The Great Divide - Australian Culture Wars

"There is in fact evidence of a serious gulf between the myth of 'a fair go' Australia and the reality. As a society we need to start taking responsibility for the intolerant and frequently ignorant nation we have become." Dr Tanja Dreher, UTS Shopfront Research Manager

Australia is, and always has been, a divided country. In the 19th century, colonial society was divided according to whether people or their ancestors had come to Australia as free migrants or as criminals. In the 20th century, Australian society was divided according to whether one's loyalties lay with Britain or with Australia. Today, it is divided according to whether people think the average Australian is a good person, or a mean-spirited racist that needs to be enlightened via the acknowledgement of Aboriginal cultures or acceptance of multiculturalism.

Australia's cultural division is most clearly expressed in the peculiarities of Australian English. Unlike England or America, Australia has no regional variance in pronunciation (despite the vast distances between cities and the different immigration histories of each city.) Although there is no regional difference, there are differences in pronunciation within each city. These variations can be categorised in three main ways: 1) broad Australian English, 2) general Australian English and 3) cultivated English. The pecularity in speaking indicates that social identities in Australia revolve more around conflicting ideologies and not around conflicting geographic regions as is the case in America and Britain.

The broad Australian accent is spoken by the likes of comedian Paul Hogan. Australians who speak with this accent have traditionally being biased in favour of Australia culture and have been quite comfortable with positive social stereotypes of Australia. At the other extreme, the cultivated accent has been spoken by the likes of ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. Fraser grew up with a very pro-English social identity and this was reflected in his desire to speak like a well-educated Englishman. Fraser finished his career with an attitude strongly in favour of multiculturalism. Not surprisingly, Fraser was never one to evoke stereotypes of the Australian character. Instead, multiculturalism became an excuse to say that no Australian culture existeds and that all Australian stereotypes were inaccurate. In retirement, Fraser spends his time spreading stereotypes about Australia being a heartless and intolerant country.

As well as shaping language, the cultural division has also shaped art, immigration policy, movies and even the move to a republic. In some ways it is difficult to say "Australian culture" because culture implies a sense of unity that simply does not exist in Australia.

80 years of Convict transportation best explains the reasons for the continuation of the division. Due to transportation, the founding third of Australia's urban existence is associated with shame. While there were some free immigrants mixed in with the Convicts, many of those free immigrants had a morality that was even more dubious than the Convicts. Consequently, Australian history fails to provide the moral certainty that some people desire. To deal with their problem, some concerned citizens have found their moral certainty by criticising everything and anything about Australia. This flogging of Australia seems to have developed in the colonial period and has never gone away.

As well as helping them find moral certainty, criticising Australia has given individuals a sense of belonging. It seems that although Australian history hasn't been able to unite people in praise, it has been able to unite some people in criticism. Ironically, despite having anti-Australian sentiments, the same individuals are the first to put up their hand for government funding, and so take money from the community they are so critical of, and that they seek to undermine with their criticism.

The psychology of the anti-Australians is best revealed in their use of 'we' as a weasel word. They use the word when referring to something negative about Australia. However, when they use it, they really mean 'them' Australians. The hollowness of their 'we' is exemplified by their inconsistent use of 'we' in regards to Australia's colonial history. For example, they will use 'we' in reference to government injustices inflicted upon Aborigines; thus putting a victim label on Aborigines and a perpetrator label on Australians. They will not; however, use 'we' in reference to government injustices inflicted upon Convicts. This contradiction reveals a selective connection to the colonial government. Furthermore, they will not use 'we' in reference to Convicts; thus demonstrating their own reluctance to be covered by the victim label that they apply to Aborigines. Finally, they will never use 'we' in reference to Aborigines. Whatever group that their 'we' refers to, it always excludes Aborigines from it.

Division through history

In the 19th century, the stigma of Convict ancestry divided Australians. Those who had criminal ancestors tended to have positive views towards the miners that rebelled against the English at the Eureka Stockade, or the bushrangers that make trouble for the authorities. Those who disliked Australia saw the miners and bushrangers as common criminals.

In the 20th century, the divisions continued with some Australians having loyalty to England and others having loyalty to Australia. These divisions were most clearly exposed in times of war. Much of the anti-English sentiment can be seen in the words of poet Henry Lawson who wrote:

"This was the loyalty which sent several hundred jingoes and several thousand pounds to assist England in crushing a brave nation of savages who were fighting for a country of no earthly use to anyone but themselves...

Why on earth do we want closer connection with England? We have little in common with English people except our language. We are fast becoming an entirely different people. We are more liberal, and, considering our age, more progressive than England is. The majority of English people know nothing of Australia, and even the higher classes understand neither us nor our country. The latter entertain a sort of good-natured contempt for us which is only the outcome of their contact with our own shoddy aristocracy, which is several degrees more contemptible than that of England.

The loyal talk of Patriotism, Old England, Mother Land, etc. Patriotism? after Egypt, Burmah, Soudan, etc. Bah! it sickens one. Go and read His Natural Life, and other natural lives, by Marcus Clarke, and then talk of the dear old Mother Land that gave us birth. " (20)

World War 1 was again a time of division. The issue of conscription led to heated debate in Australian society. In 1916 and 1917, government held referendums on the issue, which in turn provoke anti-elitiest advertisements such as:

"To Arms!
Captalists, Parsons, Politicians,
Landlords, Newspaper Editors, and
Other Stay-at-Home Patriots
your country needs
YOU
in the trenches
WORKERS
Follow your Masters"

Cultural stereotypes

Self-stereotyping forms the basis of culture. Not only do the stereotypes provide the behavioural model that individuals seek to emulate, they also provide a sense of commonality that makes people feel that they are part of a community. For example, in China, individuals self-stereotype by defining their culture using words such as consideration, respect for the aged, humility and family values. In France, individuals self-stereotype by defining their culture using words such as style, passion, and refinement. In Australia, people have also self-stereotyped using words such as fair go, larrikinism, and resourcefulness.

