Australia Changes National Anthem

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Ridiculous. Changing the anthem of a country is basically collapsing the country. A national anthem should never change as it belongs to the traditions, culture and history to the country

Me: *Changes the H in 'oh say can you see" to a capital letter*

The United States: https://youtu.be/p-qYbE1o5Pc

[Andsed]

Nice for Australia to try and be more inclusive towards the Aboriginals I guess? Feels like this is a pretty small fish being fried but baby steps I suppose.

[Greed and Death]

Nice for Australia to try and be more inclusive towards the Aboriginals I guess? Feels like this is a pretty small fish being fried but baby steps I suppose.

Did aboriginals actually complain about the original anthem or is this just white savior BS ?

[Australian rePublic]

Nice for Australia to try and be more inclusive towards the Aboriginals I guess? Feels like this is a pretty small fish being fried but baby steps I suppose.

Did aboriginals actually complain about the original anthem or is this just white savior BS ?

Some did

[Atheris]

Nice for Australia to try and be more inclusive towards the Aboriginals I guess? Feels like this is a pretty small fish being fried but baby steps I suppose.

Did aboriginals actually complain about the original anthem or is this just white savior BS ?

Both, I'd guess.

[Aguaria Major]

Absolutely nothing in those lyrics mention eviction - a change in landlord doesnt mean you automatically lose tenancy

1) That's why I asked him (so as not to jump to an unnecessary conclusion on my part) whether or not that's what he was advocating for (in the first sentence, no less), and why I said that's what it sounded like (denoting a comparison rather than a direct substitution of ideas), specifically to my ears (to denote individual connotational interpretation rather than literal meaning).

2) That being said: you can call me a hypocrite for de-facto jumping to a conclusion all you like, but that is the fault of the vagueness of the original poster; both of us came to completely different conclusions that could be considered equally valid until he clears the meaning of the post up. So, just as I have not faulted you for following your implicit bias in assuming eviction isn't what he was referring to, I suggest that you don't fault me for mine.

3) "A change in landlord", eh? Now, what exactly does that mean, policy-wise? Are you suggesting a mandate that Australian leadership ALWAYS be given to someone of native decent? Are you suggesting that the current government be dissolved and replaced with a constitution drafted by natives? Are you suggesting some kind of quota be imposed on the Australian parliament and/or executive to ensure a certain percentage of it always consists of people of native decent?

Please be more specific, as you have made a statement equally as vague as the one that started this dispute that could just as easily be interpreted as hostile towards people of non-native decent, [EDIT] and frankly, as somewhat undemocratic as well.

Absolutely nothing in those lyrics mention eviction - a change in landlord doesnt mean you automatically lose tenancy

So what specific policy is being advocated then?

Like Obama said about the whole "defund the police" thing in the US, if you have a reasonable policy suggestion, you need to explain it to people and present it in a way they can understand, not just hit them with a snappy slogan.

Changing a single word is hardly the same as changing the anthem - though I note that it's a change so apparently popular that it has support from across the Australian political spectrum, from Aboriginal activists to Pauline Hanson; so as changes go, it seems to be a straightforward one.

What this thread really needs, however, is a poll on what the Australian national anthem should be changed to.

Though mods do have the power to insert a poll, I feel it would be rude of me to do so in this case; so I offer the following potential poll:

What Should Australia's National Anthem Be Changed To?

1) Don't change; keep Advance Australia Fair
2) Beds are Burning - Midnight Oil
3) It's a Long Way to the Top - AC/DC (obviously must be accompanied by this video)
4) Khe Sanh - Cold Chisel
5) Where the Wild Roses Grow - Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds ft. Kylie Minogue
6) Treaty - Yothu Yindi
7) You're the Voice - John Farnham
8.) The Carnival is Over - The Seekers
9) Back in Black - AC/DC
10) Waltzing Matilda



Why yes, I did live in Australia for a few years; why do you ask?

