Excellent piece I'm sure your going to make a fine teacher that will take pride in the work your doing.

Good take on a topic that will be spun to within an inch of its life around the time the summit hits town. I like the distinction he makes.

We can now settle down to the argument over which bits of history do we admire - and which bits we consider to be less admirable.

An excellent antidote to both Howard's ignoring of the reality of white settlement, and also those who invite us to feel nothing but guilt and shame about the country we were born into.

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191

Yep. That about sums it up.

Pride leads to blind patriotism - (note the term 'blind' here) which in turn leads to a culture of accepting the actions of leaders who use empty rhetoric to justify dubious decisions.

On a more common level, people with too much civic pride act like idiots. I don't mean to sound tall poppy here, but who cringed at the sight of the rednecks draped in the Australian flag during the Cronulla riots? That's the last place the flag should be taken.

I can't believe the US have been considering a law making it an offence to burn a flag.

A flag is just a symbol, whereas the freedom to burn it is a key part of western ideals.
Somewhere along the way, priorities have been warped. I'm not saying I want to burn flags, but I'd like to know I could if the urge struck.
I certainly hope we don't consider that kind of thing here.

It seems that Mercurius still feels guilty about having 'tortured' the language on behalf of the advertising industry.

He is right, of course, but most people know the difference between pride and admiration even though both words are generally accepted as doing the same job.

As usual, just who uses certain words affects what people think. For instance, some recoil from the word 'pride' when John Howard uses it, seeing it to represent American-style flag waving and razamatazz. If Kim Beazley, or Bob Brown used the very same word, the same people are likely to accept pride as a 'good' word. Vice versa, of course, for us dreaful right wingers.

Semantics aside, Mercurius is right: except for his 'black armband' intolerance. There is a world of difference between what otherwise decent people did in the days of early settlement and what we do now.

We should not admire the treatment handed out to aborigines by some early settlers, but nor should we condemn it because none of us knows how we would have acted 200 years ago.

Mercurious doesn't know that he would be able to act as the Anzacs did at Gallopoli. Neither does he or anyone else know how we would have acted 200 years ago if we felt threatened by aborigines and with an entirely different outlook from the modern one. We must not judge the behaviour of people from 200 years ago using today's morals and attitudes.

Interesting thought Leigh - I must admit, it is much easier to judge the past by the present morals, and not necessarily correct.

On the other hand, as we are discussing it in the present, our only real point of reference is today's morals - in the absence of a time machine, I suppose we can only judge by our morals or discard morals altogether... though we can give lip service to previous trains of thought, though that isn't really the same as what would happen if we did have the aforementioned time machine and were faced with it in person...

“…why this haste to encourage schoolchildren to be proud of that which is not of their making?”

“And perhaps one day when our children feel genuine pride in themselves, they will be better able to appraise and admire the greatness of others…”

More woolgathering by academia. Just where do we get them from? Is their a factory in the ‘burbs which turns them out?

Why on earth should a child feel any pride in anything he or she does? If it were not for the act of coitus, an act not of their making, none of them would be here. So to extend the position of Mercurius Goldstein children who have no say in their making should have no feelings of pride in any of their achievements. The credit should go to their makers, i.e., their parents

I think you'll find that most people have pride in their country as opposed to the people who made it. I admire the great people who built and sacrificed to make this country the best in the world and I’m very proud of the result. Have you ever heard even one person say they are proud of Captain Cook, or Bob Hawke, or Ita Buttrose? No, me neither, but I’m proud of what their efforts contributed to this country.

If we can’t even be proud of our country then what should we be proud of? If it’s wrong to feel that we belong to something bigger than ourselves then where or how do we find a complete identity? The left have tried their hardest to destroy family life and a love of country and tradition, so how is one to find stability and identity? Probably in “The Revolution” or the “Great Leader” or “The Party”. Sorry, that was tried and failed.

The author obviously has not thought about this in any depth at all. He has let an imagined intellectual superiority interfere with his reasoning process. It’s absolutely horrifying to think that this is the tripe of the future to be forced down our kids’ throats.

Seems like a lickspittles attempt to brand patriots as backward hillbillies, or maybe just practicing some brainwashing techniques for the future.

Oh!Goodness and I thought the old cringing,politically correct,apologists for Australia had died a long, lingering death of inertia.
I was wrong. Sorry old bean but for all the years you and your lot ran us ,our country, our pioneers,our diggers,every thing Australian in fact, into a black abyss of critizism for not being what you wanted, the perfect 'sorry' multiculturalland of nonentities . You sir are a first class dill.
This is a wonderful country, built by blood and sweat [not yours ]in just over two hundred years we have built a modern ,prospering ,humane nation from nothing.
We have much to be proud of,except perhaps in the breeding of people like you and your fellows
Still , nothing is perfect.

