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?