You missed Great Southern Land, Beds are Burning and A Pub With No Beer - your poll is invalid

I can't help but notice, Cetacea , that you didn't answer me OR USS Monitor .

Would you mind doing that, please?

---

Also, to answer The Archregimancy 's question:

I vote for #10. It should be Waltzing Matilda.

[Parxland]

Our national anthem does suck though.A national anthem is either supposed to inspire you to stand up and be proud of your country, or inspire you to fight for your country. Advanced Australia does neither. Advanced Australia Fair inspires me to fall asleep. If I were in charge, I'd make the anthem be I am you are we are Australian which signifies everything our country stands for and makes you proud to be Australia

All I have to say to that is drink your yorkshire tea and long live the queen.

[Narland]

Disappointed to see the title and find out it wasn’t changed to Waltzing Matilda

This ^^^

(my niece chimed in and thinks it should be "Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport" -- she's 6). She only knows the song (Tie Me Kangaroo Down) from my 45 record collection. I just showed here the Wiggles version on pc, and now she no long likes the song. rofl.

Changing one word and then to boast about it sounds more like self-righteous virtue signalling from a ruling elite that is out of touch with the people of the country than anything actually substantive.

[Smosh games]

I don't know, how much this small change affect the Australian national anthem

[Dazchan]

So did Australia collapse in 1984 when the anthem was changed from God Save the Queen to Advance Australia Fair?

God Save The Queen is still used in Australia next to Advance Australia Fair

No. It isn't.

On an official level, God Save the Queen is our regal anthem and is used only at official occasions when the queen is visiting. Our national anthem, since 1984, is Advance Australia Fair.

They are not used “next to” each other, with the exception of a small handful of circumstances, and only one is Australia’s national anthem.

[Wild lands of Tribe]

Absolutely nothing in those lyrics mention eviction - a change in landlord doesnt mean you automatically lose tenancy

I’d not be opposed to eviction after the ongoing harm and destruction that continues to this day (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-52869502), but then again maybe let’s not start so extreme; my point was that changing a single word in the national anthem is just another very small step on a very long path to reparations and perhaps it time for a courageous step of more significance

[Aguaria Major]

I’d not be opposed to eviction after the ongoing harm and destruction that continues to this day (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-52869502), but then again maybe let’s not start so extreme; my point was that changing a single word in the national anthem is just another very small step on a very long path to reparations and perhaps it time for a courageous step of more significance

Or maybe, let's not go there at all. I agree that the aboriginals need reparations of some kind, and policies implemented to give them greater access to the Australian economy due to the chronic poverty wrought upon them by years of colonialism. I'm also a socialist, so I universally advocate for things like UBI (as a guarantee regardless of other benefits received by individuals and with laws in place to prevent markets from arbitrarily raising prices to help themselves to said income, as opposed to the views of a certain US Presidential candidate), reforms giving more power to local governments over how their resources are managed while mandating that more positions in local government are democratically elected, workplace democracy/collective ownership of the market, minimum wage requirements that are well above the poverty line, and enormous restrictions on market access to commons resources, which is one of the biggest threats to native populations in both Australia and the US; these actions would see a universal rise in equality among citizens and be a benefit for everyone regardless of decent though. So if you're only looking for retribution/payback for colonialism, then I'm sorry to disappoint you.

Eviction, however, is not only completely undemocratic (which, if you actually believe in things like natural rights, should make it completely abhorrent to you given every human should have a right to democracy), but would also create a world crisis due to both the inevitable civil war it would start in Australia, and the refugee crises/economic strain it would create in areas where the displaced would end up fleeing to. Eviction is an extremely foolish, malicious and short-sighted policy.

[Cetacea]

1) That's why I asked him (so as not to jump to an unnecessary conclusion on my part) whether or not that's what he was advocating for (in the first sentence, no less), and why I said that's what it sounded like (denoting a comparison rather than a direct substitution of ideas), specifically to my ears (to denote individual connotational interpretation rather than literal meaning).

