2026 Rugby League World Cup fixtures - October/November

MountainMan said:
www.smh.com.au

If you want every player singing the anthem, give them one they all want to sing

There’s no law requiring anyone to sing the national anthem. This isn’t North Korea, after all. But the confected outrage has a sinister subtext.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au
Click to expand...
The articles argument is that,
the anthem itself needs to resonate with all players across diverse cultural and heritage backgrounds.

How do the following words of the Anthem not resonate?
"For we are one and free"
Unlike anthems that focus heavily on past military victories or specific religious creeds, Advance Australia Fair, is built around shared opportunity, community, and welcoming people from all backgrounds ("for those who've come across the seas, we've golden soil and wealth for toil").

And if doesn't resonate then why?
Does a player express genuine passion for a club song? or a commercial pop song? it creates a double standard to selectively reject the anthem representing the very nation and community that supports, funds, and celebrates their sport. If enthusiasm can be mustered for a sporting brand, it should certainly be afforded to the country’s primary symbol of unity.
 
FinestTigers said:
The articles argument is that,
the anthem itself needs to resonate with all players across diverse cultural and heritage backgrounds.

How do the following words of the Anthem not resonate?
"For we are one and free"
Unlike anthems that focus heavily on past military victories or specific religious creeds, Advance Australia Fair, is built around shared opportunity, community, and welcoming people from all backgrounds ("for those who've come across the seas, we've golden soil and wealth for toil").

And if doesn't resonate then why?
Does a player express genuine passion for a club song? or a commercial pop song? it creates a double standard to selectively reject the anthem representing the very nation and community that supports, funds, and celebrates their sport. If enthusiasm can be mustered for a sporting brand, it should certainly be afforded to the country’s primary symbol of unity.
Click to expand...
ive personally lost all parochial love for the place after decades of lies from our leaders and see no harm in players lip syncing whilst bowing to the all mighty $
 
FinestTigers said:
The articles argument is that,
the anthem itself needs to resonate with all players across diverse cultural and heritage backgrounds.

How do the following words of the Anthem not resonate?
"For we are one and free"
Unlike anthems that focus heavily on past military victories or specific religious creeds, Advance Australia Fair, is built around shared opportunity, community, and welcoming people from all backgrounds ("for those who've come across the seas, we've golden soil and wealth for toil").

And if doesn't resonate then why?
Does a player express genuine passion for a club song? or a commercial pop song? it creates a double standard to selectively reject the anthem representing the very nation and community that supports, funds, and celebrates their sport. If enthusiasm can be mustered for a sporting brand, it should certainly be afforded to the country’s primary symbol of unity.
Click to expand...
You ask how do they not resonate?
You are viewing the anthem through an Anglo lens in the 2000s. Consider the same lines from a late 1800s early 1900s viewpoint.
"For those who've come across the seas" is not a line about welcoming new citizens from all backgrounds but celebrating British colonisation and specifically ignores those who were already here.
"We've golden soil." Surely an Indigenous person particularly 100+ years ago would be thinking that golden soil was ours until you took it. It is a line celebrating the very land taken. Additionally it promotes the farming of that land rather than custodianship of the land as Indigenous culture promotes.
"Wealth for toil". Meaning hard work will be financially rewarded. At the time the song was written there was indigenous slavery. We still see white privilege and generational wealth more than any wealth for toil.
Even the line advance Australia fair is believed to be a play on words with fair meaning light coloured skin and promoting attitudes that would lead to the white Australia policy as much as meaning honest and just.

As for For we are one and free. Somehow people think changing the line young to one suddenly changes all the other racial undertones of the song. That change was made without any consultation with Indigenous leaders. I'm sure it was made with reconciliation in mind but a change made without consultation and the wording of that change is often perceived by Indigenous as an instruction to further assimilate to white Australia.

