A very interesting article, particularly the idea of replacing religion with the state. Like religion, nationalism seems only to serve to isolate people and compel one group to see itself as superior to another.

As an oldie who finished school at the age of 12 in 1934, could now reckon that - she’ll be right, mate - was originally part of our pride in our British Empire, when also -Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free - was still being played in country schools, even during the Great Depression when a few were beginning to have doubts.

Now we have the good old US of A to fall back on, though certainly having doubts with Texan two gun cowboy types mostly running the show over there, helped by ex-Israelis mostly with the Old Testament means to an end mentality, meaning that no matter how many Islamics you knock off as long it comes up trumps in the end.

Yep, could wonder these days about -she’ll be right mate - not only about the trigger-happiness of the Donald Rumsfeld types who don’t seem to be getting anywhere much these days, but also the the message from a top scientist last week at the Media midday invitation talk that by the end of the century global warming will have pushed up our sea levels two metres or more.

Don’t really know what is the most worrying - to have top scientists speak like that, or have some heads of our big Aussie American companies saying its all poppycock.

The point is right now, is there really the confidence around to declare a really honest to goodness - she’ll be right mate?

A solid third year essay. As an op-ed, however, it has an uneasy balance between proscription and description of nations, nationalism and Australiia.

Next Mercurius, you really need to read Duara's critique of Anderson in Rescuing History from the Nation, and Homi K. Bhabha's essay "DissemiNation: time, narrative, and the margins of the modem nation."

What a surprise and delight to be able to agree with every line of an OLO article.

>>"Declaration of She’ll Be Right", in which we Australians hold to be self-evident the truths that: everybody on the dole is a bludger; the Prime Minister is a bastard but he’s a better bastard than that other bastard; foreigners are alright but why don’t they speak English and why can’t they drive; this is the greatest country in the world; and I’m not racist but.<<

Bullseye!

And as a bonus, I find myself in complete agreement with Mr Sellick!

Good heavens. That makes ten consecutive comments on OLO that offer thoughtful and insightful criticisms, well-informed counter-points, and encouragement, devoid of rancour, personal attacks and vituperation.

Is this a record? Here I was braced for the usual rants from the usual suspects about how everything that's wrong with Australia is due to multiculturalism, migrants, cultural relativism, leftists, Marxists, academics, migrants, the ABC, overdevelopment, postmodernists and did I mention migrants?

Instead, a whole lot of usually-quiet readers with better things to do decided to comment. I am grateful.

mhar, I will take your comment about the article being a "solid third-year essay" as a compliment, since it's cobbled together from bits and pieces I wrote in second year.

Thanks also for the tip about Duara. I have been looking for a good critique of Anderson for some time, and I will be sure to check it out.

Sadly, I have tried and failed a number of times to get through Bhabha's essay and other works.

Yes, Bhabha's wordplay is dazzling. However I must make the obligatory reference to his over-use of jargon.

Furthermore, Bhabha's ideas come thick and fast as a blizzard, with about the same effect on visibility. As a communicator, Bhabha makes a great obscurantist.

Oh well, guess I'll have to try "Bhabha for Dummies" and go from there...

Here is the problem: its the last paragraph:

"I shall leave it to others to carry the cudgels of the thought police: if others wish to make declarations about what thoughts are permissible in our free and democratic society, then they must accept the label of totalitarians, else that term has no meaning whatsoever."

In our free democratic society we are free to tell others that they are, in our opinion, wrong. If anyone is the 'thought police' it is they who tell us that we are oppressing others when we insist that freedom in this democracy crosses cultural and religious lines. All are to be equal before the law, all are to be equal to exercise their own freedom as individuals.

For this to happen all must have the same rights - there are no second class citizens in this society: no one has the right to tell another that they are less than anyone else.