2) That being said: you can call me a hypocrite for de-facto jumping to a conclusion all you like, but that is the fault of the vagueness of the original poster; both of us came to completely different conclusions that could be considered equally valid until he clears the meaning of the post up. So, just as I have not faulted you for following your implicit bias in assuming eviction isn't what he was referring to, I suggest that you don't fault me for mine.

3) "A change in landlord", eh? Now, what exactly does that mean, policy-wise? Are you suggesting a mandate that Australian leadership ALWAYS be given to someone of native decent? Are you suggesting that the current government be dissolved and replaced with a constitution drafted by natives? Are you suggesting some kind of quota be imposed on the Australian parliament and/or executive to ensure a certain percentage of it always consists of people of native decent?

Please be more specific, as you have made a statement equally as vague as the one that started this dispute that could just as easily be interpreted as hostile towards people of non-native decent, [EDIT] and frankly, as somewhat undemocratic as well.

So what specific policy is being advocated then?

Like Obama said about the whole "defund the police" thing in the US, if you have a reasonable policy suggestion, you need to explain it to people and present it in a way they can understand, not just hit them with a snappy slogan.

You missed Great Southern Land, Beds are Burning and A Pub With No Beer - your poll is invalid

I can't help but notice, Cetacea , that you didn't answer me OR USS Monitor .

Would you mind doing that, please?

---

Also, to answer The Archregimancy 's question:

I vote for #10. It should be Waltzing Matilda.

Will do later, busy atm

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Our national anthem does suck though.A national anthem is either supposed to inspire you to stand up and be proud of your country, or inspire you to fight for your country. Advanced Australia does neither. Advanced Australia Fair inspires me to fall asleep. If I were in charge, I'd make the anthem be I am you are we are Australian which signifies everything our country stands for and makes you proud to be Australia

America's national anthem sucks too. It's just a drinking song tbh. I wish Perry Boys by the Old Firm Casuals was the American national anthem but apparently we can't do that shit. So we're stuck with an old English drinking song turned slow and wimpy national anthem that I can only stand a little more than Proud to be an American by Lee Greenwood.

[Aguaria Major]

Our national anthem does suck though.A national anthem is either supposed to inspire you to stand up and be proud of your country, or inspire you to fight for your country. Advanced Australia does neither. Advanced Australia Fair inspires me to fall asleep. If I were in charge, I'd make the anthem be I am you are we are Australian which signifies everything our country stands for and makes you proud to be Australia

America's national anthem sucks too. It's just a drinking song tbh. I wish Perry Boys by the Old Firm Casuals was the American national anthem but apparently we can't do that shit. So we're stuck with an old English drinking song turned slow and wimpy national anthem that I can only stand a little more than Proud to be an American by Lee Greenwood.

It's also about a war that wasn't for our independence that we arguably didn't win, is a waltz that most people can't sing, and has awkward lyrics (the entire song is a question). I think Hail Columbia should be the US national anthem.

But given the actual history of the US, maybe having a complete and utter quagmire of a song rooted in Britishness that no one likes as our national anthem is fitting.

[Novus America]

America's national anthem sucks too. It's just a drinking song tbh. I wish Perry Boys by the Old Firm Casuals was the American national anthem but apparently we can't do that shit. So we're stuck with an old English drinking song turned slow and wimpy national anthem that I can only stand a little more than Proud to be an American by Lee Greenwood.

It's also about a war that wasn't for our independence that we arguably didn't win, is a waltz that most people can't sing, and has awkward lyrics (the entire song is a question).

But given the history of the US, maybe having a complete and utter quagmire of a song rooted in Britishness as our national anthem is fitting.

Actually the entire song is not a question, just the first verse. It makes more sense with the fourth verse which actually answers the question.

We should sing both the 1st and 4th verse, not just the first. It sounds way better that way.
The second verse is a mess though. The third is not that great either.

