Rhian writes: '[The Anzac legend] is about abstracts as much as events – courage, mateship, ingenuity, endurance, sacrifice, suffering, a subversive critique of the abuse of power by imperial or military leadership, naïveté and loss of innocence …'

Is that all? Or are there more murky authoritarian psychology issues of masochism, martyrdom and human sacrifice lurking beneath all that? Virtually every culture goes to huge lengths to create and maintain a canon of legends about its finest specimens of young manhood who willingly die for the sake of a greater good. Throughout history, it's been at the heart of all the main religious dogmas, pagan rituals and warrior mystiques.

When these fine young specimens are on the 'other' side, they are viewed with contempt and pity - as misguided youths duped by fundamentalist propaganda. When they are on 'our' side, generation after generation is painstakingly educated to treat their memory with the utmost reverence.

SJF

I fully agree about the murky side of myths, and apologise that my list of adjectives seems overly positive.

The reason I linked to the Paterson poem is because it provides a fascinating insight into the sentiments that Gallipoli inspired (at least for Banjo) at a particular point in Australian history, when the Federation was still new and shaky, and a coherent sense of national identity had not emerged (if it ever has). But it also has for me a repugnant fascination, as the crude jingoism captures not only the sense of unity and higher purpose that death and disaster often engender (think of New Yorkers being nice to each other after 9/11) but also the rationalisation of blood sacrifice that you identify.

I also agree that there are close similarities with religious myths, and indeed would extend that analogy to the political ideologies that partly fill the role of religion in today’s increasingly post-religious culture. Many myths seek to provide explanations for suffering and imbue it with meaning and purpose, in the process providing an emotionally charged reinforcement of a particular perspective. In that respect they are always to some degree propagandistic.

Keith

I partly agree with you, too, in the sense that earlier ideas and sentiments shaped both the development of Australia’s federation and the values and beliefs that motivated Australians at Gallipoli and elsewhere.

However, I think Gallipoli deserves to be seen as “foundational” in two key respects.

Firstly, as Paterson suggests, it forged a heightened sense of unity in a population that previously had a comparatively weak sense of national affiliation (as opposed to, say, identifying with country of origin, state or empire).

Secondly, in the ANZAC myth, we have a vehicle that reflects our preferred self-image back to us (including its murky side, as SJF says) in a way that has shown itself especially effective, not least because it has proved adaptable to our changing values

Rhian,

Yes, all myths have foundational aspects. Yes, it's good we also agree Gallipoli wasn't the first or only 'foundation myth'.

The earlier ideas also expressed a murky side. A read of Barbara Baynton would astonish most modern day Australians. The censorship of her writing and the shocking nature of her utterly opposite view of Australia and it's people is an eye opener.