‘Sacrifice’ is a word we don’t hear much any more. It used to be part of our culture. We made sacrifices to get our children to a good school, our old parents to a better nursing home. We sacrificed a university career to stay home and look after Mum. If women we sacrificed our own education so our brother — Mark Latham, for instance — could go to university.
And we sacrificed our lives for our country. We still hear this awful phrase at soldiers’ funerals, on Remembrance Day and, yes, on Anzac Day. But more and more it feels like the Big Lie it is, and always was.
Sacrifice means, literally, cutting the throat of one’s beloved son, as Abraham thought to do, to propitiate an angry God. This happened now and then. The story of Jepthah’s daughter, the most fearsome — and indeed the most anti-Semitic — in the Bible, harrows the listener still, as does the sacrifice of Agamemnon’s daughter to ensure good wind and weather on the way to Troy. It always has the shimmer of dead adult children to it.
And we are told we sacrificed our adult children at Gallipoli, that others would live well, and thank us for it.
But this is not what happened. Five thousand of those children died in vain. Two thousand lost limbs there. Twenty thousand had bad dreams for fify years. No-one lived better because of it. The widows and girlfriends were shattered, the mothers never got over it. Grandchildren, great grandchildren were never born. Great poems were never written, great symphonies not performed.
And no inch of ground was gained. No colony was added to the Empire, no fistful of diamonds, no barrel of oil, no jar of raisins, no bag of myrrh was looted from its rich desert earth. And we left our dead behind. ‘They are our sons now,’ Attaturk, our great foe, said smugly. How dread a sentence that must have sounded, like a tolling bell to their mothers and fathers, who, as we know, made the sacrifice of them, willingly.
What nonsense we are talking; still talking.
No, what happened was some farm boys and country town boys, some of them with horses, were tempted by adventure and overseas travel, and goaded by the white feathers of their women, into a slaughterous debacle with no good end and had to shoot their horses before they came home, and take part in a lot of marching, saluting and bugling hypocrisy each year on this day of days. And public fools, like the Prime Minister, speaking of their sacrifice.
It was an idiotic expedition, this War of the Three Cousins we had no business in, and lost our best and brightest in, more young men than died in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Waterloo put together, from which no inch of gound was gained, no jar of raisins, no bag of myrrh.
We can talk of it still, but never, never, never talk of ‘sacrifice’.
Or perhaps you disagree.
Name:
Thinking of the changes in Anzac Day over many years, and the corresponding changes in popular culture – “How Green was My Valley” and “The Robe” giving way to Steig Larsen,say – I wonder whether its “celebration” allows people a rare opportunity to be publicly sentimental, even maudlin.
Spot on FI Kendall, it’s our one day a year for allowing ourselves to be sentimental, I suppose a little bit of alcohol is helpful, we can hug our mates safely…we’ll fight tomorrow.
It’s like Diana’s funeral, the British could weep for their own miserable lives, at least once.
I dodged the Vietnam bullet by being lucky enough to avoid conscription. The youth of my day were all to aware that war is the ultimate obscenity but today’s youth attend dawn Anzac services proudly wearing the medal of some dead relative while others go off like pilgrims to celebrate our defeat at Gallipoli. A touch too Orwellian for me where death is glorious, defeat is victory and peace can only be attained through war. My immediate reaction to yet another death in Afghanistan is to shout at the TV….. STUPID IDIOT ! Meanwhile, those poor young fools who survive return home only to be eek out there days in their own private hell.
Hempanon, what would you have done, had your marbled number had been pulled from the barrel?
The option of conscientious objector existed, and I’m wondering how many young men went down the rabbit hole when they learnt they were to be conscripted to fight in this war that posed no clear and present threat to the Australian community.
It’s striking how obedient we are, that we would so easily obey a diktat to abandon our circumstances, don the uniform, have our heads shorn and then after a period of preparation be sent to act as targets for hostile strangers who naturally resented our presence in their country.
If one puts oneself in the shoes of the invaded, it’s an easy stretch to see that the act of defense of one’s homeland under those circumstances is natural and desirable, and why not? You’d be mad not to, as it’s said. But to be packed off to fight in another country that has no interest in ours, no interest in expansion or invasion, simply to be fodder for the foe because of a clash of political ideology and cultural integrity, no, no, and a thousand times no. Jesus wept, that we might one day collectively develop the spine and fortitude to stand up to the decision-makers and force them to confront alternatives to the ongoing military madness that so debases us as supposed intelligent and sensitive creatures.
