I am curious to canvass the opinion of the wider world regarding the initiative here in New Zealand to consider changing our national flag.
Because I don’t wish to in any way prejudice your objectivity I will (initially and unless asked) furnish no background information - except to say that our present flag, with a British ‘union jack’ in the top left corner (canton) and five red stars on the blue fly (representing the ‘southern cross’ constellation) is seen by many of our population to be a colonial anachronism.
The other criticism of our present flag (which we have flown since 1902) is that, apart from fewer stars, is pretty much identical to that of Australia.
Five finalists have been selected from 10 292 designs submitted and the public is soon to choose one, by referendum. The winner will then be set against the existing flag in a second referendum.
Each of the designs, to varying degrees, has a back-story.
(Just in case anyone is puzzled by the ‘artwork’ - the ‘silver fern’ is NZ’s emblem. And the black ‘curled thing’ also represents the growing tip of a tree fern.)
Here are the five on the shortlist. What do you think?
Oops. Apologies.
I was totally unaware of the previous thread.
In my defence it might be highlighted that, since the previous thread went into hibernation there are now five flags in the mix. (The ‘Red Peak’, second from left, being added following a public submission to Government).
I would still be interested to hear any further appraisal of the five contenders in comparison to the existing flag.
Thanks.
You may want to also ask a Mod (by “reporting” your own post) to either merge the threads or to edit the title so people know it’s about* New Zealand* vexillology rather than the general field of study.
The reasons for changing the flag in the first place are good strong ones.
I do like the Red Peak flag. A strong, simple design, recognizable from distance, not too similar to any other national flag I can think of. Shows more spirit and imagination than sticking a fern leaf across the same old blue field with Southern Cross (though I appreciate the silver fern generally as a NZ emblem).
The black-and-white Koru also works for me, shares some of the same strengths, but apparently Kiwis feel disoriented by spirals?
The reasons for change seem pretty silly. Maybe all countries could completely change their flags every century ?
Those proposals are all fugly: these official alternatives seem like they were dreamt up by weak-minded art-students from the 1960s. And they adhere to no standards in flag construction. However doing all this no doubt is making some people feel self-important: ‘We are changing a nation !’
The old Flag of the United Tribes of New Zealand looks quite cool.
Thanks for your input. But whilst trying to remain fairly objective in this, I would’ve thought that the two principal motivations for change were valid. (ie To acknowledge that the Union Jack and NZ’s association with Britain is, for most Kiwis, only historic, and at best, tenuous. And, secondly, that the NZ and Australian flags are similar enough to be easily and regularly confused).
In other words, in the past 113 years circumstances have changed.
And, with the Stars and Stripes, (as an example, amongst many others) going through 27 re-designs since 1777 I don’t think NZ is being overly radical.
I agree that the current flag looks too much like Australia’s, and that alone would probably be a good enough reason to change it. If there’s a perception of colonial baggage attached to the Union Jack, OK, I guess that’s a reason, too.
That said, I like using the Southern Cross as a design element, since I’m of the belief that a flag should have something identifiably distinctive of its land, and while NZ isn’t the only nation in the Southern Hemisphere, there aren’t all that many others. And out of the two with the Cross, the one on the far right looks much better: The black in the first one just looks grim and depressing.
That said, the leaf frond is a bit busy, and another virtue for flags is simplicity. In that regard, the second one, with the red triangle (mountain?) is a good design: It’s just detailed enough to not look like anyone else’s flag, while being easy to draw.
The fourth one looks cool, but it would make a much better company logo than a flag. And the third one is terrible: It’s both complicated and undistinctive, without appearing to stand for anything in particular.
I don’t think them adding a star when New Zealand becomes a state counts as ‘re-design’.
Anyway, it just seems like something politicians are doing to mark their territory, rather than anything of substance. If not, wouldn’t they have bothered to have sought out designs that looked like a national flag rather than a Windows Metro tile ?
Also, your government’s unctuously worthy goody-goody flatulent speechifying in the accompanying notes is horrifying.
If we take the designer’s word for it, the ‘Red Peak’ (aka. ‘The First to the Light’)* actually embodies more versatility (in both Maori and European symbolism) than any of the five finalists.
Rather than detail it all here, this explains it all, pretty well;
The ‘First to Light’ allusion refers to NZ’s prime location on the Dateline.
It’s based on the koru, an important symbol in Maori art. I recognize it instantly as New Zealand, but that’s because I’ve been quite fond of the Hunderwasser koru flag, which has been somewhat known as a secondary flag of New Zealand. I’m not sure if I like this particular version or not.
AIUI, New Zealand had their red/white Southern Cross charge on the ensign before Australia did theirs, so I could see keeping it and replacing the Union Flag canton with something autochtonous to split the difference. But there are good points being made in the presentation of the First To Light pattern.