goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 06:37 am
Here's something completely unscientific. Even my conservative friends don't like Bush and his cabinet and his policies and the policies of the US on his watch. It's good old gut feeling, that's all. Greg Sheridan can bang on all he likes about the poll, that's his job, to defend Bush in the Murdoch rag. Somehow I get the feeling that he knows he's losing. I am not reading anecdotes from him about getting on the turps with his mates in the Bush regime these days.

It's all about perception. We are quite capable of separating the concept of "America" and her inhabitants (gracious and friendly to visitors normally) from whoever happens to be running the place at any given time. Many of my friends of all political persuasions are just waiting for America to get over this temporary insanity and back to normal. We're actually looking forward to it.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 07:13 am
goodfielder,

Thanks for pasting the Greg Sheridan piece. It was both insightful and refreshing. In particular, the utterly superficial references to vague concepts such as "international law' that so cloud the public and media discourse on these and other issues, elevating the trivial and ignoring the truly meaningful factors in the conflicts before us, are a continuing disservice to those interested in real understanding.

There is much worthy of criticism in the actions of the figures in the Bish administration - as much as in those that preceded it, but the case can be made that they are pursuing the central issues if our era. I have the opposite "gut feeling", compared to yours and your friend's. Hans Christian Andersen put his finger on the essence of it -- all the king's sophisticated advisors praised his new garments, and they were horrified at the child who pointed out that the king was naked.

It would be interesting to see the results of a poll of the Australian people concerning the potential effects on their security of a forcible Chinese takeover of Taiwan and a parallel rupture in the Australian American alliance.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 07:52 am
georgeob1 wrote:
...<snip>

It would be interesting to see the results of a poll of the Australian people concerning the potential effects on their security of a forcible Chinese takeover of Taiwan and a parallel rupture in the Australian American alliance.


The terrible irony is that we look at China - a totalitarian state that makes even Bush's most extreme authoritarian fantasy look like a soppy liberal dominion - as benign. I dislike Bush and the Republicans with an intensity that I can't begin to explain. What they do to their own country is perhaps not up to me to judge but I am interested in their foreign policy. To date it has been ham-fisted, bullying, bull-headed, ill-considered and just plain incompetent but I would prefer even that to the smooth totalitarianism that China would give us. Unfortunately the incompetence in foreign policy (to say nothing of domestic policy) that the Bush regime has displayed will hasten the emerging dominance of China.

I can hear the echo of laughter from the crypt at Highgate Cemetery from here.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 08:24 am
goodfielder wrote:
...I am interested in their foreign policy. To date it has been ham-fisted, bullying, bull-headed, ill-considered and just plain incompetent but I would prefer even that to the smooth totalitarianism that China would give us. Unfortunately the incompetence in foreign policy (to say nothing of domestic policy) that the Bush regime has displayed will hasten the emerging dominance of China.

I can hear the echo of laughter from the crypt at Highgate Cemetery from here.


I don't think Marx has had much to laugh about for a long time.

Have you considered the possibility that the "ham-fisted, ill-considered..." aspects of our foreign policy are merely the side effects of breaking the sclerotic paralysis of Western powers that lack the clarity and will to oppose the threats before them? This issue may have more to do with the vanity and complacency of Europe than the clumsy pugnacity of the United States. History offers us examples of errors on both sides of this divide, and it is not evident (to me) that the error is here.

The emergence of China is the result of the actions of the Chinese. We cannot stop it, or much influence its trajectory. However they are not invincible - there are competing forces in India, and other places and their needs for both trade and natural resources will make them adjust to some degree to the larger order - perhaps in a bullying, unruly way, but there is nothing new in that.

The wise men of Europe who created an utterly pointless world war in 1914 were equally sure they could contain the ghastly movement that arose in Germany after their betrayal at Versailles. Many also saw in the then rising Soviet State a new hope for mankind - this belief lasted in parts of European intelligentsia almost as long as that tyrannical incompetent regime. The track record of the European elites is so bad that I am surprised that you appear to credit it now.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 08:49 am
georgeob1 wrote:

I don't think Marx has had much to laugh about for a long time.


