The Australian Ugliness
Book titles do not come much more provocative than The Australian Ugliness, the caustic polemic penned by the architect Robin Boyd which was published in 1960. Boyd took aim at the unsightliness of post-war Australian suburban design, and what he described as its vulgar featurism: the gauche decorations, brick veneers and fussy stylistic embellishments that disfigured cul-de-sacs across the land.
Among Boyd's targets was the Sydney Harbour Bridge, at that time the most celebrated structure in the land. Its stone pylons at either end were a featurist monstrosity, Boyd believed, because they were structurally superfluous. "[I]ts design is a spectacular example of Featurist irrationality," he observed.
Boyd's opus work came on the heels of Barry Humphries' great comic invention Dame Edna Everage, who poked at the social pretensions of suburban housewives. It was also published four years in advance of Donald Horne's The Lucky Country, with its wider critique of post-war Australia. As Peter Conrad, the Australian-born Oxford academic has noted Boyd "belonged to the first generation of intellectuals for whom the denunciation of Australia counted as an urgent patriotic duty".
To mark the 50th anniversary of its publication, a new edition has just hit the shelves. So does it still have resonance?
To begin with, much of what Boyd wrote about the mediocrity of urban design might seem particularly germane as planners and architects consider how to accommodate Australia's growing population. In the McMansions which are proliferating on the outskirts of the major cities many might see modern-day manifestations of the Australian ugliness.
But re-reading an old copy that I found in a second-hand book shop not so long ago, I was most intrigued by Boyd's observations on his fellow Australians. In a chapter called Anglophiles and Austericans, he speaks about "the pervasive ambivalence of the national character".
"Here also are vitality, energy, strength and optimism in one's own ability, yet indolence, carelessness, the 'she'll do, mate' attitude to the job to be done. Here is insistence on the freedom of the individual, yet resigned acceptance of social restrictions and censorship narrower than in almost any other democratic country in the world. Here is love of justice and devotion to law and order, yet the persistent habit of crowds to stone the umpire and trip the policeman in the course of duty.....
"The Australian is forcefully loquacious, until the moment of expressing any emotion. He is aggressively committed to equality and equal opportunity for all men, except for black Australians. He has high assurance in anything he does combined with a gnawing lack of confidence in anything he thinks."
It is a statement of stunning banality to say that massive changes have overtaken Australia since Boyd's book was first published, socially, economically, racially, culturally and architecturally. But 50 years on, does The Australian Ugliness still echo? Writing the forward to the new edition, the author Christos Tsiolkas is in no doubt: "He got us. He still gets us."
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~33~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Boyd's disdain for vernacular "featurism" might have been more convincing if his preferred alternatives didn't turn out to be dreary inhuman modernist concrete blocks.
He was also in favour of ripping down most of Melbourne's Victorian streetscapes - to be replaced with ... what?
His idea of the dichotomy of the Australian character (if such an immigrant nation can be said to have a definable character) is good and has been commented on many times - e.g the larrikin/wowser duality of earlier times.
It would help if we stopped harping on the misleading "Anglo" part of 50s Australian society it or a while and looked at the Celtic heritage from which a lot of these traits sprang
Complain about this comment
I'd say its worse now because the ugliness of the 50's was due to flat pragmatism taking precedence to form - we need lots of affordable houses quickly. Build it, sell them. Nowadays the ugliness seems to be because people want it to be ugly, and there's nothing pragmatic or practical about that decision.
The differences are that in the 40's and 50's you got what you got and it was the same as everyone else's because thats what you could afford and it was subsidised. They built them sort of like British row houses - 2 houses, semi-detached.. next to another block of 2 semi-detached houses.. in a street that faced or butted onto some kind of park or public lawn, and if it didn't it was only a very short walk to one.
Now the polluters of the suburban landscape are doing it themselves... saying they WANT it to be ugly because how else do you get 5 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, an ensuite, 2.5 living areas and a home theatre and open plan kitchen/diner and 2-car garage and covered BBQ patio on an 1/8th acre block?
These days they're not squashed together due to practicalities... but IMpracticalities! You're not living in your neighbours pocket because you bought a subsidised semi-detached in a cul-de-sac on your factory worker's wage... you're living in their pocket because you both wanted more house than land, and dont care if you cant grow a tree or build a cubby in the yard. And you and Mrs You both work to pay for it.
Back then it was ugly by default, but people didn't mind. Now its ugly by design but at least you dont have to look at it if you have your precious AV room...
Complain about this comment
Ah Nick, how many of Boyd's books sold originally, and now many main stream Australians of the time agreed with it?
Was Boyd's point of view in the minority, and if so who was interest in his work?
Name one building in the middle of an Australian city, built to Boyd's, or any other architect's design that is fully owned by Australians?
Most Aussies had very little say in how multi corporate architects designed our concrete monoliths.
In actual fact Australia has lost countless historical gems, thanks to aggressive architectural vandalism, stopped in part by the Green Ban's of the late 60`s and early 70's.
And for those that remember those times, the aggressive and at times criminal opposition used by corporates and their supportive conservative governments shows just how much this body treats 'we the people'.
Money at all cost, and bugger peoples feelings was their unvoiced motto at the time.
Being lead by architects is like being lead by a dancing, out of control blind man. God only knows where you'll end up.
Complain about this comment
Naturally I won't get many in agreement with me but personally I find the quoted passage from the chapter 'Anglophiles and Austericans' very resonant. A very canny assessment of the contradictions of the Australian character.
Complain about this comment
I think that Robert Boyd`s comments about `the Australian character` are still pretty timely. For the me the passage `the freedom of the individual, yet resigned acceptance of social restrictions` is still particularly resonant as having grown up in Melbourne where I`ve spent most of my life, plenty of people complain about politicians, amongst other things but rarely will they actually do something about it until it reaches them and even then they do little.
As for being `forcefully loquacious, until the moment of expressing any emotion`, I think these days more and more of the younger generation, (I`m 38) especially those in those in their teens up until my age, will talk and talk inanely about seemingly trivial things that a previous generation or two before would probably raise an eyebrow at wondering why all the continual gossip and chatter.
Peter Conrad`s comment about the first generation of intellectuals bashing Australia as though it were their patriotic duty, I think is a bit rich. Many Australians, for example Alan Moorehead, Philip Knightley, John Pilger, all well travelled journalists were no doubt appalled by the extreme cultural narrowness and nauseating parochialism of their day that still haunts many middle class suburbs. The world may have opened up to Australia, in some respects, but Australia has still yet to fully open up to the rest of the world despite the continuing rhetoric of how we are all such a wonderful multicultural society. Australia`s geography can`t change but a lot more people need too.
But gone are the days when my mother, upon seeing Italian coffee shops first open, perhaps say in the late 50`s and early 60`s, would dare not go in as Italians were often associated with crime and the mafia.
Sadly many people from different Asian countries are still tarred with the same brush as simply being Asian. Australians tend not to see Europeans as Europeans but can at least dissociate them based on which country they come from with a some understanding of the culture. This is not so much the case from people who come from Asia. Change and understanding comes too slowly. But I suppose at least it comes.
Complain about this comment
Any edition with a forward by Christos Tsiolkas is a worry; in my opinion his appalling book The Slap demonstrated a complete lack of real understanding of Australian culture, a more dreary and misanthropist tome would be hard to find.
I can recall reading Boyd's original edition and being struck then by the arrogance of architects; if he and his ilk had had there way there would have been very little left of our scanty architectural heritage.
For a much more interesting and fun look at the Australia of 50 years ago
try and find the early 60s film "They're a wierd mob", it stands up surprisingly well and it is an irreplacable record of that time and place.
Complain about this comment
Very interesting. However, could you please have the courtesy to give Mr Boyd his correct name, which is Robin, not Robert. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
That's right Nick, do a Prince Charles and maunder on about architecture in the middle of a real crisis - extreme racism, honesty in politics, seminal changes in attitudes to basic freedoms, a war warming up in the the backyard, Asia on the move. Relevant and interesting, huh? All it does is stimulate verbosity in the poseurs who characterise Australian 'culture' and reveal your massive lack of knowledge about architecture, human nature and Australian history, for starters. But it seems sine qua that Beeb reporters know nothing about what they're talking about - just enough to wind up the chattering classes. They think that's controversial objectivity; we the audience think it's just plain dumb lazy.
Complain about this comment
I have to say that if he was complaining then, what about now? With row upon row of tacky, cheap and nasty "homes" being built on ever smaller plots of land, the average new Aussie neighbourhood is becoming a cesspool of poorly built (insulation anyone?) and poorly serviced (Far Western Sydney) ghettos where the social ills of tomorrow will be quarantined from the latte set. We lack vision and this will come back to cost us dearly...
I really hope that I'm mistaken but this is a road that others have travelled and without success. As for Boyd's summing up of Australians, what is an Aussie today with our multicultural changes since Mr Boyd's book? Australian society is far more complex than many think.
Complain about this comment
His point regarding featurism is a valid, if over-used one.
So many projects since WWII ended have centred around trying to capture some sort of legacy through design. Skyscrapers designed purely to be the tallest, bridge sites decided on so they could be the longest, buildings constructed in hugely ineffecient manners for massive extra cost just so that they look quirky.
You can see why people would do this, trying to create something that will stick in the mind, that will be looked at fondly in history just like we look at the likes of the Pyramids, Hanging Gardes, Taj Mahal and Big Ben.
The problem is that most of the most iconic locations were never conceived to have that status in the first place. Most of them were vast signs of opulence, created as a kind of worship, either to the gods or to the patron's ego. They were projects designed to stand out, their function was entirely secondary, the arrogance of them was brazen.
