary associations?
Only the first and sixth verses are customarily used
at public occasions.

On the topic of the Baltic Nations - after they had
restored their Independence, integration with Western
Europe became a major strategic goal . The Baltic Nations
applied for membership in NATO and the EU. Currently
they're the only former Soviet states to have joined
either organisation. Although after crimea its gathering
momentum in the Ukraine. If Trump would pull out of NATO
that would be a win for Russia.

mhaze,

I forgot to ask - so you think "Waltzing Matilda,"
a story about a sheep rustler could be a serious
contender for the national anthem?

What about "Click Go The Shears?"
it might be just as good.
At least sheep identify with it. ;-)

I never went to the school of innuendo and sarcasm, so could someone please explain what Foxy's last comment was all about?
You see this is just one example where the written form does not convey the true meaning and message because for one, it lacks the ability to express emotion and therefore inflection.
Because of this, many conversations or messages are mis-understood or confusing.
One thing is not confusing and that is the message and intent from the wannabee Briggs.
I would have given him some cred, had he not gone into a mindless pointless rant criticising, as I said before, something MILLIONS of Aussies relate to and respect.
Ignorant, arrogant, buffoon.
Another irrelevant, entitled so and so.
As for asking people to recite any national anthem, the questioner is just being petulant and just plain stupid, because MOST people don't know the words of their national anthem.
By asking the question only exposes further the lack of contact the questioner has had with the 'real' world and 'real' people, instead of books and publications.
Speaking in terms of 'referencing' and 'links' is not in accord with this forum, which is about opinions.
I take it to mean the commentors opinion.
By referring to others comments and opinions, shows a lack of real knowledge when you cannot come up with your own opinion or personal beliefs or convictions.
So it is that I sit and wonder if the author is actually calling Aussies, SHEEP?

Foxy,
Would I be correct in thinking you're unaware of the story behind Waltzing Matilda?
The swagman was no sheep rustler! Taking a sheep to eat was (though technically illegal) a widely accepted custom - practically all itinerant shearers (aka swagmen) did it. But it's not what the song's really about.

The shearers' strike had dragged on for ages, and finally there was a shootout between the farmers and the shearers. The shootout went on for hours, so the lack of fatalities (or even injuries) suggests everyone was deliberately missing.

But during that time, one of the swagmen set the woolshed alight. The walls had previously absorbed a lot of lanolin so it burned fiercely. However because of the strike, it wasn't full of wool. Indeed it wouldn't have been such a terrible crime if it were.

But the lambs were in the woolshed!!

The man who did it was found dead the next day. The official verdict was suicide, but there was a widespread belief that someone he'd conspired with had killed him to prevent him from dobbing in the others involved.

Banjo wrote Waltzing Matilda, and the shearers went back to work.
And the swagman wasn't originally jolly - that (and the familiar arrangement of the tune) came from a tea commercial a few years later.

Waltzing Matilda could certainly be a serious contender of the national anthem - unlike Click Go The Shears, which is just a relic of a declining industry.

Aiden, thanks for that.
I for one, not ever having been interested in history, did not know the story behind Waltzing Matilda.
At least now the true meaning of the song is known and makes it possible to consider whether or not it would be a contender for the title of 'National Anthem'.
I for one believe in the old saying, 'if it ain't broke, don't touch it'.
Why we are even discussing this 'non-starter' of a topic is beyond understanding.
What is wrong with some people, that they are so incensed by the system or the status quo', that they have to attack anything that is dear and cherished by most people, as if because of their miserable, sad lives, they want to see others as miserable and sad as themselves.
'Others' are quite happy getting on with their lives, such as it is, but realise that the trauma and destabilisation, unless forced upon them like some 'act of God', is something to avoid, at any cost.
As for the 'God save the Queen' option, I thought it arrogant and dis-respectful to the office or station it refers to in changing it.
The ignorance of some having no knowledge of the origins behind the original anthem and their subjective and totally unfounded reasoning,
give rise to stupid and totally mis-giuded opinions and beliefs, such as this topic and it's heading.
It's not the song that sucks, it's anyone who thinks it does, (that sucks), starting with the one who wrote the title for this topic, and finishing with the likes of that abo moron.
Give me objectivity any day compared to subjectivity, the former are a better, more reasonable and balanced lot, unlike the latter who continually demonstrate how mentally un-balanced they are.

Aiden my thanks too, live less than ten k,s from our late great Les Murray proud to have met him many times
Knew about Banjo and the swagman, too few do
Had collector's edition of his works
Found a niece who loved him as much as me, she owns it now
Sunday drive is often in the forest around my and Les,s home and in my mind I heard him read one last weekend vale goodman

What is required in a national anthem.

Firstly, what we do not need is a song that very few can sing, Like the USA anthem. Many well experienced and recognized singers have made a complete mess of the USA anthem. The only good rendition I have heard is that by Jackie Evancho, at the inauguration of President Trunp.

An anthem should have simple words and a tune that most people can sing. It can also be moving, as with the version by July Anthony recorded by the St George bank some 25 years ago. A quality singer and good orchestration.

The present anthem fills the bill so leave it as is.

