There’s been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing over the flag of late. The link is to a piece about Australian outfit Jet, who seem to have taken the right approach to the whole dust-up. Last week’s debate took me back to 1990, though, my first year at UQ. Logan City - where I spent all my teenage years - had lots of front yard flags. Not as many as you see in the US, but a couple in each street. This was along with flag window decals, flag bumper-stickers, flag mailboxes and so on. One of the first things I noticed about suburban St Lucia, Taringa and Toowong was the complete absence of flags. The only flag I could see was flying from the university’s Forgan Smith tower.
It took me a while to figure out that front yard flags were considered gauche in the suburbs populated by my social betters. It took me longer again to become irritated when the inhabitants of those suburbs extrapolated their experience of suburban yard design to the whole country. Australians don’t show their patriotism like Americans, several academics in various courses assured me. A couple of friends who made their way down to Logan made disparaging remarks about - variously - the prevalence of Barnsey, front-yard flags, panel vans and hot rods. ‘My God,’ one said, ‘it’s like America’.
I’ve since run into Australians from the better classes who also support any team except Australia because they found Steve Waugh - and now Ricky Ponting - too nationalistic. Previously, I’ve not known what to say when encountering this sort of stuff (umm, aren’t sporting teams supposed to be nationalistic?). Last week, in the midst of the whole Big Day Out furore, I formed the view that there are worse things to be proud of than a bunch of blokes chasing a piece of red leather around while wearing long white pants. Or a flag that still has another country’s flag up in the top left corner. Or folks who like restoring old cars to their former glory (and more). Much as there was some idiot behaviour from various idiots at last year’s BDO, that behaviour is a function of idiocy, not the Australian flag.
And similarly, it ill-behooves middle-class progressives to universalise their experience of flag-free, V8 free suburbs. Some of us had different experiences. Different and good experiences.
118 Comments
And on a side note, I’m hoping Australia wins the toss today so we get a decent bloody batting performance.
Bring back the eight ball over. And put out more flags, as Evelyn Waugh said (no relation to Steve).
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1642_281/ai_94775541
My God,’ one said, ‘it’s like America’.
My God, what if it weren’t?
I can compare having lived in both. They’re great humane places to live. I think we would inch out the Americans in the greatest place to live stakes simply because our weather is superior than most of the US- too hot and humid or too cold. We also don’t have the never-ending unresolvable racial issue between blacks and whites that is truly depressing.
The optimism is unbounded in both places.
People have flags in their yards is because they are proud to be citizens of this great place. The flags represent people’s pride of place and they want to show it. Good for them as they have a lot to be proud of.
Great post. Too many of the blog responses lately to the flag are reactionary: nationalism is bad; flag-waving is American, therefore bad; Australia has much to be ashamed about… the whole argument is mind-numbingly dull and cliched.
Thanks Tim. The reaction on both sides was pretty stereotyped, I have to say. From a classical liberal perspective, BDO is in the same position as Qantas with the t-shirt man - their concert, their rules.
That said, using the term ‘colours’ to refer to the Aussie flag was particularly ill-advised. I know what ‘colours’ means, both through experience and residence in areas with significant gang conflict. A close family member is also a fully patched member of a motorcycle club - and he nearly choked on his beer when he heard ‘colours’ used in this way.
Above and beyond it all, I did get the distinct impression that people were trying to universalise their experience, something I’m careful not to do these days.
I wonder if your experiences are uniquely Qld, and not just about class? I grew up in a very working class area in WA and there were no yard flags.
SL,
an old , of course not in age!, teacher would surely know idiot is a noun, idiotic is the adjective
It could be, Anna. And I should add that there were a lot of Qld flags, especially around State of Origin time. Periodically boxing kangaroos would get a run, as would the Eureka flag (which I personally really like - it’s a pity it’s been appropriated by the BLF and sundry white power types).
I’m using ‘idiot behaviour’ as a compound noun. Somewhat neologistic, but not unheard of (whoops, now ending a sentence with a preposition).
And if you’re going to do grammar flames, Homer, learn to punctuate.
I think so too, Anna.
This ‘not American’ quip is more about understatement. Australians are culturally part American and part British. The emphasis on understatement and not wearing your beliefs or emotions on your sleeve is the British part of the Australian psyche rather than the American part. The point being that under this outlook, understatement says more than overstatement. And I should add personally one I identify with more myself. I think of Americans as more ‘rah rah’. That has its good and bad points.
