English/british Flags........a Symbol Of Racism?

[bucksred]

Call me wierd, but all this Lefty borlix about the English Flag, and the British flag are racist symbols. EHHH??

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, I sure as hell aint English, nor am I British by birth, although I am British by choice..racist??

Think you Leftys should really get out more. Just beacause the NF et al drape themselves in said flags DOES NOT make the flags racist symbols. The Union Flag, was one I proudly served for twelve years, like all servicemen and women, and 99% of us are NOT racist, funnily enough

Lefties STOP dissing the best country in the free world to live in. Trust me, there aint no place better now.... I'm an immigrant and bloody proud to be British (Only 1/4 English blood in me though'! ) Time you shower got some pride in all of our country, or go find a utopian socialist paradise, of your mythology

Be proud, be British, these colours don't run...............

[Guest revkev]

That the BNP and other extremists have hijacked the national flag for their purposes does not mean that the Union Flag should be abolished.

It is about time that the diverse peoples of the UK reclaimed the Union Flag as a symbol of diversity within unity, rather like the diverse peoples of the USA.... only with less of a hung ho attitude.

[Guest WillsbridgeRed]

The left use this "BNP flag stealing" arguement whenever our national flag is mentioned.

The very lefties that claim the right have stolen the flag, are probably the same ones flying the red flag in the 60's and 70's.

[bucksred]

Good point Wills!!

Lefties: How come you all fly the flag of a totalitariah dictatorship, which easliy matched the fascists for murderous aggression. To whit the Red Flag, and that Socialist dirge Keep the Red Flag Flying (Personally I only like the City fans version), rather than the flags of the country of your birth?

Why do you hate your own countries so much? Didnt you get laid enough as angst ridden teenagers?? Or could you only pull die hunde??

These same countries (In this case Britain, educate you for nowt, send you to uni for a very fair price (Try paying for all education mate, as they do where I came from), allow you total freedom, and all you do is abuse the state, and in one memorable case on of you Rabble called me and all military and ex military "Baby Killers".

Go on, why DO you hate your country of birth eh, lefties?? Illuminate this poor immigrant boy, because I wanna know? I'm grateful for the chances I've had here, and the lack of racism from 99% of the people, is hugely relevant. You wont find the same conditions any place else.

[City Rocker]

[hilltop red]

Good point Wills!!

Lefties: How come you all fly the flag of a totalitariah dictatorship, which easliy matched the fascists for murderous aggression. To whit the Red Flag, and that Socialist dirge Keep the Red Flag Flying (Personally I only like the City fans version), rather than the flags of the country of your birth?

Why do you hate your own countries so much? Didnt you get laid enough as angst ridden teenagers?? Or could you only pull die hunde??

These same countries (In this case Britain, educate you for nowt, send you to uni for a very fair price (Try paying for all education mate, as they do where I came from), allow you total freedom, and all you do is abuse the state, and in one memorable case on of you Rabble called me and all military and ex military "Baby Killers".

Go on, why DO you hate your country of birth eh, lefties?? Illuminate this poor immigrant boy, because I wanna know? I'm grateful for the chances I've had here, and the lack of racism from 99% of the people, is hugely relevant. You wont find the same conditions any place else.

who said that the englishman was the luckest person in the world? because whoever did was right. Nice safe climate, no nasty snakes or spiders, mostley civilsed people that can adapt quickly to changes in industry. We havn't slaughterd our head of state for ages, respected by most in the world, everybody wants to live here and we should be proud of that. never suffered a major milatry defeat, no independance day because we have always been free. How can anyone be embarresd by being english or want to cover up our flag and history, these people are nutters.

[CiderHider]

British Flag or St Geroges cross, Christmas, freedom of speech, freedom of posting Adam??!!! :@

Some people seem unnessessarily bothered with peoples attitude towards their attitude, makes me wanna throw up! I'll do WTF i like in my own god dam country and if some minority has a problem with it? Well TOUGH!! Get bloody used to it!!

Our Country is proud, we are a proud people AND PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO F!CK IT UP FOR US!!

Bloody oppression is what it is brought on by the worlds vile and greedy capitalist goverments not wanting to deny themsleves any possible GREED MAKING oppertunitys by offending anyone, even if we are offended.