Hi mercurius,

It's funny that you don't admire europeans. what about islamic, pagan conquerors? Do you feel the same?

You know, each and every country was occupied by war.

If Pride is a SlideShow, then feeling ashamed/anti-patritotism a ScreenSaver?

Anil, I provided a long list of Europeans I admire. What’s your point?

Bozzie, you refer to “the country” and “the people” as though they are two separate things. They are not. If you take away the people, where is the country?

Bozzie asks “what should we be proud of?” I believe I answered that in my article. You should be proud of yourself. You should admire the great deeds of others. The ethics of it were clearly set out it in the article.

I didn’t say it’s “wrong to feel that we belong to something bigger than ourselves”, nor do I believe it. I said nothing about patriots or hillbillies, revolutions or a “Great Leader” or “The Party”. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

I’m sorry you find all this so “horrifying”. When I’m as horrified as you claim to be, I do something about it, instead of sitting around being shocked and appalled. No, you can relax, I won’t be forcing these ideas down anybody’s throat. Kids will form their own views.

Well, since you believe that I have “not thought about this in any depth at all”, why not read the work of someone who has? Here’s a nice, safe, vaguely right-wing speech for you to start with and since it dates from 1882, it is uncontaminated by Leninism or postmodernism: Ernst Renan, 1882, ‘What is a nation?’ (tran: Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?). www.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/e_renan.html

Meanwhile, Sage’s attempted rebuttal was so bewildered that it managed to affirm my argument. I located the source of a child’s pride in their own actions, not antecedents. So Sage redundantly pointed out that since children had nothing to do with their birth or its circumstances, thus they are not entitled to any pride (or shame) in it. As I said “how well we play the hand we are dealt is a greater cause for pride than the hand itself”. I made it quite clear that children can take pride in their own actions, not the actions of others. Nothing Sage said contradicts this in logic or in concrete terms.

The true heroes of this world have rarely been given the praise due until after they die. If acknowledging the great feats and sacrifices of some of our early settlers is pride then we should be greatly proud.

We live in a nation where people from many many nations want to come and live. This might have something to do with our forefathers who fought wars, built hospitals, schools, universities parks and many other things that has made our so sought after by so many. Many had work ethics many of us know nothing of now.

Compare our tolerance to most other countries in the world and while not perfect we finish right up there.

We still have many today who sacrifice a lot to bring many of our indigneous people health services, food and water. Our army is a credit helping out in Tsunamis (despite Ausies not being particularly liked by some).

We dominate in the cricket, rugby (sorry NZ I forgot u were not part us), netball, hockey, darts etc. Western Australia in particular produces more than their far share of champions

I am not sure what percentage the author wants us to feel shame and what percentage he wants us to feel pride.

I have no doubt that we have plenty to be ashamed of but not if you measure us against other countries

G'day Mercurious, good to see your follow up. Mind you, I reckon what you wrote is uninteligable semantic drivel and behind it maybe another agenda.

I've a great deal of pride in my ancestors being able to survive enslavement and torture when transported to this country. I also have great pride in the other side of my family, who suffered indignity and cultural genocide by the followers of god when they devastated the indigenous ways of life.

As a veteran, I have pride in the dedication of all those, including my own family, who actively served this country throughout its history, because of the despotic decisions made by others and the need to defend it.

I don't have pride in people like Bob Hawke, who were a party to the destruction of our values and living standards with privatisation. You also forget the pride displayed by the religious of our world in their fantasy past and the way they express, even though it has such devastating results for everyone. You see it every day with their breast beating cowardice, how do you feel about that.

So which pride, are you, and aren't you talking about. To me, what you write is purely to do with your frustration at not being able to be, other than what you've been indoctrinated and programmed to be.

Maybe the reason you don't understand what being proud and having pride in the efforts of the past is, because you don't understand the reality of the world. Having pride in what others do, is having faith you to can be that strong, not for semantic reasons and its called self-confidence. That comes from the security of knowing, others have shown the way and you can do it.

Maybe your problems your educated, yet know you still don't have a clue, so are trying to look like your significant.

Hi Mr. M,

If you feel ashamed of this country/ this country's founders, I have 2 questions for you

(1) Why do you live here?

(2)Do you achieve anything by getting ashamed? Do you change Australia's past?

You can't. Another thing you forgot is:

Without those people, you may not be enjoying the benefits.. the standards of living which you now freely get here.

You must feel comfortable and live. If not, please Go to your 'lovely' places which you like.

Problem solved. Isn't it?

Don't know the full extent of your loyalties, Mercurius, but so far you seem spot on. Especially so you are spot on about mentioning that pride in your country should not be the main means of learning history.