I don’t see it as a class thing - the working class can be into understatement too, I suspect those in Queensland less so.
I defer to your knowledge of idiocy, Homer
My point is similar to JC’s, Jason. All these forms of national pride are legitimate, and people shouldn’t be disparaged for exhibiting traits that some people badge as ‘American’ simply because the badgers (often) dislike Americans. As I pointed out in the main post, there are worse things to be proud about.
“umm, aren’t sporting teams supposed to be nationalistic?”
No. They are supposed to be patriotic not nationalistic; there is an important difference.
Also, I don’t recall ever seeing more than one or two front yard flags in rural western Victoria where I grew up. This flag fetish you mention must be one of those Queensland oddities.
Homer (Simpson) has of course written a book on the meaning of the word. I understand it is more biographical in content with real live examples….
There are lots of flag poles and flags round the general area I live, Steve.
Just a harmless joke, Steve.
Well, I don’t see many flags here in Thornbury, JC.
I see plenty of front yard concrete and tomato bushes, but no flags.
I’ve always tended to see patriotism as more dangerous than nationalism, probably as a result of Samuel Johnson’s famous quip: ‘patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel’. The word ‘patriotism’ has its origins in the Latin ‘patria’, ‘pater’ and ‘patres’, all of which have a strong biological connotation (= father). Nationalism, by contrast, is based on a sense of imagined community.
The two words may have changed around in meaning since his day, and I’m probably using them interchangeably here. My point is about accepting different expressions of national pride, from different people all over the country, rather than asserting that there’s one particular ‘correct’ model. Bogans cop an awful lot of sneering ridicule from their ‘betters’, and it would be nice if it stopped.
‘Front yard concrete and tomato bushes?’
Que?
Actually I think you’re using the 2 words wrong way around. Nationalism nowadays connotes the fatherland, blood and iron stuff. For instance Americans are referred to and like to refer to themselves as patriotic rather than nationalistic. Patriotism connotes love of one’s country without disdain for others, whereas nationalism tends to connote an element of disdain for the other.
I’ll dig out my OED and check, Jason.
SL,
I’ve always thought in terms of the distinction Orwell made between nationalism and patriotism in his “Notes on Nationalism”. http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
I thought Orwell’s definitions were commonly accepted by “chattering class” folk such as ourselves. I’m obviously wrong.
Messed up the joke
It should have read:
There are lots of poles and fags round the general area I live, Steve
“I see plenty of front yard concrete and tomato bushes, but no flags”
I actually don’t blame them. We had to move from where we were previously living because of the garden we had and those of our neighbours. I was suffering allergies 24/7 365 days a year. I went through 30 doses of anti-biotics. Inner city concrete and little or no garden is how humans ought to live. The trees and grass thing can end up killing you in the the end as I almost found out.
I’m going by usage by authors I’ve read. For instance George Orwell
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality
Huh, my comment crossed with Steve’s.
Cripes, the topic is huge. The OED defines nationalism similarly to Wikipedia, which reserves a special category for ‘ethnic nationalism’ - this is the ‘blood and soil’ variety you’re referring to. If you’ve got the time, there’s more here. Patriotism seems tied more explicitly to military defence of one’s country, and is far more contested definitionally than nationalism. There’s more here. I was going to go in and edit my copy, but it now seems that there is very considerable disagreement over what both words mean.
With that in mind, I’ll just say that I’m using both words in a non-biological, non-violent sense.
Sl
‘Front yard concrete and tomato bushes?’
Que?
Steve is talking about the “fun way” south euros destroy their quarter acre blocks. They rip out trees and bushes to make way for concrete and veg gardens. Quite true. I may add.
I like this South Euro attitude, JC.
If you’re forced to have Mother Nature around, you might as well make her work for you
oops, shouldn’t have said that in front of a Greenie …
Ummm, my dad did that, and he was born in London. I think his family got into the whole ‘grow your own food’ thing during the war. We always had a big veggie garden. But then, the whole street was like the United Nations, so I don’t think anyone much cared.
Bugger, Poms have won the toss and chosen to bat. Phooey.
That’s OK Jason.
As a result of my current self-induced infamy I’ll be keeping my head below the parapet for the next few days.
Fire at will.
SL,
I agree put all idiots in a compound as Jason will attest I am an expert on the subject!
interest in the use of flags is flagging in Eastwood. None in any I can spot perhaps they maybe around near Terje!
I’m with Jason on this. Australians differ in subtle ways from Americans as a result of our English origins. Lack of demonstrativeness is one of them.