[dagest]

Think you Leftys should really get out more. Just beacause the NF et al drape themselves in said flags DOES NOT make the flags racist symbols.

Naturally, but it does mean it is tarnished by association. The swastika is a similar example. The swastika is over 2000 years old and had associated meanings long before the Nazis came along, but can it be rehabiltiated now? Would you go outside displaying it?

You could also argue that a flag as a representative symbol could have a racist symbolism. For example if you were a native Indian under British rule and were consitently referred to as a "*Racist Term Removed", as they were then you probably be quite entitled to view the Union Jack as a symbol of racism.

I agree with the Rev essentially, as long as you allow the "Right" to monpolise its use then it will de fatco be recognised as a symbol or racial intolerance.

Hilltop Red, I don't even think you know who the English are.

Cider Hider, I think you are quite profoundly confused, with your hotchpotch of Left and Right rhetoric.

[hilltop red]

Naturally, but it does mean it is tarnished by association. The swastika is a similar example. The swastika is over 2000 years old and had associated meanings long before the Nazis came along, but can it be rehabiltiated now? Would you go outside displaying it?

You could also argue that a flag as a representative symbol could have a racist symbolism. For example if you were a native Indian under British rule and were consitently referred to as a "*Racist Term Removed", as they were then you probably be quite entitled to view the Union Jack as a symbol of racism.

I agree with the Rev essentially, as long as you allow the "Right" to monpolise its use then it will de fatco be recognised as a symbol or racial intolerance.

Hilltop Red, I don't even think you know who the English are.

Cider Hider, I think you are quite profoundly confused, with your hotchpotch of Left and Right rhetoric.

England is one of the oldest nations in the world, and it's people are comparised of many diferent settlers and invaders, the romans, anglo saxons, vikings and normans. English people are normally defined as people who were born in England.

If you care to add anything please do, i know who the english are.

The st george needs be more visible in life and not hidden as a dirty secret, this may get rid of some peoples view as it being racist.

[dagest]

England is one of the oldest nations in the world, and it's people are comparised of many diferent settlers and invaders, the romans, anglo saxons, vikings and normans. English people are normally defined as people who were born in England.

If you care to add anything please do, i know who the english are.

The st george needs be more visible in life and not hidden as a dirty secret, this may get rid of some peoples view as it being racist.

Bizarre. So, you think that every ethnic group who has lived on this island over the last 2000 years can be defined as English?

If the Norwegians invaded next week and expelled us all, would they suddenly become the English within a generation?

And how do you explain your earlier comment about us never "suffering a military defeat"?

[hilltop red]

Bizarre. So, you think that every ethnic group who has lived on this island over the last 2000 years can be defined as English?

If the Norwegians invaded next week and expelled us all, would they suddenly become the English within a generation?

And how do you explain your earlier comment about us never "suffering a military defeat"?

You got me on a technicality, were are desecndants (sp) of these people.

I said we have never suffered a major military defeat. Please let me know if we have since england became one nation.

And you have yet to offer anything except critisim of other peoples replays.

[dagest]

You got me on a technicality, were are desecndants (sp) of these people.

I said we have never suffered a major military defeat. Please let me know if we have since england became one nation.

And you have yet to offer anything except critisim of other peoples replays.

You've almost completely lost me now. Regarding English defeats, I'd suggest the Norman invasion was a bit of hiding wouldn't you?

[hilltop red]

You've almost completely lost me now. Regarding English defeats, I'd suggest the Norman invasion was a bit of hiding wouldn't you?

The normans invaded and unified the english into one nation

William believed he was the rightful heir for the throne. His reign in England may have been brutal, but made england rich and strong

http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon22.html

Edited December 2, 2005 by hilltop red

[dagest]

The normans invaded and unified the english into one nation

How odd. You think that a Franco/Norman aristocracy created the English nation. I always thought it was the Franco/Normans whom invaded England and imposed Franco/Norman culture at the expense of English culture.

So, you don't think the English existed before the Norman Invasion? But you said the Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings were English constituents as well.

I think this brings me back to my original point, which I shall repeat for you:

"I don't even think you know who the English are."

[hilltop red]

How odd. You think that a Franco/Norman aristocracy created the English nation. I always thought it was the Franco/Normans whom invaded England and imposed Franco/Norman culture at the expense of English culture.

