Issues of Memory and Community at the Heart of the Australian History Wars

The history wars of Australia is an area of great controversial debate. Throughout the course of Australian history, the public has been mainly subjected to one perspective that focused on the glorifying moments of European settlement and its progress such as its involvement in world wars and the transition of the nation into a globalised continent. As a result, there is a rigid dichotomy between the perceptions of white Australians and the indigenous population on subjects such as the colonisation or invasion of Australia. History told from the perspective of Aboriginal people greatly contrasts what is written in the history books and also what is exposed or encouraged towards the public. It focuses on the dispossession of indigenous people, the massacres and the attempted eradication of culture. This view of Australian history has been labeled as 'black armband history', which was first used during an interview by a historian, Geoffrey Blainey.

Australia’s new dependence on America resulted in a large influx of American soldiers to Australia and while Australian society was initially accepting and welcoming of their unorthodox culture, behaviours and morals, this quickly turned to contempt and created an unsavoury relationship between Australians and Americans whom they saw as being a bad influence on the women and youth of Australia. Australians regarded Americans as being, “overpaid, oversexed and over-here”. However, while this had the possibility to cause influential divides in society, Australians realised the necessity for the American presence in their country and the security they had provided, overruling any irritation felt towards them. The Australian war effort in the pacific regions had also served to amplify and fuel the ‘Anzac legend’ creating a national sense of pride and unity during the war. Australia’s involvement in the Second World War thus served to create a more independent Australia, in charge of its own policies and decisions in foreign affairs, creating cohesion within society.

World War 1 (1914-1918) was the first official war that Australians took part in, only thirteen years after federating as a country in 1901. During this time, thousands of lives were lost, families were torn apart, and friends were never seen again. April 25th became the national day to commemorate the ANZAC soldiers who had served overseas. Even now, 100 years later, people still remember those who sacrificed themselves for Australia, those who fought and fell in many battles to protect the country they lived in. The Gallipoli Campaign is the most famous battle of World War 1, the battle that every Australian household knows about. However, other battles such as the ones on the

World War One is regarded as a major turning point in history and modern warfare which has impacted Australia monumentally, scarring the nation’s history. Australia played a significant role in World War One and the Gallipoli campaign, which is considered the birthplace of the ANZAC legend. These events have immensely shaped Australia as the nation we know of today. World War One began in 1914 from the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and ended in 1918 on November the 11th which is now recognised as a day of mourning and a time given recognition to the lives taken on the battlefield. To a prominent extent, the ANZAC legend is significant to the concept of Australian identity and nationalism through the origins of the ANZAC legend, the key events that have helped form Australia as an independent nation, and in addition to how ANZAC day is commemorated today.

Yet, the amount of emphasis that is placed on the Anzac legend could be argued to be incorrectly placed and channelled by certain groups for their own gain. This essay will argue that the Anzac legacy of the Australians being the perfect soldier is highly embellished and are no more remarkable than any other soldier. Furthermore the importance and Australia’s involvement in the First World War has been grossly inflated. Additionally, this will analyse claims made by historians and other academics about how the Anzac legend has changed overtime, and Australia’s involvement in wars.

The Anzac legend is still relevant in today’s society as it reminds Australians and New Zealands of the sacrifice they made to protect our country and let us live in freedom. The legend defines our national identity and helps shape our national reputation so that other countries can look at us as and think of us as a country who are determined, brave, resilient and helps our mates when they are in trouble. Almost a whole generation of young men was lost and they deserved to be remembered. The soldiers continued to fight during challenging times and when they felt as though it was too hard and should give up. They slept in wet and dirty clothes and barely had enough food to survive. Australia wouldn’t be Australia without the legend of the soldiers who sacrificed themselves for us.

The museum believes in a pastiche and populist pathway, in which the history of all people is displayed. Its interactive viewpoint allows this museum to convey history in a way that would be more accessible to its audience. For example, patrons are given the opportunity to record their own history. However, academics, such as Keith Windschuttle, assert that the NMA is a “profound intellectual waste”. He argues that although it displays accurate history, it’s purpose of entertaining its audience detracts from its value, thus creating “waste”. Although Windschuttle’s view may be extreme, it demonstrates the considerable extent to which the tension between academic and popular historians exist.

Australians fought in many wars, but the most successful war was thought to be ‘the war to end all wars’ (World War One). The Anzacs had experienced many hardships in this horrific war; special qualities were developed throughout the war such as endurance, mateship and courage. On the 25th of April the birth of the Anzac legend had risen. As they charged into enemy territories, in the early morning of the 1900s, they were destined to succeed despite the raining gun fire by the Turkish soldiers. Mateship, courage and endurance gradually strengthened deeper into the war; as a result, no one could take away these three imperishable qualities. Many historical records show many different perspectives about the Anzac legend. As a nation, we look upon three main attributes that the Anzacs had demonstrated courage, mateship and endurance. Therefore, the Anzac legacy continues to prosper in its purpose to motivate the modern Australian society.

It also provides students the knowledge and understanding of history by revealing “the importance of Country/Place to Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Peoples who belong to a local area” (ACARA, 2015,

As it not only marks the initiation of our controversial war history, signifying the first time our country joined together in unity. It becomes the focal point for remembering all the soldiers who have fallen in horrors of war, the continuous suffering which family members endured. Through the ANZAC legend, future generations have a responsibility to remember not only those who served, but all contributions made, during the era in which the legend was born. We have an obligation to respect the soldiers, honouring the unique characteristics of each individual, ensuring we don’t stereotype the courageous

Historical wars or the cultural wars can be defined as the disintegration between different Australian communities that have been longstanding

To some extent the past generations have been reared on a patriotic view of past Australian history, interpreting its history as largely a success. Since history is determined by the perspective of from which it is written, this version of Australian history, the Three Cheers view, was written from the perspective of white working-class males, who consider Australian pioneers to be the simple, honest and humble people. Until recently, a rival interpretation, the Black Armband view, has assailed the generally optimistic view of Australian history by construing the history of Australia as a disgrace. This second simplistic view

“The sun never sets on the British Empire” is a phrase that is known all too well in regards to British Imperialism and colonization spanning over Africa, Asia, North America, Australia, and Europe. Over the years, England in particular, has had a major influence across the world as a global superpower by sharing its own technology, culture, religion and more. But as much as they have shared, they have also taken to enrich their own society with artifacts, designs, foods, and other aspects of the foreign culture. This dynamic between Great Britain and each colonized country has immensely shaped modern British museums by expanding the content in museums as it relates to imperialism, diversifying the artifacts collected from other countries, and the influences it has had on British society shown through museums collections. The old British Empire 's influence on modern museums also raised many issues for contemporary curators and audiences concerning museums glorifying imperialism, the ethically of keeping these collected artifacts, and if the museums have a subtle underlying imperialistic bias.

When memories and events become institutionalized in a museum setting, they become the lens through which present and future generations gaze into past. National museums promote local history and identity, but what about multinational museums and multinational identity? This is the question the European Union hopes to address with their sanctioning of the House of European History (HEH). The main goal of the HEH is to create a collection of permanent and temporary exhibitions to invite people into a space where “the concept of the European idea can continue to grow” and “the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples” can be improved (Committee of Experts, 2008, p.5). However, because the HEH is funded

‘Imagine you were in charge of a museum’s collecting policy. What would you chose to collect and how would you justify these decisions?’