Flag?

[Ocean1]

I am yet to be convinced by a coherent, considered, and well-reasoned argument that we need a new flag...

Do it yourself: What does the current flag represent?

Job done, let's have the fucker gone.

[MarkH]

You want to give your reasons for this belief?

Well, sure - there is nothing on that flag that says 'New Zealand'.
You have the Union Jack, what does that say? UK colony?
There is the Southern Cross, what does that say? Southern Hemisphere?
Sorry, but I'm not a UK citizen (my ancestors may have been), I'm a New Zealander.
I'll admit to us being in the Southern Hemisphere, but then again that applies to so many other countries.
So yeah, I really do despise our current flag - I feel that its time really should be up.

At least the proposed replacement flag has a fern on it. Since there are so many NZers buried overseas with the silver fern on their gravestones as well as extensive use of that symbol for our sports people (Olympic athletes, Commonwealth athletes, etc) I am pretty happy to have that a part of our flag. To me the silver fern says New Zealand.
For whom does the Union Jack say New Zealand? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Moi]

Well, sure - there is nothing on that flag that says 'New Zealand'.
You have the Union Jack, what does that say? UK colony?
There is the Southern Cross, what does that say? Southern Hemisphere?
Sorry, but I'm not a UK citizen (my ancestors may have been), I'm a New Zealander.
I'll admit to us being in the Southern Hemisphere, but then again that applies to so many other countries.
So yeah, I really do despise our current flag - I feel that its time really should be up.

At least the proposed replacement flag has a fern on it. Since there are so many NZers buried overseas with the silver fern on their gravestones as well as extensive use of that symbol for our sports people (Olympic athletes, Commonwealth athletes, etc) I am pretty happy to have that a part of our flag. To me the silver fern says New Zealand.
For whom does the Union Jack say New Zealand? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

There is no Union Jack on our flag... there is a Union Flag...
The Southern Cross was the star constellation that guided the first inhabitants of these islands...
I am a third generation New Zealander but I also recognise our ancestry... those from England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Eire, other parts of Europe and, of course, those who came before through the South Pacific...

"Despise" is a very strong word... a word I'd use with great caution...

A fern... ferns are not exclusive to New Zealand... yes, the silver fern [Cyathea dealbata] is used by sports teams and many others but does that mean it should be on our flag?

The other aspect that needs to be considered is does the proposed flag obey the rules of vexillology? It needs to perform numerous functions such as Ensigns of the different military.

So, sorry but your argument has not persuaded me that we need a new flag...

[Moi]

Do it yourself: What does the current flag represent?

Job done, let's have the fucker gone.

I don't see the present flag as "broken"... You see I am not persuaded by the hype presented by the media, the commentators, the "personalities", the government and by anyone else who is swayed by what appears to me to be a logo... or the "smoke-screen" that the flag debate appears to have been... that's how I see it...

As I say, I'm still awaiting a reasoned argument to change the flag... not some knee jerk or mass hysteric reaction...

[gjm]

Why am I against this?

$26m.

I assume all those in favour, the 20% perhaps, will be putting their hands in their pockets to reimburse me and the apathetic 80% for our tax money that has been spent on this?

Besides, I like the current flag. I will be voting. For the current flag. And if it wins, I anticipate the 20% will become apathetic about the spending of the money, saying (again) it is 'only' $26m.

[Oakie]

I don't see the present flag as "broken"... You see I am not persuaded by the hype presented by the media, the commentators, the "personalities", the government and by anyone else who is swayed by what appears to me to be a logo... or the "smoke-screen" that the flag debate appears to have been... that's how I see it...

Many people have referred to the Silver Fern as a 'logo' as if it's something bad. A logo is "a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used .... to aid and promote instant public recognition". (thank you Wiki). Surely that's what a flag should do?

Many Kiwi organisations use the Silver Fern as a logo and it is probably the most recognised 'logo' in respect of our country. Why shouldn't it be on the flag?

[oneofsix]

Many people have referred to the Silver Fern as a 'logo' as if it's something bad. A logo is "a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used .... to aid and promote instant public recognition". (thank you Wiki). Surely that's what a flag should do?

