Australian Nationalism

"We must be the only country in the world that marks its national day not by celebrating its identity, but by questioning it" Ken Boundy -managing director of the Australian Tourist Commission

Nationalism could be seen as the quest for a sense of 'we' and 'them.' Not only does the 'we' provide an individual with a sense of belonging to other individuals of the present, but also to individuals from the past. Sometimes individuals gain a positive sense of 'we' by evoking memories of historical achievement:

"We kicked their arse at Waterloo"; "We saved them in World War II."

Sometimes individuals get a negative sense of 'we' by portraying themselves as the victims:

"We were the victims of genocide. 6 million of us were murdered"; "We were turned into slaves."

Sometimes individuals attain a sense of 'we' via ideas of moral superiority. This may be achieved via admitting one's guilt and subsequently asking for redemption:

"We should have the courage to admit that we shouldn't have been there"; "We enslaved them."

Although attaining a sense of 'we' has been relatively easy for most countries around the world, in Australia, convict history makes it a more problematic task. While Australia has some impressive achievements over the last two centuries, if individuals try to use 'we' to connect themselves with these historical achievements, then they also risk connecting themselves to 80 years of prostitutes and thieves. American author Bill Bryson noted how this seemed to have a way of deflating an Australian's ego:

"I can personally affirm that to stand before an audience of beaming Australians and make even the mildest quip about a convict past is to feel the feel the air conditioning immediately elevated."

Although every other country around the world also has skeletons in the closet, it is relatively easy to simply not learn about them, ignore them or deem them to be insignificant. Not so in regards to Australia's convict skeleton. The founding 80 years of modern society is a historical fact that is not easy to ignore. Every Australian knows that their urban society began with convicts, as do most people around the world.

In the 19th century, there was an attempt to attain 'we' by portraying Australians as victims. Rather than ignore convicts, this push had convicts as the foundation link in a chain continued with the Eureka Stockade:

"Australia began her political history as a crouching serf kept in subjection by the whip of a ruffian gaoler, and her progress, so far, consists merely in a change of masters. Instead of a foreign slave-driver, she has a foreign admiral; the loud-mouthed tyrant has given place to the suave hireling in uniform; but when the day comes to claim their independence the new ruler will probably prove more dangerous and more formidable that the old.' Rather than 'the day we were lagged', Australia's national day should be December 3, the anniversary of the Eureka rebellion, 'the day that Australia set her teeth in the face of the British Lion'." Bulletin, 21 Jan 1888

Ironically, as convict etiquette was very anti-victim, using convicts to attain a victim 'we' was self-defeatist. When being flogged, to show hurt was to lose the battle with the flagellator:

"The convict flagellator at this time felt a gratification in inflicting and witnessing human misery. There were many prisoners who would bear any punishment rather than complain; I am certain that they would have died at the triangle rather than utter a grown".

"In Australia, silent composure under suffering is strictly prescribed by convict etiquette."

Aside from giving satisfaction to the flagellator, convicts who showed weakness or acted like victims, would have been raped, and/or victimised by fellow convicts. Those who seemed strong would have been the ones that survived. Perhaps the legacy can be seen in the creation of expressions like:

"stand up for yourself"; "av'a go ya mug"; "deal with it or get over it."

With such expressions in the vernacular, it would have been very difficult for any kind of victim 'we' to prosper in Australia's post-convict generations.

Another problem with the victim 'we' was that there was no clearly defined perpetrator. Technically, the perpetrators were the English and Australian authorities. But these people were of the same racial and national group as the victims. This made it difficult for hostilities to be passed down the generations. In any case, once convict transportation ended, so too did any rallying point of conflict. There was simply nothing to be gained via portraying oneself as a victim.

In recent years, a few Aborigines have attained a sense of victim 'we.' However the victim identity is likely to fade away for precisely the same reason the convict 'we' never prospered.

Ironically, the victimisation of Aborigines has become a rallying focus for people who identify with the white race. By recognising Aborigines as victims, and apologising for suppressing them, Australians who identify with the white race have been able to attain a kind of moral status:

"The historian Henry Reynolds (who has exposed the violence against Aborigines on the Australian frontier, and Aboriginal resistance) in his book 'Why Weren't We Told?' finds it a 'strange paradox that we can celebrate our failed assault on Turkey [in 1915] but feel embarrassed about the successful invasion of Australia', even though 'without a successful prosecution of the border wars [against Aborigines] there would not have been an Australian nation in any recognisable sense'. We're afraid of the very words 'war' and 'invasion'. Convictism, larrikinsm, 'mateship' - these ideas allow us to let ourselves off the hook, to think of ourselves as 'innocent underdogs' rather than what we really were, according to Reynolds: 'calculating overlords'. David Morgan - concerned citizen

In 1993, the 'evil but moral whiteman' identity was exploited by then Prime Minister Paul Keating. Keating used a moral code to unite some whites behind him when he said:

"It begins, I think, with the act of recognition. Recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing. We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practised discrimination and exclusion."

