WHAT'S IN A NAME?

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXIX, Issue LXIX, 28 September 1915, Page 8

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

OVERSEA FOLK

For some time there has been a discussion in the London papers concerning a decisively descriptive term applicable to all the oversea folk of the Empire. The correspondence arose out of an attempt by the Overseas Club to find a better word than "colonial." The following suggestions had so far reached the Overseas Daily Mail when the mail left on August 13: Pan-British, Emperian, Outbriton, Britannic, Britonial, Anglian, Imperial, Away-born, Dominion, Imperialist, Kith-kin, Mac-Briton. One of the correspondents who wrote to The Time*; was a professor in the University of Toronto, and he made what the Christchurch Press calls the excellent suggestion that we should adopt the expressions "Canadian-Brit-ish," "South African British," and so on. But this does not meet the demand for a word which will describe the people of all the dominions together. Another correspondent said nearly all that needs to be said on the subject, and we quote his letter: "As an Australian, may I be allowed to chip in and ask 'what is wrong with ''colonial"?' We who live in the Empire away from the Homeland have made our places in the sun —and some of them good places, too —under the name of 'colonials,' without being ashamed of being so called. We have kept in touch with the Home Government through the 'Colonial' Office, which still is in operation and the Secretary of State for the 'Colonies' attends to the business of all the colonies, whether self-governed or otherwise. Our Australians have fought as 'colonial' troops, winning deathless fame for the word 'colonial'; we Australians have made our splendid mark in history as 'colonials,' which word must never die, as that mark can never be erased. No, sir, if the word 'colonial' Las been good enough to make history and win glory, it is good enough for us Australians to keep and to be eternally proud of."