What is un Australian?

For me it has always meant an unfair or socially unacceptable action, a step beyond what we Aussies consider a morally fair go. It can also be a physical action against one who is defenseless at the time, or even a victory because of an obvious advantage.

I pose this question because of a comment by a radio journalist who was editorializing on the recent murder of a youth by knife in Sydney.

“It’s un Australian, we used to fight when we were teens, but we never pulled a knife, it’s un Australian.”

This is the paraphrased comment that started me thinking again about the validity of the statement un Australian. I am over fifty and I lost two mates by the knife before they were out of their teens. I remember my grandfather telling me stories of the Razor gangs that chased him along the foreshore of Circular Quay when he was a teen. Why do we think that as a people we have a national character trait that supposedly acts like a population wide moral compass?

Never kick an opponent when they are down is another un Australian colloquialism. I grew up in the inner city and I kicked and got kicked at various immature low points of my youth. Yet I in the past have nodded in agreement when the old “never lay in the slipper” is brought up in the “un Australian” context. Is there a fair Australia or is it something we invented to compliment the ANZAC legend of good hard blokes doing the right thing.

Why I said “started me thinking again” is because when I first became aware of the disparity between the Aboriginal mates I grew up with and the whites I also became aware of the concept of something being un Australian, not fair. But how could kicking a bloke when he was down be un fair, but kicking the life out of a defenseless, lost in time people is acceptable, the norm in fact. Am I wrong, are we special?

What is un Australian

Dear sonofgloin,

I think every people likes to think there are something special, but I think the reality is that we are all simply human with the virtues and vices that go alone with being human. I think every tribal people has a word for their tribe meaning 'the people.' That type of language implies that the rest of humanity are not the people. The biblical myths even include the idea that God chooses a people. The US had an un-American activities committee in Congress. To be American meant to be somehow good, and to be un-American meant to be somehow bad. Christians might say that's a Christian thing to do meaning they consider it a good thing. That carries the idea that what non-Christians do is bad.

I think being Australian simply means to be a citizen of this country, and that's all it means.

Dear sonofgloin,

I didn't answer your question. To be unaustralian can mean not to be a citizen of Australia or to be outside Australia. It has nothing to do with any virtues or any vices.

Dear SOG,

Being white and of British heritage used to be the
cornerstone of being Australian. It exluded all others.
Non-white, aliens, foreigners of the "yellow peril."

Post-war immigration saw the progressive dismantling
of the "White Australia" policy and served as an impetus
for the development of "multiculturalism."

Multiculturalism encouraged cultural homogeneity -
"A coherent and shared identity amongst a group of people
of diverse ethnicity, gender, age, cultural and religious
affiliation." Initially multiculturalism urged tolerance
and upheld the rights of migrants to express their
cultural identity. This meaning has changed somewhat to
recognise that individuals understand themselves in terms
of multiple identities.

It's difficult to say precisely what being "Australian" is
let alone what "un-Australian" is. The best that I can do
is say that to me it means behaving contrary to the
Australian values of mateship, a fair go, self-reliance, and
an easy-going approach.

Only the Lying Rodent gets to decide such things.

It's all about mateship. Australia is unique in that we have mates. Other countries don't have friendships, let alone call them mates.

Also, our soldiers are more brave, and have a higher comradre.

Also when there is a natural disaster, we pull together better than other nations. We have Aussie spirit.

We also have a superior sporting culture than other countries. Even when we lose, we lose by less, because we just try harder, and punch above our weight.

Australia is amazing really. They should get a genetics expert to investigate why we are so much better than all the other countries. For a start they could study why other countries don't have friendships as that must be really hard for them.

We're also larrikins. None of the other counties are humorous or show disrespect for authority.

what is unAustralian?

A government that doesn't listen to its electorate. The electorate who accept that the government will go its own way. The government and electorate who have forgotten about Thomson and Slipper due to the smokescreen of that clown, Emerson, and his stupid song and dance as well as 'the best treasurer in the world' being inspired by Bruce Springsteen. A PM that is a blatant liar. A government that gladly send our troops abroad but sh1ts on them if they dare to die or come home damaged - not to mention the pathetic military pensions that only rise by the CPI. A government that ignores the vulnerable Australians while throwing money at illegal immigrants. The carbon tax and the lies of man-made-global-warming. Tim Flannery.
Water suppliers, electricity and gas suppliers that consistently jack up prices far above inflation. Local councils that can't keep rates rises even close to inflation. The ATO. The Greens.
People who bleat on about our 'superior sporting culture' (everything's great as long as we are winning) - what's 'superior' about that? People who go on about how we are greater than the rest - have they been outside of 'Straya?
Then again, if we're so humorous, maybe Houellebecq was joking - at least I hope so. Finally, how can we show 'disrespect for authority' when the average Aussie is over-obedient to government and its more stupid rules and regulation?

