Jessee Dellit
Essay Question "How important is ANZAC story to Australian Identity? Your focus should not only be on Gallipoli but on the impact of war and military engagements since the Great War on Australian Identity
The ANZAC story is a vital part of Australia history beginning the evolution of Australia's cultural attitude to war and the government throughout the 20th century. The emergence of this attitude began in 1914 with the start of World War One; Australia had been a federal commonwealth for thirteen years but still held strong sense of patriotism towards Britain and readily pledge its support to Britain. Aside from assisting Britain the war held its own appeal to Australia allowing the newly established country to forge its own national identity by assisting Britain in the war. The enthusiasm for the war was corroborated by the surplus of naĂŻve male Australians enlisting considering the war a glorious opportunity for travel and adventure not envisioning the future hardships they would endure. In the aftermath of the war the national perception of the surviving soldiers were glorified by the public and government constructing them to be mythic heroes with awe-inspiring combat prowess unparalleled to enemy countries. When in reality they were ordinary men with little military training who post war inherited a nationally constructed identity that exaggerated the exploits of Australia soldiers overseas. Australia's cultural attitude to war over the 20th century was further evolved by the additional wars of World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam. This transformed the heroic perception of ANZAC's into an authentic perception of the ANZACS and, their exploits in Gallipoli. ANZAC is important to Australian identity because it facilitated the construction of a national identity that dominated Australia's perception of the ANZACS being mythic heroes. This national identity was subsequently evolved and slowly given realism by the subsequent wars of Korea, and Vietnam.
The Heroic myth of ANZAC is a nationally constructed identity stemming from the vaunted exploits of Australian ANZAC's in Gallipoli. The ANZAC's abilities were consequently overhyped and constructed into the heroic myth of ANZAC creating the national identity of the ANZAC soldier. The beginning of the ANZAC myth began in 1914 with World War 1, when Britain and Germany went to war (Plowman 2003, p.35). Australia eager to establish its own individuality internationally pledged its full support to Britain, Australia's Defence Minister Senator Millen articulating Australia was not a weak "partner" of the British Empire but was a competent country in all areas (Plowman 2003, p.35). This attitude was reflected in the excess amount of naĂŻve Australians volunteering to be transported to Gallipoli, considering the war a prospect for adventure and glory (Australian War Memorial, 2012). Regrettably the ANZAC's shipped to Gallipoli did not obtain the adventure they sought instead were placed in grim military engagements. An example is the battle of Hill 60, located in Ypres Salient the site had become of strategic importance to Germans and Allies, whoever captured the hill would have an unbroken line between ANZAC and Sulva (Hamilton 2012, p.6). The ANZAC identity that resulted from World War one portrayed the ANZAC's as proficient killers whose Australian heritage made them superior soldiers to the Europeans (Hamilton 2012, p.6). This viewpoint was untrue in the case of Hill 60 the Australian soldiers stationed there were the battered survivors of Australian Light Horse Regiment (Hamilton 2012, p.6). Only a select few soldiers of these soldiers were capable of fitting the Australian stereotype of the ANZAC an example being Hugo Throssell leader of the regiment who was awarded a VC for his efforts in the war (Hamilton 2012, p.7). However the majority of ANZAC's did not live up to Australia's view of a proficient soldier instead losing their lives in Gallipoli. In Throssell's regiment out of 318 soldiers, 138 died (Hamilton 2012, p.7). However the loss of life did not Australia hinder Australia's construction of the ANZAC stereotype when the first casualties at Gallipoli were relayed to Australia instead of articulating the horrible circumstances those young men died in the Australia was told that the country had attained nationhood glossing over the casualties (Stockings 2010, p94). Along with this new sense of nationhood Australia's construction of national identity of ANZAC began. Australia in its construction of the national ANZAC identity based its construction on the overhyped articulations of the soldiers being unparalleled soldier. The grim reality was only a few of the ANZAC's fit such a stereotype such as Hugo Throssell the numerous other ANZAC's who didn't died (Hamilton 2012, p.7). The national identity of ANAC that stemmed from World War 1 would be carried onto the ANZACS of World War 2 who grew up with the national identity of the legendary ANZAC soldier being imbued in their childhood.
To avoid plagarism accsaitions puproses this Essay is the work of USC student of the Sunshine Coast Jessee.D.
I have made editing suggestions below. Suggestions and/or edits are in [ ].
Note: The first paragraph is excessively long. I suggest breaking it into two paragraphs as I have done.
The ANZAC story is a vital part of Australia [change to Australian or Australia's] history beginning [with] the evolution of Australia's cultural attitude to war and the government throughout the 20th century. The emergence of this attitude began in 1914 with the start of World War One[.] Australia had been a federal commonwealth for thirteen years but still held [a] strong sense of patriotism towards Britain and readily pledge[d] its support to Britain [need citation here]. Aside from assisting Britain, the war held its own appeal to Australia [which][allowed] the newly established country to forge its own national identity by assisting Britain in the war. The enthusiasm for the war was corroborated by the surplus of naĂŻve male Australian [enlistees] [who] [considered] the war a glorious opportunity for travel and adventure[.] [However, they did not envision] the future hardships they would endure.
In the aftermath of the war[,] the national perception of the surviving soldiers were glorified by the public and government [thereby] constructing [soldiers] to be mythic heroes with awe-inspiring combat prowess unparalleled to enemy countries. [In] reality they were ordinary men with little military training who inherited a nationally constructed [post-war] identity that exaggerated the exploits of Australia soldiers overseas. [Throughout the 20th century,] Australia's cultural attitude of war further evolved [with the onset of the subsequent wars of World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam. This transformed the heroic perception of ANZAC's into an authentic perception and [unmasked] their exploits in Gallipoli.
ANZAC is important to Australian identity because it facilitated the construction of a national identity that dominated Australia's perception of the ANZACS being mythic heroes. This national identity subsequently evolved and slowly became viewed as realism by the subsequent wars of Korea and Vietnam.
Second Paragraph (also too long; need to be broken into 2 or 3 paragraphs)
The Heroic myth of ANZAC is a nationally constructed identity stemming from the vaunted exploits of Australian ANZAC's in Gallipoli. The ANZAC's abilities were consequently overhyped and constructed into the heroic myth of ANZAC [thereby] creating the national identity of the ANZAC soldier. The beginning of the ANZAC myth began in 1914 with World War 1, when Britain and Germany went to war (Plowman 2003, p.35). Australia[,] eager to establish its own [international] individuality[,] pledged its full support to Britain. Australia's Defense Minister Senator Millen articulate[ed] [that] Australia was not a weak "partner" of the British Empire but was a competent country in all areas (Plowman 2003, p.35). This attitude was reflected in the excess amount of naĂŻve Australians [who volunteered] to be transported to Gallipoli, considering the war a prospect for adventure and glory (Australian War Memorial, 2012).
Regrettably the ANZAC's did not obtain the adventure they sought[;] instead, [they] were placed in grim military engagements. An example of such engagements is the Battle of Hill 60, located in Ypres Salient[.] The site had become of strategic importance to Germans and Allies, as whoever captured the hill would have an unbroken line between ANZAC and Sulva (Hamilton 2012, p.6). The ANZAC identity that resulted from [WWI] portrayed the ANZAC's as proficient killers whose Australian heritage made them superior soldiers to the Europeans (Hamilton 2012, p.6).
I am stopping here, but you can see where I am going with this. Mostly, you need to tighten your text and make sure your punctuation is correct.
This is a very interesting topic!
I just wanted clarification on the direction of my essay is going. I have dificulty writing essays, and I'm a first year uni student, not a great combo. So over my summer break, I wanted to sharpen my essay writing skills by writing practise essays and attaining feedback from this site, I've really struggled this semester.
The price of greatness is responsibility."
Winston Churchill
Assignment:
Do we expect too much from our public figures? Plan your response, and then write an essay.
In America, prior to 2001, election of George Bush, the public regardless of who was President held respect for the presidential office. When Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the public satisfaction level for the government was at an all-time high of 57%, depsite the 1998, Lewinsky Sex Scandal, and Clinton's impeachment over half of America was still satisfied with services the government provided. However with the election of George Bush as president, the public satisfactory level for the govenment dropped from 59% in 2002, to 26% in 2007. During Clinton's tenture as President, the public satisfactory level for the government remained on an average of an average of over 50%. Despite scandilised nature of his predicency, Clinton's scandals inflicted no fatal damage to the Decromatic party's perception amongst Americans. However, the public satifaction during Bush's reing dropped over 30%, despite having no personal scandals Clinton still held a higher approval level then Bush.
