Right: Yassmin Abdel-Mageid and the social media text that promoted calls for sacking, deportation, as well as physical threats.
 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. |
Arguments suggesting that Australia's attitude toward Anzac Day is dangerous
1. Anzac Day cannot be publicly challenged without penalty
Those who argue that Australia's attitude toward Anzac Day is dangerous are concerned that the day has become a 'sacred cow'. A sacred cow is an idea, custom, or institution that is held to be above criticism. On April 16, 2017, Independent Australia republished an opinion piece by Evan Williams, a newspaper editor and political speech writer, who argued that Anzac Day was among Australia's 'seven sacred cows'.
Critics of popular attitudes toward Anzac Day argue that seeing the day as beyond debate undermines freedom of speech and prevents negative aspects of the institution being challenged.
On a number of occasions in recent years citizens have been reprimanded and either sacked or threatened with dismissal for having criticised aspects of the Anzac tradition. In 2015, SBS sports journalist, Scott McIntyre, was sacked for tweeting remarks about Anzacs that were considered 'inappropriate' and 'disrespectful'. Among McIntyre's tweets was one which read, 'Remembering the summary execution, widespread rape and theft committed by these "brave" Anzacs in Egypt, Palestine and Japan.'
A number of historians have since commented that McIntyre's remarks do no more than reflect an aspect of historical reality that Australians do not want to recall. McIntyre's sacking has been seen as a suppression of free speech.
In an opinion piece published in The Conversation on April 29, 2015, Professor Philip Dwyer, Director of the Centre for the History of Violence, School of Humanities and Social Science at the University of Newcastle stated, 'The decision made by the managing director of SBS is disappointing. Are journalists, academics and public figures only ever to tell people what they want to hear?'
Scott McIntyre's lawyer, Josh Bornstein, stated in 2016, 'The vigilantes and hypocrites who sought to have Scott sacked and his freedom of speech suppressed after the event included (then Communications Minister) Malcolm Turnbull, (News Corp columnist) Chris Kenny and (Australia's Human Rights Commissioner) Tim Wilson.'
Bornstein further stated, 'These are people who speak loftily about freedom of speech and when it is inconvenient to them ditch it and try and crush someone whose views they disagree with. They should be ashamed of themselves.'
In April 2017, critics of Australia's attitude toward Anzac Day have noted that ABC presenter Yassmin Abdel-Magied has been publicly abused and calls have been made for her sacking because she pasted on her Facebook page, 'Lest. We. Forget. (Manus, Nauru, Syria, Palestine...)'
Within less than 24 hours of Ms Abdel-Magied's post 15,000 people had signed a petition calling for her to be sacked by the ABC. The petition included the claim, 'We, the taxpayers, who fund the ABC, call on its Managing Director, Michelle Guthrie, to sack Abdel-Magied for her despicable insult. It is bad enough that she would use Anzac Day to sully the sacrifice of our servicemen and women. To keep her on the public teat after this outrage would be to rub salt into the wound.'
Ms Abdel-Magied has received large numbers of abusive comments. One commentator posting after a report in The Australian newspaper noted, 'I will never watch the ABC programs again if they continue to employ Abdul-Mageid. She is clearly out of step with Australian values and clearly has no understanding or empathy for the soldiers who gave their lives for our freedom. Shame,shame,shame.'
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has also declared Abdel-Magied, a part-time ABC presenter, should not 'be paid anything from the federal government'. Senator Abetz has written to Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, asking that Abdel-Magied be dropped as a board member of the Council for Australian-Arab Relations, run by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, saying she was 'unfit and lacked the judgement' for the role.
Some politicians also used the implied threat of a withdrawal of funding to the ABC to force its manangement to dismiss Abdel-Magied. Acting Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce commented, 'They [Abdel-Magied and those who support her in her views] make life exceedingly difficult for people like myself on the Expenditure Review Committee when we're fighting for funds when issues such as this are brought up to us.You can't just sweep it under the carpet. It starts to become a sense that the culture of the ABC is in some instances at odds with the culture of Australia.' Critics have noted that the implication of Mr Joyce's comment appears to be that the Government may reduce funding to the ABC if it voices views that are out of step with those held by a majority of Australians.
Some commentators believe that popular support for Annzac Day has become so unbalanced that anyone who criticises the commemoration is to be punished. Peter Cochrane, Honorary Associate, Department of History, University of Sydney has stated, 'Never has the Anzac tradition been more popular and yet never have its defenders been more chauvinistic, bellicose and intolerant of other viewpoints.'
2. Anzac Day is exploited for political purposes
Critics claim that Anzac Day has become increasingly incorporated into the Australian political landscape and is used for the advantage of individual politicians and to promote the policies of their parties.