Dear Aidan,

Thank You for filling in the details for me about
"Waltzing Matilda." I did not consider it suitable
as a national anthem, despite its catchy tune. To
me it was a song about a thief who committed suicide
and would portray Australia as a nation of depressed
criminals. You've made me take another look at it.
Thank You.

"Click Go The Shears," was never a serious contender.
I just mentioned it (tongue-in-cheek) due to the
sheep references in "Waltzing Matilda."
__________________________________________________________________

A recurring part of Australian life has been that
from time to time there have been attempts to have
our national anthem changed. This has come from a
variety of sources - ranging from politicians like
Jeff Kennett suggesting it should be replaced by -
"I am Australian," to school children, football
players, and now Indigenous people taking part.

"Advance Australia Fair," I sing when its played
and when its appropriate to sing it - but like
Jeff Kennett I too rarely get emotional when
hearing it or singing it. I do with - "I am
Australian."

All anybody has to do is look around them to see that
we are many - and if we can be one, we will, as a community
and as a country achieve so much more.

Therefore for me - "I am Australian"is a much better song.
It has a better tune and it has lyrics that have relevance
and appeal to all Australians, ones that we can use as a
clarion call to declare our identity and values to the
world and more importantly to ourselves and our children
and grandchildren.

I hope that other Australians will get behind the
call for "I am Australian"to be made our national anthem.
And that "The Seekers," will give their permission for the
use of this song.

Let's have national symbols that are powerful, attractive
and reflect who we are, not who we thought we were years,
and years, and years ago.

HenryL, Hear, hear!

Again, wish-full thinking from certain quarters.
The reason I would distance myself from 'I am Australian', is more a commercial barrier than a personal one.
I would really be surprised if 'The Seekers' would give tacit approval or hand over that particular song for free, without some form of 'compensation'.
Personally, knowing how well they have done financially and status wise, I feel they would gain a level of respect and recognition that will go on long after they die or their other songs become distant memories of a few future fans of their music.
But no album or song would ever be sung so often and with such pride as a National Anthem, they should be so lucky.
If it goes down that path, let's see how patriotic the Seekers really are.

Dear HenryL.,

Some light-hearted relief:

"Advance Australia Fair," the words are unmemorable.
According to Phillip Adams.
"For we are young and free." Tell that to an old
age pensioner, says Adams.

Phillip Adams writing a few years ago in the
Weekend Australia - talked about the words of
"Advance Australia Fair." He said that apart from the
funny bit about "girt" by sea - the rest were lamentable.
Perhaps, he says, this lies in the fact that Australia
is difficult to rhyme.

It only rhymes with failure, or paraphernalia.
Many patriotic people however will point out that it also
rhymes with - dahlia, regalia, and even - genitalia
(although that seems a stretch).

But, even added to failure, genitalia, regalia,
or dahlia, it still doesn't a great national anthem make.
Not even Noel Coward, Cole Porter, and Oscar Hammerstein
working together as Adams says could get a Marseillaise
out of that.

Phillip Adams tells us that "recently our PM spoke
of Gallipoli as a brilliant defeat." Adams goes on to say
"That's what I like about Australia's attitude to
failure. Not only does it rhyme but also it resonates. It
gives us a laconic, ironic, stoic view of life. It accommodates
us to drought, flood, fire, and Liberal governments."

So I guess that perhaps "Advance Australia Fair" just
may be suitable after all?

Hello there FOXY...

I hope you've been well. I do agree with you; 'I am Australian' is a lovely melody and the lyrics are pretty good too. Who wrote the song, was it the late Peter ALLEN, or was it 'The Seekers' themselves?

I like the melody of 'Waltzing Matilda,' but the lyrics would need to be tidied up somewhat. Though I do recognise 'Advance Australia Fair' is our current anthem, but I do admit to not knowing all the lyrics, nor do I think it resonates with many others either, most seem to just stumble through it?

The one comment I would like to make; whatever song that's chosen, whoever is selected to perform it, at these significant events, 'please' make sure they give our National Anthem the justice it deserves.

No names, no pack drill, but some of the youngsters chosen to perform at these big sporting events can't even sing in tune; can't sustain a note without 'breaking' by going either 'sharp or flat.' Worse still, a 'shrill'? As I said, it's our National Anthem; it should, therefore, be performed expertly and with pride, especially at large important events.

One of the best soloists, in my opinion, is Julie ANTHONY, with her beautiful soprano (almost contralto) voice, with its sustained resonance. And a male soloist, perhaps Anson AUSTIN (sic) with his fine alto or countertenor range, previously with the Australian Opera, or similar.

Dear Aidan,

Talking about anthems - In the article I just
mentioned by Phillip Adams - he also comments
on "Waltzing Matilda." Adams calls it a -
"...dirge about death - the suicide by billabong
of an unemployed hobo provoked by his unrequited
relationship with a jolly jumbuck. A male sheep.
As his ghost observes when you walk by his
watery grave, currently bone-dry because of the
drought. His is an immensely sad story."

"Another reason for liking Waltzing Matilda is
that it's about failure - the central motif of
Australian culture."

Dear O Sung Wu,

Thank You for your comments and kind words.
I agree Julie Anthony's voice is beautiful
and she sings with great passion.

The iconic anthem - "I am Australian" was
originally composed by Bruce Woodley of The
Seekers and Dobe Newton of The Bushwackers in
1987. It was originally performed by The Seekers.

