Posts by David Haywood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Juha Saarinen wrote:
Canada is a poor example for New Zealand to follow... Did the indigenous people of Canada have much say in the look of the new flag?
Well I'm not suggesting that we follow Canada's example so slavishly that we consult only Canucks and Québécois! I'm suggesting just the opposite: that we consider the possibility of a more representative flag for all NZers, both Maori and Non-Maori. [By the way, are you sure that the principle reason for the new Canadian flag was the British/French issue. My understanding is that "[Prime Minister] Pearson's principal concern was for the Canadian flag to be distinctive and unmistakably Canadian". I thought the Quebec issue was just a happy side-effect.]
Juha Saarinen wrote:
The equivalent for New Zealand is to have the Scots, Irish, English and Welsh duke it out over the new pennant.
Mate, my point is that this is exactly what's already happened. The Union Jack is a composite of the Scottish, English (which included Wales at that time), and Irish flags. And none of these countries are NZ.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_jack#HistoryGraeme Edgeler wrote:
Should Hawai'i change its flag?...[etc.]
I see what you're suggesting here, Graeme. I agree that the similarity of our flag to Australia's is not sufficient reason to change. But I do think that a recognizably different design from Australia's would be a considerable bonus offered by having a new flag.
Frankly, I could care less about flags, and I've no doubt that we would have a happier world without them. But if we are going to have a flag, then maybe we should have one that better represents the country. Or, at the very least, we should seriously consider the possibility.
Reece Palmer wrote:
Nasty, nasty whitey, evil bad pakeha/palagi/honkey/oppressor/imperialist...
I'm not criticizing you or your relatives, Reece. I'm just observing that most people born in NZ wouldn't consider themselves British. We have developed our own identity as a nation -- and perhaps our flag should recognize this.
The idea for a new national beast is a good one, Juha. I rather favour the Pushmi-pullyu.
-
To debate a couple of points raised earlier in this
thread -- and accepting that we do (perhaps unfortunately) have to have a national flag...As recently as the 1950s many people born in NZ would refer
to themselves as 'British'. I think everyone can agree that
we've moved on since then, and have begun to develop our own
sense of identity as a nation.However the Union Jack on our flag does rather seem to
hearken back to that period. Our flag is also easily and
frequently confused with the Australian flag (if you've ever
travelled overseas you'll have experienced this) and
particularly the state flag of Victoria (a visitor from
Melbourne once asked me why the Victorian flag was flown so
much in NZ).Canada has had a similar history of a developing self-identity. For this reason they adopted a new flag (the current Maple-leaf design) in 1964. Their old flag featured a Union Jack in a similar manner to the current NZ and
Australian flags.Reece Palmer wrote:
I would rather not we become one of those countries
that changes [their flag] on political whim or in response
to a pressure group.I'm not sure which countries these would be, but certainly
you couldn't accuse Canada of this. They changed their flag
to reflect their emerging sense of self-identity as a
nation. This was entirely valid for them, and would surely be
entirely valid for NZ as well.Span wrote:
I've long thought if we are going to have a national dialogue about changing our flag then it should happen alongside a debate about our constitutional status... Cos otherwise we'll just have to change the ruddy thing again if we ever manage to make any big alterations.
I'm not sure I follow this argument. Do you think Canada will change it's flag if/when it becomes a republic? The Canadian flag already reflects Canada -- there is no need to change it. This would almost certainly be the case for a new NZ flag as well. Anyway, major constitutional change is hard (and may never happen). Changing a flag so that it's more representative of our national identity is comparatively easy.
Reece Palmer wrote:
Changing a flag will not... give a renewed sense of national identity
Well that's exactly what happened in Canada -- why wouldn't it happen in NZ? The fact that we're having a passionate(-ish) debate on this topic absolutely proves that it's an important part of national identity.
In fact, this whole flag debate pretty much mirrors what happened in Canada in the early 1960s. And how did it end?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_flag :
Despite the preceding acrimony, the new flag was quickly embraced by the Canadian public, and internationally the flag quickly became a welcome and easily recognizable marker of Canada worldwide.
It is interesting to note that Canada adopted the Maple-leaf in addition to its old flag. Could this be a satisfactory compromise for NZ? After all, we have two official national anthems ('God Save the Queen' and 'God Defend NZ')...
Having said all this, Rich's suggestion of pois was really quite brilliant...
P.S. And to respectfully disagree with Juha (though I can see what he's driving at) I think the new flag was actually positive for Canada -- insofar as it removed one of the points of dispute between French and British Canada. It's not inconceivable that the same thing might have a similarly positive effect here as well.
-
Rob Stowell wrote:
we've flown the hundertwasser for years (in a thoroughly non-jingoistic and straight-lines-are-the-devils-work sort of way....)
And fair enough, too! Apologies for my outrageous generalization. I'm still slightly shell-shocked after a recent road trip through Upstate New York, where I saw way too many flags...
We ain't looking for something that'll stand out on a 19th (or 21st) century battlefield.
