The Australian character
What did Australia learn about itself in its collective response to the Victorian wildfires?
In the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11, Americans discovered they were far more vulnerable than the government had led them to believe, and that the world's most hi-tech intelligence apparatus could not prevent, or even disrupt, a determinedly low-tech plot.
In the aftermath of the death of Diana, Britons discovered that their upper lips were no longer quite so stiff and they could exhibit publicly an emotional range that had seldom, if ever, been witnessed on such an immense scale.
When grief at the death of Diana turned to anger at the Royal Family's seemingly ambivalent response, they also discovered they had become a lot less deferential towards authority in general, and the monarchy in particular.
Have Australians seen in themselves something that's equally unexpected or in any way comparable?
I'm not talking here about the lessons that will be drawn from the disaster, whether they apply to forest management, fire response strategies or new building techniques and regulations.
I'm asking whether we have witnessed something in the Australian national character, if it is possible to speak of such a thing, which we have not seen before.
Clearly, we have observed an extraordinary depth of emotion and a willingness to display that emotion publicly. But that's hardly revelatory.
As a kid, I well remember watching Bob Hawke break down on television, while my first assignment in Australia was to cover the funeral of Steve Irwin, where the most grizzled of his fellow "Crocodile Hunters" were reduced to tears.
Australians have given with extraordinary generosity to the various disaster appeals, but, again, that should hardly have come as any great surprise.
The World Bank found in 2006 that Australia was the fourth most generous country in the world in its charitable giving, after the US, the UK and Canada.
Australians have been reminded that they live on the planet's driest continent, and that there's a persuasive body of scientific evidence which suggests that the conditions which lead to wildfires are going to become more prevalent. But again, the term "reminder" seems more applicable than "revelation".
We have heard victims of the fires speak with great resilience and stoicism about rebuilding their homes and communities, but that reinforces what we already knew.
After all, wildfires, and the myriad challenges of making a life in what at times can be the most inhospitable of environments, have always been part of the Australian experience. Sometimes, as in the 1890s, awful fires coincided with years of great economic uncertainty, presenting yet further challenges.
To my mind, this disaster has been reinforcing. That's to say, it has brought to the fore traits of the Australian character that we have long known existed.
Australia has drawn on strengths that it already knew it had in abundance - traits that are by no means uniquely Australian, but quintessentially Australian nonetheless.
Courage, compassion and resilience, according to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who, at the service in Melbourne's Rod Laver Arena, came up with a neat summation: "We have drawn deep on our ancient values and given them fresh voice in our modern age. Values of courage, values of compassion, values of steely resilience.
"These are Australian values, values also of our deepest common humanity. For on Black Saturday, what we saw at work was the worst of nature yet the best of humanity."
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~30~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
We've got our issues - everyone does - but sometimes...y'know, sometimes we're not too bad.
Complain about this comment
Yes, but what about the cause of the fires themselves? This type of deviancy seems to be an especially Australian phenomenon and, I suggest, has deep roots in the country's psyche.
It seems bizarre to pat oneself on the back for one's "compassion" without enquiring into the unadulterated malevolence of the fellow citizens who perpetrated this outrage.
Complain about this comment
What did we learn about ourselves? That when it counts, we care about our fellow Australians, that we will all give unstintingly to try to alleviate their suffering, that we recognize courage, that we join together in grief, and that feelings will be raw for a long time. There will be blame, and mud-slinging, but nothing can ever bring back what we have all lost, individually, and as a nation. Thank you, Nick, for caring.
Complain about this comment
FrederickChichester - arson is as especially an Australian phenomenon as knife-crime is exclusively British.
Your reference to arson having 'deep roots in the nation's psyche' is frankly bizarre and insidious. You think Australia's society, history, and interrelation between the people and the land all inevitably lead toward criminals starting fires?
That is madness. You're allowing a small group of mass-murderers to define Australia's national character. I can think of nothing more insulting.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Complain about this comment
As a Yank who attended BCOF school in Occupied Japan, I am deeply saddened by the losses suffered.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to our Aussie cousins.
Australia is a great nation and the Australians are a great people but it will be painful to endure this loss.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick, I don't think we've learnt anything new from this - we've had these bushfire disasters before (not quite on this scale) and have rebuilt and bounced back. Even for a 'city slicker' like me, its part of growing up in Australia.
martinspurs - what are you waffling about? That chap was fined by the local council, not the Green Party!!! Get your facts right ok? And apart from anything else, this particular post is not about the Greens, global warming or anything like that - do try to stay on topic!!!!
Complain about this comment
i would just like to point out that perhaps Australia has more rain then the UK only because of the shear size difference, yes we get rain up north, but if you averaged out the amount of rain in the whole country you would find that it is A LOT less then the UK.
I happen to live in Melbourne but grew up in remote country Victoria, and i can tell you that we haven't had more then 10 minutes of light rain, and i don't mean at a time, i mean in total, for 2009, that is almost 2 months, and before that it was probably about the same amount for November - December.
And arson has only been proved to be the cause of one of the deadly fires in this summer.
I think nick bryant has written a beautiful article, and yes our warning systems need to be looked into, and the choice to defend your homes needs to be backed with extreme preparation and knowledge, that is not what he is trying to outline here.
As someone who has a nervous few days ahead of them as a fire, that was started by natural causes, looks to race through my home town with wind changes tomorrow, i appreciate these words.
I come from a town of 100 people that is in a beautiful remote part of the Victorian high country and every year fires threaten to destroy it. In 2006 a town nestled above my own was wiped off the map, a town that has been rebuilt many times before. I have grown up with fire plans drilled into me. The cfa in my town is made up of my family and friends, many of whom joined as soon as they were old enough, they are prepared for the worst every year, and they DO clear and they DO back burn and we DO have a fire siren, and a town meeting place, but we are from the Australian bush and its a threat we live with and understand, but we love it, and for us it is a threat that we are willing to live with.
It has been a tragic few weeks for us, but there is not always someone to blame, and i think that is the beauty of how we have banded together, not to place blame but to support and understand.
On the 7th of December it was 47 degrees, and 100km an hour winds, maybe more clearing would have saved some people and homes, but the fire moved so quickly, and so erratically. We knew it was going to be a dangerous weekend, but where in the state it would hit first the CFA could never have known.
I will wait anxiously to hear of the fate of my town, my friends, my family, many of whom are the CFA volunteers that protect them all.
Thank you nick bryant for putting aside any politics that might surround this issue to say the things you did. It means a lot.
Complain about this comment
National character isn't something best written about. In words it comes across as cliche or touching on the realm of propaganda. Not to suggest it doesn't exist, it's something more tangible that is experienced rather than glorified. As a Victorian who's lived in the bush and on the coast, the threat of bushfires or shark attack or any other number of man made or natural disasters do exist all year round. It's simply a numbers game taken in relation to your lifestyle choices. There are no surprises here for anyone, everyone knows the odds. When things go wrong (as in the recent bushfires) people are more than likely to help because they respect their own fortune.
Complain about this comment
I don't think that "this type of deviancy[i.e. arson] seems to be an especially Australian phenomenon" — indeed, experts say that it happens all over the world and has been responsible for some of the recent wild fires in France, Greece and California.
The results of arson in Australia are often likely to be more calamitous than in many other places, but it's not a uniquely Australian thing at all.
