Mythbusting

 

Image courtesy 6PR

I came across this post the other day.

I have never met Normie Rowe, but have deep respect for him as a fellow Vietnam veteran and Nasho. He left Vietnam just before I got there, but I certainly travelled in APCs belonging to his unit (3 Cav) in 1970. 

It was noisy, but beat walking. It helped to forget about land mines....

Rowe is also a very talented musician. The post is attributed to Normie, but without actually asking him, gentle reader, I won't know whether he wrote it or not. 

In any case, I'm interested in the facts of history, not (in this case) how a Vietnam veteran (including a respected celebrity) allegedly reflects on his experience. There is a time and place for that. 

I find myself agreeing with much of what is attributed to Rowe in the post, especially his remarks about conscription being a political exercise. 

The part that doesn't hold water refers to an anecdote about the deathbed confession by an advisor to Harold Holt. All Normie writes is that he'd heard the anecdote. He makes no judgement about whether it is real.

To cut to the chase, the post alleges that Normie ended up as a conscript because the government believed that calling up a celebrity would improve public support for the scheme, support that had never been on firm ground. The substance of the myth is that his birthdate was never drawn, and that he was enlisted as a publicity stunt. 

Indeed, his birthdate (1st February 1947) was not drawn in the fifth intake on 10th March 1967, but that was irrelevant as he hadn't registered. He was absent from Australia at the time making music in the UK. 

He was required to register when he got home, and did so, in one of the fifteen supplementary ballots held during the course of the scheme. There were sixteen regular ballots, one more than the supplementary ones. I had registered in the normal ballot he missed and my birthdate was drawn in that 10th March ballot. Strangely, that's my bride's birthday, although we hadn't met at the time.

The routine supplementary ballot was held for those registering on return to Australia, and Normie's birthdate was drawn. He was enlisted in January 1968, assigned the regimental number 3793130, did recruit training and was allocated to Armoured Corps.

He was in Vietnam from 14th January until 19th December 1969.

The myth has been bouncing around the interweb for years, and has been debunked before, but it persists. It featured on Media Watch in March 2008.

I was at a meeting of ex-Nashos the other day, and heard the myth being floated again. I had my iPad with me and was able to show the ex-Nasho who was proclaiming it, chapter and verse showing the Normie's birthdate drawn in the supplementary ballot. 

It made no difference, and we parted with his belief in the myth still firm. He claimed the whole thing (including the record of the supplementary ballot draws) was a government conspiracy.

Obviously, the myth is more entertaining than the history.

Shared Values - Take two

 

Monthly value of US merchandise exports to Australia (A$ millions) since 1988

Monthly value of Australian merchandise exports to the United States (A$ millions) since 1988

Pics courtesy Wikipedia

I've posted about this before, but the issue is much more significant now.

The rationale of "shared values" is routinely advanced by our political class to support the notion that we should, as a matter of policy, go along with much of what is happening under the Trump administration at the moment.

Given that, it would be useful to examine just which values we share with Americans, at both the individual and community level. This is difficult, in the first instance, because the diversity that exists across populations in both countries makes it difficult to determine what those individual values are.

Would an African-American from Chicago hold the same values as a white American from the Midwest, or a Latino from Texas? Would a hipster from urban Melbourne hold the same set of values as a wheat farmer from Merredin, or a Murri from Dajarra?

The answer, of course, is that individual comparisons and assumptions simply do not hold, so we will have to look at institutional and political values.

AI will tell you that Australian values respect mateship, and the notion of a "fair go', whereas Americans value individual achievement, free will, and economic success. The institutional outcomes of these factors are universal health programmes, strong social security and welfare structures in Australia, and private insurance and a relatively scelorotic welfare system in the USA.

It describes an Australian laid back attitude to leadership, and a lack of deference to authority, whereas Americans respect authoritative leaders and those in positions of power. These values feed consensus (not weak) politicians in Australia, and authoritarian leadership in the USA. The current situation mirrors that.

It says Australians have a more relaxed approach to the work-life balance, and focus more on enjoying life than making money, but Americans value career advancement and are tolerant of long working hours. 

The cliche of the tall poppy syndrome is cited in Australia, but Americans are painted as admiring "superstars" and those who are very successful.

And when it comes to class structure, Americans are described as categorising people by status, whereas Australia has a relatively low degree of class structure.