Many Kiwi organisations use the Silver Fern as a logo and it is probably the most recognised 'logo' in respect of our country. Why shouldn't it be on the flag?

A logo is a good thing for a company for those reasons, a country is more than a company and very different, it doesn't require a shallow logo to be changed at whim, look at now many times Telecom has changed theirs. A country needs an enduring symbol.

[Ocean1]

I don't see the present flag as "broken"... You see I am not persuaded by the hype presented by the media, the commentators, the "personalities", the government and by anyone else who is swayed by what appears to me to be a logo... or the "smoke-screen" that the flag debate appears to have been... that's how I see it...

As I say, I'm still awaiting a reasoned argument to change the flag... not some knee jerk or mass hysteric reaction...

Maybe I've never been persuaded by the media, etc that accepted that our existing flag was anything other than the nominal colonial nod it is.

Nobody asked us if we wanted it. It resembles many other flags similarly issued to British colonies. I don't agree that it adequately represents the ethnic origins of our people and I don't believe that's it's the function of a flag to describe where some of us came from anyway. Who we all are now, rather than where some of us came from.

And I think that in the rush to oppose the initiative of this govt on any convenient grounds the possibility to rationally select a better option is getting drowned in exactly that knee jerk and mass hysteria you claim drives the attempt to offer an alternative. Ask yourself, by way of a simple litmus test, whether the same people complaining about the process would be quite as vociferous if the proposal had been seen under a Labour watch.

Sans politics: I don't like the old colonial imposition, and personally I think the proposed alternative offers something we can actually say we chose, is far from ugly, bears some relevant iconography and above all is something I'd personally be happy to be seen as representing my country.

[Ocean1]

Why am I against this?

$26m.

I assume all those in favour, the 20% perhaps, will be putting their hands in their pockets to reimburse me and the apathetic 80% for our tax money that has been spent on this?

Besides, I like the current flag. I will be voting. For the current flag. And if it wins, I anticipate the 20% will become apathetic about the spending of the money, saying (again) it is 'only' $26m.

Good grief, on that basis every man-jack in the country will have far more than $26 million reasons to object to any number of budget initiatives.

[gjm]

Good grief, on that basis every man-jack in the country will have far more than $26 million reasons to object to any number of budget initiatives.

Not if they aren't demonstrably a waste of time, effort, money and resource.

If - and it is if - the current flag is retained, will we have wasted $26m?

[MarkH]

There is no Union Jack on our flag... there is a Union Flag...

How does that make it any better?
Not really a very persuasive argument for the current flag there!
Let me just use google . . .

The Union Flag is the name of the flag of the United Kingdom, commonly called the Union Jack.

FFS, that is what you come up with? You correct my use of the term 'Union Jack' to suggest I should have used a term that the internet tells me is the same thing?
Are you perhaps some kind of idiot?

The Southern Cross was the star constellation that guided the first inhabitants of these islands...

I don't quite get your point. The Southern Cross was the star constellation that guided the first inhabitants to several southern hemisphere countries.
It is also a feature of quite a few flags. There is nothing unique to NZ about a constellation clearly visible to all of the southern hemisphere.
Also - this constellation will be on our flag regardless of how the referendum goes.
If you really think it should be part of our flag then you should just relax and not worry about that.

I am a third generation New Zealander but I also recognise our ancestry... those from England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Eire, other parts of Europe and, of course, those who came before through the South Pacific...

I don't know what this means. What are you trying to say? What does this have to do with the flag?

The other aspect that needs to be considered is does the proposed flag obey the rules of vexillology? It needs to perform numerous functions such as Ensigns of the different military.

What the hell are you on about now? Are you seriously trying to suggest the proposed flag would be against some rules that would mean it is not allowed?
You seem to be grasping at straws here. I would suggest to you that if over half the people that vote in the March referendum want the new flag then it WILL become the new NZ flag and your fictitious 'rules of vexillology' wont suddenly appear from their current non-existence and deny us the flag we choose.