It has been claimed that political leaders of most political persuasions seek to boost their personal popularity by associating themselves with Anzac Day commemorations and with Australia's armed forces. Praising the sacrifices of Australian soldiers and visiting the troops are commonly noted as means by which politicians seek to gain favour with the electorate.
An editorial published in The Australian Financial Review on April 25, 2017, noted, 'So Bill Shorten went to the Kokoda Trail in PNG this week while Malcolm Turnbull travelled to the Middle East.' The Prime Minister posted on Twitter 'It has been an honour to meet the servicemen and women in the Middle East, to thank the Anzacs of today for their service.' On his Facebook page Mr Turnbull noted, 'On behalf of all Australians, thank you, to all those at home and abroad today, as your ancestors did before you, in our uniform, under our flag, put their lives on the line to keep us free.' Bill Shorten commented similarly on Twitter, 'At Isurava, on the Kokoda trail. When the 39th dug in here, the average age of their soldiers was just 18. Lest we forget.'
As Anzac has acquired a growing place as Australia's central national myth, embodying values such as mateship and courage, it has been claimed that politicians of all persuasions have sought to associate themselves with these values. In a comment and analysis published in the Sydney Morning Herald, on November 9, 2014, Sonia Harford wrote, 'The lure is strong for politicians to align themselves with what they deem to be these uniquely Australian values.' The article quotes Australian historian Carolyn Holbroke stating, 'Given the potency of the Anzac legend, it is not surprising that politicians seek to harness that power to their own ends.'
What has been particularly condemned is the manner in which the popular regard in which the Anzac legend is now held has been exploited to justify Australian involvement in further wars. This claim has been made particularly in relation to former Prime Minister John Howard who both encouraged Australian commemoration of Anzac Day and committed Australian troops to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq after September 11.
In March 2006 The Monthly published an essay by Robert Mann in which he stated, 'during the Howard years, the commemorations on Anzac Day of the Gallipoli landings...have grown steadily in significance and solemnity.'
Robert Mann further stated, 'The sentimentalised version of the new Australian militarism provided a fitting atmosphere for romanticising the Australian involvement in the invasion of Iraq, for turning all Australian soldiers into instant diggers, and for legitimising all new military spending.'
In September 2010, International Political Sociology published a paper by Matt MacDonald in which the author stated, 'In justifying participation in military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of the "war on terror," Australian Prime Minister John Howard invoked the memory of Australian sacrifice in war, linked most prominently to the so-called "Anzac myth."'
Critics note that the Anzac legend has repeatedly been used to support the foreign policy actions of Australian governments. It has been suggested that this is a strategy used to win support within the electorate for military action without discussing either the reasons for Australia's involvement or the military action's likelihood of success.
3. Anzac Day commemorations encourage a readiness to go to war
Critics of Anzac Day commemorations argue that Australia's current preoccupation with memorialising its war dead is part of a culture which promotes involvement in war.
In an opinion piece published in the New Matilda on April 24, 2016, Chris Graham stated, 'Australia has one of the largest war memorials on earth, testament to our national fondness for slaughter. It also helps explain why Anzac Day has become an occasion of chest-thumping national pride...
I find our obsession as a nation with our role in foreign wars confronting, and while I think it's important to acknowledge the sacrifice of those who've fought to keep us free, I don't think our involvement in all wars had that noble goal at its core.'
Graham outlines the extent of Australia's military involvement in a series of conflicts, many of which had no direct bearing on Australia, and argues there is something ill-judged about this national preoccupation with military engagement. Graham states, 'For more than 100 years, Australia has rushed to involve itself in almost every major international conflict. Unofficially, we sent men to fight the Maori Wars in New Zealand. We sent men to fight the Boer War in South Africa. We even participated in the Boxer Rebellion in China.
A decade and a half later, we marched off to the Great War in Europe. We were back there a few decades later for World War II.
We joined the attack on North Korea. We joined the attack on Vietnam. We've attacked Iraq twice since then, and we've attacked Afghanistan.'
Other historians and social commentators have argued that a focus on the virtues of those Australians who fought at Gallipoli and elsewhere creates a belief in the ennobling nature of battle. This view has been put by Hugh White, Professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University, who has stated, 'The Anzac ethos, as it is presented in Australia today, centres on the idea that the experience of combat brings out personal qualities that are unique to those who have fought, universal among those who have fought, and essential to Australia's national character. All this implies that there is something uniquely valuable about the experience of combat, for the soldier and for society.'
On March 2014, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott expressed his view of the noble purposes for which, he claimed, Australian soldiers had always fought. Addressing Australian troops returning from Afghanistan, the Prime Minister stated, 'Like your forebears, who fought militarism, who fought Nazism and Fascism and who fought Communism, you have fought for the universal decencies of mankind - the rights of the weak against the strong, the rights of the poor against the rich and the rights of all to strive for the very best they can. That's what Australians do; we always have and we always will.'