The positive nature of the Australian stereotypes has concerned some Australians. Consequently, instead of conforming to them, they have tried to deconstruct them. One of these concerned Australians is Dr Tanja Dreher, the UTS Shopfront Research Manager. Dr Dreher has actively gone searching for examples of the fair-go stereotype being inaccurate so that she can then publicly deconstruct it, and replace it with negative stereotypes regarding Australian intolerance and ignorance. Subsequently, she has released press-releases of the vein:

Language

The Australian strain of English has long drawn ridicule from sections of Australian society. Today, it is still common to hear Australians boast that they don't use Australian words like g'day, beuty, or fair dinkum. It is also common to hear Australians sarcastically use names like Shazza, and Bazza (dimuitive of names like Shannon and Barry) as a form of ridicule of those that do.

Until 30 years ago, the discrimination against Australian English was even institutionalised by the government. Newsreaders of the government run Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) had to male, and had to speak with the cultivated accent of an educated Englishman. As no Australian men could be found who were able to speak with the English accent, newsreaders were imported from England.

Not all Australians are ashamed of their way of speaking. The likes of late crocodile hunter Steve Irwin proudly used words like crikey. For showing pride in his heritage, many sections of Australian society cringed at Irwin's actions. One comedy team from the ABC, The Chaser, even wrote a song lampooning him after he had died. For the Chaser team, it knew it couldn't undo the actions of the dead. It just wanted to deny Australians a role model that they could emulate.

Aside from being an excuse to insult working class Australians, some of the Australian scorn for Australian English is probably a legacy of the English making Australians feeling ashamed of their language. At the turn of the century, many English people believed Australian English was defective as it was Convict in origin. Others, such as Valerie Desmond, believed it was defective as it has been corrupted by Chinese migrants. In her book, The Awful Australian (1911), Ms Desmond wrote,

"But it is not so much as the vagaries of pronunciation that hurt the ear of the visitor. It is the extraordinary intonation that the Australian imparts to his phrases. There is no such thing as cultured, reposeful conversation in this land; everybody sings his remarks as if he was reciting blank verse in the manner of an imperfect elocutionist. It would be quite possible to take an ordinary Australian conversation and immortalise its cadences and diapasons by means of musical notation. Herein the Australian differs from the American. The accent of the American, educated and uneducated alike, is abhorrent to the cultured Englishman or Englishwoman, but it is, at any rate, harmonious. That of the Australian is full of discords and surprises. His voice rises and falls with unexpected syncopations, and, even among the few cultured persons this country possesses, seems to bear in every syllable the sign of the parvenu…The Australian practice of singing his remarks I can only ascribe to the influence of the Chinese. During my stay in Melbourne, I spent one evening at supper in a Chinese cookshop in Little Bourke Street, and I was instantly struck by the resemblance between the intonation of the phrases between the Chinese attendants and that of the cultivated Australians who accompanied me."(1)

As it is today, in colonial society, different sections of Australian society had different levels of cross-cultural interaction

White Australia Policy

From 1901 to the end of World War II, Australia used language tests, otherwise known as the White Australia Policy, to prevent non-whites from migrating to Australia. In total, the policy ran for around 50 years; less than a 1/4 of Australia's urban history.

There were a variety of reasons for the White Australia Policy. For pro-English people like Charles Kingston, the policy was about showing pride in being English, and scorn for the criminals, paupers and non-whites that he felt were tainting Australia. According to Kingston,

" I regard as second only to the necessity of protecting our shores against actual invasion, the necessity of protecting Australia against the influx of aliens, Asiatics, criminals, paupers, and other undesirable classes. " (2)

On a superficial level, as well as being supportive of Britain, Kingstone was supportive of Australia. On a substance level; however, his words were completely alien to the type of people who built his country.

At the time that the likes of Kingston were showing pride in English heritage, Australians like Banjo Patterson were singing songs like Watlzing Matilda that made heavy use of Aboriginal words. Likewise, they were celebrating the likes of Raffaelo Carboni, who said of his involvement in the Eureka Rebellion,

"The maiden appearance of our standard, in the midst of armed men, sturdy, self-overworking diggers of all languages and colours, was a fascinating object to behold." (3)

Unlike the British Australians, these Australians did not support the White Australia Policy out of a belief in their superiority. Instead, private enterprises were importing Chinese labour on contracts that were subsequently being used to undermine unions, amd unions wanted to protect their bargaining power.

Comedy

Australia has two very distinct strains of humour. One strain of humour is the larrikin humour typically associated with the likes of Paul Hogan. It is self-depreciating, witty, and positive to Australia. The other strain is typically associated with the likes of The Chaser from the government funded ABC. The Chaser could be described as private school-boy humour given it grew out a newspaper started by a group of friends who met in private schools while growing up in Sydney's affluent northern beaches. Drawing from their affluent background, The Chaser tends to be patronising, sarcastic and insulting. Their jokes are often of the vein:

"Stan Zemanek was a racist, Dr Fatso xenophobic cock, whose views were more malignant than his brain." (Audience laughs)

"And Brocky was some revhead, who pumped the air with pure lead, so anti green he drove into a tree." (Audience laughs)

"Don Bradman was a total farce, a grumpy, greedy tired-arse, who couldn’t even score one run last time he played." (Audience laughs)

Citizenship test

Australia has recently introduced citizenship tests for migrants. The existence of a test implies that Australian culture exists, and that it has some value that people should study. Not surprisingly, the anti-Australians are hostile to the idea of having a test, as well as the questions.

Left-wing Australians have taken particular issue with cricketer Don Bradman being included in the test. One of these left-wingers is Rudd government minister Chris Evans. According to Evans:

"We want to make sure the test is appropriate and that it is based on what people really need to know in order to become citizens of the country ... not necessarily the historical facts about some of our past sportsmen."(13)

Ironically, anyone who doesn't know of Don Bradman would be unable to participate in discussions about whether Bradman should be included in a citizenship test. Consequently, Mr Evans wants to exclude migrants from the very topic that he is discussing.

As well as excluding migrants from discussions about citizenship, not knowing about Bradman may also exclude migrants from discussions about left-wing humour, differences between Australia and Germany in the despression, Australia India relations, the tall-poppy syndrome, and cricket.

