THE recent government decision to change the Fiji flag has stimulated either laughter, derision, rejection, approval or a desire to be part of a wide public decision making process.
As historians we believe it is indeed time for a change in the way the nation records its past, and proclaims its present place in the world.
Britain has gone, an intention declared to Fiji in 1960, 10 years before independence.
So it is now appropriate to remove the colonial symbolism of the Union Jack as Britain has played no real part in the evolution of Fiji over the past 55 years.
The bright blue background and the coat of arms, originating in 1908, should remain as it is inclusive of several aspects of Fiji’s history as a colony then a nation, economy, culture and homeland to diverse peoples.
Some nations have made a concerted effort to remove signs of their colonial past.
The Indonesians removing all Dutch artworks from the Governor’s palace at the time of independence and the recent removal of the statue of Cecil Rhodes from a Cape Town university are just two examples.
It is now appropriate to remove the Union Jack.
The public have so far been offered a range of insipid designs featuring canoes, stars, a turtle, shells and ocean horizons, all on a blue background.
They have the look of computer-generated, conservative, bland symbolism.
Our view as a group of seven Pacific historians actively researching and teaching about Fiji’s history, is that loving the flag, and acknowledging it as ours, requires a stronger link to actual events and experiences of Fijians.
The coat of arms, moved to a central position on the flag would serve this purpose.
It is an old catch cry that nations rally around the flag, so we suggest that the 23 options on offer are not likely to generate that level of enthusiasm.
It remains a mystery why none of the 23 options retained the coat of arms.