Projects since WWII don't have that luxury, on the whole they have to function and the art is squezed in there as a compromise, often ended up looking like bolted on additions like in the case of the Sydney Bridge. Public funding and a population hostile to any show of regality have ensured of that.
Only a few have leant far enough to the form side of things to be deemed current or future icons. The Sydney Opera House is of course one of them, The Millenium Dome could in time join it as could the Palm Islands of Dubai if ever they are finished.
So featurism, it is somethign that can work, but it needs to be embraced fully. His point was largely not that we should ignore it completley but that it should only be embraced wither fully or not at all.
One final thought, I am surrounded by several new "bay area" developments, every building erected has some quirk of design to make it stand out. Because of this, none of them actually do, this is the modern Ugliness.
Complain about this comment
"how many of Boyd's books sold originally, and now many main stream Australians of the time agreed with it?"
More than you might suppose 11pete11. It was a set text for art history at Victorian state high-schools in the early 70s. Most of the visual arts educational establishment seemed to be in agreement with it and supported Boyd's idea of the essential ugliness of Victorian, Edwardian and Federation architecture. It wasn't just the lumpen philistines who were knocking down our "scanty architectural heritage" (cheers seajay23) but modernists and progressives under Boyd's influence.
Complain about this comment
Having lived in Sydney for four years the " Here is insistence on the freedom of the individual, yet resigned acceptance of social restrictions and censorship narrower than in almost any other democratic country in the world." resonates strongly.
I hear people complain about the Nanny State in the uk - if you want to really see it in action go and live in Oz
Complain about this comment
Never been to Australia, so can't comment on that land, but the description of the "national character" sounds no different from that of the typical English working class of today, as anyone who works, or has worked, in British industry (as opposed to the media) will tell you. Throughout my working life I have consistently heard the phrase "Oh, b******s, that'll do", and only this week a work colleague announced that he would never vote for a black candidate in the forthcoming election (I'll spare you his exact words.)
Add to that the sheer ugliness of most houses being built today in England, and the appallingly botched jobs of almost everything, from our roads to our furniture, especially compared to the durability of everything the Victorians built, we can clearly see that the gulf between those who design our societies and those who actually build them has widened considerably over the last 100 years, regardless of country. It seems to me that in Victorian society, social design was more intellectually led, with a greater appreciation of quality, than it is today. We've lost something, and we urgently need to get it back...
Complain about this comment
One of the things that first struck me about Sydney was the contrast. between the beauty of the landscape and the ugliness of the man-made structures. The most well-known pictures of the Sydney Opera House are taken from below the Blues Point Tower - surely one of the ugliest and most unsympathetic structures ever to be erected in the southern hemisphere.
What also struck us on our first house hunting expeditions here was the sheer awfulness of Australian house interiors. In the 21st century, many Australian houses are still decorated in a drab mixture of 1940s and 1970s styles, with plastic chandeliers, brassware and dusty pelmets. Strangest of all is the continuing enthusiasm for carpets, in a land with 90%+ humidity, where they become a breeding ground for dust mites and fleas.
Complain about this comment
I believe the bureaucracy was a route out of poverty for Australian working classes, so Australians are not as adversarial toward local bureaucrats as most countries but partly see them as fellow battlers who've landed a safe job. That view is changing rapidly of course but Australians in the past tended to see rules and regulations as consensual, made by people like them, rather than oppressive.
Complain about this comment
I can't agree that the Sydney Harbour Bridge is ugly
As an ex Sydneysider the Bridge is the public architecture which most connects my thoughts to Sydney
It represents the era, the effort and the cost after the very severe Depression years. It's a great piece of industrial architecture with its 6 million hand driven rivets - stand underneath and they're more obvious
The suburbs really are a dogs breakfast of architectural design but there are gems - just that they're rather hidden
I think there has always been a yearning here to own your own home, if not build from scratch. The assisted migrants of the 19th Century certainly thought so, they gave as their chief reasons for making the 22,000 km, 4 month trip under sail as
1.to work for yourself,
2.to own your own land
3. the freedom to hunt and fish
The first 2 haven't changed I think
Complain about this comment
@DistantEcho in #12, I have to agree that Australia is incredibly conservative and narrow in most respects - as evidenced by the proposals for an internet filter that you'd normally expect to find in China or North Korea. People complain about the nanny state in the UK and so on but as I've said elsewhere, I am surprised that farting in public doesn't carry the threat of a fine in Australia.
Complain about this comment
wollemi you said "I can't agree that the Sydney Harbour Bridge is ugly"
Boyd's book did not criticise the bridge, but the addition of the pillars.
He preferred the severe profile, as he did in most of the buildings he used as preferential examples over the inherited Victoriana.
Subsequent history has shown him to be misguided. With very few exceptions,(the Opera House) the buildings we cherish are not dreary isolated clean-lined post-1950s designs but are those "ugly" Victorian/Edwardian/Federation buildings made from stone that Boyd so depsised
Complain about this comment
@Bren54 writing in #1, Australia most certainly does have a national character. Its status as an 'immigrant nation' makes no difference there. There are a great number of traits and tendencies that are quite distinctively Australian.
Complain about this comment
The fortunate in society are always disaapointed in the common man and the common man cares little for what the fortunate think. Life goes on and much of it based on what a person can afford. Allocating personal resources might mean deciding on a lesser designed home in favor of expendable income for personal enjoyment. Some live to work and most work to live. You have to be advantaged to even think like that.
Complain about this comment
Camapantman, #17, Australia (just like anywhere) doesn't conform to a single rule. Conservative it may be in many respects (such as those you mention) but in other ways the Nanny State and Litigation Culture are far behind the EU and US. In some ways this is a good thing, but inevitably the country is rushing to 'catch -up'.
Complain about this comment
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the flammin ugliest of them all?
Complain about this comment
“The Australian Ugliness”
If I understand this correctly architect Robin Boyd coins the term “featurism” and proposes education in design to overcome this “featurism”. Seems to me the gentleman may have been searching for some sort of archtectural unity which some people find pshychologically soothing (even protective) and some people abhore.
A book like Boyd’s cannot help but open a debate, especially in Australia where opinions are so diverse.
In reading “The Australian Ugliness” you can practically see that the author must be an idealist, a visionary, who believed that good design would improve the quality of people’s lives. Now, who believes that kind of thing, except a person who likes everything the same, everything to fit – everything in its proper place.
Personally, I find nothing wrong with the middle of the road, picking up ideas where I find them and taking an eclectic approach to archetecture (or anything else). If the dear fellow were still alive, I’d tell him he may genuinely believe that he understands the significance of the connection between people and their dwellings, he may be passionately for a national architecture forged from the Australian identity, but dear Robin, you cannot make people accept your vision of what is good and what is bad architecture. Some folk just don’t like uniformity – even Australian uniformity.
The buildings were the same from Melbourne to Darwin; they still are the same. How anal retentive is that? When will some archtect come along with a more diversified point-of-view that will reflect a different Australian perspective?
The question I would like to put to forward-writer to the new edition, Christos Tsiolkas is: "He got us. He still gets us, and do you believe Australians are ready to break out architectually?"
Complain about this comment
Give me Frank Lloyd Wright any day. The post-moderists like Boyd but particularly Siedler built monstrosities that held no consideration to their environment. They were like 4 year olds with blocks. Wright mystically blurs the boundaries between form and function, where the 'feature' of the form becomes the function (hopefully that makes sense). His work is inspiring and comparatively speaking, suggests that Siedler is drawing stick figures with crayola.
The problem with suburban housing is that we compartmentalise our homes the same way we do our lives. We shoehorn all the things we 'need' into 250sq metres and shove an off the rack facade on it. Then we get rid of anything that may look like local flora and fauna (except the kitsch concrete sort) and cross our fingers and hope nobody else in the street builds one just like it. To borrow from Bugs, "What a Maroon!".
The problem is that you still get what you get. Only those with enough money can 'design' for themselves so Boyd is really only taking a pot shot at lazy architects and abysmal planning. As for his thoughts about Australians? I would suspect that if you put enough generalities close enough to a few specificities you could make a horoscope sound like it might be plausible, couldn't you?
If you want to know what an Australian is like talk with one, talk with as many as you'd like. If you need to form an opinion, that's your lookout.
Complain about this comment
#18
Was it the pylons of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Boyd thought were ugly, or did he want no stone accompanying structures at each end of the span?
The Sydney Harbour Bridge is one of a trio of bridges, the Hell Gate Bridge in New York (after which it was modelled) and the Tyne Bridge in Newcastle, UK. All have stone 'bookends' to the span
Complain about this comment
@pciii writing in #21, Australia is behind the EU and US in most respects. New trends, ideas and fashions generally seem to take noticeably longer to 'catch-on' here. I suspect that a major explanation for this is indeed the already-discussed suburban conservatism that is rife in Australia. That is why new ways of doing things are slow to come into play in Australia and why they want to filter the internet: 'we must not allow our wonderful way of life in Australia to be threatened in any way by anything at all'. That seems to be the motto.
Complain about this comment
26 campantman: I'm not sure what you have heard, or where you have head it, concerning the proposed changes to legislation concerning the internet in Australia, and remember, it is still in the debate and discussion stage.
So for clarity, here is some quotes from the Minister himself on the subject, aired on the 7.30 Report:http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2873045.htm
STEPHEN CONROY, (Australian Federal) COMMUNICATIONS MINISTER: Last time I looked into this debate, the civil society did not equate to the Wild West, completely unregulated, anything goes.