Considering that Bradman is a name known by almost every Australian born in the country, he is a subject matter that is frequently considered, and on these grounds, a strong case could be made to include him on a citizenship test. The likes of Mr Evans do not consider such issues because, for them, appealing to those who want to denigrate Australia is of higher importance than deciding what is useful for migrants to know.

Republic

It would seem logical that moves to create an Australian republic would be driven by some form of national pride. In the late 90s; however, moves to a republic were driven by national shame. Some sections of Australian society believed Australia needed to rid itself of its sexism and racism, and becoming a republic would achieve it. These arguments were promoted by an academic named Jessica Stewart, whose views were in turn promoted by the Australian Republican Movement. According to Ms Stewart,

"Australians who insist on maintaining a British heritage are creating and perpetuating divisions in society…typical values such as mateship, are expunged of their racist, sexist elements...However Australia's 'desired' perception of itself seen, for example, through certain beer advertisements on television, is drawn almost exclusively from the third fifty years and reflects the dominance of British culture." (4)

The vote was held in 1999, and despite 90 per cent of Australians saying that they supported the republic, not a single state won a majority. Analysis of voting patterns found that working class and rural Australians, those typically with the strongest sense of national pride, were most likely to vote no. Inner city residents and the affluent, those typically with the weakest national pride and strongest ridicule of Australia, were most likely to vote yes.

Movies

Twice the Australian movie industry has been killed by Australian governments. In 1906, Australia produced The Story of the Kelly Gang, the world's first feature-length film. The film was extraordinary popular; running for five weeks to full houses. It only cost 1,000 pounds to make but returned 26,000 pounds. Over the next five years Australia produced more successful films such as The Eureka Stockade, The Assigned Servant, The Squatters Daughter, Attack on the Gold Escort, Sentenced for Life and The Mark of the Lash. In these early years, Australia was clearly the world leader in the production of feature films. It was then that the government banned the bushranging genre of films. With its own government saying the Australian story had no value, the Australian industry was overrun by Hollywood movies showing cowboys shooting Indians.

In the 1970s, the Australian industry had a revival and in the 1980s hit the big time with the release of Crocodile Dundee I and II. The Australian government then killed the industry by funding movies aiming to deconstruct positive Crocodile Dundee stereotypes. A notable example came in the form of Stephan Eliot's 1994 movie Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. Paul Byrnes, Sydney Morning Herald film critic, summed up the intentions of Priscilla with his description,

"The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert went further than any of these in attacking the Crocodile Dundee mythology of the essentially harmless heterosexual outback male. These same types of men, usually depicted in bars in Priscilla, can be suspicious, violent, vulgar and extremely intolerant, especially when confronted with alternative definitions of masculinity." (5)

In 1997, Stephan Eliot followed up Priscila with the R-rated Welcome to Woop Woop. Film critic Jan Stewart described the movie as intending to show two Australias. One Australia was the "happy" left-wing Australia. The other was the mean spirited Australia that was a hangover from the days of the penal colony. According to Stewart,

"Then there is the dark Australia, haunted by the karma of its criminal history. This is a mean-spirited, nasty place, where every cruel gesture seems suffused with the spite and agony of its long-dead transported prisoners. It is the Oz of Muriel's Wedding and Sweetie, of baby-stealing dingoes and gang-ridden futuristic societies protected by homophobic movie stars from Peekskill, N.Y."

By the new millennium, most of the Australian public was simply ignoring the Australian film industry. When explaining why the public had turned its back on the industry, director George Miller put himself in denial and simply attributed it to combination of Australian racism and the insignificant nature of Australian history. According to Mr Miller:

"We really don't have significant stories to tell, perhaps apart from the indigenous story...Australia at its heart is so racist that I don't think we can stomach it."

Aboriginal affairs

In non-Aboriginal society, two distinct strains can be seen in relations with Aboriginal society. The pro-Australia strain that positioned the bush as representative of the Australian identity celebrated Aborigines for their role in it. For example, in the 19th century, song writers such as Banjo Patterson used Aboriginal words to build the Australian credentials of his works. Likewise, most of rural Australia took Aboriginal names in preference to the names of English dignitaries. Finally, the Australian Natives Association took the word natives (which was being used in reference to Aborigines), to also define their organisation and members.

While the pro-Australian strain has embraced elements of Aboriginal cultures, the anti-Australian strain has wanted to defend Aborigines against injustice and give them the benefit of assimilation. Ironically, the strain has never actually shown respect to the substance of Aboriginal cultures. Today, the same people continue the tradition by raising awareness of negative things they believe happened to Aborigines at the hands of whites, but they never actually learn anything about Aborigines themselves. Furthermore, they refer to Aborigines in a way that excludes them. Specifically, they like to use 'we' in reference to groups which, in their own mind, Aborigines are not part of.

The two different approaches can be seen in two different corroborees depicted in two different Australian movies. In the 1986 movie Crocodile Dundee, an outback white Australian male is shown at a corroboree in Aboriginal tribal paint. The male's status comes from being accepted by Aborigines, showing respect to the customs and becoming Aboriginal himself. In the 1994 movie, Pricilla Queen of the Desert, Aborigines are shown as social outcasts. Their corroborees are non-traditional and lacking in energy. Drag queens then lighten their day with a song about surviving. The song is so popular that one Aboriginal male allows himself to be assimilated to the gay culture. Other Aborigines look on with smiling faces like testimonials in a sales campaign.

Crocodile Dundee corroboree - Traditional Aborigines dance, and a white man joins them

Priscilla, Queen of the Desert corroboree - Homosexuals dance, and Aborigines clap their approval

Moralistic government policy towards Aborigines

For the past 200 years, most government policies towards Aborigines have been "moralistic." As a general rule, "moral" policy aims to distinguish supporters of the policy in a positive way from those people who are against it. The actual target of the policy is ignored, and aside from giving supporters self-esteem, the policy is quite aimless. This has definately been the case with "moralistic" policy towards Aborigines. For example, present day government funded media campaigns go to great length to define Aborigines with statistics of disadvantage. Such campaigns aim to shame present-day Australians as racists. Government funded university scholars also go to great length to shame past Australians for facilitating cultural loss in Aboriginal communities. Supporters of both campaigns feel very "moral" for giving their support, and intellectually superior to those who are against the campaigns.

