" In Africa the British Union Jack is lowered but we British never move an inch" What say you.?

Question

This was said by a barge suprintendent at the Off-Shore Platform. How should you response to this question if you are former colony citizen.What about if you are British.

Answer 1

Well I'm British, and just look at what we left behind, The legal system in most Commonwealth country's based on the British system. Also there civil service. Plus the investment by British company's. Plus the Queen is still Head of State in many of them. Guess the Barge Superintendent was right.

Answer 2

Load of cack. I'm Scottish, which roughly translates as 'British under protest' in my case.
The British Union Jack is an incorrect term so if the man saying it was British he wants re-educating. It's the Union Flag. The pole it's run up is the Jackstaff. This is a Royal Navy term originally. The staff on the bows of a ship is known as the Jackstaff.
Union Jack is the term that resulted from it.
I don't know where he got he impression the British never move an inch from though. The Queen is now only titular head of the Commonwealth. No money or real power flows from that position. Considering what is now the Commonwealth was once the Empire, I should think that constitutes moving a lot more than an inch.

Answer 3

After the Anglo Boer South African War (1899-1902) and the formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910, the British Union Jack became the national flag of the united South Africa. The Red and Blue ensigns with the Union coat of arms in the fly, were granted by British Admiralty warrants in 1910 (amended in 1912) for use at sea as was the case all over the British Empire. They were not intended as national flags for the Union although some people used them as such (especially the Red Ensign). It was only in 1925, after the first post-Union Afrikaner government took office, that a Bill was introduced in parliament to make provision for a national flag for the Union of South Africa. This action immediately led to some three years of civil strife and near civil war. The British thought that the Boere wanted to do away with their cherished Imperial symbols. The province of Natal even threatened to secede from the Union. A compromise was finally reached which resulted in the adoption of a flag for the Union late in 1927 and which was first hoisted on 31 May 1928. This was based on the so-called Van Riebeeck flag, which was in reality the old Princevlag, of orange, white and blue horizontal stripes with three smaller flags centred in the white stripe. These 'flaglets' were the British Union Jack towards the hoist, the Orange Free State Vierkleur hanging vertically and the Transvaal Vierkleur towards the fly. The choice of the Princevlag as the basis of the new flag had more to do with finding an acceptable compromise (the Prinzenvlag supposedly being the first flag hoisted on South African soil - although this is not at all certain - and being a neutral design as it was no longer a current national flag) than having anything to do with Afrikaner political desires. A further part of the compromise was that the British Union Jack would continue to fly alongside the Union national flag everywhere over official buildings. South Africa was thus one of a few countries in the world, as far as I am aware, that flew two national flags simultaneously! This situation continued until 1957 when the Union Jack was finally dispensed with by an Act of Parliament.

Answer 4

Beastie - You are talking twaddle. The correct name for the national flag of the United Kingdom is the Union Jack. Parliament determined such about 100 years ago.

It is also not a Royal Navy term. The jackstaff exists on all vessels, and the flags of England and Scotland were both originally introduced to identify merchant shipping.

"union flag" is a term adopted by the Victorian Upper classes who considered the term "jack" to be rather common.

Answer 5

It is unfortunate that the "white-man's burden" is still rampant in Africa.

Much of the infrastructure in Africa is because of Western Colonization. They made it so they could trade etc.

I would answer (either way) by saying now it is a partnership. Of course the British will not move, the Queen is the Queen of the whole commonwealth...not just Britain.

Answer 6

Look at the mess Zimbabwe has made of independence. I'm not saying they should have stayed as a colony or stuck with Rhodesia - because none of that was workable either but Mugabe's anti British (in turn anti democracy, and superficially anti white) stance has been a disaster.

Answer 7

Is a pathetic statement actually. The Brits are not moving inches, but miles. All across the world their empire is in shambles. They are reaping what they did sow.

Answer 8

Mugabe's `kick the whites off the farms` really worked didn`t it?
His people are now dying of starvation. Yes he really is helping his people..............

Answer 9

It's sorta the same about america, they say that we going to leave iraq, but they don't really.

Answer 10

i'm not british i am english!
don't you think there is better things to worry about like the little missing girl in portugal etc!