There have been so many occasions now in which
this anthem has played a vital part in ceremonies
in this country - from devastating events like
bushfires, to it being specially recorded from
Broome Primary School for the ABC by almost 400
students who sang it in Yawuru language and
featured kids from around Australia.

The Mabu Yawuru ngan-ga language team and Yawuru
traditional owners of Broome provided the translation
of the song and assisted in the making of the video.

Beautiful words.

" We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We'll share a dream
And sing with one voice
I am, You are, We are, Australian!"

Foxy and O sung wu,
I have been told that the recording that was done about 25 years ago featuring Julie Anthony as vocalist was financed by the St George bank. Further that the musical arrangement was by Tommy Tycho so no wonder it sounds so good and moving. Julie Anthony singing a musical arrangement by Tommy Tycho would be enough for me to retain the anthem. I doubt that anyone could not honestly say that arrangement is not moving.

I do not take heed of anything that Phillip Adams has to say on any subject. He is the most unAustralian person I can think of and has no respect from me what so ever.

HenryL.,

I fully understand your dislike of what Phillip Adams
writes and says. He can be insensitive at times.
But I guess so can so many other people who make a
career out of it. People like Alan Jones comes to mind.

Tommy Tycho and Julie Anthony? That would be a great
combination. I'm going to try to get hold of a copy,
if its available. I'll let you know how I do.

Foxy,
From memory I got my copy of the tape from the St George bank just prior to our local celebrations of our bicentenial where it was played.

The tape has a couple of vocal tracks and a few orchestral, both short and long.

I suggest St George bank be the first place to try. Good luck.

Dear HenryL.,

I've just learned that you can get a free copy
of the Australian National Anthem DVD and CD
through the Nationhood Material Program by
contacting the electorate office of your Senator
or Member of The House of Representatives.

Julie Anthony's version with the Royal Military College
Duntroon Band is on both the CD and the DVD.

There's more at this link:

http://www.pmc.gov.au/government/australian-national-anthem

Foxy,
That is most interesting, I shall get a copy as I think Julie Anthony's singing is the best and it will be interesting to see if the musical arrangement is the same. I cannot recall what orchestra played on the bank tape, only that there are several tracks on it.

You could still try the bank as they may still have copies as a promotion and they gave them out free. I have confirmed Tommy Tycho did the arrangement for the bank tape and anything he done was good. Interesting to see if the military band used Tommy's score or made their own.

Thanks for that.

Hi there FOXY & HENRY L...

I reckon we all agree, Julie ANTHONY acquits any number she sings with consummate ease. My memory is weak, but do either of you, remember that iconic song adopted by Qantas & performed by a fantastic choir of boys & girls - 'I Still Call Australia Home'? I think it was written and first performed by that enormous, but very troubled talent, Peter ALLEN.

I think the lyrics and melody are so very evocative and moving. Whether or not it should be listed as a potential Anthem, is up to others - but I think it should also be considered, when heard, together with the accompanying music?

Dear HenryL.,

I will definitely try the bank as I would like
to get the Tommy Tycho version. If this doesn't
pan out - I'm going to try to get it via inter-library
loan through my library from the National Library in
Canberra. They've got a copy. So either way I'll get
hold of the copy.So, Thank You again.

Dear O Sung Wu,

You've certainly brought back some lovely memories -
by reminding us of the Qantas adds of the Peter Allen
song, "I Still Call Australia Home." They were
wonderful. And I agree - so is the song.

Here's a link that explains:

http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2006/qantas-i-still-call-australia-home/

O sung wu and Foxy,
Try this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbGuqmaDgLA

I know you both appreciate orchestral music, so try this.
It is the tune 'Unchained Melody' Played by 11 military bands at the one venue. Sure to read comment 6 as it gives details.

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejm3Q5ZKr28

Enjoy

I'll try again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbGuqmaDgLA

cheers.

Dear HenryL.,

Thank You so much.

Absolutely beautiful!

Hi there HENRY L...

Absolutely fantastic! Thank you for sharing it with FOXY and myself. Greatly appreciated indeed.

Foxy and O sung wu,

I don't know what you are getting but when I clicked on it I again got the Qantas song.

Try again and see if I get Unchained melody

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejm3Q5ZKr28

Guys, Guys, enough already.
You've sent half of OLO into a coma and the other half are committing suicide, as I type.
We get it you like certain music.
Great, we do not need to read about it on OLO.
What we do need, and may I raise the point, is to get BACK ON BLOODY TOPIC!
I strongly suggest if you have finished your little back patting music appreciation segment, that we may get back on track.

No, I tell you what, keep blubbering on about your music, as it turns out, it just might be more interesting than this inane topic.

I believe this topic was over before it even started, so by now it must be, well and truly, 'up itself'.
That might explain why some have drifted off onto another discussion, because it means this one is well and truly OVER!

For Christ's sake, let's adopt the Peruvian anthem, all 28 verses, and be done with it.

Way to go Joe.
Touche'.

ALTRAV and Joe,
There is 5 short posts deviating off topic!

The rest are on topic, about the anthem or a particular version of it.

