BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Whitlamite

Listed below are comments made by Whitlamite between Tuesday, 21st July 2009 and Monday, 16th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Shamed into an apology 01:55am on 16 Nov 2009 Blame aside, today was all about healing - and in that sense both the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader were graceful, appropriate, sincere, and united in helping people rehabilitate and come to terms with the horrific situation they found themselves in as children.

It's appropriate that Gordon Brown apologises, I'm sure many child migrants believe he should have been the first to apologise (perhaps Tony Blair should have been the first). But let's focus on healing and the future rather than blame and the past.
Tiger down under 2:10pm on 12 Nov 2009 Ah this blog post takes me back. Back to Christmas a few years ago. The family was gathered around the television, all watching intently as the great lady arrived from that magical place long revered by Australians....the land of "overseas". The Christmas turkey was caked in an ochre dust and the ambrosia had long since gone to the flies, in fact the entire Christmas spread had been abandoned. Suddenly...a glimpse! It was finally her. I did but see her passing by, but I'll love Paris till I die. Cole Porter could not have composed it more perfectly. It was Hilton herself, emerging from a stretch Hummer, sporting a pair of bejewelled stockings under a white polymer mini-dress. It literally stopped the nation.

The media went mad, perfectly capturing the mood of the nation. It was truly Paristerical.

Okay, okay, as you MIGHT have guessed I was overstating things a little.

My point is - Nick, to take the ravings of the Melbourne media and then make a sweeping judgement on the character of the nation is phenomenally unfair, even by the standards of that endless parade of Britons who start conversations with "The problem with you lot is.....".

I don't care about Tiger Woods, or Paris Hilton, or indeed any other visiting celebrity. I am embarrassed by the way the media is focusing on these people, and I think most Australians would proudly exclaim their disinterest if they had an opportunity in between the infomercials and the special features on TomKat that feature so prominently in the nation's tabloid news.

And dare I say that I find it a little rich that we are being criticised in this way by you, a representative of the national broadcasting company of a nation that obsesses over celebrity to such an incredible extent that Big Brother contestants can be elevated to popular sainthood.

All this in the week that the new British High Commissioner to Australia, Baroness Valerie Amos, commenced an incredibly patronising media blitz featuring an unprecedented lecture to the Prime Minister and the Australian people about climate change.

Too much!
The Republican Referendum: Ten Years On 05:52am on 06 Nov 2009 The myriad of logical arguments in favour of constitutional reform, the weight of over 150 years of republican history, and the ludicrously antiquated dotty and malicious arguments in favour of the monarchy from the aged and old money elite aside, an Australian republic is a demographic inevitability.

An overwhelming majority of young people want an Australian head of state, want the ability to vote for the highest office holder in the land, and that means that one day it will actually happen. But for so long as the baby boomers so defiantly and stoically avoid putting their second foot in the grave then time will be bought.

The Monarchist movements (in all of their dysfunctional glory) are on the losing side of a battle as old as the nation itself. The Commander-In Chief of the armed forces, the individual with the power to overturn Australian democracy should be elected by, and have their conduct and behaviour sanctioned by the Australian people - the very people who should be the real sovereigns of their country.

The real threat to the future of our democracy is the office of the official who is placed at the very centre of Australian governance in our quaint and cheerfully insidious constitution: the Governor-General. That's the real theoretical enemy of republicans, not the Queen - the head of that racist, discriminatory, religious foreign monarchy.

The proponents of logical and democratic constitutional reform are centrally interested in moving toward a republic, not away from the monarchy.

It will happen, and when it does it will be done correctly - but Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull need to demonstrate some courage, because Australia becoming a republic will happen, it should happen, and if they're clever they'll see to it NOW.
The wonder from down under 11:35pm on 07 Sep 2009 Nick, in the interests of clarity I still must question the assertion that Rolf Harris was the first to play the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House. The official website of the Sydney Opera House states that

"The first public performance, a production of Prokofiev’s War and Peace, is given in the Opera Theatre on Friday 28 September, 1973, by the Australian Opera.

The inaugural presentation in the Concert Hall the following night is a Wagnerian program by the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. The orchestra is conducted by Charles Mackerras and the Swedish soprano, Birgit Nilsson, is soloist."

So we have 'War and Peace' on the 28th (the first performance), Wagner in the Concert Hall on the following night - the 29th. Where does Harris fit in? The only information I can find that relates to the date of Harris' performance comes from an online description of his live recorded album from a performance in the Concert Hall, which it states occurred on the 30th of September. The day after the Wagnerian SSO performance. The Sydney Opera House history section of its official website doesn't even mention Rolf Harris playing a concert at all.