So, you don't think the English existed before the Norman Invasion? But you said the Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings were English constituents as well.

I think this brings me back to my original point, which I shall repeat for you:

"I don't even think you know who the English are."

you may have posted this before i edited my original post.

"I don't even think you know who the English are."

you have yet to answer this question yourself. Instead of being dismissive of my posts why don't you help me out?

[The Batman]

Naturally, but it does mean it is tarnished by association. The swastika is a similar example. The swastika is over 2000 years old and had associated meanings long before the Nazis came along, but can it be rehabiltiated now? Would you go outside displaying it?

You could also argue that a flag as a representative symbol could have a racist symbolism. For example if you were a native Indian under British rule and were consitently referred to as a "*Racist Term Removed", as they were then you probably be quite entitled to view the Union Jack as a symbol of racism.

I agree with the Rev essentially, as long as you allow the "Right" to monpolise its use then it will de fatco be recognised as a symbol or racial intolerance.

Hilltop Red, I don't even think you know who the English are.

Cider Hider, I think you are quite profoundly confused, with your hotchpotch of Left and Right rhetoric.

i see your point about the swastika,

HOWEVER

The BNP are a small political party that aint exactly setting the world alight with their "policies". But the Nazi's are known for their out right racism all over the world. If you go to anywhere else in the world and say who are the BNP, it is likely that they aint likely to have heard of them. the Nazi's are world renouned for their racist views, and they inherrited the swastika. The country of a flag surely cannot be considered racist if it's "taken over" by a minority party in Britain. It aint like the flag has a copyright law against it.

[hilltop red]

i see your point about the swastika,

HOWEVER

The BNP are a small political party that aint exactly setting the world alight with their "policies". But the Nazi's are known for their out right racism all over the world. If you go to anywhere else in the world and say who are the BNP, it is likely that they aint likely to have heard of them. the Nazi's are world renouned for their racist views, and they inherrited the swastika. The country of a flag surely cannot be considered racist if it's "taken over" by a minority party in Britain. It aint like the flag has a copyright law against it.

http://www.manwoman.net/swastika/swastika.html

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/swastika/...tikahistory.htm

[Dorset_Cider]

The English flag is my flag...... then the Union Jack

let's take it back from racists........ because that is not what our flags are about.....

Why can we not be proud to be English or British....... don't let them win.... the flags are ours.

[dagest]

you may have posted this before i edited my original post.

"I don't even think you know who the English are."

you have yet to answer this question yourself. Instead of being dismissive of my posts why don't you help me out?

You're quite right I haven't answered the question myself. And my quick answer is that I don't really know who the English are either.

I guess the concept of the nation or nationalism can be split up into various contituent groups. For example, the concept of Englishness can reflect geography, language, culture, history, ethnicity. There are probably others, but I'm too tired to give it that much fault. Anyway, if we take these one at a time, we can determine how important or pertinent they are.

Geopraphy: I guess we kind of established that geography really doesn't amount to much. It doesn't make much sense to say that whoever lives on this lump of land at any given time are the English.

Language: Historians commonly consider the Anglo-Saxon invaders to be the our (England's) direct ancestors. But it is worth mentioning, that these invaders/settlers consisted of three different tribal groups known as the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. As you probably know they were intially invited to this isand by the Romano-British. Anyway, they came here and "settled" with the Romano-British for a few 100 years. They all scrapped around for a while with their little kingdoms until Alfred the Great largely created an English kingdom. Then Vikings came along killed a monks and nuns and eventually settled in large numbers in northern England. Up to this point we can probably say that a recognised English language was in use throughout the land, though Scandinavian (Viking dialects) was also used a great deal and is still reflected in some northern place names. So, the Normans invaded a bit later as you know and imported their own cultural values. They used their own names like Robert, William, Henry etc. All these names were French and were soon copied by the "English". You don't tend to get many Ethelberts around these days do you? As you can guess the language is slightly more mixed up now. This is the case e ver since as well. Modern English is a big mix of original English, French, Latin and a few others. Lastly, if you consider that many people on our little planet are fluent in English now it doesn't really amount to a special feature does it?

History: I'd be here all day. My synopsis above will do.

