Harvest time. Image by Webdiary artist Martin Davies. www.daviesart.com

Tonight guest editor Antony Loewenstein discusses Waltzing Matilda and how John Howard used the media to try to sing away his Pauline Hanson problem (Waltzing the media, Howard style).

I’m More Australian Than You

by Antony Loewenstein

Perhaps it’s a sign of desperation (post the Hanson, Tuckey, Abbott and no WMDs in Iraq hick-ups) or maybe it’s merely the latest attempt to prove he really is the great national defender. John Howard is a master politician, if nothing else, and last week’s outcry over the attempted scrapping by the International Rugby Board (IRB) of Waltzing Matilda gave the PM a perfect opportunity to display his credentials. Like lapdogs, most of the country’s tabloid press fell into line.

The Herald Sun on August 29 cut straight to the chase in Free to Sing:

What gives the International Rugby Board the right to conclude Banjo Paterson’s Waltzing Matilda is not culturally important to Australia?

The Courier Mail published Swag of protest as Aussies get jolly angry, a longer response to the IRB’s decision. It was a disgrace, said sporting and politically appropriate representatives. Howard was quoted: “But in any event I pose the question, how are they going to stop it being sung? You try and stop 82,000 Australians singing Waltzing Matilda. You’ll only make their night.”

The Daily Telegraph called on commentator David Penberthy to rally the troops in Girt by Sea: be still my beating heart, arguing that our current national anthem is awful and irrelevant and therefore it was about time our musical heritage was re-examined:

Rather than drifting into argument over definitions of culture – and ignoring the fact that England is home to morris dancing, Chas and Dave and The Dick Emery Show – the request to sing Matilda reflects a more pressing problem at the musical core of our national identity.

Penberthy had a chance to suggest alternative anthems, but instead suggested that Australians aren’t very patriotic anyway. Compared to the Americans he may be right, but I would argue that there are numerous signs of a resurgence of national pride, such as the increasing interest and turn-out at Anzac Day and outpouring of grief for dying diggers or Gallipoli survivors.

Australians appear to be taking their history pretty seriously these days, especially if through the prism of fighting imperial wars (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Afghanistan and now Iraq). The rightness or otherwise of the wars may be open for discussion (thought you won’t find too much of that in today’s media), and the returned servicemen and women certainly deserve State support, but why aren’t we having a look at the reasons behind the recent nationalist onslaught?

Howard is more than happy to cast himself as arbiter of Australian morality, ethics and culture. In a mere seven years, his obsessions and interests have become Australia’s as well. Unfortunately, few alternatives have received national prominence. What exactly is Crean’s vision, for example? Australians are waiting. We probably know more about Hanson’s vision than we do from the Labor Opposition.

The response to the Waltzing Matilda decision last week has been informative on the nation’s mood, and an indicator of how ordinary Australians see themselves and the future direction of their country. Mostly there were some damn funny comments.

A small selection from the SMH letters pages in the last week:

G. Borthwick, Stockton: Re the ban on Waltzing Matilda at the World Cup. I understand the IRB will put on a display at halftime of their board members threading a camel through the eye of a needle. Best of luck.

Norm Christenson, Thornleigh: May I congratulate the rugby official who saved us music lovers from having to endure yet another John Williamson version of Waltzing Matilda.

Matt Tilbury, Bondi: To avoid a possible ban why don’t the Wallabies themselves sing Waltzing Matilda? Though it may mean them having to pick John Williamson.

On the Webdiary front, there was no shortage of (appropriately) boiling blood regarding Howard’s “defending” of our egalitarianism. Phill Clarke wrote:

Frankly I’m heartily sick of the tuneless John Williamson drone at the start of Australian Rugby internationals. Why is Little Johnny trying to cling to bravely to the folk tune? Oh that’s right, I almost forgot, it’s because he’s a little battler and loves to identify himself with the “average” Australian.

There’s simply no way that the crowd singing Waltzing Matilda can compare with the power of the New Zealand Haka. If we’re still a nation searching for an identity then something a little more provocative than Waltzing Bloody Matilda is required.

If Little Johnny gets his way and changes the National Anthem from Advance Australia Fair to Waltzing Matilda I think I’ll just shoot myself now. Such a dirge! If an anthem change is required let’s at least pick a rousing, nationalistic masterpiece. Look no further than La Marseillaise or Deutschland uber alles for inspiration.

In a debate that could well tear the very fabric of our delicate country apart, a row has erupted over the exact words of Waltzing Matilda. After the posting of the words on Webdiary last week, Webdiarist Clem Colmanleapt to the old tune’s defence:

When I saw your “version” of Waltzing Matilda I was dismayed to see that you were a ‘you’ll’er.

You seem to have made the oh so common mistake of singing “you’ll” when it should be “who’ll”. It’s “who’ll come a waltzing matilda with me” for all the choruses and most of the verses. Why does it matter? It probably doesn’t. Most Australians these days probably think that resisting heavy-handed authority is all the song is about. Surely it struck people as strange that a man would commit suicide just because he had been caught stealing a sheep. The truth is that with “who’ll” his activities get a lot

more context.