Another good point -- although the colours red, white, and black seem so evocative of NZ to me...
Tze Ming Mok wrote:
I think plenty of Pakeha probably resent having to be reminded that their ancestors are from somewhere other than here...
And don't forget the Pakeha who were (or whose recent ancestors were) oppressed by the British. An Irish acquaintance once told me that as far as he was concerned seeing the Union Jack on the NZ flag was as bad as seeing the Swastika. A friend of Indian descent has expressed a similar sentiment -- although in a much less melodramatic manner...
-
Lovely post (as always) Tze Ming...
But dude, you totally missed out on the best design for a non-embarrassing flag for this country:
http://www.nzflag.com/designs_jeffyjames.cfm
Jeffy James's design rocks (in my opinion). If I were the sort of jingoistic nitwit who had a flag on my house, then this is the one I'd choose.
I actually have the JPG on my cellphone when travelling overseas, so that I can use it in my defence when the subject of NZ's (and Australia's) cringeworthy flag comes up. It happens surpringly often, since you ask...
-
David Slack wrote:
Have you checked inside for American banknotes?
A tempting idea (even though it would involve destroying the instrument) -- Jennifer is playing Jerusalem as I type...
Raffe:
Love your thinking. We've become way too timid with our engineering in this country.Oh... and I bet we could get the Germans to immigrate at the same time. I know a couple of German engineers who'd jump at the chance to move to Auckland.
-
Tom Beard wrote:
Brilliant! Can I steal that as a tagline for my blog?
By all means (if it's not too long for you) -- I'd be terribly flattered.
And I totally agree that 'We are The L.e.d.s' is a real progression from 'Thomas:Parkes'. I really like the addition of Helen Greenfield's slightly wavery vocals -- particularly on the album's last track 'Ready'.
David Slack wrote:
Given that great tracts of it have been built in a disposable fashion, how might you go about remaking it, I wonder?
I'd start by lining all the streets in greater Auckland with trees. That'd take the edge off some of the architectural monstrosities, give the regional council a few carbon credits, as well as lowering the air temperature in summer by a couple of degrees. I'd also consider blanket heritage restrictions for existing suburbs of architectural merit.
If I were having an Albert Speer moment in the city itself I'd shift the library to the waterfront -- declare it to be the library of the South Pacific -- and house it in a really spectacular structure. A massive pyramid might not go amiss (useful also for housing the bodies of former mayors). Then I'd build a park round it, close down Tamaki Drive, and have a continuous line of parklands stretching out to Mission Bay. With a bit of fiddling you could just about join it to the Domain as well.
I wouldn't mind knocking down the Aotea Centre and putting something decent there either. Anyone know what Frank Gehry is doing at the moment?
And returning from my delusions of grandeur…
Marcus Turner wrote:
I'm really interested in this baritone concertina. Where did you get it?
Assuming that you're not taking the piss, I can tell you that it's a 'Jack' concertina designed by Wim Wakker in the Netherlands. It was purchased here:
http://www.concertinaconnection.com/jackie-jack.htm
It's actually extremely pleasant in tone -- not that I can play a note on it myself. To me its lower range sounds rather cello-esque, although it's clearly not an instrument designed by optimists. I’d never realized quite how mournful a light-hearted ditty such as My Shining Hour could become in the hands of a skilled concertinist. Judge for yourself here:
-
Charles:
You're quite right about Auckland's multiculturalism being another big point in it's favour -- and something that I really missed when I moved to Christchurch.
But, of course, as the South Pacific's biggest city, it's yet another reason that I wish Auckland's architecture and town planning had a little more X-factor.
To raise a more cerebral subject -- I'd nearly forgotten about Bow Wow Wow. You've got to respect a band who dares to put out an album called 'See Jungle! See Jungle! Go Join Your Gang, Yeah! City All Over Go Ape Crazy'. In my youth I spent a lot of time looking at that album cover.
I seem to remember 'Sexy Eiffel Towers' a little better, but I see that YouTube has the video to 'I want Candy':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKDJdRGug5o
Still raining in Christchurch...
-
Brian:
Thanks for making your photos available on Public Address. The comet looks exactly like it did in real life, i.e. bloody amazing.
I'd been trying for a week to catch a glimpse of it, but until Monday night was entirely defeated by the inclement weather: cloud, fog, rain, hail, sleet, frogs falling from the sky, and so on.
On Monday night there was a gap in the clouds and we drove up into the Port Hills. In typical sheep-like NZ manner we joined a crowd of people who looked like they knew what they were doing. Venus became visible just after sunset, and lots of people were pointing to it. When it dipped below the horizon everyone packed up, and drove back down the hill to Christchurch.
I was thinking that I'd somehow missed the comet. Perhaps it was so small that I hadn't been able to see it? Or perhaps what I'd thought was Venus was actually the comet?
We waited for another half-hour or so, and then gave up. But on a whim I decided to drive home along the summit road (up the Port hills). After a few hundred metres we suddenly saw this fucking huge comet in the sky! Completely unmistakable, but entirely invisible from the spot where we'd originally been standing.