While supporters of the campaigns feel very moral, they have neglected to consider the model Aborigine that their campaigns are meant to be socially constructing. Supporters can't decide whether the model Aborigine should be running around naked in the bush, as they did for 40,000 years and suffering the statistics of disadvantage associated with the lifestyle, or living in a house like every other Australian, and suffering the cultural loss associated with the lifestyle. The consequence of not defining the model Aborigine that they are trying to socially construct is that all their "moral" campaigns, and all their funding, has left Aborigines trapped between two worlds, while giving the moralistic whites a pawn to denigrate Australia. In a nutshell, they spend a lot of money to use Aborigines as a tool to shame Australia. They don't spend money to help Aborigines, because they have never even bothered to think what constitutes "helping."

Multiculturalism

Different strains of Australian culture have used different ways to show their support for multiculturalism, or more specifically, multi-racialism. At the 1854 Eureka rebellion, Raffaelo Carboni called on the crowd, "irrespective of nationality, religion and colour", to salute the Southern Cross as the "refuge of all the oppressed from all the countries on earth".

"The maiden appearance of our standard, in the midst of armed men, sturdy, self-overworking diggers of all languages and colours, was a fascinating object to behold." (3)

In the 1970s, Whitlam government minister Al Grassby defined a concept of multi-racialism that was very different to Carboni's. Instead of trying to unite different races by encouraging them to see Australia as their home, Grassby tried to unite them by ensuring no Australians considered themselves to be Australians. Grassby created a policy that encouraged migrants to preserve the culture of their homeland, or ancestors' homeland. It was a policy that left no room for an Australian culture. For Grassby, even the simple act of defining one's ancestors as Australian on a census form was an act of racism comparable with the killing of six million Jews. According to Grassby,

"It would mean there was a secret master race that considered themselves pure Australians...It would be worse than the Third Reich." (6)

Banning the Australian flag

At the 2007 Sydney Big Day Out, a music festival held on Australia Day, organisers argued that the Australian flag was symbolic of racism and needed to be banned. According to promoter Ken West,

"The Australian flag was being used as gang colours. It was racism disguised as patriotism and I'm not going to tolerate it." (18)

America provides a useful precedent as to whether national pride at a music concert leads to racial disharmony. At the 1969 Woodstock music festival, Jimi Hendrix performed a rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner, the American national anthem. Due to national pride, he was able to walk on stage as a black man, and walk off stage as an American legend. Likewise, Martin Luther King's “I have a dream” speech worked on the same principle. It affirmed the myth of the American dream, and simply framed blacks in it. If Martin Luther King had instead delivered a speech ranting against American pride, or deconstructing the myth of the American dream, he may have become a hero to other blacks, but never to the wider American community.

If organisers of the Big Day Out were truly concerned about racial harmony, they would have redefined the Australian flag in a way that was consistent with their dream. They could have organised the flag to be incorporated into musical acts that they believed was consistent with their ideal of Australia. However, their plan to deconstruct or vilify those who flew the flag indicates that an alternative agenda was at play.

Painting

The late Pro Hart was the most commercially successful artist of his era. He also had a big influence on his Broken Hill home. The outback town was once a hard drinking mining town. Due to Hart, it developed an appreciation for the arts, and many pubs were converted into art galleries.
Despite Hart's popularity and positive influence, government-funded galleries refused to buy his works, or display donated works. Furthermore, the galleries were outright insulting of Hart's artistic integrity. Alan Dodge, Director of Art Gallery of Western Australia, said of Hart,

"He is one of the most delightful illustrators of the Australian folk idiom, but let's not use the word art anywhere." (7)

Derogatory sentiments were also uttered by Barry Pearce, the head curator of Australian art at the gallery of New South Wales. According to Pearce, comparing Hart with the artists who normally hang in the gallery would be "rather like Slim Dusty being compared to Mozart." (8)

The main problem with Hart was that his depictions of the Australian outback, and its residents, were positive. As far as government-funded galleries were concerned, art could be positive when it was depicting a bowl of fruit, or a French garden, but it couldn't be positive when the Australian outback was being depicted. When viewing the outback, the public funded galleries wanted to see artists showing Aborigines being victimised, horses perishing in a drought, or the towns failing.

The AFL and NRL are leading the way in integrating diverse races. Unfortunately, Australia's government funded social science departments are bringing up the rear. Whether by conscious design or by researching subject matters that migrants are not interested in, the government funded departments are very much an all white brotherhood.

Sport

Some sections of Australian society love sport. Other sections of Australian society criticise their compatriots for liking sport and argue that Australians are too sports focused. Despite accusations to the contrary, sport is not as widely accepted in Australia as it is in other countries. For example, Australian NBA basketball player Andrew Bogart is no where near as popular in Australia as Chinese NBA basketball player Yao Ming is in China. Likewise, Australian cricket player Brett Lee is no where near as popular in Australia as Indian cricket player Sachin Tendulker is in India, or even Brett Lee is in India. Furthermore, intellectuals in Australia don't watch sport to the same extent that intellectuals in other countries watch sport. To the contrary, they criticise it.

Even though there is nothing unusual about liking sport, it is still used as a point to criticise other Australians. For example, the left-wing Sydney Morning Herald tried to use low rates of sport participation by women from non-Anglo-Celtic countries to imply Australians are racist and sexist for liking sport. According to the blog,

"The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that women from non-Anglo-Celtic backgrounds are much less likely to play sport, for religious, cultural and child-care reasons. Migrants sometimes find our national obsession with sport and sporting men and women intimidating and alienating. Do you think our sporting fervour is detrimental?"

