ronnie Peters,
If B_D cannot find fault with your last post, I certainly can.

Your interpretation of the first verse of My Country is absolutly incorrect. You should read the whole verse.

The first verse is an acknowledgement of her British heritage and then she goes on to say , "My love is otherwise" and then the new verse; "I love a sunburnt country".

She has no problem in identifying the country she loves.

I thought every school kid in Australia would understand this most moving and acurate poem.

Banjo your criticism is mostly unfounded. The reason I deleted the first six lines was to keep under the word limit. My intention was not to be disrespectful or disregard Mackellar’s love of Britain. Also, the two lines I referred to are the lines that David asked me to comment on. Their deletion didn’t affect the gist of my comment.

Having said that, I did interpret the poem as a whole (as one must do). Your comments about poor understanding are unfair and unhelpful. My position is also that it is a moving and accurate poem. I wasn’t questioning that at all. I think the poem captures the difficulty of transition for others and especially immigrants who still love Britain. This is why I referred David to her final words.

The mistake I made was to not type in the two lines when I drew attention to her situation. I said: “I think the poem is expressing the difficulty she has of articulating her great love for Australia. ’ I know but cannot share it.’” I should have either put some ellipsis in or included it. I deleted the second line to save words again thinking that David would pick on the fact that I was referring to the two lines he asked me to comment on. This was poor writing on my part and thank you for picking me up on it. Your caustic response is pointless.

Also, I wasn’t only talking about identifying, but transition, forging new relations, discovering new virtues and love of old and new country – like Mackellar? Eventually ones heart finds its true home. Even though Britain “Is still running in your veins”. “Your” means “others” - thus transition.

My school text was “Call of the Gums”. Ian V. Hansen, 1962. However, I think it a rather silly notion that if one reads some old Australian poetry one is somehow more Aussie than others who haven't.

The irony is I think immigrants should feel free to mention their first homeland and yet you get toxic because I didn’t overtly refer to Mackellar’s beginnings?

ronnie peters,
Well you are a bit touchy if you think my correcting you was caustic or toxic.

You are still saying that she has "difficulty in expressing her love for Australia" I dissagree completly. She expresses her feelings beautifly, that is precisely what makes the poem so good.

The line "I know but cannot share it" is refering to Briton.

Oh, and I do not hold that knowledge of older poems makes one more Aussie. How you come to that conclusion is beyond me.

Sorry if I upset you.

Banjo You criticise others for not considering the whole. Then you selectively pull out words to suit your position. The words I deleted after “I know but cannot share it, ” which were “My love is otherwise” and the reasons I deleted those and the first six lines and the mention of the British things like “ ordered woods” in the those lines indicate that I knew the line referred to Britain.

“I think the poem is expressing the difficulty of articulating her great love for Australia.” I concede she has indeed expressed herself very well. I gathered the idea of the difficulty in articulating (probably just me projecting my own inadequacies at not being able to get my message across to you) from the poem as whole, but especially the lines:
“All you have not loved her,
You will not understand –“

I picked up on the difficulty of others (Britians) not understanding.

I think that she expresses the difficultly in articulating the reason for her love of her country – not in the sense of her craft being flawed but because of the awesomeness of the blessings this country offers. I thought this was evident when she says: ”All you who have not loved her, You will not understand.” I think that she is humbly saying that her words cannot express it - you have to experience the love –it is difficult to express the country’s greatness. This not only says a lot about her country but about her craft. Words can never express some things and by acknowledging that she shows more than by just saying, for instance: “ All you who have listened to my poem will understand?”..

You say: “I do not hold that knowledge of older poems makes one more Aussie.” So do you agree then that to experience that which inspired Mackellar gives her words more weight?

I also think that to be born in one country and then think of another when close to death suggests a change of sentiment that would be difficult.

Well...I think the last few posts have been quite valuable.
In spite of the mild 'toxcity' :) The simple fact that we are grappling with these important ideas of identity transference.. is wonderful.

What more could one ask in a debate than that people would discuss the meaning of a definitive early Aussie poem ?

"Knowledge of early poems" making us 'more' Aussie ? I think it does actually, not in a forceful dogmatic way, but in that it enables us to see that the early pioneers shared such feelings and sought to express them so passionately. It re-inforces our shared identity and culture.

G20 RIOT...and this topic.

On the general subject of MultiCulturalism, the protest/riot really showed the one major point I have been rather laboring all along.
*Radicals drive agendas*. I watched myself as we moved up Collins street that the real ratbags suddenly started to run 'around' the police horses, and others tried to spook them. Then, (though I didn't see this) the radicals donned the white overalls and attacked police.
What was the news worldwide ? G20 issues ? Nope :) it was "Violence erupts in Melbourne"

I have a cheeky (possibly foolhardy) idea. Organize about 10 blokes in Martial arts gear including head protectors, to make their way to the front line (under the guise of being protestors)Then..turn around and bold letters on their back will say something like "Peace not War" or perhaps a more 'Christian' flavored message :) it would have got WORLD wide attention :) ....*shuffles off to the planning meeting*

So, just as the radicals hijacked the protest... they will do the same in racial/cultural issues.

I don't beleive it's necessarily daring to be different. We are all some what different and a new cultural experience can only add to the mosaic so to speak. However, there is a big difference between migrating to a country and becoming a genuine citizen while celebrating your cultural history and migrating to impose your culture and religious dictates. France and Britain(to name two)are not experiencing such violent anti-social behavior from their Muslim population because they, the Muslims, are being treated differently but, because the Muslims demand to be treated differently and are not. Which is at the base of the Mufti's meat comment, and the Canadian Muslim demanding to publically pray in the aisle of a passenger jet in flight, and yesterdays removal of several Imams from American flight for taking to the aisle for public prayer while the plane was in flight.
This is push push push and nothing to do with multiculture but, rather to dominate and overtake the existing cultural norms and values.
Racism, tolerance, and multiculturalism are being weaponized and no longer hold their intended value. They're being used as battering rams to tear down western society. Did you read the story in BBC news of the fellow who was charged with revving his car in a racist manner as two Muslims were walking by. I feel for that poor girl who felt compelled to defend her heritage. These actions I wrote above are not about heritage and we need to be able to discriminate. To discriminate also means to use good judgement.