I wouldn’t put up a flag in my place, and my background is as redneck/bogan/working class as any.
That said, the only aspect of the American approach that I dislike is the “love it or leave it” mentality. I understand that concern was behind the BDO policy.
skepticlawyer
The surge in patriotism, especially among the young, disturbs the babyboomers. They cannot understand it. My theory is that all human beings have a radius of social attachments and affiliations - identities if you will - starting with the self, partner, immediate family, out to friends, work, neighbourhood, blah, blah, blah.
I would include “polity” within that. One’s polity is extremely important as it provides a huge shield of security if the need arises. The multiculti martinets over the past generation have confused and thus diluted this layer of identity, which causes anxiety among the body politic. All this new patriotism - flags, young people discovering Anzac Day, etc. is a spontaneous attempt to recover that security.
While kids do not want to be constantly told they are “not Australian, not one of us” because they “look Asian” or Indian or Lebanese or whatever, they also don’t want to be told, “oh, aren’t you so lovely and unique, we’ve never had a Korean in our class. Class well done, we are now the third most multicultural class in the state! Let us see if we can improve by one of you coming out of the closet, so that we also have a gay!”
I think it is actually quite healthy as it is emerging from civil society and not the state. And even better, it is civil society rebelling AGAINST the state. In other words, young patriots are the radicals against their statist Leftist parents! Now, won’t the Leftists just love THAT analysis! :))
Jason
Also Australia has nowhere near the achievements to justify American-level pride.
Skeptic/Jason
I think Jason is correct. Nationalism is more related to the Volk, while patriotism is more a civic pride and attachment that is not necessarily ethnically-based. I describe myself as patriotic, but certainly not nationalistic like the Serbs or the Japanese.
I’m not game to use one word in preference to the other, John - if you follow the various links, it just gets more and more confusing. I’m probably contributing to that by using the terms interchangeably, but the meanings are very hard to discern clearly.
The OED and wikipedia directly contradicts Orwell, who was a very good writer but (of course) not above getting it wrong. Also, if ‘nationalism’ has come to stand for ethnicity rather than ‘imagined community’, then it is a sign of serious linguistic confusion, considering the origin of both words.
Still not a great fan of the flag but I remain suspicious of “…a neoteric republic of Eureka luvvies with a Whitlamite loathing for Aussie everyman.’
Americans frequently refer to themselves as patriotic rather than nationalistic.
I don’t think wiki contradicts Orwell. Wiki says patriotism denotes ‘positive and supportive attitudes’ whereas nationalism is an ideology. And that’s really the gist of it. You can comb through tons of books on nationalism and inevitably the sort of ideas that Orwell describes are mentioned. Comb through books on patriotism or even look at how Americans use the term and you find the sorts of attitudes that Orwell describes.
I really wouldn’t appeal to the OED to settle a question like this especially when you have first hand evidence.
I have always considered myself patriotic but virulently anti-nationalistic.
I’m with you CL. I am pro-republican but the sort of Blinky Bill Nationalist republican (’Give an Aussie a head job’) slant of the ARM doesn’t evoke much passion.
I’m really not that concerned that there’s another country’s flag in the corner - that shows our patriotism transcends nationalism (here I am bringing in this dichotomy again!) and we belong to a wider civilisation.
Jason
Same here. I am more Rome than Athens on that point.
skepticlawyer
I share your confusion on nomenclature; I finally opted for the American understanding indicated by Jason, since I realized that in Australia the importance of the difference in the two terms was most likely to arise with some bourgeois lefty sneering over the Verdellho, “oh sweetie, did you see vulgar hoi polloi wrapped in that ghastly reminder of our imperial and genocidal roots; how American!”
To put it another way, it is well accepted that nationalism is an ideology. Patriotism is just a feeling or sentiment. Of course feelings can be misdirected.
But it is because nationalism is an ideology rather than a sentiment that it is more manipulable towards the sorts of expansionist, absolutist ends that Orwell describes in his essay. You can only take ‘I love my country’ so far without it involving you taking Czechoslovakia. To do that, you need an ideology that says ‘This is the best way of living for everyone and I’m hurting you for your own good’ or “We are so good that we are entitled to more living space’.
Jason Soon
I am pro-Blinky Bill, but I voted NO at the referendum as I do not want the dunderheads in parliament taking even more power from us masses. I want not only a popularly-elected president, but one who has a few reserve powers. I think the role of Prime Minister has become too powerful.
Jason
Quite. I could imagine circumstances where I would say “oh well, I must go and do my patriotic duty….”
I was living in the UK when the whole republic referendum thing was on. I didn’t much care, and I still don’t - as I pointed out in the main post. I do remember one British writer observing rather acidly that the losers consoled themselves with champagne, while the winners celebrated with beer.
With regards to the nomenclature, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Nationalism may be an ideology, but that is neither here nor there. It doesn’t have to be expansionist, just as patriotism doesn’t have to be irridentist, although of course both can be. My background as a Latin scholar probably biases me against ‘patriotism’, but even so, it’s a bias I’m happier with philologically.
Not many people have access to the full OED so the following is provided for your info (not all dated usages included).
1. Theol. The doctrine that certain nations (as contrasted with individuals) are the object of divine election.
1836 G. S. Faber Print. Doctr. Election(1842) 189 The several doctrinal systems, usually denominated Arminianism and Nationalism and Calvinism.
2. Devotion to one’s nation; national aspiration; a policy of national independence.
1844 Fraser’s Mag. XXX. 418/1 Nationalism is another word for egotism.
1853 J. H. Newman Hist. Sk. (1873) II. 1. iv. 203 Mahometanism is essentially a consecration of the principle of nationalism.
2b spec. The political programme of the Irish Nationalist Party.
3. A form of socialism based on the nationalizing of all industry.
The first supplement has no updated meanings or usages.
Sorry, that’s the entry for “nationalism” above.
The theological origin is interesting, isn’t it? Although there’s no doubt a political ideology was imported into that, albeit later on.
For the point I’m making - about tolerance of different, non-violent expressions of national pride (oh dear, another term), it doesn’t much matter. If people want to fly flags, or plant tomotoes, or whatever, then it’s not as though it’s hurting anyone else.
Whatever terms we use there is obviously a way to be nationalistic or patriotic which is reasonable and honourable as opposed to other attitudes (like ‘my country right or wrong’) which are irrational, intolerant and divisive.
For what it is worth, Hayek followed Jason’s usage, being in favour of patriotism and against nationalism. I think that is in his essay ‘Why I am not a conservative’. I wonder where Hayek stood on the eight ball over? Sadly Popper’s great friend in NZ hated sport (he was a music lover) so nobody ever took Popper to a football or cricket game so he could have enriched his vocabulary and formed an opinion on the critical issue of the 8 ball over. He did spend a day at the races with a prof of Vet Science.
I suspect that Popper had no time for nationalism or patiotism but he never played team games, instead he went skiing and mountain climbing. Medawar was an off spin bowler as was Frank Devine so they would favour the 8 ball over.
skepticlawyer
The observation might have been acidic, but it was spot on!
Did you see the Poms? Bowled out for 110. The crowd let out an almighty ‘boo’ when they won the toss. The whole game went down the toilet thanks to that (the Poms winning the toss, that is).
BTW Rafe, what do you think of the front foot no-ball law?
I am not up to date with the current debate on the law, it is probably ok in principle, being designed to overcome a problem many decades ago when a couple of tall Australians were putting the front foot about two yards up the wicket and dragging the back foot over the line before releasing the ball. Gordon Rorke was one of the offenders. It probably depends how it is being enforced.
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/7395.html
The Rorke affair was a collosal fuckup. Anyone with sense could have administered that backfoot rule properly, but common sense has been a rare commodity in cricket administration.
I’d love to go back to the 8 ball over, but the television interests that dominate cricket will never wear it.
How pathetic were the Poms today?
Oh, and by the by regarding the flag, there were a lot of young kids out and about in the Adelaide nightclub strip with the flag over their shoulders.
I learned a lot last night. Pro-flag feeling is strong in the young, for one thing. I’m getting too old for riotious living is another.
As an old bowler I think the back foot rule was much better.
The front foot rule was dreamt up by batsman and is bad for the umpire.
I actually preferred the 6 ball overs to the old 8 ball overs.
The reason for the 6 ball overs was to speed up the game TV wasn’t ruling the roost in those days.
I had to iron today so I watched the some of the match with my 2 boys.
Footwork all over the shop to bowlers that are adequate at best.
I was taught at school to play two-eyed to a lefty who couldn’t swing the ball.
I would be ashamed of getting out to Symonds!
They didn’t bring back the 6 ball over unti the Packer-ACB peace settlement, for the obvious reason that you get more ad breaks in 6 ball over games.
