Pride in the past isn't necessarily a lost cause

The Australian ^ | April 24, 2010 | Tim Soutphommasane

[myknowledge]

Is it disloyal to criticise aspects of Anzac Day because you believe it involves myth and ritualised militarism?

TOMORROW our nation pauses to remember. At cenotaphs and shrines across our cities, at memorials in country towns, and indeed on the sandy ridges of Gallipoli, Australians will be greeting the dawn with solemn patriotism.

Anzac Day is for many Australians our true and authentic national day. But for others it is a day that evokes ambivalence rather than pride. Why, some ask, should we lend such sacred importance to a day that glorifies death and war? What is there to be inspired by when the original landing at Gallipoli was a failure and a product of British imperial folly?

In their recently published book What's Wrong With Anzac?, historians Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds argue that the commemoration of Anzac Day involves the militarisation of Australian history.

[myknowledge]

Related article:

Remembering fallen heroes

Anzac Day Ping.

[myknowledge]

Anzac Day Ping!

Lest We Forget

[RJR_fan]

When the monument to the fallen of Gallipolis was dedicated in 1934 Atatürk told the foreign guests:

Those [Allied] heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives ... you are now in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us when they lie side by side. You, the mothers who lost their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land, they have become our sons as well.

Military heroes recognize and honor one another. The PBI in the trenches often has more in common with the enemy soldier than he has with the politicians who threw him into that situation.

[fporretto]

Australia has its self-hating citizens as well, I see.

The ANZAC contribution to World War I remains one of the great wonders of that terrible time. The troops from downunder had no personal or national stake in the war, which had not threatened them in any way. Their command was dominated by orders from London, and had less autonomy than any other force. They died in huge numbers in Suvla Bay, and with little objective effect on the course of the war.

They were there out of personal pride and loyalty to the mother country. They were called to the service of the Crown, so they went.

I can't see that as anything but praiseworthy, especially considering that England had used Australia as a dumping ground for decades.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Curmudgeon Emeritus of Eternity Road

[James C. Bennett]

Thanks!

[RJR_fan]

Yep. The movies Breaker Morant and Gallipoli suggest that this still is an irritant to patriotic Australians.

[BroJoeK]

"Military heroes recognize and honor one another.
The PBI in the trenches often has more in common with the enemy soldier than he has with the politicians who threw him into that situation. "

Thanks for a great post!