And we also need to remember that not all of the fires were lit deliberately.
Complain about this comment
Lets curtail these charitable gestures as collective Anglo Saxons in the future and turn a blind eye to 'others' misfortunes. Charity begins at home.....Quid pro quo!
What thanks from Pakistan in the aftermath of the earthquake there.....more exported terrorism.
Who contributed to the Katrina debacle not to mention our own wet summers.
Not many cheques from Pakistan I'll be bound, to preoccupied with the manufacture of nuclear weapons .........priorities please!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick, I've got to say I agree with comment #9 from Auszulu. Too often we hear talk of the 'Australian National Character'. I used to think it was Australians talking themselves up, but I realise now that it's almost as often used by foreigners to oversipmlify.
Certainly the people living in the towns affected (or wiped out) will be as used to this destructive natural phenomenon as anyone can be, and they obviously love their chosen homes and over the coming months they're going to face enormous hardships and difficulites. But faced with similar attacks on the places we live (and love) I think most people would react with the same strength of character - be it New Yorkers or Chinese Villages buried under landslides.
As for drawing conclusions regarding 60 the character of million people, from the 'UK's reaction to Diana's death', I'm frankly horrified. An almost histeric, fascination with one woman, seemingly drummed up by the media, is hardly worth mentioning on the same page as recent events.
Complain about this comment
@NETCRUSHER
Get your hand off it. The majority of Americans don't believe in evolution either. It has been proven how the fires collapsed building 7, do some research. I can't add links, otherwise I'd point to it.
Unless each building is built in exactly the same way, then you cannot logically draw a conclusion between them. It's a logical fallacy, and once again you can look up what an Inductive Argument is.
Go back to your conspiracy websites, and leave this blog alone. If we discuss anything to do with conspiracys, then I'd welcome your input. As you have nothing to say on the nature of the Australian Psyche, I don't see how you're adding anything to the conversation.
Complain about this comment
# 2 - FrederickChichester
Are you a wind-up mechant? I hope you are because I cannot possibly take what you've said seriously.
How many people have these fires killed? How many towns and homes have been destroyed? How many homless people are there now? How much money have the Australian people gave to this appeal?
Answer me that and then answer how many arsonists there are/were? I think it will be a good few million in the catergories above versus about 5 arsonists, if not less.
And yet you have the temerity and arrogance to label arson as something 'in the Australian psyche'. How dare you! How dare you attribute this to a nation of 20 million people.
You're behaving like the sort of tally-ho, arrogant, British stereotype that should have died out in the 1800s. And I'm guessing you're nothing of the sort in real life but enjoy being a character on here; ignoring the fact that you're insulting and hurting people, not to mention besmirching an entire nations name beacuse of a few loons.
You know aswell as I do that when disasters happen (natural or otherwise) it sets a few 'delicate people' off, like the muppet who pretended to be the Yorkshire Ripper on the tape recording which led to the police invesdigation being derailed for years. Does that mean hoax calls are something in our British psyche? No!
So stop being an attention seeker and acting like a stereotype which serves this country no favours.
Complain about this comment
#4
I agree totally, you can't let a tiny, tiny minority of...(a word I won't get away with using) be seen as indicitive of a nation's 'troubled' psyche. There were/are far more people who tried and are still trying to help out there. If I was Austrailian I, personally, would take that as more of an indicator of the national psyche and take great pride in it too.
#12
There's a time and a place. Struck out on both didn't you...again!
Complain about this comment
#15
What I was aiming for but far more eloquently put.
Complain about this comment
Thank you Whitlamite re Chichester. Having grown up in Australia I have witnesses both controlled burns and small bushfires which are terrifying so how any one can say that sort of devastation reflects on the average Australian is outrageous. Fire bugs are not unique to Australia any more than knife crime and teenage pregnancy are unique to the UK. In recent years Australians have had to deal with horrendous drought, cyclones and massive flooding and now worse than usual bush fires along with domestice crime and international terrorism so to slap us in the face by saying it's basically in our nature to light fires is shameful!
Complain about this comment
#15 YourNanIsFat
Well said. I can't understand why the BBC has picked Australia as the one nation to have a dedicated forum where foreigners can vent the bile at Australia. It's not as if Nick Bryant is an Australian who's blowing his own trumpet. He's a pom with a pom's view and prejudices about their former colony. With all our faults I'm so proud of how my nation has confronted this and other catastrophe's that have befallen us. What the rest of you think of us is really immaterial.
Complain about this comment
#19, Burt, count yourself lucky that the BBC covers Australia in the same way it covers China and USA - it means the country gets some global attention. What the rest of the world thinks really isn't immaterial.
Complain about this comment
Watching the whole bushfire episode unfold from the USA as an expat Australian, I have found myself feeling strangely homesick. Australia, for all of its different nationalities and its varied heritage, is a wonderfully cohesive society. This has been shown with the response of Australia's leaders to the crisis, by the willingness of people to help each other in the affected communities and by the obvious resilience of the people involved. I can't help but draw comparisons with the US, particularly Hurricane Katrina. When the Louisiana State governor wept during the crisis, I remember a citizen being interviewed, showing her anger, saying "We don't want our leaders to cry, we need our leaders to fix problems". Of course, part of the problem was that the government response was a shambles, and many members of the community did not trust each other or could not be trusted.
With the Victorian bushfires, I was waiting for someone in the Australian media to suggest a weakness of the part of Rudd or Brumby for showing emotion, but I did not see this, at least not from the coverage I have seen from the USA. Rather, it seemed that people were happy having their leaders being humans, and for the leaders to use their emotion to help drive them to do all they could to serve the people. Just as importantly, it appeared that the emergency response was relatively good, and that the benefits of a cohesive society were evident by many, many people helping each other, thereby taking some of the burden off the government response. At least, that is how it appeared from afar, and from talking with my family in Victoria.
Complain about this comment
Come on Nick, The Australian spirit has always been strong. How did we survive the 9mth boat trip otherwise. And look just over 200 yrs later what we've become. No civil war, every natural wonder on the one continent. We give millions to our neighbours in need. If there is strife we are one of the first to come to aid. The media has blown the fires out of propertion. YES they are bad, but the floods are also being destructive. Vic like all the states and territories will be fine because we will band together and give. Current riff raff aside Australia has always been there strong and proud. As I said how else could we survive on those ships and what awaited on land.
Complain about this comment
#2. What a laugh, to you others dont get upset with this #2. I am 7th generation Aussie - true blue. And he made me laugh. Sure the underhanded way #2 suggests we were convicts well yes SOME of us are and when its all dished out MOST of us were but look what we've become. Also as for the deviants who start these fires - arhhh come on they are minimal, every nation has a few "sick" people nothing new there. Aust is hot and dry, of course its dangerous and fires start. Next.... what about the floods.
PS Kevin Rudd is a dudd.
Complain about this comment
"Sure the underhanded way #2 suggests we were convicts well yes SOME of us are..."
Are you suggesting that you're over 170 years old?
Nobody is a convict. You said you were Australian. There weren't any Australian convicts, they were all poms.
"and when its all dished out MOST of us were"
Speak for yourself.
I'm approximately a 2000th generation Australian. None of FrederickChichester's kind in my veins. I'll argue against his assertions if I damn well choose, and it just so happened I did.
:)
Complain about this comment
Whitlamite,
You're brilliant. Just thought I should say that!