I stand by what I said in my first post on page 9. Those that think the anthem sucks have not heard a decent vocalist perform it with good musical arrangement. I defy anyone to listen to the Anthony/Tycho version and honestly say it sucks or is not moving.

If you note going off topic you are capable of bringing it back if you wish or go to another thread..

HenryL, those of us who are still awake or alive, thank you for getting back on topic.
I appreciate your proposition and commend you on your observation regarding the song.
If I understand you correctly, it is not the song, but the singer you are most concerned about.
Or to put it another way you accept the anthem but not who sings it.
I can only but agree with you.
Now all you have to do is convince the author of the topic, and I think you might have just won a lot of people over.
Well you have already 'won a lot of people over' by your explanation, but it would seal your standing if you could convince the author that they are wrong!
The song may be many things, but;
It DOES NOT SUCK!

Let us not overlook ALTRAV time and again tells us we Australians are worthless and dumb
Such a person,haunting a thread like this,to be combative is funny
The debate has been seen, often, on facebook but at the time we become a Republic, and we will, both flag and anthem will be reviewed

Belly thanks for the acknowledgement.
Not sure about your central message, but agree with you on the reviewing both the anthem and the flag, if we ever become a republic.
It is normal proto-col to do so because it is necessary to change any previous markings to new ones to demonstrate that a major change has occurred, not unlike when there is a change of govt.
We see govt depts suddenly being called by another name.
It's the way it has always been.
As for Aussies being worthless and dumb, thanks for your input, I did not use those actual words, but glad to see your on board with my description of Aussies by offering your own description of them.
If I'm not mistaken, I have used words like; entitled, lazy and selfish, but thanks for adding your own, I can see you've been giving it some thought, keep up the good work.
I must admit the topics have not been interesting or engaging now for some time.
The main reason I chose to comment on this one is that I thought this one was so bad and totally irrelevant and un-inspiring, it was sheer frustration and dis-belief that led me to engage, but more for comic relief than anything else.
But what really got me off the chair was the very idea that some know nothing useless abo idiot dared criticize and denigrate the Aussie anthem, for absolutely no reason other than personal unfounded and ridiculous opinions of his own.
So if anyone of you feel the urge to 'bag the flag' or 'bag the anthem', shame on you.
As the song goes, 'WE ARE, AUSTRALIAN', but in your case it reads 'WE ARE (NOT) AUSTRALIAN'.

I stated in my opening post that an Indigenous
rapper has explained why "Advance Australia Fair"
is offensive to Aborigines in response to the boycott
of the anthem recently by a string of State of Origin
stars.

Adam Briggs, the famous rapper, who performed on stage
at Suncorp Stadium in Queensland just before the game,
one of the interstate series, revealed why he thinks
the national song "sucks."

"I want to help you understand what the Australian
anthem sounds like when blackfellas listen to it."

Eleven NSW and Queensland stars refused to sing the
anthem before the series opened.

Adam Briggs also responded to questions from an
audience member when he appeared on Q&A. He explained
the objection to several words and verses within the
anthem beginning with the words - "young and free."

"Now since all children in the Northern Territory detention
are Aboriginal and we are the most incarcerated people
on Earth, we don't feel particularly free," Briggs said.

"And as for young, we've been here for 80,000 years but I
guess we don't look a day over 60,000."

He then went on to the words - "We've golden soil and wealth
for toil."

"We don't see much of that wealth. Only one in 10 of us
are financially secure," he said. And added, "Our land
abounds in nature's gifts."He said excludes Indigenous
people.

"You see, that just reminds us that our land was our land
before our home was girt by you lot."

"We'll toil with hearts and hands." "See we're still
fighting for half a billion dollars in stolen wages so
we did the toil part, but we're still waiting for the
pay cheque - I guess it's in the mail." Briggs said
referencing a class action to reclaim wages,
launched in 2016.

He then brought up the line - "We've boundless plains to
share." "Hold up there, sharing? We can't even share our
opinion about a song without the whole country freaking
out so that when it's played, some of us don't feel like
standing up or singing along." "The song sucks."

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Briggs explanations come at a time of the recurring
theme of changing the anthem rearing it head once
again in this country.

Drawing attention to one of the same lines that Briggs
did Labor front-bencher Tanya Plibersek and Liberal
MP Craig Kelly recently called for the line "young and
free" to be removed from the anthem. Instead the pair
proposed the line to be changed to - "strong and free"
to acknowledge Indigenous history.

It was interesting that Indigenous player Justin Hodges
gave his opinion before the game and said he chose to
sing but respected those that didn't.

"I've never had a problem singing with it because I
always thought about the guys that have put their life
on the line for us in terms of the soldiers and all
those people," Hodges said.

"That's why I sung it for those guys who gave us the
freedom to play rugby league."

Which just goes to show that we all should respect the
opinions of those who choose to, or choose not to,
sing. Especially if we believe in things like freedom
of speech, religion, et cetera. It is disrespectful
to simply jump onto the bandwagon of views that only
agree with ours. Especially in discussions on public
forums we should look at not only both sides of any
argument - but around the edges as well.

Should we all put our hand on our heart and agree that
the anthem we have is the anthem we want?
Let us all, on history's page, at every stage -
Advance Australia Fair?

Is the best argument for keeping Advance Australia Fair
the complete lack of viable alternatives?

