Jason Paul Troup
Dear
Sir/Madam,
THE NEW
ZEALAND FLAG.
A letter
distributed to Mayors and Councillors throughout the country by Mr Jason Troup,
of Hastings, has been referred to the Royal New Zealand Returned Services'
Association, together with associated correspondence, by a local RSA. Mr Troup
advocates replacing the New Zealand flag and promotes his own design for the
purpose.
As you will
know, the RNZRSA is the national body to which the many local RSA's are
affiliated. You will also know that, for their part, local RSA's do take a
close interest in the affairs of the communities in which they are situated;
and that they contribute widely, generously and constructively to the well
being of those communities.
Among other
things, the papers we have seen suggest that some Councils might have discussed
Mr Troup's proposals and have come to conclusions without taking into account
the views of the community RSA's; nor even, perhaps, that they might have a
view to advance.
I take this
opportunity, therefore, of making plain that they do indeed have a position in
the matter. Not only that, it is a considered view. It is, moreover, a view
consistently held throughout the organisation from the highest councils to its ordinary
membership. Developed over time, in summary it has three main strands:
·
Support
for the continued integrity of the (existing) New Zealand flag.
·
Any
change should be solely the prerogative of the people of New Zealand as
determined by a substantial majority of the electors in a referendum.
·
The
matter should be taken out of the political arena.
We make NO
COMMENT upon Mr Troup's design as a design; save to remark in passing that it
ranks AMONG THE BETTER ONES floated over the years. Rather, our concern is with
the underlying proposition that the flag needs changing at all.
We have no
wish to be drawn into a head-to-head quarrel with Mr Troup. That said, however,
there are aspects of his letter to councils which we believe should be examined
carefully.
For
example, in the context of personal acquaintance with tourism he claims to have
"direct feedback on areas that are seen to be detrimental to our image as
a modern nation and society”. Really what feedback is that? What areas are in
question? By whom is the detriment seen? If it does exist then in what way,
exactly, does it injure our image? And in that case is the injury of a kind to
be concerned about?
We often
hear assertions such as his, of course. But just as often they seem to rely
only on travellers’ tale of unconvincing consequence. Supporting evidence of
calculable damage to our image, or to any other aspect of our society, is
seldom offered. It might be concluded therefore that such claims are no more
than an appeal to rhetoric made necessary in an endeavour to mask flimsy
substance. Indeed, observation suggests that the weaker the substance the more
abstract the language is likely to be.
Mr Troup’s
letter goes on to claim that the present flag has “ for many years been
misrepresenting the people” on the basis that “ it displays New Zealand only in
the past tense…..” We have very real difficulty with the implications of these
statements. They seem to suggest that the symbols supplant the realities. This
is then said to show that we must change the symbols in order to assure the
future; or alternatively that not to change the symbols will put the future at
peril. But these notions are quite outrageous. The fact is that the symbols we
choose to represent us simply reflect the realities; they do not create them.
Thus we do
not see how changing the symbol- the flag- could possibly liberate us from our
past. Indeed, we do not agree that disengaging from the realities of our past
is a good idea even if it was possible. As with the tramper lost in the bush,
How are we to know where we are if we forget where we have been? And how would
we know which direction is best if we cannot say where we are now?
Nor should
we overlook that a substantial part of the modern New Zealand community is
particularly anxious to ensure that we do not forget the past. These folk are convinced that the past, and only
the past with all its realities, triumphs and discomforts, is all that we have
as a platform upon which to build a sound future. To imagine that we can ignore
it and begin anew is, they say, to offend good faith.
We suggest,
frankly, that the proposals to say that by changing the symbols we might
disengage from the past and engineer a better future are not only unreal but
silly. If there are good reasons to change the flag, these are not among them.
A more
mature approach is both possible and available, we believe. It involves
accommodating the past and building upon it as distinct from trying to
eliminate it. Part of the accommodation would be to simply to accept the past,
warts and all including the symbol of the flag, and proceeding from there in an
adult manner. At that point the first question would become why do we need to
change the symbol? not what should we change the symbol to? Our view would then
be clearer, uncluttered by confusions over whether the flag should be a fair
symbol of our nation and its history carried forward into the future or merely
a logo calculated to foster tourism and commerce abroad.
Our final
comment is also of historical tenor. Mr Troup’s letter alludes to sticking
one’s neck out for a case on the basis of respect. We would only observe that
whilst courage may be needed figuratively to stick one’s neck out in a debate
where one’s reputation is at risk, the courage required physically to risk
one’s neck in the name of the national flag takes courage both of a different
kind and of a different order. Having done this and also mourning comrades who
lost their lives in doing it, the returned servicemen and woman of this country
have no difficulty in respecting themselves. They would need to see very strong
evidence indeed that the present flag fails us before they could agree that
change is called for.
Should
propositions to change the flag come before your Council for consideration, I
trust you will take the above remarks into account.
Yours
faithfully,
I D (David)
Cox, MBE