It can actually sound okay if you speed it up a bit, the problem is it is usually played too slow.
But yeah it is not the greatest national anthem.

It definitely is not the easiest to sing.

[Aguaria Major]

It's also about a war that wasn't for our independence that we arguably didn't win, is a waltz that most people can't sing, and has awkward lyrics (the entire song is a question).

But given the history of the US, maybe having a complete and utter quagmire of a song rooted in Britishness as our national anthem is fitting.

Actually the entire song is not a question, just the first verse. It makes more sense with the fourth verse which actually answers the question.

We should sing both the 1st and 4th verse, not just the first. It sounds way better that way.
The second verse is a mess though. The third is not that great either.

It can actually sound okay if you speed it up a bit, the problem is it is usually played too slow.
But yeah it is not the greatest national anthem.

It definitely is not the easiest to sing.

De-facto, the entire song is a question since, I'd argue, 99% of the time, it's only ever the first verse that is sung.

I agree that it sounds nice when sped up, and even better as an instrumental - specifically, when the trumpeting fanfare arrangement is played (I may be a bit biased here since I play in a collegiate marching band).

But still, you can't argue about the historical ironies of the Star-Spangled Banner. Hail Columbia was written by Americans in 1789 (the year our constitution was ratified, so bonus points there) immediately after the War of Independence as a celebration of our victory in said conflict, has much cleaner, more coherent lyrics, and is much easier to sing. It also makes a badass military march when played fast, which is something you can't do with a waltz like the Star-Spangled Banner.

[Novus America]

Actually the entire song is not a question, just the first verse. It makes more sense with the fourth verse which actually answers the question.

We should sing both the 1st and 4th verse, not just the first. It sounds way better that way.
The second verse is a mess though. The third is not that great either.

It can actually sound okay if you speed it up a bit, the problem is it is usually played too slow.
But yeah it is not the greatest national anthem.

It definitely is not the easiest to sing.

De-facto, the entire question is a song since, I'd argue, 99% of the time, it's only ever the first verse that is sung.

I agree that it sounds nice when sped up, and even better as an instrumental - specifically, when the trumpeting fanfare arrangement is played (I may be a bit biased here since I play in a collegiate marching band).

But still, you can't argue about the historical ironies. Hail Columbia was written by Americans, immediately after the War of Independence as a celebration of our victory, has much cleaner, more coherent lyrics, and is much easier to sing. It also makes a badass military march when played fast, which is something you can't do with a waltz.

True it is almost always just the first verse, but I think that is a mistake. It is was not written to be just the first verse, making playing/signing just the first verse leaning out the most important part and idea of the song. It is much more coherent with the 4th verse. The second and third can be skipped, especially the second. But the first verse alone just sounds silly, it sounds like you only sang part of a song and just cut it off, because you did...

But yeah Hail Columbia is probably better, especially if we are only going to do the first verse of the Star Spangled banner.
But throw in the 4th verse, maybe tweak some of the awkward wording a little, speed it up a bit, and definitely agree on the trumpets, you could make the Star Spangled Banner a lot better than how it is usually done.

Still Hail Columbia is probably the way to go.

You could make the Star Spangled Banner just the Anthem for Maryland because Maryland, My Maryland is a disaster. Besides the words which of you understand the context are cringe as hell CSA lost cause crap, it is sung to O Christmas Tree/Tannenbaum I mean really?

Nobody in Maryland I know even knows the words. They obviously know the tune, but that is because it is so damn derivative.

[Aguaria Major]

De-facto, the entire question is a song since, I'd argue, 99% of the time, it's only ever the first verse that is sung.

I agree that it sounds nice when sped up, and even better as an instrumental - specifically, when the trumpeting fanfare arrangement is played (I may be a bit biased here since I play in a collegiate marching band).

But still, you can't argue about the historical ironies. Hail Columbia was written by Americans, immediately after the War of Independence as a celebration of our victory, has much cleaner, more coherent lyrics, and is much easier to sing. It also makes a badass military march when played fast, which is something you can't do with a waltz.