STEPHEN CONROY: It's material like pro-rape websites, bestiality, child pornography, glorification of crime, terrorist promotion. This material is so damaging. One viewing could scar an individual permanently.
STEPHEN CONROY: The filter that we are talking about is a complaints-based mechanism. It is not that we are filtering the entire internet and then letting Australians see what we have approved.
STEPHEN CONROY: We as a sovereign government are not going to allow large multinational corporations or foreign governments to determine what should be in our refused classification category. Google signed a contract with China to do censorship. They signed a contract to do that. In Thailand, Google have agreed to filter any criticism of the Thai royal family. What's that about? So, Google want to talk about legitimising censorship in other countries; they should have a look in the mirror.
Complain about this comment
Succinct. Almost accurate, even.
However, I had to cringe (and frown!) at your use of "forward" in the final sentence, when you undoubtedly meant to tell your voice recognition software to come up with "foreword" !!
Complain about this comment
@11pete11 writing in #26. I sense from the comments you tend to make that you are quite patriotic and would seek to defend the country and its government in almost any scenario, so I doubt you'll concede that those who are against these proposals have a point of any kind but I'll put my view forward anyway.
The bottom line here is that whether it is 'pre-approved sites available only' system or a 'complaints based system' is irrelevant. Either way, ordinary members of the Australian public will be being told what they can and cannot see. Complaints from who? Some faceless government agency or 'think tank'. The end result is the same - the internet is no longer an open source of information for Australians.
The problem comes with things like ''glorification of crime''. That could mean any number of things. How do you define that? The public won't be consulted on that definition - the definition will be determined by the government. Should someone be able to access material on euthanasia if they so wish? Sorry, but yes they should, and denying them that right has big implications for civil liberties.
This kind of legislation could be used as a convenient means of blocking any website that contains information that is critical of the government. ''It was glorifying crime'', will be the excuse offered. Any government censoring what you can and cannot read is dangerous.
Complain about this comment
29 campantman: I simply put a point of view, usually as another perspective, or as a correction, but it is never intended to be in favour or supportive of one side or another. Simply a point of view.
As to the perceived censorship as you seem to see it, I pointed out this law is in debate and discussion.
It hasn't been put to Parliament as law yet. And in quoting the minister I am simply backing my statement.
As to the your comment "Either way, ordinary members of the Australian public will be being told what they can and cannot see."
Yes they will be denied that which is already illegal under other laws.
The 'glorifying crime' mentioned by the minister, relates to existing laws, and is that which the police currently use as their basis for charging.
The euthanasia debate needs to be debated separately to this censorship debate, and I believe it will, as more baby boomers call for the relaxing of current laws.
One does not automatically include or exclude the other. They are separate issues.
I know there are those that believe in the chaos theory, that is we shouldn't have laws at all, or at the very least, minimalist laws, but I don't agree with that.
This debate is simply imposing on the internet viewer the same laws that apply in all other areas of Australian law.
Unless you agree to pro-rape websites, bestiality, child pornography, glorification of crime, terrorist promotion etc, as it is understood in the wider community, then you too, would support this proposed legislation.
Complain about this comment
It seems to be compulsory for certain UK travellers with big chips on their shoulders to pronounce on how far "behind" the UK Australia is.
The fact is that Australia is "behind" on some things, "ahead" on others and has long been carving its own path in many things where comparisons with the UK are irrelevant.
The "nanny state" concerns are well-founded I agree. Australia has sought to protect its residents with legislation but the legislators don't always know where to draw the line, in many cases because Australia was so far "ahead" of the rest of the world there was no precedent to draw on - the seatbelt legislation pioneered in Victoria in the 70s for example. That one proved to be a good one and was eventually followed by the rest of the world. But you can over-apply the "safety" principle and compulsory cycle helmets in dedicated cycle lanes is a step too far that only NZ was daft enough to follow
Complain about this comment
I meant "cycle paths" not cycle lanes!
Internet censorship is also an extremely bad idea
Complain about this comment
@11pete11 in #30.
In what way does a suspicious attitude towards draconian internet controls mean that I support pro-rape websites or the glorification of crime?
Answer: it doesn't and I don't.
Similarly, why does a suspicious attitude towards draconian internet controls mean that I favour zero legislation in society in general and ''chaos theory''?!
Answer: it doesn't and I don't.
Tough laws are needed in some areas of society but not in others. In some areas of society certain decisions ought to be left largely to a matter of individual conscience.
American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis contains very violent and graphic descriptions of sexual perversion - should this book be banned in Australia or should it be up to each individual Australian whether they choose to read it or not?
Many rap songs contain very graphic lyrics. Should rap music be banned in Australia or should there simply be a sticker on the front of the CD case advising that the content is of a certain nature?
Many films contain horrific violence. Films released worldwide at the cinema. Are these films going to be banned in Australia because their content is 'not appropriate' for the Australian public to view?
This is the big issue with something like internet filtering. In theory it's all well and good but ultimately once you go down this kind of path where exactly do you draw the line? Once you start with this kind of thinking you can end up with no freedom of speech whatsoever. You get people 'used' to the idea of things being censored and filtered and they eventually start accepting the erosion of more of their civil liberties. It's potentially dangerous.
On a more practical level, Australian broadband is already slow. If such a filter is going to slow down the internet further then this would be totally unacceptable.
I absolutely abhor all the things on the list that the government is claiming it will filter out, as any right thinking person would. But the reality is that it is impossible to know how the government would handle this were the legislation passed. The public won't know any different because if a website or a piece of information on a website is not available online no one will be aware it's missing. It simply won't be there - you don't miss what you've never had, so to speak. So the government can then control the internet to its own advantage. Dangerous.
Complain about this comment
Whether you support the internet filtering idea or not comes down to whether or not you see the government as malevolent or benign in many ways. I tend to favour the former and a 'guilty until proven innocent' attitude with governments.
In the UK, people are generally very mistrustful of the government. In Australia, a lot of people seem to think the government is ultimately there to look after them and has only good intentions.
Complain about this comment
@Bren54 in #31.
Australia does have a certain '1950's via the 1980's' feel. Hard to clarify exactly what it is but it's definitely there.
Complain about this comment
33 campantman: On what do you base your perception that the new laws will be draconian? Other than groups with ulterior motives making unproven claims, such as the euthanasia supporters?
Surely by now Tony Abbott's opposition would he filling the beaches with claims of what Rudd plans, as he runs around in his budgie smugglers.
Or are you claiming the Liberal Nations will not oppose such legislation?
I think the discussion is too green to yet determine the outcome, especially in an election year, with only a few more sessions of Parliament left this year.
A calm, slow process of discussion and debating, without the fear factor, is what is needed now. And that is not going to happen when certain pressure groups intend to break laws via the internet, as a means of having laws changed generally.
Nothing currently prevents euthanasia groups offering their point of view. What it does do, however, is to prevent persons showing or promoting euthanasia, which is currently against our, and many country's, laws.
The way to change laws is to discuss and debate them, not to break them.
Complain about this comment
I still don't see a good case for censoring the internet, regardless of what may be found there. Many laws have been changed by acts of civil disobedience 11pete11 - weren't you taught about the Eureka Stockade?
campantman, "1950s eastern europe" was pretty much my impression of the UK when I first moved there, but perhaps you remember the 50s better than I do. I think it's typical of a new settler to have this view, until you get to the point of seeing what "is" there in your new country instead of banging on about what's "not" Sometimes it doesn't happen til the next generation.
I think you're spot on about Australians having more trust in their government though (allowing for party political partisanship), I think that comes back to having a smaller population and the government being more identifiably "of the people"
I expect that to change as the population grows
Complain about this comment
37 Bren54 wrote: "I still don't see a good case for censoring the internet, regardless of what may be found there."
Do you believe in censorship at all? Such as magazines in newsagents etc.? How can we have one and not the other, after all the internet is nothing more than a world wide shopping mall?
And as to your comment concerning the Eureka Stockade, there is no comparison. Back then the working class had no vote, it was after that revolution that we started to get a vote for all, not just the wealthy.
Now we have a voice, of sorts, in the form of representation via voting...and in Australia's case, as opposed to say Britain or the US, our voting is compulsory, so all must vote.
If enough people stand against this censorship law of the internet, then it won't pass.
However that will then start the argument that all censorship should be abolished, and I don't see that happening.
Complain about this comment
#1, 11, 18 Bren54: Your posts are very helpful. It's easy to criticise, but architecture - like all the arts - goes through fads and thank goodness not everybody listened to Le Corbusier and his enthusiasts in the 1960s.
That said, Sydney's suburbs beyond the shoreline are depressing. Other world cities like London and New York have some seriously rough places but even these often have local character that is missing in Sydney. And it surprises me that in wealthy areas like the Northern Beaches there are places like Dee Why CBD which are really crap. Especially considering the area is gifted with such natural beauty.
I don't think it's all down to buildings but about the design of civic space and how people use it. Even Manly with it's Corso doesn't reach it's full potential. In this respect Australia and large parts of the US are, in my view, off target. Bren54, I hope you'll take this in the constructive way intended and not as a chip on may English shoulder. Its definitely the case that most English cities have suffered such blight and have only recently thought about redressing the balance of uses in public spaces.
Complain about this comment
#39
I agree about the 'character', however...
