Australia/Invasion Day.

Hi. I am Australian. I am an atheist. I am anti-monarchy, and anti-war. I am a patriot. I do not represent an underwhelmed minority, there is a significant Australia who can relate. Many of which I'm sure were in deep group conversation as I was about the morality of Australia Day.

It seems celebrating the 26th January is becoming increasingly political. Patriotic, yet confused, I will go into detail.

The constitution of Australia condemns the establishment of a state religion. After much reflection upon the place of self-spirituality in contemporary society and the lack of necessity to be tied to a religion to feel such spirituality, I have sided with the humanists and hind-sighted guilt ridden historians: to keep religious devotion out of my life. In 2001, those Australians who identified themselves untied to a religion, didn't comment or whose religion was inadequately described numbered over 5 million. We number a mighty few. This is not to detract from the positive potential religious practice (and the fine people who commit themselves to such routine) has in Australia. Needless to say, my lack of religious patience (and avid anti-materialistic attitude) has seen significant "Australian" periods such as Easter and Christmas overshadowed by question marks of relevance, the same can almost be said for St. Patrick and St. Valentine and their place on our calendar.

Our national ties to the (ridiculous joke that is the) monarchy of England is a wound we have sported for many years. It shows its face in the many wars we have fought in its name; the colonial stain (the project) that is the maltreatment of Indigenous Australians (the subjects) through the ignorant mindset of our superiors over the seas (the wankers); the foolish, obsessive and babyish media frenzy that follows the monarchy in modern times; and the tenuous relationship we have with the British that extends rarely past sporting encounters and Crocodile Dundee. Needless to say, the Queen's Birthday celebration in June every year sees not a grin of recognition grace my face, rather a sturdily pumped clenched fist aimed at the northern hemisphere.

Since 1885, Australia has continually pledged thousands upon thousands of lives to battles overseas that have little or nothing to do with our country. Lives were lost when none should have been. Furthermore, there is lack of recognition that the financial burden of Australian military involvement in this time has resulted in many a stand-still in our growth. This is amongst the most contested topic in Australian contemporary debate - that is, the legitimacy of our place in foreign warfare. It is something I feel most passionately about, but most alone about. Is there far too large a role in contemporary Australia of recognising battles and troopers, treaties and armistice, bullets and bombs? I do not believe enough Australians understand just how fucked the wars were for us as a nation. Relevant to our global growth, perhaps. To our national undiscriminating betterment? Perhaps not. Needless to say, I believe ANZAC day and Armistice day are unreasonable in their expectation to unite a diverse 21st century Australia in celebration.

Now to January 26, 1788. Many Australians are feeling as though they must choose between siding with White Settler Australians who settled and pioneered the land from this day onward and Aboriginal Australians who were invaded, exploited and nearly extirpated from this day onward. I am torn between the two, and afraid I will always sidle with the Original (Indigenous) Australians and their justifiable and valid claims. Now, to my patriotism.

I couldn't agree more with recognition of the inappropriate date on which Australia Day falls, but if we condemn the celebration of such traditions our national identity is at risk. In these exciting times of multicultural Australian expansion, it is important we not lose sight of our rich history, including that of the substantial Aboriginal heritage, but also of universal Australian traits to name a few: independence, diversity, freedom and uniqueness. I hope that I can let off some pro-Australian steam on a day other than David Boon Day in the near future. Until then, bring on November 14 and 52 beers.

"This Bias"

The following is a response to Dr. Mark Lopez's "This Bias: The left wing domination of Year 12 English" which appeared in December's Insistute of Public Affairs Review. IPA's review is a quarterly review of politics and public policy - a good read. The article can be found here.

--

Hats off to Mark Lopez in his determination to balance out Year 12 texts. The more of us encouraged to ask questions of what and how young Australians are taught, the better. Year 12 students are tired not only of spoonfed texts, but of school in general. The least we can reward their efforts is with a fresh and balanced choice for their final year or two. But unfortunately, the choices are always made by their teacher. I fear that trimming the list of texts and dividing them equally between Left and non-Left (as Dr. Lopez suggests) will only bring about teachers more readily selecting texts which reflect their own personal political persuasions. The fact that we should feel encouraged to pigeon-hole English literature into their place on the two dimensional political spectrum (which most kids struggle to understand) is worrying. That Dr. Lopez promotes this idea in the name of a pluralist society is weird.