Totally unearthly and -- without exaggeration -- one of the most amazing sights of my life.
Moral of the story: never believe that other people know what they're doing when it comes to comets...
-
It seems a reply to some of these comments is well overdue from me...
Firstly, thank you Felix and D M Robertson for your suggestions -- very helpful!
Responding to some of the other contributions...
Clem Smith wrote:
Your friend who suggested that the lake should be drained was hardly worthy of the breathless implication that he/she had said something original.
I didn't mean to breathlessly imply any such thing! You're quite right that (unfortunately) NZ has been doing this sort of thing for years. I included this suggestion merely to illustrate the divergence of opinion in terms of the preservation of Canterbury's natural landscape. Sorry if it sounded breathless!
Leila Claypoole wrote:
As a past resident of Fisherman's Point, I find it total absurd to suggest emptying the Lake.
Thanks for your comment, Leila. I also think it's an absurd suggestion (see above). I was merely reporting what someone else had said to me. I certainly don't think it's a good idea -- and I hope that I make this clear in the post.
Leila Claypoole also wrote:
The flounder season in 2005 was large the fish fleshier than seen for years, hence so much for pollution.
I'm not familiar with the life cycle of flounder, but it may be that the additional algal growth that arises from moderately eutrophic conditions is beneficial to them (although I wonder how the flounder population compares with the mid-nineteenth century when hundreds of fishermen worked the lake). At any rate, scientific studies have shown that populations of other animal species in the lake have certainly declined, as I said in the Avenues article (see #2 under the heading "More on Lake Ellesmere" at the end of my original post):
> Investigations by the National Institute of Water
> and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) show that both the
> number and growth rate of Ellesmere's long-fin eels
> have diminished significantly over recent years.
> Poor water quality has driven other fish species
> almost to the verge of extinction. For example, the
> number of spawning brown trout recorded in
> Ellesmere’s inflowing waterways has declined from
> 65,000 in 1949 to only 87 in 2004.The pollution of Lake Ellesmere by nitrogen and phosphate compounds is an established scientific fact, I'm afraid. NIWA scientists have directly measured large amounts of these compounds in the lake water. And these scientists are certainly very worried about Ellesmere, as I reported in the Avenues article:
> NIWA scientist Dr Clive Howard-Williams has studied
> the lake for many years, and is unequivocal about its
> prospects: "Ellesmere will continue to deteriorate".
> Howard-Williams says that urgent action must be taken
> to halt the lake's decline. "It definitely won’t get
> better if we do nothing. Some intervention has to take
> place to slow the input of nutrients if we don't want
> the lake to get worse."While informal measurements of pollution (such as the perception of catch size or fleshiness) are useful, it seems to me that we should pay most attention to proper scientific measurements, and to what our scientists have to say.
Leila Claypoole also wrote:
The Wairhoa Trust was set up in 2004 with an active membership working on the conservation of the Lake.
I wonder if you have read all of the material that I posted? In the Avenues article I interviewed Jason Arnold, the co-ordinator of the Waihora Ellesmere Trust (WET), and reported some of his comments. He certainly seemed to be worried about Ellesmere, saying:
> "Ellesmere is clearly unwell at the moment..."
>
> "If we can’t make the necessary improvements,
> then the lake is really in trouble."Leila Claypoole also wrote:
With global warming the levels of the lake may well suprise.
You are clearly an optimist! Personally speaking, I wouldn't rely on one environmental disaster to cancel out another. Although if the lake levels undergo a significant rise then the residents of Lincoln and Prebbleton will certainly be surprised -- as it will flood their towns. We can but hope, I suppose...
Leila Claypoole also wrote:
The Salt level of the lake is carefully monitored and usually stands at 20%.
Errr... are you sure that the salinity of Ellesmere is kept at 20 per cent? Wouldn't that make it nearly six times more saline than normal seawater?
Many thanks for your comments Leila -- and everyone else. I am heartened that people are still interested in discussing this topic.
-
Jason Lea wrote:
Now is the time for the reserve bank to step up and make sure our money is edible.
Excellent point Jason -- I have often thought the same thing.
Wammo wrote:
Apparently Christchurch is one of a few cities in the world that does not need to treat its water supply. The word is that Nitrates from Canterbury farming will have leeched into this supply in 20 to 25 years.
This neatly highlights the problem with environmental 'idealism' vs. 'pragmatism'. I would personally feel that a pristine water supply has an intrinsic value that must be protected. However my environmentally pragmatic acquaintance would point out that the cost of treating the Canterbury water supply can be accurately predicted (millions), and the benefits from fertilizer use in Canterbury can be accurately measured (billions). So from his point of view there is really no argument.
Talking to the scientists who study such things it seems that the current situation in Canterbury has all the ingredients for a real environmental crisis. It will be interesting to see what happens over the coming years.
I’m planning to do a bit more journalistic poking around into the water situation in Canterbury -- and I shall be sure to keep Public Address readers informed of any interesting findings.