So if I accept that Harris DID play in the concert hall, and if I accept (according to the only information I can find anywhere) that it occurred on the 30th of September, then there is no way that he played the first concert at the Opera House and its Concert Hall - the Sydney Symphony Orchestra did.

I'm sorry Nick if this post hasn't stayed to the topic of this blog post (it hasn't), but I quite frankly refuse to accept that Rolf Harris was the first to play a concert at my Opera House. The man abseils into this country from his self-imposed British exile for events such as the opening of the Sydney Opera House and the Brisbane Commonwealth Games. The man is a cultural opportunist, in the league of other defectors such as Greer and James.

If you want to explore an interesting phenomenon in a future blog, you'll find a wealth of information stemming from these figures. You might also like to look at the national dysmorphia this country suffers as a result of them and others too. The image of Australia particularly in the United Kingdom is so fantastic (and I don't mean that positiviely) and skewed that the country presented in the UK bears little to no relation to the country as it exists.
The number of British people I know who have come here and have discovered a country so incredibly different from their inherited notion of Australia is astonishing. So to suggest (from what I can gather on a rather dubious basis) that Australia opened its most significant and famous man-made landmark with a concert by Rolf Harris contributes to this insidious phenomenon. Unhelpful.

No reflection on your motives personally, Nick. Not at all.

Thank you.
Jorn again 11:12pm on 04 Sep 2009 Goodness me, after a flurry of cricket blogs Nick has outdone himself with two art and culture posts in a row! I am thrilled he is enjoying the sights and sounds and art of Australia after recovering from Ashes induced insomnia punctuated by micro-sleeps.

However I must question the apparent fact that Rolf Harris was the first to perform at the Sydney Opera House. As much as this might play well with a British audience, I'm not sure it's quite right. It was always my understanding that the brilliant African-American singer Paul Robeson was the first to perform on the site, having climbed on the scaffolding while it was under construction to sing to the workers in 1960. I also believe that the first official public performance was by the Australian Opera Company in the Opera Theatre, followed the next night by Charles Mackerras conducting the Sydney Symphony Orchestra in the main concert hall. Where did you source the info on Rolf Harris, Nick?

Yes, for a country so known for its native landscape, it is quite an achievement that Australia is also known for its many architectural flourishes. The Sydney Opera house has got to be one of the most beautiful and spectacular buildings in the world, built in one of the most beautiful and spectacular settings in the world. Just last night I was making my way from Manly to Circular Quay and was presented with one of the most breathtakingly beautiful sunsets behind the city I've ever seen. For a jaded Sydneysider, the fact that I actually looked up and took it all in really says something!

$600m is not beyond our means as a nation, if we spent the money not one man woman or child would miss out on either healthcare and education. We can walk and chew gum, so I say that we invest in our best known man-made landmark. If the government can spend hundreds of millions bailing out auto dealerships, they can finally get the Opera House right. Common sense, no?

Sydneycynic -

Oh you are so incredibly right.
Australian cultural creep, not cringe 06:01am on 04 Sep 2009 I don't think everyone went quiet because of 'hard facts'. This place went quiet because of the immense detour taken by a couple of people away from the central topic of Australian culture and the arts.
Australian cultural creep, not cringe 1:16pm on 02 Sep 2009 To me, this notion of a cultural creep is simply an evolution of Australian ownership over 'Australianness'. Some of my English friends have remarked in the past that due to my capacity to maintain downward pressure on the tone of syllables at the end of sentences, and my knowledge of the order of milk in tea that I am 'really English and not very Australian'. I find this interesting, because I wonder if it's a hint of what it was like for Australians in the past, coming from a nation with an apparently uncouth and wild reputation. The user "proceednet" concluded from his short visit to Australia that "...Aussie culture is very vibrant and defined. Most people there, it seemed to me, feel their culture is young, untested, and unrefined."

Despite the accidental lyrical quality to those words, as well as his appreciated enthusiasm, I wonder if the very conclusions proceednet has made are similar to those that Australians used to make of themselves. I even wonder if the very qualities that proceednet has described have been the very things that have held back Australian culture from creeping internationally in the past. Perhaps Australians did see their culture as innately 'wild' and 'rugged', but more importantly they perhaps also saw it as inflexible and intractable. The Australian character was decided, a product of design and not evolution, and it was to be eternally young and brash.

Perhaps this is the reason why many Australians in the past have refused to acknowledge a connection with their nationality, because it did not represent who they were.

But who decides the qualities of a nation?