Although Keating's moral 'we' allowed some white Australians to attain a sense of belonging, it also resulted in them feeling a sense of alienation when other whites refused to be part of their group. Many Australians refused to join the group as they resisted racial based identities - no matter how moral they seemed. Consequently, instead of the moral 'we' uniting Australia's whites, it divided them.

The great irony of the elusive search for 'we' is that it has ignored the commonalities that most Australians share. Around the world, history inspires commonality because the community chooses to associate itself with either positive achievement or negative victimhood. In Australia, history has inspired commonality as it has made both kinds of 'we' very difficult to find. In fact, Australians are united by their lack of 'we.' It is only a small minority of spin doctors that bother using the word.

In regards to this character trait, Australians are very unique on the world stage. The character trait has created a collection of like-minded individuals. In World War I, Australian general John Monash deemed the character trait to be one of the finest attributes of Australians:

"not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline"

It is quite ironic that, even though Australians are noted for their individualism, they readily sacrifice their own interests for the sake of the group. Such sacrifices are reflected in the broad public support for social welfare - provided the individual on welfare is not a bludger. On the other hand, fabled "group before individual" countries such as Japan simply don’t have the same desire to help out their compatriots in times of need. Likewise, the Australian legal system is far more ruthless on individuals and companies that pollute the environment, or are remiss in their social obligations, than the legal system of fabled communist countries such as China - which simply demands violators pay a small fine before allowing them to keep exerting their self-interest to the detriment of the wider Chinese community. Finally, Australia's group ethic is reflected in sporting sayings such as:

"A champion team will always defeat a team of champions."

Although it is easy for Australians to find a sense of belonging and purpose if they really want to, perhaps the difficulty in using the word 'we' and waving a flag in support of the 'we', has left some Australians feeling a little lost and alienated. However, the alienation will cease being a problem once it is thought of in a different way. The lack of 'we' just means that Australians will have to think of their national identity, and sense of belonging to a nation, in a different fashion than do other people around the world.

Australia's lack of 'we' means that would-be-leaders can not use some of the persuasion techniques that are very effective in other countries around the world. For example, would-be-leaders can't just think that evoking a historical tale, or waving a flag, is going to inspire conformity. Likewise, they can't think that using an excessive number of 'we' in speeches is going to generate a feeling of belonging.

In 1999, republican proponents learnt this lesson the hard way. Their PR campaign relied on using words like 'we' and 'our' - believing it would inspire conformity and belonging. In reality, it provoked feelings of defiance that led to the referendum being defeated - despite 90 per cent support for it.

If future leaders don't want to make the same mistakes as the republicans, then they will have to be good listeners. They will have to take more time to really consider the true nature of the people they are trying to turn into followers. In the long run, having leaders who are also good listeners, may be a great blessing for the Australian people.

'We' stories likely to hear	'We' NOT likely to hear
Positive achievement 'we' Sporting achievements "How do we rate? Where do we stand in the family of nations? Take note, big wide world: little us, with only 20 million people, we're the ones with the olive garlands, punching way above our weight." Sports journalist War achievements "Why did we nearly go under in World War II? Because we'd done so well as fighters in World War I that in the 1930s we decided we don't need a trained, professional army." Michael McKernan - (Historian)	Positive achievement 'we' Convict achievements We made great prostitutes... perhaps the best in the world. We survived due to our sense of humour. We learnt compassion and forgiveness. We stopped worrying about things and looked to the future.
Victim 'we' Aboriginal victims "Our world was shattered by the violence of the Invasion which began when the First Fleet of British Boat people arrived in 1788. Our people were decimated, as the invaders stole our country, imposed their own laws and systems of government on our peoples, forcing our people into concentration camps called "missions". " Aboriginal activist	Victim 'we' Digger victims The Japanese murdered, tortured and starved us. We weren't treated as humans. Convict victims We were sent to the other side of the world where we were enslaved in a tough and unforgiving land. They hanged us, flogged us, raped us and tortured us. They treated us as less than human. Bloody poms! Chinese victims We were used by companies to be expendable workers in the mines. If we died, the companies didn't care. They just went to China and replaced us with another boatload. All the miners hated us as well. World War II refugees During the war, our houses were bombed, women raped, men murdered and we were sent away to be tortured. After coming to Australia, the locals thought we had odd customs.
Moral 'we' Oppression of Aborigines "It begins, I think, with the act of recognition. Recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing. We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practised discrimination and exclusion." - Paul Keating (politician speaking on behalf of the white race)	Moral 'we' Oppression of Convicts I think, we need to recognise that is was we who punished them. Recognition that it was we who starved them, tied them up and flogged them. I think, we shouldn't have treated them so inhumanely. We sent them to the other side of the world where we turned them into slaves in a tough and unforgiving land. We did it to them.

 

(Top)