Roots And National Identity

Lest We Forget

In New Zealand we are amidst a referendum on adopting a new flag.  All the portents are that the country will vote against novelty.  The alternative flag put forward for consideration to replace the old flag has been given a fair go in terms of how it was chosen in the first place as the alternative and also in the way that it has been promoted and advertised around the shop. 

But a large section of the public are unmoved.  This has been bitterly disappointing to many amongst the Chattering Classes who have approached the issue as if the debate over a flag was in fact a debate about marketing strategies.  In fact, the Prime Minister who has led the charge to change the flag, has overtly  approached the question of a replacement flag as a marketing tactic for NZ Inc.

All the polls indicate that the referendum will result in the old flag being retained, and the alternative rejected.  We imagine this will come as a great shock to many.  After all, many talking heads and celebs have been co-opted into the change campaign.  TV ads have been run with opinionistas urging us to change.  We have remained unmoved.  It's a good feeling to be part of the silent majority for a change.

One opinionista has blamed petty politics for the rejection.  Audrey Young has a point:

The reason most big decisions are not left to referendums has become blindingly clear with New Zealand's flag debate.  And we are about to be shown another classic lesson in Britain over the next four months.

Politicians cannot be trusted not to stick to the issue. They cannot be trusted not to hijack whatever question is on the block for their own purpose . . . . Bear in mind that two years ago, when John Key first announced there would be a flag referendum, the reaction of the Labour and Green Party leaders was to welcome it and say that they too would hold a referendum if they won the 2014 election.

Between then and now the leaders of the left have persuaded their supporters to oppose the process, criticise the cost, condemn the timing, question the motives, mock the alternative, and to vote "no change" in order to embarrass a political rival.  They went into the last election promising a referendum on the flag and then cheapened the exercise because they wanted to portray it as John Key's and not the people's.

If the Labour and Greens leadership had risen above the political point-scoring and given its blessing to truly free debate on the left, David Shearer would not be the only Labour MP willing to say he is voting for the alternative among the 21 who were willing to say at all, and Kennedy Graham would not be the only Green MP voting for the alternative of the nine who were willing to say.

One of the reasons we have been deeply uncomfortable over the proposal to change our national flag is that much of the advocacy ignores our past.  Our history is not universally righteous--far from it.  Like all nations, it is a mixture of good and bad.  The current flag reflects that past, its good and its evils.   We are amongst those who believe that the past should be memorialised in a thousand ways and passed on to forthcoming generations.  After all, setting up memorial stones lest we forget is a godly practice employed by God's covenant people for millennia.  A nation's flag is its memorial stone, not its marketing strategy.

Take, for example, the historical reality that for many years New Zealand was a British colony.  That reality is very definitely reflected in the design of our flag.  That reality in both its good and bad aspects must never be forgotten.  We are of the generation which had parents, uncles, aunts, and people in our community generally who waged war upon the Axis powers.  We did so as part of the British Empire.  Many died.  Others suffered horribly.  We stand on their shoulders, enjoying the very freedom they helped secure.  We are glad that connection and historical reality is reflected in our national flag.  The fact that so many young people are now celebrating and remembering this at Anzac Day indicates the yearning people have to be rooted in the past.

It is ironic that precisely at a time when so many amongst the young hunger to know and remember about the past, a proposal to "modernise" our flag has been championed by so many talking heads.  It was only about fifteen years ago that attendance at Anzac Day celebrations was rapidly diminishing, leading to open speculation that the whole thing should be chopped.  The turnaround of interest is remarkable.  Crowds of young people are flocking to Anzac Day remembrance services.  It is not without significance, we believe, that the polls show the younger demographic strongly opposed to changing the flag.

The grand assumption has been that the lack of support amongst the young for changing the flag is due to their disconnection from the issue.  They are bored with the whole thing.  We suspect not.  We suspect that an increasing number of young people are yearning to connect with our past as a people.  As so much in our modern world disintegrates, the past represents something certain, some solid rocks, which cannot be swept away with modernist nihilism.

But our current flag also contains reminders of past evils.  We are glad because our flag has "lest we forget" elements to it.  The Treaty of Waitangi was all about Maori coming under the rule and protection of the Crown.  The missionaries advocated for the Treaty amongst the Maori because they believed that the Crown would protect with the force of law the interests and property of Maori.  In the end, however, it was the Crown which became the chief betrayer of Maori interests.  At least that was the view of many of the missionaries--and of many Maori.  For example:

I would like to refer to another example that suggests that sympathies between descendants of missionary and Māori ran deep, affecting the outlook on issues of the Treaty and justice especially. I will not refer to the context, I will simply quote from this 1867 document by Henry’s son, TC Williams:

"As I hold the opinion, in common with many others, that the Treaty of Waitangi has been clearly broken by the Government of this country in their dealings with the Natives for the acquisition of the Manawatu block, and as I am the son of the Rev. Henry Williams abovenamed, I need offer no apology for now coming forward to assist the Natives "on the north side of Cook's Strait" in standing up for their rights guaranteed to them by the said Treaty.

"I bring no charge against the colonists, for whom, as a body, I, in common with Parakaia and many of his countrymen, have a great respect. I believe them to have been misinformed and misled. When I ask any intelligent Maori the question "who are to blame for the past and the present state of things in New Zealand?" the reply is a ready one-- "Ko nga kai mahi o te Kawanatanga." When I am myself asked a similar question, my reply is the same--'the Government and the officers of the Government.' "

THOMAS C. WILLIAMS,
A Native of New Zealand.Taita, Wellington, July 18, 1867. [Emphasis added.  Lecture by Samuel Carpenter, St Paul’s Paihia, 4 February 2014.] 

The current flag includes this past, represents it, reminds us of it.  It is not something to forget, shrug off, thereby wiping the slate clean.  It should serve to humble us, chasten us, and make us wiser.

It is for these reasons we, at least, are glad that it looks like the flag of New Zealand will be retained.