Surely the qualities associated with nationality are in a continual state of flux, and should not be held to standards of 'that's not very Australian'. Surely if Australians do it, it is therefore....Australian. I do not see myself as innately young, brash, wild or rugged - and I get the sense sometimes that because that doesn't play to the wider Australian 'narrative' that I shouldn't be considered an Australian as a result. To me, I've always believed that nationality should be shaped by a people, not the other way around. If I do it, it must be Australian because I am Australian. And the same goes for every other Australian too. And if we find some contradiction - who cares? No nation is without its contradictions, debates, and divides.

This brings me back to this sense of ownership which I believe (hope) has developed in recent years. If Australians feel they own their nationality then they can control it, and change it, and restructure it in a way that truly represents them and does not live up to the tired and ancient stereotype that affords so much ease to foreigners wishing to espouse anecdotal observations and subject the listener to vitriolic sub-academic whiplash. Not you, Nick.

In short - Australian identity is changing, not from 'the bushman' to 'the suburbanite', but it's changing in its very essence. It is in flux, it moves, it grows and it evolves to reflect the nation it represents. And that's as it should be, and that's why Australian art and culture is being increasingly exported. Because, as with most things, reality is so much more interesting than fiction.

Which brings me to this traffic-stopping comment:

ghostofsichuan: "The arts are an escape from reality..sometimes with social comment, but none the less an escape. After any performance of any type you can feel better or feel worse but in either case you understand that it is nothing more than entertainment."

There is a difference between art and entertainment. Not all art is entertaining, and not all entertainment is art. Art has changed the world we live in. It has influenced great leaders, it has shaped our opinions on things like war, love, peace, culture, gender. How you can dismiss it as ephemeral trivia is extraordinary.

If I can reflect on a personal note on this wonderful article on the arts (you rock, Nick) - as an Australian actor, there is certainly a plethora of material out there that so beautifully represents many facets of Australian life, history, and culture. However, as a country we should never stop telling our stories, and we should never stop contributing to the international marathon of art, philosophy, design, and creativity. We do risk being drowned out - and that wouldn't be right, because we have legitimate observations and valid things to say through art.

We punch above our weight now, but I worry about the future. Personally, I've never performed a role with an Australian accent in my own country - and that I find slightly alarming. Essentially, we need to nurture our talent, and reassure creative Australians that they do not have to live up to their national stereotype, but rather - engage in rationalising it.

P.S. Wollemi, you rock too.
After the Ashes 10:01am on 30 Aug 2009 "36. At 05:46am on 28 Aug 2009, smoggyinAus wrote:

Nick;

Can we please have a non sport related blog ASAP, the "my dad's bigger than your dad" primary school playground mentailty is becoming a little tedious to say the least. I notice valued contributors such as Whitlamite and Wollemi appear to have given your last three blogs a wide berth."

Aha, interesting that someone noticed our absence. On my part I realised many weeks ago that no matter how concerted my efforts were to encourage a broader analysis of Australia outside the realm of sport, I would ultimately fail.

The ashes is a magnet for people who obviously enjoy the game (game!) of cricket, and for culturally paranoid sad losers with something to prove and an axe to grind. Sometimes you get that as a two-in-one combination, disturbingly there are more and more who would exclusively identify with the latter.

As an Australian, I don't think about Britain very much, I feel no need to prove anything to Britain, I honestly care as much about Britain as I do comparable small European countries such as The Netherlands or Ireland. Britain is rather sweet and okay, but generally I just don't care, and consequently this idea that I should be in mourning is absurd. I suspect that the ashes is far more important to Britain than to Australia, as Nick argues. Although I disagree that it is because Australia remains the last remaining Commonwealth Realm with any serious regard for the United Kingdom. I think New Zealand and Canada have far more of an association with the UK than Australia does, and at any rate Australia is busy becoming the 'Saudi Arabia of coal and LNG' as Nick once put it.

I think the ashes is more important to the UK because it has something to prove, wheras Australia does not. It boils down to authority, and the trauma associated with acknowledging a loss of authority. As children, older siblings often try to dominate their younger siblings. The younger copies the older, the older is seen as a role model, something brave and strong, a figure of cool familial control. However, as the years inevitably pass and the once substantial development gap lessens, the younger sibling will forge its own path, just as the older will grow in a new direction. With that, the authority and influence the older once had over the younger evaporates into nothing. There is still a great deal of affection and regard between the two, but one no longer has the soft and hard power it once had over the other. The younger sibling has lost nothing and will only ever gain, while the older sibling will have lost something despite his own achievements.

It's inescapable - Britain has lost something, and Australia has not.

It's that simple point that drives this weird fixation that some British have with Australia. I also believe it explains a lot about the ashes.

So I feel sorry for the UK. It has lost so much and that has to be incredibly traumatic. However, any vague attempt by it to reassert some kind of authority over Australia will not be successful, to believe otherwise would be to add delusion to trauma.