As any new-chum writer of history knows even in your first couple of pages based on the research of a competent historian you find yourself wondering what you should scrub out. As personally I had the experience trying to write a novel on West Australian history, of whether I should dwell much on the execution-style shooting of Yagan's father Midgerecoo by troopers outside the Perth colonial barracks. Furthermore as natives were encouraged to observe the shooting as well as whites, one wondered if
one should give the whole damn thing away?

That was only one instance, certainly now understanding why John Howard tells us to forget about our history and just have pride in it.

Mercurious states: "To take pride is to take that which does not belong to us."

This is the aspect of the article I disagree with. If we feel ourselves to be part of a larger, ongoing entity, then the achievements of our forebears do belong to us.

I can admire the Buddhist temples in Kyoto, but I can't take pride in them. Pride arises when we feel that some entity we belong to created whatever is being admired. If I don't have such a connection, not being Buddhist or Japanese, then I can certainly enjoy and admire what's there, but I'd be unlikely to feel pride.

It would be excessively denatured not to feel instinctively proud at times of what has been achieved by the larger entities you belong to, such as your family, your city, or your nation.

Australian youth must be taught our history, both the good and the bad. Not teaching history only leads to ignorance which allows people with a political agenda to manipulate people. Knowledge is power which is why certain groups wish to deny such power.

It is sad to see that school leavers have no knowledge that Imperial Japanese soldiers landed on Australian land in the Northern Territory and far north Western Australia. Aboriginal tribes people informing the Australian Military of Japanese roaming through bushland, etc.

Many do not know that Japanese mini subs were sunk in Sydney Harbour - most people do not know that both Australian and American vessels were sunk off Victorian ports.

When we are not taught world history no matter the nation, we can't expect people to learn from past mistakes.

If it happened it happened and must be taught as such no matter who it offends.

Also, students must be taught to question and debate the evidence provided to them by their teachers and the government educational departments.

Knowledge is power, power that should be in the heart and minds of the people.

Pride in the nation can easily turn into nationalism. Nationalism is the most destructive force in history. Millions of innocent conscripts have marched to their deaths in the name of nationalism.

In this day and age of globalism we should make nationalism a part of history, not resurrect it from the grave for short term political gain.

Howard is playing with fire here. More Cronullas anyone?

Gusi, you need to define nationalism. There is a natural form of nationalism in which the individuals living in a particular country feel themselves to belong to a distinct culture, people and tradition. The people of that nation will feel a particular sense of connection to each other, and they will feel a particular responsibility to ensure the well-being of their own nation.

This kind of nationalism is often used for the right purposes. Think of the situation in 1940, when the Germans had rolled through much of Europe. If it weren't for the very solid nationalism found in Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, it's likely that the Germans would have triumphed in that war.

Gusi, you talk about an age of globalism. It's true that the Western nations have begun to jettison their national traditions in favour of a more globalised approach. But has the rest of the world?

And what will happen if the West continues to give up on the idea of national unity, whilst other parts of the world combine nationalism with economic growth and development? Won't the divided, globalised West eventually lose its power relative to countries like China? Won't the "Pax Americana" eventually break down if America loses its core nationalism and can no longer project a national strength on the world stage?

Finally, many wars of the twentieth century weren't brought about by simple nationalism. It was a century of contested ideologies and economic systems (nazism, communism, capitalism). Even without nationalism, there would still be a cause for war not only in such ideological conflicts, but also in power struggles amongst the elite, or through the efforts of a ruling faction to enrich themselves or gain additional power through territorial expansion.

Darwin1, mickijo, Runner, as I said, pride is unhistorical. It follows logically that the other side of that coin, shame, is also unhistorical. Thus your line of questioning is irrelevant. Please understand the article and let us know if you have any interesting questions.

I did not say I was ashamed of Australia – I only said there are some aspects of its foundation I do not admire. But apparently, in mickijo, Darwin1 and Runner’s world, even this fairly bland statement is some kind of unforgivable PC thoughtcrime. It seems the only people whom they will accept as Australians are those whose admiration of this country is total, unquestioning and absolute. Welcome to Stalingrad. I did mention something about pride being used by certain people to brand dissenters as unpatriotic, and they gave us textbook example.

Alchemist, it must be nice for you to be the only person who understands “the reality of the world”, but frustrating to have to share that world with all us “indoctrinated and programmed” people. So you imagine you see “another agenda” behind what I wrote and have a little psychological theory about why I wrote it. Your attempt to analyse my work was about as accurate as the average poststructuralist trying to deconstruct Shakespeare. See? You’re a postmodernist and you didn’t even know it.

As should be obvious from the article, I was talking about national pride; however I suppose much the same argument could apply to religion.

Mark Richardson, thanks for your comments. I agree that people tend to feel pride “when we feel that some entity we belong to created whatever is being admired”, but I maintain the view, for the reasons stated in the article, that taking pride in the achievements of others is unethical. It seems to me more appropriate that you would hold admiration for the temples of Kyoto, and for the Harbour Bridge, but that pride would be inappropriate (unless of course you happen to work on the Harbour Bridge!) Thank you for making the first interesting and useful criticism of this article so far.