Anyway, print a correction or something please…, this “you’ll” stuff is cultural revisionism or cultural ignorance, or something bad. It’s the typical Ozzie “near enough is good enough” even if it does change a significant point of the original. It makes the song just about resistance to heavy handed authority when the swagman in fact rejected most of the trappings of society, either out of necessity or choice (largely necessity, lack of work is my understanding). Either way, the idea that to live on a different path to the mainstream can be lonely, to be a real rebel, or radical for a good part of your life is to be alone, not the petty acts of defiance.

Certainly the having to walk the country for work, rejected by society puts in context our hero’s closing words “You’ll never catch me alive”. Who’ll never catch him alive?”

However, further investigations revealed that the song may contain no “correct” words. Clem reported back:

Looks like I’ve opened a can of worms on this. Spend a minute at waltzingmatilda, which has scanned copies of the original manuscripts and many different versions of Waltzing Matilda (3 main versions and 7 sub-versions). Now I see where the great misunderstanding has developed; there are different variants with different words. Even the Macpherson/Paterson version does not make it clear whether it is who’ll or you’ll, with the first written out chorus saying “who’ll” but the lead in to it from all other versus reading “you’ll” through to the last verse, starting with “who’ll” again.

At least this explains why different people sing who’ll and you’ll. So, given that you have obviously had an “accepted” version I guess I’ll need to start some sort of factional feud if I am to maintain the rage.”

What this kind of debate does is distract from the big issues. Defending the rights of Australians to sing Waltzing Matilda is something social conservatives like Howard (and Peter Beattie for that matter) love to engage in, because it purports to suggest that there is such a thing as Australian, and therefore, unAustralian. But what is Australian?

Is it Australian to set up a trust fund to destroy an alternative political party that threatened the Coalition’s electoral dominance?

Is it Australian to send back refugees to their country of origin, when their chances of persecution upon return is so high? One of Australia’s greatest writers and humanists, Arnold Zable, wrote a piece in Sunday’s Ageasking this very question to the Howard government:

We appeal to our politicians’ consciences. We say that if our Government, in our name, has been willing to participate in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and to condemn repressive regimes such as Iran, surely it should be willing to grant permanent residency to those who have had the courage to flee these despotic regimes. (Please Mr Howard, let these admirable people stay)

And is it truly Australian for a PM to allow his Minister to grossly abuse his own code of conduct, and attempt to pervert the course of justice? The case of Wilson Tuckey would suggest it may well be.

And is it Australian for a PM to lead a nation into war, at the risk of losing Australian lives, on the basis of approximate or even faulty intelligence? With human rights abuses low down the list of reasons to invade Iraq, the persecution and imprisonment in Australia of the very people who are escaping this horrid regime appears to be a contradiction of mammoth proportions, yet the mind boggles at the lack of media scrutiny of this inherent hypocrisy.

And is it Australian for a leading Opposition party to sit meekly by while a new, less accepting, more fearful nation, is essentially being formed before their very eyes? During the lead-up to Gulf War II, let it be understood that it was not only our PM who engaged in cheap, populist grandstanding. On March 14, Simon Crean was asked to respond to a Howard comment regarding the so-called Australianness of committing troops to the Gulf:

JOURNALIST: Mr Howard said today it’s unAustralian to sit on the sidelines with what is happening. What would you say to that?

CREAN: What is unAustralian is committing our young men and women to a war that can be avoided. It’s not only unAustralian, it’s poor leadership. Every effort has to be taken to keep them from the front line if that can happen. Clearly, that can happen. It can happen with more persistence, more determination, and more time. And that’s what the Prime Minister must back, because that is the Australian way. (Crean says Howard failed to make case for war)

There it is again, “the Australian way”. Maybe Crean knows something the rest of us do not. Every country needs to continually engage the issues around national identity. But where is the debate here? Instead, we have feigned outrage by Howard last week when he said:

“Waltzing Matilda is deeply evocative of Australian culture.”

Of which Australians does he speak? The boat people who came here in the 1970s? The indigenous population still suffering Third World diseases in a First World nation? The tens of thousands of English backpackers who overstay their visa here every year? The Hanson supporters feeling threatened by Asian immigration? Or perhaps the ABC “luvvies” who defend the right of Stephen Crittenden to speak his mind on religious matters?

Australia is a broad church, and for this we should be thankful. However, we should be under no illusions that Australianness has even come close to being defined.

In an article just before the last federal election, The Guardian’s Patrick Barkham wrote about the mood enveloping this country in Refugee issues dominate debate. It’s an outsider’s opinion, but a powerful reminder of the urgent need to continue our search for a greater understanding of what it means to be Australian:

Anti-Islamic sentiments are thriving. Many see multiculturalism as a dirty word, the breeding ground for terrorist sleepers who, some appear to fear, are poised to bomb the Opera House such was the depravity of their “unAustralian” Islamic upbringing in the deprived western suburbs of Sydney.