A new book written by a group of eminent Australian historians fiercely criticises a generation of Anzac propaganda and publicly condemns its inclusion in schools’ national history curriculum writes Amy Yang.

Four prominent Australian historians have criticised the inclusion what they call “Anzac propaganda” in the national history curriculum. Image: badjonni

In their co-authored book, What’s wrong with Anzac: The Militarisation of Australian history, Dr Marilyn Lake, Professor Mark McKenna, Professor Henry Reynolds and Professor Joy Damousi denounced the Department of Veteran Affairs for airbrushing Australia’s involvement in World War One.

“I [would] like the government to stop spending money on promoting military history. It’s not the role of government, let alone the role of government department like the Department of Veteran Affairs to involve themselves in the education of the young,” said History Professor Henry Reynolds.

Reynolds considers the Department’s involvement in the history curriculum as propaganda aimed towards children.

“If Veteran Affairs promotes material, why not any other department? In other words, it’s what other countries would call propaganda,” he said.

However, Anzac history is only part of a larger picture. The book is also about the overemphasis on Australia’s military history at the expense of other Australian narratives such as Federation, and Indigenous dispossession.

At the book launch in Sydney, the authors discussed the proliferation of Australian Military history books and how this has resulted in a generation of young people who believe Australia was created on the fields of Gallipoli in 1915.

“Many people believe that the Australian nation was born at the time of the landing of Gallipoli- the invasion of Turkey. This quite deliberate promotion by government using a great deal of public money not only emphasizes the military aspect of public money but in doing so, it eclipses the other more important achievements which are those of civic life,” said Professor Reynolds.

According to Professor Damousi of the University of Melbourne, the militarization of Australian History is evident when comparing the different ways she was taught Australia’s involvement in World War One to what children learn today.

“When I went to school the way World War One was taught was not through Gallipoli and the creating of a nation. It wasn’t taught like that at all. It was taught around conflict,” she said.

Throughout the 1970s and 80s the general public was critical of Australia’s involvement in the war and the celebration of Anzac Day. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating contributed to this trend by publicly questioning its role within the country’s history. However, since 1990s-2000 this has shifted under the Howard Government.

“He [John Howard] has appropriated the day very much to politicise that day around patriotism and nationalism,” said Professor Damousi.

According to Professor Damousi, during the Howard years there was an inclination to build a sense of identity through Australia’s military history thereby linking family history with the country’s involvement in war. For this reason it becomes difficult to be critical of Australia’s involvement in war without being tangled into someone else’s emotional relationship with it.

“The emotional investment people have in remembering their family members seem often stifle debate, seems to prevent us from engaging in a discussion about Australia’s involvement in war, without people then accusing us of being treasonous or disloyal,” she said.

At the same time, whilst remaining respectful towards War veterans and their families, Professor Damousi remains interested in the way Anzac day is publically commemorated. She suggests that the introduction of an Anzac day football match and youth pilgrimages to Gallipoli make it very difficult for people to challenge what Anzac is and what it means.

“The weird thing is, those nations in Europe who lost millions of casualties in war don’t commemorate it in the way Australia does. It’s almost like we’re overblowing our significance which is really embarrassing,” she said.

For France, Germany and Italy for example, Remembrance Day, the official anniversary of the end of the war, and the beginning of peace is not experienced alongside national pride and celebration, but is strictly a day of mourning.

“When you look at it internationally it’s slightly bizarre that Australia would use its contribution in a way that probably does smack a little insecurity somehow that they did rely on this defeat to somehow suggest respect and attention,” Professor Damousi said.

The Anti-war movements and groups have lost ground in the current curriculum and a part of that include the Anti-conscription campaigns which play a significant role in defining a nation’s response to war.

Associate Professor Mark McKenna described how John Howard used Anzac day to guilt trip anti-war protestors who he suggested never welcomed Vietnam War veterans home. However, Professor McKenna said that historically this was never the case.

All authors agree that Anzac celebrations will continue for the foreseeable future but their book reminds us of all the dangers involved in failing to question their premise and implications for the present. As Professor Reynolds said, “It [Anzac Day] sanctifies the present by reference to the past.”