True it is almost always just the first verse, but I think that is a mistake. It is was not written to be just the first verse, making playing/signing just the first verse leaning out the most important part and idea of the song. It is much more coherent with the 4th verse. The second and third can be skipped, especially the second. But the first verse alone just sounds silly, it sounds like you only sang part of a song and just cut it off, because you did...

But yeah Hail Columbia is probably better, especially if we are only going to do the first verse of the Star Spangled banner.
But throw in the 4th verse, maybe tweak some of the awkward wording a little, speed it up a bit, and definitely agree on the trumpets, you could make the Star Spangled Banner a lot better than how it is usually done.

Still Hail Columbia is probably the way to go.

You could make the Star Spangled Banner just the Anthem for Maryland because Maryland, My Maryland is a disaster. Besides the words which of you understand the context are cringe as hell CSA lost cause crap, it is sung to O Christmas Tree/Tannenbaum I mean really?

Nobody in Maryland I know even knows the words. They obviously know the tune, but that is because it is so damn derivative.

I'm not saying you're wrong about what could be done to make the Star-Spangled Banner better (in fact, I think you're right), but I still think Hail Columbia is much better since it wasn't originally a British drinking song.

I also think you're right about making it the song of Maryland. In addition, Maryland is not the only state with an O Tannenbaum ripoff as its song. Iowa and Michigan both have their own lyrics to O Tannenbaum, and as a midwesterner, I can confirm both songs are cringe AF. Iowa should pick Iowa Hawkeyes and Michigan should pick The Victors (they wouldn't be the first midwestern states with college songs. Wisconsin's state song is the fight song of UW Madison and MInnesota's is the U of M's alma mater).

[Radictistan]

More virtue signaling which ultimately does nothing to actually improve the situation for the indigenous population. I'm not exactly surprised, but disappointed nonetheless.

Having a national anthem in the first place is virtue signaling.

[Luziyca]

The national anthem represents the culture and history of the country. Any country that is not in peace with its past will make a mistake. I think changing the flag and national anthems means the collapse of a country. I think it's a sad event.

Canada changed its national anthem to make it gender-neutral a few years back, and well, last time I checked, the Dominion of Canada still extends from Cape Race to Nootka Sound.

[Major-Tom]

All Rise for Australia's National Anthem.

[Aguaria Major]

I can't help but notice, Cetacea , that you didn't answer me OR USS Monitor .

Would you mind doing that, please?

---

Also, to answer The Archregimancy 's question:

I vote for #10. It should be Waltzing Matilda.

Will do later, busy atm

When you do, I hope you will consider the fact that I was more right in my interpretation of the original poster's message than you were;

2 posts above your last, he endorses eviction (albeit indirectly), meaning your taking issue with that being my assumption in the first place started an ultimately pointless debate.

[Cetacea]

1) That's why I asked him (so as not to jump to an unnecessary conclusion on my part) whether or not that's what he was advocating for (in the first sentence, no less), and why I said that's what it sounded like (denoting a comparison rather than a direct substitution of ideas), specifically to my ears (to denote individual connotational interpretation rather than literal meaning).

2) That being said: you can call me a hypocrite for de-facto jumping to a conclusion all you like, but that is the fault of the vagueness of the original poster; both of us came to completely different conclusions that could be considered equally valid until he clears the meaning of the post up. So, just as I have not faulted you for following your implicit bias in assuming eviction isn't what he was referring to, I suggest that you don't fault me for mine.

3) "A change in landlord", eh? Now, what exactly does that mean, policy-wise? Are you suggesting a mandate that Australian leadership ALWAYS be given to someone of native decent? Are you suggesting that the current government be dissolved and replaced with a constitution drafted by natives? Are you suggesting some kind of quota be imposed on the Australian parliament and/or executive to ensure a certain percentage of it always consists of people of native decent?

