Right: For a century and for generations, the word Anzac has been synonymous with Australian military history.
Arguments suggesting Australia's attitude toward Anzac Day is not dangerous
1. The significance of Anzac Day can be challenged and debated Defenders of Australian attitudes toward Anzac Day argue that despite the reverence with which the day is commonly regarded, it is possible to voice a different point of view. Although the conventional attitude within Australia has become to honour the sacrifice and commitment of Australian soldiers in all wars and to stress the value of the principal wars in which they have been engaged, there has remained a more critical perspective among some historians. In an article published in The Conversation on April 25, 2015, Peter Cochrane, Honorary Associate, Department of History, University of Sydney, has outlined the range of divergent views among historians regarding the nature and significance of the Anzac legend and of Australia's involvement in war. Cochrane states, 'The centenary has galvanised...concern with numerous authors, several key titles and website Honest History raising the critical standard. In What's Wrong with Anzac?, edited by Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds, the contributing scholars sought to explain how this obsession with military history has been manufactured and to highlight how it eclipses a rich and diverse history of nation-making, civil and political traditions of democratic equality and social justice.' Thus, defenders of Anzac Day note that although there is a prevailing orthodoxy regarding the respect which should be exhibited on the day, differing views exist and are published in a variety of forms. On March 26, 2012, Radio National's Counterpoint began a three-part series conducted by prominent Australian historians who challenged a number of myths popularly associated with the Anzacs and Australian soldiers generally. Criticism of Anzac Day persists among commentators as well as some historians. On April 24, 2012, Crikey published a comment by Guy Rundle which concluded with the observation, 'Unpopular as it may be, we need to keep questioning the "ecstatic myths" of war in the hope that by doing so we may actually save some - Australian, Afghan, Iraqi, Iranian - lives to come, not those that have been.' Virtually all the reader responses to Rundle's comment supported his opinion, with one poster, Cletus Purcell, stating 'As an ex-professional combat soldier and Senior Infantry NCO, I thank Mr Rundle for this piece. I too have problems with the ongoing "misuse" of Anzac Day and the very many myths it reinforces. His comments about how it is used as a de-facto or "disguised metaphor" for the ongoing scandal of our pointless losses in Afghanistan is bang-on.' However, it is claimed, prominent media personalities are in a special position with regard to not bringing their employer into disrepute and that this obligation is part of their terms of employment. With regard to Scott McIntyre, SBS has claimed that it was his breach of the network's code of conduct that led to his dismissal. The SBS Social Media Protocol states, 'While SBS employees have the right to make public comment and to enter into public debate in their personal capacity, it is important to ensure that SBS is not brought into disrepute. Individuals should consider how their posts will be perceived by the community, taking into account the standards which apply to their work. The SBS Code of Conduct applies to personal and professional use of social media ... These standards therefore apply to your professional and your personal use of social media.' McIntyre had around 31,000 followers on twitter and his twitter account identified him as an SBS reporter. SBS maintains that under those circumstances he had made a commitment, as an SBS employee, not to make inflammatory comments regarding any issue. It is also claimed that McIntyre refused to apologise or retract when asked to do so. ABC employee, Abdel-Magied, did withdraw her Facebook post and apologised and did so without a request from her employer. The ABC has not terminated her employment, despite her poorly received comments about Anzac Day. 2. Anzac Day is a necessary commemoration of those who have died in battle Those who support Australia's current observation of Anzac Day argue that it is a necessary commemoration of the bravery and the sacrifice of the more than one hundred thousand Australians who have died in war. Also being remembered are those who have been injured physically and psychologically, as well as those who have risked their lives in military action. The number of Australians killed in war is offered as one significant reason for the commemoration. Supporters note that Australia needs to give public thanks to those who did so much and, in many instances, gave their lives at the behest of their country. The Australian War Memorial site indicates that 102,825 Australians had died while in military service as of November 11, 2016. 