• Blog
  • About
  • Contact
  • Archives

in service of the
​common good

a warrior culture

19/11/2020

12 Comments

 

A Warrior Culture
 
The Prime Minister warned us that we would be in for some shocking reading as the report into Australian war crimes in Afghanistan was released.  That there were 39 alleged murders, and 19 Australian soldiers involved, is indeed shocking; but the report was heavily redacted, sparing us the details.  We are told that one of these crimes is the most shocking to have occurred in the whole of Australian military history.
 
How is it possible that such awful atrocities occurred?  One of the explanations, quite apart from shockingly inadequate supervision and leadership from the top down, is the development of a known ‘warrior culture’.
 
Let us assume for a moment that the development of this perversion of culture contributed to a conditioning of the soldiers involved, enabling the crossing of a line that would otherwise be considered inconceivable.  Where does this perversion have its origins?  Is it possible that fertile soil exists outside the closed ranks of the military within the myth making of greater Australian identity, especially the ANZAC myth? To a lesser degree, are we all complicit for condoning a particular version of nationhood to the exclusion of other influences which might otherwise temper the dominant narrative?
 
Now, I am not suggesting for one moment that the ANZAC myth tolerates such shocking behaviour, but I am suggesting that the exultation of the ANZAC myth above all other contributing factors of Australian identity leads to a corruption of the true nature of what it means to be an Australian.
 
We all know that when politicians are in difficulty, a proven method of distracting public attention from domestic difficulties is to become involved in overseas conflict. John Howard did this, as did Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnston, and many others.  Equally perverse has been Australia’s recent ambition to be one of the leading exporters of armaments, despite the fact we have a very chequered history in the usefulness or effectiveness of big-ticket items we purchase.
 
Australia has been involved in almost every conflict involving our ‘allies’ during my lifetime.  With the benefit of hindsight, the only morally defendable conflict was World War 2.  And yet, around this history of conflict we have woven a myth of nation building that exaggerates the impact of conflict in the business of nation building and leaves room for the perversion of identity through lack of balance and a more considered perspective.   If however we are to continue building such a view of ourselves then we should not be surprised that those who are deemed to be the elite of the elite as flag bearers of this identity should consider themselves heroic beyond what might more reasonably perceived to be authentic Australian identity.
 
Politicians of all persuasions load onto the military bandwagon when it suits them. An iconic example of the disproportionate attention being given to Australia’s military history is the obscene amount of money about to be spent on pulling down and rebuilding part of the Australian War Memorial in Canberra.  The venture is quite outrageous when seen against the reduction of money available to other institutions that mark equally important aspects of Australian life and nation building. 
 
I venture the elements that should be celebrated as foundational to Australian identity and nation building are:
 
  1. The history, culture, dispossession, giftedness and contribution of Australia’s First Nations people. The history of wars and conflict against First Nations people should have equal priority to remembrance of lives lost in overseas conflict. More Australian First Nations people lost their lives in conflict on this soil than Australians who have lost lives in overseas conflict, with the possible exception of World War 1.
  2. The life and struggle of the early settlers
  3. Australia’s multi-cultural migration
  4. The development of Australian arts in all their forms
  5. Australia’s involvement in overseas conflict.
 
While the honouring of First Nations people should be given the highest priority in elements that shape national identity and nation building, the next four are of equal importance. Our involvement in overseas conflict should not be given priority over other elements.
 
It is a matter of sober thought that those who engage in any form of violence are less likely to acknowledge the point at which boundaries are crossed.  Considerable thoughtful work is emerging about the relationship between interhuman violence and violence done to the natural order. The conservative side of politics appears to define as heroic any form of exploitative work, however demeaning to the natural order, that produces short term monetary wealth.
 
As a nation we must give serious reconsideration to that which we consider heroic. If we consider heroism to be inextricably connected to some form of violence, then we should not be surprised when this comes home to haunt us.
 
As General Campbell has said, the heroes in this tragic saga are those who have blown the whistle. It is salutatory to be reminded that the Australian government, through the office of the Attorney General, is still pursuing whistle blowers in another context and for too long was doing so in this context.
 
ANZAC day should be honoured, but it should not become Australia’s national day as it has more recently become by default.  Nor should there be a ‘Military Division’ alongside the General Division of the Australian Honours system, a change recommended by the panel commissioned to review Australian honours in 1995 but dropped stone dead by the incoming Howard government.
 
The soldiers who have been accused of Afghanistan atrocities should face the full impact of the law, nothing can excuse their alleged conduct.
 
However, Australia and Australian politicians should think again about our propensity to easily send men and women into harm’s way for the most dubious of reasons.  Those who fought in Vietnam, The Gulf, Iraq, or Afghanistan must wonder what on earth it was about and what it has achieved.
 
But more broadly, Australia and Australians should consider more carefully what in our culture and nation building we consider to be most heroic.  Drawing on the Sermon on the Mount for a definition of heroic activity, those who deserve this accolade are not those involved in violence, but the doctors and nurses at the front line of the pandemic, refugees who have risked everything to give their children a better life, the emerging generation of indigenous leadership and figures such as doctors Richard Harris and Craig Challan.
 