I agree, but perhaps he's having the last laugh.

Quote:
Have you considered the possibility that the "ham-fisted, ill-considered..." aspects of our foreign policy are merely the side effects of breaking the sclerotic paralysis of Western powers that lack the clarity and will to oppose the threats before them? This issue may have more to do with the vanity and complacency of Europe than the clumsy pugnacity of the United States. History offers us examples of errors on both sides of this divide, and it is not evident (to me) that the error is here.


I have considered that. I have also considered that the actions are the petulant responses of someone who fails to understand the world outside the US.

Quote:
The emergence of China is the result of the actions of the Chinese. We cannot stop it, or much influence its trajectory. However they are not invincible - there are competing forces in India, and other places and their needs for both trade and natural resources will make them adjust to some degree to the larger order - perhaps in a bullying, unruly way, but there is nothing new in that.


And what does China want?

Quote:
The wise men of Europe who created an utterly pointless world war in 1914 were equally sure they could contain the ghastly movement that arose in Germany after their betrayal at Versailles. Many also saw in the then rising Soviet State a new hope for mankind - this belief lasted in parts of European intelligentsia almost as long as that tyrannical incompetent regime. The track record of the European elites is so bad that I am surprised that you appear to credit it now.


Those wise men of Europe only wanted to crush Germany. They didn't foresee the response of Germany. France wanted to crush Germany for its own reasons and the rest of Europe - unified by intermarriage amongst its then influential royal families - complied. Small wonder that the Weimer experiment failed under crushing oppression.

The timing of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was inspired as the rest of Europe was busy elsewhere. It's all about timing. And that's something the Bush regime might consider as it watches everything unravel. Local knowledge and timing are necessary to successful interference. Give the old empires their due, they knew those things.

No it will be a terrible pity to see the totalitarian Chinese and Indians begin to dominate the world. I would prefer even the loony right of the Bush regime to those who will be inflicted upon us in not too many years to come. America has had her century. Unfortunately Bush has blown it and allowed the others in a little too early.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 11:10 am
goodfielder wrote:

I have considered that. I have also considered that the actions are the petulant responses of someone who fails to understand the world outside the US.

The test of right understanding is in the results achieved. While there may be a case for our lack of understanding of some aspects of the world scene, there is certainly no basis for concluding that the European Empires ever did better. Indeed one of the main issues before us today is a direct consequence of the folly of Britain and France during WWI in deliberately bringing down the Ottoman Empire and attempting to secretly (Sykes-Piqot treaty) divide the spoils between them.

Quote:
The timing of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was inspired as the rest of Europe was busy elsewhere. It's all about timing. And that's something the Bush regime might consider as it watches everything unravel. Local knowledge and timing are necessary to successful interference. Give the old empires their due, they knew those things.


What suggests to you that "everything is unraveling"? Good timing and local knowledge didn't prevent the rapid and generally unlamented fall of the 'old empires'. (Even in the case of the British Empire - perhaps the best of the lot - there is damn little evidence in the historical record for a single instance of either good timing or correct local understanding from the Crimean War to The Battle of Britain.)

Quote:
No it will be a terrible pity to see the totalitarian Chinese and Indians begin to dominate the world. I would prefer even the loony right of the Bush regime to those who will be inflicted upon us in not too many years to come. America has had her century. Unfortunately Bush has blown it and allowed the others in a little too early.


I don't see how it would be possible to hold back either India or China now that they have cast off the idiotic European political theories that so oppressed them. Further, I don't think their emergence on the world scene is necessarily undesirable.

