When it comes to a consideration of their history, Australians tend to come over all thin skinned and put upon.
As a relatively new nation, (leaving aside for a moment that Indigenous Peoples had lived in the land for many thousands of years prior to the occupation of 1788), Aussies are painfully aware of their perceived historical immaturity.
Reminding them tends to rub them up the wrong way, especially when a would be wag poses the barbed question: 'Whats the difference between Australia and a tub of yoghurt?'
'Yogurt has a live culture'.
The main consequence of Aussie unease at such assertions is the reality that the few traditions and historical customs which do exist down under are celebrated with a fanfare and fervour that's simply impossible to ignore.
Australia Day, for example, (Invasion Day as some prefer to call it) is a wild celebration of major significance.
This year's beano was a beezer, with PM Tony Abbott making the preposterous claim that prior to colonisation, Australia was 'nothing but bush', a warped solecism he then compounded by awarding an honorary knighthood to that well known Aussie icon, Prince Philip.
A less controversial anniversary occurs this Saturday, 25th April, the 100th Anzac Day, a commemoration of the prolonged battle which occurred in the early months of the First World War at what is now known as Gallipoli.
The Gallipoli Campaign, initiated by the allies of Britain and France to secure the crucially important sea route between Europe and the Russian Empire, is regarded by most Australians as being pivotal in the evolution of what became a demonstrable national consciousness.
Even though, technically speaking, Australia was an established nation at the time, Federation having been established in 1901, the country was essentially still in thrall to 'The Old Dart', a proud and obedient offshoot of the indefatigable British Empire.
When Britain declared war on Germany in August 1914, Australia immediately followed suit. As was the case almost everywhere, the news was greeted with enthusiasm, with thousands of young men lining up to enlist for what was generally seen as 'an adventure' which would doubtless be over by Christmas.
Nearly 500,000 Australians took the distant Kings shilling, a truly remarkable number, given that the population at the time was less than 5 million, such was the excitement and apparent commitment to duty.
The subsequent bloody slaughter and sacrifice of a massive amount of these volunteers at Gallipoli, so the narrative goes, all in the service of a mother nation who saw them as no more or less than the expendable casualties of military strategy, led to the notion of modern Australia.
An independent nation. Free, liberated and able to make its own decisions, no longer beholden to an iron-fisted, ascendent patriarch 12,000 miles away on the other side of the world.
Though not, it seems, if Tony Abbot has anything to do with it.
The Battle of Gallipoli, a campaign masterminded by that celebrated old campaigner Winston Churchill, was always regarded as unwinnable. Its primary purpose was simply to engage the troops of the Ottoman Empire whilst battle raged in the green fields of France. If the sea route to Russia could be secured it would be a bonus, but essentially Gallipoli was about diverting the soldiers of The Ottoman Empire, a pro-German force and a dangerous one at that.
An amphibious landing on the Northern banks on The Dardanelles was almost bound to end in carnage and as such, the men of the Allied forces were entirely disposable.
Unimportant. Replaceable. Only, after all, Australians.
It's a point of view inculcated into Aussie psyche. A frame of reference actually taught in schools, an analysis which pretty much everybody buys.
The only thing is, it's not quite true.
Like most legends, there's some truth involved. Australia suffered huge loss of life at Anzac Cove and its soldiers were, by the accepted military standards of the time, expendable lambs to the slaughter.
What's less definitive and certainly rarely referred to, is the tragic fact that Australia was not the only nation to suffer horrific casualties.
The Turks, who, after all, were the sovereign nation being invaded, lost more soldiers than all the other combatants put together.
The British, the Mother country and in most present day Aussies eyes, the real villains of the piece, posted a casualty figure of nearly 80,000, a clear indication if any was needed that class rather than nationality indicated a soldiers notion of expandability.
These unfortunate men were not mere pawns because of the country in which they were born, but as a result of their inherent circumstances and the prevalent, omnipotent, all pervasive social structure.
Present day Australia however, doesn't let the truth get in the way of a good observance.
And not only are the public well and truly on board but, true to form, big business and multi nationals see Anzac Day as a potential money spinner.
I've lost count of the amount of products keen to hitch a lift on the Gallipoli bandwagon, but they include supermarkets, bakers, brewers, clothing retailers and various other manufacturers.
Almost all their campaigns are suspect but the worst example of this blatant BrAndZAC offensive is a food company who shall remain nameless but who feature the word 'fresh' in their logo and tagline.
'Keep them fresh in our memories' their ad declares, in a (hopefully) botched attempt to cash in on the Gallipoli market.
Remembering the fallen and acknowledging their sacrifice is one thing, but is it just me who thinks using it to try and sell biscuits and baked beans is almost too crass for words?
Fresh?
Rank and stinking, I'd say.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article