April 25th is more of an Australia Day than the actual Australia Day, Labour Day, and Hot Sunny Day at the Beach combined. The grade one to ten syllabus spends hours of classroom time in the lead up teaching us about the incredible mateship, bravery and sacrifice of our diggers, and is definitely the only curriculum in the entire world that dedicates multiple years of education to a single donkey. As a result, 100 years of Australian identity, pride and nationalism has predominantly revolved around the ANZAC's campaign at Gallipoli in WWI, and from an intersectional feminist perspective, this is... less than ideal.
What is very important to acknowledge in a discussion about the impact and appropriateness of ANZAC Day is to understand the difference between the ANZACs as individual soldiers, and the ANZACs as a legend. There is no question that any person who suffered extreme conditions and sacrificed their lives for their country deserves respect and remembrance. However our memorials and Last Post renditions do not really honour those specific soldiers as people, but instead glorify a legend created around the airbrushed image of an ideal Aussie digger. The ANZAC Legend is an institutionalised myth which encourages a one-size-fits-all nationalistic pride, valuing courage, mateship, and a true blue Aussie love for adventure and the outdoors. It sounds lovely on paper, but this attitude is pretty damaging and deserves criticism. Disclaimer: By critiquing the ANZAC Legend we are not disrespecting the individual soldiers who died or were traumatised at Gallipoli, because their reality is so far removed from the symbolic myth created by subsequent governments for political nationalism.
Why is the ANZAC myth so problematic?
With the exception of the mythological Amazons, war has forever been exclusively hyper-masculine. War, bravery, courage, violence, killing and sacrifice are all inherently masculine, and to this day society struggles to associate women with any of these traits. Women have always been discouraged from taking part in war efforts past manufacturing on the home front, and in subsequent peacetime, this leads to a nation wide disrespect of women. When the men come home and history celebrates their selfless sacrifice, women are left shunned because they were never as brave, as patriotic, as
good as men. So when we have an entire nation that bases its self worth and the worth of its citizens off a legendary model of ANZAC diggers... Where does that leave women? The ANZACs are constantly built up to be the ultimate Australians, which implicitly tells half the Aussie population that they will never be as valued, as precious, as good as men. Trust me when I say it's not a nice message to receive your entire life. In many ways, war and militarism detriment women's social position, so when our greatest national pride exclusively values the clean shaven boys and men of wartime, our social mindset automatically reinforces a disregard and disrespect of women.
In a similar vein, the legend of the ANZACs is specifically white and Christian. Although this was more representative of the Australian demographic in the early 1900's than now, it still completely ignores the reality that there were many People of Colour and Indigenous Australians fighting as ANZACs. The hallowed story of an idealistic, proud Aussie boy of 21 signing up for an adventure in Turkey to fight for his country and defend his mates brings up images wholly of white, Anglo boys. It is this image that we pledge everlasting honour to every year, always skimming over the contribution of other races to Australia's history, and whitewashing our past.
- Militarism and Aggression
The Gallipoli campaign was coined Australia's "baptism of fire" into the global scene, having been newly federalised and keen to make it's impact both as a loyal servant of Mother England, but also as an autonomous country. It somewhat irks me that Australia's defining moment as a country is... war. In all our education on the ANZACs, the actual reality of the Gallipoli campaign is quietly left out. Australia's "greatest involvement" in WWI was an unprovoked attack, fought on behalf of an imperialist power. The ANZACs lost the battle, and either way, it was fairly insignificant to the outcome of WWI. Obviously this is the nature of war and is not to be dismissed. However, if this battle is the be all or end all of Australian pride and nationalism, it is necessary to call into question the values we are endorsing when we glorify the ANZACs. As individual people they followed orders and made sacrifices we struggle to imagine. However as a revered symbol of Australian-ness, they killed defensive soldiers, drunkedly raped and pillaged whilst training in Egypt, and contributed to The Great Bloodbath. Militarism as a nationalistic incentive is very common throughout history, however I prefer to believe that this is not the image we wish to emulate in modern day Australia. Not only because it is cruel and bloody, but again because militarism is sexist in its dispensable attitude towards women, and xenophobic mentality towards the "other".
The ANZACs are glorified to the extent that the aggressive-white-male image of the "ultimate Australian" overpowers any other Australian icon since 1905, and ostracises any person who does not fit said description. Instead of celebrating social progressions or advancements towards a peaceful and inclusive society, this country is disproportionately geared towards exalting a specific model citizen. The Aussie digger misrepresents 21st century Australia, and instead of over glorifying their myth, we should respectfully remember the individual soldiers whilst remaining critical of a system that seeks to ostracise its women, native people and immigrants.
Comment below!
Hannah
