An inclusive national identity?

Australians are fiercely proud of their national identity. Call us British or (shock, horror!) American and you'll likely be greeted with a confrontational:

"Maaate! C'mon!" 

When not stridently defending our national identity, we Australians are likely to be found just as passionately arguing over what said identity entails. This is never more prevalent than on, or around our national holiday when the beer, beaches and backyard cricket give way to more somber reflections. So it was in the aftermath of this Australia Day that I found myself reading the reflections of our deputy prime minister the Hon. Wayne Swann M.P. as he attempted to evoke our national character through an editorial piece for the Fairfax Media.

The article makes a case for the continued debate about an Australian republic. It does this by way of discussing the unique character of our Australian identity, distinct from the English, imperial settlers of the continent. Swann invokes the infamous 'Bodyline' series as model for our 'Australianess'; where a "democratic and egalitarian assertion of our national sovereignity" won out against tyranny. While many countries hearken back to periods of war and revolution to locate their defining moments of national character, for Australia the imagined battlefields are the sporting arenas our national teams so often dominate.

The 'Bodyline' series saw unorthodox tactics employed to gain a result for the English. Swann identifies these tactics as ruthless, imperialistic and against the spirit of the game. The implication is that England being the 'ruling' power felt they could bend and break established codes of behaviour to gain a favourable result for the team.

While arguments about the impact of the series will rage wherever there are cricket fans, in it we can see the origins of many a political tactic employed in modern Australia.

Spin and obfuscation; not of the bowling type, but the manipulation of words and perceptions. 'Bodyline' to the Australians was 'leg theory' to the English, not as sexy, but the Australian term was clearly adopted for maximum emotional clout. So it is in modern Australia that asylum seekers become 'queue jumpers', when their arrival is inconvenient; refugees become 'irregular maritime arrivals' when their legitimacy becomes inconvenient.

From our opponents we learned the assertion of power at the edges of legitimacy. Despite being unsafe and unsavoury, Bodyline fell within the broadest interpretation of the rules of cricket. Also legitimate, the Australian government feels, are our border control measures where we indefinitely detain people to ensure there is 'no advantage' to arriving by boat, or tow them back where no international convention protects their rights.

Bodyline may offer much by way of sporting history and tales of individual courage but it does not seem the best of models for political rule or national identity. Swann describes one element of the Bodyline series was the attempted assertion of imperial superiority. Against this our fledgling national identity could not stand down and heroes such as Woodfull, Oldfield and Bradman led us against this oppressive, restrictive regime. What this analysis fails to appreciate is the analogy between England's imposition of cultural hegemony on it's various, diverse, multicultural imperial subjects and contemporary Australia's attempts to impose a sense of Anglo-Australian identity over the much lauded but infrequently practiced multicultural tolerance.      

Further claims are made that Australian's are not a ruthless, whatever-it-takes people. This may ring true for the Bodyline series and it certainly accords with the image of the laid-back Australian. Such sanguine generosity may not resonate with Australian's Indigenous population, many of whom were ripped from their land and their people as Australia established it's modern identity without them. Nor would a refugee seeking assistance from Australia agree that our systems of acceptance are not ruthless. With legitimate refugees and children in immigration detention, it is hard to deny we do whatever it takes.

Swann's analysis works if you are arguing simply from an Australian/English dyad. This is admittedly his goal; to make the case for a republic. But in arguing for an Australian identity separate from England he presents a particularly exclusive, inward looking notion of who we are. Swann pays lip service to our Indigenous heritage but his argument turns on an Anglo identity that is Australian not English and certainly does not sound multicultural. A national identity that is not inclusive has no unifying force over it's population. Much in the same way a sense of identity that is too prescriptive will tend towards division as individuals struggle to locate their own personal self amidst a collection of stereotypical 'Australians'. 

Australia's national character and identity are not an issue resolved in a single article, a single conversation, perhaps not even by the severing of imperial ties with England. Minister Swann makes an admirable point about maintaining the republican debate but he crucially ignores the current state of our relationship with Indigenous Australians as well as those new Australians seeking our help. We need more from our politicians who should lead us in an open, inclusive conversation, one that appeals not just to inspirational moments in our past but to those of our future.

When I hear such conversations annually around Australia Day I wonder if perhaps discussing our evolving national identity is an integral part of that identity. What seems imperative to me is the acknowledgment of the shameful elements of our past and present as we forge an identity for the future.

Australia must identify that it was black before it ever was considered as white, and that we must see that heritage as ours. Constitutional acknowledgment of Indigenous Australians and a treaty would serve as an excellent beginning.

But Australia is no longer just indigenous and anglo. Identity also means accepting that 'the old country' is many places to many people, not just our old imperial master. Let's move towards an encompassing notion of identity for all. This will come at the cost of putting aside old rivalry for the promise of a peaceful tomorrow, nothing more than a greater peace throughout the world would require.

Most of all we need to talk, discuss, argue and agree because we continue to share this country and our division harms the future of our national identity. Even if this means debating who we are every year that is a conversation worth having, because that's a conversation we can all share in.

Invasion Day?

It's Australia day tomorrow, at least from where I'm sitting in Avignon. If you're back home the dawn will be breaking over our national holiday in a few short hours. Given it's a saturday I'd guess that a lot of people will miss that dawn and wake late feeling a little hungover and ready to do it all again in the name of national pride.

On Facebook I see a lot of friends planning and prepping for a big day around the bbq, at the beach, in the sun or wherever there is a flowing supply of beer. On Twitter it's a little different as I listen to a lot of people speculating over the meaning of our national day. Some tweets wonder out loud about how respectful it is to drape a flag across your shoulders and then proceed to get stinking drunk. Others openly deplore the gronks who use the day to spew racism at anyone who doesn't fit their (white) image of Australian. Many invoke the new name adopted for the day several years ago... 'Invasion Day'

My absolute favourites make clever use of the current debate over the treatment and fate of asylum seekers arriving by boat. They remind us that Australia's foundation myth involves people arriving by boat to a land that wasn't theirs, that these people did not have respect and assimilation on their minds when they met the locals and they continued to arrive as economic migrants because the 'lucky country' just seemed so damn good. Check out Bloody Boat People! for one of the best...

The term 'Invasion Day' hits a sensitive point with a lot of Australians. They see it as demeaning and disrespecting the fabulous country that Australia is today. They drag out another controversial term in 'black armband history' to deflect the argument. Now I hate it when people try to deflect or shut down an argument rather than face it (Rightzblock - I have a Right to my Opinion!), better to unpack all the discomfort and get it out there.

Shakespeare gave us "I think the lady doth protest too much" and he meant that when someone's shouting and kicking up a storm about something their motive may be a guilty conscience. No Australian alive today was present when the First Fleet from England arrived and began the takeover, but that doesn't mean that we don't today enjoy the spoils of what they achieved that day. If you don't like the term 'invasion day' perhaps you need to think about why you have this reaction, as well as why some people think it's an appropriate term.

Usually when two nations meet over a disputed territory they negotiate a treaty to settle the land. At present no treaty with Australia's first people exists. The Mabo decision granted limited land rights to some indigenous Australians, but this is not available to all. We apologised to the stolen generation in 2008 but that doesn't mean that the trauma of families torn apart disappears. Hell, we don't even recognise Indigenous Australia's in our constitution! - check out You, Me Unity

I think these are the reasons many people consider the 26th of January as 'Invasion Day' and if you're not comfortable for that term to sit alongside 'Australia Day', ask yourself why?