As I say, I'm still awaiting a reasoned argument to change the flag... not some knee jerk or mass hysteric reaction...

What the hell is this shit?
What knee jerk or mass hysteric reaction are you referring to? Reaction to what exactly? Are you under some impression that an event happened and a flag change is a reaction to that event - what event are you thinking of here?
What reasoned argument is required?
We could just decide as a country that our flag should be changed to one that better reflects our current identity and choose to change to that flag, why would we possibly require anything more than that?

We need nothing more than to decide if most of us want to keep the current flag or change to the proposed flag, if we decide to keep the existing one then that is all there is to it, the current flag would then remain as the NZ flag for several decades at least. If we decide we prefer the proposed flag then we will change the flag and that new flag will be our nations flag for several decades at least.
Too many stupid bullshit arguments keep appearing when it should just be as simple as 'which flag to we prefer to represent our country'.

[MarkH]

A country needs an enduring symbol.

How long have we had the Silver Fern as a national symbol? Google tells me it has been well over a century, sounds like an enduring symbol to me.

[MarkH]

Why am I against this?

$26m.

Maybe we should change the flag then, that would give us something for the money wouldn't it?
Or maybe you should just get over this, especially considering that the money has been spent and there is nothing you can do about that aspect now.

[bogan]

Why am I against this?

$26m.

I assume all those in favour, the 20% perhaps, will be putting their hands in their pockets to reimburse me and the apathetic 80% for our tax money that has been spent on this?

Besides, I like the current flag. I will be voting. For the current flag. And if it wins, I anticipate the 20% will become apathetic about the spending of the money, saying (again) it is 'only' $26m.

The cost of democracy, would you prefer that JK just changed it to one he liked? 26mil is about the price of a coffee per person. So it's demonstrably not just about the money. What is it actually about for you?

Not if they aren't demonstrably a waste of time, effort, money and resource.

If - and it is if - the current flag is retained, will we have wasted $26m?

No, because the question will have been answered. If it was demonstrably a waste of time, effort, money etc then that would have been demonstrated, surely?

[Moi]

How does that make it any better?
Not really a very persuasive argument for the current flag there!
Let me just use google . . .

FFS, that is what you come up with? You correct my use of the term 'Union Jack' to suggest I should have used a term that the internet tells me is the same thing?
Are you perhaps some kind of idiot?

Thank you for your assessment of my mental state...

I don't quite get your point. The Southern Cross was the star constellation that guided the first inhabitants to several southern hemisphere countries.
It is also a feature of quite a few flags. There is nothing unique to NZ about a constellation clearly visible to all of the southern hemisphere.
Also - this constellation will be on our flag regardless of how the referendum goes.
If you really think it should be part of our flag then you should just relax and not worry about that.

I don't know what this means. What are you trying to say? What does this have to do with the flag?

I was replying to what you had said...

What the hell are you on about now? Are you seriously trying to suggest the proposed flag would be against some rules that would mean it is not allowed?
You seem to be grasping at straws here. I would suggest to you that if over half the people that vote in the March referendum want the new flag then it WILL become the new NZ flag and your fictitious 'rules of vexillology' wont suddenly appear from their current non-existence and deny us the flag we choose.

Perhaps you need to check what vexillology means... it is not fictitious...

What the hell is this shit?
What knee jerk or mass hysteric reaction are you referring to? Reaction to what exactly? Are you under some impression that an event happened and a flag change is a reaction to that event - what event are you thinking of here?
What reasoned argument is required?

Certainly more than you are giving...

We could just decide as a country that our flag should be changed to one that better reflects our current identity and choose to change to that flag, why would we possibly require anything more than that?

We need nothing more than to decide if most of us want to keep the current flag or change to the proposed flag, if we decide to keep the existing one then that is all there is to it, the current flag would then remain as the NZ flag for several decades at least. If we decide we prefer the proposed flag then we will change the flag and that new flag will be our nations flag for several decades at least.
Too many stupid bullshit arguments keep appearing when it should just be as simple as 'which flag to we prefer to represent our country'.

As I say, I am still awaiting a reasoned argument.