Whether migrants find Australian sport alienating is best answered by looking at the names in Australian football and rugby league teams. The teams read like a roll call of the United Nations. Admittedly, Australia lacks gender equality in professional sport, but that outcome can be attributed to men's superior physical strength and the market's desire to watch the elite of the sport. It is in the intellectual fields where migrant women should be able to achieve equality with men. Unfortunately, that is where inequality is greatest; particularly in the humanity departments of Australia's government funded universities. Despite the fact that 69 per cent of students in the humanities are women (17) this proportion is not reflected at a teaching level. Furthermore, the few women in senior positions find that their work is ignored by their male peers. This was very evident in a 2005 survey of intellectuals by the Australian Public Intellectual Network. The survey asked 200 scholars to list 10 important and influential thinkers. The list they produced had 8 white men in the 10 most influential Australian intellectuals. Men occupied 17 of the top 20 places. (16) As well as women being grossly underrepresented, non-whites were underrepresented. Not a single Australian with African, Asian, or South American ancestry made the grade.

The university departments, and government, have the power to change the racial and gender discrimination in their ranks. They fail to do so because they do not self-reflect and they only care about gender or racial inequality when it can be used to vilify a different strain of Australian culture. The villification of others keeps them in denial about their own prejudices, or perhaps, is a convenient excuse to distract attention from their prejudices.

Anzac Day

For some Australians, Gallipoli and ANZAC have become a source of national pride. For other Australians, Gallipoli and Anzac Day need to be "critically assessed", which is another way of saying "deconstructed and attacked." On Thursday, 25th of April 2002, two academics, Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson, published an article in the left-wing Sydney Morning Herald in which they offered a corrective to 10 myths about the ANZAC campaign. Not only did they deconstruct the positive myths, they also moralised that celebration of the Gallipoli campaign "excludes more than half the population: women, indigenous people and most ethnic groups."

'Anzac Day is our national day. It has quite eclipsed Australia Day, which has become an embarrassment for some, a day at the cricket for others, and a long weekend for most. No orgy of fuzzy sentimentality or outpouring of national pride takes place in January. Such emotions are the exclusive preserve of April 25. This phenomenon is unstoppable. For better or worse, it is on Anzac Day that we celebrate being a nation and becoming a nation.
Yet this devotion to Anzac Day is puzzling. The choice of a military action almost a century ago as a founding event excludes more than half the population: women, indigenous people and most ethnic groups."

Needless to say, the historians don't criticise Chinese New Year celebrations as an "orgy" of fuzzy sentimentality. Furthermore, they don't criticise it on the grounds they exclude the 95 per cent of Australians that are not of Chinese ancestry.

Mateship

Although people in every country have friends, arguably no nationality lionises mateship to the same degree as do Australians. An Australian's lionisation of mateship is particularly evident in the way mateship is celebrated in ANZAC Day services. Whereas most countries use their military day to affirm all that is powerful about their nation, Australians use their military day to remember the character of those who died in war. A central feature of the Anzac Day service is a paragraph taken from the poem 'Ode for the Fallen':

"They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old;
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them."

Along with the Ode, Australian military tradition lionises mateship with the immortalisation of John Simpson and his donkey. During the Gallipoli campaign, Simpson deserted his unit and saved hundreds of wounded men by carrying them from the battlefield to the army hospital. It was an act of self sacrifice that ultimately cost him his life.

The Australian ideal of mateship is unique because it implies a stronger sense of obligation than the typical notions of friendship seen in other countries around the world. Poet Henry Lawson wrote of mateship:

"When our ideal of mateship is realised, the monopolists will not be able to hold the land from us."

A modern Australian saying also clarifies that the difference between a mate and a friend is that the friend will help, but a mate will stand beside. According to the saying:

"If you go out for a big night and by some misadventure you end up in a prison cell, you can count on your best friend to bail you out, but your best mate will be in there besides you."

To say that mateship can't be used to define Australian culture on the basis that all people all over the world have friends is like saying family values can't be used to define Greek culture on the basis that people all over the world have families. While they do have families, not many have the tradition of inviting third and fourth cousins to extravagant weddings, or protecting the honour of the family name at the expense of its individual members.

While most people around the world would consider the bonds of kinship amongst the unrelated to be a positive human quality, for some left-wing Australians it is a negative quality to be deconstructed. One of these left-wingers is an academic named Jessica Stewart. According to Ms Stewart:

"typical values such as mateship, are expunged of their racist, sexist elements."(4)

Another academic, Gary Simmons, in his paper, Aussie Blokes Queers Folks, wrote:

"The myths of mateship and male bonhomie need to be challenged. This paper will use theorists such as Judith Butler, Homi K Bhabha and Eve Sedgwick to explore the cracks in the facade of Oz masculinity and the mateship myth." (12)

June 13, 1899 - The Mayor of Melbourne, Cr McEacharn, used a visit by an English rugby team as an occasion to pour scorn on Australian football. Mr McEacharn said, 'It is something appalling to attend a football match here. It is disgusting to come home in a tram or train with those who have been attending the game.' (15)

Rugby union

Even for Australians who like sport, different attitudes to Australia influence the choice of sport. Rugby union has traditionally attracted Australians with a strong sense of English pride. These people have existed in Australia's private schools and affluent suburbs of Sydney. Even though they may support the label of being Australian at rugby union matches, in sustance they are hostile to the substance of Australian culture. A good example can be seen in words of Ben Johnson, a former professional rugby player who moved to China and started writing for the China Daily. After taking himself to a Beijing pub to watch the 2007 World Cup semi-final between Australia and England, Mr Johnson was ashamed to find that some Australians at the pub were drunk. This in itself was odd as to be embarrassed by seeing a drunk in a pub is much like being embarrassed by seeing a lady wearing a bikini at the beach. Aside from being embarrassed by a drunk Australian in a pub, Johnson was embarrassed that the "buffoon" used the Australian working class word of "youse." Mr Johnson subsequently felt compelled to write an article for the China Daily that explained his scorn for the low class Australian. Using words that would have made Prince Charles proud, Johnson wrote:

"Wing nut, gibberer and flip are words many Australians would use to describe the young man whose drunken behavior in a Beijing bar last Saturday night did his country a disservice.

Having gathered with friends to watch Australia play England in the quarterfinal of the Rugby World Cup, I was looking forward to enjoying some homegrown camaraderie amid the millions of Beijing folk completely oblivious to the "Game they play in heaven".

Also, I was savoring the opportunity of watching former teammates of mine advance to the final eight of rugby's quadrennial showpiece.

Instead I was confronted by the ugly reality of excessive alcohol consumption the minute my compatriot stumbled into my view.