We don't have to decide today. The time will undoubtedly
come sometime down the track.

I just hope that I shall be around to see what the
country decides. In the meantime I am enjoying this
discussion. It's great to read the various opinions.

HenryL.,

A special Thank You to you for bringing in music
to this discussion.

It was so uplifting.

That's one of the great things about OLO - discussions
do tend to often go out into different yet related
trajectories and music is after all a part of songs
singing, and national anthems.

Also having a discussion about the various choices
of anthems does not make anyone - "un-Australian,"
and any suggestion that it is - is not very Australian
at all.

[Deleted for abusive language.]

Foxy the Italian not so gentleman should not be seen as all knowing
He, if the thread is so bad, needs to explain why he continues to post in it
Right now great numbers are discussing both the flag and the anthem
This time [Republic vote] many more Europeans and other than British ancestry will be voting

"I AM AUSTRALIAN" beats all http://youtu.be/9QEdUwor9pc

and should replace the mythical Land of Girt's Song.

Pete

Dear Belly,

You're right there is quite a great deal of
discussion at present both in the media and
on television about our national anthem.
Channel 7's Sunrise program has been quick to
conduct a poll, as have other people. So far
it looks like "I am Australian"has beaten
"Advance Australia Fair,"- 45% to 40% suggesting
the current national anthem does not have universal
support. Of the other suggestions - "I Still Call
Australia Home" managed 5% support ahead of "Australia
Song"- 4% and "Waltzing Matilda,"at 3%.

I would like to Thank all the positive
contributions to this discussion.
They were greatly appreciated.
For me this discussion has now run its
course. I don't have anything new to add
and I don't see the point in repeating
the points made. Again Thank You and I
look forward to our next discussion on this
forum.

Enjoy your evening.

Yep ,i undertand you guys.
I bettel listen to some Drake or Kanye songs

Belly, if you remember, some time ago I said I would not let stupid, wrong or mis-leading comments go unchallenged.
So the fact that a topic is boring or irrelevant, is a side issue to the fact that some commentors are promoting mis-information, and I will not stand by and allow that to go through unchallenged.
If you go back and read some of your own or your mates comments you will see if you have a objective look at them that you are one of a group, well represented here on OLO.
Your attitude and continual attacks on me and your indignation of my calling you and your mates out, is clearly confirmation of my point.
There are those who refuse to be told and at times they cry foul and complain, any way they can, even to lie as long as they get their way which is to remove anyone who makes them realise their faults and failures and that ultimately they are wrong.
But as this group of people will not be brought into line, we on the other side can only keep the messages up and in their face.
If only one of these people is turned from the dark side of the force to the en-lightened side of the force, it will have been worth it.
BTW something to open your otherwise 'closed' mind.
The word left translated from Latin, then other languages, including Italian, to 'sinistra' also morphed into sinister, also means; LEFT!
So it has been for centuries that the word LEFT is derived from the word SINISTER!
So we now can say with conviction and impunity that RIGHT is RIGHT and so therefore it stands to reason that LEFT is WRONG!
Try denying or refuting that one?

While I don't believe the anthem is the most inspiring song, the criticism has largely come from the offenderatti who as a matter of principle will be offended at anything to make a political point.

I will continue to sing it, and those that wish to sulk can abstain.

SM,

I shall also continue to sing it as I always
have. But I don't think that's the point.
I think what was being asked of us was to
consider the words of the anthem from an
Indigenous point of view and some of the lines to
be changed to acknowledge Indigenous history.

Those of us who choose to sing should however
respect those that don't and try to understand their
reasons for not doing so.

Foxy,

Respect is earned. Just because a relative non entity mouths off to gain publicity, I should care?

Fella's like that just don't like Aus, and if they proposed a creative alternative one might consider it.

SM,

The gentleman in question is only one of many
raising this issue. It has been a recurring
theme for quite some time and has been raised
by many noteable people. Jeff Kennett, Craig Kelly,
Tanya Plibersek, Marcia Langton, Stan Grant,,
Warren Mundine, Noel Pearson, to name just a few.

Alternative words have been suggested, as have
alternative anthems. But as we can see - change
does not come easily for so many. It probably will
take a few more years, if not decades. Perhaps
our children or grandchildren will succeed where
we have failed.

Foxy,

The next question is whether we are then expected to change the anthem each time a new group has a grievance?

Tex Morton, a Kiwi, wrote a far better anthem
Country and western ledgend the man loved both his birth country and ours

SM,

This group is not a new group - they've been here
before us. This was their land. We're the new lot.
So I think they've a right to be heard. They've waited
for more than two centuries. They are now seeking a
fairer relationship and a renewed appreciation of an
ancient culture. They deserve to be heard.

Belly,
Can you find a link to the anthem Tex Morton wrote?

I am familiar with some of his songs but not one that I would class as an anthem. Most interested and that takes me back to my childhood and listening to early morning radio. Just a year or two.

Dear Belly,

I'll second that.

I'm not familiar with Tex Morton and would
love to learn more.