Complain about this comment
It raises a different interesting question though doesn't it
The flammable Australian landscape was noted by Cook on his 1770 voyage...when he 'took possession', without consent of indigenous Australians, of the East Coast of Australia
If the British Government from 1788 forcibly transported convicted British arsonists 22,000km to such a flammable landscape, and the original people did not consent to this, as we know they didn't, then it raises questions about liability of the British Government to indigenous Australians. And their descendants
Complain about this comment
#26, Wollemi, by the same logic does that mean we can call up Ponting to play for England? Actually, scrub that suggestion I can think of no worse idea.
Complain about this comment
Wollemi - I don't think so.
If you think that, then it means you think that arson is hereditary. And by extension, that criminality is hereditary. You'd have to prove that in court, as well as a direct link between specific British prison labourers convicted of arson nearly two centuries ago, and the individuals who started the Victorian fires.
Dare I say, I think that would be a stretch.
Your point about British compensation to indigenous communities and individuals descended from the victims of British Government violence is an interesting one
I wouldn't mind some pounds in my bank account.
If one extends this legal principal across the entire former British empire, then I think Britain's recession would start to prove fatal.
Garage sale at Buckingham Palace?
Complain about this comment
#27
No I'm talking only about the original transportees, Paul, not their law abiding, cricket playing descendants
The convicted British arsonists who were forcibly sent out between 1788 and 1867 to serve their sentences in a flammable bush environment and thus put the locals at risk
It would be an interesting debate as to liability There's probably a compensation case against the British Government in this.
Complain about this comment
#28
Whitlamite
I was referring to the original transportees as I trust #27 makes clear
However your point about arson and heredity is interesting in the debate about liability. In 19th Century Britain, criminality was generally believed to be hereditary, hence it could be argued that the British Government intended to saddle its Australian colonies with a perpetual problem of arson via the convict descendants. This could be seen as malign intent, well into the future
This does have the feel of a trillion dollar garage sale. I agree. Fred might have to raid his piggy bank to pay the increased taxes
Complain about this comment
Wollemi,
Interesting point about malign intent, but we have to remember that most convicts were transported for crimes completely unrelated to arson. The great majority of them would have been thieves, forgers, prostitutes, a few political prisoners...still not the best stock to build a settlement from, but not necessarily arsonists.
Any fires the convicts started would probably be because they didn't understand the whole FIRE + EUCALYPT = BAD IDEA thing.
Complain about this comment
What's the Australian Character? I am going to have to resort to cutting and pasting some of the best quotes and highest praise we have received. Believe it or not, most of it comes from people who would count themselves our enemies at the time...
A fine example was previously shown by Australian soldiers in World War II. On the 31st May, 1942, three midget submarines attacked Sydney. Two were destroyed and the bodies of the Japanese submariners were recovered. Japanese ensigns were then draped over the coffins and three volleys were fired into the air by a naval saluting party. The bodies were then cremated and the ashes sent back to their homeland. Teiiji Yamaki, a surviving submariner from the midget program subsequently said:
"I am extremely grateful for what the Australians did. It would have been unthinkable in Japan at the time to do that for an enemy country."
Chester Wilmot "Tobruk 1941" Angus & Robertson, Sydney
'Berlin Radio made a fatal mistake in trying to jibe and scare the Australian soldier into surrender. The longer the odds Lord Haw Haw offered against the Diggers chance of getting out, the more heavily the digger backed himself. He and his father before him had gambled on the outcome of a draught or a strike. They had defied bullying of man and nature and had gambled with their livelihood. It seemed a small step from this to gamble now with their lives. The odds were long; the fight would be hard, but they knew what was at stake.'
Chester Wilmot "Tobruk 1941" Angus & Robertson, SydneyFrom Major Ballerstedt, C.O. 2nd Battalion, 115th Motorized Infantry Regiment:
" The Australian, who are the men our troops have had opposite them so far, are extraordinarily tough fighters. The German is more active in the attack, but the enemy stakes his life in the defense and fights to the last with extreme cunning."
Captured German officer:
" I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France and Belgium once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry keeps fighting"
Egyptian assessment of the Diggers
"Not since pre-historic stone ages has such a naked army been seen in civilized warfare as the Australian army corps fighting on the Gallipoli Peninsula. They display an utter abhorrence for superfluous clothing. They are famous throughout Europe for their hard-fighting, hard-swearing and nakedness, even to a sense of indecency."
And finally, Rupert Murdoch's father, Keith Murdoch, once wrote the highest praise we could recieve:
The British troops were suffering from 'an atrophy of mind and body that is appalling... The physique of those at Suvla is not to be compared with the Australians. Nor, indeed, is their intelligence... They are merely a lot of childlike youths without strength to endure or brains to improve their condition... After the first day at Suvla an order had to be issued to officers to shoot without mercy and soldiers who lagged behind or loitered in an advance... [By contrast] It is stirring to see them [the Australians].. they have the noble faces of men who have endured. Oh, if you could picture Anzac as I have seen it, you would find that to be an Australian is the greatest privilege the world has to offer' -
Is this reply conceited? Probably. But to me, hidden away in the words of others lies the true Australian character. Stripped bare of national pride and an assessment of what we once were and will be - God willing - forever, by men with nothing to gain from flattery. I like to see us as nothing more or less than a nation of John Simpson's (a man of whom both Britain and Australia can be damn proud to call their own, even if it was for far too short a time). We may fight in wars, we may be devastating when crossed, but we will always spare the time, effort and courage to get the soul we left behind - friend or enemy.
Complain about this comment
Wollemi - the non-law abiding ones (cricketers) would be the ones I'd pick above Ponting - far more interesting and charismatic! I think the point we're trying to make (not very seriously) is that you either accept you're an independent country capable of looking after itself or that you're a colony of a European power (which patently is not the case!).
#32, PerthJon, You don't sound conceited, just slightly clichéd. It's a great series of endorsements for your historic armed forces but I'm not sure it quite qualifies as an up to date picture of the National Character. As I said earlier, I think far too much time is spent in pursuit of this when it comes to Australians.
Complain about this comment
paulcrossleyiii, we've had two hundred years as a nation, unlike just about any other country you care to name. Symbols, heroes and history are what bind a people together so you'll have to excuse us as we seek our own. Not everyone can be born in a nation that has a long history. And by heroes I don't mean Rambo style guys with guns blazing but heroes that epitomise the very things that are emblemic of the nation and the people. Unlike most countries you care to name, too, Australians have a great disrespect of authority, so all attempts at top down symbolism have been met with extreme hostility as the people seek their own symbols and heroes, rather than the ones we are told are good for us by people with a vested interest in things being seen that way. Like politicians with agendas to cement themselves into history, like interest groups who have to have a martyr to their cause held up as being the very thing we should all be.
In Australia we don't venerate people who have slain masses, delcared war or have become powerful through a desire to be written into history. No. Rather we venerate what we call the Battler, who is one to whom the struggle is everything and to whom failure has a dignity to it. For even in their failure they have won something of a victory as despite everything they have endured they have proven, even if only to themselves, that they will not give up or give in.
I suppose that's what we like the most, that wil to go on. In the end I suppose that's all that counts.
Complain about this comment
#34, Jon those are fine values to have, and ones that I share too. But just as it's unfair to imply that some countries venerate those who have slain masses, it's wrong to pretend that all Australians share your values. I've not seen enough evidence of the 'battler' just yet.