I wouldn’t be ashamed of getting out to Symonds if it didn’t involve tonking it like a knob to mid off.
There is a huge amount of angst in England everytime their football team competes in a tournament they think they might have a shot at - St George Crosses everywhere. There is also a push to have St George’s Day declared an England bank holiday. So what is all the fuss about? Americans and English love a bit of flag waving, even the Germans were getting into a bit of flag waving during the football World Cup last year - seeing the Brandenburg Gate with thousands of Germans wearing German colours and waving flags is something to be seen, and there quite a bit of discussion about Germans overcoming their historical anguish over displays of nationalism.
Funny how when (in the developed world at least) the importance of allegiance to the state is decreasing, when labour mobility has increased dramatically, borders are largely symbolic (despite the terror threat, international travel has never been easier or more prevalent), people feel more voluntarily patriotic.
Just a guess, but it seems to me that voluntary patriotism of this type is probably a good thing, in that it’s likely to be ‘mostly harmless’. Orwell disliked sport a great deal - although I suspect some of that was to do with not being any good at it. Nonethelss, I think that supporting ones’ national sporting teams is relatively harmless. Interesting, too, that it’s the restrained English who’ve had the most trouble controlling a subset of their sporting fans, while the OTT Americans tend to behave well at their sporting events.
Great post.
I have seen flag-draped yobs (no idea what sort of car they drove or what’s in their front yards or where those yards are; don’t much care) screaming at Asian-looking families picnicking peacefully on the grass in a public park, and it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the flag can be used by the former and not the latter. Reasonable, but not accurate. A bit of leadership about the flag as a unifying rather than a divisive symbol would be nice.
Hardly. That reinforces the leftist idea about action and reaction. There’s one thing worse than pissing off lefties, and that’s vindicating them.
I think religion, and that old political temptress Laura Norder provide plenty of refuge these days.
To put it another way, it is well accepted that nationalism is an ideology. Patriotism is just a feeling or sentiment.
Except where it is a legislative Act.
Scott,
I was playing cricket then and the idea was well before Packer and the idea came from examining balls bowled in test matches using the 6 balls against the 8 balls.
As a bowler I preferred the 6 balls
I’d forgotten the Patriot Act. What a lame name for a statute. Some of ours are pretty shoddy, but that one pretty much takes the biscuit.
Seeing as SL is something of a Latin scholar, I might reminder her that the word, nation, or natio in Latin, signified communities-such as the Jews-within the Roman empire.
Patres, indeed may have biological connations, but they’re hardly the sort the Nazis themselves imagined. Consider the paterfamilias, referring to the father as head of the family. Politically, it points back to Romulus as the founder of Rome, itself the union of at least two tribes, the Latins and Sabines; hardly the sort of beginning one expects of an exclusionary nationalism. This union was called the populus Romanus. Romulus, is reputed, following the foundation of the populus Romanus, to have then chosen 100 patres or ‘fathers’ as his counselors, from the leading families of early Rome, to form what would be called the senate.
Now, a Roman patriot, would seem to be one who recalls the authority of the original foundation of the populus Romanus, and the place of successive generations of patres, and later plebs, who had themselves preserved and augmented the orginal foundation.
There is nothing at all approximating to ‘blood and iron’ in this, certainly not in the exclusionary sense.
If anything, the Romans became far too inclusive and this attenuated the patriotic feeling of the populus Romanus, and of course, to its dissolution.
Nationalism, in its malign form, is really a product of the 18th/19th Century, in which various modern European states sought to absord populations that did not readily recognise or acknoweldge their authority. There is a lesson here for libertarians, but I’ve gone on far too long already, and my coffee’s gone cold.
The Romans were pretty good with their internal communities, and never defined the Jews (or others like them) by race. That was a much later affectation.
And it would also be worth remembering how much authority the paterfamilias had under the Twelve Tables, before its legal principles were modified. Not a pleasant concept at all.
And libertarians are not, repeat not, into imposing liberty on others from outside. That’s the practice of a subgroup of conservatives, which for convenience may be referred to as ‘neo-conservatives’.
Your right, the paterfamilias, was not always a pleasant concept, but as you recall, the Romans managed to develop a system of law that could modify ancient custom. How many ancient civilisations can lay claim to that? In all likelihood, not even the Greeks. The authority of custom was great, but never insurmountable. And having been modified, there was no need to abolish it.
The Romans are almost without peer in being able to absorb change, without the appearance of change.
