I’ve never been very patriotic. As a small child, I figured the best way to support the winning team was to pick the side most likely to win. It seemed logical to back the strongest horse and so every year, when the Bledisloe Cup came around, I backed New Zealand while everyone else barracked for the Aussies. New Zealand always seemed to win; it made sense. Locality had very little to do with it. For me, that mindset exists to this day. I care less for sport than I did then (I see sport as sport, a recreational event which has, like many things, become monetised and integrated into mainstream culture) but if I have to choose a side, I pick the better one. I am a pacifist and have never understood the glorification, I wouldn’t choose to die for my country. My country’s not really mine anyway.
Purebred and Proud
When Hannah Arendt was covering the Nuremberg trials which would decide the fates of war-criminals including Adolph Eichmann, she commented on a concept she called ‘The banality of evil.’ Eichmann believed that he was just taking orders, filing paperwork, administrating a small part of the machine. And this can be said of many of the Nazi party’s loyal servants. I use the word servants very deliberately because they had become slaves to the machine. Arendt’s concept illustrated that great evil can exist inside a system considered so banal, so much a part of the everyday, that it becomes as regular and inconsequential as breakfast, lunch or dinner. Hitler and the Nazi party knowingly created a system of propaganda which turned its citizens to desperation, spying on one another for the ‘sake of the German future.’ For the most part, they were unaware of what was being done to the Jews in the camps, but nevertheless they manifested a public racism that was so consuming that those involved were completely taken in. Of course, German nationalism during and prior to the second world war is an interesting and diverse topic and we cannot begin to go into the other impulses towards war here. But what Arendt tried to show was the unparalleled way in which Nazism normalised racism and then used the normalcy of the situation to justify genocide.
Now, I won’t be so hell-bent as to turn now and call each and every patriot a racist, or even worse, a Nazi. The above example exists purely as a ‘proof of concept’, definitely the extreme of a system. Yet that does not mean the system does not hold merit in lower, less harmful doses. Yesterday, while browsing through one of the many discount stores in Sydney, I was disturbed to find a pair of thongs (flip-flops for our American readers, before you start giggling) with the Australian flag and the words ‘Purebred Australian.’ The first thing that I noticed was of course the flag, a symbol we have become used to misusing. The southern cross, and specifically southern cross tattoos, has become the icon for what I would call ‘neo-patriotism.’ Neo-patriotism is not of the same breed which led our grandfathers to fight for their lives in the World Wars and it is this difference which I believe should also keep the term ‘digger’ to those soldiers. Neo-patriotism is not a love for the country as it exists, it is a love for a subset of that country which has been deemed ‘true blue.’ It is a bastardised version of patriotism which glorifies Anglosaxon immigrants of one time period over those ethnicities who came later, and the aboriginal people who were here for centuries before.
The term purebred implies that both parents of a specific person come from one breed. A purebred Australian would imply that both parents were Australian; a term which means nothing. An Australian ancestry has only been Australian for 200 years, the people that came before that didn’t see themselves under that term, and they certainly aren’t the ones buying ‘purebred Australian’ thongs. This term, along with ‘Aussie Pride’ and slogans like ‘We grew here. You flew here.’ are bigoted attempts at self-elevation against a person with darker skin, a different nose, an alternative culture, but they exist to create a normalcy for racism within many subsets of “White Australian” society. And we are not alone, the same racism occurs within the ethnic communities of Australian too. The refusal to accept other cultures is one of the greatest sources of mass violence in existence. It is the normality of the ‘purebred’ which allows racial attacks to occur. It is the banality of our racism which causes such deep segregation of cultures. Both definitions of ‘purebred’ in the Random House dictionary pertain directly to animals, and perhaps that is fitting of the plotting beasts we have let our nation become.
Ballsy, Webster.
Doesn’t look like you’re going to be putting up a flag on your front lawn any time soon.
Still, can’t argue that you’re beating round the bush with your opinions on racism. Pretty powerful stuff for a pacifist, especially the last paragraph. Very well done.
