Australia Day 2010 – Celebration AND Criticism the key for ‘moving forward together'.

above: Indigenous Australian athlete Cathy Freeman

In Australia – as I write – people are ‘gearing up’ for our country’s ‘national day’. The day: ‘Australia Day’ as it is known, rests on the 26th of January. Specifically, the day is celebrated as that on which the ‘First Fleet’ landed at Sydney Cove in 1788; raising the British flag – and in their eyes establishing British Sovereignty.

For many, though, such celebration is questionable in light of the dispossession of indigenous Australians which followed. Thus there are some who refer to the day disparagingly: ‘Invasion Day’.

Talk of ‘Invasion Day’ can be understood in the context of Australian history. Indigenous Australians did not have the right to vote until 1967; and for many years indigenous children removed from their families to ‘aid in assimilation’. This was despite the participation of indigenous Australians fighting against fascism during the Second World War.

Many indigenous Australians were to die through exposure to exotic disease – brought by the settlers. In the context of resistance, other indigenous Australians were also killed. Furthermore: reprisals from settlers sometimes took the form of indiscriminate massacres.  In these and other ways, many tens of thousands were ultimately to perish.

To some therefore – and especially Indigenous Australians, British colonialism in Australia comprised an invasion under which Indigenous culture was suppressed; their bonds with the land not recognised; their basic human rights denied.

What to celebrate in Australia’s past?

Australian history must not be thought of in a purely negative light, however: just as it ought not be considered in a purely celebratory or uncritical spirit.

Representative democracy and full adult suffrage developed in Australia with relatively little violence; although the example of the Eureka Rebellion - is seen by many as the source of a more militant democratic Australian tradition.

In 1854 miners rose in rebellion, demanding full male suffrage, and representative democracy. Arming themselves and establishing a stockade, the miners were crushed violently. But their example expedited the cause of democracy in Australia: and the ‘Eureka flag’ and tradition still remains a source of inspiration and identity for many on the radical Left, including militant trade unions. This struggle for liberty and democracy is very much part of Australian history and identity: and deserves recognition on Australia’s ‘national day’.

Other sources of Australian identity and culture include the spirit of egalitarianism and mateship: and more recently of multiculturalism: cultural pluralism.

The Australian egalitarian spirit was seen by many as being embodied in a culture by which class barriers were overcome with friendship.  (notably, however, this did not 'dissolve' class differences - or do away with the need of working people or the disadvantaged to fight for justice... Indeed the myth of 'classlessness' was sometimes used to undermine this struggle)   And the strong bonds of mateship which arose during the First and Second World Wars became a powerful source of identity: especially amongst Australian males.

For those tens of thousands who served in Singapore, Crete, North Africa and New Guinea – these strong bonds of mateship helped Australians survive under intolerable conditions. This was as much the case for Australian prisoners of war, also: including those who endured – and the tens of thousands who died - in Changi and on the Thai-Burma railway.

It says something of Australian culture and character that perhaps the most celebrated of figures from this context is Edward ‘Weary’ Dunlop: a surgeon rather than a conventional soldier. Dunlop was responsible for saving many lives in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps: where conditions were appalling and primitive: and Japanese cruelty legendary, horrific and extreme beyond what most Australians today realise.

Neil Pigot, who played Dunlop in a play, reflects of the broader culture of mateship in the face of such adversity:

Men would share shoes, or give away their blanket or shirt if someone needed them," he says. "Everyone was a mate, and everyone looked after each other."
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Arts/In-Wearys-words/2005/04/19/1113854195798.html

As a pluralist and multicultural Australia moves forward, such things ought not be forgotten, and must be recalled and preserved as part of our identity and tradition.

Australia Today

As indicated earlier, modern Australia is pluralist and multi-cultural. Successive waves of immigration have irreversibly broadened our identity and our cultural composition.

For many Australians, there is much to celebrate here: that citizens of different cultural backgrounds live together in peace, and in mutual recognition. Rather than the kind of assimilationist policies which once sought to extinguish the cultures of indigenous peoples and immigrants in the early-mid 20th century: the modern Australian mainstream celebrates diversity.

That said: there are aspects of the old culture (not only the oldest – eg: indigenous) that need to be preserved also.