Complain about this comment
As a nation Australia has achived quiet a lot i the last 200 years.
But to have one feeling, it will take another 200 years.
What kind of plans have the Australians to prevent in future such devastating fire, which killed more than 200 innocent people?
There can be done a lot to prevent such fire is burning houses and people.
There are many ways to keep the fire away from the houses.
Don´t allow trees to grow near the houses.
Don´t build houses near the bushes and trees.
Always should be enough water around the house to extinguish fire.
Don´t build houses where there is not enough water.
People, who want to liv in the bush, should be trained as firefighter and the lessons should be repeated every year.
I am sure you too know many ways to protect the people and houses.
Complain about this comment
You'll have to excuse my use of British history, but it's the one I'm most familiar with. It's nicer somehow, I don't know why. Probably because it has tea in it and a great deal of civility and excellent hospitality. Australian history always seemed so dusty and dry to me. Not to mention so short you could read it in one cup of coffee and half a cigarette.
King Richard the Lion Heart, held up for years as a good strong king, didn't hesitate to slaughter 3000 bound prisoners to terrify a town into submission during the Crusades. Nelson, statue of him in the middle of Trafalgar Square, naval genius and winner of many grand victories against basically anyone. How many did he kill to get his statue in a place of promenance or were they just handing them out that day? Wellington, Churchill, William Wallace - all these people became famous through the use of violence and death in their rise to historical good guys. Even today they are held up as shining examples of what it is to serve your country well and faithfully. And you call it unfair to say people venerate them for slain masses? Fair enough. That's your call entirely. But to me, these people have blood soaked histories that are held up for close examination and excused for their violence because they served god and country and won so often. Does that make it better somehow? Winning?
And In England they are Heroes.
Let's not look at the American side of that ledger, we'd be here till Lord Jesus came in and told us to leave.
Do you still say it's unfair to say people venerate those who have slain masses?
And I'm not saying Australia is somehow magically immune to this (Ned Kelly and Breaker Morant to name two) but we have no statues, no great artworks (I don't know art, but modern art is NOT great and barely art in my book. That's my book peeps, not everyone else's.) and no real fellowship with these people. I think this has happened because we haven't yet decided who is in and who is out, so to speak. We seem to venerate thieves, too, for some reason that escapes me entirely. And politicians too, we hounded by political figures held up as the Australian greats, but I think they're both the same thing aren't they?
I could be wrong.
I doubt this will make it past the editing stage of submission, but that's my argument for my case. It's nut-shelled and incredibly British-centric but I think it gets the point across. Please don't take offence at my use of British figures, but as I said earlier I like Bitish history and Britain in general. it must be wonderful to drive around the countryside and have a thousand years of history unfold infront of you. And you guys get the Queen! All we get in Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull and some party yes-man (or woman in this case) in the Govenor General's spot. You have no idea how ripped off I feel.
Complain about this comment
And as for the Battler, i doubt you would find any evidence of them. We don't write them into anything other than folk lore and local legend (and by local legend I mean travel to the next town or suburb over and they would never have heard of the person in question). They're the hard done by and damn near destitute people who keep plugging away at life, at it's problems and it's pitfalls, and never even consider laying down. They're the people who have actually made us the people we are today without us even realizing it. Without the basic unit of Battler we wouldn't have farms after massive drought, towns after fires and water in the desert. They're the ones who get things done around here, without complaint or pretense(?) at being better than anyone. Humility is their hallmark and silent suffering in abject circumstance is their way. They have nothing, but conversely have no-one they owe for it. They do what they can and they survive somehow on the fringes of an uncaring, money-obsessed (and rapidly becoming belligerent) society. You'd have them too, but you'd call them something other than Battler. Under-dog perhaps? That's just our local term for them and it's conveyed with a real sense of feeling and fellowship. Deep down we all see ourselves as Battlers in some sense of the word. It's just an Australian thing maybe.
Complain about this comment
Jon, I take your point in a general way, but you leave out those who got statues or placed on bank notes for other reasons, like Florence Nightingale or Charles Dickens - which is kind of my point, over-simplification of national character is too easy, but also wrong.
My point about the 'battler' is that it certainly isn't just an Australian thing - I've seen less evidence here for veneration of these types than back home. It certainly doesn't make it into sports in the same way it does in the UK, where we so often find ourselves cheering on a loosing team!
Complain about this comment
Paul, you are correct, I did leave out the Doctors, Academics and many others. I was addressing the "venerate those who have slain masses" part of your response. There are many who have done no harm, have caused no pain and are venerated. But in this case I was just talking about that band of people that you said it was unfair to say existed.
Complain about this comment
PerthJon:
You wrote: 'You'll have to excuse my use of British history, but it's the one I'm most familiar with. It's nicer somehow, I don't know why.'
Find out why, I'm curious.
'Probably because it has tea in it and a great deal of civility and excellent hospitality.'
Are you sure that's the reason?
'Australian history always seemed so dusty and dry to me.'
Dusty? Well after the British and their admirers cut down all the trees it was basically inevitable.
Dry? Always. None of those Martinis with the ice shaken to buggery. If British secret agents want a weak cocktail then they should just ask for one.
'Not to mention so short you could read it in one cup of coffee and half a cigarette.'
Well, I'm not sure old boy, but last time I checked Australia had the *oldest* history of human civilisation of any nation in the world.
The Reform Club had better start serving extra tall cups of coffee and foot long cigars.
And getting back to the topic at hand.
If you want to understand a fundamental truth about the Australian character it is this:
Post-modern Australia has always positioned itself in the mid-atlantic, through the accent, the system of government, the approach to business, and through culture. Expect us to head toward the Americas slowly but surely in the days ahead. Over there they even have Boeing 747s as water tankers. We have much to learn.
'Overpaid, oversexed', and they're finally here. Watch this space.
Complain about this comment
Whitlamite, that's a long one like mine and unfortunately the answer's gonna be a longie too. Probably not what you wanted, huh?
"You wrote: 'You'll have to excuse my use of British history, but it's the one I'm most familiar with. It's nicer somehow, I don't know why.'
Find out why, I'm curious."
You're curious? Try being me.
I think I prefer the British History over Australian for a couple of reasons, and I assure you I cannot split them very well so it's all a jumble. That's why I say I not sure as to why that's the case. For a starters it's the familiarity breeds contempt thing. I was raised with Australian history and had it taught in school, both primary and high school. It was our history and rightly taught to us, but it didn't make me any happier with it. Perhaps because of the way it was taught to us I find it so hard to get along side of now? I couldn't say for sure.Second, I was raised primarily by my grandmother, who was through and through British to the point of the world stopping for tea at 4:00pm on the dot. Cliched, I know, but that was her way and I never questioned it. And lastly, my Grandfathers fought in World War 1 and it's sequel (one in each and both on opposite sides), so I was kind of doomed to it from an early age as they talked me first through that section of history and then expanded both ways to the then current day. I enjoyed it immensely, but it does leave a mark on your thoughts and pursuits.
"'Probably because it has tea in it and a great deal of civility and excellent hospitality.'
Are you sure that's the reason?"