Mercurious: Thank you for typing your rebuttal slowly so I can follow it more better.

I agree that Australia is 20 odd million people and not a land mass. My point was that whilst one cannot take pride in another’s individual achievements, one can take pride in the results of a fellow Australian’s effort. For example one cannot take personal pride in Graeme Clark’s development of the bionic ear. Clark and his family are the only ones who can do that. But it is entirely natural to feel proud that so many peoples lives have been improved through the genius of an Australian. I fail to see anything unethical in that!

You may not have used the word “hillbillies” but the implications of your words were clear and you know it.

“When I’m as horrified as you claim to be, I do something about it” - Yeah? Like what? It’s a pity you’re not horrified about the damage done to our kids by PC teachers unions and P & C’s over the years.

Mark,

With nationalism I mean the tribal behaviour displayed as a national group. Tribal behaviour must be something in our genes (I am not a psychologist) as it seems to pop up everywhere. From madly supporting a footclub to hating the supporters of an opposing club. While most people see that these divisions aren't real many don't. For example the dislike of kiwi's that so many australians have crosses from a joke to reality for too many people.

In the WWI and WWII nationalism was widely used to indoctrinate the masses. People went to war not "for the good of capitalism" nor the "triumph of communism" but "for king and country" or "mother russia". Even the germans made just a slight adjustment to their WWI slogan "Ein land, ein Volk, ein Gott" (One Nation, One people, one God) to "Ein Land, ein Volk, ein Fuehrer" in WWII. Opposition nationals were dehumanised (Huns, Untermensch etc) so we could hate them more easily.

Reality of course is that all people are exactly the same and most just want to lead a cofortable life and provide for their families, regardless of whether their soul is placed in a body born in the east, west, north or south.

Attempts such those of the internationals to stop ordinary people fighting in conscript armies failed as the masses rallied to the flag in 1914.

That is why I cringe each time pollies bandy the term "unaustralian" or we are bombarded with anthems at the Olympics.

Bozzie is correct, it is the 'black armband,left wing'ideology taught to our kids in school for the past few decades that have sickened most of us.
We are blamed for all ills, given praise for none. It is the lopsided view of people like yourself that gets the media's attention . When will we ever see articles praising the Flying doctors, nurses, care givers, volunteers? Those very worthy people who carry this country on their backs?
We hear plenty about rednecks,racists ect but very little about newcomers who come to this country and cause big trouble..sh! mustn't mention that..it is racist.
All that old pc stuff is over and done with. If it bothers you,find your perfect utopia elsewhere. You may just be too perfect for this imperfect nation.

Mercurius, reality's defined by the extent of experience in life, not your years in a classroom. Those spending their lives in school, only see what they've been programmed to see. Yes, it's frustrating seeing what the elite “indoctrinated and programmed”, have done to education and their lack of understanding regarding this countries history. Their blinded by indoctrinated education, programmed religion and delusional elitism.

Post-modernism's, a failed attempt by the PC to belittle those seeing the damage the programmed elite have done to the country. You may be proud of your delusional status, in your post modernist non understanding. I'm one who thrives on the future and the technological and psychological changes involved with it. I have great pride in all those who've showed us the way.

When your bereft of experience except from a book, its understandable you may believe your superior and able to determine reality. But you fail to see your a clone of the failed PC brigade. I'd hazard a guess you also have deep religious determinations, so all you see is the mirror in your mind.

Without those who had the national pride to defended this country, whilst the educated elite and religious cowered in back ground, you wouldn't exist, or you'd be in a totalitarian state. Having pride in others accomplishments, is something to be proud of. Reality's a combination of all existence,.something you can't understand within the 4 walls you've spent your life in.

I don't admire the religious foundations of this country, their disgusting, but I still have great pride in what we were, before the rightwing religious elitist takeover.

Actually it's a good article, shows just where our education system is and the intellect of those in it. Personally, I believe teachers should be those who've lived and experienced life. They should be experienced in the subject, not spent their lives in a class room. I agree, pride in our national education system isn't warranted.

For someone studying language, you certainly have no understanding of the subject, nor its content or meanings

Miki...EXACTLY

I also take exception to the idea that we should take 'pride' in the achievements of our forebears, because such actions are universal, including within the ranks of our enemies.

Admiration is a much more appropriate emotion, and the concept of 'identify with and admire the good/ recoil from and repudiate the bad' is the only one which will in the end result in a balanced view of ourselves.

Uncritical "pride" is dangerous in the extreme. It also borders on 'racism'.. "Look at what WE did"..... Its the same old "Fastest gun in the west/Toughest boxer in the ring/best at anything today-ism that may result in kneejerk racist/Hyper nationalist reactions when that which 'we' have excelled at is surpassed by another not of the 'us' crowd.

Yes.. the left has in REALITY sought to undermine the whole of our cultural and social foundations, in order to bring in the utopian 'dictatorship of the proletariat' via the inevitable dialectic of economic and social history.

Trouble is, the proletariat turned out just as bad as the bourgoise it replaced. Or in Southpark language, after the 'masses' destroyed the evil corporate Wallmart spirit, the kwikimart soon BECAME the new Wallmart due to demand and expansion. "We" are the real problem.

Again, we are left with either the barren meaningless wasteland of nihilsim, or the self contradictory/naive sentimentality of humanism or..... (should I ? :) nah.. u all know by now.

Nevertheless, we do have a unique history, and national character. Its nice to know from whence it came. The connection between the themes of the "Man from Snowy River" and the victorious Australian LIght horse in Palestine is not coincidental.

The Bible has an interesting approach to this matter..History and what we should derive from it. Applying this approach, will serve us well as a nation.

HEBREWS 11

NOAH
7By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark..

ABRAHAM.

8By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went..

ISAAC
20By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future

JOSEPH
22By faith Joseph, when his end was near, spoke about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions about his bones.

MOSES and the ISRAELITES
29By faith the people passed through the Red Sea[d] as on dry land

30By faith the walls of Jericho fell.

31By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.[e]

..and so on...

HEBREWS 12 The application of the knowledge of these lives...

[Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. 2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith.]

CONCLUSION
Yes...History matters. The author of Hebrews did not leave Rahab out just because she was a prostitute. NO... he included her and we are blessed by her faith.
Just so, we look back and see all the warts of our forebears/founders as well as the good things, and learn from it all.

Alchemist. I'm atheist, always have been, always will be.

Also, I don't have a degree. I've worked for 12 years in business and I've never darkened a classroom door as a qualified teacher. I haven't spent any years in a classroom beyond what we're all forced to spend.

Read my article in the education section if you want my opinion of university degrees.

Alchemist, not a single one of your bewidered guesses about my personal circumstances so far has been correct. You really should quit while you're behind.

Bozzie, go and bother some P&C's if you're so disgusted with them. mickijo, go and write some articles praising the Flying Doctors if you want. I think what they do is admirable. But don't ask me to carry your bags for you.

Please, and this goes for anybody else on this forum, address any further comments towards the message instead of the messenger. This is not about me.

Gusi, not all wars are for the wrong purposes. The nationalism of young Australian men in the early 1940s did lead them to fight well in the defence of their country, and surely we should be glad that they did

Dear Mercurious

"I am an atheist and always will be"...?

That's quite a radical statement of closed mindedness mate.
Are you saying that no matter what information or testimony you are confronted with, you will stubbornly deny any possibility of God or His ministry among His creation ?

Even if in the name of Christ, a man on his death bed with Cancer is healed, will you then join with the Pharisees of Jesus day and say

16"This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath."
and
24A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. "Give glory to God," they said. "We know this man is a sinner."

His response:

25 "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!"

I can personally add to that testimony, (from experience) that genuine healing from God in Christ is as quick and dramatic as it was for the blind man. It is an overwhelming, flooding, transforming, incredible experience.
The sad thing about some of us is that no matter how real, current, valid and dramatic and convincing Gods signs are to the open minded, there will be those who exclude the possibility as a matter of dogma.

The signs Jesus did, were not to advertise a God of convenience, who we can summon at our slightest need, to do our bidding. No, not at all, they were/are as John said in his Gospel account:

[30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.]

Merc...that life is available to the humbly repentant.......to the Jew first, and then to the gentile.

BOAZ_David: The thing I find hard to handle from you is not that you quote great slabs of the Bible in almost every single post you make, but that so often, the quotes are actually completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand and run wildly off in some other direction.

Mercurius: Excellent distinction between pride and admiration. I knew a Scottish guy once who was obsessed with the achievements of Scots to the point where he once sent me an e-mail with a long list of every Scottish inventor, scientist, philosopher, etc. I was going to ask him if he helped Alexander Fleming, in which case, he should have put his hand up to be belatedly awarded part of the Nobel Prize too (in which case, as an Australian, should I get part of Florey's Nobel Prize?). However, I realised it was probably pointless to point out that Hamish hadn't actually helped Alexander Fleming discover penicillin (especially since he hadn't been born!), and so couldn't take pride in the achievements of Alexander Fleming.

Mickjo proves the point of the article - pride in history is a misplaced and evil sentiment - there is no doubt a lot of people did a lot of hard things - involving perspiration, deprivation, and exsanguination in order to build this nation - and maybe the nation is great - but I dont bask in the reflected glory of past warriors, which essentially is what banging on about our glorious past is all about - and I dont resile from the fact we've done some crappy deeds - like any nation.

And although Mickjo tells our author he has not contributed to its greatness I have to ask what is he doing in writing the article other than contributing to the on going stature of the country - so are contriibutors to these pages in many ways - our evolvement as a people did not stop after WW11 or what ever other arbitrary time line those who think a rot has set in chooses to pick.

And to blame the apparent woeful state of affairs on few years of ascendancy of PC ideas, centre to centrist left government and academics when the nation has a long history of Conservative rule - suggest an awfully powerful leftist mentality - another internal contradiction -or an established culture and identity so piss weak it can be over turned in a few years

sneekeepe, I do not think my pride in my country is misplaced, it is the apologists like you who simply refuse to see that Australia is not going to be run to the ideology of the left because the majority of us have tasted that ideology and found it highly unpleasant.
Our history happened, from a convict dump to a great country is a big leap and to have taken only a couple of hundred years when most nations still haven't got it after thousands of years says something about Australia and Australians.
There are those who would come here to try to turn this place into the backward medieval lands they left.
We will never let that happen.Our history will reflect that too.

Hi Mercuruius:

You say you are an atheist and will remain so.. Are you endorsing atheism? And an atheist hates Australian past?? Sounds funny.

You may not admire Australia's foundation.. but can you change it now? And one more thing.. The world has become more civilized now. Wars are considered then legal, now illegal. You can't compare 2 generations.

By the way, Who asks you to feel proud of Australia? I don't think anyone is forcing anything on you/ an atheist?

MIckjo - To what extent will you take the - We will never let that happen - kind of rhetoric. And who for gods sake are the we?! What is it you exactly propose to do in the face of a history that changes before our very eyes? A history that may see us at the bottom of the food chain because of unwise alliances and choices?

And as for coming a long way in a short period of time - to accept where we are and to deny we have done some dumb things along the way is simply denial - and to accept some things as dumb certainly does not diminish the genuine achivements.

As for advanced - other nations - China, Persia, India, Egypt - any number of them, developed the sciences and skills we now base our so called civilsation upon - they were all we are and then some in many repsects - history and circumstances have been kind to the West for a few hundred years - so I wouldnt be too cock-a-hoop over such a little time in the sun as you seem to be -

In the event we not blow ourselves up in the next few centuries it might be us scratching about in the sand for a living and some one else may be living it up - may be Iraq, free and basking in the sun of democracy might be top dog by 2090 - not that far away.

I bet the Egyptians thought there's was a way of life that would see no end as well - I wonder of the Opera house will last as long as have the pyramids? unbloodylikely - there are tiles falling off as we speak

Given my previous request to direct questions toward the message, not the messenger, Darwin1’s and Boaz’s insistence on asking personal questions is most obtuse, and I would be well within my rights to ignore them. Nevertheless...

Darwin1, the article stated very clearly, in plain language, without any nuance or subtlety, those aspects of Australia’s history I admire and those I do not. Yet you misrepresent this as my “hating” Australia’s past and not admiring any aspect of its foundation. I have lost patience answering questions that are made redundant by even the most cursory reading of the article. As William Hazlitt put it, “your slowness to understand makes you quick to misrepresent.”

As for “who is asking” us to feel proud of Australia – you only have to look at the torrent of abuse that results from even the most mild questioning of our past to answer that question. There are people who consider themselves patriots who are unrestrained in their hostility towards fellow Australians who venture on any discussion or questioning of this topic.

That’s an interesting view that “you can’t compare two generations”. So I take it that’s the last time I’ll have sit through people droning on about how the younger generation are so degenerate etc. compared with their illustrious forebears? No, I thought not.

As for Darwin1’s and Boaz’s interest in my atheism, my my, what a pair of postmodernists we have here. All of a sudden they are busily trying to deconstruct the article because they think the personal circumstances of the author are in some way relevant to the ideas he is presenting. Derrida would be so “proud” (sic) of the pair of them.

Boaz, like any true skeptic, and as J.M.Keynes put it best; “when the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?" Since I don’t imagine there is much possibility of you ever renouncing your own faith in a deity, your accusation of close-mindedness on my part is moot, is it not?

In the words of Ace Ventura, "that's gotta hurt!"

Mercurius, as the messenger wrote the article, who'd you have us address questions to. If it's not your work, why haven't you referenced the author, sounds like a PC cop out to me, no responsibility for anything.

Atheism is a material religion as is monotheism, my determination of you, is shown in your posts. You mightn't have spent your time in a school room, but within 4 walls as I said.

The reason you and others can't see the worthiness of having pride in our countries history, is because you haven't contributed to it, just taken what others have worked to provide. Now your able to be what you want, unlike many other places, yet you see no pride in that achievement.

Those who haven't made any sacrifice or contribution are always the first to belittle those who have. I remember the disgusting actions of the religious and left wing in their abuse of those conscripted to Vietnam upon their return. I saw active service before they were sent to Vietnam, and was against it, but I still had a great deal of pride in those forced to go and their superior performance to other nations there. Like them, I hated war, but still have pride in our achievements.

So lets just say, you probably should've written an article representing your experience, instead of trying to belittle something you and others clearly don't understand. As for Boaz, you'll get used to his ilk's boring revolving door mentality. People that sick can't be helped, as we see throughout the world, they end up euthanasing themselves and others in their blind stupidity.

I've no pride in what our future's becoming, but that's down to those controlling our direction, the PC's and monotheists of the world.

I certainly have no pride in the last 30 years of our PC history, maybe none of you can see further back than that, so know nothing else but PC. “As facts change, I change my mind”, a very positive thing to do. I prefer, 'as possibilities change, so do I'.

Ah! I think I have got it now. If you sledge Oz and it's inhabitants, particularly the colonists, you are trendy and a bit lopsided with a tilt to the left but you are an intellectual worthy of a cheer!'PIP -three times.
But if you praise Australia and reject the black armband as BS, you are equivilent of an ape.
Well swinging from my bars I still see the country I grew up in as wonderful, I am grateful to my forbears for coming here and for the hard times they triumphed over to help make this wonderful nation wonderful.
And I want their efforts with those others who fought the hard fight for this country to be remembered by all their descendants with thankfulness.As I do.

Dear Mercurious

My interest in your spirituatl condition stems as much from you name as your statement of atheism. "Goldstein"... I could be way off here, but it sounds very Jewish ? If that is the case, then the next 'curious' step would be to know if you have any knowledge of your ancestry, i.e. whether the Jewish component is via conversion or biology.
If, (and I'm still supposing) it is via your genetic background, then the idea of you being 'Atheist' is quite suprising to say the least. (as it surprises me that many Jews in Israel are also Atheists.)

The Salvation History brought to us through the Israelites is adequate testimony in itself of Gods reality, but I won't labor the point or repeat the whole of the old testament now. (Looks at Shorbe :)

Your point about 'when the facts change' is well taken, but shock horror...they havent changed. They remain the same and if anything are stronger today than yesterday.

@SHORBE

I mentioned the scripture 'slab' in one of my previous posts because it shows clearly an illustration of the point Mercurious was making, 'admiration' (for the good) rather than pride is the best way to consider the past. Each of the Biblical characters mentioned had their negative side, but they were still held up as examples of faith for us.
The same can apply in regard to our own forebears. We don't hold up their weakness as something to be emulated, but avoided. There strengths are to be admired.

I suppose they can be wearying at times, but to be truthful, there is often a far closer connection than you seem to get.
I do indeed write from a Christian perspective. This is a given.

Hi Mr. M,

Please ignore my earlier comments.. They aren't meant to hurt you. Carry on with your rant.

I have no idea why you hate the deeds of the people whose standards and laws are different/ quite opposite to the present generation

The article was pretty clear and was just trying to look at the difference in meaning between 'pride' and 'admiration'. From what I can see, he was saying that pride is more something you feel about what You do, while admiration is something you feel towards other people. He says that because of this it's technically not possible to take pride in our history, but that it IS possible to admire a lot of it.

Anyway that's how I read it. No need for a brawl, I don't reckon..

Darwin.

I. Don't. Hate. The. Deeds. I. Just. Don't. Admire. Some. Of. Them. Please. Read. The. Article.

Historians try to record what happened. It's a very complex and difficult task and it's open to endless revision and revisitation. But it's not a question of pride or shame or hate.

Meanwhile, there you go again with this curious idea that it is not for us to make comparisons between "people whose standards and laws are different/ quite opposite to the present generation".

That's quite an impressive statement of cultural and moral relativism. Is murder not murder regardless of when and by whom it was committed? Is genital mutilation not genital mutilation regardless of when and by whom it was committed?

You have a curiously flexible, postmodern approach to "standards", when it suits your argument...

Boaz.

I will take your comments as meant in jest.

I went to the hospital and asked them to test me to see if I had the gene for Judaism, but it came up negative.

Also, tested negative for Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Shinto, Jainism, AFL, Union, League and Soccer.

I'm clear.

Sorry to disappoint you.

(Anybody who has had their sense of humour surgically removed should probably ignore this post)

Dear Mercurious,
no... my post was not mean't in jest. Quite serious. But clearly most of my last one was based on the assumption of Jewish ancestry, which I clearly said was speculative. The only relevance might have been like with the Cohens and Levi's for example, who can trace their biological ancestors back to Aaron brother of Moses, who's tomb exists to this day in Petra, Jordan.
So, if you were Jewish 'biologically' it would be suprising that you would deny that which caused you to 'be' and G-D's place in it.

CALLING REDNECK.

'Pride', Admiration, Genes ..... Reddy will love this :)
From the Daily Telegraph this morning.

"New Zealand researcher Rod Lea and his colleagues have told an Australian genetics conference that Maori men have a "striking over-representation" of monoamine oxidase - dubbed the "warrior gene" - which they say is strongly associated with aggressive behaviour.

Dr Lea said his unpublished studies investigating rates of disease in Maori show they have the highest prevalence of this gene, found in many individuals but never linked to an ethnic group."

Personally, I find that the most likely explanation to the large and robust size of Maories and many Islanders is that the 'survival of the biggest/strongest' during inter-tribal wars led to the 'large' genes being passed on while those of smaller less athletic stature died out in combat.

Does this mean that Maori can take 'pride' in their genetic makeup in that it represents 'superior warrior ability' ? :)

It raises an interesting question, because it's not like our forebears who relied more on knowledge and modern weaponry to achieve success than physical prowess.

Just another angle.

Nationalism is often abused for unnecessary wars yet it is also used for necessary wars.

Such tribalism is part of nature. Believe it or not, humans are only animals who still hold onto many of its natural instincts. Only humans use bombs and such instead of claws, teeth and limbs.

As for pacifism, this is an excuse, a label to cover up their cowardice.

I admire Mercurius' sense of humour.

I take pride in my ability to ignore the dogmatic.

I don't take pride in being an Australian, I just think I am lucky to have been born here, therefore, I find it perplexing that people take pride in what is simply an accident of birth. I remain grateful I wasn't born a woman in many other countries where religion rules. I am grateful Australia remains secular.

I admire people who realise that Australia is unique and wish to protect its environment, its many and varied people and to speak out against oppression and dogma.I am grateful we still have freedom of speech (compared to many other countries).

I am grateful our PM can go for walks in public, even though I do not admire his politics.

Even though my father and my grandfathers fought in both WW1 and WW2, I cannot take pride in their bravery; I am not them, however I do admire them and am grateful for their love and commitment to their fellow Australians and to their families. Interesting to note that none would have anything to do with guns and would not have guns in their homes after their experiences in the Wars. I admire them for that.

While I believe that history needs to be be taught to our children, I remain sceptical when a politician involves him or herself in its teaching. After all a politican is by nature partisan, and history requires teaching in as detached and objective a manner as possible. Labels such as 'black armband' or 'patriotic' are used and misused and ultimately misunderstood. Just as pride and admiration are misused and misunderstood.

People are now mentioning,with disgust in many cases, 'the past thirty years', in talking of the history of Australia.
Because for the past thirty years, Australians past and present, have been represented as a bad bunch of racists,slavers and just about everything that is terrible in human history.
This by the leftists who infected the media, the universities and colleges. They would have been known in war time as fifth columnists or traitors and their venom still lingers particularly in educational fields.
For three decades we had expatriots like Greer who could see nothing right with their country of birth, there was this huge cultural cringe that leftists fed off and in doing so have caused an enormous amount of damage. I would like to see them lose their citizenship. They are not worthy of this land and are not worthy to be called Australian.

Mickjo, and you wouldn't even know of these so called Leftists if it were not for your right wing commentators telling you who they were- indeed spoon feeding you knowledge you would have otherwise not have - and still do not have. This tiny yet significant fact seems to allude you and others every time you pretend to have been intimate purveyors of Australian history over the past 30 years. You have not and are not. It astounds me how people who were not even politically conscious in the 1980's reinvent themselves as erudite readers of Australian history just for the sake of attacking historians whose books they have never read- nor intend to read.

Rainier, having been adult for all the past thirty years, believe me , I have seen all that has happened and I have seen the backward left drag this country down as far as they can drag it.
The left can only play on the side of supposed 'victims' because any others haven't the patience or the desire to have anything to do with them.
Our history has flaws, mistakes were made , are still being made, but the biggest mistakes are now made by those who refuse ,out of petulance, to see what a really good country this is.
But some just want to whine on and on , that's OK, there is freedom here to do that as well.
But those who whine should never be given the freedom to dominate our streets, our parliament or our press. Because they belong to all of us.

Mickjo wrote:
But those who whine should never be given the freedom to dominate our streets, our parliament or our press. Because they belong to all of us.

Totally agree with it belonging to 'all of us' (Howard speak circa 1996), but the reality is 1. the Howard government rules, and 2. the Murdoch Press supports this rule carte blanche (with the exception of Phillip Adams)and 3. the streets are periodically filled with those who have the right to dissent.

How is this representative of a Leftist monopology on public opinion?

Are are you just parroting to compensate for a lack of true investigation into the facts? ie, Dog whistled ?