SM, just to clarify the 'bleeding hearts' version of history.
This was NEVER THEIR LAND.
By their own admission they never owned anything.
By their own admission the land did not belong to anyone.
History tells us they came from elsewhere, North of us, and if Australia kept on going South, they probably would have too.
Some dropped off along the way and formed tribes and groups.
We (the white man) on the other hand, came along and took over, and now-a-days, we, the white man OWNS this land, if for no other reason other than we have TITLES, and receipts which tell everyone who BOUGHT the land and HOW MUCH they paid for it.
Can they do the same?
At best they were a contradiction between TRANSIENTS and SQUATTERS.
Because their pretense is historic, it holds no sway today as time has moved things along and WE are now the new owners.
The claim that a handfull of bleeding hearts want change pails into insignificance against the opposing views which are held by the millions, and therefore far outweigh those of the few, no matter how important some people may think they are.
Adding to the irrelevance of this arrogant so and so, the gall of the man to even think we owe him and his lot $500 million in back pay.
Back pay?
For doing what?
Nah, ignore the fool!
As I've said before; 'keep your mouth shut and be though a fool, rather than speak and have it confirmed'.
This guy is a classic confirmation of this very saying.
If the next generation feel the need to make changes, so be it, but not because of this guy and the few who think they know better than the many.

It is time to admit that not all Australians
will want to sing an anthem that has
associations with the White Australia policy and
the country's colonial past.

For others the anthem pays lip service to words
of inclusion without living their reality.

"For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share
With courage let us all combine
To Advance Australia Fair."

We sing that Australia has plenty to offer those who
wish to come here but in reality we lock down our borders
to exclude refugees.

Therefore this anthem means different things
to different people.
And, sooner or later this problem
will have to be resolved, if enough people demand it.
This current anthem has had changes made over the
years. It sould not surprise any of us that more
changes lie ahead. It's not set in concrete.

Foxy,
You said "We sing that Australia has plenty to offer those who
wish to come here but in reality we lock down our borders
to exclude refugees".

Come on Foxy be honest. Look at the millions that we have welcomed here since WW11, immigrants and refugees. We had to take more control of our borders in recent times because foreigners were taking advantage of our generosity. All because a stupid Labor government made a wrong decision based on flawed ideology.

You do like to misrepresent things to suit your argument

So I think they've a right to be heard.

Agreed but perpetual ear bashing & whining must be replaced with positive effort !

Dear HenryL.,

Yes we have in the past embraced the perception
that we are warm and welcoming, happy to give
anyone a "fair go." Yet somewhere along the way this
narrative has now become justification for exclusion.
Australians have become so entrenched in a self-
serving narrative that we seem to believe there is
no room for others.

Where once we celebrated inclusion and mateship we now
have collectively turned our backs on people seeking
asylum by boat.

We look are ourselves as good-hearted but at refugees
as being devious. We are hard-working, refugees have
come to steal our jobs. Where we are seeking the
betterment of the future for our children, refugees
have come to destroy it through acts of terror.

The caricatures of asylum seekers are shocking in their
cliches, yet they now are deeply entrenched in our
culture.

This is not my scenario. The political strategy of
manipulating our cultural narrative to distance
asylum seekers has been employed to full effect in
recent years, allowing conservative parties to work fear
of terror, economic decline and impinging multiculturalism
to their advantage.

The mistrust of refugees has been a key agenda for
conservatives governments, there has been unchallenged
bi-partisan support of the mistreatment of refugees.

However public opinion appears to be slowly changing to
the positive. So there's hope for change yet.
Something positive may yet result out of all this.

I'm sorry if you find me offensive. All I can suggest
in that case that you stop finding me. :-)

Individual,

Hopefully with a new PM and cabinet, and a strong
opposition in Parliament, positive action will
be the result.

We'll know soon enough.

Guys, it has been said before, again and again, some people are incapable of rational reasoning and common sense, and some people simply refuse to reason because they lack common sense.
The bleeding hearts insist that we must welcome anyone in need, but refuse to acknowledge the result of those charitable acts and how they have impacted, more negatively, than positively, on us.
Taking the race and bigot cards out of the discussion, none of these people are prepared to accept or even believe that we cannot take any more people until we improve our own internal problems of un-employment and reliable food and water supplies.
I wish they would just shut up about it and look at the bigger picture.
I gave the analogy of the leaky lifeboat and that it could not take on any more people until they found a way to manage the leak.
But no, this is not what this naive mindless bunch want to hear.
They focus only on what makes them feel good and to hell with anyone else including their own families, because whether they like it or not, their families also risk being negatively affected by the foolish decision to allow more people in, when clearly we can't handle it at the moment.
This is where we see the mature, responsible people stand up and be prepared to make the unpopular decisions, for 'the greater good'.
These are issues which require pragmatic, objectivity and not emotional subjectivity.

What?
'A strong opposition in Parliament'.
How twisted can one get?
A strong opposition in Parliament!
I suppose I shouldn't complain, I have been wishing for a hung Parliament that was stifled from making any more stupid time wasting laws.
So as stupid a comment as it is, with these crooks and thieves at the helm, and I mean ALL of them, aka The Govt, the best outcome for us all is if they spend the rest of the Govt's existence fighting with each other.
Yeh, I can live with that.
What a treasonous thing to suggest, that a govt was elected, but because some dis-agree they hope the opposition is strong, strong enough for what?
Obviously to object and kill any bills that did not fit their mantra or agenda.
Oh, your a sick lot.