I suspect that at age 20 I might have copped it sweet and joined the ranks of the other brand new cannon fodder. I was a late developer, particularly politically, and still hadn’t worked out that my Menzies obsessed parents were barking up the wrong tree. A year or so later things were very different and I maintained the rage for many years.
Yes, the kiddies are compliant and mostly put the uniform on without much complaint which is surely an indication that the education system is ‘working’. Thank God Gough turned up in 1972 to put a stop to the insanity.
Hear Hear Hempanon. Gough got in and ended the ridiculous conscription system that even the Army did not want, in excellent time to save me from the machine; not only that, he enabled me to go to university at a time when my parents would have really struggled to enable it, and that is not mentioning all the wonderful reforms to health, family law and trade practices which were 20 years overdue.
Once when I found myself in the middle of the dreary city of Newcastle, I discovered a WW1 memorial to the men of Newcastle who had “Died For The Honour of The British Empire.”
Why would anyone risk one’s life for that?
Australians in those days, thinking themselves as basically British, were probably different then.
Exactly that David. We were the South British. Our troops were the Australian Imperial Forces and ‘imperial’ meant just that : the forces of the empire, Australian contingent.
ABC TV began its Anzac Day program this morning with a portentous declaration that Anzac Day was a “uniquely Australian” day. What’s your analysis of this, Bob?
It’s the only national holiday that celebrates a defeat. There is in England no Titanic Day, in France no Surrender To Hitler Day.
We have no Granville Train Disaster Holiday, nor even one for the Newcastle earthquake.
But we have this one. Because it was the first big defeat that killed or crippled, probably, one quarter of our fit young men.
And since this is an impossible for us to live with, we have to pretend it was a victory of some kind, a test passed.
You’ve missed the point. The letters NZ in Anzac stand for another country that observes Anzac Day as a national holiday. I had hoped you would have something to say about the mindset that allowed the ABC to put its lie to air.
Your own points are well made, though. France could well observe its own counterpart to Anzac Day. The number of Frenchmen killed at Gallipoli was nearly as great as Australians and New Zealanders combined.
If we are to celebrate anything why not the more victorious Light Horse charge on Beersheba 31 October 1917. I suppose there was not enough Aussie blood spilt there (was it 48 casualties?) to meld into the blooding of the nation sacrifice myth that has been foisted upon us since WW1. Perhaps, defeat, sacrifice, martyrdom, strikes a deeper cord as a tool of national consolidation.
…or the opening of The Opera House, Patrick White’s, or Sidney Nolan’s, birthday…?
The religious are very fond of sacrifice – as long as it is someone else who is sacrificed, and preferably someone else does the sacrificing.
Don’t be surprised to hear all sorts of nonsense in the period from Easter to Anzac Day. The right wing inclined tend to be religious, authoritarian and fond of the sacrifice of others.
Can you give examples of religious (any) sacrificing others or arranging someone else to make sacrifices in the world today? Have you heard of martyrs?
With countless religious missionaries and NGOs daily sacrificing comfortable middle-class existence, health and even life in third world countries and generously giving of themselves as volunteers (it is a fact they represent the majority)to help the needy in more affluent countries, your comments sound like half-baked bigotry.
Perhaps you should get out of your pathetic middle-class bubble, give your laptop a break and do something to make the world a better place rather than criticizing those who do.
There are exceptions; but my take is that people do good works in spite of their religious beliefs, rather than because of them.
Would Mother Theresa have been an evil person or a do-nothing without her religious belief?
Was Helen Keller less of a great person because she was an atheist?
Faith is irrelevant, I consider. And if that is so, why do we need faith and religion at all?
Your remarks are simply not supported by the facts. To suggest for example that the 5,000 Missionaries of Charity serving the poorest of the poor in 140 countries do so in spite of their religious beliefs is laughable. The same goes for the many thousands of other missionaries and lay religious. Here in Australia we have Vinnies, Salvos, Smith Family, LifeLine, Grow, for example, all either religious institutions or inspired by them. Is this coincidence? What charitable work has been inspired by atheist worldview?
