Frederick Chook
New in Town
- Messages
- 34
- Location
- Colonial Capital MELBOURNE
I'm going to be offensive for a second here, but by not removing the hat and showing signs of respect during the anthem, you're insulting every man and woman that served in the military. To me, that's akin to saying all the folks that gave something up (their life, time, family, whatever) did so in vain.
See, I really don't see it that way. Surely that relies on the song, the nation and the troops being the same entity, rather than the song merely celebrating the nation and the troops merely being people who believed in, and worked for, the nation. All three of those things change their nature over time, too (here in Aus, we've only been a nation for a little over a hundred years, remember, and we're still technically under the British Crown, so there's ongoing debate about precisely who and what the nation represents; the indigenous population, European migrants, worldwide migrants or a blending of some or all of the above - as well as whether we should keep the current anthem or instead use a traditional folk song.)
Basically, what I'm saying is: in my mind, the nation does not equal the armed forces, or vice versa.
I may disagree with my government (and I frequently do) but without folks that died to give me the right to be an outspoken shrew, I'd of had my tongue cut out a long time ago, and for that, I'm eternally grateful that the veterans have done their duty, and a moment of inconvenience is a small price to pay for that (for the record, I may not HAVE to remove my hat under social dictates due to my sex, I choose to).
The thing is, most military actions since WWII (and most before, for that matter) have been less about defending freedom (or any other national value) and more about politics, showing power, gaining advantage A, resource B and ally C. Take WWI: the Central Powers defeat the Allies, one group of European empires gains territory and influence instead of another group of (slightly more democratic but still don't even have universal suffrage yet) European empires. Big deal. Plus, WWII would probably have been prevented. Speaking of which, and to be more than a little cheeky, Aus was at far greater risk than the US in WWII: Hitler had neither ideological nor practical motivation to cross the Atlantic, but Australia had to plan for the possibility that the entire northern half of the country might be occupied. Has your tongue really been threatened with imposition of a foreign government since 1776? I think threats to, and defence of, freedom occur in the peaceful realms of the legislatory and judiciary, in civil movements, workplace relations and local politics. Do you take off your hat for 'We Shall Overcome' or even, gasp, 'The Red Flag'? (I admit that socialism has been far more influential in the creation of the modern nation here than there, yes)
See, I really don't see it that way. Surely that relies on the song, the nation and the troops being the same entity, rather than the song merely celebrating the nation and the troops merely being people who believed in, and worked for, the nation. All three of those things change their nature over time, too (here in Aus, we've only been a nation for a little over a hundred years, remember, and we're still technically under the British Crown, so there's ongoing debate about precisely who and what the nation represents; the indigenous population, European migrants, worldwide migrants or a blending of some or all of the above - as well as whether we should keep the current anthem or instead use a traditional folk song.)
Basically, what I'm saying is: in my mind, the nation does not equal the armed forces, or vice versa.
I may disagree with my government (and I frequently do) but without folks that died to give me the right to be an outspoken shrew, I'd of had my tongue cut out a long time ago, and for that, I'm eternally grateful that the veterans have done their duty, and a moment of inconvenience is a small price to pay for that (for the record, I may not HAVE to remove my hat under social dictates due to my sex, I choose to).
The thing is, most military actions since WWII (and most before, for that matter) have been less about defending freedom (or any other national value) and more about politics, showing power, gaining advantage A, resource B and ally C. Take WWI: the Central Powers defeat the Allies, one group of European empires gains territory and influence instead of another group of (slightly more democratic but still don't even have universal suffrage yet) European empires. Big deal. Plus, WWII would probably have been prevented. Speaking of which, and to be more than a little cheeky, Aus was at far greater risk than the US in WWII: Hitler had neither ideological nor practical motivation to cross the Atlantic, but Australia had to plan for the possibility that the entire northern half of the country might be occupied. Has your tongue really been threatened with imposition of a foreign government since 1776? I think threats to, and defence of, freedom occur in the peaceful realms of the legislatory and judiciary, in civil movements, workplace relations and local politics. Do you take off your hat for 'We Shall Overcome' or even, gasp, 'The Red Flag'? (I admit that socialism has been far more influential in the creation of the modern nation here than there, yes)