History teaches us that dominance is, at best, a transient thing. Our century will end soon enough, but I believe we will regret its passing less and adapt to the next phase as well or better than did our forebears in these things. It is the ability of Europe to compete and adapt in a changing world that is the real question here. Moreover, our record to date as a dominant power is a good deal better than those of the last several centuries. Certainly it would be very difficult to identify any significant help we have ever received in extending our time in history's sun from the likes of France and our other rather constant critics.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 01:52 pm
Quote:
Our century will end soon enough, but I believe we will regret its passing less and adapt to the next phase as well or better than did our forebears in these things.

george

I doubt you have every said anything here which has left me more aghast than this sentence, except perhaps for referring to criticism of American torture as a niggling complaint.

The Project for a New American Century, a foundational organization underlying this administrations foreign policy, explicitly lays out the goal and strategy of disempowering any agency (state or meta-state) which might arise to challenge the hegemony of the United States. Going quietly into the good night is not likely in the cards for America.

Recent appointments by the Bush administration make sense only in the context of this strategy. What mission do you think Bolton brings to the UN? To empower it? Gonzales to elucidate and further the rationale for international legal codes and agreements? Compassionate Wolfowitz to provide needed help to the colored folk of the world regardless of US political and strategic interests?

What set of events will alter this course towards unilateral and complete dominance of the world and get you to your smiley, smooth and mannerly American tip of the hat to China/India?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 01:55 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Correction for that above link:

it's http://www.lowyinstitute.org/


(I suppose, Lowy has worked different to Lowry :wink: )


Interesting article as well: To Australians, U.S. World Policy a Threat


Thanks, walter.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 05:19 pm
blatham wrote:

I doubt you have every said anything here which has left me more aghast than this sentence, except perhaps for referring to criticism of American torture as a niggling complaint.

Well, perhaps it's good to know that I have been scoring high of late.

Quote:
The Project for a New American Century, a foundational organization underlying this administrations foreign policy, explicitly lays out the goal and strategy of disempowering any agency (state or meta-state) which might arise to challenge the hegemony of the United States. Going quietly into the good night is not likely in the cards for America.
This is hardly remarkable. For centuries British statesmen were quite frank and open about their policy of preventing (or opposing) any single continental European power (then the world) from dominating the scene and wresting control of the seas, the commodities and markets of Asia and the Southern hemisphere from them. This was the core principle of British foreign Policy from Elizabeth I until WWI. Despite this when the time came they left center stage both with dignity and intact (no small thanks to Maggie Thatcher).

Quote:
Recent appointments by the Bush administration make sense only in the context of this strategy. What mission do you think Bolton brings to the UN? To empower it? Gonzales to elucidate and further the rationale for international legal codes and agreements? Compassionate Wolfowitz to provide needed help to the colored folk of the world regardless of US political and strategic interests?


Make sense in only this context perhaps to you, but not to me. Your unfounded assertion proves nothing. I believe Bolton's job and the policy of the administration is to remind the bureaucrats of the UN that they are not the executive branch of the world and that Kofi Anan is not the President of the world. Instead he and they are the creatures and servants of the sovereign nations which established the organization, and which can disestablish or resign from it at will. I suspect Wolfowitz will do far better than Wholfenson in managing the rather senescent bureaucracy of the World bank.

Quote:
What set of events will alter this course towards unilateral and complete dominance of the world and get you to your smiley, smooth and mannerly American tip of the hat to China/India?


I don't think the U.S. can dominate the world or even aspires to it. At the same time we don't wish to see it dominated by the thugs and pipsqueaks of this world through a UN that gives them voice they would otherwise not merit or command. We certainly are interested in preventing any direct challenges to our security, but it is evident that we are adapting affirmatively to the growing economic power and even signs of political freedom in India and China. Together they are more than half the population of the planet, and it is absurd to seek or even wish for their containment. The world will remain a competitive place, and the laurels will go to those who compete best, and not to those who seek to abolish competition.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 06:09 pm
blatham
Quote:
Check with deb and folks from other countries on whether they have any comparable phrase/notion to ANTI-AMERICAN. I am 57 and have never even once heard anyone in Canada use the expression anti-canadianism. You ever heard anti-australianism?

