It has been said that most people ignore most poems because most poems ignore most people. Good morning students and my fellow teachers. Before I begin I would like it to be known that I had constantly in my mind what a great honour it is for me to be standing here before you; the purpose for which I will now disclose. As many of you are no doubt aware, there has been a great deal of controversy in the media of late over Australia’s multicultural policies and the assimilation of migrants into mainstream Australian society. Many politicians with their own agendas to push are calling for migrants to conform to vague notions of “having a go” and being a “true-blue Aussie.” Yet these so-called definitions raise even more questions about the Australian identity. After all, what is it that so plainly distinguishes your typical Australian from your average Pom? What attitudes, values or beliefs have contributed to the way Australian culture is interpreted? As John Menadue; an Australian public servant remarks on his website: “We have demanded outsiders conform to ‘Australian’ culture even as each migrant wave has expanded what Australian culture means.” Even today’s so-called Australian culture has only been in existance in the last 200 years and yet its discourses have always been represented as standard. Nowhere are the sterotypes of this discourse more evident than in the bush poetry of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
These obviously white, male poets were notorious in their marginalization and often silencing of ethnic and religious groups that failed to fit the mould. Rarely, when these groups were mentioned they were often constructed in a profoundly negative and stereotypical way. Take for example the Chinese gold-diggers of the late 19th century, who despite enduring the same hardships as other European immigrants, were often constructed as immoral and thieving individuals simply because of their success. If only our European forefathers had embraced our cultural identity rather than shunned it – perhaps we would not have the moral panic that we have today. As John Menadue observed on his website “Cultural diversity has enriched Australia, not diminished or undermined its cohesion.” This brings me back to the bush poets of yesteryear, who either through blatant ignorance or prejudice towards Australia’s many ethnic groups have stereotyped, marginalized and in many cases omitted mention of these groups of individuals who made as much a contribution to Australian society as any Anglo-Celtic.
As testimony to this fact, I will now deconstruct a poem by the legendary bush poet Banjo Paterson; titled “We’re all Australians now.” I have selected this poem as, in my opinion; you would be hard pressed to find a piece of literature which better represents the values and opinions of Anglo-Celtic Australians than this one. By taking an in-depth view of this poem, we can begin to comprehend just how the Australian identity came about.
To do this, I will critically examine four of the main values constructed in this poem as crucial aspects of the Australian identity. However in order to do this we must first understand a little about this poem.
“We’re all Australians now” was written in 1915 and was sent to Australians serving abroad in the armed forces. As the subject matter is developed across the stanzas, the tone of the poem tends to play on the young men’s patriotism as well as their spirit of mateship. This continues to such an extent that the poem becomes almost blatant propaganda.
Banjo Paterson utilized many literary devices in the creation of this poem; including personification, similes and symbolism. These factors all contributed to the overall effect of the poem, yet under critical observation it becomes apparent that the poem only mobilizes one discourse of Australian society, and blatantly ignores many others. For a poem that boasts that “we are all Australian now,” somehow, like in so many cases, women are blatantly disregarded. Asian and Indigenous Australians are also marginalized to a great degree. I find this particular point extremely condescending of the Asian and Aboriginal men who fought and died for Australia, for were this poem to be taken at its word, they were still not worthy of being regarded Australian.
In this presentation, I will scrutinize how these particular values are mobilized through the dominant discourse portrayed in the poem. I will also examine the historical perspective of the text and the cultural knowledge entailed in understanding the poem. Finally I will regard which voice is foregrounded in the text and the ideology that is drawn upon and supported.
The four values that I will be scrutinizing in this speech will be:
1. Mateship and Unity
2. Courage and convictions
3. Patriotism
4. Freedom and democracy
When Henry Parks declared on Federation: “The crimson thread of kinship runs through us all,” today we would have automatically assumed that he was denoting Australians in general. Yet taken in the context of the day; kinship, or mateship as it was otherwise known, was “fairly exclusive of woman, aborigines and Australians of non-British origin;” as the Sunshine Coast Daily puts it. Throughout Banjo Paterson’s poem, the value of mateship is valorized several times. Nowhere is this more evident than in the 2nd stanza, where the poet writes how men from far out Queensland are “fighting side by side with some Tasmanian farmer’s sons.” The discourse of the typical Australian is based on these fundamental ideals of mateship and unity which have become part of an obviously male dominated discourse of Australian identity. It is the masculinity of this discourse that Banjo Paterson has so skillfully positioned his audience to believe an essential part of the Australian identity.
The courage and convictions of Australian folk has long been acknowledged and respected worldwide. As Jill Kitson explains in her article on Australian identity, “the rest of the world sees the typical Australian as a rugged, sun bronzed laconic man from the bush.” This value has long been associated with the stereotyped harsh Australian way of life and has, among other things, been foregrounded in this poem. This becomes evident in the 9th stanza, where it is written: “The honoured graves beneath the crest of Gaba Tepe hill, may hold our bravest and our best, but we have brave men still.” The cultural understanding that is being mobilized here positions the audience to accept that being brave and accepting death are just another part of the great Australian discourse.
It has been said that “patriotism is a lively sense of collective responsibility while nationalism is a silly cock crowing on its own dunghill.” It is my belief that this statement acutely reflects the difference between Australia and England – at least at the beginning of the 20th century. The perception at this time, was that Australians prized mateship above all else, whereas in England nationalism had reached fever point, but then; the United Kingdom did have a much longer history than Australia. Banjo Paterson plays on the young Australian soldier’s patriotism in this poem through the use of the literary device personification. This becomes evident in the 6th stanza where he wrote: “Our six-starred flag that used to fly, half-shyly in the breeze.” The literary device of symbolism is also utilized in the final stanza: “And with Australia’s flag shall fly a spray of wattle bough.” The value of patriotism makes up an important part of the Australian identity because it gives the nation a sense of responsibility in times of hardship.
Finally, the Australian love of freedom and democracy has formed a central part of the Australian identity. The right to express our views through freedom of speech has and remains a crucial part of the Australian discourse. Banjo Paterson recognizes and reflects this in the 13th stanza when he wrote: “Fight on, fight on, unflinchingly, till right and justice reign.” This adds yet another dimension to the discourse of the typical Australian by constructing him almost as a guardian of peace and justice.
Were Banjo Paterson’s poem taken at face value, then its ideas on the “typical” Australian would be considered rather one sided. The values portrayed consistently tie in with those of the stereotyped Australian discourse and it is for this reason that I have objected to Banjo Paterson’s interpretation of Australian culture throughout this presentation. The one thing that I can concur with is that Australia’s identity truly is a work in progress and while multicultural debates are clouded by religion, racism and illiteracy, nothing will be resolved.
0 comments:
Post a Comment