Suchergebnisse

In 2004 the Singaporean government demolished Changi prison in the face of considerable opposition from the Australian government because of the prison's association with the captivity of prisoners of war during the Second World War. In opposing the demolition the Australian government was constrained by the fact that it was challenging the accepted right of a sovereign government to manage national heritage sites; by the lack of a shared history surrounding Changi; and the absence of any agreed international regimes governing 'transnational heritage'. The case of Changi also demonstrates the manner in which heritage significance can be displaced from 'real' to 'un-real' (or substitute) sites, that lack the authenticity attributed to them but are invested with a significant emotional power at the level of individual memory and popular culture. In this, Changi is, finally, a testimony to the way in which the construction of memory is a dynamic interactive process between individuals, organisational stakeholders and the state.

In 2004 the Singaporean government demolished Changi prison in the face of considerable opposition from the Australian government because of the prison's association with the captivity of prisoners of war during the Second World War. In opposing the demolition the Australian government was constrained by the fact that it was challenging the accepted right of a sovereign government to manage national heritage sites; by the lack of a shared history surrounding Changi; and the absence of any agreed international regimes governing 'transnational heritage'. The case of Changi also demonstrates the manner in which heritage significance can be displaced from 'real' to 'un-real' (or substitute) sites, that lack the authenticity attributed to them but are invested with a significant emotional power at the level of individual memory and popular culture. In this, Changi is, finally, a testimony to the way in which the construction of memory is a dynamic interactive process between individuals, organisational stakeholders and the state.

The Second World War stands across the 20th century like a colossus. Its death toll, geographical spread, social dislocation and genocidal slaughter were unprecedented. It was literally a world war, devastating Europe, China and Japan, triggering massive movements of population, and unleashing forces of nationalism in Asia and Africa that presaged the end of European colonialism. The international order was changed irrevocably, most notably in the rise of the two superpowers and the decline of Great Britain. For Australia too, though the loss of life in the conflict was comparatively small, the war had a profound impact. Yet for all this, the Second World War is relegated to a secondary place in the Australian national memory of war vis-à-vis the war of 1914-18. It is a lesser war in every respect. Why this is so, when the war itself was fought on such a monumental scale globally, is addressed in this article. The subordination of the Second World War is ultimately attributable to the fact that the signifier of 'ANZAC' leads in the imagination and national mythic representation not to any battle or experience of 1939-45 but to 25 April 1915. ANZAC is now irrevocably entrenched in the national political culture as a complex secular signifier of identity and belonging to the nation.

This article surveys Australian citizenship: its distinctive characteristics in the first half of the twentieth century, and how these were changed by the experience of the two world wars. It argues that Australian citizenship, at the time of Federation, was racially exclusive, imperial, masculine and deeply anchored in the traditional view of the military obligation of the individual to the state. The world wars, especially the war of 1939‐45, encouraged some adjustment to these ideas, particularly in terms of the imperial link, women's status and the social rights of Australians. However, these conflicts were fought within a context of imperial loyalty and the intensity of their demands reinforced military service in defence of the nation as the primary civic virtue. The centrality of Anzac to Australian nationalism also perpetuated a gendered dimension to Australian citizenship. The world wars therefore, for all their dramatic impact on the lives of Australian families and the national political culture, did not force a major reconceptualisation of Australian citizenship.