By contrast, I generally feel much more comfortable in the US than the UK, but then I'm not looking for character - I'm looking for space plus getting far away from the madding crowd plus enjoying the natural environment - without hordes of people
I wouldn't expect that in England, don't look for it and try to appreciate what the place has to offer locals and take it from there without getting overwhelmed by the extent that you're never alone
I think that's the crux of the response - expectation of difference
It would be a mistake for British visitors to anticipate Australia is some kind of Blighty in the South Pacific: something like home with more sun
Complain about this comment
I think you make some good points Euroloo and the criticism is reasonable.
The current surge of growth in Australia will not improve matters - there is a lot of pressure to let developers throw up houses quickly so nobody is thinking too much about how that will look, except in the inner urban areas.
Council restrictions, approvals planning etc take a lot of time and involve a lot of red tape, dare I say it, "nanny state", but there is a housing shortage .... meanwhile Australians still have the biggest houses in the world on average. If you believe those "relocation down under" programs in the UK, the big house is what the Brit immigrants always go for too
In the UK I have seen a lot of depressed post-industrial and port areas regenerated, with both EU and UK money. It seems like they have to become real crap-holes first though before that regeneration begins
Complain about this comment
I know nothing about the architecture there but I am starting to take greater interest in this period of Australian and Commonwealth history. It is extremely interesting that Boyd’s book (and Horne’s just a little later) were published around the time voices were being raised within Australia against the White Australia policy.
I would look at all of these in the light of the enlargement of the Commonwealth to include a republican India and the transformation of the Commonwealth into a multi-racial diverse body. According to what I’ve read, while Australia played an active role in helping to retain India in the Commonwealth, the White Australia policy remained a severely thorny issue between India and Australia. India was among Australia’s most vocal critics. Around this time, Field Marshall Cariappa (then Indian High Commissioner to Aus & NZ I think) and his statements polarised opinion within Australia.
Please see this very interesting paper: David Walker, ‘General Cariappa Encounters ‘White Australia’: Australia, India and the Commonwealth in the 1950s’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 34.3 (2006), pp. 389-406. (To access the article, please follow: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g755245031 )
I find it highly remarkable that much of what is quoted in the paper on that particular issue is also reflected in your extracts from Boyd above, giving us perhaps a more wholesome picture of the time.
And in a remarkable coincidence of sorts, I find that the Indian student-led protests and Australia’s response documented in the paper are in a way repeated in the ongoing Indian student attack saga in Australia. Strange instance of history repeating itself in a sense.
Just wanted to share this. Sorry if you find this irrelevant!
Complain about this comment
#42
I don't think ending of the WAP had anything much to do with changing diversity in the Commonwealth or independence in India.
Australians had long separated their European colonial history from their Asia Pacific geography
The writing was on the wall from 1941 with the onset of the Pacific War and Australia found it had different priorities to Europe, but in common with Asia.
Postwar, Australia formalised its defence with the US, taking it further away from a focus on Europe. Then in the 1950s, Australia developed a trade relationship with Japan which became our main export market
So it was a kind of creeping engagement with the region, with defence and trade and migration was the next card to fall
Regarding architecture....I'm trying to recall when the issue of building houses for the climate and solar control took off, 1970s? The 60s architecture seems mainly forgettable both aesthetically and for climate
Complain about this comment
Bren54, to be fair to Warringah Council, I know they are trying to sort out Dee Why and there are some encouraging signs from out west, like the Oran Park raceway redevelopment. For me the best inspriration comes from Denmark and Holland and I just found this interesting article:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009158.html
Complain about this comment
@wollemi
The papers that I've been reading on the period from 1949 to 1956-60 approx. suggest something else altogether. The picture I get is that stalwarts like Evatt (his role is captured in great detail by Frank Bongiorno) and Menzies, with a fair bit of support from various influential quarters, were firmly in favour of preserving 'British Australia' in policy and practice for what they called 'social cohesion' inspite of criticism from more far-sighted people who advised them to be more Asia-centric. Minutes of meetings and other records seem to bear witness to that.
Anyway, the reason I wrote what I did was not to highlight the role of White Australia Policy at all. I am trying to piece together what I have read in various places. It appears that elements of Australian civil society in this period had simultaneously started speaking out against official policy and practices in several areas- students, journalists, writers, etc. spoke out against the immigration policy, social attitudes, architecture, etc.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the link BoP which didn't work, but eventually led me to the document in question by searching Cariappa within informaworld.
Complain about this comment
#45
It's a bit chicken and egg, which came first
There had been changes in Australian society occurring prior to these vocal critics of the 1960s, but they formalised and publicised the issues.I think WW2 - especially the Pacific War - altered the way Australian society saw itself and its place in the world and the capacity to reinvent itself grew over the next few years.
Sorry if this sounds confused, but I think there were nascent changes which were more 'grass roots', amongst ordinary Australians, and precede the critiques by Boyd, Horne etc. The books therefore found a readership and debate
Menzies was something of a paradox, what he said and did were not always aligned He was outwardly very pro British, pro Empire yet ANZUS developed on his watch, as did the trade agreement with Japan, and it was his Immigration Minister, Holt, who accepted Japanese war brides and allowed Asian war refugees to remain, (Calwell had been much stricter) and Holt later as PM liberalised migration. There was also the Columbo Plan bringing Asian students to Australian universities
The 1950s in Australia are often written off as a stagnant social era, but there was quite a lot bubbling away beneath the surface
Complain about this comment
43 wollemi wrote: "I'm trying to recall when the issue of building houses for the climate and solar control took off, 1970s?"
Yes I think you're right. I remember visiting an experimental house at the NSW Uni back in 1973.
It had been build out of recycled materials, and featured the first experiment with the split skillion or two level room, where a sheet of glass ran horizontally between the two levels, facing the northern (winter).
It had bottle walls facing north, and packed earth walls, with a recycled water system...basically self sustaining.
I remember seeing homes with this design roof, starting to appear a couple of years after that.
The first of the concrete block homes, which became quite common in the country areas, or larger land holdings, with a veranda all round came out around the late 70's to early 80's.
Complain about this comment
I would also add, re the 1950s, that Utzon's original design for the Sydney Opera House was announced as winner of the design competition in........1957
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick,
not a single Architect would disagree with you.
despite those same architects being the contributors of the mess.
"it's the client's fault" they'll cry. "it's the planners fault" they'll scream.
But the idealistic architects fresh out of university never become persuasive. Except to each other.
An inward looking and self congratulating profession that is marginalised by developers and home owners have never found a way of staying at the core of the Australian family home experience.
and we are all the poorer for it.
Complain about this comment
@Bren54- sorry the link didn't work. Would you believe I tried it twice? Glad you were able to access it in the end!
@wollemi- yes, I did read about Calwell, Holt, the Colombo Plan, etc. I shall certainly look into the Menzies era more. I completely agree that the 1950s cannot be written off as a completely stagnant social era. There clearly is a lot of evidence in support of that!
Complain about this comment
In reply to Wollemi at No. 40:
Having worked in the field of countryside access in the UK for 20 years I'd say that the open spaces and public rights of way network (paths across mostly private land) offer greater freedom to access the natural environment in the UK than in either Australia or the United States. Although the ability to access areas of real wilderness is limited, you can walk for miles through a beautiful landscape and not see another soul (even in the crowded south-east of England) and finish your walk in an English country pub - the most civilised establishments in the world!
As for modern suburban architecture - in my experience in the UK it's often bland and in Australia it's often ugly. I'm not sure which is worse...
Complain about this comment
#51
The link worked here. I think the problem with an article like Walker's is that it does not canvass public opinion of the 1950s. It relies on official statements from politicians, diplomats or....horrors...the print media of the era
With regard to the WAP, there was little public protest when Holt began to liberalise immigration in the mid 1960s, Attitudes had, if not changed, then they had mellowed
The country had already been through a massive postwar immigration programme of European migrants - some who had only recently been the enemy in WW2. Immigration challenges of that era were not all about race.
I also lived in London for a time in the 1970s and saw what can happen when immigration is resented, even when the incoming people - from the old Empire, - had a strong sense of British identity.
And the symbol to challenge the image of a stagnant 1950s must surely be the acceptance of Utzon's design
Complain about this comment
@Goonerblue in #52.
I never fully understand what Aussies mean when they claim that you can't get away from other people in the UK. Total rubbish. I was there just six months ago and visited the south-east. Went for a number of country walks ending in visits to country pubs and ALL the walks were very solitary - nobody else around. Also there are fantastic national parks in the UK where a sense of wilderness CAN be obtained.
But just as you'll never hear a butcher cry stinking meat you'll never hear an Aussie concede that the UK can be very lovely because they like to think they've got the best of everything when they actually haven't.
Also, I believe wollemi in #40 stated a preference for the US over the UK. I'd fully expect an Aussie to say that because the US is much more similar to Australia in layout and 'feel' than the UK is (straight roads, very 'planned' feel to much of the urban landscape) and the fact that Aussies are always reluctant to 'like' the UK anyway.
Complain about this comment
I think you should take a look in the mirror cantman.
None of the Aussies I know in the UK or who visit me there have ever said any of the things you're complaining about. Yet every post you make on here exudes exactly that tone of determined reluctance.
Complain about this comment
#54
campantman
I do enjoy your posts, if only to see what deep ...dark...recesses of the Australian psyche you can create next!
#52
Goonerblue
I completely agree, the English countryside has far greater ease of access and there is great charm in the 'green and pleasant land' Not to mention the convivial country pub at the end of the walk.
However, wildernesses virtually by definition aren't accessible. That's why they remain wildernesses. Otherwise someone would have already built their dream home there, or two..or three or...