Campantman: "But if you think that Australians aren't considerably more cocky than Brits, or you believe that the contributions to art, literature and music made by Australia are a match for those of Britain, or you consider that Australian's don't have a complacent habit of sneering at other nations, especially the 'poms', then I really don't where you are coming from."

You perceive and deplore a complacent Australian habit of sneering at other nations, as you simultaneously engage in that repulsive practice yourself.

Whitlamite.
The end of Australian books? 06:20am on 24 Jul 2009 Nick, I could kiss you.

Yes, this is an extremely complex issue. It's not content that's under threat, it's local book production. If the same text book can be printed overseas more cheaply, then in line with the national commitment to the breakdown of international trade barriers and tariffs (which began decades ago under Hawke) we have to accept that. If the market dictates that 'Australian made' is preferable, then market forces will work their magic once again.

There's no argument about content though - authors will still get their royalties no matter where their books are manufactured, but the real issue is the percentage of royalties allocated. If a higher percentage of royalties can be negotiated over a longer period of time (not 30 days, but indefinitely) then authors will be serious winners. But at this stage I haven't seen such a proposal anywhere. Would be good though.

As for Rudd himself - Paul Kelly the political commentator for the age put it best when he said that 'Rudd talks like a policy wonk but is a populist at heart', and I think if an author motivated campaign gets up and running in the popular press (think: Di Morrisey, Tim Winton, and perhaps Bryce Courtenay) he'll sort out a better deal for them. It's that simple.

Rudd is like Keating - both of them love stars, and I don't think Rudd would like to be struck off the Blanchett's Christmas card list over this. I don't think we've seen the endgame at all yet.

P.S. In other major news - 1 in 10 residents of the predominantly indigenous community of Palm Island are said to have swine flu. The investigation into the Jakarta bombings continues, no further word on the validity of the claim that it was targeting a meeting of Australian businesspeople. Talks about Australia's nuclear future hit the news again as the opposition goes into meltdown over climate change.

P.P.S. It's not that I have an irrational hatred of Cricket, Nick, it's just that a lot has been happening lately, and much has been said about the ball-game in question on many occasions in the past. But I'm thrilled that the arts got a look-in this week. Just a shame some of my best material from the last few days was deleted. ;)
Aussie sports fan take realistic view 11:39pm on 21 Jul 2009 smartlondon wrote:

"Whitlamite, it's our taxes that pay for this blog, so if you don't like the content, don't read it."

How will I know I don't like it if I don't read it?

WWWorker wrote:

"Why can you not accept that sport is hugely popular and of great cultural importance in Australia?"

I do accept that. I don't accept that it's the whole story though. I don't think you can define a country and convey some intimate sense of it through story after story about cricket.

"I'll do a woolemi and throw in some questionable stats:
Look at the response to Nick's previous blogs. "The Pom influence" for example - a topic right up your street whitlamite, 50 responses since June 26 and only 18 of those were in the first 48hrs. Today's blog, already at 38 responses. Draw your own conclusions."

I think you've certainly proven definitively that some people who read this blog are interested in cricket. Well done. But this is the BBC of course, and is utterly disinterested in ratings and far more interested in content. If you want sport stories as 'news' then the Sydney Daily Telegraph is there with its message-boards and is open for content (god help us if anyone over there is using THAT clientele and its opinions to reach broad conclusions about Australia).

"I'm sure you'll get plenty of opportunities in the future to make your minority views known."

Whoah-ho! Have we zipped back in time to the Howard years? My 'minority views'. Goodness gracious. Here's a fact, a majority of Australians honestly do not care about cricket and the ashes. That's not to say its unpopular, but to suggest its a 'majority' view that Australians are sports mad is just wrong. If you're right, then presumably there are at least 11 million people watching the telecast from Lords or are listening on the radio. Are there? Are at least 11 million people following this story closely?

Both sides of this argument are incredibly lame. I'm not saying sport isn't a popular pastime in Australia, and I'm sure you don't disagree with me that there is more to us. The disproportionate amount of sporting posts on this blog which is supposed to paint a picture of Australia is what I disagree with.

"I don't think Nick's going to abandon topics on the Aussie/Brit cultural divide (or lack of)."

Good. I enjoy those discussions, but I also don't think they tell the full national story (which is what Nick is attempting to do here). I'm just saying that there's more to us than sport. I can't remember a blog post written by Nick that dealt with the arts in Australia - literature, visual arts, live performance. Can you? Because I'd wager that the arts in all its forms trump sport in terms of popularity and cultural value any day. Not that I'd be so petty as to seriously make such a point. This is the BBC after all.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Whitlamite