12 Comments
Bruce Henzell
19/11/2020 08:54:21 pm

Spot on!

Reply
Roslyn Ross
19/11/2020 08:56:32 pm

To talk of those descended from the 350 different tribes, mostly clans, here in 1788, as First Nations is to betray the other 24.4 million Australians without Aboriginal ancestry.

A nation requires at least a common language. There was no common language amongst Aboriginal peoples, descended as they were from different waves of migration and colonisation.

Today, those people ranging from 100% Aboriginal ancestry, very few of those, to less than 1%, lots of those and most so minimally Aboriginal in ancestry they could not register as such in any other country on earth, have a common language, English and are members of the Australian nation, as equal citizens as they have always been.

Indeed, neither Germany nor Italy were nations until the middle of the 19th century.

There is one nation, Australia. There are no First, Second, Thirds, just one nation, Australia.

Reply
George Browning
19/11/2020 10:48:52 pm

Roslyn,

Thank you very much for your comment. I quite agree that the concept of a nation state is quite modern and in that sense 'first nation' is perhaps a clumsy expression. It is however widely used to recognise that original occupants of land have rights that are not obviated by later settlers without agreement. This is contemporarily recognised in the High Court's declaration that terra nullius was wrong and that 'native title' exists. It is also contemporarily acknowledged in the idea of 'Voice to parliament' which surveys suggest has support from a considerable majority of Australians

Reply
Patrick McCauley
20/11/2020 02:06:54 am

Native Title exists in Australia because of the generosity of spirit - and the Christian compassion -and the hope of western civilisation and the spirit of the swaggie in Waltzing Matilda ... and because the idea of giving a person a fair go was something Australians used to think was a good idea ... and because all Australians are immigrants and often arrived in this far off strange country on the bones of the arses ... and managed to make good in the face of almost insurmountable odds. Terra Nullius is an insulting left wing lie ... and was not known as a concept until the 20th century ( refer Michael Connor - "The Myth of Terra Nullius"). Mabo was based on the land rights for Torres Straight Islanders and should never have applied to the Australian Aboriginal who was definitely nomadic and without concept of sovereignty. The opposite in fact - the land owned them. All Australians are equal in front of the law ... and efforts to romanticise the short harsh and brutish lives of tribal Aboriginal peoples ... as first class citizens just makes the whole Muti-cultural diaspora of Australians into 2nd class citizens. They were not 'Nations' they were often extended family groups, language groups, and 'Tribes'. The voice to Parliament does not have the support of most Australians at all - because it may create a third chamber and establish a class system of citizenship. It is an utterly 'racist' idea. Though your article is well meaning - it/you are part of the problem for modern Indigenous people not part of the solution. Australians are not 'inherently racist' ... and if you do not realise that clearly - you do not know the true Australian spirit.

Roslyn Ross
20/11/2020 04:52:03 pm

The term First Nations is not just clumsy it is divisive. As I am sure you are well aware, words have power.

First implies a Second and First always carries connotations of superior in some way. To talk about First Nations peoples is to relegate the Australian nation to Second place. It also infers that Australians without Aboriginal ancestry are secondary. This may not be the intention, but it is an inevitable result.

The use of the term is also erroneous because there were no nations on this land we call Australia until the British set in place a system which could create one.

As to the rights of the many different peoples, called first Indians, then Natives and finally Aborigines by the British, it seems to be forgotten that they were made English subjects by the beginning of the 19th century, with rights in law. When Australians stopped being English subjects and became citizens in 1949, so too did all those with Aboriginal ancestry.

The British and later Australian Governments, and it is all a matter of record, worked hard to protect and preserve Aboriginal peoples, even to seeking to prevent intermarriage in order that they be preserved. Humans are however not so easily controlled and today, of the roughly 600,000 who register Aboriginal ancestry, the majority are minimally Aboriginal in ancestry and mostly Anglo-European. Some as little as less than 1%.

However, this group, most of whom could not register native status in any other country have more rights and benefits than other Australians. They are full citizens and have had rights for more than two centuries. Some of them also have rights to land and mining royalties so quite what they have missed out on is the question.

As to the proposal to give this group a 'voice,' above and beyond the voice they have as Australian citizens, the question would not just be Why but How?

What is the common voice between someone 100% Aboriginal from the Warlpiri tribe in central Australia and someone who had a Yuin great-grandparent in New South Wales? None. Indeed, someone living in a remote community in WA who is 100% Aboriginal in ancestry has nothing in common with someone in a remote community in Far North Queensland, other than being labelled Aboriginal and living in a remote community.

Beyond the impossibility for a communal voice for a group which is not united and never was, why should a tiny minority of Australians be able to 'speak louder' than the rest? That is tribalism, not democracy. And my guess would be the majority of Australians would categorically reject such a racist division of this nation and our democracy.

I fully understand those who promote such things mean well but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and racism in any form is destructive.

George Browning
20/11/2020 04:50:45 pm

Patrick,

Because the points you raise are not central to the core thrust of the piece I wrote, I will not respond here, but when I can find the time I will post a blog in response to your comments. In the meantime I recommend Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu, with which I am sure you will find grave exception.

