Australian Identity

“It is not the strongest of the species that survive nor the most intelligent, but those most adaptive to change."   Charles Darwin

From its inception to the end of the First World War, the Bulletin was the most influential magazine in Australia. Its pre-eminence was primarily due to the innovative imagination and dynamic personalities of its founders, JF Archibald and John Haynes. The vision of Australia the Bulletin promoted was largely shaped by its editor, Archibald, and his aspirations for an independent Australia. The Bulletin began with social and political comment and seven years on, was employing contributors who shared the magazine’s outlook. The democratic ideals of mateship, an egalitarian and classless society and rebellion against the hypocrisy of British social mores (and rule) were all being advocated by the young writers of the Bulletin School with passionate conviction. Archibald’s own bias was reflected in the work he selected from these contributors, leading him to recognise the extraordinary talent of his protégé and fellow nationalist, Henry Lawson.

The magazine was intended to be a political and business journal, but it quickly became popular in the male-dominated outback where it became known as the “bushman’s bible”. A staunch supporter of trade unionism, it was viciously xenophobic and its masthead slogan read, “Australia for the White Man”,”  and became a national political credo.

Away from the cosmopolitan influence of the cities, nationalism was largely entrenched in the country and bush areas of the outback. This is why, underlying the politics of the Bulletin, was the illusive figure of the ‘noble bushman’. For many this symbolic figure seemed to provide a purely Australian identity during a tumultuous time of disparate social forces and general rumblings and mumblings of a strong desire to be separated from the ‘Mother Country’. The magazine was instrumental in bringing into the national consciousness, this “emerging national mystique” that a was hard working, loyal, male and above all, white.

Much of the poetry and prose was aimed at glorifying this image and even city dwelling writers who’d never set foot outside their Footscray parlour were writing as though they were ardently pursuing the lifestyle of the decent bushman imbued with integrity, humour, disrespect of authority and above all, a larrikin nature.

This was brought out, dusted down and paraded about when it was deemed necessary to smooth over the horrendous tragedy and militaristic failure at Gallipoli during the First World War. An outpouring of nationalistic fervour crescendoed with the returning diggers. Recently the notion of a new flag was raised but opposition voiced abhorrence stating that these diggers proudly fought under the national flag of Australia and it must therefore be kept, but this is not quite true; they fought under the British ensign as our current flag did not become instituted until the 50’s. But holding to this falsehood is indicative of how strong this desire to be associated with the original ‘noble bushman’ and his value of mateship still is even today, despite its being an essentially British flag. As Jerry Seinfeld said: “I love your flag. Great Britain at night.”

Every Australia Day many suburban Aussies cringe when they think about the 2005 Cronulla Riots which were all about the fallacy that “I was born here, you flew here,” therefore I am a ‘true’ Australian and you have no right to be here. I beg to differ but the particular 17 yo lout may not have flown here but most certainly his mother, grandfather or close ancestor did; it is inevitable unless you are Indigenous. So really, pull your head in. The wearing of the flag became a badge of aggressive racism, something that Australians pride themselves on NOT being. There are quite a number of traits we are proud to own but there is a darker side to them:

The “fair go” is an old phrase synonymous with Australian ideals yet apparently unless you are fair of skin, the sentiment is not for you; the ideal of mateship and that we are tolerant and accepting of others and generous to those in need. But our obstinate refusal to look at the plight of [particularly] children locked in detention for years provides me at least, with a dilemma in coming to terms with the falsity of the perceived identity of Australians in some instances.  

The dominant culture of a society is generally what dictates the national identity however with a country such as Australia, whose history is one of murderous conquest of the Indigenous, we cannot even come together with a clear conscience as the Americans do in their overthrowing of the colonial British in their celebration of Independence Day. Instead Australians hide in shame and alternate between ‘sorry’ and ‘not sorry’ depending on what rhetoric your favourite political party of the day are spouting.

Our national identity was never fully or successfully formulated and it is not an isolated incident. Most countries in the post modern world are struggling with the issue. The ebb and flow of global populations and emigrational mobility is blurring the lines of identity. Many emigrants are facing the impossible task of trying to assimilate into a country only to find the locals themselves are  uncertain who they are any more and what constitutes the real characteristics rather than a hollow stereotype of the Texan cowboy or garlic-chewing Italian or beer swilling German or champagne imbibing Frenchwoman.

London Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks said recently, “Without shared values and a sense of collective identity, no society can sustain itself for long. I fear the extremism that is slowly but surely becoming, throughout the world, the siren song of the twenty-first century." 

I always struggled with the idea of the pie eating, footy fan, ‘wife-beater’ wearing, loud-mouthed, swearing Aussie that was disrespectful of everything; the bogan. I couldn’t and never will be able to, identify with that image. So who are we and does it matter?

Does it matter that I’m not overly fond of pies, never watch footy and prefer tennis, that I wouldn’t be seen dead in a wife-beater (side boob- not a good look)? But I do swear and am quite disrespectful to a lot of things mostly because I am an immature woman arrested in the throes of the adolescent angst I never left behind.

If Lord Sachs is right, we need to be getting together and forming some sort of identity if we’re to survive,  but how is that remotely possible when Australia and most countries today, are a melting pot of international flavours and colours? If we want to agree on a set of values such as ‘fair go’, generosity, mateship (or friendship) and tolerance then we must be consistent with that rather than use a pick and choose system. Much as that awful scene (which happened here too during the “White Australia Policy”) in the movie Selma with Oprah Winfrey being asked a question that would then allow her to vote if she answered correctly;

“How many judges are there in the state?” asked the official.

“67,” replied Oprah’s character.

“Name them,” said the official.

How is that fair go?

Who we are is perhaps the least important question. The more vital one to answer must surely be, who do we want to be, altogether, as we enter the future as Australians under one national identity that does not favour race, creed or gender?