Interesting to also note that the Union Flag/Jack is not the official flag of the UK, it's has just come to represent it by its widespread use in the Navy. So now by default everyone regards it as the flag of the UK and England as it was a regular sight on any British warship, and British warships were everywhere at one point. England has it's own national flag separate to the Union Flag. The only law that was decreed was that non British navy ships could not display any flag or pennant regularly used by the navy, which included the "Jack".

Wales was annexed before national flags were a thing, however the Tudor coat of arms had a set of Welsh Dragons added to signify the event. Unfortunately we all know the Tudor line was discontinued so that link was severed.

Interesting to see the Ryanair lyre shaped lady is very close to the lyre symbol the Protectorate under Cromwell used on their short lived flag, due to the association with the Kingdom of Ireland (the harp flag). So Ryanair is flying both the Irish national flag, next to the rego, and a representation of the old Kingdom of Ireland flag on the tail.

There's really two issues at play in this thread.

One, should airlines paint the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags on aircraft alongside the current National flag, as they were recognised as "Flags of Australia" under the Flags Act by Bill Hayden in 1995? Just like multiple carriers have the EU flag painted alongside their national flag, or the Caribbean Community flag, or other international visible displays of Australia (like the AO tennis) display the Aboriginal and TSI flags alongside the national flag? Or remove all flags from aircraft like Air NZ?

Two, should the current Australian national flag be changed? Really that's a full on debate well beyond the scope of this thread, but I found this video interesting. Whilst aesthetically the new flag design in the video wouldn't be my first choice the creator of the video has some very good points and a thorough knowledge of the symbology and meaning of his design:


One could say a new national flag would negate the desire to display the additional flags on aircraft or at events or businesses.

Does "Aboriginal" by definition include the TSI peoples?

My opinion is that the Jack should be removed from the corner and the 7 point star enlarged and its done. The aboriginal flag is a flag for that group of people as with the flag for for the TSI peoples. Those flags should be flown alongside the Australian flag at events etc out of respect but there is no need to go overboard with plating flags all over planes for every group that might be involved.

Removing the Jack gets rid of any historical issues that arise from colonisation/invasion or however you see it. Therefor the flag will then just represent us being in the southern hemisphere, and having seven states as one, surrounded by the blue of the ocean. When you bring heritage and other racial notions into the flag you cause division.

Seven states as one ? That’s false advertising.

On one island. They have never acted as one nation, maybe a short time during ww2. Federation was started by businesses that wanted to get rid of inter-colony taxes, nothing to do with being one people. Business leaders just used the masses to get support for the idea, as usual.

Time might be approaching where we need to think about a bit more cohesion? Maybe a change in head of state will be a good time to have a discussion ?

You missed one, Latin.

Then there is that obscure language only heard to be spoke by farmers to other farmers and nobody else. Deserves a flag all it's own methinks.

Only the Toffs and Cloth speak Latin. You could throw in hand signals from the mills, where the only hearing protection was to go deaf quickly, then you didn't notice the noise, and whistles language from the shipyards and construction.

I like the alternate flag in the video that dr dre posted and I think one with the Southern Cross and Aboriginal and Torres Strait flags equally represented.
It is time we became a Republic- although the models proposed are somewhat flawed-and a new flag.

Yes it does.
We prefer nowadays to refer to them as First Nations.

When the Australian flag is flown alongside state flags is it bigger and flown higher than the state flags ?

Not so far as Torres Strait Islanders are concerned. That's why they have their own flag.

Unless things have changed since I was in the military, I don't think that that is correct. All flags should typically be the same size. The only time that the Australian national flag would be flown higher than state flags is if there is one flag pole that is higher than the others; that is not usually the case. Precedence is usually determined by the position of the flag relative to others rather than the size and height of the flags.

https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-cent...-flags-booklet

Thanks , new a military man would respond . Many things to discuss about changes but the national flag should be bigger and higher than all others .

I realise this is now becoming the fashionable term, but what exactly were these ‘nations’? Can a nomadic tribe realistically be considered a nation?

And isn’t this just something which has been appropriated from Native Americans?

It also removes a piece of poor symbolism. The Canton, upper left corner, is the part of the flag that is always on top. When a flag hanging off a flag pole is drooping in low wind the Canton will always be in the superior position. Every other part of the flag is in an inferior position.