None of this is refutable. But none of it is particularly new either. And I’m not sure if it’s ballsy to denounce narrow-mindedness and xenophobic behaviour, so much as expected and necessary.
I’m not at all dismissing this type of discussion; obviously the continuing reinforcement of such a baseline stance is important.
But.
Cultures have been clashing since the beginning of civilization. The refusal to accept other cultures and indeed the desire to assert the superiority of one culture over another is something that has defined human history. So what of it? To me, this is far more interesting a discussion than the plain and simple ‘racism is bad’ topic. We all know racism is bad. We all know it exists. We all know it is wrong. When are we going to move away from the rousing narratives about how wrong it is, and start looking at the factors that has seen it be an intrinsic part of our evolution as a species?
“Neo-patriotism is not of the same breed which led our grandfathers to fight for their lives in the World Wars and it is this difference which I believe should also keep the term ‘digger’ to those soldiers. Neo-patriotism is not a love for the country as it exists, it is a love for a subset of that country which has been deemed ‘true blue.’ It is a bastardised version of patriotism …”
I wonder if you can glorify one form of patriotism, because it was seen in the context of a bloody war, and dismiss another. To me, it feels as if you are saying patriotism has no place, yet you romanticize it in the context of war because these men were ‘fighting for their lives’. Why is it acceptable in war, when it is war that is the very manifestation of the culture clashes you speak of and indeed plead with to stop? Read up on the massacre of Surafend in 1918.
If you are, as this column purports to do, seeking the grey shades of life, then you need to stop seeing things only in black and white.
Hmmm, the danger of this type of conversation is that we are all likely to look at each other and say “Racism… bad…” (with appropriate vigorous nodding). This isn’t new.
I wonder if those same patriots from the world wars (the ones we can still assure ourselves we were on the right side of) supported the White Australia policy that was rockin the suburbs down under at that time.
Nothing is ever as simple at this.
P.S. Picking the winning team doesn’t mean you don’t like patriotism, it just tends to mean you don’t like losing.
I wish people would start to realise that patriotism means much more than having the Southern Cross tattooed on your shoulder, or wearing thongs emblazoned with ‘purebred Australian’. Or getting pissed on Australia Day. In fact, many of these generalisations have very little to do with being patriotic – they are merely tools used to show emotion, tools used to declare a stance.
Patriotism is many things – emotions, actions, choices. Supporting and maintaining Australian (or any) culture. Supporting Australian (or any) businesses, education, products, environment. I do not believe that being patriotic has anything to do with racism. Am I racist because I choose to buy, where ever humanly possible, only 100% Australian owned and made products? Am I racist because I am proud of my country and the contribution we make in the world? Am I racist for believing that we live in the best country in the world? Am I racist for having a sticker of the Australian flag on the back window of my car? It’s hardly a swastika. It’s a very fine line, but I believe that patriotism is a valid and important part of any society.
In fact, the lack of patriotism is a problem. Apathy gets us nowhere. Passion is needed to fuel our society and pride is needed to keep it respectful and educated.
Sport is, in fact, one of the rare places where patriotism is at its best example – where people battle it out and want to win, simply for their country. My twin uncles, born in another country, represented Australia in two Olympic games and for them, it was one of the biggest and most important highlights and achievements in their lives. My brother, a three time Australian cycling champion, spent the best years of his youth – from 15-32, traveling the world and riding in events from Spain to France to New Zealand to country towns in Australia representing the country he loves. He will tell you there is no better feeling than standing on a podium, in the hills of Italy or Spain, on the number 1 block, with the Australian flag draped across your shoulders.
And he will also tell you that seeing and experiencing the amazing world we live in makes you appreciate, all the more, just how beautiful this country really is.
Catherine – Ta. Glad you liked it.