Also, that wasn’t the lesson I intend re libertarians and Rome. The lesson is relevant to any policy of immigration they may propose or support. And that is, that we (I count myself a species of libertarian) ought to grant entry and residence only to people who promise ‘keep faith’ to the original foundation and to the law of the land. The meaning of ‘original foundation’ can be disputed, but there must always be a broad field of agreement; where this doesn’t obtain, you have civil war and calamity.
Correction above (68): The Romans were…
My main concern with immigration is focussed specifically on low-skill immigration, which drives down the wages of the most vulnerable workers already resident here. I saw the negative effects of that growing up - everything from casual racism and resentment to actual violence.
JC has made the point in various places that one of the reasons the poor in the US are so poor is to do with eleven million unskilled illegals. Up until now Australia has managed to dodge that particular bullet, but it is very important that things like 457 visas are not abused - we’ll pay for it at the polls with another Hanson (if we’re lucky). If we’re unlucky, there’ll be blood in the streets.
Fred Argy uses the phrase ‘pace of entry’ to refer to ongoing concerns with migration sourced from places with culturally incompatible values. I think we can cope with some of it, but the numbers must be kept relatively small, and the combination of cultural incompatibility and low skills must never be allowed to set foot on our shores.
Agreed. All these objections are practical, and not in principle. What is annoying is that debates on these matters, at least publically, are always moralised. PM Howard’s innocuous comment, that we shall decide who comes here and how, was imagined by the Left to epitomise the inherent racism of the Australian public, the irony of this, of course, is amusing.
Don’t ask me why, but I’ve just skimmed today’s opinion piece by Tracee Hutchinson in The Age - it really is a form of self-abuse I should put an end to - and here are some choice cuts:
“[O]ur flag has become a participant in something that could be mistaken for a white supremacist movement”. Mistaken by whom, madam?
“[T]he creeping trend of patriotism cloaked in national colours as racism”. Where do you even begin to unravel this sort of nonsense?
She describes the change of name of DIMA to Dept. of Immigration and Citizenship, or DIC, as “In one insiduous manoeuvre, we’ve been coerced into forgetting that Australia is actually a mulitcultural success story.” Really? What magic this PM wields.
It would be terribly funny if it were a part of some satirical comedy.
She’s dreadful, isn’t she? The worst sort of woe-is-me leftie journo. I can’t imagine even any of the LP staff-writers coming at crap like that, no matter how left they say they may be. It shows what lack of accountability to its readership does to the MSM.
Fred Hilmer is bringing out a book on his experiences as CEO of Fairfax. The Age is a shocker. The only decent bit is the alternate op-ed page. (and the samuri sudoku in the weekend mag).
The excerpts from Hilmer’s book in the Australian were boring as batshit. Some people might get excited about the moves he took to improve accounting information, but I don’t think it’s going to set the world on fire.
I have to admit, I didn’t linger over them. But I will thumb through the book in the store. Probably won’t buy it.
I will be buying Kevin Donnelly’s book.
Your right, SL. I think Tracee is the worst of them.
I bought the Age today; the first time in a very long time. I used to purchase it every day, but its become almost impossible to read without feeling the need to throw it across the room in disgust. I might say, the Sunday Age is even worse; I can’t bear Terry Lane, he is now impossible, its like Leuning without the pictures, and they are Leunig’s only redeeming feature. Lane’s most recent misdemeanors have displayed utter contempt for his audience and employer, and the editor’s failure to discipline him have merely added to it.
I’ll look forward to that book; will be interesting reading.
Ok, I won’t be looking forward to reading it. But will skim the index.
“She describes the change of name of DIMA to Dept. of Immigration and Citizenship, or DIC, as “In one insiduous manoeuvre, we’ve been coerced into forgetting that Australia is actually a mulitcultural success story.†”
Yep, as a lefty I do find this sort of shite embarrassing. In fact this type of rubbish- and the reckless use of the word racist- is why I gave Ms Pavlov a kicking on my blog.
Australia is a multicultural success story that was almost brought undone by official multiculturalism and Fraser’s scandalous mismanagement of the policy on “refugees” from Lebanon.
Re mel’s contribution, how come people on this list were so defensive of Pavlov’s nonsense?
Serious accusations, like racism or sexism, should be confined to serious behaviour. Otherwise, these poweful terms lose their capacity to describe and identify things that are among the most appalling behavious in which human beings can engage.
The way ‘racism’ in particular is casually flung about these days is slowly draining the word of its meaning. Changing the name of a government department to something Ms Hutchinson does not like is not racism.
Is it symbolic of Howard government policy? Probably - Howard has long made his dislike for the word ‘multiculturalism’ public. Is it racism? No, of course not.
Skeptic
I am glad you mentioned paterfamlias. Remember, paterfamilias was also the “patron” of a great many others - both slaves and citizens - who were NOT connected biologically.
While you are right to note the authoritarian power paterfamilias held over his wife, children (biological and adopted), slaves, and clients, I think it would be wrong to infer an innate authoritarianness (is that even a word?) in the notion of patriotism.
In fact, don’t forget that “patrimony” and “patron” all share the same grammatical root as “pater” and “paterfamilias.”
Also, recall the great Roman tradition of adoption. Even Octacian was equally entitled to succeed Julius Ceasar as was Ceasar’s biological son, Mark Antony, even though Octavian was adopted! Indeed, Julius Ceasar’s will made Octavian his heir.
Three blogposts over at his place having a go at her was OTT, Rafe. I don’t agree with her views - that’s clear - but I don’t agree with Steve’s actions. By his own admission he had an ordinary week last week. Steve can write good and thoughtful stuff that doesn’t require getting down and rolling in the mud, and I think he knows that.
Ergo, I do not think we can impute any racial/biological meaning into “patriotism.”
dover beach
Sorry, I only read your post after I posted mine. I think we in agreement.
Mark Antony was not Caesar’s biological son, John.
And I stand by my reading of the word’s etymology, although to be fair to the Romans at least, the iron grip of the paterfamilias was greatly diminished over time.
That said, I don’t much care, and will probably continue to use the two words interchangeably, unless I am referring specifically to the ideology of ‘nationalism’ or the theological use for the word.
skepticlawyer
Indeed, the growing tensions between the Jews and later Xians was nothing to do with “race;” it was purely political. One of the few impositions the conquering Romans required of the conquered was that the latter pledge loyalty to the Emperor.
The Romans were concerned this would be impossible for the montheistic Jews; but the Jews suggested an amenable modus vivendi, whereby when praying to their god, they would ask him to bless the emperor. The Xians would not accomodate even this; hence their unpopularity with the Roman state.
“Mark Antony was not Caesar’s biological son, John.”
Oops, you are correct, sorry. But he was related biologically, wasn’t he? A second-cousin twice removed or something.
“Even Octacian was equally entitled to succeed Julius Ceasar as was Ceasar’s biological son, Mark Antony, even though Octavian was adopted! Indeed, Julius Ceasar’s will made Octavian his heir.”
Ceasar was a notorius pussy-hound but this is a new one on me.
They both shared a girlfriend with that Ptolemy sheila but.
You know one wonders if Ceasar cuckolding all these Senators and such…
One wonders if that was another motivating factor to them pulling all the knives out.
Its not something you’d talk about too much.
But this bald-headed bastard coming round and rooting your mother and sister and daughter would tend to have an influence on Senators after awhile.
It would tend to make them more like-minded in their thinking.
For my future crimes against humanity, I had to do a year long course in Roman Law. My memories of this torment are 20 years old, but I don’t think that the principles of paterfamilas would be compatible with modern views. I’m in agreement with SL on this point.
The dispute between the Roman empire and Jews centred around the cosmopolitan views of Rome and the monotheistic views of the Jews. The Jews would not recognise the Roman emperor as a god, while the Romans had a ‘multicultural’ approach to religion.
According to Wikipedia great nephew.
There’s a fairly decent biography here. His mum was distantly related to the gens Caesar.
Memories of this bald-headed bastard coming round and rooting your Mum when your Dad was out would tend to get you spending a lot of time making sure the knife was sharp as well.
This is only something which has occured to me today.
These Senators would have been nursing these sorts of resentments and it would be something they’d not talk about and deny until their face fell off since it would be a double humiliation to confess to it and a triple to let people know it was getting to you.
As I mentioned above, to do the Romans justice, they ditched much of the nastier aspects of the paterfamilias themselves - the power of life and death over slaves, along with control over family members. Of all the ancient civilisations, the Romans were the least ethnocentric, the least sexist, the least controlling and so on.
The Jews could pray for the emperor, but the Christians - being a new faith - did not attract the same dispensation. The also claimed a monopoly on moral truth. Romans did not react well to this, needless to say. In that sense they had a relativistic view of religion.
I was under the impression that the Romans thought Christianity was a form ofJudiasm - which was banned in the empire (after the Jewish war). So the early hostility was simply law-enforcement.