It is a curiosity. What is it with you folks down there and this hard-done-by, threatened-from-every-side, we-are-under-ATTACK! mindset?


finn
Quote:
I don't know what phrases might be used to identify French Canadian resentment of English Canada, or English Canadian resentment of French Canadian resentment, but I have personally seen and heard the expression of both sentiments. I also know that there is a belief in Canada, that most Americans feel superior to their neighbors to the north. Whether or not they call such an attitude anti-Canadian is unknown to me, but I do know that they are not fond of it.

blatham
Quote:
That is a quite different phenomena from what I am speaking of. Internal discord between differening language/culture groups is the rule of things. Evidence New York City history, for one example of many I could choose. So you are left with the need for some accounting as to why anti-americanism is a class of expression/notion not found in Canada, Australia, Belgium, etc etc.


finn
Quote:
Huh?

Forgive me, but I don't believe that it is quite a different phenomena from what you are speaking or else I doubt I would have asserted it. I assert that there is, very definitely, some, uniquely, form of anti-Americanism in Canada, Australia, Belgium etc.

Is America the only nation capable of self-examination that might be construed as an "anti" position, or are all of these other nations so perfect that they do not even invite criticism?


You done gone right past what Iz a sayin. Which is that the terms anti-canadianism or anti-australianism or anti-belgiumism or anti-swedishism etc simply do not exist. Ya get me, bub? So what is with the particular and apparently nearly unique American sensitivity?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 06:22 pm
Quote:
I don't think the U.S. can dominate the world or even aspires to it. False. At least, the second part is false. And if you would do some reading (but you will not) you would discover strategy statements and philosophy which directly contradict your assumption. At the same time we don't wish to see it dominated by the thugs and pipsqueaks of this world through a UN that gives them voice they would otherwise not merit or command. We certainly are interested in preventing any direct challenges to our security, Security is defined as effective hegemony but it is evident that we are adapting affirmatively to the growing economic power and even signs of political freedom in India and China. Together they are more than half the population of the planet, and it is absurd to seek or even wish for their containment. The world will remain a competitive place, and the laurels will go to those who compete best, and not to those who seek to abolish competition.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 09:24 pm
Not everything that is written in some policy nerd's tome is in fact the intent or policy of the government. It is fairly easy to judge the broad outlines of the Administration's policy from its actions. World domination does not come to mind.

Some, however, insist we should become the compliant poodle of the "right thinking" internationalists who inhabit the EU and UN. This would require obedient adoption of the Kyoto Treaty, the ICC, and many other like additions to what they would like to imagine constitutes "international law". It is important not to confuse opposing their naive, ill-considered ambitions and, instead, preserving our sovereignty, with a quest for world domination. They would have us believe that the slightest deviation from their prescribed path is proof of the darkest intent on our part (while blithely excusing India, China amd many other nations which also reject their pet ideas).

Though Blatham accuses us of desiring or exercising hegemony over the world, in fact we don't even have hegemony over North America. Our neighbors are able to flout our wishes and openly criticize our highest priority policies with impunity. This does not appear to be much in the way of domination. Even the British Empire didn't take any **** from Ireland, while we endure endless carping from Canada. (and in the 19th century Ireland was more populous relative to Britain than Canada is relative to the U.S. - besides the Irish are better looking and have better music than the Canadians) Hegemony indeed !!!
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 09:31 pm
blatham wrote:
blatham
Quote:
Check with deb and folks from other countries on whether they have any comparable phrase/notion to ANTI-AMERICAN. I am 57 and have never even once heard anyone in Canada use the expression anti-canadianism. You ever heard anti-australianism?