An important question he asks: "Is it democratically fair to those many students and their tax paying and/or school fee paying families to have different views from the politically correct left?". Just as important a question: "Is it democratically fair to have the opinions of young adults decided by compulsory texts and teachers in compliance with current community standards and expectations?". More option not less will bring about balance in the English curriculum. Young adults responsible for their own ideals.

Amongst Dr. Lopez's comments on Hannie Rayson's Inheritance, where he calls upon his obvious analytical ability as evident in his entire article, he identifies a lack of clarity in a mother's character in the play. What he knows "is clear" immediately follows with his astonishment that her son can be a main positive politically correct character in the play and also habitually smoke marijuana. The gate is then opened for Dr. Lopez to interestingly finish his article pointing out examples of drug use in some of the Year 12 texts, and he doesn't disappoint.

To imply that because of these immoralities, the texts do not reflect community standards and expectations (therefore not meeting text selection criteria) is a cop-out. I find it quite refreshing that these days at school kids can learn about drugs in society through other means than those provided by Life Education and Personal Development "teachers".

What kids really want is more texts and their own choice of which ones to pursue. Of course, it would require vastly different teaching methods to accomodate such individualistic study. Perhaps it would see teachers supervising (rather than instructing) their students' critical skills; guiding their students through the techniques required to make ones one opinion validated - despite their choice of text. I think that the result would be a more balanced pattern of study, which Dr. Lopez along with myself, craves. A bonus of this system would be responsibly opinionated students with unique skills.

That sounds pretty good.

December 30, 3pm: a good hour for news television montage history.

I was treated this afternoon by a few news programs: namely CNN (via SBS) and SKY (via Foxtel Digital).

Please don't be hasty to assume that the execution of a few individuals over the seas drew warm feelings of joyous resolution¹.

I sat there on the couch flicking back between sky and cnn to be surprised at the similarity of the clips that they had used, joined together to remember the life of Saddam Hussein - or at the least the life us in the Wild West remember it.

A good portion of the clips they had used were him at various functions and occasions removing oversized and extravagant swords from their sheath and waving them around in admiration.





A few google images prove its popularity.

The other large portion of the clips were of him toting guns - which there was one in particular that I couldn't be bothered sourcing: with a ridiculously oversized rifle. Almost too large, it seemed, to be use to anyone - even large people. A few google images prove this angles popularity also.





The one recurring shot riddled in between shots of him with large weapons, a common theme to all news show montages, is that scene of the old, bearded and scabby Saddam just after the coalition "got him".


You know the one.

The sealer for me was one that just SKY went for, I didn't stick around to see if CNN had done it - which was a shot of Saddam in trial for war crimes. This particular scene he was flamboyantly producing an extended laughter that could certainly be described as "twisted", maybe "weird".

Look all I'm saying is that montage culture is great, but it gets a bit much some times. Also, should capital punishment be returned to Australia tomorrow, and I was somehow convicted to death and hung - my martyrdom could be completely defined by the montage that the news shows run with. I'd like to take a moment as should you to imagine what kind of montage you'd like the world to see as you are killed on behalf of the moral majority of that world.

I'd like to think they'd throw together some of me in slow-motioned laughter, picking boogars, playing "Jax" and beer bonging. But if they put together all the sadistic shit I've ever done and ended with a zoom-in of my unshaved face looking scabby, startled and "got", I just wonder if Australia would get right behind the noose and kick out my chair too.



1. far from it - and doesn't anyone else find it weird that a nation so adamant against capital punishment can get right behind the organised murder of anyone - let alone someone whose much publicised regime didn't actually affect us at all? this blog isn't about saddam, iraq, attrocities or trigonomic parallaxes - it's about news programs, playing for the team against terror, and the super-refined media we get treated to.