Culture: The Normans largely replaced the Anglo-Saxon aristocarcy culture by using their own language and artistic tastes as illustrated by Gothic architecture. English culture ever since is really an assimilation of European in the first instance and later world culture. We only have a couple of aspects of distinct Anglo-Saxon culture left in a few place names and a few weekdays like Tuesday and Wednesday.

Ethnicity: As is illustrated above there can be very few people who can trace their genetic line back to the Anglo-Saxons. We really are a genetic mix of Romano-British, Celts, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, French, Dutch, Indians and plenty of others.

I don't know if you agree, but from this it's hard to know what constitutes a special feature of being English.

However, for illustrative purposes I'll tell you about the Ukraine. As you may know the Ukraine is only a new nation. In creating a national identity, the Ukranians have had to read their own history books and work out their own history. In a sense it is a prejudicial exercise with people picking what bits they want to believe and what they think counts.

The point is that the concept of a nation (which is often individual) is often an artificial construction or if you like a human invention. The questions for me are, who really benefits from the conception of a nation? And is it worth investing so much emotional energy in a concept that is often built on such shallow foundations?

Umm, sorry for the lecture, but you asked me what I thought.

[hilltop red]

You're quite right I haven't answered the question myself. And my quick answer is that I don't really know who the English are either.

I guess the concept of the nation or nationalism can be split up into various contituent groups. For example, the concept of Englishness can reflect geography, language, culture, history, ethnicity. There are probably others, but I'm too tired to give it that much fault. Anyway, if we take these one at a time, we can determine how important or pertinent they are.

Geopraphy: I guess we kind of established that geography really doesn't amount to much. It doesn't make much sense to say that whoever lives on this lump of land at any given time are the English.

Language: Historians commonly consider the Anglo-Saxon invaders to be the our (England's) direct ancestors. But it is worth mentioning, that these invaders/settlers consisted of three different tribal groups known as the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. As you probably know they were intially invited to this isand by the Romano-British. Anyway, they came here and "settled" with the Romano-British for a few 100 years. They all scrapped around for a while with their little kingdoms until Alfred the Great largely created an English kingdom. Then Vikings came along killed a monks and nuns and eventually settled in large numbers in northern England. Up to this point we can probably say that a recognised English language was in use throughout the land, though Scandinavian (Viking dialects) was also used a great deal and is still reflected in some northern place names. So, the Normans invaded a bit later as you know and imported their own cultural values. They used their own names like Robert, William, Henry etc. All these names were French and were soon copied by the "English". You don't tend to get many Ethelberts around these days do you? As you can guess the language is slightly more mixed up now. This is the case e ver since as well. Modern English is a big mix of original English, French, Latin and a few others. Lastly, if you consider that many people on our little planet are fluent in English now it doesn't really amount to a special feature does it?

History: I'd be here all day. My synopsis above will do.

Culture: The Normans largely replaced the Anglo-Saxon aristocarcy culture by using their own language and artistic tastes as illustrated by Gothic architecture. English culture ever since is really an assimilation of European in the first instance and later world culture. We only have a couple of aspects of distinct Anglo-Saxon culture left in a few place names and a few weekdays like Tuesday and Wednesday.

Ethnicity: As is illustrated above there can be very few people who can trace their genetic line back to the Anglo-Saxons. We really are a genetic mix of Romano-British, Celts, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, French, Dutch, Indians and plenty of others.

I don't know if you agree, but from this it's hard to know what constitutes a special feature of being English.

However, for illustrative purposes I'll tell you about the Ukraine. As you may know the Ukraine is only a new nation. In creating a national identity, the Ukranians have had to read their own history books and work out their own history. In a sense it is a prejudicial exercise with people picking what bits they want to believe and what they think counts.

The point is that the concept of a nation (which is often individual) is often an artificial construction or if you like a human invention. The questions for me are, who really benefits from the conception of a nation? And is it worth investing so much emotional energy in a concept that is often built on such shallow foundations?

Umm, sorry for the lecture, but you asked me what I thought.

A decent answer. I think the notion of belonging to a nation is just the human need to belong to somthing. like supporting a football team. I think you have explained the roots of the nation very well and in simpleton terms that make your point very clear.

But i think England sailed the world and spread its ideas like sports such as football, cricket, rugby and the americans perferred to use are language instead of german, helped spread the language.

