I reckon sneekeepete is kind of funny at times - but any way Dr flint is a bit of a nag - if he was not such a monarchist I think what he said was fair comment - but he does have a lot to say on a lot of things - he gets as much time here as h egts in th epress - and you got tp wonder wgy

Reviewing David Flints article again I realise I was right in the first place.

The rudeness and contempt David Flints supporters have for the freedom of Australians eg accusing Australians as being Leftist (an out dated and parochial concept) for not supporting their personal agendas re-enforces what I said in the first place.

Only one value is important in Australia , mutual respect. Obviously the spirit of what David said in his article and the vemin disagreement evoked from Davids supporters confirms it is not a value held by those who subscribe to Flints dogma.

A wonderful article.

Sure, David Flint’s version of Australia is romanticised and idealised, but that’s what a national vision needs to be. Without a bit of spin, all nations would, under the weight of their failures and misdeeds, simply look like tyrannical crime gangs. David Flint is simply putting forward an image of Australia that is worthy of the love and affection of its citizens.

The harshly critical vision of Australia which many of the previous posters appear to hold, is neither inspirational nor uniting and is at least as unrealistic as the one set out in this article.

If it’s ok for Australians to delude themselves that Bradman was some kind of demigod, then it ought to be ok for Australians to delude ourselves we are better than we are. Self belief, whether realistic or not, is empowering and makes our nations stronger.

it seems there are those who think Australia bashing is a favorite pass time of (sigh) the "left" - maybe it is with a sado masochistic twist - and then the issue is worthy of some attention

But perversly, constant left bashing and sneering at academics, elites and latte sippers etc is a form of Australia bashing also

- as it is the left and academics who have set and dominated the social, political, educational and cultural agenda for so long! (according to Keith Windshuttle )- he said as much in his Earl Page Memorial oration not so long ago. -

By that definition the left is Australia! The left has defined the Australia we know and love - Add to that a long and proud history of rural socialism championed by the forebears of the National Party and you can come to no other conclusion!even conservative are of "the left" and are probably closet chardonnay sippers as well.

So if the left constantly bash Australia what we really have here is a form of self flagellation - once popular with Tory politicians and wacky Australian musicians.

It must be true because so many consider the left to be a bit sick any way

One of the difficulties we all face today is that rational argument, that is argument based on shared experience or on acknowledged events, has been abandoned by ever greater numbers. Evidence of this can be found in the so called 'evolution debate' or the so called 'climate debate'. Andrew Bolt is an interesting example of this current trend in the media, as is John Howard in politics, who legitimises, at the highest levels, anti-rational debate. In the absence of shared agreements, debate is impossible. How do you debate something as vague as 'Australian Values' when some are prepared to challenge the veracity of acknowledged or recorded historical events?
For instance, soon after the first Europeans landed at Sydney Cove, the male convicts were put on land first. Some time later, the female convicts were released. This led to a general orgy of attempted and actual procreation, and later the burning of the first church erected in the new colony. These events were recorded extensively in all the surviving diaries, letters, reports etc. And yet a commentator in this very discussion can allude to this comment as fantasy. I was using these examples to challenge the assertion that Australians founded this country on good old god-fearing Judeo-Christian values. But did they? Or rather, which Australians did so? Certainly not the convicts!
Instead of addressing the argument, some prefer to abuse, denigrate or insult. Thus doing, they abuse the values they claim to champion.

Hi David,
(Part I)
I am pretty much in agreement with your overall sentiment, but I'd add a bit. Yes a great deal of our heritage and values have come to us from our British Heritage. However much of what we received from them is rooted in the civilisations of the ancient past. Primarily the Greeks and the Hebrews.
True the Anglo's refined, developed and significantly altered much they inherited. Such is the nature of our heritage and the various custodians of our heritage over eons had similar effects.
But strewth mate, give us a fair go. We as Australians are applying our own adaptations and refinements as we too pass on our heritage.

One fairly significant issue you raise is our Judeo-Christian heritage. Many people often refer to this heritage. It is rarely defined or explained. I think it is probably best expressed in terms of Christ's Sermon on the Mount. I often think that heritage is overstated in it's influence upon our Aussieness.

I see some of that particular address broadly reflected in our unique Australian idealogy of 'a fair go'. I rarely see the Judeo Christian influences and attitudes expressly confirmed in our Common Law or our Legislative processes and many of us reject the Christian religions or adhere to other beliefs. However I do see 'a fair go' reflected across most of our society. Especially in our adherence to a social welfare network. That is our nature. As it is our nature to become a tad upset when we see breeches of that idealogy. What we perceive as breeches have resulted in a range of reactions from armed conflict and riots through electrol landslides at the ballot box to the mild social rebuke of 'give us a fair suck of the sav'.