61,531 died during World War I; 39,652 died during World War II; 589 died during the Boer War; 521died during the Vietnam War; 340 died during the Korean War and 42 have died so far in the Afghan War (in which Australian troops are still involved). These deaths are ranked in order of magnitude, not chronologically. Not only was World War I the most costly of all wars Australia has been involved in absolute terms, it was also the most devastating in relative terms. From a population of fewer than five million, 416,809 men enlisted, of whom more than 60,000 were killed and 156,000 wounded, gassed, or taken prisoner. One in five of those who went overseas to fight during World War I failed to return. On April 25, 2015, the leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, was one of many Australians who visited Gallipoli to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Anzac landing there. Mr Shorten's comments are typical of those who stress the importance of honouring the sacrifices and deaths of those who fought. Mr Shorten stated, 'Today marks the centenary of a day of extraordinary valour and tragic loss... This Anzac Day, a hundred years after the courage and chaos of the landings, Australia will pause to remember all those who have served. Anzac Day belongs to their honoured memory, and it belongs to all of us. At dawn services around our nation, we will stand in silence, bundled up against the morning cold. In small country towns we will lay wreaths upon memorials that bear the names of young men who never grew old. In neighbourhood RSLs we will raise a glass at the going down of the sun, in memory of the fallen. However we mark this day, let all of us give thanks for the bravery of those prepared to risk, and lose, their lives for the country we love. Today, and always, we will remember them.' On April 24, 2017, South Australia's Minister for Veterans Affairs, Martin Hamilton-Smith, similarly stated, 'On Anzac Day we honour those who made the ultimate sacrifice. We remember their families and communities, changed forever. We reflect on all in our community who endure the physical and psychological impact of war, and we take this moment to thank Australia's servicemen and women for their service and sacrifice in all wars, conflicts and peace operations to ensure the preservation of the way of life we enjoy today.' The City of Canning's recently erected war memorial includes an inscription which attempts to explain the necessity of continuing to remember Australians who have fought and died in war. It states, 'For those of us spared the terrors of war, to be worthy of our dead, is to remember them. It is to remember that they died, the men and women of this community, in their thousands, in faraway lands, interred in the ground upon which they perished. It is to remember those who loved them; their fathers and mothers, wives, children and friends. It is to remember that the pain in the hearts of those who loved them, who lived after them, never healed; the promise of their lives together, unfulfilled.' 3. Commemorating those who died in wars is an opportunity to promote peace There are those who argue that rather than encouraging war, remembering those Australians who have died in military actions serves to promote peace. On April 24, 2012, the literary journal, Overland, published a comment by former Overland editor, Jeff Sparrow, which argues that the peace movement must inevitably have a place in any event which commemorates those who suffered and died through war. Sparrow states, 'Some 16 million people died in the First World War. It is an extraordinary statistic. In the face of such overwhelming suffering, such tremendous devastation, the only decent commemoration entails ensuring that nothing comparable ever happens again.' In an opinion piece published in the Australian edition of The Spectator on April 26, 2017, Satyajeet Marar, stated, 'There is nothing 'glorious' about the imagery of Anzac day. War is a disgusting and ugly business. We remember the trenches at Gallipoli, infested with rats and the stench of dead bodies of those who didn't make it. We think of young men climbing 'over the top' and rushing into a hail of Turkish machine gun fire, cut into pieces, their potential wasted. We remember that amidst the poor decisions of those in power who insisted on going to war, these men gave up their lives. In honouring their sacrifice, we acknowledge the value of the lives they give up.' Supporters of Anzac Day commemorations argue that a respect and desire for peace have been part of the day since its origins. A large monument at Anzac Cove bears the words of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the Turkish leader who led his troops to victory at Gallipoli. His words include the following, 'Today we honour the men who fought on both sides at Gallipoli. We honour the countries from which they came, but above all we honour the spirit of peace and friendship which has proved to be an enduring legacy of the Gallipoli conflict". It appears that for some young people the commemorations enacted on Anzac Day are an important means of ensuring that Australia is less likely to commit its soldiers to fight. On April 28, 2017, Shauna Colnan, the principal of the International Grammar School, Sydney, wrote, 'Through all of these opportunities for learning [provided by Anzac commemorations], we encourage our students to think, to reflect on our history, to contemplate stories of individual courage against adversity, to meditate upon the heartbreak of war, to think of others, and finally to play their part, no matter how small, to develop a much-needed vision of peace for us all.' Similar views have been put by young people themselves. On April 11, 2014, The Adelaide Advertiser published a comment by 17-year-old student, Rhys Harrison, in which he stated, 'As a young person, I think Anzac Day is not a chance to celebrate war, but peace. It is a chance to reflect on the great sacrifices of others in pursuit of a better future, a peaceful future. When we acknowledge the lives lost to the horrors of the First World War (and indeed the wars after it) we do not celebrate the sacrifice, but mourn it. As every April 25 passes, we are reminded again and again of the price of going to war, and the importance of not doing so lightly.' Harrison went on to argue that commemorations like Anzac