This spreading of are culture ment that to the english people that there culture was diluted, not having its own language, car industry or a cause to rally around like independance. The empire probably used to fill this hole but this has know gone and people no longer means what the english are, (the goverments need to try and make us embrace europe is doing further damage and causing stern resistance)which this debate proves.

But we seem to be willing to try anything, how many indian and chinese resturants would you find on the continent, baseball caps and rap music. we seem to be able to meet things head on and try other cultures out with ease.

"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at everything from horse racing to suet pudding. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during God Save the King than of stealing from the poor box."

George Orwell

Edited December 2, 2005 by hilltop red

[dagest]

I think the notion of belonging to a nation is just the human need to belong to somthing.

I couldn't agree more.

I like the Orwell quote and I think there's a great deal of truth in it.

[CiderHider]

Cider Hider, I think you are quite profoundly confused, with your hotchpotch of Left and Right rhetoric.

It may surprise you to learn dagest, that many consider it quite normal and acceptable to have veiws of both the left & right persuasion without being 'profoundly confused' as you put it.

Politics is not as black & white as you & others might see it.

[atyeoant]

Naturally, but it does mean it is tarnished by association. The swastika is a similar example. The swastika is over 2000 years old and had associated meanings long before the Nazis came along, but can it be rehabiltiated now? Would you go outside displaying it?

You could also argue that a flag as a representative symbol could have a racist symbolism. For example if you were a native Indian under British rule and were consitently referred to as a "*Racist Term Removed", as they were then you probably be quite entitled to view the Union Jack as a symbol of racism.

I agree with the Rev essentially, as long as you allow the "Right" to monpolise its use then it will de fatco be recognised as a symbol or racial intolerance.

Hilltop Red, I don't even think you know who the English are.

Cider Hider, I think you are quite profoundly confused, with your hotchpotch of Left and Right rhetoric.

Indians have never been referred to as "*Racist Term Removed", the term was used towards Black people and in this form originates from the USA. Dervied from Negro the Latin word for Black and the classification of race - Negroid. Where on earth did you that idea from?

Indians are Caucasian like the most indigenous British people!

Your argument loses any credit it may of had if you get basic facts wrong.

For the record I don't think that the Union Jack or the St Georges cross have any racist symbolism except perhaps in the minds of racist people who may not necessarily be indigenous or have British Heritage. Racists are all around and should all be treated with contempt.

[dagest]

Indians have never been referred to as "*Racist Term Removed", the term was used towards Black people and in this form originates from the USA. Dervied from Negro the Latin word for Black and the classification of race - Negroid. Where on earth did you that idea from?

Indians are Caucasian like the most indigenous British people!

Your argument loses any credit it may of had if you get basic facts wrong.

For the record I don't think that the Union Jack or the St Georges cross have any racist symbolism except perhaps in the minds of racist people who may not necessarily be indigenous or have British Heritage. Racists are all around and should all be treated with contempt.

I'm not so sure I have my basic facts wrong. For example, if you follow this link to the the etymological dictionary, it states quite clearly that "*Racist Term Removed" was, " Also applied by Eng. settlers to dark-skinned native peoples in India, Australia, Polynesia."

Here's the link:

Etymology Dictionary

Also, if you read Lawrence James's History of the British Raj, you will find plenty of evidence for the context in which it was used.

Before you accuse someone of getting their facts wrong, it's pretty important that you're sure of the facts yourself, other wise you could end up looking a little foolish.

Regarding, "our flags", I think you'll find people will read whatever symbolism they like into flags. If soemone sees the Union Jack as a racist symbol, they see it as a racist symbol. If soemone sees it as a symbol of benevolent colonisation then that's what they see. The point is, is that it is subjective.

[annanimo]

Interesting discussion.

As you see my my avatar, I'm something of a fan of Orwell's. His observations on the nature of patriotism and national identity are astute.

So I'm what some of you on here might coinsider a "leftie". Please don't use that as a term of abuse or a convenient word with which to bunch together the politically correct. There is nothing politically correct about me, nor was there about Orwell, or many of the people who served on the "left" of British politics.

For the Union Jack - it's not an issue. Is it racist? No. Do I want it banned? No. What's the big fuss about? I don't know. Yes, the BNP have tried to identify themselves with a peculiar interpretation of "Britishness" but that should not demean our nation and our national flag.