Foxy,

Just about every identity group can claim eons of existence.

The one thing that I can guarantee is that the moment that there is any suggestion that the anthem can be changed, all these groups will come out from the woodwork and eat eachother in trying to insert their agenda.

Secondly, no one is afraid that refugees will take their jobs, rather that they will sit on their backsides and absorb $bns in welfare. The legal immigration of 190 000 p.a. of hard working skilled immigrants receives little resistance.

SM,

Reading all the commentary both here and in the
media it does appear that some of us are suffering
from cultural amnesia. Some of us have managed to create a
strong sense of patriotism around a country that was
never ours in the first place, whilst simultaneously
excluding those who wish for freedom in a new land.

As pointed out earlier the argument that we pay lip
service towards inclusion without living this reality.
That is part of our history. We only have to remember
The White Australia policy. Which was government policy.

Today we say that Australia has plenty to offer those
who wish to come here but in reality we do lock down
our borders to exclude refugees.

Australia was built on stories, Indigenous people use
narrative to explain the formation of the world.

White settlers used ballads and legend to create their
own new persona.

What originated as a prison colony of
Britain's "undesirables"sent to the god-forsaken ends
of the earth, morphed into stories of the -
rugged outdoorsman, the resiliant farmer, and -
salt-of-the-earth men and women forging a new nation
despite great hardship.

We're proud of our history as "underdogs who came good."
We embrace the perception that we are warm and welcoming,
happy to give anyone a "fair go."

Yet somewhere along the way this narrative did become,
has become, - justification for exclusion. White Australia
appears to have become so entrenched in the self-serving
narrative that we believe there is no longer room for
others.

The political strategy of manipulating our cultural
narrative to "distance" asylum seekers has been employed to
full effect in recent years, allowing conservative
parties to work fear of terror, economic decline, and
impinging multiculturalism to their advantage.

The mistrust of refugees has been a key agenda for
conservative governments - these have been unchallenged
and have bi-partisan support of the mistreatment of
refugees.

Therefore it should not be surprising that there are
voices being heard that are objecting to the words
of our current anthem and are demanding change.
Whether this will happen the people shall decide.

ALTRAV I have noticed, your posts when I first emerged from self imposed exile have changed
Unhinged and insulting once
You put in real effort
And they are much better, let us face it they could not have gotten worse
However you continue to judge other contributions, fair enough we judge yours
Do you think your views are STABLE enough to use as a platform to tell us most of us are stupid?

Belly, thank's for your criticisms and comments.
Unlike what most may think, I do respond to 'reasonable' demands.
I must confess, I have toned down my rhetoric slightly, but not totally because I have 'seen the error of my ways', but because I realised that, as others have pointed out, we are never going to change well entrenched beliefs and opinions.
Mostly though, I realised that the sad truth is that PC has begun infecting certain people including those who oversea OLO.
I understand that they too are constrained by the threats of the same few terrorists/activists who are pushing PC.
I am disappointed that I am 'forced' to not freely express something if and when required to do so, for fear of getting reported by the very people I am criticising.
I hope you can see the irony in that too.
So it is that even though I have 'toned down' my language, I cannot turn my back on the truth.
As for being 'stable' enough to call most people stupid.
I can only quote from the evidence.
My language is based mostly on expediency, most would say, laziness.
I can cop that criticism, I've always written or spoken in the shortest quickest form I can to simply save time and get the message across quicker.
For example, I was 'recently' pulled for using the word 'abo'.
I have explained many times already, these were standard speak during my up-bringing.
So words like 'wog', 'skip', 'abo', were words of endearment from those we knew.
But a call to arms from those we didn't know.
I and most other 'wogs' took it on the chin, or responded in kind.
Good friends used to call me 'ding'.
Enemies would call me 'dago' or 'wog bastard'.
Anyway, thank you for your kind words and the time you have taken to convey them.
On a more jovial note, don't think I won't pull you up in the future, if I see the need.
Hang on to that smile.

Dear Belly,

National anthems bring out a whole range of
emotions in people as we can see from this
discussion. That's why it is an interesting
subject and would make for a good thesis
at uni for someone. There are various
anthems with various words and meanings.
Many people have been known to shed tears
as they sing. They evoke all sorts of
emotions and often they unite us rather
than divide us.

However, we're currently discussing the
objections that have been raised by our
Indigenous people to some of the words
in our anthem and the explanations given from
their point of view.

We don't have to agree with what is being raised.
The relationship between our Indigenous heritage
and the country's British heritage has been a troubled
history, and as troubling as it will be for the
foreseeable future, these two things are the heritage
of Australia.

There is no denying it. It is the reality and it is
the truth, no matter how much white Australians might
want to ignore it or black Australians might want
to reject it. Whatever the mutual denial of the past,
the future must be one of mutual recognition.

Foxy,

You are looking at this subject through the lense of identity politics. If someone is born in Australia then they are citizens and should have the same rights as any other person born here.

The statement "Some of us have managed to create a strong sense of patriotism around a country that was never ours in the first place" is just wrong in so many ways.

SM,

The reference was to the cultural amnesia that
many of us are suffering regarding our First
People's. It was linked to the current objections
some of them have today to our national anthem.
And the reasons for them.
But I've explained all of that in this discussion.
We have to realise that we pay lip service to
so many things but the reality for others may be
very different to our own.

