AUSTRALIA’S FEDERATION AND CREATION AS A NATION
By uniting 6 British colonies in 1901, a new nation called “The Commonwealth of Australia” was formed. The aboriginals have lived and practiced their cultures on these lands for at least 50,000 years. British colonies were established by the end of the 1700s, and settlements with their parliaments were already formed by the end of the 1800s. However, the power of law-making was still in the hands of the British Parliament[1]. With the help of these colony representatives and the colony people, a poll was conducted whether or not to accept the Constitution of Australia, which was successful as the British Parliament passed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, which was affected by 1st January 1901. Under the Constitution of Australia, the power of the new states united by the Act of Commonwealth will be shared between the federal and state parliaments[2].
The concept of nationalism in Australia was primarily founded on the premise of “Britishness,” as argued by Russell McGregor that had united the Australians in the federation period and as well gave the sense of time-depth, which is required by all nations. Some Australian scholars have assumed an inborn sense of opposition; for others, the degree of mutuality is appreciated between the two, and a few have explained to this. This article provides us with one explanation where it focuses on the period of nation-building by drawing on the approach of ethno-symbolists on nationalism. He also argues that “Britishness” McGregor, Russell provided the permanent base for the Australian ethno-cultural environment[3].
On the other hand, Henry Reynolds points out a deceitful Anzac myth feature: it focuses on the deaths of its soldiers and not on their actions, as it is hard to challenge. This article argues that the shared obsession of the Australians with ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) has distorted their grasp in natural history. Going through the history and mythologies surrounding ANZAC, this record helps explore topics like the national holiday formation of Australia i.e., The ANZAC Day and how the importance of ANZAC is taught to the future generations of Australia. This study claims that ANZAC has become a traditional force in politics in Australia, and it questions the worth of all the bloodshed due to the famous foreign battles which were fought by ANZAC[4]. It examines (and deconstructs) the Anzac legend in Australian history and how it is viewed, used, misunderstood, or downright fabricated in the present day. A powerful and compelling antidote to the militarism and extreme nationalism expressed in Australia every 25th April (and the rest of the year around it). It asks some important questions like should the nation celebrate an event which has been mythologized or should we elevate civic and social achievements to the apex of national admiration, whether the events at Gallipoli actually “made” Australia and more generally about the use of War as vital to nation-building and national identity, can nations be forged in other ways than War, is this a male-centric perception, etc.
Marilyn Lake has made significant contributions in multiple fields like ANZAC history and War impact, feminism, and history of women, gender, the relations and identities of race, internationalism, etc. She discussed how the Federation of Australia instituted the rule of the White man and how the women, the Asiatic and the Blacks were excluded from the new state or seen as minors who required protection[5]. Furthermore, the political culture of the states in Australia, which were settling as the New World, was shaped by the belief that all white men should be dealing equally with each other. She also discusses how the women in Australia gained their voting rights just one year after the foundation of the Commonwealth of Australia as an independent nation. In Marilyn’s research for Faith Bandler’s biographical study, it clearly states the factors that encouraged her to take a firm stand against racial discrimination and isolation in Australia.
Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds surveyed how race has influenced Australia’s national identity from that of the nineteenth century. They compared not only the Pacific rim and African nations white settlers, but they also discussed how the whites were shown as superiors in the New World and how the blacks and the Asians were considered as inferiors. Russell McGregor emphasizes the British heritage of Australia, stating how its myths, memories, and symbols unify the nation and implant itself deep in ancient times by noting the legacy and traditions of the British institutions, which are evident in the civic society of Australia.
Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds discussed how the historians had identified white preservation as the British Empire’s primary objective of colony settlement represented by the White Australia Policy. But according to Russell McGregor, the ethnic and civic structures of identity can be mixed typically by “Britishness” which are proved to be appropriate in different ways.
These authors discussed how the national interests perceived by these societies were protected by the introduction of new policies in immigration and how they adapt themselves to the administrative implementation, i.e., literacy tests. This is done to facilitate the execution of the immigration process, and it also discriminates against those who are not whites and were already a resident of those societies. They also found examples of how these cultures can be transferred between the white settlers’ communities by marking the tendencies of borrowing and learning from mutual experiences and racially mixed cultures. The racial similarity and whiteness are considered to be the declaration of both independence and nationalism, as illustrated by them.
Reference:
Curthoys, Ann, and Marilyn Lake. Connected worlds: history in transnational perspective. ANU Press, 2006. Accessed from: http://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/33789/458894.pdf?sequence=1
Lake, Marilyn. “Federation and the repression of difference: the gendered relations of national and international governance.” Tasmanian Historical Studies 8, no. 1 (2002): 5. Accessed from: <https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=200302650;res=IELAPA>
McGregor, Russell. “The necessity of Britishness: ethno-cultural roots of Australian nationalism.” Nations and Nationalism 12, no. 3 (2006): 493-511. Accessed from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8129.2006.00250.
Reynolds, Henry, and Marilyn Lake. “What’s Wrong with Anzac? The Militarisation of Australian History.” (2010).
Robertson, Emily. “The making of Australian attitudes about war.” (2017): 311-314. Accessed from: https://www.academia.edu/download/54569625/The_making_of_Australian_attitudes_about_war.pdf
[1] Curthoys, Ann, and Marilyn Lake. Connected worlds: history in transnational perspective. ANU Press, 2006. Accessed from: http://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/33789/458894.pdf?sequence=1
[2] Robertson, Emily. “The making of Australian attitudes about war.” (2017): 311-314. Accessed from: https://www.academia.edu/download/54569625/The_making_of_Australian_attitudes_about_war.pdf
[3]. “The necessity of Britishness: ethnocultural roots of Australian nationalism.” Nations and Nationalism 12, no. 3 (2006): 493-511. Accessed from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8129.2006.00250.
[4] Reynolds, Henry, and Marilyn Lake. “What’s Wrong with Anzac? The Militarisation of Australian History.” (2010).
[5] Lake, Marilyn. “Federation and the repression of difference: the gendered relations of national and international governance.” Tasmanian Historical Studies 8, no. 1 (2002): 5. Accessed from: https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=200302650;res=IELAPA