The appeal of much of the Australian landscape - I'll be banned by the BBC for writing this - is this 'bugger off' aspect. It's a difficult confronting country. That's part of the appeal, that and the emptiness
Complain about this comment
@wollemi in #56 and Bren54 in #55.
You seriously don't think that Australians are extraordinarily (disproportionately) proud of their country and generally like to believe it is the best nation in the world? On Q&A last week Lucy Turnbull proclaimed, with an entirely straight face, that ''America is the best country in the world after Australia''. Not a hint of irony. No one in the audience laughed or mocked her statement in any way. Very, very sad.
Complain about this comment
57 campantman:
I suggest there is a big difference between "extraordinarily" and "disproportionally" proud...and who defines "disproportionally" anyway?
Just for the record, perhaps you could share your nominations for "best nation in the world"...let's say...the "top five".
It would also be interesting to know your nationality...so we can see if your nation is on your list.
Complain about this comment
@ Greg Warner in #58.
You miss my point entirely.
I was critiquing not the suggestion that America or Australia are great nations but the inference that it is either necessary or possible to quantify such a thing.
I am British but would never make such an absurd statement about my country. Equally, if I were Australian I would still not make such an absurd statement about my country.
Attempting to suggest that one nation is 'the greatest nation' over and above other nations is at best daft and at worst the proclamation of someone with a seriously under-developed and malnourished world-view.
Compiling a list of the ''top five'' nations, as you absurdly suggest, would therefore be something that I would have absolutely zero compulsion to do.
Complain about this comment
So cantman, you heard Lucy somebody on the TV saying she preferred the US after Australia and interpreted it as "I'll never concede that the UK can be very lovely" ... ?
I like to yell at the TV too, so I think I understand
Complain about this comment
@Bren54 ins #60.
Unfortunately Lucy Turnbull's remarks were not easy to dismiss as the foolish approval-seeking mutterings of one individual.
This whole 'greatest nation in the world' thing is a slogan that you hear rather a lot in Australia as this is a very jingoistic and flag-waving nation. I had previously thought that this form of arrogant naivety was unique to the Americans but it seems I was wrong.
Greatest nation based on what, exactly? Says who? There is no such thing as a 'greatest nation' and saying that your nation is it is not particularly intelligent.
Complain about this comment
So, campantman, how do you explain the great in Great Britain,
Complain about this comment
I presume the word is meant to be futurism, that is, something representative of the futurist movement, not 'featurism.'
Complain about this comment
@wollemi in #62.
Oh my word! Tell me you're not serious?!??!!
There are many historians believe it was dubbed 'Great' Britain to distinguish it from Brittany, in the North West of France. Alternatively, geographers often use 'Britain' to describe just the mainland and 'Great Britain' to include the offshore islands. Either way, wollemi, the use of the word 'great' is there to convey the concept of size rather than a proclamation of arrogance.
Complain about this comment
@puripuri in #63.
Hilarious. Did you derive your user-name from 'puerile'?
Complain about this comment
#62
I'm just trying to rationalise your position, campantman, wrt to use of the word, 'great'
So what you mean is that great denoting size does not suggest a claim of importance whilst great denoting grand does
Complain about this comment
@wollemi in #66.
I criticised the way some nations such as the Americans and the Australians are fond of describing their country as ''the greatest country in the world'' and so forth.
You asked me to explain why it is then that Great Britain is called ''Great'' Britain.
I pointed out to you that the word is used purely as a noun rather than as an adjective. Is there something you don't grasp there?
Complain about this comment
Wollemi.
British people are generally not inclined to go around proclaiming how fantastic they are and how much better than other nations they are.
We leave that to Americans and Australians.
If you cannot acknowledge that, like the Americans, Australians have a tendency to think jolly highly of themselves then you do not know Australia very well.
Complain about this comment
68 campantman wrote: "British people are generally not inclined to go around proclaiming how fantastic they are and how much better than other nations they are."
Are you serious? Brits are just as 'generally' vocal in other countries re their country as are Aussies or Americans in Britain.
I don't know how many times I hear ex Brits telling me how they have 'made Australia', how 'Australians should be more grateful for what Britain has give' us.
The British pubs are better, the rail system leaves the Aussie system for dead, Aussies are lazy compared to Brits, Australia would do better if it took more notice of British ideas rather than the US...etc....ad nauseoum.
Complain about this comment
#64 #67 #68
Thank you campantman.
Definitely food for thought.
As mainland Australia is the world's greatest (biggest) island, not to mention its 3,000 minor offshore islands, then I'm sure you'll agree that we live in Greatest Australia.
As you suggest, purely to convey the concept of size
Complain about this comment
@11pete11 in #69.
There is a big difference between stating points of preference in one country over another.
For example, an Aussie stating that the beaches in Australia are generally fantastic and much better than Britain's beaches is a perfectly reasonable statement. Why? Because it is relatively quantifiable and demonstrable.
Likewise I see in issue with a Brit saying that the British pubs are better than the Australian ones. Why? Because it is relatively quantifiable and demonstrable.
However, making a statement like 'this is the best country in the world' - as it is no unusual to hear from an Australian or America - is a vast, sweeping statement. A complete generalisation that is NOT quantifiable or demonstrable. It is simply a jingoistic, naive and arrogant statement.
I have never heard a British panellist on Question Time (the UK equivalent of Q&A) make a statement like 'this is the best country in the world'. Why? Because they know that the studio audience and television viewers would think them a childish idiot for doing so. They also know that it is foolish to make statements that no one can substantiate as it is purely and simply a personal opinion.
Do you understand the difference?
Complain about this comment
#70, Wollemi.
Is there another Australia in the region or similarly named nation such that it is necessary to differentiate which Australia we are talking about? Does Australia consist of a union of different countries such as England, Scotland and Wales?
Don't try to be clever. Just admit that Great Britain is NOT called Great Britain because anyone was trying to say that it is wonderful. You really should know that anyway. Sad that you don't.
Complain about this comment
Wollemi - perhaps if you are still confused about the use of the word ''Great'' in '"Great Britain'', you should read the following Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain
Still slightly amazed that you genuinely considered that the country was so-called as an act of Aussie-esque boasting.
Complain about this comment
People who criticize campantman for not ranking countries on levels of "greatness" are wrong. His actions say more than any words could. For example, he is from the OLD Country but has foresaken it and moved to Australia. The facts speak for themselves.
Wollemi, I also agree with campantman about the definition of "Great" in Great Britain. It's not without precedent. Don't you know Alexander the Great also used the same word to differentiate himself from another Alex who lived in the same village. The same thing happened with Alfred the Great in England.
Keep up the the whinging about Australia campantman. There might be life forms on Mars who are unaware of your opinion.
Complain about this comment
#74
Yes I know about the great. Just having some fun, sydneycynic
Complain about this comment
campantman wrote:
"However, making a statement like 'this is the best country in the world' - as it is no unusual to hear from an Australian or America - is a vast, sweeping statement. A complete generalisation that is NOT quantifiable or demonstrable. It is simply a jingoistic, naive and arrogant statement."
Why should it have anything to do with it being "jingoistic, naive and arrogant?"
If someone feels that way about their country then that is their opinion and their preference. They may also have unstated criteria that is "quantifiable or demonstrable" that causes them to feel the way they do and to arrive at what you claim is a "generalization that is NOT quantifiable or demonstrable."
I'm an American that feels that way towards his country and I feel that way because of things that America has that other countries do not and because of things I simply prefer over other countries. Just because I say I feel my country is "the best country in the world" doesn't mean I have to explain to you why I feel that way. The same goes for an Australian feeling the same towards his country. Why should you or any else be offended by that?
People from other countries that are somehow so easily offended by an Australian or an American saying they believe their country is "the best country in the world" are the ones, to me, that are prone to being "arrogant" and "naive," not to mention insecure about their feelings towards their own countries.
"I have never heard a British panellist on Question Time (the UK equivalent of Q&A) make a statement like 'this is the best country in the world'. Why? Because they know that the studio audience and television viewers would think them a childish idiot for doing so."
And that would be a shame. That may also explain a lot of what is wrong with the UK, a lack of pride and excessive cynicism.
"They also know that it is foolish to make statements that no one can substantiate as it is purely and simply a personal opinion."
Read again what I wrote. You shouldn't assume that those making such a claim are complete idiots.
"Do you understand the difference?"
I'm sure that most of those that you consider "naive" do know the "difference."
Complain about this comment
11pete11 wrote:
"Are you serious? Brits are just as 'generally' vocal in other countries re their country as are Aussies or Americans in Britain."
They are also inclined to knock America and Australia as a sort of compensation for how they feel towards their own country. I have never met more people from a Western country that express as much negativity and cynicism towards their own country.
"I don't know how many times I hear ex Brits telling me how they have 'made Australia', how 'Australians should be more grateful for what Britain has give' us. The British pubs are better, the rail system leaves the Aussie system for dead, Aussies are lazy compared to Brits, Australia would do better if it took more notice of British ideas rather than the US...etc....ad nauseoum."
That says more about their insecurities and intolerance towards Australians and Americans than anything else.
Complain about this comment
@sydneycynic in #74.
You appear to making the assumption that I live in Australia rather than my native UK out of some kind of sense of preference.
Not so. The fact that I live in Australia is purely circumstantial.
@AllenT2 in #76.
Nothing wrong with 'My favourite country in the world is Australia''. If that is someone's opinion, then they are entitled to it. As they have clearly indicated that the statement is merely an opinion, then there naturally no need for them to provide demonstrable proof.