Leaning invasively across the table occupied by some Americans in an adjacent booth, this young wretch rudely inquired about their origins with all the courtesy of a fox sniffing a rabbit warren.

"Where are youse from," he bellowed in parochial voice as if he were on the grassed hill of the Sydney Cricket Ground in high summer back in the days when a mouse was still only a furry rodent.

"Oh youse are nothing," he continued to dribble when he was disappointed to learn he had failed to sniff out an Englishman to bait for the duration of the match.

Standing at the end of our table and looking on with pride as 15 young highly reputable young Australians of superb athleticism belted out my country's national anthem - Advance Australia Fair - I was next in the blurry crosshairs of this inebriated buffoon.

"Are you English," he scowled while obscuring my view of the bar's large screen television.

Temporarily losing my composure, I replied in the affirmative with the intention of putting this young man in his place.

But seeing his puffy cheeks and the glaze in his eyes, I quickly came clean and informed him that though I didn't share his manners I indeed possessed the same coat of arms on my passport.

After some incoherent diatribe about his travels to China's ancient capital for work on a motion film which hadn't been written or, as far as I could ascertain, conceived yet, I decided the time had come to diplomatically upbraid my fellow Australian.

"You've had way too much to drink, haven't you mate," I inquired, catching him by surprise.

"We watched you make a fool of yourself and your country for the past 15 minutes and now you've been trying to put me through the same treatment. Why don't you kindly go somewhere else."

Much to my relief, reason prevailed and the young man, probably 25 or 26, left the downstairs bar to no doubt harangue others on the second floor. But he was soon back with exactly the same questions before gesticulating rudely to everyone in the bar.

To the young man being hosted by Beijing's warm-hearted people, I remind you of something our mothers and grandmothers have all asked us at least once.

Ironically, while Johnson believed his indignation at Australian drunkedness was a way of showing his support of Chinese culture, average Chinese men drink to a far greater level of intoxication than average Australian men. Furthermore, when the Chinese men drink they are not expected to show the control that is expected of Australian men. Instead, they take off their shirts, sing, dance, and fall over. Johnson's criticism of an Australian was typical of his culture's way of showing respect for foreign cultures. They don't actually learn anything about the culture. Instead, they citicise Australia and in their own mind, this constitutes showing respect for others.

Promoting Australia around the world

The image of its culture is a brand that a country trades off. France tries to promote its brand through its network of Alliance Francaise schools around the globe. China does something similar with its Confucius Institutes. England does it with the British Council.

As more Australian companies have wanted to do business with the world, the Australian government has "helped" them by funding events aiming to showcase Australian culture in a way that builds a positive image for Australia. For example, in Beijing in 2005, an advertisement for Australian movies was accompanied by the spiel:

"Nevertheless, there's still plenty worth watching from the land of Oz and starting on October 28, Beijing is hosting its annual Aussie film festival…But the highlights are Noyce's Rabbit Proof (sic) Fence, shot by Chris Doyle, which deals with the plight of aboriginal (sic) children forcibly removed from their families under a racist government programme designed to destroy aboriginal culture (sic) and forcibly integrate native Australians."

It was a strange sales pitch to ask an international audience to watch Australian movies, and so experience racism in all its glory. It was akin to inviting people over to dinner so that they could watch movies of one's parents molesting one's sister. It was especially strange in China where the local custom expects people to show respect for their ancestors and their culture. Needless to say, Australian culture is not exactly hot property around the world, and is not hot property in China.

Education

The curriculum of Australia's government funded schools aims to encourage critical attitudes towards Australia. For example, the 1993 Australian Education Union's curriculum policy stipulated that children must be taught that they "are living in a multicultural and class-based society that is diverse and characterised by inequality and social conflict". The 1999 Australian Education Union policy on combating racism argued that government polices "are founded upon a legal system which is inherently racist in so much as its prime purpose is to serve the needs of the dominant Anglo-Australian culture". The Queensland Education curriculum aims to "deconstruct dominant views of society" on the basis that the Australian community is infected with "privilege and marginalisation".

It is not completely clear what the criticism aims to achieve. Sometimes it is argued that critical thinking is essential to combat racism. That said, there are no reputable psychological theories that propose criticism helps form respect for other races. Even if teachers had had no exposure to psychological theories of racism, common sense should have told them that negativity is not necessarily the best way to achieve a harmonious society.

Considering that school teachers are playing with the lives of millions of kids, it would be reasonable to expect that their anti-racism campaigns are derived from tried and proven psychological theory. It seems; however, that rather than be designed from social psychological theories, their campaigns are designed from an ideological desire to spite a different group of Australians. For example, in 2005 the Australian Education Union president Pat Byrne said,

"We have succeeded in influencing curriculum development in schools, education departments and universities. The conservatives have a lot of work to do to undo the progressive curriculum."

Environmental protection

Although most Australians have some kind of affection for the Australian environment, there are different theories about the best way to ensure it survives for future generations. These theories have been shaped by cultural conflict between different Australians.

At present, the established ideology can best be described as a zoo ideology. It aims to lock up the ecosystem in a kind of pre-1788 zoo (minus the hunter gatherers that were at the apex of the food chain.) In these zoos, all non-native flora and fauna are poisoned, shot or killed with viruses. Furthermore, Australians are forbidden to engage with the flora and fauna.

It is due to this separatist ideology that it is illegal for Australians to have native animals as pets, and lobby groups oppose any commercialisation of Australian wildlife. Instead, Australians are expected to live in cities, keep cats and dogs as pets, and stock their fridges with soy milk, lamb, or other non-native produce. (There is an opportunity cost of the ideology. Cats escape, and native vegetation is cleared for the farming of non-native produce.)