No, it's not. But a little levity before using examples from someone else s history to make a point does not go astray. Particularly when that point was the one I was trying to make. That flippant comment was meant more as a means of showing that I wasn't trying to rub his face in it nor was I trying to be malicious. I do enjoy British history (and European in general) far more than is probably good for me, but in this case I was using examples of what I was assuming was his history, and no-one likes having that kind of thing happen. So, a little light relief before the meat of it and then I felt sure that offense wouldn't be taken. It was probably wrong of me but life has tought me that if someone is laughing or taking things a little more lightly then you can say what you have to without the angst and anger. It makes things jovial and more open, if you get my drift.
"'Australian history always seemed so dusty and dry to me.'
Dusty? Well after the British and their admirers cut down all the trees it was basically inevitable."
Too true, and the weak cocktail thing as well, but unfortunately that's the way I see mt country and that plays through into my feel of the history of it. Hot, dry, dusty and filled with miles and miles of steaming hot sands and bugger all but spinifex and rocks. In Europe, Asia and South America so much has happened in such a comparatively small space. Compare any of them to Australian history and I know which I'd rather be reading.
"Not to mention so short you could read it in one cup of coffee and half a cigarette.'
Well, I'm not sure old boy, but last time I checked Australia had the *oldest* history of human civilization of any nation in the world."
Then you'd be missing Africa from that equation. I agree, the Aboriginal population has a marvelously long tradition with the land and thousands of years of wandering it's coast lines, hills (we don't really have mountains here baring a handful) and plains. The only problem I have with their history is that they never really wrote it down anywhere that I could get to. I have a lot of respect for them, don't get me wrong, but I find it hard to track down those amongst them who have that knowledge and to quiz them when I actually have the time to read these things. An oral tradition of history is an amazing thing when you really look at it, but it does make it hard for all to access. The same goes for the African side of it. If you have no written language and a few people store it all in their heads it makes it very hard for just anyone to get at and consequently tends to get over-looked. Very sad, but true. I'd look into Africa if I were you, like the Aboriginal history it is amazing.
"Post-modern Australia has always positioned itself in the mid-atlantic, through the accent, the system of government, the approach to business, and through culture. Expect us to head toward the Americas slowly but surely in the days ahead. Over there they even have Boeing 747s as water tankers. We have much to learn."
I fear you are right, as much as I'd like things to be otherwise. I've seen it coming ever since I was a kid and everyone I knew watched CHiPs and so on. Everyone wanted to be American, to drive those cars, shag those chicks, shoot those guns and snort that coke. That sensation of pep and zing hasn't abated with the Fascist years of the Bush administration either, which really does amaze me given the Hitlerite lengths they went to not to remove the law from Terrorists, but to remove the Terrorists from the law. Like many, I welcomed the election of Obama, but I hold no great hopes for him. History teaches that if you rock the boat too much, change too many things then those with a vested interest in keeping the status quo and the money flowing to themselves will organize an early meeting with he Reaper. And America does have that love affair with assassination of political figures that try to change things.
"'Overpaid, oversexed', and they're finally here."
Probably about sixty-five years too late for that one, but yes, they have finally landed in earnest and there's nothing to be done about it now. Such is the way of Empires I guess. As one wanes another steps in to fill the power vacuum and the Greek tragedy of human political affairs and blind stupidity rolls on. Cest la vie.
Complain about this comment
Jon, As I think you know, I didn't say that some of those who have slain masses and become heroes do not exist. If you want, we can debate them individually - in a lot of cases we'd find that the 'slaying' wouldn't be the primary reason for their status, but hey, let's leave that...
I was merely making the point that you seemed to be oversimplifying the business of 'national character', for what ends, I'm not quite sure. This is what I'm begining to be increasingly frustrated with (though like everyone else I'm no doubt guilty of it too).
I know it's sometimes easier to play to these national stereotypes. Everyone does it and there must at least be some truth for them to start, but I'm not sure how helpful it is.
Complain about this comment
I agree Australia is still in the early stages of forming an identity. I'd say the anti-authoritarian element is a definite part of it however. Although, there is also an odd conservatism at times too.
Australia is actually younger than most people realise. I would suggest it is only in the past 50 or so years that there has been a deep sense of us being a separate country. Britain claimed it 200 years ago; we became a nation 108 years ago in a legal sense, though not in a psychological sense - that really got underway with immigration after the Second World War. It is still happening. Becoming a republic will hasten the process immensely.
I want to say something a little different here. It's related in a way however.
I have noticed a phenomenon among the English - not Nick - but among many. They tend to whip out their greater history as a battering tool to put 'chippy' aussies in their place: " oh, we have such a great history, so many cultural achievements, while you lot have only sport and not much else". I have often wondered why the French, Italians, etc don't do this with us. They recognise the obvious I suppose: how can you have a great history and huge cultural achievements when you are so young. When compared with their contemporaries howvever, England tends to lose some of its shine: yes they do have a great history, but so does France and Italy; and what about the cuisine - couldn't you have invented something a little more sophisticated in all that time; and what about your architecture - why so grim?
So I do think the English have a right to feel proud of their achievements, but I do wonder why they feel the need to use it as means to feel superior to their x- colonies so often. Compared with our contemporaries - Canada, NZ, South Africa - we're doing ok. What about the US? Well, they are actually quite a bit older than us if you check your books.
I take comfort from the fact that they were also ridiculed by Europeans in the 1800s as a backwater, a place of no great achievement; a giant farm. American artists left for Europe in the same way that Australian artists now go to New York, Hollywood and London.
I know this is a little 'off topic' but it's worthy of adding nonetheless. Many English tend to think of aussies as having a chip on their shoulders, of being 'chippy', but I would say that it is more of the case that we don't tend to rate you now quite as much as you rate yourselves. We see your past and think ' yes it's good', then we see your present and think ' glad I'm not there'.
But it is mainly the constantly being told your country is an absolute cultural failure in relation to England that gets annoying, the smug way they push out their chests after completing a comparison that, logically should never have taken place.
I am not anti-English, and in fact my GF is one; but even she, when she feels stung by my lack of deference to her country, whips out the old ' oh, England has such a magnificent culture' thing. I can be rude to an Italian, say something negative about his or her country without being on the receiving end of a comparison of 2000 years of history versus 108.
I'm afraid our ' chippiness' is simply that we don't rate your country much now. We think London is great; we like you as a people; but we wouldn't change our nationality with you.
In fact, I think one of our national characteristics is our ability to take relentless sledging about our supposed lack of culture from the English in relative good humour. "Yes, we say, you've got more culture..so what's your point".."you're better than me...as a person inheriting all that you feel somehow superior"? "Well, I don't think you are..I see you now... I see where you live...I see the terrible problems your country has...and I don't think that at all". And that, is where the reputation for being touchy comes from. It is natural to defend your country, and i can understand why the English do it...but they tend to do it in a slightly nasty way when it involves Australians..and that can be off-putting and the cause of resentment.
I think if you were like the French and Italians, if you just accepted your history and cultural achievements quietly without feeling the need to belittle other countries , you'd find we'd be a lot more willing to sing your praises. We did, after all, inherit many things from you that made this country endure - institutions, modes of thinking, etc. As it is though, you'll find most praise is given grudglingly.
You tend to see us in a way that other nations don't. I never encounter any nasty chiding about my country from other nationalites. I spent a lot of time in the US, Italy and France, and never once has anyone pointed out to me the deficiencies of Australia.
Australia has a lot of potential. In my lifetime it will be ridiculed by the English. In 50 or 60 years though, I would be very suprised if Australia hasn't usurped the role of second most powerful English speaking country.
I only raised this in response to Frederick of Chichester. I once read him belittling Australia in another forum; he obviously has had a bad experience with Australia - possibly been refused a visa - which inspires him to trawl the internet leaving nasty comments about Australia. It is in HOW he goes about this nastiness that is interesting. He positions himself as the inheritor of 1000 years of greatness and gets all superior on us ' oh, fires are to be be expected..you are convicts after all'. I'd say ' maybe you're right mate...but the difference between my ancestors and yours is that mine got caught'.
Complain about this comment
Polynya wrote: "I can't help but draw comparisons with the US, particularly Hurricane Katrina."
"Of course, part of the problem was that the government response was a shambles, and many members of the community did not trust each other or could not be trusted."
Oh please. It was nowhere near as bad as the Bush hating left wing media around the world tried to make it seem, as many of them were reluctantly forced to eventually admit.
It really seems many of you Australians share a bad habit with the British in trying to make others look bad, with America being a favorite target, so as to make themselves look good.
Complain about this comment
Moonboy, you seem to be mixing with the wrong Brits. I don't know anyone who uses our countries history to belittle other countries, except if it's at the rugby, when, to be honest, anything's fair game. We probably look at Australia differently to Italy and France because we are a lot closer to it, historically, politically and culturally.
As for the terrible problems our country has, yep, we have them, but go to Sydney, Brisbane, in fact any western city, and they have them too.
Complain about this comment
Moonboy, I think I know what you're talking about but to say that the French aren't also guilty of cultural snobishness is a bit hard to stomach!
I think what you're referring to is a fair response to the kind of stick Brits get from Aussies. I get the impression it used to be one way traffic (you to us), along the lines of criticising our weather, sport and, for some weird reason Brighton beach. It was deemed acceptable as part of the 'rogueish, impish' Australian spirit. Personally, I am sometimes offended by this attitude, especially when Aussies assume I'd far rather be living in their country than my own (the reality is that though I'm enjoying Australia tremendously, I miss the UK every single day)
Nowadays maybe we Brits are not so reserved (maybe Nick was right?) and happy to give it back. Some people obviously take it too far - Australia obviously has a very rich and diverse culutural heart, nothing at all to be ashamed of, and in the same vein, most Brits are quite happy with their relatively benign weather and countryside - filled as it is with historic towns and buildings and non-threatening wildlife.
The message is if you give it out, expect it back.
Complain about this comment
#47
Unfortunately Paul, it goes far beyond the tit for tat comments about weather and sport etc. Your media in Britain is particularly virulent when it comes to criticism of Australia
The last example which comes to mind was during Victoria's recent tragic bushfire when one of Britain's tabloids printed a picture of a fire truck fleeing a wall of flames and smoke with the caption 'Er Bruce..the fire's the other way' Underneath it reported that 14 people had already died in the fire
Ok it was a tabloid and they withdrew it after complaints and issued an apology, but I cannot think of an Australian tabloid printing anything similar if Britain for example was caught in a cold snap. It is known here that people die in those cold conditions and anyone with any sense knows that people die here in bushfires. Anyone with any sense also knows that these firefighters are volunteers who set aside time, without pay, to train and then take risks to help out. One such volunteer died in Victoria when a tree fell
And Moonboy is correct. We get this kind of supremacist tosh from no other country. While one of your British papers was scoffing at foolish 'Bruce', other countries were mobilising help. Canada US and NZ, without fuss and publicity, sent fire teams, Indonesia a team of forensic specialists, Singapore which has half its airforce parked here put its helicopters on standby
Complain about this comment
Wollemi, that comment and picture appeared in the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is the most right wing of all the major UK papers, so you expect stupid stuff like that. It's more of a surprise that they didn't blame the bushfires on immigrants, or muslims, or single mothers. That paper is not representative of the UK media or British people.
Britain offered its support to Australia during the Bushfires and there is a huge amount of affection for Australia in Britain. I would imagine British people feel more finship and affection for the Commonwealth countries than we ever will for the EU.
Complain about this comment
I meant kinship, rather than finship, obviously
Complain about this comment
Wollemi, I won't attempt to excuse to inexcusable when it comes to those comments in the Daily Mail.
I will restate that it is certainly my perception that the more general and better natured (though sometimes still offensive) comments that Moonboy referred to are a more recent phenomenon and surely in response to years of triteness in the other direction.
I think what bemuses Brits the most is that we are sold the myth that this taking the pee out of each other is what Australia is all about, when the average reaction demonstrates this clearly is not the case.
I should probably rephrase that- most Brits don't really have too much of a feeling either way regarding Australia. On the other hand, perhaps understandably so given the (unnecessary) desire to demonstrate independence, it sometimes seems that 'chippiness' is actually a bit of a chip on the shoulder.
Complain about this comment
PerthJon -
I see you've really thought about your position. I can't say I agree with it all, but thank you for such a detailed response.
However, I don't think you're being fair in dismissing the legacy of indigenous Australia because there was no written language. It's a frightfully euro-centric prerequisite.
One thing I've noticed about many of the comments in this discussion is a distinct separation between pre-1788 and post-1788 Australia. Yes, the year in question was significant, but it's all connected. Why don't we feel a connection with Australian of 10,000 years ago? Was it because they're black? We manage kinship fairly well in this country in the absence of blood relation, why does this stop on January the 25th 1788 and commence the following day?
It seems weird and a little insidious, to be honest.
And PerthJon - I should have qualified my statement about our indigenous brothers and sisters who currently celebrate the traditions of the world's oldest *continuously existing* culture in the world.
Again, trumps Britain. Not that we care. :)
Complain about this comment
Strange discussion this. Some contributors don't seem to have read Nick Bryant's article, but feel free to criticise British attitudes to Australia nonetheless. As a Brit in Australia I hope you'll allow me to say
1. I'm having a great time here and I wish I'd come here decades ago. Thanks for your hospitality.
2. There ain't no such thing as national character. There are discourses about national character created by politicians, journalists, media commentators and others perfectly legitimately (for the most part) in the course of their jobs. The bush fires and the floods have been the opportunity for a lot of that, some of it moving, some of it over the top.
3. Whitlamite @52: to the best of my knowledge, the first written languages so far found originated in Persia, in what is now Iran, not in Europe. Bringing them into your net as well?
Complain about this comment
verymuchso -
Not into our net, but perhaps into yours.
Eurasia-centric?
My point wasn't about the written language, it was the importance placed upon written language as a hallmark of 'civilisation'. THAT is euro-centric.
Complain about this comment
Yes, eurasia-centric may be. It's really tangential to the rest of this thread, but I appreciated the point you were making. My point would be that the notion that written languages are essential to a proper civilisation is not unique to European cultures. It's certainly a characteristic of both the Chinese and the Japanese. This doesn't make it right.
More to the purpose of the thread, I'm really surprised by the tone of some of the comments. There seems to be a residual antagonism that I thought had died out years ago. I just don't recognise the references on either side. I've not experienced anything like it. Perhaps I'm just naive, or have been sheltered, but I don't think so.