Liv – I wasn’t just denouncing racism, though there is that part of it. I was illustrating that we are reaching a point where racism is becoming normal. a dangerous point. Cultures clash yes, but our diplomacy has come leaps and bounds. It is hard to imagine a World War III. Shall we condemn ourselves to a future of clashing cultures purely because history deems it so? Cultures have clashed because they cannot understand one another, because their values do not match. So did Blacks and Whites, Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. Surely, we are at a point where we should be considering a change?
Sure, it is an intrinsic part of our evolution as a species, but that doesn’t make it a necessary part per se. What is to say that cooperation cannot be as fruitful in progress?
I am not dismissing ‘neo-patriotism’ and holding ‘patriotism’ true because of their proximity to death. Neo-patriotism is not about defending the home soil, or even defending ‘Australian values’ (which keep purporting themselves as multiculturalism.) The neo-patriot is not a patriot in any traditional sense, it is a guise which normalises racism.
I am not saying it is more acceptable in war than elsewhere, but there is a great difference to fighting in a war people had no choice but to be a part of, and actively seeking out racial battles.
Dora – No it’s not new, and your point about the White Australia policy is valid. That said, my grandfather was a good man, a minister who cared for everyone no matter their circumstances, but it cannot be said he grew up without certain prejudices, purely because of his surrounding culture. I’d like to think that we have worked beyond that in terms of equal rights. The White Australia Policy definitely is a valid point to bring up, but we can’t view people as if they live in a vacuum and say that racism 50 years ago is the same as racism now.
Your point about picking the winning side is a good one, and definitely quotable. However, my anecdote was to align myself as someone who has never felt a strong patriotic pull, and has never felt ‘bad’ for picking another country’s team. I’m not saying that I was making a stand by picking NZ as a child; just illustrating my personal point of view, and the fact that I have never felt the ties of nationalism.
Sandi – I think that supporting Australian products because you believe that the system that you support, supports you, is such a bad thing. But buying Australian products purely because it happens to be the country you are in seems to truly come back to an arbitrary label we put on ourselves… If you were living and working in the USA for a decade, but you were born here, would you buy Australian important products (aside from the nostalgia?) I believe the system allows for the marketing of Australian products as an integral part of patriotism, but I don’t think buying Australian products is necessarily patriotic as such.
On the note of sport, I both agree and disagree. What does playing internationally have to do with patriotism, especially given that many sportspersons are poached from other countries? There is a pride with representing Australia because you are the best in the country, but I don’t know if I truly believe that the same player, had he been born in NZ, would be any more devoted to NZ. It is not the grandeur of the country that makes representation worthwhile, but the tie between the individual and his birthplace.
On the other hand, Migrants who choose to play for Australia because they have chosen their new residency based on its merits, not on the somewhat arbitrary connection between birthplace and individual, seem to have a greater sense of pride. They chose their ideal lifestyle and they are proud of their decisions. Despite what Aussie Pride may think, a lot of migrants have a greater sense of achievement and pride for their citizenship because of what they have been through to earn it.
I think you’re sort of missing my point.
“Shall we condemn ourselves to a future of clashing cultures purely because history deems it so? Cultures have clashed because they cannot understand one another, because their values do not match. So did Blacks and Whites, Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. Surely, we are at a point where we should be considering a change?”
Sam, it’s entirely Utopian and almost naive to assume we can change to the point you’re talking about, where cultures do not clash and everyone lives in harmony. It’s also a largely Western ideal, alongside the notion we can make everything okay by pointing to Nazism and reminding everyone what happens when a despot favours blue eyed blondes. Many cultures, and the world contains thousands, quite simply, do not WANT to get along. They are on different ends of a vast and complex spectrum and for someone who has led a placid life untainted by an age old grudge or conflict, it is so simple to call for a change. Too simple. And that is what I am talking about when I reference the history of the human race. And that is what I am saying when I ask you to delve deeper into this issue, beyond the superficial black and white of ‘racism is bad, let’s change now.’