Please be more specific, as you have made a statement equally as vague as the one that started this dispute that could just as easily be interpreted as hostile towards people of non-native decent, [EDIT] and frankly, as somewhat undemocratic as well.

So what specific policy is being advocated then?

Like Obama said about the whole "defund the police" thing in the US, if you have a reasonable policy suggestion, you need to explain it to people and present it in a way they can understand, not just hit them with a snappy slogan.

I can't help but notice, Cetacea , that you didn't answer me OR USS Monitor .

Would you mind doing that, please?

---

Okay its worth noting that Beds Are Burning came out in 1987, a few months before the Bicentenial of the First Fleet and still five years before the Mabo decision overturned the doctrine of Terra Nullus.
Its important to remember that when the song was written Midnight Oil had just been part of the Blackfella-Whitefella Tour with the Warumpi Band (who played Aboriginal Rock) and they were looking to develop a progressive Australian identity that was rooted in reconciliation between Aboriginal and ‘Settler’ cultures - the same themes that are reflected in Midnight Oils subsequent ‘sound’. So in that light despite what the other poster might think nothing in the lyrics talk about eviction, instead they are about reconciliation and recognition of traditional land rights.

So the Mabo decision overturned Terra Nullus, the claim the Australia’s land were ‘empty and unused’, and instead required States to recognise Aboriginal Traditional Land Rights as valid legal rights. How thats done across different states is still debated but fortunately there is the notable and prominent example of the Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park (famous for Uluru/Ayers Rock).

So Uluru/Ayers Rock is the most famous natural landmark in Australia and there is evidence of Anangu (Aboriginal) occupation of the Uluru area over the last 10,000 years.
Their undistrubed occupation continued right through to the 1870s when Europeans first reached the area, then decided to bring in sheep (leading to conflict) and subsequently established (by the Australian Government) the Petermann Aboriginal Reserve - a re-settlement camp where Aboriginals were relocated for their ‘welfare’.
From the 1930s to 1970s the Government supported European settlement of the wider region in order to look for gold and then to establish tourism operations at the Ayers Rock National Park.

Forutnately Uluru is in the Northern Territory of Australia which is directly under Commonwealth (Federal) control and so in the 1976 due to increase call for Aboriginal land rights the Feds passed the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act with the intention to reinstate ownership of unalientated crown land in the Northern Territory to Aboriginal people as the traditional owners of such land.

On 26 October 1985, the Australian government returned ownership of Uluru to the local Pitjantjatjara people, with one of the conditions being that the Aṉangu would lease it back to the National Parks and Wildlife agency for 99 years and that it would be jointly managed. The old hotels and tourism infrastructure were moved 17kms away from Uluru to the Yulara Tourist Town and some of the Aboriginal families moved back and set up their own guiding operations.

This is the current state of affairs, there is ongoing commitment to co-management of the area between the Indigenous Owners and the Australian National Parks Board and support for training and employment of local indigenous people. In 2011 the Indigenous Land Coroporation purchased the tourism operations of the Yulara Resort and are now a major contributor to the areas economy.

Its a great example of what can be done when Governments give country back to its indigenous caretakers

It should be acknowledged too that in 2015, the traditional owners of the region declared more than 50,000 square kilometres of Aboriginal freehold land surrounding the Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park as an Indigenous Protected Area named Katiti Petermann Indigenous Protected Area. As an IPA it is formally recognised by the Australia Government as part of the National Reserves system.

[Atheris]

America's national anthem sucks too. It's just a drinking song tbh. I wish Perry Boys by the Old Firm Casuals was the American national anthem but apparently we can't do that shit. So we're stuck with an old English drinking song turned slow and wimpy national anthem that I can only stand a little more than Proud to be an American by Lee Greenwood.

It's also about a war that wasn't for our independence that we arguably didn't win, is a waltz that most people can't sing, and has awkward lyrics (the entire song is a question). I think Hail Columbia should be the US national anthem.

I personally like America the Beautiful.