So rather than representing history or heritage the positioning of the Union Jack in the canton is a direct symbol of UK dominance over the other parts of the flag, including the Commonwealth Star which represents the Australian States and Territories. The Australian national flag directly symbolises the UK being above Australia. Even the Department of the Prime Minister's website states the canton is the position of honour on the flag.

not wanting to bore you guys and gals but this needs to change !

Don't forget they were not united either. Plenty of groups still don't even get on today.

Nation as opposed to nation-state. A nation is a group of people who share common language, culture, traditions. Whereas a nation state includes a central government and defined borders.

First nation people can be used interchangeably with Indigenous people, Native people, First people etc.

So yes, a culture based on a semi nomadic lifestyle (Australian Aborigines moved locations on a cycle), with a system of governance and trade and relations with other groups is considered a nation.

In fact, the first international relations out of Australia, so the first time Australians dealt with those overseas, was not conducted by descendants of the the British settlers post 1788. It was peaceful trade conducted as early as the 16th or 17th centuries between Indigenous Australians in Arnhem Land and Makassans from Sulawesi in now Indonesia, well before Captain Cook had laid eyes on the country. Products traded by indigenous Australians ended up being sold in China, so Australia's tradition of selling stuff to the big country up north has been going on far longer than people realise.

So you could say it's more appropriate for the Australian vessels of trade to carry the symbol of the first Australian traders, rather than a symbol which displays the nation that came here a few hundred years later to do it in second place.

Well that rules the Poms out, the dialects from the different parts of those frigid islands are almost incomprehensible to the rest. USA not much better.

And there sure as heck isn't a common language for the aboriginals.

In which case my family is a nation, as is my football team and my fleet at work.

Mr Proach, not at all. The Aboriginal flag (or Torres Strait flag or most of the State and Territory flags) would be meaningless at the overseas destinations serviced by Qantas.

But if we are going to plaster our Flag Carrier national airline with flags of all significant groups, please make sure all the States and Territory flags are also included.

And don't forget this one to add a bit of colour:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b7938e1208.jpg

The definition of the word "Aboriginal" is:

Quote:

---

inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists; indigenous.

---

By that definition it may appear Torres Strait Islanders are "aboriginal" although a more accurate term may be that both groups are indigenous. However, Aboriginal people are Australo-Melanesians or Australoid, whilst Torres Strait Islanders are Melanesian, more related to the PNG races.

The first 'Englishman' (recorded) to have encountered Australian Aborigines would have been William Dampier, North West Australian coast, in January 1688, a full 100 years before the first fleet and 80 years prior to Cook.

He has the dubious account of creating a stereotype of them that persisted until even today from the book that was produced from his journals, and most likely helped attribute 'terra nullius' in conjunction with Cooks accounts. He rounded up several of the locals in an attempt to make them work carrying their water back to the ship. Called them a 'miserable lot' when they had no clue what he asked of them so did not comply, and writes with indignation "So we were forced to carry our own water back to our ship..." That shame of not being able to force the locals into slave labor for the day, how rude of them. He also made sketches of the event that have been found in his journals.

In any case this all happened not far from an island named after Dirk Harthog (Dutch), who had visited the area in 1616. The aborigines that Dampier encountered did have evidence of having traded with other Europeans, such as the Dutch, and has more accounts from the journal of his HMS Roebuck expedition that explored the north end more thoroughly from 1699. Dampiers books and journals are a good read, he definitely was before the age of political correctness, so expect some interesting commentary. Dampier had a number of times where his crew mutinied or just left him behind on an island, so I assume he was not the most charismatic leader.

Who is “we”?

Would that be the revisionist left wing media, ABC and guardian readers?

No, actually the right wing conservative Prime Minister:

What I know is that to rob a person of their right to take responsibility for themselves; to strip them of responsibility and capability to direct their own futures; to make them dependent - this is to deny them of their liberty - and slowly that person will wither before your eyes.

That’s what we did to our First Nations people

A fascinating discussion. I am Scottish, and therefore part of the oppressed peoples of the North whose culture has been subsumed by the evil English etc, etc here in Great Britain, the motherland for all you upside down folks there down under. For those of you not familiar with our own internal struggles, Scotland is now run by the SNP (Scottish Numpty Party) led by the redoubtable Nicola Sturgeon. She gives her waking hours to dreaming of cats wearing sporrans around their necks, dogs sporting kilts and scheduling Braveheart termly showings for school children - lest they forget their heritage and the oppression they have lived under without actually knowing it. What it has shown me is that looking backwards is never going to end well. I was brought up on a diet of Scottish battles that invariably involved glorious defeat by the wicked English hordes. The problem was it turned out there was a world out there that no one bothered to tell me about. No one took the time to speak of the rows of Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English soldiers who died next to each other in the trenches of World War 1 or the numerous foreign battlegrounds of World War 2. The Commonwealth graves around the world are lined with soldiers of every nation who fought alongside each other and came to an untimely end - including a fair number of Australians as well. We have fought as one and are all the better for it. Have the Scots always been treated well? Absolutely not. Have the Aborigines always been treated fairly? Almost certainly not. Undoubtedly they were there first and had us Brits not exported our criminals to you lot, then this may have been a very different discussion. It would probably not be taking place here, however, as you would have no airline industry to talk of.

