-Interesting sentiment, happens to be one that I don't really disagree with, in any societal context. If you read any of the wankers that constitute the contemporary western literary canon, they will tell you that a homogenous (and fictional) construction of nationalism is one of the precepts in creating a stable nation-state. That, by homogenising separate ‘nationalisms’, a diverse and highly opposed polity may be influenced and indeed mobilised by the employment of a mere few catch-phrases. Indeed, Australia is a poignant example, so is the United Kingdom. [/b]
True, but what kind of 'nationalism' would you class majority Australian society under? Would it be chauvanistic nationalism for example or civic nationalism? What direction is Australia headed towards? Is it developing a distinct identity backed by pride in such developments as a more diverse society, a more developed and diversified economy reaping the benefits of globalisation and as a result developing a more distinctive and unique culture and society? Or is it based on more chauvanistic and expansionist ideals linked back to its original Anglo-Saxon and even Celtic roots and bent on loudly emphasising itself through unashamed pride in its sporting and cultural traditions and yet at the same time is at odds with itself because it knows that those very same traditions are not its own?
Now, I'm not saying that Australia is either of those, neither am I saying that Australia should keep the Crown or a Union flag in its standard. The last time I checked, Australia was a sovereign and proudly independent nation state. However, its attempts to try and fit in with a region which patently expresses frequently negative views about Australia bordering on the racist, a region which simply does not like the idea of a huge, white and anglo-saxon superpower sitting on its doorstep does lead one to wonder what exactly does Australia want in the world today.
I finding it rather ironic in the extreme, that in a topic dedicated to what can be fittingly described as a desperate and comical search for national identity, you see fit to criticise Australian conceptions of group nationalism.
Some kind of competition was run to define a flag which best represented the U.K. The winner, you described as a f***ing badass flaming skull from a Japanese animation series, and then in your next breath turn around and criticise the Australian identity and bust an ovary because some customs officer (a.k.a the most reasonable people in the world) stole some porn from your dad (thus reflecting on the whole Australian population...obviously). What’s our reaction supposed to be, I mean are you purposefully trying to abase your argument by presenting it in the most unfortunate context and basing it on the most generalised dictums possible?[/b]
Now I disagree about this. Point one, you seriously misunderstood my comments for point one, I busted a
liver, not an
ovary. Who do you think I am? Margaret Thatcher?! No, I think I am quite comfortable that the population of the United Kingdom, be they Scottish, Welsh, English or indeed, Ulstermen are some of the most confused people around and I take great pleasure in making as many jokes about it as possible. I also take great pleasure in knocking other confused cultures around the world, such as Canada for example. Belgium always creates opportunities for a chortle.
There is a saying that those in glass houses should not throw stones. Indeed, you may cite this example in my case, but when all of the panes in my glass house are broken through to excessive throwing in the end you think "aw sod it" and go the extra mile. Contradictive? Yes. Illogical? Maybe. Light-hearted and happy to open ones culture to abuse? Of course and I'm quite proud that I can take as much as I give and I'm quite happy that you're being rational about this whole thing.
O’rly? That’s interesting, so all the time i’ve been studying both English and Australian Common Law and subsequently researched examples of Aussie judicial activism that have been later appropriated within English case law, i was obviously mistaken. Your dad had his porn confiscated in 1969, ‘nuff said aye?[/b]
So...you're saying that all the porn I brought back from Japan should have been confiscated when I returned home becase the English legal system re-adopted some randomly puritan law about indecent publications through precidents set in Australia? Quick! Someone phone HM Revenue & Customs! I jest, I jest of course, but I am perfectly sure that the obscene publications act was ammended to make it..well...friendly to freedom of speech way before anyone in Australia ever thought about it. I am sure that legal precident in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Jamaica and other places which have a similar system of common law have been adopted in England, but surely you could have picked an example which made better sense.
Shall I continue? I can; previous euthanasia legislation, equitable practice reform, there is quite a bit. Both the United Kingdom and Australia have made gains (and also taken steps backwards) within different areas, and by no means is it a simple matter of “U.K > Australiaâ€. If I made the opposing claim when i’m in the U.K tomorrow, i’d save other people the trouble and consider myself a bigot.[/b]
NOW we're cooking with gas! Although to be honest, as I'm sure you've noticed when studying English common law, with the Common Market Act entering the UK into what was then the Common Market (which became the EEC, then the EC and then the EU and soon to be the European Superstate), the emphasis on legal precident being set by English courts or being adopted from other nations with similar systems has gradually given way to precidents set by both the European Court and the Court of Human Rights. Remember that in the Bill of Rights it declares that "Parliament is sovereign". It is said that Parliament is so powerful, it could vote to turn Sunday into Monday. However, this sits sumptiously at odds with the fact that under European legislation, all national legislatures must give way to European law. We may have the opportunity of first refusal in order to ammend and modify what we may not like but in the end, we must accept that. Australia may have influenced English law and politics but it is Europe which has undeniably ridden roughshot over and changed British society and law forever.
If you did make the opposing claim in the UK tomorrow, I would doubt you would get much objection past "who won the World Cup in 2003?" and "who won the Ashes in 2005?" and..well..that would be it. You vastly overestimate the British capability of fighting back with stinging arguments, arrogant critisisms and barbed points. If you were in France my friend, then you may get what you ask for and be taught a lesson you may never forget (even if 90% of it is total rubbish). However, in the UK, you'll be met with irrelevent rubbish about the state of beer, the Holden Commodore and maybe even the odd former Neighbors actress that it will make you beg to be sent home, home to where people actually talk about politics and society with a hint of seriousness rather than with some kind of resigned hysterical humour.
As for the Sheridan dig? A 60% win ratio over England in RU (an Australian minority sport), good cricket history, and far superior medal talley in both the Commonwealth and Olympic games will do me over just fine. [/b]
Ah yes, but despite all of that, you still score a big, fat, juicy D- at scrummaging and general forward play...although Rocky Elsom is starting to redress that. I'll amend that to a "D, Must do better!"
A pleasure and an honour to cross your path sir.