I've had an interesting discussion on here before about the nature of British identity, how it is a relatively new understanding and the product of Georgian and early Victorian perceptions of British supremacy. I'm not going to go over old ground (yet again) but there is a great book called "BRITONS" by Linda Colley which goes some way towards exploring how and why our understandings of nationhood have evolved over time. Excellent reading material (and I don't normally recommend books).

As for military defeats. England/Britain not endured any? Please don't make me laugh!

Maybe the American Wars of Independence didn't involve the British after all?

And the loss of Singapore in 1942 was a figment of my imagination?

And...er..I won't bother talking about the humiliating defeats at French hands in the early 1400s, or the victories the Jacobites won over the English in '45?

Edited December 4, 2005 by annanimo

[Guest WillsbridgeRed]

They left like to perpetuate the myth that their is no "English" race. This is clearly not true. The influence of the Norman fuedal system helped shape the English into a race unlike the world has ever seen. Warriors, sailors and businessmen. I would say the English race was born in 1066.

As far is the Union Jack, I would rather see the cross of St George fly, than a flag to which most see no deep feeling for. I'm sure any Scot or Taff would agree, and I just wish more people were as proud to be English, tather than British.

In terms of Military defeats, as Annanimo has listed, we lost North America, suffered some reverses against the Germans and Japs (Singapore was not a defeat, it was a capitulation). Defeats against the French did occur, which is not the picture painted my modern media, however what sticks out most for me is the massacre at Isandlwana, where a Zulu army of spearmen wiped out 1300 British and Allied servicemen.

All this said however, and it is clear the Win comlum dwarfes the losses colum for all services!

[City since 64]

AN AUSTRALIAN VIEW, PERHAPS THE SAME APPLIES FOR GREAT BRITAIN?

Sorry about punctuation etc, have just copied and pasted, lazy really.

Subject: It's Our Country - real editorial

Australia - The Right to Leave

Our Country - YOU Have the right - the right to leave !

After hearing about Sydney not wanting to offend other cultures by

putting up Xmas lights.

After hearing that the State of South Australia changed its opinion

and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with

her

face covered.

This prompted this editorial written by an Australian citizen.

Published in an Australian newspaper.

Quote:

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It

I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending

some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on

Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of

Australians.

However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the

"politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility

that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against

immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a

better life

by coming to Australia.

However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to

our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.

This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served

only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As

Australians,

we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our

own

lifestyle.

This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles,

trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought

freedom.

We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese,

Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part

of our society, Learn the language!

"In God We Trust" is our National Motto. This is not some Christian,

right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian

men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and

this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it

on

the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you

consider another part of the world as your new home, Because God is

part of our culture.

If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like " A Fair Go",

then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this

planet.

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, And we

really don't care how you did things where you came from.

This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow

you every opportunity to enjoy all this.

But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our

Flag, Our Pledge, Our National Motto, or Our Way of Life, I highly

encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,

"THE RIGHT TO LEAVE".

If you aren't happy here then f#@* off! We didn't force you to come

here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.

Pretty easy really, when you think about it.

[Guest WillsbridgeRed]

I think most level headed people would agree with that. I'm sick of having to "adapt" so as not to offend 1% of our population.

[hilltop red]

Interesting discussion.

As for military defeats. England/Britain not endured any? Please don't make me laugh!

Maybe the American Wars of Independence didn't involve the British after all?

And the loss of Singapore in 1942 was a figment of my imagination?

And...er..I won't bother talking about the humiliating defeats at French hands in the early 1400s, or the victories the Jacobites won over the English in '45?

not going to argue there. My original point was poor and not very well thought out.

Interesting discussion.

As you see my my avatar, I'm something of a fan of Orwell's. His observations on the nature of patriotism and national identity are astute.

So I'm what some of you on here might coinsider a "leftie". Please don't use that as a term of abuse or a convenient word with which to bunch together the politically correct. There is nothing politically correct about me, nor was there about Orwell, or many of the people who served on the "left" of British politics.

This is very goood point. Its like calling the right, racist.

[Guest revkev]

If you aren't happy here then f#@* off! We didn't force you to come

here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.

Pretty easy really, when you think about it.

I quite agree, wouldn't have put it that way, but I certainly agree with the sentiment.