However, making the statement that ''Australia is the greatest nation in the world'' is rather different. The person saying this is not offering it as an opinion, they are offering it as a statement of fact.
I firmly believe that such a statement is absurd because NO country can possibly be described as the ''greatest'' as every country has great things to offer as well as drawbacks.
Attempting to say that any one nation is the best is therefore idiotic. Unless the person saying so clearly states that it is merely their subjective opinion.
Complain about this comment
campantman wrote:
"I never fully understand what Aussies mean when they claim that you can't get away from other people in the UK. Total rubbish. I was there just six months ago and visited the south-east. Went for a number of country walks ending in visits to country pubs and ALL the walks were very solitary - nobody else around. Also there are fantastic national parks in the UK where a sense of wilderness CAN be obtained."
You said it, "a sense."
Sorry, but their is little left in the UK that one can truly call "wilderness." The same can be said for most of Europe.
"Also, I believe wollemi in #40 stated a preference for the US over the UK. I'd fully expect an Aussie to say that because the US is much more similar to Australia in layout and 'feel' than the UK is (straight roads, very 'planned' feel to much of the urban landscape) and the fact that Aussies are always reluctant to 'like' the UK anyway."
Maybe he or she likes the idea that there are plenty parts of America that are still truly wilderness?
Complain about this comment
Goonerblue wrote:
"Having worked in the field of countryside access in the UK for 20 years I'd say that the open spaces and public rights of way network (paths across mostly private land) offer greater freedom to access the natural environment in the UK than in either Australia or the United States."
When you sum up state and national parks and forests in America you could have just one state alone covering territory approaching or exceeding that of the UK. Also, the wildest and most beautiful parts of the country are protected and open to all.
"Although the ability to access areas of real wilderness is limited, you can walk for miles through a beautiful landscape and not see another soul (even in the crowded south-east of England)
And I can do the same for days, weeks and months on end in my country. As can an Aussie.
"and finish your walk in an English country pub - the most civilised establishments in the world!"
What makes them "the most civilised establishments in the world!?"
Complain about this comment
campantman wrote:
"Nothing wrong with 'My favourite country in the world is Australia''. If that is someone's opinion, then they are entitled to it. As they have clearly indicated that the statement is merely an opinion, then there naturally no need for them to provide demonstrable proof."
Their feeling that their country is the greatest in the world is also their opinion. They also do not "need" to "provide" anything to anyone for them to feel that way.
"However, making the statement that ''Australia is the greatest nation in the world'' is rather different. The person saying this is not offering it as an opinion, they are offering it as a statement of fact."
For things that they place value on that are measurable then it is a "statement of fact." It would be safe to say that people that make such statements are expressing a combination of that and preferences for what they are used. You are just looking at it from a cynical point of view. Why don't you you just call such people idiots and morons and get it over with?
"I firmly believe that such a statement is absurd because NO country can possibly be described as the ''greatest'' as every country has great things to offer as well as drawbacks."
Some more so than others. And in many cases some simply offer what others do not.
"Attempting to say that any one nation is the best is therefore idiotic. Unless the person saying so clearly states that it is merely their subjective opinion."
Only a cynic would see it otherwise.
Complain about this comment
campantman, should I call the police and report you kidnapped? If this isn't the case I cannot imagine what would compel someone to stay in a country for which they had such a visceral dislike. If you're here for a job (not a lot of those in Great Britain) it really must be something incredible. I've ruled out the possibility that you're working for the Australian Tourist Board.
Seeing you've now got me started I thought I'd comment on your constant reference to subjective assessments of Australia's perceived superiority to others (more specifically "Great Britain"). I'd refer to it as the United Kingdom but the Scots and Welsh might take offence. Anyway, you previously agreed to accept Australia was superior to Mother England if hard data was provided. What about average life expectancy where Australia is only second to Japan. Great Britain is somewhere around fifteenth. Just last week it was reported that Great Britain had higher child mortality rates than Albania. Most people, with the notable exception of yourself, would think that everything else is immaterial if you're not alive to enjoy it. From an economic point of view our unemployment rate is much lower and we never went into recession. Your country has been in recession for two years and counting. I could go on about migration rates and standards of education but I know someone so intransigent in their point of view could never bring themselves to admit they're wrong.
Anyway, I'll go now and I hope your captors release you so you can leave this wretched country of Australia. There's plenty of others around the world waiting for a place to become available.
Complain about this comment
@sydneycynic # 82.
You're not as clever as you think.
Like Nick, I married an Aussie, who happens to prefer the UK herself but wanted to live back in Australia whilst her grandmother was in the last stages of dementia.
So congratulations on being, well, wrong. I know with Aussies like you it's essentially a crime to not love Australia with a passion and an even greater one to prefer the UK and Europe but, frankly, tough.
The reason why it is NOT possible to make an objective statement that even the wonderfully fantastic nation of Australia is the ''greatest country in the world'' is that it all depends on which statistics you choose to look at. If I want to paint a less rosy view of Australia, I can point out, for example, that there are more burglaries per capita in Australia. There are more car thefts per capita in Australia. There's a higher rate of gun-related homicide in Australia. There is more murder per capita in Australia and more murders committed by youths in Australia. Likewise there is more rape per capita in Australia. If Australia is such a healthy place to live, why so many McDonalds restaurants left, right and centre? If Australia is such a healthy place to live, why is there more death from cancer in Australia than in the UK?
Perhaps most pertinently of all, if Australia is so damn wonderful, why the higher suicide rate here? I suppose you going to tell me it's because Australian rope is better made or some such apologist nonsense.
It also depends on what you happen to like. If you are mostly driven by sunshine and beaches then I can imagine that you would indeed prefer Australia. However, if you enjoy cultural pursuits like galleries, museums and theatres etc then, sorry, but Australia simply cannot compete with the UK and Europe in any way at all.
It's not all about 'where is there the most untamed wilderness'.
I know as an Aussie it is basically your duty to defend Australia against any criticism (it must be, after all, you all do it without fail) but you need to accept that it's not as black and white as you like to think it is.
Complain about this comment
One more thing. Life expectancy.
You know that certain ethnicities are pre-disposed genetically to generally living slightly longer, right?
The most long-lived are the Japanese.
Quite a lot of people of Japanese origin living in Australia. Certainly far more than there is in the UK.
Number two is Hong Kong. Again, lots of people with ancestry in Hong Kong now live in Australia. Less so in the UK.
Complain about this comment
Ultimately my point about the Aussie attitude is this.
Why do they have to say 'we're the greatest country in the world'? Why not simply 'we are a great nation?'
Why do they have to suggest that Australia is near-perfect? Why not simply say that Australia has some great things about it and be more accepting and acknowledging that negatives exist?
That is the difference between jingoistic arrogance and reasonable national pride.
Complain about this comment
campantman, I'm only replying to you because I'm having a slow day. The idea that a few thousand Japanese descendants would affect Australia's life expectancy is bizarre. If that's the case may be the UK should bring a few people over from Okinawa and the UK's stats will surpass Australia's. I note you failed to make mention of some of the factors which would negatively influence Australia i.e. the life expectancy of Australian aborigines is 30 years below that of other Australians. This is a blot on Australia's reputation and I would even agree with you if you were to have a whinge about that. Nevertheless, even with these poor stats Australia still comes out on top of "Great Britain". As far as I'm concerned the aggregate statistic is the one that counts and it's a shame your subjectivity does not allow you to see this logic.
I assume you will be soon returning to the Old Country. Please let me know when this happens so I can wish you "bon voyage". I won't hold my breath though. It's been my experience that people who complain the most about Australia are the last to leave the country.
Complain about this comment
@sydneycynic in number 86.
I notice you complete failed to address any of my points in #83. How convenient.
Complain about this comment
campantman, what exactly are you talking about? I told you that the aggregate figure for life expectancy is the most important. All the positive and negative figures feed into this. Therefore, if you had a point, life expectancy in the UK would be higher than Australia. For crying out loud, we even have a higher life expectancy despite taking more migrants from the UK than anywhere else. Of course certain countries will have varying causes of death. We might have higher cancer rates because this disease develops as you get older. You're hardly going to develop cancer if a child doesn't even make it out of the maternity ward. (See my earlier comment where Albania has lower child mortality rates than the UK.) Also, what's your point about the existence of McDonalds. Don't tell me they don't have those in the UK. If there aren't as many it's because there's more greasy spoons in the UK. You know the ones. They're the ones where a big fat bloke wears a dirty singlet, with a fag hanging out his mouth and sells greasy burgers out of the side of an old caravan. Over there a three course meal constitues a burger, chip butty and for desert a fried Mars bar. Coronary heart disease here I come. Correct me if both myself and Jamie Oliver are wrong.
I also let your first comment in #83 go through to the keeper. I thought it was a low blow to talk about a relative's dementure. Unfortunatly you've taken this to mean that I accept your point. As usual, you're wrong. You state that you were required to stay in Australia because there "was" a problem. Seeing you use the past tense it is obvious this problem is no longer relevant. You also state that your wife prefers the UK. I don't use the pseudonym "sydneycynic" for nothing and I'll just treat that comment with the suspicion it deserves.
Also, in order to avoid being labelled a hypocrite you might want to address some of the other comments I've made previously e.g. the UK economy, aboriginal mortality rate etc,etc,etc. I haven't raised this previously but you seem to be a sucker for punishment.
Complain about this comment
campantman wrote:
"Ultimately my point about the Aussie attitude is this. Why do they have to say 'we're the greatest country in the world'? Why not simply 'we are a great nation?'"