‘Mateship’ is one area which needs to be contested as well as respected. While ‘mateship’ needs to be recognised in the traditional sense – bonding and loyalty amongst Australia males - that spirit must be made meaningful for women also. And Australian egalitarianism should be reconsidered in the sense of economic equality: not merely the rejection of class-based snobbery.

Furthermore: our liberties and democratic and social rights need to be enshrined in our national identity: and as the ‘glue of cohesion’ which makes relative harmony in the context of multiculturalism possible.
And before the onset of official multiculturalism, also, Australians had a sense of connection with the land.
While not as deeply spiritual as the bond felt by many indigenous peoples; flora and fauna figured strongly in the national identity of the ‘old Australia’.

Symbols and icons such as the Eureka flag – and the official Australian flag; as well as Australia’s sporting heroes (eg: Cricket hero ‘Don Bradman’); and Australia’s ‘beach culture’ figured strongly in Australian national identity.

Australian culture has since become more diverse – and for most this is cause for celebration. But this need not mean a ‘rejection’ of the ‘old’ culture. Some Australians feel threatened by the sense this ‘old culture’ is being rejected – prompting a backlash against multiculturalism. We need to make it clear that the ‘old culture’ has a place at the heart of a modern and diverse Australian nation.

Radical Australian author, David McKnight has written about nationalism in his work ‘Beyond Right and Left’. While nationalism can provide fuel for violent militarism and prejudice, it can also provide a “bridge” to collectivism. Here we refer to the kind of spirit which involves solidarity with others in the face of their social needs. (from shelter and work to education, health care and social/cultural inclusion) If combined with an outlook of internationalism: respect for the rights of all people; then such sentiments need not be negative. Indeed an internationalist outlook might potentially even comprise a core ‘pillar’ of national identity.

In conclusion

In concluding this discussion of the issues associated with ‘Australia Day’ it is well to make a number of observations.

There are some who believe the day on which ‘Australia Day’ rests ought be changed.

Australian sporting icon, Ron Barassi, suggested in 2009 that the date be shifted to May 27th: “the day in 1967 that saw 90% of non-indigenous Australians vote in a referendum to give the indigenous peoples the rights that were due them as citizens of Australia.”  http://publicpolity.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/should-we-move-australia-day/

Others believe the day ought be shifted to the date of Federation: the official founding day of the Australian federation - January 1st.

There is a problem, here, in that there is still no formal resolution: comprehensively righting the injustices suffered by indigenous people. Without the closure provided by a just, representative and inclusive Treaty between the modern Australian nation and our indigenous peoples, it is hard to imagine a fully inclusive celebration of the Australian nation. Perhaps in the future – should such a resolution be achieved – then maybe this could become the focus of a new ‘national day’ for all Australians.

That said: while we ought be critical of aspects of our history, and not allow nationalism to fuel the kind of militarist mindset which rationalises unjust war; there are many aspects of Australian culture, history and identity that are worthy of celebration, recognition, remembrance. This includes the suffering and sacrifice of Australian soldiers: even if in the context that recognises the futility and wrongfulness of many wars. (for instance, World War I)

Finally, though: there is a sense that growingly the modern Australian nation is coming to terms with its past: and is coming to the realisation that indigenous peoples need to be fully recognised if we are to ‘go forward’ together. Australian political leaders – especially of the Left and Centre-Left - have recognised and apologised for past wrongs publicly. And the Australian Rudd Labor government specifically has committed itself to:

“Closing the Gap” “to reduce Indigenous disadvantage with respect to life expectancy, child mortality, access to early childhood education, educational achievement and employment outcomes.” http://www.socialinclusion.gov.au/Initiatives/Pages/closingthegap.aspx

And there are increasing efforts on the part of the Australian Left and Centre-Left to preserve and recognise indigenous cultures. To this end, Jenny Macklin - the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, proposed in 2009 the establishment of an: “Indigenous Cultural Education and Knowledge Centre.” http://www.alp.org.au/media/0409/msia230.php

We must hope – and demand together – that rhetoric concerning the preservation of indigenous culture – and ‘closing the gap’ - is matched with decisive action: and with the necessary dedication of resources.

Also there are positive signs with the increasing recognition of indigenous peoples in popular Australian culture: for instance recognising the traditional owners of land in sporting events.

