University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Annika W Onken

AUST 6100 Issues in Australian Studies

13/05/2009

Anzac Day (Essay # 2)

1

Assumed that Anzac Day in its function as a national day is an invention (Seal 4), the

question arises what understandings of the day are imposed on the recipients and how. A

central point in this discussion is the idea that Anzac Day as a national myth builds a

connection between the private life and public history in the form of national sentiment as

addressed by Davison (2003), Seal (2004), McKenna & Ward (2007), and White (2003). In

comparing media material about Anzac Day from 1968 and 2009 I will look at how the

establishment of this connection is aimed at in a militaristic framework and how

understandings of it differ. Furthermore, I will investigate in how far notions beyond this

militaristic context are incorporated. How is the commemoration of Anzac Day understood in

relation to a rising multiplicity of Anzac understandings?

In 1968 the Courier Mail, while focusing on organisational facts, the weather and

subsequent entertainment concerning the approaching Anzac Day, describes the event of 1915

in a sober manner: "Because Britain was involved in a European war we, too, became

involved. So did New Zealand. Thus Anzac" (A long way 2). The article does not focus on

"great war deeds", although acknowledging the day′s roots in remembering the fighting men,

but sees Anzac Day now predominantly as a day to commemorate the improvements

Australia has accomplished since then in detaching itself from the influences of Britain and

setting up a "new nationhood" (A long way 2). The Anzac parade and the marching of the

diggers, which experienced heavy rain and march cancellations in that year, is presented as

pathetic and redundant when it says that "Brisbane on Anzac Day was a cold, empty city" (It

just didn′t seem to be Anzac Day 1). Marchers were "confused" and "wondering around

seeking information" (Angry at no Anzac Show 3). In the light of human reality diggers are

seen as invalid old men and mutual recriminations between organisers and marchers display

an unstable and fading Anzac spirit.

The Australian

accompanies these 1968 portrayals when appealing "not to glorify

these wars and those who survived them but to remember those who died in them and hope it

was worth it" (Pinpointing the spirit of Anzac 6). The Anzac spirit is understood as protecting

the freedom which, with reference to Vietnam, is argued to not always be viable (Pinpointing

6). Numerous demonstrations against Anzac Day carrying messages such as "Anzac Justifies

Vietnam Murders" (The ranks 3) reflect this.

Thus, in an atmosphere of humanity and international orientation the Anzac spirit

seems to fail to connect the personal and the public life of people, either portrayed as

reflection on delimiting nationalistic ideas or as an unaccomplishable peace mission.

2

The Sydney Morning Herald

on the other hand in an emotive manner advocates

1968′s Anzac Day as an occasion to honour the old veterans themselves as role models.

No life which had not experienced its fair share of sacrifice had any real significance.

The willingness of Australians to make sacrifices, or to die in war, was the expression

of their love for their country [...]. (New Ideals 6)

The participation in war constitutes a core characteristic in the understanding of nationhood

and is worshipped and sanctified by using terms like `sacrifice′, "baptism of fire" or

"immortal" (New Ideals 6). The sacred and the secular are fused (Seal 172). Furthermore, it is

the men who consequently carry the Anzac spirit and responsibility for its preservation since

women and children cannot serve in war. However, a huge amount of pictures and emotional

writing addresses these two parties and tries to establish a personal, sentimental connection

between their lives and the public affairs of Anzac Day.

Freedom is seen as having been brought to Australians by the Anzacs. The printing of

an honouring telegram from the Queen (Telegram 12) reinforces the idea of a vital tradition of

`peace missions′ as embodying the Anzac spirit. "[I]t is important to remember that it would

take only one weak generation of Australians for us to lose much of what we have" (With

heads bent 12). Young men refusing to serve in war and "burning [their] conscription notices"

(Seal 154) are perceived as a threat to national identity.

In 1968 contradicting understandings of Anzac Day reflect a nation that was "just as

effectively split" (Seal 153). However contradicting these understandings might be, they are

determined in a military context in relation to war or the nationalistic `identity struggle′

against Britain. The notion of "a conscious `creation′ of the memory of war" (Davison 78) is

supported.

Seal argues that the ability to "adapt to new circumstances [...] is the secret of

successful mythologising" (172). This tendency to extend understandings of the Anzac spirit

and its addresses beyond a context of war can be observed from media material of Anzac Day

2009 as I will show. Nevertheless, the militaristic context is profoundly sustained. A long

tradition of military service is emotionally displayed as being the core of the Australian soul

by reporting about long living militaristic family histories (Walker 1). War veterans are titled

as "living national treasure[s]" and all fighting men thought of as embodying "the spirit of

Anzac" (McPhedran 1). Paralleling this is the claim that Australia is urgently dependent on

the military due to "China′s steadily growing military might and [...] sharper strategic

competition among Asia′s great powers [...]" (Walters 1) which, amongst others, is exposed

as a threat to the nation.

3