It is a curiosity. What is it with you folks down there and this hard-done-by, threatened-from-every-side, we-are-under-ATTACK! mindset?


finn
Quote:
I don't know what phrases might be used to identify French Canadian resentment of English Canada, or English Canadian resentment of French Canadian resentment, but I have personally seen and heard the expression of both sentiments. I also know that there is a belief in Canada, that most Americans feel superior to their neighbors to the north. Whether or not they call such an attitude anti-Canadian is unknown to me, but I do know that they are not fond of it.

blatham
Quote:
That is a quite different phenomena from what I am speaking of. Internal discord between differening language/culture groups is the rule of things. Evidence New York City history, for one example of many I could choose. So you are left with the need for some accounting as to why anti-americanism is a class of expression/notion not found in Canada, Australia, Belgium, etc etc.


finn
Quote:
Huh?

Forgive me, but I don't believe that it is quite a different phenomena from what you are speaking or else I doubt I would have asserted it. I assert that there is, very definitely, some, uniquely, form of anti-Americanism in Canada, Australia, Belgium etc.

Is America the only nation capable of self-examination that might be construed as an "anti" position, or are all of these other nations so perfect that they do not even invite criticism?


You done gone right past what Iz a sayin. Which is that the terms anti-canadianism or anti-australianism or anti-belgiumism or anti-swedishism etc simply do not exist. Ya get me, bub? So what is with the particular and apparently nearly unique American sensitivity?


What is this obsession with semantics bub? Who gives a shite whether or not these terms exist if the sentiments do? You are living in Canuck dream world if you think that only Americans turn on one another.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 09:39 pm
For Blatham;

Quote:
Australia's un-doing
March 15, 2005

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
Pauline Hanson has been accused of being un-Australian, as have those that condemn the on-court antics of Lleyton Hewitt.

The term "un-Australian" has become so widely used that the Macquarie Dictionary is revising its definition, writes Judith Ireland

It's not easy being Australian. Men who like cats, bosses who block internet access to footy tipping websites and anyone who refuses to eat lamb or support Lleyton Hewitt are un-Australian, say recent media reports.

Striking workers, utes that can't do burn-outs, broadcasting the Ashes on pay TV, paying for beach access or for someone to clean your house are among 27 things deemed un-Australian in newspaper reports this year. And it's only March.

Use of the word "un-Australian" has been on the rise since the mid-1990s, says Bruce Moore, director of the Australian National Dictionary Centre.

Despite Don Watson's 2000 plea for a moratorium on the "weasel word", a Media Monitors survey of metropolitan Australian newspapers found mentions of un-Australian have increased from 68 in 1995, to 406 in 2000 and 571 last year.

Use of the word has become so widespread that The Macquarie Dictionary - which first added un-Australian to its 2001 Federation edition - has decided to upgrade the definition in its fourth edition, due out in October.

Used as far back as the 1850s, the term has undergone a revival in the past decade. While its use in the 1990s was largely on the political stage - notably in reference to asylum seekers, Asian immigrants, protesters and monarchists - today the term has wider application.

"My sense is that out of the culture wars of the 1990s we can see the emergence of an entirely new kind of usage of un-Australian," says Tim Phillips, a senior lecturer in sociology at the University of Tasmania, who has conducted research into popular understandings of the word. "[It] is becoming part of the popular vernacular, rather than having the serious overtones of its usage in political life.

"My guess is this has resulted to some degree from a public awareness of its growing presence in broader political life, and perhaps a level of cynicism."

Comedians may have been the word's conduit into the public vernacular. It's a favourite expression of Roy Slaven - one half of the ABC's Roy and H.G. - who has noted "something un-Australian about being paid to do nothing". The Chaser's Craig Reucassel says it is "un-Australian" to deny someone a "charity shag". Wil Anderson and Dave Hughes proudly outed themselves as "un-Australian" vegetarians.