And how much of their effort is directed to missionary work – ie proselytising their religion?
Their “medical care” has been roundly criticised, and as Dr. Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet, described the medical care as “haphazard”, as volunteers without medical knowledge had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors. He observed that the Congregation did not seem to distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment : Fox, Robin (1994), “Mother Teresa’s care for the dying”, The Lancet 344 (8925): 807.
Hitchens’ take on their efforts : funnel the donated money into opening new convents and increasing missionary work.
Good works undoubtedly done, by willing people, in spite of their miserable religion.
Having served as a volunteer in Kolkata, Philippines, Timor Leste and Tijuana I can only say that I find armchair experts’ views on these issues unedifying.
In one email you’re applauding M Teresa and in the next vilifying her – you are clearly not interested in the facts but proselytizing your sad spirtitually bankrupt ideology. In fact the hygeine in MC houses is scrupulous, they have the support of lay doctors where they do not have MC doctors (most places)and the response to most abject poverty (shelter and nutrition) does not require doctors. I invite you to exit your cosy bubble and you will discover the poorest also need the love, hope and joy which you don’t get out of a medicine bottle but which authentic religion gives.
You can have your views and you are welcome to them.
But “vilifying her” is a little strong, yes?
I concede
“vilifying her” was a little strong. My point was that in one breath you say M Teresa did good work and then find reasons why she doesn’t in the next breath, rather than respond to the point I made, that you are mistaken to suggest M Teresa was not motivated by her religious beliefs. I didn’t expect to convert you from atheism but was simply appealing for intellectual honesty.
Good luck.
As for your other point, most atheists take the view that it is the duty of the State to provide for its citizens : to provide health care, education, housing, income support in adversity. And that all that should come to the citizens without them having to subscribe to a belief in imaginary friends.
Not one of the charitable institutions I mentioned earlier requires that those they help subscribe to their or any other religious belief. This is commonknowledge.Your suggestion about the State betrays a remarkable ignorance of the social, psychological, spiritual and even economic realities of the issue of helping the
disadvantaged. I can see that your perspective provides a handy cop-out for you and your ilk but does nothing for the most needy in our society. Because you subscribe to a philosophically materialist worldview (whether you know it or not)
you are out of touch with the human realities involved. The poor don’t just want bread and shelter – they want love, friendship, their human disgnity to be recognized. There are many soup kitchens in Sydney – give it a go and get a taste of the real world.
Only those we strongly disagree with have an “ilk”, certainly not the nice people who agree with us.
I find your posts heartfelt, but just a little misguided.
If governments did their job properly there would be no need for do gooders to do their good deeds, and do a little recruitment on the side.
I doubt that there is any point in continuing this discussion; try having your favourite tipple, and then tomorrow try elsewhere.
Good piece Bob, clear-eyed observation. As alluded in a previous post, we can get quite defensive about the deconstruction of some of the mythology surrounding elements of Australian history and social experience.
It’s not about bashing those who died, or criticizing the motives at that time that saw servicemen queue up for enlistment, but I think that close to one hundred years since the Gallipoli and other WWI campaigns is ample time to weigh the evidence of cause and consequence, dispassionately, free of the emotive rhetoric that seems to infect so much of the public discourse about our involvement in these overseas military exercises. It’s better, is it not, to call a spade for what it is, and not disguise the reality with obfuscating language?
Oz wars have been fought overseas, the population at large has not suffered, they have not been forced to eat soup made from potato peelings, or to walk for miles to collect some firewood among bombed rubble of houses…
Maybe that is the reason why we glorify war here, it has become our Holy Cow.
War is an art of profiting from it, forcing, rallying and letting others win and lose them. If you follow the public servant lead and that of the comfortable. My fathers last words and good-bye to his country- something about only approaching them for help and treatment for the sake of his children and -Non combatants hold very high standards for those that do their fighting for them.
Countries with relative good intentions and that caters to it’s peoples need to stick together.Of course they all do. What do we let grow or leave and come back to bite us? And when?
It’s a jungle out there. Populations, religions, resources, markets that can’t carry them, thuggery, too criminal,rich oligarchy or not enough widespread education. Should the Taliban minded have been left to influence well past the middle east?
This country could have done a lot more for it’s people but such are our lot. Billions gone hell west and crooked ,wasted, splurged indulged on above the greater good.