Don't get carried away, KSW.

>>Pericles, prince of Tyre, Given your reputation, I must say I was expecting something more eloquent.<<

I'm not actually that Pericles, you know. Easy mistake to make, of course, but it's best to set you straight.

>>...yet I reaaly do think that the way the MacKillop story was handled implies some vague yearning for an official set of Australian heroes - that's my observation, not my wish<<

Not mine, though. I don't detect any "yearning" in the Australian psyche - even a vague one - for characters to look up to. In fact, I'd suggest precisely the opposite. The natural posture is one of aggressive egalitarianism. We compete for the honour of being the most egalitarian in our group. And the very idea of looking up to another human being is as foreign to yer actual Aussie as Andouillette de Troyes.

Equally "on the nose", in fact.

>>...we do have a vague moral seriousness to our national character<<

More vagueness. Well, I suppose if you qualify everything with "vague", it is difficult to refute categorically. Perhaps I should vaguely disagree with you, would that be ok?

No, I have to stand firm.

If there is indeed a moral seriousness present in the Australian character, it completely escapes me. If we scratch the surface of "she'll be right", what do we find?

"She'll be right. Mate."

>>...perhaps we're just more anxious about what it is than some other countries, especially those with histories of political and social upheaval.<<

Or, perhaps, our anxiety concerns its patent absence. With no substantial history of our own, everything we do have has been borrowed, one way or another.

Ned Kelly was a thug. Gallipoli was a defeat. The Melbourne Cup is a horse race.

In short;
-Slow-news time (despite a LOT happening in the world during these)
-News groups always try to excite reader demographics with whatever
-Trying to pander to the "Oh my god, an AUSTRALIAN got recognized outside AUSTRALIA!" (the Nicole Kidman syndrome)

I don't mind there being saints around. I just don't like any one pushing their type of religion on to me.
My mother used to call me a saint, and i recon she was right when i think of it.

In your second sentence you wrote "you or I". Surely you meant "you or me".

DIS

DIS
<In your second sentence you wrote "you or I". Surely you meant "you or me".>

Presumably you are referring to Mr White’s third sentence: “She was Australian, but her sanctity was not decided in the halls of our parliament; and if she is any more divine than you or I it is only in the minds of those who believe in the tenets of the Catholic Church.”

If so, and if you seriously wanted people to respond to your comment, then please note that the relevant part of this sentence is a shortened form of “and if she is any more divine than you are or I am, it is only in the minds….” This makes “you or I” the sensible thing to say as it would not be sensible to say, “”and if she is any more divine than you are or me am ….”

If your school taught grammar, it might have decreed that the verb to be takes the same case before it as after (at least, that’s what mine taught me sixty five years ago). But don’t be too worried by rules. They don’t determine how we should speak. They only codify what good speakers find it sensible to say. “My friend and I would like you to share a taxi” is sensible but “Would you like to share a taxi with my friend and I” isn’t. To see why, just repeat the sentences without referring to your friend.

I think there is a part in our collective Australian-ness that desperately wants the approval of others. We already knew that Mary Mackillop was an alright sort of lady, but when others agree we jump for joy. Maybe not as a whole nation, but parallels can be seen elsewhere.

Consider, for example, Nicole Kidman, Kylie Minogue and Cate Blanchett. Apparently they are all pretty good at what they do (personally, I haven't seen anything that stands out as wonderful from Nicole, Kylie seems like a nice lady but her music isn't to my taste and Cate - well, I'll concede that she does well). It's only when outsiders take notice, though, that we become all patriotic about them. Until they win an Oscar or a Grammy or another flashy award, or have a smash hit overseas that we believe they have really made it. Mary Mackillop is the same. We nationalise her personal achievements (conveniently forgetting that she was stomped on by Australians and overseas Catholics alike, every step of the way) just as we nationalise the personal achievements of our sportsmen, actors and other "greats".

Another parallel I could draw is our undying need to know what others think of us. Look on this forum - we have countless discussions about whether people think we're racist, whether they think we're a bit backward, whether they laugh at us behind our backs. Talk to a South African and he will tell you what you should think of his country. Talk to an Australian and he will anxiously await your praise of his country. The marvel that was the Sydney Olympics would have been a little less joyful had Juan Antonio Samaranch (sp?) not declared them the best games ever. For some reason, we are obsessed with outside praise.

None of this is a criticism - just an observation. I am passionate about Australia. I get a bit annoyed when it is attacked or criticised, just as many others do. I think we are going through a bit of an attention-seeking phase. Bring on the attention, I say!