What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Players refusing to sing the National anthem in protest

Front-Rower

First Grade
Messages
5,297
No, typicalfan simply highlighted your ignorance... and that hit a nerve

Ignorance? Yet neither typicalfan nor canard could or can provide one shred of evidence to support their claims and answer my question.

Again, for those who seem to be in the know, what are these three doing to support their cause of having the anthem changed other than not singing the national anthem? (And that includes providing funds to help assist with change).
 
Last edited:

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
110,120
IMO, Advance Australia is a clumsy song that really doesn't represent Australia.

For a start, it is culturally incorrect. It starts with the words, "for we are young and free..."

"We" are not young, the country is old, really old. And people have been here for 40,000+ years. The oldest surviving culture on Earth.

So straight up, from the get go, the lyrics are creating a myth.

Plus not all of us are free. For example, the lack of access to health, education etc in some rural and outback communities is appalling, this is an inequity that robs fellow Australians of basic freedoms.

Sounds all very nice to rejoice and say we are young and free... but it simply isn't true.

Sort of like the myth that Captain James Cook discovered Australia, makes some people feel secure but it's a lie. Not even Cook would make such a claim.
Why do we have to mention one culture in our anthem over all the others?
You're right, why should the British culture be mentioned in the national anthem.

From the original lyrics in Advance Australia...

When gallant Cook from Albion sailed,
To trace wide oceans o'er,
True British courage bore him on,
Til he landed on our shore.
Then here he raised Old England's flag,
The standard of the brave;
"With all her faults we love her still"
"Britannia rules the wave."
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia fair.


While other nations of the globe
Behold us from afar,
We'll raise to high renown and shine
Like our glorious southern star;
From England, Scotia, Erin's isle.
Who come our lot to share,
Let all combine with heart and hand
To Advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains, etc

Should foreign foe e'er sight our coast.
Or dare a foot to land,
We'll rouse to arms like sires of yore
To guard our native strand;
Britannia then shall surely know,
Beyond wide oceans roll
Her sons in fair Australia's land
Still keep a British soul.
In joyful strains, etc


Yes, I know all those verses are conveniently omitted but it shows that this anthem was never meant to be about Australians. It was about Rule Britannia and how Australia was part of the mother country. It was also a call to arms and would have been well suited amongst your modern white supremacists.
And why has it taken almost half a century for this issue to arise?
We must mix in different circles.

Don't know if you've noticed, but when Australians are proud of being Australian and feel the urge to spontaneously break into song, they will often choose Waltzing Matilda or that Seekers song, I am Australian.

At least Waltzing Matilda has a rebellious edge to it, and it did fair well in the 1970s plebiscite. I am Australian is more inclusive, and it was the song of choice in the Australian Parliament after the gay marriage vote.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
110,120
Ignorance? Yet neither typicalfan nor canard could or can provide one shred of evidence to support their claims and answer my question.

Again, for those who seem to be in the know, what are these three doing to support their cause of having the anthem changed other than not singing the national anthem? (And that includes providing funds to help assist with change).
You own the claim.

You are attempting to pass judgement and make these players look like hypocrites for not donating money to a cause of your choice, without knowing anything about them. That sir, is an ignorant thing to say.
 

Canard

Immortal
Messages
35,713
Ignorance? Yet neither typicalfan nor canard could or can provide one shred of evidence to support their claims and answer my question.

Again, for those who seem to be in the know, what are these three doing to support their cause of having the anthem changed other than not singing the national anthem? (And that includes providing funds to help assist with change).

The onus is on you, you've made the claim. Put up or shut up
 

Front-Rower

First Grade
Messages
5,297
You own the claim.

You are attempting to pass judgement and make these players look like hypocrites for not donating money to a cause of your choice, without knowing anything about them. That sir, is an ignorant thing to say.

Again, what claim? The only ones who have have turned into a claim are the ones who can not provide an answer, because there is none.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
110,120
Again, what claim? The only ones who have have turned into a claim are the ones who can not provide an answer, because there is none.
Failed deflection.

