DAv2003 said:Meh, at least you don't have 'God save the king/queen' when we should have 'Rule Brittania' 'Jerusalem' or 'Land of hope and glory'.
I agree that "God Save the Queen" is the worst national anthem imaginable (as far as I know, the only one that is devoted to the head of state), although technically it's not the national anthem since it was never officially adopted. But I don't like any of your other suggestions any better. "Rule Britannia" - yeah, right. How many waves do we rule right now? "Jerusalem" - a song about how rubbish Britain is, covered in dark Satanic mills, where Jesus would never have wanted to come. "Land of Hope and Glory" - you don't need Noel Coward to point out how manifestly untrue *that* is. Plus, of course, the composer loathed the lyrics, which rather puts one off.
Now, what amuses me is the fact that everyone in this thread seems to use the words "we" and "you" to refer to those who carried out actions two centuries ago. As far as I know, no-one today has any responsibility for these actions, and I'm almost certain that no-one posting on this site has anything to do with them or much to do with the actions of modern governments either...
The issue of Australia and the Aborigines is a bit different and rather interesting. There is a powerful argument *against* any apology being given, to the effect that to do so is to distinguish between Australians and Aborigines. That is, if the government says "sorry" to the Aborigines, that is in effect saying that the Aborigines are different people from the government, that they are intrinsically "governed" people rather than the ones doing the governing. It places them in a position of pure passivity, whether of passively being eliminated or of passively being apologised to. After all, if the prime minister were an Aborigine, would there be calls for him to apologise?