Light-hearted weasel word or not, un-Australian still packs a punch. With obscenities having lost much shock value - witness Cate Blanchett dropping "you asshole" into her Oscar thank-yous - calling someone un-Australian could be the last of the big insults.

Joseph Pugliese, an associate professor at Macquarie University who teaches a unit on un-Australian cultural studies, says the term is often intended to exclude people from the nation. "What's at stake is that sense of belonging," he says. "I see it as a term used to discriminate between individuals and groups that refuse to conform to the dominant culture. I see it as a divisive term, one that's predicated on an 'us and them' mentality."

One only has to look at a recent lamb advertisement to experience the emotional power of the term.

On January 16, Meat and Livestock Australia launched an ad campaign featuring ex-Aussie Rules footballer Sam Kekovich sitting in front of an Australian flag, declaring it "un-Australian" not to eat lamb on Australia Day.

Disgruntled vegetarians and vegans hit talkback radio to demand an apology from Kekovich and threaten a lawsuit against media outlets that ran the ads. A complaint was also made to the Advertising Standards Board in a bid to have the ads banned. (The board ruled the advertisement was "clearly satirical", having received just as many compliments as complaints regarding the ad.)

THE Macquarie Dictionary first included a definition in response to a "burst" of use among politicians such as John Howard and Pauline Hanson in the 1990s, says the dictionary's publisher, Sue Butler.

The definition is two-fold. In reference to art and literature, un-Australian describes a work "not Australian in character". Un-Australian conduct is "not conforming to ideas of traditional Australian morality and customs, such as fairness, honesty, hard work, etc".

Butler has approved a third variant reflecting a more common use. The dictionary's fourth edition will further define un-Australian as "violating a pattern of conduct, behaviour, etc., which, it is implied by the user of the term, is one embraced by Australians".

Says Butler: "That allows you to basically call anything you like un-Australian and hope the rest of the country will agree. We realised that far from being 'Australian' with an 'un' in front of it, it was actually a very complex term."

The concept is so complex because any discussion of what's not Australian ultimately leads to definitions of what is.

Australia has struggled to fashion a single national identity from a population of 20 million people with diverse backgrounds. But our multicultural background may be at the core of the word's popularity.

To Pugliese, the term's negative take on identity signifies Australia's failure to come to terms with its complex history. "For me it marks a profound anxiety about Australia's identity."

With destabilisation comes uncertainty and this may prompt some community members to yearn for an older, more homogenous Australia.

Phillips says the term came to the fore during widespread public debates around multiculturalism, Mabo and the republic during the 1990s. "As these debates worked to destabilise older, more one-dimensional conceptions of national identity, so too they opened up new imaginings of the nation in people's minds."

WITH the exception of the United States, Australia is alone in its invocation of an "un-national". Neither Moore nor Butler have come across equivalent terms in other countries. There is no such thing as "un-Welsh" or "un-New Zealand".

Australians often debate our love affair with American culture. But despite striking parallels with Joe McCarthy's "unAmericanism", un-Australian appears in very early Australian English, says Bruce Moore.

The earliest known use of the word was in 1855 by W. Howitt in the colonial journal Land, Labor and Gold. Howitt referred to a landscape with "an appearance perfectly un-Australian". At this time, it was used in a positive sense to describe things that were like the motherland, Moore says.

While John Howard may be partly responsible for the word's contemporary revival, its incarnation in the political arena was due to an earlier prime minister. In 1925 Stanley Bruce called striking seamen "un-Australian" agitators. In the '30s, Joseph Lyons campaigned to prevent "un-Australian" groups, such as communists and the "non-British", from entering the country.

After World War II, the term disappeared for several decades before creeping back into the vernacular in the 1980s. As premier of NSW in 1986, Neville Wran labelled an attack on a policewoman at a cricket match "un-Australian".

In the 1990s, Howard became an inveterate user of un-Australian - despite having been called un-Australian himself on numerous occasions. Last year 28.2 per cent of "un-Australian" mentions in major metropolitan newspapers were by Howard, says Media Monitors.

