Flaggy Flag Flag

I am sick to fucking death of calls to change the flag. Forgive me if you think I am naïve, but I really see no point, a rather large amount of hassle, and certainly no demonstrable benefit coming from the change.

For the last two weeks the Herald has been running a ‘debate’ on changing the flag, and the Dom Post has done much the same. While I haven’t read every article (that would mean sifting through large amounts of shit), I have a good understanding of the core points. What baffles me is the stupidity of some people who attempt to engage in the debate, and the refusal of the Herald and the Dom to admit the shortcomings in their research methodology (which should be patently obvious).

The core points of the ‘change the flag’ camp seem to be threefold: (1) most people use the silver fern, lets use that, (2) the flag does not adequately represent Maori, or Maori history (3) We are practically a republic and so shouldn’t really have the Union Flag, find something else.

It may well be true that ‘most people’ use the silver fern, particularly at sporting events, but fortunately asserting something does not make it true. It is certainly reasonable to suggest that the flag is recognisable, but this really boils down to the fact that people use it in situations where it is bound to be recognised. For example, if New Zealand is playing rugby against Australia, and NZ supporters wave the silver fern then yes, recognition is an obvious consequence. (1) Because the people that watch rugby will typically have seen it before, and (2) because it is not the Australian flag, and it would be rather strange to see flag of a nation that is not competing. I am not convinced that it would be recognised were it to be flown at a trade conference in Uganda, or even outside the UN in New York. Moreover, what we need to recognise here is that the emblem that people associate with a country need not be that nation’s flag. Take Australia for example, a kangaroo graces their national airline, as well as virtually every food product made there, and is commonly flown at sporting events along with the colours green and yellow that we have come to associate with them However, it is not there flag. There is no inherent harm in having something emblematic (like a fern, or a kiwi) on a flag that is used in situations like this, yet is not the official flag. In fact, I can foresee some situations where it may be of vast benefit divorcing the two ideas (imagine a front page picture of a rioter at a sporting event in a European newspaper. It is probably best that people have to work a little to associate this with New Zealand, as both tourism and exports could be harmed by the bad publicity, as well as a degradation of the treatment of New Zealanders oversees as a result of stereotyping).

In a similar vane, pro-change people point to the fact that the flag does not adequately represent Maori, or history, or Maori history. This is true, and completely reasonable, but short of having a fucking hideous collage (see Canada’s flags between 1868 and 1964 to see what I mean: perhaps then you may understand why they changed to the Maple Leaf) there is not much that can be done to rectify the situation. In any respect, we have a flag for this very purpose: The flag of the United Tribes of New Zealand (NB: it’s actually quite aesthetically pleasing), we also have the tino rangatiratanga flag that is flow at events that necessitates such action. While I am not at all a supporter of oppression (or repression, in this case) of indigenous peoples, I think it is important to look to other flags to see that we are certainly not alone in this approach. The Australian flag does not at all represent the aboriginal people, and two flags touted as being easily recognisable (possibly the most recognisable behind the Union Flag) and supported in principle by many flag-changers, the Canadian Maple Leaf and the US Stars and Stripes both completely fail to represent the Inuit and the American Indian peoples. I must admit though, we treat Maori a fuckload better than all three of those nations, combined.

Remaining on the point of history as I segue to the republic argument, the Union Flag is an extremely important part of our nation’s history. 78% of residents identify as being European, compared with only 15% who identify as Maori (and so replacing the flag in its entirety with the tino rangitiratanga is, put simply, a stupid idea).

New Zealand functioned for a long time as a very enthusiastic member of the British Empire: our economy was raised on meat and dairy exports to the UK, we fought on their behalf in some of the some of the most bloody theatres of war. Moreover, the introduction of two things clearly British: the musket, and the potato (trivial as they may sound), completely changed the face of the nation.

In that light, the UK is clearly an integral part of our history: much more so than a silver fern, or a small flightless (useless, virtually extinct) bird with which we as a people share a name.

The suggestion that we are virtually divorced from the UK and therefore should not bear the Union Flag is something I struggle to see logic in. Sure, the UK no long take much of an active role in our governance, but the reality is that we are still part of the commonwealth and should act in such regard.

To try and appease such a vast array of groups is very difficult, and I am not personally convinced that the cost of consultation, redesign and roll-out of any new design would be economically justified. Further more, I am certain that with any investigation you will find that the number of people who support a flag change is actually significantly less than that reported by the Herald who base their results on their hopelessly flawed DigiPolls (which produce a massive self selection bias, and fail to take in to account strength of preference).

The proof is really in the pudding when a call for a citizens initiated referendum was held, but yielded only a 2% turnout. Clearly the pro-changers are an impassioned few, but certainly not much more.