The above is common arguments I hear from many indigenous persons. When I hear someone speak to it, I find it hard to disagree. No amount of tweaking a lyric here and there will change the connotation of the original song.
 
gregjm87 said:
You ask how do they not resonate?
You are viewing the anthem through an Anglo lens in the 2000s. Consider the same lines from a late 1800s early 1900s viewpoint.
"For those who've come across the seas" is not a line about welcoming new citizens from all backgrounds but celebrating British colonisation and specifically ignores those who were already here.
"We've golden soil." Surely an Indigenous person particularly 100+ years ago would be thinking that golden soil was ours until you took it. It is a line celebrating the very land taken. Additionally it promotes the farming of that land rather than custodianship of the land as Indigenous culture promotes.
"Wealth for toil". Meaning hard work will be financially rewarded. At the time the song was written there was indigenous slavery. We still see white privilege and generational wealth more than any wealth for toil.
Even the line advance Australia fair is believed to be a play on words with fair meaning light coloured skin and promoting attitudes that would lead to the white Australia policy as much as meaning honest and just.

As for For we are one and free. Somehow people think changing the line young to one suddenly changes all the other racial undertones of the song. That change was made without any consultation with Indigenous leaders. I'm sure it was made with reconciliation in mind but a change made without consultation and the wording of that change is often perceived by Indigenous as an instruction to further assimilate to white Australia.

The above is common arguments I hear from many indigenous persons. When I hear someone speak to it, I find it hard to disagree. No amount of tweaking a lyric here and there will change the connotation of the original song.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Gregim87,
The best discussions aren't about who is right, they're about sharing honest views, and showing respect through open dialogue.
 
gregjm87 said:
You ask how do they not resonate?
You are viewing the anthem through an Anglo lens in the 2000s. Consider the same lines from a late 1800s early 1900s viewpoint.
"For those who've come across the seas" is not a line about welcoming new citizens from all backgrounds but celebrating British colonisation and specifically ignores those who were already here.
"We've golden soil." Surely an Indigenous person particularly 100+ years ago would be thinking that golden soil was ours until you took it. It is a line celebrating the very land taken. Additionally it promotes the farming of that land rather than custodianship of the land as Indigenous culture promotes.
"Wealth for toil". Meaning hard work will be financially rewarded. At the time the song was written there was indigenous slavery. We still see white privilege and generational wealth more than any wealth for toil.
Even the line advance Australia fair is believed to be a play on words with fair meaning light coloured skin and promoting attitudes that would lead to the white Australia policy as much as meaning honest and just.

As for For we are one and free. Somehow people think changing the line young to one suddenly changes all the other racial undertones of the song. That change was made without any consultation with Indigenous leaders. I'm sure it was made with reconciliation in mind but a change made without consultation and the wording of that change is often perceived by Indigenous as an instruction to further assimilate to white Australia.

The above is common arguments I hear from many indigenous persons. When I hear someone speak to it, I find it hard to disagree. No amount of tweaking a lyric here and there will change the connotation of the original song.
Click to expand...
I suppose you can find wrong in anything if you look hard enough. Or are prepared to overlook any positive from any alternative. I guess vaccines and barcodes are all evil too.
 
tigerballs said:
I suppose you can find wrong in anything if you look hard enough. Or are prepared to overlook any positive from any alternative. I guess vaccines and barcodes are all evil too.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I don't think it requires looking hard to see the faults in our anthem. No need for the ridiculous comparison.
I understand the other side to the argument as well.
If the song was written today with the exact same lyrics then I don't think there would be much to complain about. The lyrics would have a different meaning to what was written 150 years ago. 'One and free' would likely be a call for unity. 'For those who've come across the seas' would likely be a nod to the multiculturalism of the country. 'Our land abounds in nature's gifts' might be a reference to the mining industry propping up the economy. But these had very different connotations when the song was written and I'm not sure we should just expect the Indigenous community to overlook that or vilify those who refuse to do so.
I do believe the anthem should be respected. If indigenous players took a knee or some such I'd probably take issue. Standing silently arm in arm with teammates who are singing in my opinion is not being disrespectful. They are not taking the moment from those whom value the anthem. They are simply not participating.
I also believe that it is not so sacred that it can't be questioned or criticised, after all we've changed the anthem before.
 
happy_tiger said:
I think Fiji's GF was against Australia , reckon NZ win by 20 plus
Game of the group stages on Sunday with Samoa and Tonga
Reckon Samoa win though
Click to expand...
hoping fiji can knock the kiwis out
I backed Tonga at $1.80
hoping poms put a big score in png tonight by 60 and Tonga can beat Samoa by 8 and they can get in
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 5,494 (members: 31, guests: 5,463)
Back
Top