Dear Austin,

Like so many people, I love this country and yet
it seems that politics has become a dirty word
with so many people being dismayed by the current
political scene. It appears that there is a kind
of conservatism which is an impediment to social
change and breeds prejudice. It's not good for
Australia, nor for her people. Perhaps what we
may need is a major shift in values. We need to
believe in our ability to take the big steps.

Perhaps we need to re-examine our Constitution.
There are those who argue that this foundation
document should not be changed at all. They argue
that the extraordinary social, economic and
political developments of the 21st century require no
response from governments and no evolving of structures or
powers to deal with vastly different conditions.

Others argue that the important issues of our time,
political equality, the relationship of the individual
to the state, human rights, the special consideration of the
environment and international relations - demand specific
attention in a Constitution.

Why don't we have national protection standards, instead of
haphazard state-by-state standards. Why do we have different
railway gauges and more politicians per head than any other
country in the world? What about family law? The Commonwealth
has responsibility over the children from a marriage, but the
States have respnsibility for children born outside a marriage.
And so it goes on.

As someone once said, "If one measurement of the health of a
society is its ability to improve existing institutions, then it
is probably time we got out
of the sick bed and started thinking seriously
about what changes can be made for the greater
good."

But perhaps the greatest obstacle in the way of making any
changes, to the Constitution, or anything else, is the
conservatism of the Australian people. However, I don't
really believe that. Perhaps it's been the politicians who
through their conduct and language have tended to politicise
any reforms so that voters are unable to make balanced
assessments of the issues. Now that is un-Australian.

David, thanks for your thoughts. Just a comment on the un American thing of the 1950’s. I believe it had a focus on communism. It was un American to be a member of a socialist organization. It was un American to write fiction or nonfiction that painted socialism in a fair light. Whereas I think our un Australian means not giving a fair go to another, anything that is not fair.

My Baltic beauty, so it was your lot, post WWII immigrants that changed the utopia we Anglo’s once had.
Lexi a dim memory from my childhood is of my mother warning my older brothers about the “Italian boys” who supposedly would knife you as soon as look at you, before they matured to become fruit shop owners and concrete pumpers. I remember thinking to myself, I know all the Italian kids and if I had to prognosticate on who would do the stabbing, it would be my older brothers.

Houelly I think that one of the factors that gave us the fraternity of mateship is that we lost the class consciousness that plagued the founding country (Britain). Governor or convict to be sent to Australia was no reward. We were all outcasts, the plebs and the gentry. Perhaps because we had to start from scratch and every social class worked towards establishing a nation there was a commonality to the society.

Dear sonofgloin,

You are right about the Un-American activities Committee focussing on Communism, but Un-American was a moral judgment also. The Ku Klux Klan has been called Un-American also, but that was a most American organisation. When I became an Australian citizen Michael Lavarch who presided over the ceremonies said that Australia is the best country on earth. I was horrified. I think Australia is a good country, and I like being here. However, I see no necessity for putting down other countries.

The only characteristic that is uniquely un-Australian, gloinie, would be the failure to contract names and add an 'ee' sound on the end. Unless it already is in which case it gets contracted further.

Effie's, lessie's and becqie's comments can apply to other countries as do those of Lex.

WM, I thought it was "o", as in daveo, richo, steveo.

Surely it must be un-Australian to bandy about the term "un-Australian"....for some reason it sets my teeth on edge.

Yes you are right Poirot, the term un-Australian is a bit cringe worthy.

This link presents a dichotomy, if you ask yourself , "which is more un-australian ?, "being a complete fraud as is the subject of the link ? (Tony Abbott)", or "being a person whom reveals an embarrassing but true expression of intent made by Abbott during a previously confidential negotiation ?. (Tony Windsor)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-16/windsor-launches-attack-on-abbott/4203518?WT.svl=news0

And finally the most un Australian thing to do, that I can think of (at this time), would be for any Australian Govt of any colour too allow the US to render the Australian citizen Julian Assange to their country to face charges of espionage.

