Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

City coat of arms

Sir,—lt is quite incredible that for the second time in a month an article or letter (Brian Harman, August 31) has referred to the Christchurch City coat of arms, yet studiously ignored its most prominent elements. What is even more peculiar is that those neglected elements happen to be the very symbols that uniquely distinguish our land — the pukeko, the kiwi and the mountain daisies. This distorted interpretation of the coat of arms mirrors the past thoughtless decimation of our city’s natural heritage. Why have we so alienated ourselves from our Canterbury roots? Perhaps a decision to protect Travis Swamp, in conjunction with resource law reform and local government restructuring, will herald a turning point in the city’s consciousness. I look forward to being a member of a community that feels comfortable with, and nourishes, its natural and cultural dimensions. — Yours, etc., COLIN MEURK. September 1,1989.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19890907.2.86.6

Bibliographic details

Press, 7 September 1989, Page 12

Word Count
150

City coat of arms Press, 7 September 1989, Page 12

City coat of arms Press, 7 September 1989, Page 12