I can see that how Australian history is being written is a matter of major debate, and it's not easy. My initial observation was aimed against the comments that seem to adopt an essentialist view of national identity. National character is not fixed, it's a construction around interpretations of what's happened. How the indigenous peoples contribute seems to me, as an outsider, much more important than what Poms have to say, or than the Australia-UK relationship.
Complain about this comment
Dear VeryMuchSo,
i like your 2nd point in post 53.
as for your first point, you're welcome. sincerly.
Kind Regards,
An identity confused Aussie.
Complain about this comment
Dear SmartLondon,
i refer to your post:
"Wollemi, that comment and picture appeared in the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is the most right wing of all the major UK papers, so you expect stupid stuff like that. It's more of a surprise that they didn't blame the bushfires on immigrants, or muslims, or single mothers. That paper is not representative of the UK media or British people."
Daily Mail is indeed British. a most British paper, as British as the Sun, and is indeed representative.
Nobody can pick and choose what defines their country.
I leave it up to that most British artist Morrissey to declare the Mail's intentions:
We may seem cold, or
We may even be
The most depressing people
you've ever known
At heart, what's
left, we sadly know
That we are the last
truly British people
you'll ever know
We are the last truly
British people you
will ever know
Complain about this comment
Hats off to the Oz for handling the fires as well as they did. If nothing else, my own stereotype of Australian people includes being better equipped emotionally to handle disaster than most.
However, the creepy drivel about the Brit response to Lady Diana's squalid demise is way off-beam. The nation did not 'discover... that their upper lips were no longer quite so stiff and they could exhibit publicly an emotional range that had seldom, if ever, been witnessed on such an immense scale'. The nation was herded into mass hysteria by a cynical, republican, monarchy-loathing, anglophobic OZ press baron who delights in humiliating the UK in any way he can.
The Beeb, as usual, just whistled whatever tune the rest of the media was playing and ignored the millions of genuine Brits who were thoroughly bored and disgusted at the antics of a silly jilted Sloane Ranger, if a little sorry for her kids, and felt her death was no more than a warning not to mix with dodgy playboys who have their crash-rebuild Mercs driven by drunks.
Complain about this comment
#58
...'by a cynical, republican, monarchy-loathing, anglophobic OZ press baron who delights in humiliating the UK in any way he can'
Rupert Murdoch became a US citizen in 1985, To do so he voided Australian citizenship. He has not been an "OZ press baron', anglophobic or otherwise. since 1985. Diana died 12 years later in 1997
So, description of 'republican' relies on which country you mean, US citizens already live in a republic and Rupert Murdoch might be expected to favour a republic. If you mean Australian republicanism is somehow linked to seeing a republic in the UK (is this what you meant?) then the answer is no
Australian republicanism is aimed at having an Australian Head of State, not a foreign Head of State.
Britain already has a British Head of State. Whatever Britons think of the Royal Family, and individual Royals, they are British and Britons do not face the incongruities and dilemmas of having a foreign Head of State living on the other side of the world.
I will give you 3 short examples of the dilemmas, differing magnitude
1.Australia has already been to a major war (Vietnam) while the Australian Head of State was living in a country on the far side of the world and which was uninvolved in that war
2.The Australian Head of State is frequently involved in promoting British trade links to the EU. We are not a member of the EU, a highly protectionist trade bloc, and our main trade links are with Asia, The Australian Head of State should be focusing on Asia
3.The Australian cricket team lost the Ashes. The Australian Head of State was subsequently seen to be partying with the opposition winning team at the Palace and handing out gongs - for defeating Australia. This was crass
It's not anglophobia. Merc just the job has become an anachronism. Time to pull the plug
Complain about this comment
Wollemi -
Is it possible? Can it be?
That is the most brilliantly put response I could have ever possibly imagined.
That is a MARVELLOUS appraisal of the absolute realities of our present arrangements.
If people want to know the facts - read Wollemi's comments.
Complain about this comment
O.k. Some of you are interested in Australian History well here goes. First of all Australia's name was Van Diemans Land from the DUTCH who first found Australia even parts of the West Coast. Captain Cook may have planted a flag but he was not the first to find us. Next - The British only beat the French by a whisker and parts of Sydney near the bay (Botany Bay) have French names - La Peruse Sans Souci to qutoe. And in years gone by the schools in the area have actually held assemblies for French occassions and there are plagues commenorating the French arrival. Alot of the Pacific is French. As for the Aboringinals how dare you. The stolen generation and the Sorry mention is only inflaming a subject that is worn thins. Many chldren we 'stolen" it was the era, many orphanges, single mothers etc, it was the times. I have Aborigianl friends who are so over this and mostly it is the do gooders who stir up problems. As for the name when we were named Australia those there at the time became Australian - black white or bridle. Then we are Aussie by hereitage. Prior to that we had many names and some exit today they are Aboriginal names of towns, Cities and places. So do not say to me that Australians are white as this is such an educated comment as just not worth debating.
Complain about this comment
Perth #32 Well done. Eliza_NSW very well done. I agree with you. Not many would know of what you wrote. So many have opinions and yes they are entitled of course - no one is saying they are not. But what I think you meant to say was that people shouldnt post such UNeducated comments. And I agree whole heartedly. And we are Australiasian even if we are White as Australia became after it was named Australia. This was a clever point Eliza. I am Aussie and yes there are many places with the Aboriginal name. And do many out there also know that two Aboriginal people went back to England on the return of the boats. One was Benelong which has an electorate and a place named after him. The two of them - one lived one died after he caught a virus - flu similar. So dont even start quoting or commenting on our heriate if you have little or no idea. Yes we do have French named suburbs. You are so right. And I will repeat what I think you wanted to say. Such Uneducated - unintelligent comments arent worth the efforts.
Complain about this comment
Wollemi, the Queen has also been seen partying with the All Blacks, so maybe she just doesn't like Australians?
Complain about this comment
#63
Or maybe it's any excuse for a party!
You know, smartlondon, I'm so disengaged from the monarch and her successors that it doesn't matter to me whether they like Australians or not....except.....that they might fill the position of Australian Head of State
Under Australia's written Constitution the Head of State is not simply a ceremonial position
I don't know how much non Australians are aware of just how powerful are the reserve powers of the Head of State/GG in the Australian political system If not, you might like to read about the Constitutional crisis of 1975.
This is getting away from the theme of the blog. I was intending to clarify some points raised in #58
Complain about this comment
I actually like the fact that the Queen has the final say in all political matters (theoretically). I would much, much rather have the highest position in my country (Britain) occupied by someone who has been born in to it, and spent their whole life being trained for it, then someone who has spent their whole life desperately craving it, and will most likely become completely consumed and corrupted by it the minute they get it. Best to get back on topic though.
Complain about this comment
But smartlondon, that's the whole point.
The Queen is British. She knows how to be a Queen and she's good at it, but there's something a little bit off about a political system where the official head of state - who, as wollemi points out, can wield some serious, government-breaking power if she sees fit - can theoretically make important decisions for a country where she's only ever set foot maybe half a dozen times in her entire life.
She lives on the other side of the world. She rules over a country whose major concerns aren't always compatible with - and sometimes directly contradict - ours. Naturally, her first responsibility is to the people of the UK...but what do we do if it's too hard to reconcile your needs with ours?
I'm not sure what kind of system we'd put in her place and it'd be a right pain in the neck to redesign all the money, but there IS a bit of an issue here.
