So What Does This Mean For Us?

For one thing, I think people of my generation have really fallen for the spin.  The media are selling us a particular version of our own culture and it seems to be working, with more and more young people participating in Anzac Day services, possibly because we feel like we have to be seen taking part in these activities if we want to be truly "Australian" (Pacella, 2011, pp26-28).

But this has more serious consequences than just us being taken in by media hype.  Amelia Johns suggests that the Anzac Myth and its implied patriotism and opposition to the "other" actually led to the recent Cronulla Riots (2008, pp3-16).  More generally, it gets in the way of us thinking critically about war (MacCallum, 2010).

I actually discussed this issue at uni, and I was surprised that none of my classmates' comments engaged with the actual issue, i.e. the possibility that the reality of Anzac Day has been twisted to suit someone else's agenda.  Instead, people argued that I was wrong because for them, Anzac Day was simply a day to remember the people who died.  That may well be true, but isn't it interesting that people took a theoretical discussion as a personal criticism of their own behaviours and values?

That's the root of the problem here.  Because the Anzac Legend is so sacred in our society, any criticisms of it are seen as offensive to the entire Australian identity.  And when our media and politicians tie the Anzac Legend up with current conflicts, our criticisms of those conflicts start to look like criticisms of the Anzacs and of very nature of Australian-ness.  This is ultimately what's wrong with militarist cultures like ours: if the glory of war becomes a part of our national psyche, there's no room for genuine criticisms and academic debate. (MacCallum, 2010, pp152-183)

Pacella, J 2011, "Crikey, it's Commodified! AnInvestigation into ANZAC Day: The next Nike?", Social Alternatives, vol 30, no 2, pp26-29

Johns, A 2008, "White tribe: Echoes of the Anzac myth in Cronulla", Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, vol 22, no 1, pp3-16

MacCallum, A 2010, "What's Wrong with Anzac", University of Melbourne

A Few Videos...

It's not just that politicians promote this pro-war approach to Anzac Day - the media do it too, and many Australians now participate in this.




Source: Ten Breakfast 2012 via YouTube

The above video shows how both the people of Australia and the media think about Anzac Day - you'll notice the reverent attitude and the language with words like "heroes".



Below is an example of what happens when we glorify the Anzac Legend like this.





Source: Ten News 2012 via YouTube

Both of the stories in this second video feature a "good guy" and a "bad guy". The "good guys" are the people associated with Anzac Day, and the "bad guys" are the those who get in their way or disagree with them. The "bad guys" don't really get a chance to explain their position, and they way they're linked to the journalist at the end implies that there are no grey areas here - either you idolise the Anzacs or you're offending our national culture.

The Anzac Myth

I'm sure there are heaps of different ways to examine our militarist culture, but I think the most obvious one - and please keep an open mind about this - is the way we approach Anzac Day.  We all know that Anzac Day, and the "Anzac Legend", have existed ever since the Battle of Gallipoli, but what young people in particular might not realise is how much the meaning of these things has changed over time. 

As such a young country trying to find its place in the world, it makes sense that we'd see the Anzacs and our role in the Great War as a huge part of our shared national history, and as a source of national identity (Hoffenberg, 2001).  But it wasn't until quite recently that the whole Anzac Legend came to be treated like it is today. 

It really took off when John Howard starting promoting the idea of the "digger" as the archetypal Australian, and relating contemporary Australian values like "mateship" (McDonald, 2010, pp287-293) to war.  Conveniently, this coincided with his decision to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan; his speeches about this often referred to the Anzacs, presumably to encourage people to subscribe to his pro-war views (pp298-297).

More recently, Kevin Rudd has talked about the Anzacs as "part of our national consciousness" and identity (2008, in McDonald, p287), and just this year Julia Gillard used phrases like "honour of the most vivid kind" (in Barker, 2012) and talked about Australia's "tradition of arms" that has continued to today's "recent conflicts" (in O'Connor, 2012).  This unsettling sentiment is echoed in the Governor General's description of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan as "modern Anzacs" (O'Connor, 2012).

Am I the only one creeped out by the fact that the people we trust to run this country are promoting the Anzac Legend not out of respect to the Anzacs themselves, but out of a desire to get us all on board with the conflicts they're engaging in now?

Hoffenberg, P 2001, "Landscape, Memory and the Australian War Experience", Journal of Contemporary History, vol 36, no 1, pp111-131

McDonald, M 2010, "'Lest We Forget': The Politics of Memory and Australian Military Intervention", International Political Sociology, vol 4, pp287-301

Barker, A 2012, "Thousands Mark Anzac Day atGallipoli", ABC News, 25/04/2012

O'Connor, P 2012, "Australia: Anzac Day and thepromotion of militarism", on World Socialist Web Site, 27/04/2012,http://wsws.org

Militarism

I don't know about you, but I feel like I'm noticing a growing culture of militarism in Australia.  I mentioned this to a friend the other day and she was interested but didn't really get what I was talking about, so I thought I might start a blog where I could share these thoughts for people, like my friend, who aren't really up on this but would like to be.

So, what do I mean when I talk about "militarism"?  In essence, it means being more or less pro-war, and there are two ways of defining a militarist culture.

Firstly, you can think of it in terms of actions.  Actions that are typical of a militarist culture are things like making weapons, training soldiers, preparing for possible conflicts and, most obviously, engaging in actual wars (Alexandra, 1993).

Secondly, you can think of it in terms of attitudes.   Militarist attitudes are a little harder to pin down, but they can range from the view that wars are sometimes necessary and we should be prepared for them (sensible, in my view) to the view that wars are TOTALLY AWESOME and the best way to solve any conflict (less sensible, in my view) (Alexandra, 1993).

The reason I'm concerned about militarism is simple: it's bad for society.  War is often made out to be essential in creating a nation or society, but in many ways it undermines the development of society, adversely affecting our wellbeing, diverting resources away from other areas and limiting democracy and human rights (Dreze, 2000, esp p1180).  Jean Dreze explains this really well here.

The "action" side of things isn't worthy of that much discussion to me (I think a combination of Google and common sense can tell you about conflicts we're engaged in and military spending and such); what I'm interested in examining is the "attitudes".  These come about as a result of political communication, media information, and the history and activities of society - which in my view are pretty well tied up in each other - and that's what I'm planning to discuss here.

Alexandra, A 1993, "Militarism", Social Theory & Practice, vol 19, no 2, pp205-223 (no page numbers given above because I could only access it in html - but if anyone's interested just use ctrl + f)

Dreze, J 2000, "Militarism, Development and Democracy", Economic and Political Weekly, vol 35, no 14, pp1171-1183