To conclude: as suggested in the title of this essay - celebration AND criticism together comprise the key for ‘moving forward together’ as an inclusive Australian nation…

Tristan Ewins

Jan 2010

above: Former Australian POWs after the liberation of Singapore

nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.

see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Multiculturalism and the False Lure of Cultural Relativism

Cultural pluralism is fine, writes Tristan Ewins, but it does not expunge the need for moral judgment.

In Australia, multiculturalism has risen to the point where it is now perceived as a symbol of our maturation as a diverse, cosmopolitan liberal society. Having broken decisively with that Eurocentric orientation which derived identity from the old ties of Empire, and with old reactionary notions of ‘racial purity’, Australia has emerged as one of the most culturally pluralist communities on the planet.

Countless Diaspora communities now call Australia home: African, Jewish, Kurdish, Greek, Serbian, Croatian, Turkish – Australia is a veritable patchwork of ethnic identities. As many commentators have suggested, the benefits of this process have been innumerable, emerging as a complex process of cross cultural fertilization that, at times, has worked to develop cross cultural understanding, sensitivity and rich cultural diversity.

And yet the multicultural phenomenon, which has been interpreted by many as comprising a policy of ‘cultural relativism’ and ‘anything goes’, could never have emerged were it not for the liberal political foundations upon which it was built.

In the form of liberalism, the world’s ‘liberal democracies’ are (theoretically) enmeshed in a universalistic rights discourse which provides the foundations upon which their implicit social contracts are based.

These liberal foundations, largely individualist in their orientation, seek to secure for the individual such rights as freedom of expression, assembly and speech. They seek the Kantian ideal of individual autonomy and dignity, and move to consolidate these rights in law.

It is within this framework that a multiplicity of collective struggles for recognition and emancipation have also been able to take place, whether we refer here to the women’s liberation movement, the queer movement, or the strivings of Australia’s many-varied ethnic communities.

As individuals, after all, we are all also bound or influenced by collective forms of organisation, interest and identity. There are, of course, difficulties with the liberal approach, not least of which is its traditional emphasis on the sanctity of property (the result of liberalism’s birth in the era of bourgeois revolutions), its neglect of social rights, and its assumption that all conflicts and struggles can effectively be mediated away by the State.

Then there is the glaring inconsistency of ostensible ‘liberal democracies’ pursuing Imperialist policies, and sponsoring terroristic and repressive regimes overseas. Left critics of classical liberalism might, therefore, prefer to posit ‘liberal socialism’ as a potential alternative, enshrining civil liberties, while also allowing rights of social well-being and justice, founding itself upon global human solidarity, and not seeking to negate (via state mediation), the dynamic of class struggle.

Nevertheless, when compared to the world’s authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, the benefits of liberal society, in which struggles for emancipation and recognition have been able to take place, are self-evident, even despite the frequent violation by the State of the liberal foundations upon which its legitimacy is based.

The problem with ‘cultural relativist’ and ‘moral relativist’ interpretations of multiculturalism, then, is that in its avowed philosophy of ‘anything goes’, the policy and practice of liberal multiculturalism stands in danger of being cut off at its roots by its own extreme interpretation.

Deprived of consensual universal foundations: of mutual communication, understanding, and social and individual rights, the liberal, or else liberal socialist, project stands to collapse.

Daring to start, once more, from universalistic foundations, it is possible to suggest that the cornerstone of any truly liberated society ought rather be the elimination of relations of domination, oppression, and senseless bigotry, thus best allowing for the blooming of individual autonomy, security and dignity. Certain collective ‘identities’, however, by their very nature, attempt to validate relations of oppression, hatred and dominance.

Chauvinist nationalism has consistently been found to be complicit with centuries of colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism and even genocide. Chauvinist nationalism amongst Australia’s diaspora communities ought not, therefore, be considered a valid expression of ‘identity’ and ‘difference’, but ought be identified for its real nature: the role it plays in festering senseless hatred, and in blinding us to our shared humanity.

It is worth asking, therefore, whether the Australian nation is best built without recourse to traditional nationalism. The weight of History seems to suggest an affirmative response, despite the enduring and tempting impulse for collective identity.

At best perhaps a ‘self-critical’ nationalism - one which embodies the ideal of pluralism, compassion and justice without hypocrisy – and exploding past chauvinist myths -might be reconcilable with our better nature.