Because to them it is the "greatest country in the world." As an American that doesn't offend or annoy me at all. Why does it offend and annoy you so much?
"Why do they have to suggest that Australia is near-perfect? Why not simply say that Australia has some great things about it and be more accepting and acknowledging that negatives exist?"
Because they choose to focus on the positives and not the negatives. Focusing on the positives also does not mean they are oblivious to anything negative or that they are not "accepting."
"That is the difference between jingoistic arrogance and reasonable national pride."
You only see it as "jingoistic arrogance" because you are unreasonably offended by someone's view of their own country, a view that that doesn't harm you or anyone else in any way. Then you somehow feel it is your place to criticize them and tell them how they should feel and think.
You sure you want to talk about "arrogance?"
Complain about this comment
Sydneycynic.
You persist with the notion that Australia is 'better' despite higher crime per capita in many respects, higher suicide rates and higher rates of obesity.
Until you bother to address those I am not interested in your fixation on life expectancy and aboriginal mortality rates.
You were questioning my reasons for living in Australia and I answered it honestly. Where is the issue with that? You asked a question and were given an answer.
Complain about this comment
campantman wrote:
"If Australia is such a healthy place to live, why so many McDonalds restaurants left, right and centre?"
What is it that you think makes McDonalds so unhealthy? After all, you have much fine cuisine in France and Italy that is considerably unhealthier than what you would get at a McDonalds when you consider total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol content. And yet, those that complain about McDonalds never seem to turn their noses up at such foods. Why?
The fact of the matter is McDonalds, like most any other restaurant, makes different foods with different levels of nutritional value and where some are healthier than others. McDonalds does not make anything any more harmful to you than what you could get at most any other so-called fine restaurant.
"Perhaps most pertinently of all, if Australia is so damn wonderful, why the higher suicide rate here? I suppose you going to tell me it's because Australian rope is better made or some such apologist nonsense."
Boy, you really like to try and knock Australia, don't you? Why?
"It also depends on what you happen to like. If you are mostly driven by sunshine and beaches then I can imagine that you would indeed prefer Australia. However, if you enjoy cultural pursuits like galleries, museums and theatres etc then, sorry, but Australia simply cannot compete with the UK and Europe in any way at all."
Why are you bringing up "Europe?" I thought you were comparing countries? Europe is not a country.
Australia obviously doesn't have as old of an art culture but maybe it excels when it comes to modern art, as does America, not to mention other forms of "culture."
"It's not all about 'where is there the most untamed wilderness'."
For many people it is.
"I know as an Aussie it is basically your duty to defend Australia against any criticism (it must be, after all, you all do it without fail) but you need to accept that it's not as black and white as you like to think it is."
Is it your "duty" to attack and belittle Australia and Australians?
Complain about this comment
AllenT2 in #91.
"The fact of the matter is McDonalds, like most any other restaurant, makes different foods with different levels of nutritional value and where some are healthier than others. McDonalds does not make anything any more harmful to you than what you could get at most any other so-called fine restaurant."
Defending McDonalds?! No need to tell us you're American then.
"Why are you bringing up "Europe?" I thought you were comparing countries? Europe is not a country."
Nor is Australia merely a country. It's essentially the vast bulk of a continent or a continent by itself, depending on the definition you go with. Europe to Australia is therefore a far fairer comparison than UK to Australia due to the vast differences in geographical size. Furthermore, the UK is assimilating into Europe more and more.
"For many people it is (about untamed wilderness)."
That's no truer than saying for many people it isn't.
Complain about this comment
AllenT2.
I trust you were aware that the UK belongs to the continent of Europe geographically speaking and, increasingly, politically speaking too?
Complain about this comment
Always amuses me how, when it comes to comparing the two, people conveniently forget that Australia is basically a continent whereas the UK is merely a country.
Complain about this comment
So now your reason to stay in Australia has passed, tell me campantman, when are you leaving? Seeing life expectancy is not indicative of anything to you may be you'd like to try Zimbabwe next. The average life expectancy there is 35.
I note you still can't bring yourself to talk about the UK economy. That's probably the wisest move you've made so far.
Can you also give me the benefit of your unique view into why obesity is indicative of an unsuccessful country. It may not be physically attractive but I don't know why it is representative of a failed country. If you took your argument to it's logical conclusion then Ethiopia and Sudan would rank highly in your estimation. I await your reply. I'm pretty sure it will make me laugh.
Complain about this comment
Fail to see why I should dance to your tune, sydneycynic, whilst you continue to pointedly ignore stuff that you are obviously happier ignoring:
"If I want to paint a less rosy view of Australia, I can point out, for example, that there are more burglaries per capita in Australia. There are more car thefts per capita in Australia. There's a higher rate of gun-related homicide in Australia. There is more murder per capita in Australia and more murders committed by youths in Australia. Likewise there is more rape per capita in Australia. If Australia is such a healthy place to live, why so many McDonalds restaurants left, right and centre? If Australia is such a healthy place to live, why is there more death from cancer in Australia than in the UK? Perhaps most pertinently of all, if Australia is so damn wonderful, why the higher suicide rate here? I suppose you are going to tell me it's because Australian rope is better made or some such apologist nonsense."
Your response to that(apart from a strange comparison between the McDonalds that are strewn across every major road in Australia and the 'greasy spoons' that you increasingly see little of in the UK - and yes there are way more McDonalds per person in Australia than in the UK)has still not been offered.
And this thing about life expectancy. You mention a country with a life expectancy of 35. What on earth are you on? The UK has a life expectancy of 79.4 and Australia 81.2
Sorry pal, but in the scheme of things this is irrelevant. In either country it comes down to how YOU choose to live. You act like there's a difference of decades.
Complain about this comment
Incidentally, unless you are in a city like London or Brighton you'll struggle to find a true 'greasy spoon'. Cafes serving food, yes ( just as Australia has cafes) but greasy spoons in the sense you clearly mean it are a relatively unusual encounter.
Complain about this comment
Campantman has been repeating ad nauseoum the comment of Lucy Turnbull, the wife of the previous Liberal Party Leader, on the ABC TV program Q and A.
The way he presents it is sounds like the woman made a statement of praise concerning Australia in its own right.
He failed to mention that the American Ambassador was one of the guests on the show.
The quote by Lucy Turnbull, used by Campantman, was following on from the Liberal Party's shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey. Here is the part of significance from the transcript at:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2864512.htm
I'll leave it up to readers as to whether they think Campantman has taken her comment out of context.
"JOE HOCKEY: Can I just say I think, Tony, that was a little disingenuous, because I think it shouldn’t matter to Australia particularly who is in the White House. What should matter is the relationship we have with the American people and to go back, there are 100,000 dead Americans buried in the sand between here and Japan, and we should never forget the sacrifice America made for us for our freedom and we owe America a great debt and we should actually spend more time educating Australians about that debt that we do owe to America.
TONY JONES: Sounds like an advertisement for an upcoming TV show.
JOE HOCKEY: No. Well, I think our relationship is trivialised and, yet, they are the country, apart from New Zealand and perhaps the UK, they are the country that we were closest to in values and if there’s one country in the world that you’d like to be the major player, I’d rather it be the United States than someone else.
TONY JONES: Let’s hear Lucy, first of all.
LUCY TURNBULL: Well, I think...
TONY JONES: Do you feel that, by the way?
LUCY TURNBULL: Listen, I think from the sound of your questioner on think you might be a university student, and I don’t think there’s been a cohort of university students who, on average, don’t have a large component of them who are anti-Americans, but I think that possibly in the older population, and you might get this way in 10 years or so, I actually think America is the second greatest country on earth after Australia. I think it’s values...
JOE HOCKEY: Oh.
LUCY TURNBULL: No. No. Seriously. You know, I think it is, you know, one of the most remarkable countries - nations - to be founded on an idea more than any other nation and I think it’s - you know, of course it’s got its faults and of course it gets things wrong. What country doesn’t? But underneath it all is this commitment to life, to freedom and to liberty and to equality. So, you know, what could be nobler?"
Complain about this comment
Australia might be a continent but its population is only a little over 22 million people. I hardly think it fair to compare Australia to the UK and Europe when it comes to culture. The EU has a population greater than the U.S.(U.S. has roughly 309 million). Each country has its assets and negatives. Europe has old culture. That's why many people visit there. I think Australia has a unique animal and plant ecosystem which can't be compared to the UK or Europe. Why should Australia, a young country, be compared to Europe in regards to its cities? It's just different.
In terms of comparing Australia to another country, I think Canada would be a better one. Canada is large like Australia and has a small population (probably around 33.5 million). As an American, I would visit Canada and Australia for different yet similar reasons. If you want to see wilderness, both have it. Australia obviously has mostly desert but has great tropical and Mediterranean areas as well. I enjoy the cities in both countries on my way to the wilderness.
For some reason, I am reminded of the time my New Yorker friend moved to Hawaii. She just couldn't handle living in Hawaii with its slow pace of life. She moved back to New York, thank goodness (for the sake of the easy going Hawaiians).
Complain about this comment
@Aqua in #99.
"I hardly think it fair to compare Australia to the UK and Europe when it comes to culture. The EU has a population greater than the U.S.(U.S. has roughly 309 million)."
Perhaps not. But in that case it is equally unfair to compare the amount of wilderness and emptiness in Australia to the amount of wilderness and emptiness in the UK/Europe, is it not?
"Each country has its assets and negatives".