The simple fact is that we all have a history - hence the flags of Australia and New Zealand. I get you might want to break away from your past with us, but be careful what you wish for. I massively admire so much in Australia, but you are in danger of becoming ashamed of all aspects of your culture. Your culture is not just aboriginal - it is mixed inextricably now with British, European, Oriental and Middle Eastern culture now too. That is increasingly who we all are. Are you all about to deport yourselves back to Serbia to join Djokovic in shame that you exist? Sure, be aware of your cultural history, but dreaming of a return to the 'good ole days' before oppression began is difficult. None of you want to oppress the Aborigines now. The question is how best to help them help themselves. You cannot keep them 'racially pure' any more than you would entertain the idea of keeping the white population racially pure. Get a new flag by all means, but if it means pretending you have no other culture other than Aboriginal, it does an enormous disservice to all the other cultures you now have in your midst. Wait and see the arguments you have about what flag to replace the current one with and how divisive they will become. Whatever you choose will open Pandora's Box and it will not end well. Putting an Aboriginal flag on Qantas aircraft is fine - maybe best to think of a few other people who have made a contribution to Australian life as well and honour them too.

Now.. there is a voice of reason!
Well said!

some of us are happy with the way we are. We are not seeking change.
A lot of change ends up as worse. How about Rhodesia and even South Africa as examples let alone places like the Belgian Congo etc. How about Yugoslavia? How about PNG?

Unfortunately change happens to you whether you accept it or not. The Aborigines were quite happy unchanging for thousands of years, until someone else decided to change them, and they had no say in the matter as they had not changed enough to keep up with the modern world and it's ways. You can accept and try to control the change, or remain what will inevitably considered backwards and irrelevant, you are then at the mercy of being overtaken by someone else. If the world decides for now it likes backwards and nostalgia, fine, but if that changes and the world decides it wants to move forward and change that, you better be at the forefront leading it, or be consigned to history and squatting on someones front lawn in rags, bitter and telling everyone how it used to be.

Never has a truer word been spoken.

Y'know, before the information age the only people that used to prattle on about the achievements of their ancestors were often the underachievers themselves.

Nowadays, it appears that every single minority group, and not just ethnic, wants to be heard and validated in the public eye, it's as if all these groups are talking all at once but none of them want to hear the other person's story, they only want everyone to just hear them. I blame it on their miserable lives of having their heads buried in their phones allowing them to quite selectively and easily ally with the minority group of their moment.

How many "just" causes can the general public contend with at the same time, there must be a finite limit, and it's all getting a bit tired, repetitive and indistinct.

You can change the flag 100 times until it finally becomes completely meaningless and people stop caring.

Like I mentioned before the flags of nations which were former outposts of Britain, and had the Union Jack as the dominant symbol in their canton, were changed without provoking a civil war. nor did any of the nations involved have their history wiped from memory when the flag changed too.

Let's take Canada as the prime example, similar to Australia, a Commonwealth nation, sent over 100,000 soldiers to die in WW1 and 2, still a constitutional monarchy, mostly Anglo Saxon population until the 60s and 70s when non Caucasian migration increased. In 1965 their flag was changed. Now whilst there seems to have been a robust debate in parliament, sides both for and against change and many competing designs no riots or violence occurred nor did the Canadian nation disintegrate during the debate. Their original flag was a red ensign with the union jack in the corner, and a mess of a shield on the fly side, containing multiple UK and French symbols clumped together with a maple leaf. Honestly couldn't tell if it was the Flag of Canada or a yacht club flag.

Now the Canadians have a flag that is clean, striking and uniquely identifiable as Canadian. One of the best national flags in the world. There's a reason why every Canadian backpacker seems to have one sewn onto their backpack (apart from distinguishing themselves from Americans of course).