Similarly, we should be wary of those who, for the sake of ‘identity’ and ‘difference’ remain uncritical of race-inspired movements for identity, even as others struggle valiantly to deconstruct and criticise the concept of race. If race exists – regardless, one is not essentially superior to the other.To take the critique further, we may also consider those collective identities that incorporate within themselves relations of oppression, degradation or unusual cruelty.

In the current environment of hysteria which has reached new heights in the post September 11 world one needs to keep in mind that the practice of female circumcision amongst Muslims is not prevalent in Australia, and is overwhelmingly the domain of the fundamentalist fringe. Nevertheless, this pertinent example of cruel and unusual cultural practices demonstrates clearly the potential for perceived individual and group rights, to clash in an irreconcilable fashion.

Today’s Left, in place of a universalistic orientation, has instead established an arbitrary hierarchy of identity based struggles for recognition, informed by a fashionable favouring of ‘difference’ as an end in itself.

For the feminist movement, for instance, assumptions underlying the liberation struggle are critical:

Because the struggle for women’s liberation is usually thus viewed as being of a higher order than the pluralist ideal, many would no doubt choose to make an exception to the usual blind celebration of ‘difference’ in some instances.

Regardless of pluralist assumption, most women are utterly horrified at the barbarity of female genital mutilation.

And yet – having set this precedent – we are confronted with the question of whether, even in an avowedly pluralist order, we can afford to accept, for the sake of collective cultural autonomy, ANY, let alone ALL, relations or acts of oppression, exploitation, degradation or unusual cruelty.

The question of traditional tribal punishments such as spearing raise similar issues and contradictions, although the indigenous case for cultural autonomy is, no doubt, the strongest case of all, given the imposition of European civilization through conquest. (hence the urgent need for a negotiated Treaty to provide closure to this festering injustice)

The dilemma here, though, is that incarceration in White man’s prisons is also felt by many to be an indignity, and a cruel form of punishment in of itself.

And yet, in a rarely considered observation, members of various cultural groups find themselves enmeshed in the workings of power that predominate throughout said collectives: workings that can well inhibit individual autonomy, dignity and freedom, on pain of social exclusion, or worse.

The rights of cultural groups to collective autonomy and self-determination thus need also to be considered alongside the rights of individuals. Progressives, for instance, do not generally support the death penalty in the United States as a practice that should be spared the scrutiny of our moral judgment on account of its comprising an instance of the American peoples’ ‘cultural self determination’.

The context of conquest and colonialism in the instance of the suppression of indigenous culture demands greater sensitivity – especially to the question of self-determination. And yet – even here – the need for sensitive moral judgment is not expunged. The problem of coming to judgments about ‘other’ cultures is complicated also by a variety of other factors.

To begin with, there are inevitable difficulties in determining clearly delineated boundaries where cultures ‘begin’ and ‘end’. As various philosophers and other commentators have been prone to ask: “Who are we?” and “Who are ‘they?’”.

The truth – that we live in a complex world of interpenetrating cultural influences and identities – where more than ever we are all ‘interconnected’ - makes any moral and cultural relativist objection to cross-cultural judgment appear all the more untenable.

‘Cultures’ are not, after all, monolithic wholes, but are complex, socially constructed ‘texts’ which are ‘read’ and interpreted by individuals in various ways. Thus responsibility of the individual for moral judgment and existential choice cannot so easily be exorcised by appeal to cultural and moral relativism.

The dilemmas and challenges thus facing the multicultural project are great. There can be no doubt as to the benefits of a diverse and pluralist social order. Nevertheless, any cohesive society must be founded on the basis of communication, understanding, and a shared and consistent regime of individual and social rights.

Multicultural pluralism, therefore, cannot survive without placing limits upon itself, encouraging critical and sensitive moral judgment, and preserving its roots in liberal or liberal socialist universalism. Group autonomy and self-determination, thus, are important principles in of themselves, but for radicals they ought always be contextualized within the broader projects of human emancipation, and the struggle for human dignity.

Tristan Ewins

Tristan Ewins is an experienced freelance writer, BA Social Sciences (1st class Hons) graduate, qualified teacher, and Australian Labor Party activist,  He is also a “self-confessed ‘liberal socialist’”

He can be reached at: tristane@bigpond.net.au