Thank You for your contributions to this discussion.
For me it has now run its course.

SM, thanks for picking up on that point.
I completely missed it.
'Some of us ................around a country that was never ours in the first place'.
I agree, it was never 'anyone's', until the poms came along and said, 'we'll have this, thank you very much' and since then it was theirs.
These days it belongs to all those who have clear title to it because that is the law today, and that which is not privately owned is owned by the 'Crown', and that's why it's called 'Crown' land.
Why some people want to believe things that are not true when even 'they' have always said they never owned anything because they never believed or engaged in the practice or custom of 'owning' anything, possibly because they were 'transients' and it was too hard to carry any more than their hunting tools maybe, so anyone who says otherwise is either knowingly lying or simply unaware of this 'fact'.
Either way they're are wrong.
I know it's hard trying to get through to some people, but when something is a historical fact, I would think there was nothing to get through.
Some people just refuse to accept an uncomfortable truth and prefer a comfortable lie instead.
And that means they live in a world of their own making, or, in other words they're, living a lie.
Because of this, such people need to be made aware of the error of their ways and be brought back into the real world to minimize any on going mis-information or damage caused by them.

That is precisely what the Indigenous Leaders
are trying to do today. To correct the wrongs
of the past. They were counted in 1967. Today
they are asking to be heard.

"We have to acknowledge that pre-1788
this land was as Aboriginal then as it is
Australian now and until we acknowledge that,
we will be an incomplete nation and a torn
people... In short, we need to atone for the
emissions and for the hardness of heart of our
forebears to enable us all to embrace the future as
a united people."

- Tony Abbott, second reading of the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
Recognition Bill, 2013.

The national anthem recording played at the primary school my grandkids in Broome go to has music provided by didgeridoo and tap sticks, amongst a few other instruments. Can’t get much more inclusive than that.

Foxy, you believe what you want, but as far as history goes there was no wrong done here.
The blacks got off extremely lightly when the same situation occurred in other countries (occupying) there would have been 'real' bloodshed and a 'real' effort at bringing them to heel.
Instead by and large there was no major conflicts and instead only occasional minor ones.
As if we didn't have as many white trouble makers to match the number of blacks making trouble. (eg; Ned Kelly)
As for wanting to be heard, don't care, we have been 'hearing' them for way too long, now it's time to shut-up if they were truly genuine, just get on with their life, like the rest of the Aussies, and keep moving forward.
We have been facilitating them for as long as I care to remember, and still they want to bleed us further.
Enough, I for one will never agree to throw any more money or privileges at these people.
I think we have gone way beyond our ability to cater for these people.
Now they are just being greedy.
Just want to be heard, my arse!
Grow up Foxy, if you're going to claim knowledge and expertise in everything you say, then please don't just take things at face value by using references and other peoples words or thinking, learn to question them, they are just people like the rest of us, with one great difference, they have agenda, we don't.
When you finally learn and accept this, you will be a better informed and interesting person, worth listening to.
Right now, you are neither.

I see no point in arguing with people who do a fine
job of proving their complete ignorance on their
own. I don't have the time nor the crayons to
explain things to them.

Foxy, you see how you get it wrong even some might say, a lost cause.
I give you a lot of ammunition for you to find fault and throw back in my face.
But instead, what do you do?
Deflect and retort with childish remarks.
Which is quite apropos in your case as you have just admitted to the use of crayons.
Don't you see, if this is a medium of exchange of ideas and beliefs, you are not playing by the rules if you keep quoting others and we are to assume that instead of you generating your own words, are you trying to save time by referencing and links?
Your continual and annoying habit of praising someone for no good reason, other than you trying to attach yourself to an otherwise boring nobody, in elevating them to a level way beyond their actual ability.
Is it because it elevates you as well by telling us you believe he is praiseworthy.
Again that imaginary, 'look at moi' factor.
We get no actual facts from you, just vagaries and references.
I'm sorry, but perhaps you can't give personal opinions, you prefer to abstain and quote references instead.
You see Foxy, we don't give a rats at what he said, she said, he wrote, she wrote, we want to read about what YOU think.
Anyway, have a nice day.
Why do I know you will.

They say you never wrestle a pig, because you
both get dirty and the pig likes it.
Similarly, there's only one thing sillier
than being a reprobate, troll, or blow-hard,
and that's arguing with one.

Best to walk away.

Foxy, you have just vindicated ME and sealed your fate with that last comment, which is, as it turns out, typical of your standard of reasoning.
I have to agree with you, someone with your attitude and self importance it is one of the best comments and idea's you've made/had thus far.
It is best you just walk away.
Don't look back, and please don't say another word.
Let's see if you can keep your word this time.

Appreciation is a wonderful things.

I have to laugh.

Well that's better than attacking.

'The national anthem recording played at the primary school my grandkids in Broome go to has music provided by didgeridoo and tap sticks, amongst a few other instruments. Can’t get much more inclusive than that.'
Posted by Big Nana, Friday, 21 June 2019 1:01:42 AM

That is awesome Big Nana - on the east coast NSW - AAF has been replaced on assemblies with Acknowledgement of Country.
In Canberra at my grand daughter's school they have both.