What Is It Good For?
Last week, for a couple of friends of mine, I borrowed Peter Weir's 'Gallipoli', to give them an experience and idea of Australian film-making and history. A couple of days ago, I was slightly surpised to find out that the anniversary of that event, the 90th at that, was right on top of me. I'm not a great one for dates, nor am I reconciled to the reasons (my personal ones) for 'celebrating' (or commemorating) days such as this and Australia Day.
I understand that ANZAC Day marks an important turning point in the development of the nationhoods of both Australia and New Zealand, but I wonder if it has turned into something more than it should have? Or perhaps something less? I wonder, if we deem to call on the Australian government to say 'sorry' to the aboriginal people, should we call on the British government to apologise for what occurred at Gallipoli? I don't see why not.
It appears to me that 'war' is a matter of definition, convenient at times, restricting at others. And while the advent of television, technology and the internet has sped up so many things, one thing it seems to have slowed down is the scale of world conflict; governments, Western in particular, are more immediately accountable for their actions than they used to be, and public relations wars, economic and cultural ones, are just as important, going hand in hand with military ones.
I have long been of the opinion that world is still at war: the US, for example, has not ceased it's military involvement across the globe since they entered the 'Second World War', and their campaign for cultural dominance continues. On that note, and to wind up before this becomes an essay, Australia should be extremely wary of, if not downright hostile to the idea of, American military presence on Australian soil. Who do you think will suffer most if that happens?
Lest we forget.
6 Comments
Leave a comment
Post a comment
Note! This site runs a spam filter which, among other things, looks out for certain words which it uses to guess whether the post is junk. For this reason, avoid using words related to gambling, ie, poker, roulette, casino etc, or names of certain sexual performance enhancing drugs. Posts that contain these words are automatically junked.
It may also moderate comments that contain more than two URLs, including your web page URL.
If you get a message that your comment has been moderated, and it hasn't materialised within a day or so, please email me so I can retrieve it.
Banner Designed By:
There's been a lot of discussion in the maintstream media and online about what Anzac day really means.
There was a longish article in Sunday's Sun Herald colour sup (no link) about how Turkey is now on the backpacker trail. It had a very 'tut tut' theme about it. Lots of stories about partying yoof and how the commemoration is secondary to the piss-up.
Personally, I'm a bit nonplussed about how the celebration has taken off over the past 15 years or so. It's been hijacked by the pollies to some extent. In my yoof, we generally ignored it.
well, there's me getting tapped on the head, speaking out of my bubble at the world outside. Old news again...
Anzac day at gallipoli is right up there with pampalona and october-fest. Never been tempted, by any of those actually, did my partying in my 'yoof' I guess.
It intrigues me - as someone brought up outside Australia - why Anzac Day? It was fought for the British Empire and lost whereas Kokoda was fought for Australia and won. And even Gallipoli was followed by the 2 year Palestine campaign in which the Iconic Australian Light Horse together with other mounted Imperial troops progressively won their way through to Damascus and was largely responsible for breaking up the Ottoman Empire and yet hardly anyone knows about it (If you read Lawrence of Arabia's account there is virtually no mention of the 60,000 horsemen that did most of the job for him)
So why Anzac Day? Even if it is the 'mateship' aspect, this is preceeded by exactly the same factor in the Boer War (Also successful from the Aussie point of view)
So what is it about mateship in the context of defeat that is seen to be so special?
Hi Sue,
I think the 'mateship' aspect is a crock of XXXt, and I cringe everytime I hear Howard use the word. I personally feel it has something to do with perhaps Australia passing through puberty. (probably not going to explain myself well here. but anyway here goes...)
Before this point, (and this is all from my shakey view of history) Australia's foreign policy and alignment was extremely geared towards the British - it's practically the reason we went to the war, that the British were, and I like to think we went naively, thinking we were part of the British Empire, and that we were going to fight for them.
I believe it is the rotten treatment that we got from the British commanders (maybe they treated their own soldiers this way too...) - the whole 'their officers were safe on the beach while we were still being sent over the top' which signified perhaps a maturity in the Australian consciousness, in that perhaps we realised that our parents were human after all, and perhaps it was time for us to grow up a bit.
I know this is slightly idealised, but I do think that this event involved a real formation of Australian identity. Pity we swung towards the US.
Peter Weir's film bothers me with its rabid anti British fervour - remember 30,000 British troops died at Gallipoli - 3 x the Aussie numbers. 'Gallipoli' was made at the same time as Breaker Morant, and Mel Gibson maintains some strong and inaccurate anti Pom propoganda still with films like the Patriot - Grrr!)
Dare I admit my grandfather was an officer there but sadly he died when I was young and way before I knew enough to ask him all the questions I'd love to ask him now.
I think the turning away from Britain didn't really begin until the downfall of Singapore, in which the British were truly negligent, and the very close alliance between Australia and the USA in the Pacific. The final straw was Britain joining the Common Market when assured Australian markets were wiped out overnight.
The trouble for Australia is - as a small country that has to find alliances somewhere and ideally with a strong partner - who should we chose?
Your nomination??
Fair enough re. Peter Weir and Mel Gibson. I wonder too, whether Australia has an anti-English sentiment due to the Irish influence (see Ned Kelly) and also, and this is a pet theory of mine, due to the actual colonisation of Australia.
But this is the past, and as regards he future, I have also given some thought to it, and am intending to devote more time in the pigsty to it (given tony's encyclopaedic knowledge and coverage of Australian internal affairs - gotta find a niche) We are in an interesting position. Geographically we are in Asia I believe, and our cultural roots are predominantly in Europe. Then, our cultural links are most heavily influenced by the US.
Now, as far as I see it, the three major bodies in world politics are, and this is creeping towards Orwellian 'Fantasy' stuff, Europe, the USA, and China. As I said above, these bodies are those which we have some degree of link with. Ipersonally don't see that Australia needs a 'strong partner'. I think that we should use our unique position to act as intermediary and link between these three collossuses, in such a way as that the transformations they are all undergoing (the US down, the other two up) may occur with as little conflict as possible.
While Australia may be small population and age wise, we are geographically large, comparable to all those bodies. I believe we need to show initiative, we need to stop thinking about our own hip pockets and see how we can be a positive force in the transformation of our region and the globe. Oink oink flap flap some might say, but I think idealism leads to progress. In regards to a nomination, I say New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, and the other three we should aim to achieve a sense of balanced interaction. We're in the right position to be able to achieve it.