Frankly, I believe that there is confusion generated by the fact that we share a common language and there are strong parallels in our national history narrative, as we are post colonial societies which began as British settlements. These commonalities mask or hide significant differences.

These differences were demonstrated starkly to me when I served beside Americans in Vietnam fifty five years ago. I vividly remember situations where the hierarchical culture of many American military units got in the way of getting the job done. As Australians, we often exploited this culture when we were scrounging for materials. It was very easy to use rank as a wedge to get what we wanted.

The attitude towards race demonstrated by the Americans was in strong contrast to ours. We saw indigenous diggers as of equal status. The Americans didn't, and this was sometimes a source of tension when we fraternised with African-American soldiers when on leave.

I remember being pulled aside by a well-meaning GI in a nightclub in Saigon, and being told "You don't want to associate with those motherfuckers". He was referring to a group of black Southerners who were great and generous company.I saw these same attitudes, especially to race and status, when I visited the USA in 2018. Nothing has changed in half a century.

In summary, I believe that the rationalisation of "shared values" as a basis for our alliance is mythology.

We need something more solid than that, given what is at stake.

The Power of Attention

 

Joseph R McCarthy courtesy Wikipedia

 You don't have to look very far in recent American political history, gentle reader, to find a figure resembling Donald Trump.

That figure, Joseph McCarthy, the Senator from Wisconsin, who was prominent from 1950 until 1954, until he was censured by the Senate, had galvanised public opinion around the issue of alleged Communist subversion in American institutional life. 

McCarthy's activities for that relatively brief period of time, had an impact well beyond both the span of his crusade, and the walls of the US Senate.

The combination of power, fame and falsehood has always held a magnetic attraction for the US media. In a country where there is no publicly funded media of any real consequence, corporations that make a profit by selling copy (print or digital) will always be attracted to what is loud, exciting and simple. 

This monopolising of the spotlight is an important pathway to political power across the Pacific. There are any number of cliches bearing witness to the phenomenon. There is no such thing as bad publicity. is just one of those cliches, and one that Trump understands very well.

Trump, either consciously or instinctively, is well aware of this phenomenon and has exploited it adroitly. This exploitation has taken on a sinister turn recently, with his administration's attempt to push aside media agencies that challenge his narrative.

He has also demonstrated that he is prepared to take on many institutions previously protected by their status, including the churches, the courts, and the military.

McCarthy met his demise when he took on the US military, and after he was denounced by Edward R Murrow, a highly respected broadcaster, he quickly lost favour and with it, attention. 

Unfortunately, by that time he had done a great deal of damage during the half a decade of his notoriety. Anti-communist hysteria spread beyond the shores and institutions of the USA, and had an influence in Australian politics lasting well into the early sixties.

Our tragic adventure in Vietnam was just one outcome. Echoes persist even today. They're all over social media.

Social media thrives on memes that are loud, exciting and simple.

Social media is a good earner for a few. It has become a parasite feeding on rumour, fear, and outrage, and the platforms are lining up to take advantage of the spoils. 

That fact that it influences the outcomes of elections and is being harnessed by political operatives is perhaps the most worrying aspect of all.  

 

A Cockeyed Bob?

 

Police station and residence. The government house we lived in was identical.

Those of you living in south-east Queensland and northern New South Wales have probably had enough of cyclone Alfred. 

We've been minimally effected, and apart from my bush house doing the watusi which meant that everything on its shelves ended up in a heap on the floor, life has proceeded as usual.

Tropical cyclones are part of my lived experience, having grown up in north Queensland, and my earliest memories are those surrounding a cyclone which crossed the coast at Carmila on March 11th 1950. I was about three at the time, but can remember parts of it, including sheltering under a sturdy oak table in our kitchen whilst the school residence broke up around us.

This link takes you to a newspaper account in the Townsville Daily bulletin of 13th March 1950. It took two days for the full story to get through, a contrast to the real time reporting we're seeing today. Dad gets a mention in the report.

The house lost all its corrugated iron roof, and part of the gable end at the front. We were obliged to live in the school for a couple of weeks whilst the residence was re-roofed.  

Another early memory was the smell of burning linen. A family down the road from us also moved into the school, and one of them came down with Tuberculosis. Back then, we were advised to burn all bed linen used by this family. My mother had taken bed linen out of storage which had been a wedding gift, and loaned it to this family.

Repair crew that was sent into Carmila by rail.

Mum was very upset when it had to be burned, and I recall the smell, and her distress.

Since then, I lived in Townsville for a while, and was there when cyclone Aivu crossed the coast near the Burdekin River between Townsville and Bowen on April 4th 1989. Whilst that cyclone didn't do a great deal of damage around Townsville, it caused lots of flooding to the north, and for a while looked to be a major threat.

This may have been why,  given my recall of the Carmila experience, I moved my family overnight to my new school which had been built to cyclone proof standards in 1987. I rationalised that if the school was going to be declared a cyclone, I would be prepared by being on site.

As I write this, in Queensland, at least, no lives have been lost, although the same can't be said for Northern NSW.

And the term "Cockeyed Bob?" I haven't heard it used for decades, but apparently it was once applied to severe and unpredictable storms.

That would describe Alfred. 

Textbook Intimidation

I'm posting this, gentle reader, because I've seen nothing more bizarre in my lifetime.

The first few minutes of the video show Zelensky reminding Trump and Vance of the history. They didn't want to hear the facts of history.

They were more interested in grandstanding for the domestic hard liners.

It's a shameful piece of television, and doesn't bode well for international peace. For some reason, Trump is in thrall to Putin, and doesn't seem to have the vaguest respect for Ukraine and its people.

He is obviously quite prepared to appease the Russian Federation simply to get even on his domestic political opponents. That is the only history Trump is interested in. 

Here is a man who will put his own vindictive retribution before the freedom and survival of a country of thirty seven million.

As we say in Australia, he's "getting square".

It doesn't bode well for our relationship with the US, and our billion dollar AUKUS deal.  How can you trust an administration with a leader concerned only with narcissistic revenge?

Here's the transcript. The first few minutes of the grab cover Zelensky's attempt to unwrap the history, but the transcription doesn't include that -

Zelenskyy: What kind of diplomacy, JD, are you are asking about? What do you mean?

Vance: I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country.

Zelenskyy: Yes, but if you …

Vance: Mr President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come to the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the frontlines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president.

Zelenskyy: Have you ever been to Ukraine to see the problems we have?

Vance: I’ve actually watched and seen the stories, and I know what happens is you bring people on a propaganda tour, Mr President.

Do you disagree that you’ve had problems with bringing people in your military, and do you think that it’s respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?

Zelenskyy: First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you. You have nice solutions and don’t feel [it] now, but you will feel it in the future.

Trump: You don’t know that. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.

Zelenskyy: I am not telling you, I am answering …

Vance: That’s exactly what you’re doing …

Trump, raising his voice: You’re in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel. We’re going to feel very good and very strong.

Zelenskyy tries to speak.

Trump: You right now are not in a very good position. You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position. You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start having the cards.

You’re gambling with lives of millions of people, you’re gambling with world war three and what you’re doing is very disrespectful to this country.

Vance: Have you said thank you once?

Zelenskyy: A lot of times.

Vance: No, in this meeting, this entire meeting? Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who’s trying to save your country.

Zelenskyy: Yes, you think that if you will speak very loudly about the war …

Trump: He’s not speaking loud. Your country is in big trouble. No, no, you’ve done a lot of talking. Your country is in big trouble.

Zelenskyy: I know, I know.

Trump: You’re not winning this. You have a damn good chance of coming out OK, because of us.

Zelenskyy: We are staying strong from the very beginning of the war, we have been alone, and we are saying, I said, thanks.

Trump, speaking over Zelenskyy: You haven’t been alone … We gave you military equipment. Your men are brave, but they had our military. If you didn’t have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.

Zelenskyy: I heard it from Putin in three days.

Trump: It’s going to be a very hard thing to do business like this.

Vance: Just say thank you.

Zelenskyy: I said it a lot of times.

Vance: Accept that there are disagreements and let’s go litigate those disagreements rather than trying to fight it in the American media, when you’re wrong. We know that you’re wrong.

Trump: You’re buried there. Your people are dying. You’re running low on soldiers. No, listen … And then you tell us, ‘I don’t want a ceasefire. I don’t want a ceasefire. I want to go and I want this.’

Trump: You’re not acting at all thankful. And that’s not a nice thing. I’ll be honest, that’s not a nice thing.

All right, I think we’ve seen enough. What do you think? Great television. I will say that.

End...

So sad. So bizarre.

Australian Coffee Culture

 

Coffee & Chicory (Pic courtesy museums Victoria)

I’ve been around long enough, gentle reader, to have lived through some remarkable changes in the way we drink coffee in Australia.

As far as I can remember when I was growing up, my parents never drank coffee. They were both tea drinkers. The coffee that was around at that time was execrable, which may have had something to do with it. 

I do remember my mother always having a Coffee substitute in her pantry. To this day I'm not sure what it was used for. Perhaps it was part of a cake recipe. It was never used to make coffee.

When I was old enough to leave home, I started drinking instant coffee occasionally. Working as a young teacher in the bush meant that I was exposed to staff room milk. If you're not familiar with staff room milk, suffice to say that it was frequently off on Mondays, after sitting in the staffroom across the weekend. This forced me to drink black tea, a habit I've maintained. I could never stomach black coffee.

Then I was called up conscripted, the tea and coffee often came in ration packs. At this time I reverted to coffee, perhaps because it was a mild stimulant. Mostly in the army I was bored stiff, and the caffeine provided a little bit of excitement.

This continued once in Vietnam, although occasionally there was some excitement. Drinking coffee had by this time become a habit.  

Back in civvy street I remained addicted to coffee and cigarettes, but gave up the latter cold turkey by refusing to buy smokes. The social pressure (smokers retreating when they saw me approaching to bum a durry) did the trick.

A few years back into teaching I had an itinerant job supporting kids with disabilities in bush schools, and saw the inside of plenty of roadhouses. They almost always had a boiling urn and enormous tins of instant (usually Bushells) coffee in the corner.

I returned to this work post retirement (which I failed first time round), but by then (2010) proper barista coffee was becoming available in these same roadhouses. It was usually served by backpackers with interesting accents.

The contrast between what was available in the seventies in the bush, and what is sold now is stark.

Trips to Vietnam post retirement introduced me to Vietnamese coffee (very strong and smooth and served with condensed milk) and a sojourn in the USA and Cuba in 2018 revealed that American coffee is not a patch on ours. I found the Vietnamese brew slightly more robust than what I encountered in Cuba. Both were better on the street than in the USA, but not of the quality that you can find locally.

Whilst I probably haven't travelled enough to make any reasonable comparisons, I reckon that Australian coffee is amongst the best in the world. Italian immigration post world war two probably has much to do with this. An Italian coffee culture developed first in Melbourne and has spread. Having said that, when I was in Italy in the eighties, I don't remember being impressed by their coffee.

Australian coffee culture has been exported to the USA and chains have developed. 

Australians are great innovators, they import excellent beans, and their baristas are the best. The machines used are invariably good quality and this helps. We're now growing coffee on the Atherton Tableland, so the coffee scene can only improve.

Only the best of everything originates in that part of the world, including my bride...

Appeasement Revisited

Pic courtesy Cagle.com

Any student of history, gentle reader, will recall an incident in 1938, when a national leader returned to his country after signing a peace deal with an authoritarian european leader.

He was very pleased with himself, and waved the written agreement around, proclaiming "Peace in our time!"

This was after that authoritarian leader had taken over vast swathes of territory from a neighbouring european country with military force.

Move forward to February 2022, when another authoritarian leader invaded a neighbouring european country, after annexing large swathes of its territory in 2016.

Another recently elected national leader has now intervened, he claims, to make peace. He is prepared to allow the aggressor nation to retain control of the territory it has taken by force, and is sidelining in negotiations the leader of the country invaded. 

When challenged by the media as to the morality of this process, he blamed a previous administration for the situation.

Consider, gentle reader, an alternative history which could have followed from the 1938 situation.

Consider, if Churchill, when he became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, had blamed Neville Chamberlain for the situation, an turned a blind eye to the aggression that followed, and the consequences.

That is precisely what Trump has done. He has blamed Biden for the situation, and ignored Russian aggression.

Far-fetched?

I'm not sure.

Putin is driven by his obsession with recreating an Imperial Russia, just as Hitler was seeking a one thousand year Reich.

Putin, apparently was traumatised by the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, just as Hitler was by Germany's defeat in 1918.

Both Hitler (as a soldier) and Putin (as a KGB agent) were proudly working for their respective countries when their governments fell. Both were/are fervent nationalists.

The parallels are stark...