Complain about this comment
Yeah it's a tough one, no doubt about it.
Complain about this comment
What a laugh once again I am entertained during lunch break. SmartLondon fancy the Queen with the All Blacks - and we being the mainland you'd think shed party with us. By the way as for the Queen and all of this chatter, well its like this - as long as we dont have another Gallipoli who cares. And in regard to the Queens blood line or heritage with so many be bumped off in those days and etc who is the Queens rellies - the Yorks or ..... Now lets not fight the War of the Roses again. But atleast acknowledge that in true form we dont really know. So except what we have.
Complain about this comment
Wollemi, I can certainly see how you might be a bit miffed about having Lizzy as head of state, but it's up to you and your countrymen to decide.
As for her promoting trade with the EU, well we (Brit taxpayers) do pay rather a lot to keep the Corgis in Pedigree Chum, so we expect some sort of return. I imagine the value of her services to Australia are fair, anything else just wouldn't be cricket, what?
Eliza NSW - not sure what your point was at #61. Who were you angry with?
Thanks to comment #53 verymuchso, you're right about ideas of national character.
Also Mercthrasher #58 for trashing Nick's use of the Lady Di saga. Not in my name either!
Complain about this comment
My apologies for my absence, duty called...Or at least work did. Oh to be the idol rich...
Paulcrossleyii, I agree, I am over simplifying the Australian character, but then that’s also a part of the Australian character. It’s so cultural that we don’t even notice we’re doing it till someone says so. We like to keep things simple, it means less to remember when it’s 40+ degrees outside and your underpants feel like someone’s already worn them swimming. Twice. ?
Whitlamite, I'm not discounting Aboriginal History, merely saying I'm not as well versed in it. I like to, at first, talk to someone who already knows a fair bit and get my interest up that way. I find that someone else’s passion for a subject fires me up about it too, and that drives me to learn more. But that takes time, not just to find someone to kick start me but also to read all this in. Time which is probably more importantly used by me trying to earn a buck to pay the bills or playing with my kid before I have to go to sleep, wake up and do it all again. With work and (not to put too fine a point on it) life being as damn busy as it is, I can’t find time to read a book these days let alone meet new people. The last movie I saw at the cinema was Star Wars Episode III, and the last learning-for-pleasure was about a month after that. I have no idea where all my time has gone but I’m sure I’m getting stiffed by at least three to six hours every day. At least three to six hours, probably more. Personally, I blame daylight savings. It’s as good a whipping-boy as any.
I'd say we don't feel a connection to those people who were wondering Australia 10,000 years ago BECAUSE they were wandering Australia 10,000 years ago. That massive void of time is a little much for the human brain to truly comprehend, particularly when we wake up in the morning feeling old and creaky when we're only in our mid 30's but hung over. We're not really programmed to deal in a realistic way with thousands of anything in any more than an abstract, let alone thousands of years.
There is that funky 1788 divide, and I haven’t really thought about it before. Perhaps that divide happens as a result of the state-sponsored racism that was inherent at the time? We’re still paying for that today in so many small ways, it’s still a wedge between us and will remain so for a while yet. Old hatreds run deep, and getting the racism out of humanity will take an effort of will far greater than what we can manage now. Never underestimate the sheer drive of human stupidity either; it will win 99 out of 100 times. Just look at politics and the law if you don’t believe me. Without further and far deeper thought, I really couldn’t say. There were Aboriginals one day, the next there were Aboriginals and Englishmen. The history of one of those times was always promoted as being more important to know and only later do we realize that it’s all one history split along lines of racism and ignorance.
Complain about this comment
#69
"pedigree Chum"
Laced with valium I should hope. You might need a bit of valium yourelf, Paul as I'm about to criticise your/our Head of State
The Queen and I share 1 common interest, we have both owned corgis. Mine have long since departed to that Great Kennel in the Sky and I've moved onto working dogs more suited to Australian conditions. That's what corgis are - great little pets but they were bred as working dogs and the working trait is very close to the hunting instinct. In a group and undisciplined they develop a pack mentality
From what I've seen she's allowed that to happen
Complain about this comment
#71, Wollemi, I'll try and cope with the insult. Maybe I'll just have to sing the National Anthem twice tonight, instead of once.
I was under the impression that Corgis were generally a bad tempered kind of dog anyway.
Complain about this comment
#44 - totally agree with you!
I am an Aussie living in the UK and have never understood the contempt the English show Aussies for being proud of their country and people!! I wonder if it's all out of jealously?
My husband is English and we often have arguments about our home countries with him inevitably pulling out Britain's 'great' history in defence, and stating Australian's pride as arrogance.
Britain may have a grander history, but what is the country like now? There is a reason why nearly every Aussie, Kiwi and South African go home after their stints in London, and why every second person I meet over here is either planning to move to Australia or lamenting about how they would love to move.
It's because Australia is a great country, and at the end of the day you don't want to live in a country because of its history, you want to live there because of what it is like NOW!!
The Aussie spirit is a great thing and if only England had the same attitude towards their own contry and people it might be a better place to live and I wouldn't be counting down the days till I can get the hell outta here!!!
Complain about this comment
Hi Aussienurse, apologies on behalf of my countrymen if any of them have been giving you a hard time; that never happens to brits in Australia of course.
I'd guess that on the whole it's neither contempt or jealousy that the English/British have for your pride in your country, more like bewilderment. Believe it or not most Brits are very proud of their country too, we just don't tend to show it quite as loudly or blatantly as the Aussies do (some of the claims I've heard here have genuinely made me laugh). Not saying your way is wrong, it's just different, and you shouldn't mistake our silence for acknowledgement about the greatness of Australia.
I'm not quite sure I follow your argument about Aussies coming home after staying in London. I mean for starters, most UK visitors to Australia do the same - they stay 6 months or so then head home to jobs, family, cities, climate, whatever they're missing.
Right now, or at least the last couple of years, Australia has offered British families a genuine chance to move and live in another country - but that's still pretty unusual, and is about the only place in the English speaking world that was doing that. We took that opportunity and are already looking forward to getting home (whilst still thoroughly enjoying the southern continent of course).
Complain about this comment
paulcrossleyiii.....What I meant was that more Brits move PERMANENTLY to Australia than vice versa, and that there must be a good reason for that.
In regards to your sarcastic remark:
"apologies on behalf of my countrymen if any of them have been giving you a hard time; that never happens to brits in Australia of course"
I am sure that any ribbing you get from Aussies would be good natured and I would be mortified if it was meant in any sort of nasty way! As a friend of mine said recently when preparing my hubby for moving to Australia, "you only need to worry when the Aussies STOP taking the piss out of you!"
Complain about this comment
"What I meant was that more Brits move PERMANENTLY to Australia than vice versa, and that there must be a good reason for that"
I would imagine that the main reason is because it's been a relatively easy thing to do, has offered excellent opportunities and a lot of people do really like sunshine.
"you only need to worry when the Aussies STOP taking the piss out of you!"
This would be the legendary Aussie sense of humour in action? Priceless.
Complain about this comment
Aussienurse, that's just the British mentality. We moan about everything. Give a Briton 1 million and he'd still moan about not having enough.
Complain about this comment
Nick Mate, if you're going to live in Oz and write about it then please use the correct term. It's BUSHfires not wildfires. It sounds so bloody Californian ! Apart from that it's all good.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS