Australian opinion about Americans? Esp. American migrants...

if you are thinking of immigrating i'd look into it now, the government says it wants to get more people in the country.

 

Guy,
Sadly, I'll have to wait until I finish college.
This thread is really just me putting out 'feelers'...and, of course, whatever anyone else wants to make it!



Clever Username,
Funny, I was just reading about the history and 'spaced-out-ness',boredom of Canberra, in the book 'A Sunburned Country' by Bill Bryson.
According to him, Canberra outgrown it's original self by quite a few times in the last 50 years, but could still use a pub or two.

 

Personally, I love Americans. Some of my best mates and colleagues are American. I used to love American history in high school and I always got good marks in that subject. We study (at least in the 70s) more American history than European history (mostly ancient history). I had 2 English literature teachers from the USA and one supplementary teacher for music.....cool sexy lady who used to play all Dylan and Nilsson tunes on her acoustic guitar . I grew up listening to American rock music and I still prefer it to British rock! .

Rob

 

I've heard of americans posing as canadians in australia and other countries to avoid abuse and discrimination. For me as an australian i really have no problem with americans as i've met quite a few and found them to be awesome people. It also seems that yanks that come to aus seem to have a lot in common with australias in the first place and generally find it easy to settle in. One problem i do have is australia becoming more like america.

As much as australia has in common with america, fortuneately it's still very different. I think a lot of australians don't like it when people point out the similarities between aus and america (i know i don't) but sadly we can't avoid or stop change. Not that it means aus will become like america. There's my two cents for now.

peace

 

As a "globe-trotter" of this dustball of ours, I can safely say the most important thing is NOT to copy the BAD things going on in the USA........believe it or not, there are still BEAUTIFUL things in the US (NOT Bush ) and those are what the world should copy.
I travel the Italy-UK-Belgium "triangle" (as I call it) for work and I can see what negative things happen when the bad part of the USA is copied and used as a model

Rob

 

:iagree:That certain political/buisness oligarchs have used as a model in the US, yes!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_oligarch



People tend to forget that more than half of us voted against Bush.

That's close to one hundred and fifty million people who do not support this regime!

It's only a shame that the more rebellious American media doesn't get over the Pacific to you guys.

As opposed to the crap which, as they say, seems to float to the top.



As an American thinking of investing a healthy chunk of my savings and energy into moving across the globe....I was 'shocked and dismayed to discover' some of the worst shows from American Television retread for an Australian audience.

Australian Idol?
Dancing With Stars Down Under??
WTF?
Of all the rubbish to import.

...or export?

Which brings up an interesting point.

Who's *really* responsible for the proliferation of this media?

Why is Australia following in the American Media's Muddy...Monolithic... footprints?

Do Australians have a choice?

Did Americans?

Would these LCD shows exist if people refused to watch?

Here in the States, there in Australia or anywhere?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/world/europe/10sitcom.html

Seriously?
I think this thing is bigger than America!
Greed. Ignorance. Political Profiteering and Spin.
Being 'Amused to Death'...
...these are not modern inventions.
and there are many here that fight from inside the belly of the beast.

BTW I live in Texas.
:tongue:

From above link:
"A drumbeat of anti-Americanism may be coming from the Kremlin these days, but across Russia people are embracing that quintessentially American genre, the television sitcom, not to mention one of its brassiest examples. And curiously enough, it is the Russian government that has effectively brought “Married With Children” to this land, which somehow made it through the latter half of the 20th century without the benefit of the laugh track."

Maybe these idiotic television shows help dull the senses so the 'drumbeat' of war against 'scary forgeiners' can more effectively move the masses to consume more, fear more, and allow more weapons to be made with the higher taxes the gov just called for?

Or as Bush asked us to do after 9/11...you can help America by shopping more!

We've all got to make sacrifices you know?

'Buisness Oligarch.'
my phrase for the day...

 

Oh god. You found out our terrible secret. I was hoping that you wouldnt have found out about those shows until you got here. Just....keep it under your hat though, please!

Anyway, your question is an interesting one. I dont know the answer to the wider question of why people watch these shows, or if they would take them off the air if people boycotted them, but I do know this:

In Australia, we have laws which dictate to media outlets that they MUST show a certain amount of locally produced content each week, or lose their broadcasting license. This might sound harsh, but the reason it exists, is because, with our small population and isolation from the rest of the western world, making TV and movies (and radio and media) is quite expensive given the limited audience it goes to.

So if the government let the broadcasters show whatever they wanted, then they would literally only ever show American TV shows. It is FAR cheaper to buy the rights to an American made TV show, than it is to produce our own and so they'd go for that.

So, anyway: Because of the laws (which are being rolled back all the time, sadly) networks need to find ways of making "Australian content" on the cheap. And the cheapest way of doing this, is buying a ready made concept from the US (like American Idol) and doing it over here as a franchise. It's FAR more expensive to actually MAKE a show ourselves because it involves hiring writers, scripting etc. Copying off America doesnt entail that extra work.

The end result of this being that most of our primetime viewing on the commercial networks consists of American sit coms and dramas, OR Australian made American developed shows (Like American Idol.)

The only saving grace in this, is that we actually have 2 government channels (ABC1 and ABC2) as well as one semi-private "ethnic" channel (SBS).

SBS tends to focus more so the interests of the ethnic groups in Australia, and every morning, they show delayed telecasts of news services from around the world in their native language. It's also the channel to see non-English speaking movies (at the moment they're doing a special on French cinema. They did one on Bollywood a while back, and Iranian cinema before that).

SBS also focusses quite a lot on the programs made by the indigeonous people of Australia and has current affairs shows relating to aboriginal issues (Living Black) and shows about aboriginal culture and movies made by Australian film makers about that culture.

Also, if you wanna know something about (for example) the election result in Paraguay, then you watch SBS World News.

ABC is totally government owned and it's the biggest supporter of Australian drama (Sea Change etc.) and Australian comedy (The Librarians. The Chaser. etc.) It's news service is more focused on Australia, and the most reliable one you can get here.

So, these channels still manage to fly the flag for locally made TV here. The commercial networks dont, simply because it's a financial decision. They have no real need to develop new content themselves, because they can always rely on the ABC or America to provide them with something new.

That is a shame, but I cant see matters improving. I have friends who are writers here, who tell me that since Australia signed the FTA with the US a couple of years ago, just about all of their work has gone over there. It just isnt economically viable to want to do creative work here.

 

Wow, thanks for another informed reply C_U!

I guess one question here is:

If it's the station that's responsible for the programming...then how can average Americans be
blamed for the shows taking root here and being spread overseas?

And if it's the viewers how can Australia deny
their own involvement?

I'm sure I'm simplifying a very complicated issue here
...but if the internet isn't about teaching people to
think and talk in sound bites, what good is it?


Thankfully, no one I talk to under a certain age
watches television... and certainly not basic cable.


I think having more entertainment
choices is a growing trend...esp with the internet.
tivo. back to the streets groups.
flash mobs. etc.


Also, is it solely television programming that
people are talking about when they say they don't want Australia to be like America?

Or is it Walmart, too?

Keeping the money local?
I can understand that.

Is it the Mormons? Is it them?
Those filthy bastards!
Give me the word and I'll take care of 'em for ya!



I mean, I can personally reel off a few dozen, unsavory
things about America myself, but I'm still curious which
ones Australians are thinking about.

Becoming a christian state?

Becoming a police state?

Becoming a 'retarded' state?







...

 

That's actually a really good question. I think that both the Australian viewers and the Australian networks need to take responsibility for it. Personally, I dont think the Americans are responsible for what it happening on our TV screens. I mean: No one from America is FORCING us to watch your shows.

I think the problem we have with getting more local content on over here is twofold;

Firstly: There is the cost issue. Like I said before, the cost/benefit of making a fully locally produced TV program here just doesnt work out. I mean, say for example I wanted to make an Australian sitcom: Id have to hire to actors, writers, legal teams etc. in addition to all the stage crew and everything. It would cost a lot of money, and then, when it got aired on TV, most people probably wouldnt watch it, because in the small market we have here (21 million people) a good size proportion of them would either watch something on another channel, or just not watch TV, simply because: They dont like watching TV and would rather read a book or something (this still happens, but is becoming rarer).

The only realistic chance, that a locally made TV drama or sitcom in Australia has of surviving, is if we can export it to a larger market, such as the US or Great Britain. The two longest running soaps on Australian TV are Neighbours and Home & Away. These are shown every night in Australia, and NEVER rate very well. If the producers were relying on Australian viewership alone, they both would have been axed ages ago. But the thing is, both of these shows have been marketed to the UK and New Zealand and do really well over there. Effectively, they're just made for export only.

Secondly: Im sure someone will get upset with me for saying this, but it seems that Australia is still a victim of it's own embarrassment at The Cultural Cringe.

The Cultural Cringe is hard to explain, but it's basically a term used to describe horrribly kitch Australiana that makes us look stupid and backwards to the rest of the western world. For example, THIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE3nRyMtgko

So, now as a result of that embarrassment, it seems like we're trying to make up for it by modelling ourselves on how we see the Rest Of The World. And by that, I mean: The Western World. And by that I mean: America.

Remember how you said before that you got abused by some Aussies because you asked them about if we get The Simpsons over here? Well, that is a good example of what Im trying to say: They abused you, because, in their minds EVERY modern, civilised country gets The Simpsons and for you to ask if we get it is to imply (in their minds) that perhaps Australia isnt as advanced and clever as the US, or Western Europe.

So, to cut a long story short: I often think that we copy American ideas for TV simply because we're too shy to try our own thing, for fear of ridicule from the outside world AND from ourselves.

So, I think that in relation to your question, the true blame for the "Americanisation" of our media lies with ourselves. If we were more confident, to do our own thing without worrying about what the rest of the world thinks then we might actually SUPPORT our locally produced content more, and if we SUPPORTED it more then more might get made.

In this case, America gets the blame simply because it's an easy target. Not because it's actually at fault.

 

It's not just TV that we're concerned about. TV is often the first thing that people point to when they want to complain about the "Americanisation" of Australia, but it goes further than that.

At the moment, there is a debate going on about how to defend and preserve "Australian values." The problem here is that no one can actually decide what an Australian Value is. People often point to the fact that it's (apparently) in the culture of Australia to give people a fair go, treat them with respect no matter where they come from or what class they are in etc. But, seriously, when you look at those "values", they seem pretty universal. Arent they the sorts of things that ALL countries try and do?

So, the problem is, that because we cant actually define what makes Australian culture unique, the fight to preserve this culture usually just centres around attacking anything that doesnt actually originate from Anglo-Celtic Australia.

For example: Patriotism. One of the key differences that a lot of people point to between the US and Australia is the way we express our love of country. The national anthem of Australia (Advance Australia Fair) has 2 verses: No one actually knows the words to the second verse. It pretty much never even gets played here. And this is actually considered to be a good thing because bold shows of patriotism over here arent considered to be the thing to do. In fact, if you DO make a big display of patriotism in Australia, you're likely to be accused of being a right-wing nut job or laughed at.

On a recent trip to the US, I noticed that, this is quite different to you guys. I often couldnt help thinking to myself while talking to people: "If this was Australia, you wouldnt say/do that, because everyone would laugh at you."

But, for better or worse, this is one of the things that a lot of people are trying to fight to preserve. To a lot of people, the quiet, unspoken way we support our country is seen as being a positive trait because it's an example (to them people) of how laid back and relaxed we are, and to do otherwise, would be an example of the "Amercanisation" of our culture.

The point about religion is a good one. Australia is still a secular state. Most people claim to be either Catholic or Anglican, but it's really only in name. We have very low turn out rates for church services. But, the thing that scares a lot of people (myself included) is the growth in the right-wing evangelist movement over here. We are now getting churches set up which model themselves on the American far-right churches of the bible belt, and the fear is that they could become a political force over here, just as they appear to be in the States. This is actually a pretty good example of a part of America culture that I think Australia needs to be very careful of.

Also, on a social political angle, at the moment, Australia has pretty universal health care under Medicare here. Education is free (and relatively well funded) and university education ranges from being totally free, to at least subsidised for Australian citizens. The worry here, is that Australia may, at some point turn towards a user pays system, like in the States. This is another idea which (rightly or wrongly) is pointed to as being an American idea, and one that needs to be stopped from coming to Australia.

The irony with all that Ive just said here, is that it totally contradicts my earlier point about Australia wanting to fit in with the rest of the western world and the Cultural Cringe. This is, pretty much because Australia seems to still be arguing with itself about how we maintain OUR national identity, but at the same time, become more alligned with the west and fit in with them better.


Also.....the "retarded state" picture is the funniest thing Ive seen all week.

 

Wow.

A lot of good points to respond to here.

Those values may be universal but Australia can do them better than other countries. You can specialize.

Just as America doesn't have a trademark on greed, religious intolerance, or turning a blind eye to the needy, we don't own Material Wealth or Porous Class Boundaries.

I'd be hard pressed to think of a value anywhere worth it's salt that isn't already a global meme.

Good to hear that. That was one of the most appauling results of 9/11...the mindless flagwaving and empty yellow-ribbon car magnet gestures. For me it's not so much the patriotism as the empty patriotism. ("Is there any other kind?", some might ask.)"We Will Not Forget" plastered on every bumpersticker and billboard is a bit worrying...like someone wearing a T-shirt that says "I love my wife"... it makes you start to wonder...

How Australia would respond if such an attack took place on it's soil is anybodies guess. I certainly didn't see America as quite so ignorant and religious and xenophobic before the attacks.

I would hope the displays of patriotism there would be of a more 'quiet and unspoken' kind as you put it. With less attacks against non-white citizens and less blind patriotism and support for whoevers in power.

The only thing you can do is try to be yourselves....esp as opposed to fitting in with the perceived West as seen through the television shows produced here.

I shudder to think.

But sometimes being yourself means admitting you are blending other cultures into your own...so I see your point.

BTW I wonder how my 'retarded' picture compares to your Happy Hour Brigade. Maybe that's all we as countries really have that's unique?

A good idea has a thousand fathers and a bad one is a bastard...as they say...

 

Australia was pretty shaken up by the bomb attacks on nightclub in Bali a year later (and then again, a few year after that). For years, Bali had been THE place for a lot of Australian's to go. Kind of like our version of Tijuana, because: It's close (10 hour flight from the east coast) and it's cheap.

So, when the bombs went off, it was clear that it was a direct attack against westerners, and in particular: Australians. But in spite of that, I dont really think we did the flag waving patriotism thing. We just seemed to mourn what happened, and then move on.

If anything, what those attacks did, was increase the distrust between the conservative anglo-Australian sections of society and Asia. Australia-Indonesia relations have always been a little rough, and there has always been a pretty vocal section of Australian society who hate Indonesia, and they seemed to get louder, and stronger after the attacks (for a while).

So while a terrorist attack against us didnt seem to get us out on the streets waving our flag, a few years later we had the Cronulla Riots - which DID cause it to happen. Basically, Cronulla is a (boring) beachside suburb in Sydney in a very, very anglo-Australia part of the city.

So according to the reports, for a while, Arabic ethnic groups from the South-west of Sydney had been coming to Cronulla and causing trouble. It all came to a head one weekend when a Lebanese Australian assaulted a Surf Lifesaver.

Because Surf Lifesaving has such a huge tradition in white Anglo-Australia, that assault (which, in truth, was nothing more than a stupid kid punching someone he was angry with) was taken up by right-wing radio hosts in Sydney as a symbol of how the Lebanese community in the city hated the anglo-Australian community. So after a week of chest beating on talk back radio, an angry mob turned up at Cronulla railway station the next weekend, and proceded to get really drunk, and wave the flag and sing the national anthem to "claim back our beach from those who hate Australia." A retarded and childish idea? Yes.

But it got worse, the "Lebanese gangs" that the radio hosts had been telling them all about never showed up on the day, so the mob had no one to fight with. That is, until a small group of international students got off the train for a day at the beach: The mob then proceeded to show how tough they really were and a riot started.

That night, members of the Lebanese community retalitated by attacking several people in Cronulla and burning the flag.

Following THAT event, flag waving became the done thing. It seemed that if you didnt wave the flag and sing the anthem, you were going to be called UnAustralian.

I think this mentality lasted for several months, untl people began to realise, just how retarded the whole thing was. A lot of stuff happened in that time, to show a lot of people how stupid this empty patriotism was. At The Big Day Out (a big one day music festival) in Sydney, groups of men were walking around forcing people to kiss the flag or get beaten up (I was ejected for punching one of these pricks in the mouth).

That sort of stuff really made the whole flag waving thing look racist and backwards and just downright embarrassing, and, as a result, it's really started to die off again. There is still a lot more stock put in flag waving and anthem singing now, than before the riots, but Ive noticed in the past few months, that attitudes have really changed. People seem to be beginning to move back to their old ideas about patriotism, which was based on the idea that: "If you know how great the country is, you dont need to make a big show of it."

 

Yes. I agree with this.

The idea of what Australia "is" to a lot of people in this country now seems drastically outdated. If you have some spare time (and you havent already done so), have a look at some of the poetry and prose work of Banjo Patterson. He's pretty much our most famous writer (so much so, that he appears on our $10 note).

He wrote a lot of idealistic poetry about Australia during pioneer times. It showed Australia to be a really harsh country, but full of people doing "traditionally Australian" things like chasing wild horses in the high country (The Man From Snowy River).

A lot of the ideals that Banjo brought up: Work hard and be fair to other people are quite good and noble, but some of the settings he developed are completely out of date. For example: In a Banjo poem, the ideal Australia male would be one who runs cattle across the scrubland (called a "drover") and is rough and tumble, and has little need for books or "culture", kind of like the cowboys from your Old West.

We seem to have clung onto that sort of idea past it's usefulness. The truth is, Australia is one of the most urbanised places on earth. Something like 88% of us live in a city by the coast. The interior, that Banjo talks about: Barely anyone lives there, BUT, his legacy means that THAT place (the interior) is considered to be the "Real Australia" where the "Real Australians" live.

So the battle to define ourselves like that, is still going on, but it's a losing battle. Truth is, even without the help of external forces like American TV, I reckon that we will grow into a more "international" sort of country, as a result, simply of the fact that we are moving away from these old, outdated notions of what Australia really is.

 

Wow, I'd seen pictures and such but never knew it was
that crazy after the beach riots.

Wacky.

See, even after 9/11 and 2,000 dead and pictures of
people jumping out of the burning towers and a well
known national news pundit crying on a late night
talk show a week later etc etc...I never heard of people
doing any flag kissing or outright anti-forgeiner rioting.


Of course we have riots over other stuff...mainly
disadvantaged blacks tearing their own neighborhoods
up over police brutality and the like. Which is shitty
enough.


Anyways, if the rest of this fucking epic post seems a
bit flippant or overly rhetorical it's because I didn't read
that 'bomb and beach riot' post of yours till after I had
typed alll of the following!
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________

From the otherwise no-nonsense 'Becoming an
Australian citizen' book I received a few days ago from
the Australian Government:

"Outsiders wonder at a nation that celebrates a tramp
who steals a sheep and then kills himself rather than
being taken by the police."

I lol'd.

Of course nothing beats Ned Kelly as far as odd national
heroes go...but his story took place in the outback as
well, right?

From the angle of monomyths...
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth)
... are you saying it's the dressing of the story and not
the story itself that makes it a transmitter of national values?

And hasn't the coast always been the population center
for the majority of Australians?

In which case you're dealing with something more than
just a set change...and brings up interesting points
about Australian identity in relation to nature!

The Outback! The Wild West!

Timeless Nature is a wonderfully blank slate for
a good story. The Great Outdoors have been used as a
backdrop for heroic tales for millennia and are still an
important part of modern man's understanding of
himself as part of something bigger...something not
man made. So maybe Banjo's stories still have
something to say?

On the flip side are myths that are set in the bustling cities
but most of these are newer and haven't proven their
memetic strength by decades or centuries of repetition!

Most modern movies that might serve as modern myths
are simply topical stories missing that elemental punch,
spiritual touch and timeless feel. We still learn from
them but they're too specific in their teachings to be
of use to the majority of the population or they contain
too watery a message to last and are passed over for the
title of national identity defining myth.

Lord of the Rings, Star Wars are obvious versions of
these monomythic stories recycled for modern
consumption. But surely these are part of an
'international' culture at this point...so they are of little
value in this discussion.


Still:
http://www.folkstory.com/articles/petersburg.html

It seems you're saying that the values themselves are
changing. From simple, non materialistic and
'uncultured'...or monocultured to technology based and
multi-cultural.

Perhaps these kinds of society defining stories have
always been about slowing down the inevitable
progression of complexity, technology, philosophical
'self-rule' and (?)relaxed mores....and we are helplessly sliding
towards an aspiritual, corrupted global culture?

Perhaps all of those things don't ride well in the
traditional medium of a single story line?

Also, do modern national myths even exist today? or has solipsist internet and cable TV usage killed the
possibility of one prevalent myth / set of values shared
by an entire nation?

Is that what you mean by 'international'?

Is every nation becoming a more compartmentalized
society...even as we paradoxically transform into a one
nation world?

Also did national values and myths ever really exist?
Are they a figment of our nostalgic imaginations?

The past always seems simpler
because we are farther away.

Perhaps our Great Man way of presenting history
keeps us from seeing the fractious, chaotic truth of
national identity even as it was experienced back then.

Perhaps even then people
were confused and fearful of losing this abstract,
transitory and elusive thing called national identity.

Beats the hell out of me.

 

The Kelly Gang spent their time out in the timber forest country outside of Melbourne. You can visit the town of Glenrowan on a day trip from Melbourne - and, if really crappy robotics and super hokey scripting is your thing, you can pay $24 to see a "robotic re-enactment" of their last stand.

The story of The Kelly Gang, and Waltzing Matilda are a good example of the changing shape of Australian national values, I think. In the past - even as recently as the 1990's - Ned was seen as a true national hero by the vast majority of Australian's. This was pretty much because of the throwback to the old hatred the Irish underclass felt towards the English. Ned was Irish, and he was seen as being someone who was willing to stand up to the English and fight.

But recently, in the last 10 years or, I think the idea of Ned has changed. Fact is, for all of his anti-Empire/pro civil rights stances that he might have taken, he was a murderous bastard was ambushed a group of policemen and shot in the balls and left them to bleed to death in the forest, because they were servants of the crown. And more and more, now people in Australia are willing to talk about this side of his story, whereas, even when I was at school, no one knew about it.

I think the reason for that is because of the change in the cultures that live in Australia. As the people with traditional Irish and Scottish convict heritage have started to thin out, the culture and the idea of what constitutes a good national value has changed to the point where fighting against the English class system, and the crown at all costs isnt seen as being important anymore. The link to the hatred that a lot of the people with Irish or Scottish heritage had towards the English has been broken.

That is pretty much what the a lot of Anglo-Australian nationalists are worried about and angry about. They saw the traditional idea's that Ned supported as being Australian Values, and now, through immigration, or our ability to see the outside world in a better way than we used to, that value is dying out, for better or worse.

Of course, the Australian Government is always about 10 years behind what the Australian People is thinking, so they've only recently begun teaching potential immigrants about Ned and Waltzing Matilda in order to "protect our national values."

Have you had a bit of a look at our new citizenship test yet? It's a right laugh, and a good example of this: It's got questions about Sir Donald Bradman in it. Easily the best cricket batsmen to play the game, but still....he's dead, and has been for years and most people who are alive today never even saw him play.

Kind of similar to an American citizenship test asking questions about Hank Aaron's batting average or something, I think.

 

Nice one. You've more or less hit the nail on the head right there, I think. It goes back to a statement you made earlier, where you said that you cant think of a value worth holding that every nation on earth doesnt at least try to hold. So as a result, we're all aiming for the same sort of society values, but the way we get the message across about that value differs between each country, so that the story is able to fit within the national psyche of that particular country.

That sounds like a really complicated and tossy description, but basically, what Im saying is that, for example: A story about the value of friendship told in Australia would be set in the outback, or the highland cattle country (a place that is stereotypically Australian) and it's that setting that makes the story appeal to the Australian audience. The same story, with the same message could be told just as easily to an American audience if it was changed slightly, to perhaps be a tale about the Wild West. Something that the national audience can link to and call their own.

So, the long and short of this is simply: The stories around the world are pretty much always the same, but the dressing of the story changes from place to place.

Yeah, the main population has always been near the coast. If you travel too far inland, the land is far too tough to live in.

And you've also actually brought up another really interesting point, with the way we see ourselves in relation to nature: The way most Australians seem to see nature is that: 'We live in a city, that has parks and small sections of forest that you can spend the weekend in if you'd like, but it's all quite tame. Then you leave the city, and drive inland, and soon enough you hit dense forest and mountain (on the east coast, at least) which is full of mystery and danger and is impenetrable to all but the toughest explorers on earth. And then comes the "outback", which is this huge place where not many people live, and those that do live there are a bit mad, and you have to be really, really, really tough to live there or you will die. And then you have the ocean, which puts everywhere else on earth a long fucking way from where we are.'

So, perhaps we feel smothered by all the natural surroundings, and slightly afraid of the "harshness" of it. (We here about how "harsh" these places are all the time.) So, in that, it immediately gives authors to make a good point about human nature by contrasting the city, with "the bush." For example: They can say that in the city, you dont have to talk to anyone, or be nice to anyone to survive. You have supermarkets and cinemas and all this stuff that makes living alone easy. But in the bush (according to the myth), if you dont have loyal friends and strong values and convictions, you wont survive.

So perhaps you're right, perhaps Banjo's poems still do have a message for us, and the message is only created by the fact that they are set where they're set.

I agree that monomythic stories dont really have the "staying power" they require to gain the status of a classic lesson on values. I guess this has a lot to do with the fact that they are so specific, that once the issue they touch on has been dealt with, they lose their relevance and fade away. You could look at Jane Austen's novel Mansfield Park (Im only bringing this one up because I did an exam on it recently, so I remember it). It aims at making a point about the unnaturalness of the Victorian period class system in the UK, and probably would have been topical at the time, but now, since very few women marry men solely to gain an advancement up the social ladder, the message and the myth of the brave female who goes against this ideal of marrying for financial gain isnt relevant anymore.

This makes sense and I think it's quite natural for national myths to be used as a weapon against change, whether people realise it or not. More often than not, a story that tries to tell the story of a national identity has a happy ending to it, and it's human nature for people to be pessimistic about change while being quite comfortable in the present and yearning for the past. I think a national myth does all of those things, because it's a glorified look back on the past, which people read in the present and can think to themselves "Thank goodness things havent changed too much from when this was written" (if they didnt think this, then the connection between the myth and contemporary society would be broken, and the myth would be meaningless to them) while worrying about how the values in the myth are to be preserved.

So that raises the general question: If a national myth is an ideal look at the past, then that means that by the time people view it, it's not an accurate reflection of society, so therefore, does it serve any purpose at all?

Pretty much. Nowadays it's possible to log onto the internet and share views about whatever subject with people from all over the world, and in the process learn their values. So now it means that we all get our values from different places, and can therefore mould them as we see fit.

I think that's different to the past, where you had no real way of knowing another culture's perspective on an issue, so you were simply influenced by the environment that surrounded you and since you didnt know any better, you couldnt question what your environment had made you into as a person.

 

You gotta have a sense of humor to be an American in Australia. You gotta be used to being called a seppo.

Seppo is short for Septic Tank. Septic Tank rhymes with Yank. Australians and the POMie bastards we are all descendant from both engage in this stupid rhyming slang. Good luck trying to figure it out.

Oh yeah, POM is slang for English. You'll hear that down there a lot as well. Stands for Prisoner of Our Mother queen of england.

I was a barman in merrickville for about a year. So I learned that I had to have a sense of humor to deal with drunk Aussies and there sense of humor.

 

You hit the proverbial nail on the head!!!!!

Rob

 

My fave U.S. TV shows as a kid in OZ were:
- All in the Family
- Starsky&Hutch (original)
- Lucy Show
- Bob Hope
- Welcome back Kotter!
- M*A*S*H
- Mod Squad (going back a little here....)
- Apple's Way
.............................quoting Archie Bunker :" Those were the days"

 

I remember watching some of those shows!

It's funny that anybody thought they were worth
sending to OZ...(M*A*S*H* was pretty decent though!)
or that legions of young Australian kids
grew up with the same shows that people over here did!
Bizarre!

Cleverusername:
Sorry to leave you hanging (for a whole month) like that!
You know, I had somehow convinced myself that I'd posted the last
long post...and that you hadn't responded to me for a few weeks...
and so here I was, all this time, thinking,"You know...
I knew I wouldn't be the first one to drop this discussion!
I bet I scared him off with that last one!"
:smilielol5:
I have absolutely no idea
how that belief came to reside in my head!
but it did!
Crazy. Which segues nicely into
what you said, it's all true
and very, very well put!

You know...
I had this strange experience concerning stories and
how there's this massive difference in all the sensory
input from one. still. moment of listening and looking
and feeling without trying to make sense of it at all...
...and the forced simplicity of a story.

All the ignored stimulus because
we're focusing on the pattern of plot.
Of any story.
Even the stories we tell ourselves about our own
experiences.

Anyways, such is life.
Or such is the life most of us choose to live in.

I think all stories not just National Identity ones
are inaccurate representations.

But some are closer to the truth than others.

Splitting hairs, I guess.
It's like probability theory or fuzzy logic
or some snazzy thing like that!


By the way ever heard of John Henry?
There's an example of a negative ending tacked onto a National Fable!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_(folklore)