You said, "Imagine the legacy these three guys could leave behind if they contributed funding to and/or helped established the research into and implementation of a new anthem or greater recognition."

They are already doing something. But typically, someone comes along with an unfounded assumption to try and shoot it down. You're clearly trying to frame them as hypocrites, without anything to back it up.

They want the national anthem to change. They are risking a lot by making a statement.

FTR, I agree with their stance, the national anthem is wrong. But this has obviously touched a nerve with some people.
 

TheFrog

Coach
Messages
14,300
From the original lyrics in Advance Australia...
So what you're saying is they've already toned it down to get rid of the pommy bits, in order to make it suitable as an Australian national anthem.

IMO, Advance Australia is a clumsy song that really doesn't represent Australia.
To be honest I'm not in love with it either. It's just something that is there. But I don't know of a better one and it was selected democratically by the citizens of Australia. If you know of something better I'd love to see it.
 
Last edited:

2 weeks

Coach
Messages
16,586
I don't think that this has been thrown up as an option for a new anthem, but i'll throw it out there

 

Front-Rower

First Grade
Messages
5,297
They are already doing something. But typically, someone comes along with an unfounded assumption to try and shoot it down. You're clearly trying to frame them as hypocrites, without anything to back it up.

Again, please educate the forum as to what tangible steps are they taking to ensure that something is done?
 

big hit!

Bench
Messages
3,452
Australia has always had a problem uniting folks.

Many folks don't consider themselves Australian. They consider themselves Aboriginal, Lebanese, Greek, Indian, etc

It's something that has always been apparent. I find the yanks in comparison will wholeheartedly call thems American, but also respect their heritage.
 

Front-Rower

First Grade
Messages
5,297
Failed deflection.

You said, "Imagine the legacy these three guys could leave behind if they contributed funding to and/or helped established the research into and implementation of a new anthem or greater recognition."

So, have they engaged the right people to get things moving? I offered an opinion, not a claim, on what they might be able to do. None of you can back up the counter that I don’t know what I’m taking about, because you can’t.
 

big hit!

Bench
Messages
3,452
Don't know if you've noticed, but when Australians are proud of being Australian and feel the urge to spontaneously break into song, they will often choose Waltzing Matilda or that Seekers song, I am Australian.

At least Waltzing Matilda has a rebellious edge to it, and it did fair well in the 1970s plebiscite. I am Australian is more inclusive, and it was the song of choice in the Australian Parliament after the gay marriage vote.

WM isn't appropriate in multicultural Australia.
 

TheFrog

Coach
Messages
14,300
Just change it to Waltzing Matilda already.

It lost in 1977 and with good reason.

A song about a 19th century livestock thief who commits suicide when apprehended. Very politically correct, that. Sure to hit the spot with the indigenous folk. And if people have trouble with girt, imagine jolly jumbucks, billabongs, squatters, swagmen, etc.

At least Waltzing Matilda has a rebellious edge to it, and it did fair well in the 1970s plebiscite. I am Australian is more inclusive, and it was the song of choice in the Australian Parliament after the gay marriage vote.

28% in a field of four. The winner got 43%. Maybe they could have another plebiscite with this Seekers one and Peter Allen's one as well. Something tells me neither would placate those who have issues with the current one. Someone has suggested Treaty but that is hardly national anthem material. If they have that they should also have The Real Thing, if you are going to be a laughing stock might as well go all the way. Don't be surprised if the existing one gets up again.
 
Last edited:

magpie4ever

First Grade
Messages
9,992
So what you're saying is they've already toned it down to get rid of the pommy bits, in order to make it suitable as an Australian national anthem.


To be honest I'm not in love with it either. It's just something that is there. But I don't know of a better one and it was selected democratically by the citizens of Australia. If you know of something better I'd love to see it.

Poor ole Willow certain lost that diatribe - poor fella, didn't realise it had a rewrite.
 

Latest posts

Top