I would expect any Govt that would receive my vote in future would give me an iron clad guarantee, that they would "never" allow this.

The definition of un-Australian appears in many cases to be an act the Australian does not like even though the act may be most Australian.

thinker2>> And finally the most un Australian thing to do, that I can think of (at this time), would be for any Australian Govt of any colour too allow the US to render the Australian citizen Julian Assange to their country to face charges of espionage.<<

Absolutely un Australian, well said.

Considering the lack of concern by the Australian government for those Australians imprisoned by the US in Guantanamo Bay a similar lack of concern for the fate of Julian Assange would be most Australian. Blair complained about the British in Guantanamo, and they were released. Howard kept silent, and the Australians were not released until a considerable time elapsed.

David, the difference between Assange and let’s say Hicks, is that Assange is nobody's puppet. That is why the U.S and Europe hate him. He lifts the curtain a bit higher so we can see what the string pullers are up to.

Whereas stupid simple soul Hicks was clay to a potter’s wheel, he was rejected by the Australian army because he was illiterate, lack of formal education is the term. He became a Muslim, he trained to kill young Aussies in Albania, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and then he got caught…Why shouldn’t the traitor be locked up.

sonofgloin,

So we had soldiers fighting in Pakistan and Albania too? Gee I must have missed that.
Funny how Hicks knew we were heading for Afghanistan well before we did and got himself trained in advance.

Assange is in trouble because he embarrassed the US. Hicks was in trouble because he was a convenient scapegoat to be demonised to justify a phoney conflict and support a dodgey political position.
One has the benefit of being able to defend himself in public about charges made against him - the other was held incommunicado for years without charge.

Both Assange and Hicks have been treated unjustly. Apparently there have been phony charges against Assange, and his fear is that the Swedish authorities will extradite to the US where he will presumably feel their wrath for exposing them.

Hicks was fighting for a foreign entity. However, in doing so, he committed no crime under Australian law, and he was involved with that entity before the US entered the war. He was captured in a war zone and should have been treated as a prisoner of war. Under the Geneva Convention which the United States should have observed all the information a prisoner of war is obligated to give his captors is the name, rank and serial number. He may be interrogated, but he is not to be tortured. He also may be obligated to do a reasonable amount of work for his captors. He is not to be treated in any way except for confinement worse than a US soldier. I was a US soldier in WW2, and that was how we treated the enemy soldiers we captured. Hicks was entitled to the same treatment, and the Australian government should have protested when he did not get that treatment.

Rache, if you are going to dream up your own reality based around my words please put in a caveat that states “what I say is fabricated as I go”.

I never said Aussies fought in Pakistan or Albania/Serbia/Croatia. I said Hicks trained in these places with the intention of murdering young Aussie soldiers in whatever theatre of conflict they are assigned to when he came across them. He knew our boys were in Afghanistan at some stage sport, and he still persisted.

Anyone with a fifth of a brain knows what Afghanistan is about, in fact the whole Middle East agenda is resources grab by the banks, which fund the West’s military industrial complex.

I said that Hicks was an imbecile, he was certainly being manipulated by the Moslems, as are all the Caucasian poster boys and girls who look towards Islam for direction because the Islamists certainly love their prodigal infidel Caucasian sons and daughters. Turncoats are always welcomed, but rarely accepted.

David, just so you know where I am coming from let me say I believe 911 was a black op. The real political powerbrokers and financiers of America assassinated their own president in 1963 and the Americans disregard the Geneva Convention on combatants when it suits them.

But that does not mean that Hicks is an innocent.

A final question on your WWII soldiering claim, How well are you holding up mate? Given that at a minimum you must be at least 90 years of age, congratulations for mastering the computer and internet. Do you have little grandpa snoozes during the day granpa David?

sonofgloin,

David f. to my knowledge is in his late eighties...but I'm sure he'll elaborate on that in the not too distant future : )

Poirot, did I jump the gun?

Perhaps, if so apologies to you David for my sledgehammer wit. But you are an active and with it bugger, no signs of dementia in your ramblings. Again if I was wrong I retract my slings and congratulate and admire you for going the distance

It seems an appropriate point, sonofgloino, to pop back and acknowledge your name contractions ending with 'o' – or, as I like to think of them, exceptions to the rule.

