PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ...

probably good that this was not case, as C.E.W. Bean states about over-stating any one country’s involvement is
more or less to falsify the facts . However, to place
this important aspect of Australia’s history, within the section on British History, demonstrates the lasting
connection Australia had with GB, given the syllabus this textbook was produced from was instigated in
Queensland schools from 1930, 11 years after the end of WWI.
The inclusion of Australia’s involvement from the perspective that it was a minor player, is demonstrated in the
following statement: “Before narrating events that followed the signing of the Armistice, we must give some
attention to the part played by Australia in the terrible conflict that had just ended” (Dunlop & Palfrey, 1932a, p.
105).
This passage then goes on to discuss reasons for Australia’s involvement, as “When Britain declared war on
Germany on the 4 th August, 1914, Australia, as part of the Empire, also was at war. The response made by the
Commonwealth...was instant and remarkable” (Dunlop & Palfrey, 1932a, p. 105)
This statement is then supported by describing the actions of two political leaders. First, the then-Prime
Minister, “...Joseph Cook, sent a cable to the British Government offering the whole of the ships of the
Australian Navy and 20,000 soldiers, for any ser-[end p. 105] vice that the Empire might require” (pp. 105-106);
and Andrew Fisher, who was also a Prime Minister during WWI, “...declared that Australia would support the
Mother Country “to the last man and the last shilling” (Dunlop & Palfrey, 1932a, p. 106).
Both these descriptions are included in order to illustrate Australia’s loyalty to GB. There is no mention of any
dissenting views, such as those from Archbishop Mannix, a prominent dissenter of the time.
Discourses of Conscription
Note: Link this closely with the dissenting public discourses that surrounded the failed referenda. Also see how
it is brought up in the 1960s-70s era, considering the issues of conscription surrounding the Vietnam War.
A very complex issue in Australia’s post-Federation history is the topic of conscription, yet it is described only
very briefly in this textbook, with the description: “No man was compelled to join the army. In 1916, and again
in 1917, the people of Australia were asked to vote whether there should be conscription—that is, whether men
should be forced to become soldiers and serve outside the Commonwealth. The majority of electors voted
against conscription” (Dunlop & Palfrey, 1932a, p. 106).
Here, the rejection of conscription is not contextualised to any broader socio-political activities or people of the
time, instead it is put forth in a very matter-of-fact way. It is difficult to gauge the view of the curriculum on this
matter, it is so devoid of detail. It is curious why more attention was not paid to the debates and referenda over
conscription, given that the referenda for Federation is explained in significant detail, with opposing views
presented, and detailed results; in the same textbook (see, in particular, Dunlop & Palfrey, 1932a, pp. 52-54).
Discourses of nationhood.
Although often mediated through the experience of GB, there are sections of the textbook whereby the discourse
of a nation independent is put forth, separate from needing to defer to GB. Here, specific words are used such
as, “magnificent heroism”, “fortunes” and “General Birdwood commanded the Anzacs” (Dunlop & Palfrey,
1932a, p. 110) articulates the beginning of an emergence of an Australian-ness, hitherto not seen in the
textbooks outside of an interior context (eg, exploration, ‘the bush’). Whilst in the examples of words provided
above are only minor, later this developed into a stronger argument, and as evidenced from the extract below
(Dunlop & Palfrey, 1932a, p. 159) WWI is overtly attributed to Australians creating a sense of nationhood, from
the perspective of patriotism. Here, nationhood is attributed not to a separation of Australia from the emotional
ties to Great Britain, but rather because all the separate states (which only two decades previously had been
separate colonies) became closer as a result of a unifying event. Of this, the textbook describes: “It has been said
that the Great War made Australia a nation. Before 1914, the majority of Australians were inclined to think of
themselves as Queenslanders, or Victorians, or Tasmanians, and so on, rather than as Australians. The war
changed that” (Dunlop & Palfrey, 1932a, p. 159). The connection to GB is still maintained, and a quote from
Henry Parkes, widely regarded as the ‘Father of Federation’ (he dies before Federation occurred, but did a lot to
support and grow the movement beforehand) is used to maintain the Australian connection to GB, by including:
“The sacrifices made by every part of the Commonwealth in the terrible conflict made Australians realize more
fully the meaning of Sir Henry Parkes’ historic phrase, “the crimson thread of kinship runs through us all,” and
formed a tie that bonds. So, on the one hand Australian states came together to form a nation, but the
‘Britishness’ of Australians was also maintained. The excerpt in its entirety reads:
512