The flag is probably a concurrent issue with the other debates ongoing about Australian identity at the moment, the national day and ultimately the question of Republic or Monarchy (probably will be reignited after the death of the Queen). We've already had quite a "woke Politically Correct" change recently to a key part of Australian symbology, the national anthem. Changed from "for we are young and free" to "for we are one and free", acknowledging Australian Indigenous culture as the world's longest continuous culture.

Now here's one with an aviation theme that's slipped under the radar in the last few days but will no doubt get some riled up here:

Social media profiles for major airlines like Qantas and Virgin Australia have remained silent this Australia Day.

Just a few years ago those companies were handing out Tim Tams, Lamingtons and Meat Pies on the day, now not even a peep. I've detected a fairly rapid shift in thinking in just the last year or two regarding the 26th, even a lot of those who aren't particularly "woke" are just not feeling the Aussie spirit on the 26th as they used to.

Not just airlines, 99 out of the top 100 ASX listed companies did not mention "Australia Day" on January 26th this year. Given that little tidbit the years left for January 26th remaining as Australia's national day are probably finite.

A new Aussie flag isn’t going to see the retirement of either the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander flags irrespective of how much of those designs are incorporated into the new flag.

So thinking a new flag will ‘unite’ the nation behind a new symbol is foolish given both those other flags are likely to remain cherished and in use by those who feel they best represent them.

I don't think anyone advocating for changing the flag has a desire to end use of the Aboriginal or TSI flags completely. Those flags will always be around.

At the end of the day it isn't so much "uniting" people behind a flag. In an increasingly globalised world (well once borders open again fully) the notions of nationalism and patriotism and the symbols behind them are becoming irrelevant for a lot of people. Australia has never been a culture where people are quite openly patriotic. And in some ways the current flag has taken on a divisive tone in recent years, a symbol of that far right "patriot" movement.

But countries do have flags, and in the modern, multicultural Australia a flag with a Union Jack in the canton to signify dominance of the UK over Australia is hardly appropriate or relevant outside of the 1788-1901 timeframe, let alone 2022. When governments tend to be slow acting corporations sometimes take the lead on social change. We saw this with the SSM campaign, and we're seeing it now with Indigenous Recognition. Airlines not mentioning "Australia Day" on January 26th, airlines making Acknowledgment of Country announcements, airlines using Indigenous place names alongside European ones. Would not adding Indigenous and TSI flags to aircraft, or removing the national flag from aircraft (just like BA, AF and Air NZ) be a continuation of this trend?

Not quite Mate! Australia has an amazing ethnic diversity with many of us tracing our heritage back to Scotland, in my case Paisley.

Of course we also have many ex Poms (some of us would say too many), originally (240 years ago) as free labour to build our first towns, now essential to welcome the English Cricket Team to yet another English loss in the Ashes series and to fill senior Trade Union positions.

Very well said my friend! :ok:

What a waste of electrons. Do they acknowledge the people who had the foresight to use the land as an airport? Do they acknowledge the makers of the plane that keeps them up in the air? Acknowledge Humphrey Davey for identifying the gases in the atmosphere?

Very good point.
Also do we need to acknowledge the Chinese and the land they now own , we cannot afford to offend them , Darwin port for example .
The PAs are just going to get some passengers backs up possibly leading to inflight disruptions, best to leave it alone .

If you don't like how a business operates, don't use that service. They will change or go out of business from lack of customers if its that big a deal. You have the power to change things, or are you all in the group that fill up with whatever priced petrol even if its 30 cpl higher than the one across the road. I have to say Australians can be some of the dumbest consumers on the planet due to the wealth of the average punter, I'll just pay triple for that, because, um that brands ads are better, or its some sort of national brand.

This topic has generated lot of interesting information on vexillology and a range of viewpoints regarding colonial history and multiculturalism etc. It seems the Aboriginal flag doesn't display the symbology of political history unlike some other flags do e.g. Union Jack. Maybe this is due the fact they are the original inhabitants of Australia so there isn't a predecessor to refer to unless you enter into the realm of science and religion. Also of note, is the Aboriginal flag doesn't include symbology about the recent occupation of their land, so in that sense it is apolitical. To me, this flag simply represents the existence of a people who were here a very long time before the British occupation (250 years versus 50,000 years). In my view, the very fact that vexillology even exists is evidence of the significance that people place on flags. Previously, there were conditions restricting the use of the Aboriginal flag which has been removed. I think it would be an appropriate and positive measure for this flag to become something that is readily and widely recognised as being associated with Australia.