(following up on the Mark Antony - child of Caesar thread, a few comments back)
Brutus was rumoured (incorrectly most probably) to have been Caesar’s biological child because of an affair Caesar was supposed to have had with his mother.
According to Suetonius, he said “kai su, teknon?” which is greek for “and you (my) child?” not “et tu, brute?” a la Shakespeare.
The Wikipedia says Possible, but seemingly unlikely”
John, I don’t see any reason to disagree at the moment.
We should remember that, in the political thought of the Romans, they employed the idea of paterfamilias analogically. They never employed it literally and the movement in their thought was against such literalism. It would have made a nonsense of the practice of citizenship. Also, we should differentiate between the idea of father as auctor, as progenitor, from whatever power, or potestas, they legally exercised. Remember, the senate enjoyed no potestas, but auctoritas, and this only because of the connection they historically enjoyed to the great patrician families that composed the senate originally.
The consuls of course exercised potestas, and the tribunes made law.
dover beach
Indeed. But here I shall hand over further analysis to you, as we are rapidly moving beyond the limits of my already very limited knowledge of Roman history, let along philology!
Dover, I too will have to defer. My memories are old, and also we concentrated on what the law was, as opposed to what may actually have happened.
The Romans never banned Judaism as such. What they did do was toss the Jews out of Judea proper. Vespasian - the victor in the ‘Jewish War’ of 70AD did not do this, however. The expeller - and initial author of the Jewish diaspora - was Hadrian, in 135 AD.
The Jews had rebelled against Roman rule once more. Hadrian’s destruction of their society was far more thoroughgoing than Vespasian’s had been. Jerusalem was given the Carthage treatment - raised, sown with salt, and its inhabitants expelled.
Seeing as SL is something of a Latin scholar, I might reminder her that the word, nation, or natio in Latin, signified communities-such as the Jews-within the Roman empire.
That’s very interesting as in recent years the sign-language ’speaking’ deaf community has begun developing its identity as the “Deaf Nation”. Fits with traditional usage.
SL is correct. some authorities took Christianity to be a form of Judaism ( actually it is true Judaism) and others took it to be illegal.
Nero thought it great fun to light Christians up in flames
It is not!
Of course it is sinkers.
‘Jews’ today have no concept of grace by which Abraham was called in the first place nor of faith for which Abraham was commended and for good measure think they can get to Heaven by what they do.
of course they missed the bus on the Messiah but we can all be thankful they were responsible for crucifying him!
But then one can only understnd the old Testament if one understands the new Testament
Andrew Elder
To the vanguardists of the 21st International of the Fairfax press, I say “Bring It On!” The Divine Miranda has already fired the first bullet of reaction-cheering into today’s SMH.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/spirits-not-flagging-waving/2007/01/26/1169788692892.html
The irony of the excerable Tracee Hutchinson’s rant is that Cathy Freeman is a prime example of integration, not multiculti.
Homer - there is no new testament, only the unauthorised sequel!
Religion. Sex. Politics. Drugs. Find them all at Catallaxy, then argue over them…
there’s sex at catallaxy?
Weeeell… we keep having get your kit off challenges
and there were some pretty good entries in the Hilalious comp.
Which reminds me, we have to judge that - there’s 200 smackeroonies to give away.
I don’t want to mention your promise of photos. Every time it comes up (so to speak
) catallaxy crashes.
“I was under the impression that the Romans thought Christianity was a form of Judiasm - which was banned in the empire (after the Jewish war). So the early hostility was simply law-enforcement.”
Yeah I think thats right.
Because they had this Jewish terrorism problem.
So they trashed the temple. Before that there were many little sects and divisions of Judaism.
But after there was only two sects which proved not to be too dependent on the Temple or public meeting places…. Or this is how I heard it on some ancient ABC show anyhow.
And these two sects were the Pharisees and the Christians.
The Pharisees become Judaism under this interpretation and the Christians went multicultural and spread to the Greek and Roman worlds under the leadership of Paul.
Later on though the persecution might have been self-concious protection of the culture. Since Christianity was spreading into the mainstream.
Some folks reckon that at some time periods the Christians were actually being persecuted for their atheism.
For their undermining of the standing religion of the Empire.
As for the sex at Catallaxy I never expect you to be in any inner circle Sinclair.
It will probably just consist of me getting about on the Sydney train system taking care of female lurkers feminine needs.
in your dreams.