The zoo ideology stems from prejudice against other Australians. It relies on the premise that previous generations had no appreciation for the environment, and most present day Australians are environmental vandals. It is only in the closed reserves, protected by left-wing environmentalists, that the "fragile" ecosystems are safe. According to Dr A. J. Brown, from Griffith Law School;

"Today, for environment groups and land management agencies, wilderness is a land use classification which relates specifically to growing respect for the non-commercial, non-industrial, non-colonial values of those landscapes that have been least disturbed since 1788. Most recently, the Commonwealth Government discussion paper on wilderness protection defined a wilderness as:
"... an area that is, or can be restored to be, a sufficient size to enable the long-term protection of its natural systems and biological diversity; substantially undisturbed by colonial and modern technological society; and remote at its core from points of mechanised access and other evidence of colonial and modern technological society. "(10)

The claim that previous generations had no appreciation for the environment, and that the appreciation has only started growing recently, is not supported in Australian cultural expressions. For example, in the 19th century Banjo Paterson wrote inspiring poems that made extensive use of environmental imagery. Also in the 19th century, an unofficial Coat of Arms was designed for the New Atlas Australia. A Kangaroo and Emu looked curiously at a shield depicting the Eureka Southern Cross. In the early 20th century, images of Kangaroos were used to represent Australia when trying to persuade Australians to fight in World War I. Finally, in the 1930s, poet Dorothea Mackellar wrote of her love for a Sunburnt County, and the poem was readily embraced by her compatriots. All these artists used environmental imagery in their work because people who loved Australia loved the environment.

As well as being incorrect that colonial Australians lacked respect for the environment, the critics are incorrect that the Australian flora and fauna are weak, fragile and need a human protector in order to prosper. This is most clearly seen in the island state of Tasmania, which has only lost one mammal since colonisation. Tasmania's success can be attributed to the carnivorous Devil reducing the ecosystem's need for human "protection." The Devil is not a good hunter, but it has powerful jaws and a strong nose that it has used to prevent introduced foxes from establishing a breeding community, and also used to prevent cat populations from ever reaching high densities.

Whereas Tasmania is a shining example of the ecosystem's ability to care for itself, human intervention on the mainland is proving catastrophic. The desire to undo the mistakes of the "less-intelligent" Australians by eradicating introduced pests just keeps making the problem worse. For example, when the CSIRO's myxomatosis virus kills off rabbits, the foxes and cats that were feeding off rabbits are forced to switch to native animals. After about 7 months, the foxes and cats will rediscover a balance with prey numbers, but in that 7 month window, native fauna suffer from extreme over-predation. When rabbit numbers recover, foxes and cats are low and the ecosystem is out of balance once more. Likewise, when cats and foxes are killed off, rabbit numbers sky rocket until overgrazing or the migration of more foxes and cats into the area returns some balance to the ecosystem. As a result of "well-intentioned" human intervention constantly messing up the balance, the mainland has lost 22 mammals in the last 200 years, and many more species are listed as vulnerable.

The Tasmanian Devil could be reintroduced to the mainland, where it existed until around 300 years ago. Opposition to the reintroduction is largely based on ideology rather than on scientific rationality. The Devil went extinct on the mainland under the rein of hunter gatherers, not British colonists. Left-wing ideology proposes that the mistakes of hunter gatherers are not to be undone because, for some strange reason, hunter gatherers are not humans in the eyes of left-wingers. (At the very least, when left wingers use the word 'we' they don't include hunter gatherers in the group that 'we' refers to.)

Even when the actions of non-hunter gatherers are benefiting the environment, the left wingers still interpret them in a way that portrays them in a bad light. For example, backyard gardens are acting as little havens for wildlife. As they are not constantly burnt, the gardens usually have more biodiversity and productivity that native eucalypt forests that became dominant as a result of 40,000 years of firestick farming.

Noting the fondness that native fauna have for urban gardens, left-wing journalist Nick Galvin argued that the animals are being forced into the backyards because their homes are being destroyed. In Galvin's words,

"However, the main reason they are moving into your backyard in greater numbers is because their traditional bushland homes are disappearing forcing them to turn to more risky habitats closer to humans."

Contrary to what Mr Galvin says, there is no shortage of eucalypt forest in Australia. However, very few native fauna like eucalypt forests, which was one of the reasons why hunter gatherers kept burning them down.

Bali Bombings

On October 12th 2002, a terrorist attack destroyed two crowded clubs in Bali; one of Australia's favourite holiday destinations. In total, 201 people died, including 88 Australians.

Most of the media stories in Australia focussed on the character of the victims instead of the rights or wrongs of the enemy. It seems that instead of having a political argument, Australians were more interested in supporting victims and understanding their pain. This was very much in keeping with the ANZAC tradition of Australian culture.

At the time of the blast, author Patrick Lindsay was writing a book called 'The Spirit Of The Digger' and he saw in the survivors the same qualities that he saw in the ANZAC legend. Lindsay was inspired by the solidarity of Australians after the blast, the mateship, as well as the desire to help others. According to Lindsay:

"I saw the essence of it all. The looking after each other, the mateship in times of adversity. You see it during the fires, you see it during times of drought and we saw it there (in Bali)"

"If this had happened in other countries with lots of other approaches to life it could have been the start of generations of vendettas… but that's not Pete's approach to it and it's not the Australian way,"

"They had to fight their only little individual battles all the way through to get back to some normality in their lives…It's such a wonderful positive thing, they've come out of it with such strength,"

While most Australians were very supportive of the victims, some left-wingers argued that the victims got what they deserved. Other left-wingers wanted to portray Australian society as one that was living in fear of another attack, and that was seeking revenge against Muslims. This stereotype was promoted by the left-wing Maxine McKew, a presenter for the government funded ABC. Ms McKew commenced a news bulletin with the sentence:

" Australian Muslims are being warned to be vigilant following the Bali attack." (11)

As the speech was a passive construction, the actor (the person making the warning) was omitted. The actor might well have been Ms McKew.

" But the difficulty for any government will be how to manage the fear and anger now emerging following the Bali bombing."

Dikeous used a linguistic trick known as nominalisation in which both the actor (people in fear) and the goal (target of the anger) of the clause were omitted. The result was that a perception of fear and anger was created without needing to specify who was in fear or who was angry, or without needing to give any evidence. The danger of such perceptions was that they could become self-fullfilling prophecies, which is probably what the likes of Ms McKew and Dikeos were hoping for. It would have enabled the left-wing journalists to confirm their negative judgements of Australians.