Day, by stressing the human cost of military engagements, ensured that young people who have not experienced war do not minimise its horrors and therefore approach it lightly. Harrison wrote, 'As the leaders of the future, it is important that we know the true price of war and conflict. As we become the Presidents, Prime Ministers and Secretary-Generals of the 21st century, we must understand the truly immeasurable cost of human lives spent in places like Gallipoli.' On April 24, 2016, Eureka Street published a comment by Andrew Hamilton which similarly argues that Anzac Day serves as a discouragement to the waging of war. Hamilton writes, 'Anzac Day invites us to remember the soldiers who have died in war, those who have survived with scars to their body and spirit, and those who have grieved the loss. Conferences on war focus properly on the people and cultures that war damages. Both kinds of event [Anzac Day and conferences on war] at their best say, "Never again".' 4. Anzac Day is beyond politics Supporters of Anzac Day argue it is a national commemoration which is beyond and removed from politics. Commentators have noted that the increasing importance attached to Anzac Day has been a bi-partisan emphasis fostered by both Labor and Liberal political leaders. Jennifer Hewitt, in an opinion piece published in The Australian Financial Review on April 24, 2017, noted 'It was Prime Minister Bob Hawke who took a group of Anzac veterans to Gallipoli in 1990 for the 75th anniversary.' She goes on to acknowledge the role John Howard has played in promoting popular enthusiasm for Anzac Day, noting, '[F]or John Howard, the Anzac myth helped many people define their feelings about what it means to be Australian.' Hewitt further noted that in 2017, to mark Anzac Day commemorations, 'Bill Shorten went to the Kokoda Trail in PNG...while Malcolm Turnbull travelled to the Middle East. Some commentators have claimed that the uniform importance each major political party attaches to Anzac Day makes it a commemoration that one party cannot use against the other. Supporters of Anzac Day argue that its commemoration should not be exploited to promote any political purpose. On April 26, 2017, the Nationals Member for Cowper, Luke Hartsuyker, stated, 'Anzac Day is about commemorating the service and sacrifice of generations of Australian servicemen and women. It is Australia's most solemn day of remembrance. More than 100,000 Australians have given their lives defending our way of life. Many more have suffered physical and mental scars as a result of their service on our behalf. Anzac Day is not about grandstanding. It is not about politics. It is not about personal opinions or religious arguments. On Anzac Day we stand side by side united as Australians: Left and right, white and black, male and female, young and old, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or atheist.' In an opinion piece published in The Daily Telegraph on April 24, 2013, Andrew Priestley criticised those who attempted to use Anzac day for party-political purposes. Priestley stated, 'Anzac Day is about remembering those who gave their lives in Australia's name. The Anzacs, and the day we pay tribute to them, are not play things for politicians and pundits.' Supporters of Anzac Day commemorations also argue that the day should not be used to make unrelated political points. In an opinion piece published in the Australian edition of The Spectator on April 26, 2017, Satyajeet Marar, stated, 'Every Anzac Day, it seems there is no shortage of talking heads ready to...signal to us that we shouldn't be celebrating. That what we are celebrating are bloodshed and atrocities. That we are only distracting ourselves from the real issues. What real issues? The issues championed by them, obviously. Because God forbid that a single day honouring the sacrifice of soldiers should be left sacred.' 5. Interest in Anzac Day varies in Australia Those who argue that interest in Anzac Day in Australia is not an unthinking obsession point to the fluctuating nature of that interest over time. It has been suggested that attitudes to Anzac Day are frequently influenced by social and political developments occurring in Australia at the time. Students of popular interest in and observance of Anzac Day have noted that this has varied significantly over time. An undergraduate piece of research by Kristy Hulm published online on Making History at Macquarie gave an overview of the fluctuating attitudes toward Anzac Day up to the end of the 1980s. Hulm states 'Anzac Day has been commemorated every year since the landing of Australian troops at Gallipoli on April 25, 1915. The trends of the popularity of these commemorations have varied throughout the course of the twentieth century. Throughout the inter-war years Anzac Day was seen as an opportunity to remember those who served in the war and a reunion for returned soldiers. Popular opinion towards Anzac Day began to decline in the post-war period and continued to do so until the beginning of the 1980s. In the 1950s and 1960s, this decrease was mainly attributed to ideas that Anzac Day was primarily one for veterans to get together for a drink. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s on the other hand, anti-war movements sparked by Australia's problematic involvement in the Vietnam War were one of the key causes of the decline in interest and popularity of the day.' Rather than being a determinant of popular attitudes, Hulm's overview suggests that attitudes toward Anzac Day are frequently influenced by external factors occurring in Australia's international relations and demographics. |
Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said.