Howard used the term as far back as the '80s when discussing a proposal for a national identity card. He has used the term to describe trade unionists attacking Parliament House in 1996; striking wharfies in 1998; anti-globalisation protesters at the Melbourne World Economic Forum in 2000; anti-war marchers in 2003; and of "cutting and running" from Iraq in 2004.

"I think John Howard stands out with respect to his political skill in using the term," says Phillips. "He seems to have a real knack for knowing the issues it is relevant to, and his subsequent usages carry an air of authority."

While traditionally favoured by conservatives, the term is now used across the political spectrum, Phillips says.

The former Democrats leader, Andrew Bartlett, called Pauline Hanson's immigration policies un-Australian. Bob Hawke said the GST was un-Australian. The former Opposition leader Mark Latham had similar things to say about Tony Abbott.

Over the years, the word's meaning has kept changing. "I think essentially the word 'un-Australian' has come to take on quite an amorphous quality today, and it's the shifting social bases and evolving usages of the term that in many ways make it an interesting idea for us to keep thinking about," says Phillips.

Pugliese says there has already been an "ironic reclaiming" of the term. Those critical of contemporary Australian political culture use it as a "badge of honour", he says.

"Sooner or later someone is going to call you un-Australian," says the website argusonline.com.au, which sells T-shirts emblazoned with the word.

"It [un-Australian] has always annoyed the hell out of me," says Anthony Mason, editor of Argus magazine. "It plays up to all the nationalistic and jingoistic emotions. I figured that slapping the label on a T-shirt would stir people up, make them think about how the word is used to make it weaker and more nonsensical."

A mix of academics, public servants, activists and "ordinary Australians" has bought the shirts, says Mason. "Some have been abused, some have been stopped in the street, some have been engaged in lively conversations in the pub. I get some really strange looks when I wear mine to the local mall."

Perhaps people don't realise it's un-Australian to stare.


Source.

We do have a word for it. We just can't make up our mind as to what it actually means.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:18 pm
Blatham is talking about anti-Australian/American not un-Australian/American, Adrian.

"Un-Australian" is a heap of crap - on a par with nationalism, in my view - since it assumes that "Australian" = goodness and decency and manners and a fair go and such. Would that it were so.

But it is xenophobic, rather than paranoid.


Actually, I don't quibble too much with anti-American as a term - at least half the world would probably self-identify as hostile to aspects of Americanism - partly I think this is inevitable for a tall poppy, and has projected aspects - part of it is deserved, to some extent or another.

There are aspects of anti-Australianism in our region - some deserved, some not. C'est la vie.

I just think some of our American friends here use perceived anti-Americanness as a way of dismissing valid criticisms of American policy, that are not anti-American at all.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:28 pm
The Congress has passed legislation on illegal immigration, because they feel that illegals are taking jobs the poor in this country wants and would fill. This law is supposed to take effect on January 1, 2oo6.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:30 pm
I for one have never accused our European, Canadian and other critics as being "anti-Anerican". I have noted that they often oppose us and entertain very different workd views than we do - even that they are timid, vain, shortsighted, in the grip of unrealizable illusions, envious - even stupid and hypocritical, but never "anti-American".
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:37 pm
Lol - that helps a lot george.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:44 pm
It is important to be politically correct about these things.

(BTW, I think Australia is a terrific place and most of the Australians I have met a real gas. Wonderful memories of Victoria and West Australia - I'll go back for a visit again before long.)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:45 pm
Quote:
Not everything that is written in some policy nerd's tome is in fact the intent or policy of the government. It is fairly easy to judge the broad outlines of the Administration's policy from its actions. World domination does not come to mind.


To blithely write off the PNAC as 'policy nerds' is to make a gross mistake. Take a look at the membership if you don't think it is directly influencing the actions of our gov't...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 09:57:22