As you most probably know, today is ANZAC Day – a national (or binational, since it is in NZ too) celebration of the actions of soldiers who have fought for the nation. I must admit that I don’t really approve of the whole thing. Here are a few reasons why:
(1) It is nationalistic – Perhaps one reason that I see this as a negative aspect is that I have never been particularly patriotic. I am a dual US-Australian citizen, but I have no real sense of American citizenry, and am unconvinced of my Australianness. I have affection for the land and its people, but am not easily stirred to nationalist fervour.
I also feel as though national boundaries are fairly arbitrary, so I don’t see why I should feel particular solidarity with someone I have never met who lives on the other side of the country. I can’t think of anything that really unites every Australian; there are some beliefs that are generally accepted – such as ‘mateship’, resentment of authority/hierarchy and a love of sport – but it isn’t like these are distinctive to Australia or true for every Australian.
Not only is it an arbitrary construction, but I also often find nationalism to insidious. Nationalism is always reinforced through the exclusion of foreigners and so it is a natural support for racism. It creates an ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality which has no real justification or value. When we uphold nationalist stereotypes, like the ANZAC digger, those who fall outside the mould are denied their full status as citizens or even humans.
Nationalism is also a motivation and justification for war. War has always been the means by which nations establish their strength and merit, and taking pride in a nations war efforts suggests war is the solution to the nation’s problems.
(2) It is a glorification of war – I should say first of all that I don’t think all ANZAC celebrations explicitly glorify war.
Very often they may reflect on the horror of war. However, they neglect to show the futility of war.We desperately want to believe all those soldiers sacrificed their lives for a just cause, but for the most part they didn’t. The Australian forces has often acted as a peacekeeping force, but ANZAC particularly commemorates those who give their lives – something which rarely occurs in acting as a peacekeepers. Primarily, we are called to remember the wars Australia fought in, which have perhaps never been just. The country has never had the need to defend its own soil as the only time it was attacked at home was by the Japanese in Feb 1942 – months after we had declared war on Japan. Australia’s wars have generally not been defending its borders or its citizens, but defending its interests, or those of our allies, overseas.
When we remember our war efforts it should not be with pride, but with a deep regret that we were not able to resolve our problems in a humane manner.
(3) It negates the responsibility of soldiers for their actions – There is an idea out there that we should support the troops regardless of whether we believe that the war they are fighting in is justified. I find this an awful and dangerous idea. It suggests that no matter how unjust the war is those fighting are not wrong in supporting it and enabling it.
The universal soldier really is to blame for their actions. Just because you wear a uniform doesn’t mean you no longer have responsibility for your actions. It is always the soldier’s choice to fight, and they are always culpable for what they do (as are those who direct them to fight). I am not a pacifist, and I support armed conflict in some cases (though only ever as a last resort, and even then it is a hideous thing), but I would only ever fight, or support others fighting if the cause was just and means justified.
The intentions of the Australian soldiers defending their family and citizens were very often noble, but no digger should ever be proud of the fact that they attacked and killed other people, especially since those they killed were most often soldiers themselves, fighting for the same cause – the safety of their families. It is wrong for someone to go out and kill for an unjust cause, and there are Australian soldiers that we should be criticising for taking part in unjust wars.
All that said, there are some very good things about ANZAC Day. Most significantly, we are remembering lessons from history. We should never forget what has been done and what is being done to achieve the freedom we have. War often reveals the worst of mankind and we should be remembering what man is capable of. We should be remembering what the consequences are of both choosing to fight and choosing not to fight. And when we remember we should not do so with the non-critical gaze that ANZAC Day suggests is appropriate.
All that said, there are some very good things about ANZAC Day. Most significantly, we are remembering lessons from history. We should never forget what has been done and what is being done to achieve the freedom we have. War often reveals the worst of mankind and we should be remembering what man is capable of. We should be remembering what the consequences are of both choosing to fight and choosing not to fight. And when we remember we should not do so with the non-critical gaze that ANZAC Day suggests is appropriate.
8 comments:
We're both dual American-Australian citizens!
Hi Nate
I was just wondering if you could comment on the connection between this post and the last?
You said that you think it's good to have an offensive force, primarily, it seems to protect the defenseless. Do you see nationalism playing a part in that?
How do you think a force like Australia can go in to such a situation without glorifying them/ourselves as heroes?
Would love to hear your thoughts!
Tamie
Good point, Tamie, thanks for raising it.
I'm attracted to ideas of global citizenship, where we feel a sense of responsibility to everyone regardless of whether they are within our national borders (though it is expected that you might feel a greater responsibility for those in close proximity). We shouldn't need to have to market the cause of a war based on how it will protect Australians; humanitarian grounds should be sufficient.
Is it possible avoid glorifying the forces? The ADF-led operation in East Timor - sanctioned by the UN and involving forces from a number of countries - is perhaps too small a scale and too low on casualties to really prove the point, but I feel like it supports it. I see Australia as basically fulfiling there duty as part of the global institution, and it doesn't seem to be over romanticed in the media.
Having multi-national forces definetely helps, though I don't know what a workable model would be, since with the UN so much tends to depend on national politics.
You're right that there is something inherently admirable in risking one's life for the sake of others, so it can be difficult not to fall into blind glorification of a such an act, but I think it can be done if there is an emphasis on rational critique and the part of nation's in a global institution.
oh, gosh, what awful grammar. i meant "their duty" not "there".
Hi Nate, interesting post; in it you suggest that 'the wars Australia fought in...have perhaps never been just', I find this almost incomprehensible. While Hitler walked over Europe and was gassing six million Jews, Australians fought to deny him the right to establish his evil empire; surely you would classify this as a just cause.
irish, thank you for your comment. I admit that I probably said that without giving it the thought it deserved. I was feeling fairly frustrated at the time of writing, and was hesitant to acknowledge where war had really been just.
I agree that Australia was right to enter WW2 - both against Germany and Japan (though I find it difficult to reconcile some of the means that the Allied forces - including Australian troops - used to win the war).
Still, I regret the part Australia played in many wars (eg Boer War, WW1, Vietnam War, Iraq War).
Thanks for your clarification there Nate, however, i question the idea that we should 'regret' the part played by Australia in the wars you have listed. I think it might be necessary to consider whether there was adequate justification for our involvement at the time - i.e. vietnam = cold war...although i agree that the Iraq war was a mistake and has distracted us from bringing Al Queda to justice...What role if any do you think hindsight plays in judging the validity of Australia's involvement in these wars?
Post a Comment