Historian David Stephens has argued, '"Soft" wars over the last 30 years - that is, wars with relatively low casualties - have made Australians more bellicose.' Stephens argues that our ceremonies glorify war rather than express regret for loss of life. He has written, 'We say that, beneath our commemoration of war, there is an abhorrence of war. We insist that we do not glorify war. These denials often come, however, as add-ons to moving, patriotic, feel-good...ceremonies with lots of flags, eloquent speeches, remembrance of heroic acts, sonorous hymns, wide-eyed children and, now, sound and light shows.'
Stephens believes that in a context where the Australian electorate has no lived experience of lives lost to war, the Anzac legend serves to romanticise the nature of battle, encouraging an enthusiasm for military engagements. There are many who believe that a readiness to commit to international conflicts is a dangerous and costly enthusiasm.
4. Popular attitudes toward Anzac Day distort Australia's national identity
Critics of Australia's current attitude toward Anzac Day argue that popular beliefs about Australians in war have attributed an exaggerated role in the formation of our national character to military actions.
Historian David Stephens has argued that Australia has a diverse history that has contributed to our national identity and that it is a significant over-simplification to suggest that Gallipoli and the actions of our soldiers in battle are what have primarily shaped the country. Stephens has stated, 'Australian history is made by women, men, individuals, families, artists, philosophers, scientists, unionists, business people, public servants, soldiers and politicians. We carry the imprint of the First Australians, the builders of the CSIRO, the Sydney Opera House and the Snowy scheme, the pioneers of the bush frontier in the nineteenth century and the urban frontier in the 1950s, and "boat people", whether they are convicts, post-war "ten pound Poms" and "New Australians" or asylum seekers. Australian history is to the credit - and the fault - of all of us, not just our Diggers.'
A similar argument has been put by Henry Reynolds, an Honorary Research Professor in the School of Humanities at the University of Tasmania. Professor Reynolds disputes the emphasis on the action at Gallipoli as the birthplace of Australian nationhood. Instead, he argues, Australia came into being as the result of many actions performed in civic life. Reynolds has ironically presented the war-centred view that he disputes. He states, 'The implications fly off in all directions: nations are made in war not in peace, on battlefields not in parliaments; soldiers not statesmen are the nation's founders; men of blood are more worthy of note than negotiators and conciliators; the bayonet is mightier than the pen; a few fatal days on the shore of the Ottoman Empire outweighed the decades of civil and political pioneering by hundreds of colonial Australians.'
5. Anzac Day has become detached from the historical reality that gave rise to it
It has been claimed that popular beliefs about the Gallipoli campaign and the Anzacs' part in it are an oversimplification. There are those who claim that they are in fact an exercise in national myth making and that while many soldiers were brave, many behaved in ways that would otherwise be regarded unfavourably.
In response to SBS's decision to sack Scott McIntyre for making critical remarks about the Anzacs and more general criticisms of the conduct of Australian troops and Australia's allies, Professor Philip Dwyer stated, 'The response to McIntyre's tweets is a demonstration that the popular perception of Anzac is completely out of step with the historical reality.'
Looking at the specific claims that McIntyre made, Professor Dwyer has noted that Anzacs stationed in Egypt during World War I are known to have behaved in a racist manner. The Professor has quoted racist remarks made by Australian soldiers, including, '[W]e thrash the black fellows with whips ... Every nigger who is impudent to a soldier gets a hiding ... I can't say how many I've belted and knocked out.'
Professor Dwyer has stated, 'Drinking and whoring, leaving bills unpaid, threatening, bullying and beating locals because they were "niggers", and generally behaving in ways that we now condemn our sportsmen for behaving was standard fair for these boys who had money, were far away from home, and had no one to control them.'
It has also been noted that some Australian soldiers fighting in New Guinea during World War II committed actions that would now be regarded as war crimes. Dwyer quotes one Australian soldier stating, 'Japanese are still being shot all over the place...The necessity for capturing them has ceased to worry anyone. From now on, Nippo survivors are just so much machine-gun practice. Too many of our soldiers are tied up guarding them.' Professor Dwyer has summarised the situation by stating, 'The Pacific theatre was a racialised war in which atrocities were committed on both sides.'
Professor Dwyer has also stated that after the occupation of Japan, Japanese women were sexually assaulted by Allied forces. The Professor claims, 'Every invading army, regardless of the side they are on, regardless of the war, rapes...Australians may not have behaved as badly as the Russians in Germany, but thousands of Japanese women were raped in the years after the war, some of them by Australian and New Zealand soldiers who made up the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan.'
Thus, critics of Australia's present attitude toward Anzac Day argue that it is based on a significant misrepresentation of the conduct of Australian soldiers, focusing exclusively on behaviour we consider admirable.