“Sure, it is an intrinsic part of our evolution as a species, but that doesn’t make it a necessary part per se …”
How do you know that? Can that definitively be said? I urge you to go and immerse yourself in another culture, in a country that has been fighting with its neighbour for thousands of years, in a country that cannot see past an ancient grudge, that has built a culture based on survival, conflict and victory, and then say what you are saying with confidence.
“I am not dismissing ‘neo-patriotism’ and holding ‘patriotism’ true because of their proximity to death. Neo-patriotism is not about defending the home soil, or even defending ‘Australian values’ (which keep purporting themselves as multiculturalism.) The neo-patriot is not a patriot in any traditional sense, it is a guise which normalises racism.”
And the Patriot who rode into a village 90 years ago and massacred its inhabitants for a perceived racial slight wasn’t hiding beneath a guise that normalises racism?
I just really think you have barely scratced the surface of something truly massive. This is well trodden territory, this route you have taken. We’ve heard it all before.
Also, the people indigenous to Australia weren’t here for ‘centuries’ before this country’s discovery and ultimate settlement. They were here for 40,000 years.
That was clearly me, Liv. Forgot to log out.
Wow – live in a vacuum much Samuel?
You have missed my point completely. I wasn’t saying ‘we are all racists and have been for a while’, I was saying that ‘patriots’ who go to war under any circumstances are defending their cultural ideal. During the world wars that ideal included a hefty chunk of White Australia – my point is all patriotism (even the ‘good’ kind) is tainted by the sense that one’s culture is superior. Any version of patriotism you approve of is merely a version that defends what is culturally important to you.
I actually don’t know that your kindly worded paragraph in anyway responded to what I was talking about, though I am sure your grandfather was lovely.
It was better than your response to Liv though – that was based in no form of reality and came from a place of middle class, white suburban comfort. I also live in that place by the way. We both have to acknowledge that there are many more shades beyond the bland pastels that surround us. Some of those include a life of war and a cultural sense of victimhood… but I’m sure they can shrug that off.
Australia wasn’t built in a vacuum either, as a multicultural nation we inherit a lot of these problems. Shall we just ask them all to hug it out?
P.S. The point of sport isn’t patriotism – it’s the dramatic narrative pull of committing to one side and the fact that they may lose. It requires emotional conviction. Your point may have been your lack of patriotic pull, but my point still stands – you are risk averse and hate to lose. Ironically you are spinning it as a wild spirit, citizen of the world thing. You’re just SO complex.
I’ve said before, elsewhere, that I view patriotism as one of the world’s great evils: I don’t believe it comes in a truly benign format. To say we believe in the ideals a country upholds should be a comment on the ideals themselves, not the country, meaning that we would continue to support those ideals even if they ceased to be normative. The fact that they’ve been used as a national rubrick, while certainly a good thing, is secondary – unless you are a patriot, in which case it becomes a question of ownership: whatever ideals our country upholds should also be our ideals, because they are ours, and because we support our country.
As the commedian Bill Hicks once pointed out, no-one in the history of the world has ever died for a flag, but for the ideals it represents. He also said that patriotism made no sense to him: he didn’t have a say in where he was born and raised, so why should he be proud of luck and someone else’s decision?
At my most utopian and idealistic, I believe in a global society: a world without borders. This, of course, will never happen. Ever. As a species, we like to divide ourselves into different categories; and as Liv points out, not all of them get along, or want to, or could, or even should, if we’re talking moral absolutes – how can you form alliance with a culture whose ideals are anathema to your own, and still purport to have any kind of moral integrity? Sooner or later, anyone interested in breaking down cultural barriers must also acknowledge the awful truth of cultural assimilation: that somewhere, sometime, something’s got to give.
Patriotism has never encouraged the notion of universal rights, because it privileges the inhabitants of one country – and the methods of one country – on a basis removed from any objective assessment of merit. Not, of course, that there could be such an assessment, because we’re all subjective inhabitants of our own cultures: which is the problem, which is simultaneously representative of our greatest asset – the ability to individually distinguish ourselves, and to make choices.
Um. I think I’m starting to wander here. So I’ll stop.