The Daily News. FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 1922. RE-NAMING THE TASMAN.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 August 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 1922. RE-NAMING THE TASMAN.

The craze of war memorials is evidently “going strong” in some quarters, judging by the latest proposal to change the name of the Tasman Sea to that of Anzae Sea. It is quite immaterial who conceived such a remarkable idea, but what is more to the point is to look the suggestion fairly and squarely in the face as as to obtain some notion of the length to which some people are prepared to go in the direction of war memorials. There is, of course, some connection between Gallipoli and the Tasman Sea, as well as all other seas, but if places appearing on the map of the world, whether consisting of land or watfer, are to be changed in order to commemorate the organisations that became so prolific during the war, and generally known by words comprising the initial letters of their being, the effect would be to cast ridicule.on the British-speak-ing peoples. The ’ Federal Premier. Mr. Hughes, put the matter in a sensible light when he said that the Tasman Sea was an international highway, along which travels the commerce of all nations, so that re-naming this ocean highway was an international affair, therefore the colonies could not alter the map at will. There would be just as little sense in altering the name of the Pacific Ocean to Anzac, the North Sea to that of Dora, or any other ocean to that of Bawra. Such a recasting of nomenclature would present some outstanding incongruous features, and would rightly be regarded as a sign of mental deterioration. The spirit which thus prompts substituting Anzae for Tasman is not the spirit of Amzae, but a vainglorious spirit that approaches self-glorification. The memories associated with Gallipoli are far too sacred to be brought into ridicule by such a perverted notion of making an ocean way act as a memorial to the tragic events and bravery enacted at Gallipoli. It is claimed by the Sydney Daily Telegraph that “no grander memorial could be imagined than to call this geographically Australasian sea by this inspiring name.” In that claim is to he found a manifestation of boastful pride that would compel the nations to be constantly reminded of the prowess of the sons of two Dominions whose shores are washed by the Tasman Sea. There can be no “grandeur” about such a memorial, neither would the change be a fitting way of commemorating “superb comradeship of the kind which the world has always admired.” It would be merely a. reflection of the spirit which prompts the newly rich to call their landed property after their own names, a species of vulgarity that is as far removed from the memories of Anzac as is the sky from the earth. There is, and should be, but one Anzac on the map. To create a second Anzac in the Southern Seas would be committing a blunder that would rob the real Anzae of its glories, traditions and sacrifices. The keeping of Anzae Day has rightly become a solemn, sacred anniversary. It is in this way that the grandest of all memorials is created deep down in the hearts of the people, whereas the Sydney proposal savors of a memorial of water and sand. Very little reflection should convince the returned soldiers of New Zealand that it would be little short of desecration to duplicate Anzae in the manner proposed. Possibly the suggestion has been made in all good faith and with the best intentions, but it is based on .an erroneous conception of what Anzae stands for. Neither Australia nor New Zealand needs | an Anzac Sea to touch their shores !. in order to keep alive the comradeship in arms of their sons at Gallipoli. The real Anzac will be a sufficient memorial for all time, fpr all RurfiQB.es, and there are

grave objections to posterity being misled by the creation of a spurious Anzac between Australia and New Zealand.