In 2008, the ABC deliberately tried to inflame Australian attitudes towards Muslims, and give support for Muslim justifications for the Bali Bombings, with a program about two Muslims with an unsympathetic attitude towards the Australians that were murdered. According to the two Muslims the Bali Bombing victims were:

"holidaying in someone's country, sometimes engaging in child pornography or pedophilia or drug-taking." (14)

The ABC did not ask the women to provide evidence to support their claims. Ironically, the two women felt they had been used by the ABC. In response, they threatened to sue.

Attitude to Australian history

The most important people in history are those who were involved with the turning points, and for this reason, they need more attention in historical study. Likewise, when studying a culture, the most important influences to consider are those that differentiate one culture from another. In the case of Australia, 80 years of Convict transportation resulted in the most significant turning point in last 20,000 years of Australia. Specifically, the forced transportation of Convicts resulted in the transition of Australia from a continent where humans were hunter gathering to a continent where humans began living the urban lifestyle they are today. Furthermore, 80 years of Convict transportation most distinguishes Australian history from the history of other countries.

Even though the study of Convict transportation is integral to the study of the Australian story, Convicts are almost completely ignored in any reference to Australian history. It seems that government and historians have taken the approach that, even though everyone knows there is a skeleton in the closet, as long as one mentions it then it will go away. For example, at the 150th anniversary of the landing of the first fleet, a reenactment had Arthur Phillip setting flight to a party of Aborigines. The Convicts that would later build the city were omitted. Likewise, at the 2000 Olympic Games, the history component had lots of enactments of Aborigines burning the bush. When the English arrived, they were depicted as men wearing suits and riding bicycles. Again, Convicts were conspicuous by their absence. Finally, the National Museum of Australia has nothing about Convicts at all.

In the rare cases that Convicts are mentioned, it is usually done as a way to point out a flaw. For example, some concerned citizens, such as Daniel Bryant, have argued that the date of Australia needs to be changed as it offends Australia's Asian neighbours, non-British migrants and Aborigines. According to Mr Bryant:

" The 26th of January is an inappropriate date for Australia Day as it merely represents the anniversary of the arrival of the British to establish the penal colony of New South Wales. It does not represent of birth of a nation and disengages the aboriginal and non-British communities from their sense of involvement in nationhood. It also sends the wrong message to our Asian neighbors, reminding them of our European roots."

Tobin Maker, another concerned citizen, sarcastically expressed a similar feeling of alienation:

" Instead of reciting the oath on Australia day, which commemorates the founding of a prison in Sydney, why don't we Victorians recite the oath on the anniversary of the laying of the first stone of Pentridge Prison? "

Riotous scenes as women are landed

Port Jackson, Feb 6. Scenes of riot and debauchery after the disembarkation of the women convicts tonight transformed Sydney cove into something resembling a gin palace attached to a brothel.
All this took place at night during a violent storm with lightening bolts which, at one place, split a tree in half, killing five sheep and a pig that were penned below it.
The licentious merriment began when some merchant seamen requested some grog from their captain. No doubt the man had good reason to comply, in the relief at getting rid of the last of his convicts, as he had faced a penalty of £40 for every convict missing.
Soon the sailors and convicts were in and around the women's tents, some queuing for sex, others making love with women they had forged attachments on the voyage. Others were swearing, fighting or singing.
While the scene was deplorable no action by the Governor nor his officers. Presumably they thought that intervention would have provoked a serious riot, and that it was best to wait for the morning to re-establish order.
The women, cooped up on the voyage and for another 10 hot and intolerable days outside Sydney Cove, had not too many chaste figures among them.

Unique class system keeps the colony divided against itself.

Jan 31 Deep divisions exist within New South Wales, greatly adding to the burden of being a people isolated at the bottom of the world, and therefore needing more than ever to live together in harmony.
Historically, the greatest rift has been between the "exclusives" and the "emancipists". The first group believe that anyone who has come to the colony in penal servitude is never capable of complete redemption. These people, who tend to be among the wealthy landowners, thus see themselves as a superior class. For their part, the emancipists, who are all ex-convicts, are concerned with equality of human rights.
Governor Macquaire, much to his peril, supported the emancipist cause, despite opposition from the forces which believed it would end respect for the law by allowing ex-convicts the normal rights of British citizens.
Since the Bigge inquiry, though, the colony has been re-established much more firmly as a prison rather than for reform, which has only worsened the tension.
As well, the emancipists are divided, between those who committed crimes at home, and in Australia .
This reflects a third division, being "Sterling", a name for the British-born, and the "Currency", the home-grown population.

References

2) Charles Kingston quoted in Geoffrey Partington, The Australian Nation: Its British and Irish Roots, Transaction Publishers, 1997

3)Carboni Raffaello, The Eureka Stockade http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Eureka-Stockade2.html

4)Jessica Stewart, Republicanism as an intellectual movement in multicultural Australia
October 14 1991. 1991 & 1995

5) Paul Byrnes at The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desertaustralianscreen.com.au/titles/priscilla

7)Art News Blog - http://www.artnewsblog.com/2006/03/pro-hart-art-mafia-doesnt-like-me.htm

8)Pro Hart: Hang The Lot of Them - http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/pro-hart-hang-the-lot-of-them/2006/03/31/1143441331523.html

9)Ben Johnson, Brother do you mind, www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainment/2007-10/11/content_6165418.htm

10)A.J. Brown, Review Essay, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1992/31.html

11)Australian Broadcasting Corporation, LATELINE, http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s705501.htm

12)What Lies Beneath: Postgraduate Conference 2003 - The University of Melbourne

16)Richard Nile, First cohort for thought, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20459801-25132,00.html

17)Good Universities Guide 2008 - http://ratings.thegoodguides.com.au/gateway3Sample.cfm?CFID=4008629&CFTOKEN=94757243

18)Paul Mulvey, Flags 'not banned' but unwelcome, January 22, 2007 http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21095538-2,00.html

19)1) UTS Experts Making News October 2005 -www.uts.edu.au/new/experts/media/2005/october.html

20)HENRY LAWSON Autobiographical and Other Writings 1887-1922 ANGUS AND ROBERTSON, Sydney 1972