However as an alternative this is much less useful. For example, with Poirot we are left with nowhere to go except Poirot-o which could be confused with a stutter.

At least with the 'ee' sound ending we can have 'rotee which sounds much more Australian than un.

With respect to david f (who doesn't make me feel inadequate because he's 86 but because he is still lustful with it), as I've indicated earlier, this leaves us with 'effie' which is nice and affectionate. Whereas…

With your system we end up with 'eff-o' which isn't.

Dear sonofgloin,

I will be 87 in October and enlisted in the US Army in 1943 when I was 17. I also think David Hicks is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but that is no excuse for not treating him fairly. Whether or not a person is a good person or I approve of that person's actions everyone should be treated fairly.

I have no false teeth, can read and drive without glasses, have no problems with any internal organs, go hiking and on field trips with the Queensland Mycology Society, am married and have a plethora of descendants. my only ailment is hay fever. I have heard that it disappears when you get old enough so I am waiting.

I am a skeptic and think one should question authority. One should also be kind even to those who are not innocent. Although there are real conspiracies I think most conspiracy theories are the product of paranoia.

As far as mastering the computer I have been involved with computers off and on since since 1951 when I worked for the Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation which produced Univac, the first commercially available computer. I have designed computers, programmed them and developed mathematical algorithms for them. I have taught courses in computers and mathematics in Downstate Medical Center, Long Island Community College, Bridgeport Engineering Institute, New York University and Brooklyn Polytechnic. Except for the first position the others were part time in addition to my work.

I am concerned with uncontrolled population growth, environmental destruction, the arms trade, economic oppression, discrimination against people on ethnic, national, religious or non-religious beliefs or sexual identification and the lack of support for the public school.

Go to http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4977 for some of my essays.

Your reference to me as grandpa is patronising. Only six individuals are entitled to call me that. Since I am still alive at this moment I haven't yet gone the distance.

Wm, if I had to describe our "culture" in one word, I would choose "informal". We don't like hierarchy, and we don't like fuss and we are not buyers of pretense. The way we abbreviate and bring a further interpersonal aspect to names is a great example of our lay back attitude to hierarchy, even when used as a platitude.

Here is a thought, along the same lines. Consider how many yanks have the descriptive junior, or jr, in their names as opposed to Aussies. It is a heritage and pride thing I would surmise. A statement of continuity that needs to be expressed.

When the yanks go for a nick name rather than a derivative of the given names they go for initials, not exclusively, but enough to be a social truism. I have an American brother in law who is exclusively referred to as TP. Thomas and Patrick are his middle names. My sis had been dating him for years before I found out his given name is Earl.

Something else about Australian social characteristics when compared to the US is that our social demeanor does not vary greatly from state to state. I have spent a load of time in the southern states, particularly Florida and Alabama Texas and found that my easy informal Aussie manner fitted right in and was readily accepted. But up north in New York State, Maine Connecticut, New Hampshire I found that I had to be more formal, any form of interpersonal familiarity was viewed as impudent, sort of.

This formality is also alive in Europe, but I have found when there, that my supposed betters accept my direct larrikin nature as an endearing Aussie social characteristic, something that allows them to un stiffen if you will. But they continue to see Aussies as back woods, like we view Tasmanians.

OK Trevvo, catch you later.

Daavid thanks for the good grace to accept that I am sometimes a dill.

and illiterate daavid.

Dear sonofgloin,

Thank you for your two gracious posts.

I'd like to think that this interchange between davidf and SOG is now full of Australian traits, (a) "being able to admit it when your wrong, and be prepared to cop your whack for it". And (b) gracious and unqualified acceptance of an apology or retraction without vexation".

I'd stand in a queue with you blokes ! (lol)

Having David F., as a grandpa would be grand.
And as for SOG - well he's got a good heart.
We're lucky to have met such amazing souls in
cyberspace.

I'd like to hug you all. "How to hug" is the 27th volume in the encyclopedia.

Geeze, thanks guys.

Dear David F., and SOG,

A post on this forum by itself is nothing - a film
shown in an empty cinema. One can only assess its value
by the light it brings to a reader's eye.

Hugs to both of you for continuing to do just that.