Reply
Roslyn Ross
20/11/2020 05:14:11 pm

I would humbly suggest that before recommending Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu, you take the time to check all of his sourced references. You will find, as many of us have done, that Pascoe's skills as a fiction writer are more to the fore than anything else. He is not a historian and has no qualifications in any relevant field. He is certainly a good yarn-spinner but that is not history.

However, do not take my word for it. You might find the following of interest:

Is Dark Emu good history? - A New Student and Teacher Study Book, by Robert Lewis.

Robert Lewis is a former history teacher and pioneer of the development of evidence-based inquiry units in history classrooms. He has written over 300 classroom educational resources, mainly Australian History.

He was awarded a New South Wales Premier’s Young People’s History Prize in 2008, and was recognised with the Outstanding Contribution to the Teaching and Learning of History Award from the History Teachers’ Association of Victoria in 2013.

This is also worth reading:

Quote: But throughout Dark Emu, Pascoe regularly exaggerates and embellishes.

Russell Marks is a lawyer and an honorary research associate at La Trobe University. He is the author of Crime and Punishment: Offenders and Victims in a Broken Justice System (Black Inc., 2015).

https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/russell-marks/2020/05/2020/1580868886/taking-sides-over-dark-emu

Reply
Patrick McCauley
4/12/2020 04:53:26 pm

https://www.booktopia.com.au/the-invention-of-terra-nullius-michael-connor/book/9781876492168.html

Reply
Patrick McCauley
4/12/2020 04:55:08 pm

https://www.boffinsbooks.com.au/books/9780995368316/bitter-harvest-the-illusion-of-aboriginal-agriculture-in-bruce-pascoes-dark-emu

Reply
john singer
20/11/2020 05:31:13 pm

Talk about casting the first stone. I remember the 1990's.

Reply
Sister Laurel Clare Lloyd-Jones lfsf
30/11/2020 01:18:22 pm

An excellent piece George, but once again one feels disappointment at the values expressed in some of the responses. It seems that our country has lacked inspired and visionary leadership for so long with the only focus being economics over care and compassion, jingoism and glorification of war, Anzac Day, and nationalism, and racism seen in the de-funding of worthwhile self-directed Indigenous projects. The refusal to acknowledge our First Nation People (who were well documented by Sturt on the banks of the Murray with regard to their farming and housing practices) comes couched in so-called "rational comment" in order to refute such evidence. I find myself deeply saddened by such attitudes but so pleased that you speak to truth in your article regarding Australia's disproportionate obsession with our military focus.

Reply
Roslyn Ross
30/11/2020 03:50:21 pm

@Sister Laurel,

I feel I must reply to your comment. There is no refusal to acknowledge that many different peoples called Aborigines by the British, after first calling them Indians and then Natives, were here before the Europeans arrived.

Indeed, it is a matter of record that when the First Fleet set sail from England, it did so with orders from the British Government to befriend, learn from and assist the peoples living in what we now call Australia. Of course they were acknowledged.

Within a short time they were made English subjects with rights in law, as should be done, and when we all became Australian citizens and stopped being subjects in 1949, so did they.

So just what is this lack of acknowledgement? Today, Australians with Aboriginal ancestry, ranging from 100%, very few of those, to less than 1%, lots of those and most minimally Aboriginal in ancestry, not only have all of the same rights as every other Australian but they have more rights and benefits, whether they need them or not. So, just what is missing?

And yes, the habits, lives, languages, cultures, beliefs of Aboriginal peoples were well-recorded by the Europeans and for that we should be grateful. However, it was also very clear that they were generally nomadic, some more so than others, but certainly hunter-gatherers, with all the risks that entailed, living at a stone-age level of life, and that they wanted what the Europeans had which represented to them, vastly advanced technology. That is human nature.

Were the British so wrong to strive to bring them into the then modern world, just as we do today, spending billions globally, trying to bring Third World peoples into our modern world? Indeed, that goal is one for which Christians in particular have striven over many centuries.

As to your use of the term First Nation, there is and only ever has been, one Nation, Australia, and we are all equal citizens. There were no Aboriginal nations and indeed we have no idea which, if any of the more than 350 groups here in 1788 were descended from the first Homo Sapiens to arrive, i.e. First. And to talk of some Australians today, because of ancestry, as First is to relegate all others to Second. That is tribalistic and not democratic, however well-intentioned it might be.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe


    ​Author

    ​Bishop George Browning. 
    ​Retired Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn.

    ​Inaugural chair Anglican Communion Environment Network

    ​PhD Thesis: Sabbath and the Common Good: An Anglican response to the Environmental Crisis.

    ​President: Australia Palestine Advocacy Network

    ​Chair: Christians for an Ethical Society..

    ARCHIVE

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

    Publications

    Sabbath and the Common Good: Prospects for a New Humanity, Echo Books 2016

    ​

    Links​

    Barbara May Foundation

    ​Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture

    Australia Palestine Advocacy Network

    ​Christians for an Ethical Society


Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Blog
  • About
  • Contact
  • Archives