I agree 100%. Which is precisely why I find people saying "this is the greatest country in the world" so totally ridiculous. You can't make that statement because whilst your country may well have positives that other countries do not you need to realise that your country equally has negatives that other countries do not. Sadly, a few people on here can't grasp that concept.
"I think Australia has a unique animal and plant ecosystem which can't be compared to the UK or Europe".
Again, I completely agree. Australia's flora and fauna - natural Australia - is its greatest selling point, in my view.
"Why should Australia, a young country, be compared to Europe in regards to its cities? It's just different."
Because so many people want to bang on about how much better Australia is than, to use sydneycynic's favourite expression, the "Old Country".
"For some reason, I am reminded of the time my New Yorker friend moved to Hawaii. She just couldn't handle living in Hawaii with its slow pace of life. She moved back to New York, thank goodness (for the sake of the easy going Hawaiians)."
Slower-paced places like Australia or Hawaii don't suit everyone. There seems to exist this view that anyone in their right mind will prefer the quieter, less bustling, slow-paced places over the more vibrant, lively ones. Why? Why should every New Yorker fall in love with Hawaii and why should every Brit fall in love with Australian life?
Smug characters like sydneycynic trying to gleefully tell you that you are wrong to prefer the UK because Australia comes higher in some quality of life table or whatever is ridiculous. Everyone finds different things stimulating and interesting. Yes, like your New Yorker friend I find a slower-paced, sleepier environment like Australia rather dulling. I can't help that any more than an Aussie can help finding London too crowded. It annoys me the way Aussies try to imply that there is something wrong with you because you do not love their country as much as they do.
Complain about this comment
Australia or Hawaii may well have a slower-pace, less congestion and more open space than London or New York.
But that's largely irrelevant if Australia or Hawaii bores you to tears.
Complain about this comment
@11pete11 in #99.
Still think that, abbreviated or in full, Lucy Turnbull's remarks (and now that you remind me, those made by Hockey also) are stunningly over-simplified and cliched.
Complain about this comment
@11pete11.
Mmm, cos America does so much good for mankind, doesn't it.
Whatever.
Complain about this comment
campantman, if you can't find a greasy spoon outside London let me help you. When I was last in England they had one in Lyme Regis. It's a beautiful little town near Bath. It's also close to Marlborough which is where Winston Churchill was the Duke. Do you know who Winston Churchill is? I hope I have been able to assist you in learning something about your own country. I would also suggest the best way to learn about a place is to move there.
You should be able to tell by my comment about Lyme Regis that I am able to acknowledge that there are some things in other countries which are superior to Australia. You seem incapable of grasping this concept. You seem to confuse Australian's pride in their country with the thought we think it's PERFECT. I've never heard an Australian say their country is perfect. Being proud of your country is a lot different to saying nothing can be improved.
As I've asked previously, seeing you don't like this country and have no reason to be here, when are you leaving?
Complain about this comment
Sydneycynic.
You date to critiise my views when you come out with utter rubbish like this:
"Of course certain countries will have varying causes of death. We might have higher cancer rates because this disease develops as you get older. You're hardly going to develop cancer if a child doesn't even make it out of the maternity ward.''
You actually think living one year more accounts for the difference in cancer rates??! What total nonsense.
You seem to have an idea that children don't survive infancy in the UK. You seem to think there is an epidemic of children dying in the UK filling up the graveyards at such a rate that the Lake District is soon to become a cemetery.
You accuse me of exaggeration and hyperbole when you come out with this kind of gibberish?
Complain about this comment
campantman says, "you date to critiise". Can someone please translate?
The next subject should be how the education system in Australia is superior to the UK. Mind you this is dependant on campantman acknowledging his gross distortion of my comments about the UK child mortality rates i.e. he falsely states that I said no child ever survives past the post natal stage. If I said this, which I clearly didn't, then the UK wouldn't need schools. campantman is proof that schools are needed more than ever.
Also campantman, the volcanic ash has cleared sufficiently in Europe. Flights are now departing Australia bound for Heathrow.
Complain about this comment
Err, syndeycynic, do you have memory loss?
You wrote the following:
"We might have higher cancer rates because this disease develops as you get older. You're hardly going to develop cancer if a child doesn't even make it out of the maternity ward. (See my earlier comment where Albania has lower child mortality rates than the UK.)''
So, your explanation for higher cancer rates (very scientific, it was) was because there are so many children in the UK who don't ''even make it out of the maternity ward''.
You clearly implied such a significant number that it could affect the statistics on cancer.
Then you try to deny implying an epidemic, a massive problem. Without an epidemic it could not possible account for the differing cancer rates.
Make up your mind. Don't say something and then, when pulled up on it, protest that you didn't.
Complain about this comment
Well as I see it, campantman married a Aussie, and obviously knew next to nothing about her country, gets an offer to jump the que...being married to an Aussie and all...and followed her blindly to a place he has obviously grown to hate.
Now he is lumbered with an Aussie wife, who one must assume, never stops singing the praises of her home country, and who refuses to take him back to his 'island home' where he feels secure.
Campantman, have you ever heard the term "whinging Pom"?
What makes you think that you are not one?
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has the feathers of a duck...its not a emu...
Complain about this comment
You really don't have a clue do you campantman. You're right about one thing, I did mean to say someone who lives longer would have a greater chance of contracting cancer. For example, you're not going to develop say, a melanoma, if you never made it out of hospital. You questioned how I could make such a scientific assessment. I think it makes perfectly good sense. May be you can tell me how a newly born baby can die of skin cancer. Such an eventuality does affect the statistics. May be you can also tell me numerically when something does affect the statistics. I always thought it could start from one through to infinity. Your grasp of basic mathematics appears to be at even par to your grammar skills.
From my comment about the UK having higher child mortality rates than Albania you then grossly misquote me by declaring I believed the UK had become one big infant grave yard. Can you tell me where and when I used the word, "epidemic". It was you who took it upon himself to make my assessment of the magnitude of the problem. You really should stop making up false statements just to support your prejudices.
I've extended to you the courtesy of replying to your criticism. May be you can do likewise and advise me when you are returning to the Old Country. I've given up on you answering my comments about such things as the UK economy. You've obviously waved the white flag on that one.
By the way, "exaggerate" and "hyperbole" is a tautology as both words mean the same thing. The UK education system really does have a lot to answer for.
Complain about this comment
sydneycynic.
Short of a major epidemic of infant mortality it would not explain lower cancer rates.
You can't use that as a thoroughly pathetic explanation of Australia's higher rate of cancer without there being a significant occurrence of early death in the UK.
And stats suggest Aussies live 12-18 months longer, not years, you idiot.
Complain about this comment
campantman wrote:
"Mmm, cos America does so much good for mankind, doesn't it.
Whatever."
It made your freedom and the freedom of hundreds of millions around the world possible!
It's mind blowing that someone could even begin to consider saying something like that.
And if you care to look around and think about it America has also made your life much more healthier, much more comfortable and much more productive with the many modern conveniences and technologies, that I am sure you use and benefit from, and that America has produced.
Let go of the hate my friend. It isn't healthy.
Complain about this comment
Not even ranking in the top 20 for infant survival rates is "significant". Logical argument has now deserted you, that's if you had any, and you are now resorting to puerile insults such as "idiot". My work is done here and I'll now take my dog for a walk so I can have an intelligent conversation. I won't be responding to your postings on this subject anymore so don't think for a minute that my silence means I agree with anything you say.
Complain about this comment
campantman wrote:
"Australia or Hawaii may well have a slower-pace, less congestion and more open space than London or New York. But that's largely irrelevant if Australia or Hawaii bores you to tears."
Bad example considering Hawaii and New York are both in the same country. An American would have both of those options available to him or her.
And while Australian cities are not as big as New York or London I think anyone that is bored "to tears" in one of Australia's larger cities is a person that is looking for reasons to be bored.
Complain about this comment
Aqua wrote:
"Australia might be a continent but its population is only a little over 22 million people. I hardly think it fair to compare Australia to the UK and Europe when it comes to culture. The EU has a population greater than the U.S.(U.S. has roughly 309 million). Each country has its assets and negatives."
Europe is not a country.
"Europe has old culture. That's why many people visit there. I think Australia has a unique animal and plant ecosystem which can't be compared to the UK or Europe. Why should Australia, a young country, be compared to Europe in regards to its cities? It's just different."
It was being compared to the UK.
Complain about this comment
Regarding #114 AllenT2
Yes, I know Europe is a continent and not a country. Campantman was bringing up the whole idea of comparing UK/Europe to Australia. I felt it more fitting to compare Australia to Canada, another large country with a small population. If you read back a bit you will see this.
Regarding #100 Campantman
I wasn't comparing the wilderness of Australia and Canada to UK/Europe. I was saying Canada and Australia share some common traits, such as small population, wilderness, and large land area.
I agree with you that people should not move to places that don't fit their temperaments. I like both cities and wilderness but I don't expect someone to understand why someone would want to travel in the desert areas. My New Yorker friend is better off in New York rather than Hawaii. Her temperament is best in a busy place. Other New Yorkers might do just fine moving to Hawaii.
In general: I see I better just delineate everything so there is no confusion in future posts.
Thanks 11Pete11 for the Q&A link. I enjoyed watching it.
Complain about this comment
115 Aqua: My pleasure. In the full context of the show, I don't believe Lucy Turnbull was overly patriotic, as campantman would have us believe.
Complain about this comment
@ Nick Bryant
I'm a bit late to the party but my inner pedant is calling:
"Boyd's opus work"
One of those three words is surely redundant.
Greetings from Far North Queensland. Pip, pip!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS