Cultural Differences Between Australia and Singapore

Both Australia and Singapore are former British colonies in the eastern hemisphere that used exploited foreign labour to build the nation’s economic infrastructure. The legacy of the British foundations resides in both countries using the Westminster political system, the common law legal system and English as a common language.

In addition to sharing British history, both countries share a significant migration history. Almost the entire population of both countries are descended from people who have migrated in the last 200 years. In addition, a quarter of the population of both countries were born in different nations.

Despite significant commonalities, Australia and Singapore have significant differences which can be explained as stemming from their location, history, ideological orientation and strength of unionism.

	Singapore	Australia
Per Capita GDP	$93,400	$48,700
Population	5,866,139	25,809,973
Ethnic identities	Chinese 74.3%, Malay 13.5%, Indian 9%, other 3.2%	English 25.9%, Australian 25.4%, Irish 7.5%, Scottish 6.4%, Italian 3.3%, German 3.2%, Chinese 3.1%, Indian 1.4%, Greek 1.4%, Dutch 1.2%, other 15.8% (includes Australian Aboriginal .5%), unspecified 5.4%
Export partners	China 15%, Hong Kong 13%, Malaysia 9%, United States 8%, Indonesia 7%, India 5%	China 39%, Japan 15%, South Korea 7%, India 5% (2019)
Religion	Buddhist 31.1%, Christian 18.9%, Muslim 15.6%, Taoist 8.8%, Hindu 5%, other 0.6%, none 20%	Protestant 23.1% , Roman Catholic 22.6%, other Christian 4.2%, Muslim 2.6%, Buddhist 2.4%, Orthodox 2.3%, Hindu 1.9%, other 1.3%, none 30.1%, unspecified 9.6%
GDP rank	38th	13th

CIA World Fact Book – 2022

History

In 1819, the British East India Company signed a treaty with Sultan Hussein Shah of Johor to develop the Southern part of Singapore as a British trading post. At the time, there were only about 1,000 people on the island. The population swelled as the British brought indentured labour from China and India (Coolies) to work in the island’s rubber industry.

In 1869, the island’s economy got a further boost with the opening of the Suez Canal causing a major increase in trade between Europe and Asia – all which passed via Singapore. In addition to Chinese coming to Singapore under labour contracts, Chinese were also attracted to Singapore’s status as a trade hub. As a result of both exploited and free migration, Chinese soon became the numerically dominant ethnic group. In 1914, the British banned indentured labour in Singapore.

After World War 1, the British invested significant military resources in Singapore as it was conceived as an impregnable military base. In World War 2, it took the Japanese around a day coming from Malaysia on bicycles to force a British surrender. More than 80,000 allied soldiers were taken prisoner. Around 25,000 ethnic Chinese were killed in the subsequent Japanese occupation.

Prior to the war, both Malaysia and Singapore had been colonies under British rule. The end of the war saw people in both regions press for independence. A battle for control of Singapore emerged between pro-Communist Chinese and pro-liberal Chinese. A temporary alliance was formed in the People’s Action Party.

Singapore had its first general election in 1955 and became a self-governing colony in 1959. Singapore’s inaugural prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, emphasised rapid economic growth, support for entrepreneurship, and limitations on internal democracy to help Singapore make the transition from a third world to first world country. This involved purging the party of its Communists.

In 1962, Singapore briefly merged with Malaysia in the belief that integration would lead to greater economic development. Racial riots and policy differences on merit based recruitment resulted in the Malaysian parliament voting to expel Singapore in 1965.

While British interests in Singapore revolved around trade, in Australia it initially revolved around a need to dump criminals after the American War of Independence deprived it of its old site. Penal transportation continued into the 1860s. Once transportation came to an end, British business tried to replace the Convicts with indentured Chinese, Pacific Island and Indian labour. In many ways, the indentured labour system was akin to slavery. Not only were the indentured labourers exploited, but the use of them undermined workers in Australia who wanted improved workplace conditions. The system came to an end as a result of union activism and the passing of the Immigration Restriction Act (White Australia Policy) in 1901. It has been very difficult for foreign labour to work in Australia ever since.

After World War 2, Britain followed a policy of de-colonisation. Although this led to many former British colonies gaining independence, technically Australia is still a British colony. Australia’s Head of State is the Queen of England. Federally, she is represented in Australia by the Governor General and in each state by a Governor. Functionally, Australia operates as an independent nation.

Values

The ancestry of most Singaporeans and Australians seems to have had an influence on the over-riding values each country has decided to adopt.

Because the majority of Singaporeans are of Asian ancestry, Singapore seems to have adopted an Asian approach to nationalism. In short, most Asian nations have a positive attitude to nationalism as it is used as the validation for ridding the country of the colonialism that most Asian countries experienced. Admittedly, Singaporeans are descended from colonists; however, they are perhaps influenced by countries around them that used nationalism to reject colonialism.

At the Bangkok Declaration in 1993, Singapore president Lee Kuan Yew asserted an approach to values that differed from the former British masters when he, along with other Asian nations, asserted support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but with “Asian characteristics.” Specifically, the declaration asserted that, relative to westerners, Asians have: 

• Preference for social harmony
• Concern with socio-economic prosperity and the collective well-being of the community
• Loyalty and respect towards figures of authority
• Preference for collectivism and communitarianism

Critics accused him of trying to justify Singapore’s human rights violations.

Because the majority of Australians have European ancestry, Europe’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights is more willingly embraced in Australia than it is in Singapore. The rights themselves are often vague and can be interpreted in contradictory ways. They were made, however, at a time that European nationalism had brought the world to war and resulted in genocide on an industrial scale. Collectively, therefore, the rights can be interpreted through a prism that asserts the right of the individual over respect for figures of authority or the nation. In other words, whereas Singapore’s population may support the repression of the individual for the sake of the country, Australia’s bias is the other way.

Attitudes to authority figures are shaped by the authority figures throughout a culture’s history. Perhaps western cultures have less respectable authority figures in their history which in turn fosters a disrespect for authority figures. Alternatively, perhaps westerners choose to focus more on the less respectable authority figures even when there are some respectable alternatives. Either way, it would be fair to say westerners are less trusting of authority.

Politics and corruption

Officially, Singapore is a democracy but the People’s Action Party has ruled since 1959. From 1965 to 1981, the party won every available seat. It achieved the feat on the back of strong economic development but also by detaining political opponents without trial. From 1984, some opposition parties have won seats but opposition candidates have also found themselves facing charges for things such as tax evasion. In addition to one-party rule, the press is controlled. So much so, in 2015, Reporters Without Borders ranked Singapore 153 out of 180 countries in the Press Freedom Index.

Despite the single party rule and lack of press freedom, in 2017, Singapore was ranked the world’s 7th least corrupt nation on Transparency International’s (TI) Corruption Perceptions Index.

The low rate of corruption can perhaps be attributed to the “Asian values” that Singapore espouses. Although western critics say that advocating the group before the self is just an excuse for repression, corruption stems from putting the self before the greater good. In other words, creating a model identity that encourages people to think of the group’s welfare and to be virtuous in their actions may be the secret of Singapore’s low rate of corruption.

While Singapore has been defined by single-party rule, in Australia, power has been shared by the Liberal and Labor parties since World War 2. Diversity of power also comes via the Senate where representation is decided by a party’s percentage of the vote in a State or Territory.

As well as having political pluralism and the diversification of power, Australia has a relatively free press. In 2015, Reporters Without Borders ranked Australia 25 out of 180 countries in the Press Freedom Index.

Despite the political pluralism and press freedom, Australia still has a long history of corruption in politics, police and even the press. The worst examples have led to the creation of institutions aimed at catching the corruption. For example, in the 1980s, the Fitzgerald Inquiry found widespread corruption in the ranks of Queensland politics. Among many others, four government ministers and a police commissioner were sent to jail as a result of the inquiry. In addition to uncovering corruption, the Fitzgerald inquiry made recommendations for how it could be prevented in the future. Lawyer Jeremy Pope, founder of Transparency International, organised these recommendations into a ‘system’ which he called The National Integrity System.

In 2017, Australia was ranked the world’s 13th least corrupt nation on Transparency International’s (TI) Corruption Perceptions Index.

In short, Singapore’s corruption can be attributed to educating people to be good. Australia’s low rate can be attributed to creating watch dogs that bark at people when they are bad.

Public service recruitment; meritocracy versus social justice

The Singapore public service runs on the ancient Chinese belief in meritocracy. This is a system that places great value on school results and entrance exams in order to fill public positions. With public service opportunities linked to school performance, Singapore schools are highly competitive.

It is often said that Singapore adopted the policy of meritocracy in recognition that it needed to develop human resources to compensate for its lack of natural resources. An alternative explanation is that it developed out of discrimination against ethnic Indians and Chinese in neighbouring Malaysia. Specifically, when making the Malaysian constitution, the British were guided by ‘social justice’. Specifically, they believed they needed to protect Indigenous Malaysians against migrant Chinese and Indian workers who had control of much of the economy. The constitution was subsequently expanded in the New Economic Policy to legitimise institutionalised discrimination against ethnic Indian and Chinese in Malaysia’s public and private spheres. This discrimination includes requirements that Malays hold all key government positions, be given preferential treatment when it comes to the number of student places in Government universities, 7% discounts for new houses and hold 30 per cent equity in publicly listed companies. Not only has the discrimination led to racial conflicts in Malaysia, it also hasn’t been effective in eliminating the income disadvantage of Malays. In a nutshell, although Malays dominate in politics the civil service, military and security forces, Chinese and Indians dominate the economy. When Singapore was still part of Malaysia, its Chinese-led government called for equality for all Malaysians, which basically meant removing the institutionalised discrimination. The call resulted in it being kicked out of the Malaysian federation. It then implemented meritocracy in Singapore.

Unlike Singapore, recruitment to the Australian public service does not follow a principle of meritocracy. Instead, job advertisements have a range of selection criteria that can be so subjective that they can be interpreted to support almost any candidate. Not only does this lend itself to cronyism, it can also lend itself to ideological fashions, such as a commitment to “social justice”. Perhaps evidence of this was the 2017 government report “Going Blind To See More Clearly”, which found that Australian Public Service (APS) officers were likely to discriminate in favour of female and minority candidates for job vacancies. On the flip side, foreigners and permanent residents can not be employed in the public service. In the past, a different set of social justice values guided recruitment. Until 1966, married women were not allowed to work in the Australian public service either.

Migrant work force

In 2014, the population of Singapore was 5,469,700 people. Over half were citizens (3,343,000). The remaining were foreign students/foreign workers (1,599,000) and permanent residents (527,700). In total, around 23 per cent were foreign born. Foreign workers made up 80 per cent of the construction industry and around 50% of the service industry.

The dependence on foreign workers in the construction and service industries can be partly attributed to the value placed on academic achievement. It is hard to spend 18 years pushing students to achieve in maths, science and reading but then expect them to accept a career labouring on a construction site or making coffees.

It is not only manual trades that have significant foreign labour. In order to maximise its human resource power, Singapore has actively head hunted elite talent in STEM fields.

In Australia, a migration program aims to attract skilled migrants. In 2012, around 130,000 places were made for such migrants; however, the visas were conceived as leading to permanent migration rather than filling temporary vacancies.

The actual issue of filling positions with foreign workers is highly political and tends to be rejected by all sides of Australian politics. Even when there are job shortages, Unions argue that that a local worker should be trained to fill the position or wages increased in order to make the position more desirable.

In 2017, the left wing Labor Party ran an ad advocating employing Australians before foreigners. As everyone in the ad was white, the advertisement was seen to echo the white Australia policy where non-whites were excluded to protect the white unions.

Schooling

In Singapore, academic performance is closely aligned to opportunities in life. Not only does the public service place great weight on academic performance in recruitment, so does private enterprise. The value placed on education helps explain why Singapore has high achievement on measurable academic outcomes. For example, in 2009, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that Singaporean students were ranked in the top five in the world in terms of mathematics, science, and reading.

In Australia, academic performance tends to be devalued in job recruitment for public and private enterprise. This reflects a wider cultural devaluing of education outcomes. For example, many Australians utter the cliché, “those who can, do, those who can’t, teach.” The devaluing is somewhat justified as Australia is a country where tradesmen can easily become millionaires so there can be a logical reason to think that many of the concepts taught in school have little relevance to opportunities later in life.

The wider culture’s devaluing of education is reflected in international rankings. For example, in 2012, the OECD found that Australians students were also ranked between 10-20 in the world for mathematics, science, and reading.

Australian teachers tend to be blamed for the relatively poor rankings; however, they are faced with significant hurdles that make attaining high ranks more difficult. Firstly, Australian teachers work within a cultural environment where parents are less likely to value education. With relatively less support at home, it is more difficult to push students up the ranking scales. Secondly, public education departments are more likely to value inclusion above national rankings. As a result, Australian public school teachers have to cater for students with intellectual and behavioural disabilities in addition to students who do not have English as a first language. Even if the students were later removed from the tests that are used for the rankings, catering for a diverse student body is significantly more resource intensive than catering for a student body with relatively common skill sets. Finally, although maths, science and reading exams are valued in Australian schools, so are other skill sets. Specifically, creativity, verbal and written communication as well as vocational subjects like woodwork, metal work, media and food technology. Physical education is also valued despite not having many vocational opportunities. Global rankings do not factor in success in these areas of school life.

Welfare

Poverty is rare in Singapore and there are little to no signs of it on Singapore streets. This is despite the fact that the Singapore government has largely rejected welfare. Instead, it has means tested support that includes funding for needy households, free medical care at government hospitals, money for children’s school fees, rental support for apartments and training grants for courses.

There is relatively more poverty visible on Australian streets, despite the fact that welfare is easier to obtain. The welfare includes free medical care, housing, rent assistance, free public education and money. The visible poverty on Australian streets is often aligned to drug use or family breakdown.

Drug use

It is hard to know the rates of illicit drug use in a country as people who use drugs illicitly don’t generally report their use. Nevertheless, it has been said that Singapore has one of the lowest rates of drug use in the world, which can be partly attributed to strict drug laws that include mandatory death sentences for some drug trafficking offenses. Aside from the strict laws, Singapore’s low drug use can be attributed to popular culture refraining from glamorising drug use.

In 2012, a United Nations World Drug Report cited Australia as having one of the world’s highest uses of cannabis. The drug is used relatively openly by university students. Cocaine is a popular drug amongst financiers, football players, chefs and successful actors. Since the 1960s, drug use in popular culture could probably be defined as permissive and somewhat glamorised.

Civic action in regards to drugs tends to focus on harm minimisation. For example, The Australian Parliamentary Group on Drug Law Reform consists of politicians from state and federal governments. Upon joining the group, all members sign a charter that states:

“to encourage a more rational, tolerant, non-judgmental, humanitarian and understanding approach to people who currently use illicit drugs in our community. The aims of the Australian Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform are to minimise the adverse health, social and economic consequences of Australia’s policies and laws controlling drug use and supply.

There are few organisations advocating Singapore style drug policies in Australia.

Corby

Australians are commonly stereotyped in Asia as drug users and drug smugglers. The stereotype probably stems from the prominence of Australians caught smuggling drugs in Asia. The sympathetic hearing they get in Australian media amplifies the attention given to their stories.

Homosexuality

Male homosexuality is illegal in Singapore and some polls have found that around 75% of Singaporeans support the law. It is not; however, enforced.

In Australia, homosexuals have been very visible in politics and entertainment since the various Australian states decriminalised homosexual sex between the 1972 and 1997.

National symbols

National symbols reflect the history of a people along with their hopes and aspirations. For Singapore, there is no acknowledgement of its British heritage in its national symbols. Instead, there is acknowledgement of Singapore’s location in the world and planned integration with Malaysia in 1959.

The Singapore flag has five stars which were modelled off the flag of the People’s Republic of China and a crescent moon, a recognised Islamic symbol. Although Islam is a minority religion in Singapore, it is the official religion of Malaysia. (Today, the crescent is said to symbolise a country on the move.) Red symbolises universal brotherhood and equality of man while white symbolises pervading and everlasting purity and virtue.

The Singapore flag shows the intended union with Muslim Malaysia but no British history.

Singapore’s Coat of Arms contains a shield that is supported by a lion and a tiger. The lion symbolises Singapore while the Tiger symbolises Malaysia. Five white stars represent democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality. Below is a blue ribbon inscribed with the words Majulah Singapura. In Malay, the words mean “Onward Singapore.”

By law, the Singapore National Anthem must be sung with Malay lyrics. It’s lyrics basically call on citizens to unite to move forward. Even though English is the most commonly spoken language at home and the common bridging language, an English national anthem was rejected because English was not endemic to South East Asia. Ironically, polls show that the majority of Singaporeans are in favour of requiring the anthem be sung in Malay even though polls also show that only a minority know the meaning of each individual line of the anthem. Singaporeans are therefore like Australians in that they struggle to remember the lyrics to their national anthem.

Perhaps in recognition of some of the deficiencies with the Coat of Arms, the lions head logo was adopted in 1986 to be an alternative symbol of Singapore. The lion was chosen as it represents the folk story that gave Singapore its name. According to mythology, a prince was ship wrecked on the island in the 13th century. He saw a lion and so named the island Singa Purra.

Whereas British history is not acknowledged in Singapore’s symbols, it remains prominent in most of Australia’s symbols. The Australian flag was chosen in 1901 from a list of entries. It did not, however, become the Australian flag until 1953. The flag symbolises Australia’s history as six British colonies. The Union Jack symbolises servitude to Britain. The Southern Cross is one of the most distinctive constellations visible in the Southern Hemisphere. Aside from loyalty to the Union Jack and the federation of colonies, there are no values symbolised by the flag.

The Australian Coat of Arms basically represents each Australian state on a shield being held by a Kangaroo and Emu. Aside from unity of the Federation, there are not values symbolised by the Coat of Arms; however, folk history proposes that the two animals were included because they could not walk backwards.

The National Anthem of Australia is Advance Australia Fair. It was written in 1878 but only adopted as the National Anthem in 1984. The first verse basically means that Australians should be happy that they are young, free and “girt” by sea. The second verse celebrates migration and making Australia respectable. The third and fourth verses have been dropped. The third verse sung about pride in British ancestry and the fourth about protecting Australia from invasion.

Official languages and English language use

A great deal of cultural insights can be inferred from studying the structure and use of a nation’s language/s. The multicultural nature of Singapore society is reflected in four languages (English, Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil) being designated as official languages.

Singapore’s history and international outlook is reflected in English being the most commonly spoken language home (40 per cent of Singaporeans). It is also the common language of Singapore. The rules of Singapore English are pretty similar to the rules of British English; however, there is a tendency not use grammar to signal plural verbs or the countability of nouns. This reflects the influence of Asian languages in Singapore where it is not common to differentiate between the singular and plural.

After English, Mandarin Chinese is the next most commonly spoken language at home (also around 40 per cent.) This rate is more reflective of pragmatism than cultural heritage. Specifically, most Chinese Singaporeans are descended of southern Chinese migrants who spoke Hokkien, Cantonese or Hakka as their languages. The ancestral languages probably faded from use because Singaporean school children are required to study the language of their ethnic group, with Mandarin Chinese being chosen as the language of Singapore’s Chinese school children. This in turn improves the students’ ability to communicate with mainland China where Mandarin is the common language.

In addition to economic pragmatism being seen in Singapore’s government elevating mainland China’s common language above the heritage dialects of Singapore’s population, it is also seen in the implementation of simplified Chinese characters. These characters were introduced to mainland China during the Cultural Revolution. The official justification was to make reading easier for the Chinese population; however, the use of simplified characters also made writing prior to the revolution inaccessible to the Chinese population. This appealed to the Communist Party at the time. (It didn’t appeal to Chinese in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Taiwan nor to the Japanese who instead continued to use traditional characters.)

Malay is spoken at home by around 11 per cent of Singaporeans. By law, the national anthem must be sung in Malay, despite the fact that the vast majority of Singaporeans can’t speak Malay. The designation of Malay as an official language and its use for the national anthem reflects a desire to acknowledge the part of the world that Singapore resides in.

Tamil is spoken at home by around 4 per cent of Singaporeans. The designation of Tamil as an official language over Hindi (the most widely spoken indigenous language of India) perhaps reflects the fact that English operates as a common language in India like Mandarin does in China. Therefore, Singaporeans of Indian descent are encouraged to learn an ancestral language for identity reasons while still taking comfort from the fact that their English allows them access to India. Alternatively, the ethnic Chinese dominating Singapore government may have wanted a mainland Chinese orientation over an Indian orientation in case there was ever the kind of race-based power struggle seen in Malaysia. Therefore, it preferred that Singapore’s Indians use a language not bound to Indian patriotism.

Just as cultural insights can be inferred from Singapore’s language use, so can insights be inferred from Australia’s language use. Unlike Singapore, Australia has no official language; however, English is spoken at home by around 70 per cent of the population. Mandarin is the next most spoken language (2.5 percent.) There has been no need to designate an official language in Australia as there has been no language based conflict that concern notions of identity that exist in Singapore.

Even though language based conflict has not led to the designation of English as an official language, identity based conflict has shaped the way that English is used in Australia. Specifically, many Australians have made a conscious attempt to reject American English use on the grounds that Australia is not America. As a result, British English spelling is typically used for most words under five letters. (The major exception is the spelling of the Australian Labor Party as 19th century unionists chose American spelling to associate themselves with progressive American ideals over conservative England.) Words longer than five letters typically use American spelling as they are more phonemic and easier to spell. Furthermore, it is harder to recognise the longer words as American in order to reject them.

Only a tiny percentage of Australians have ever spoken an Indigenous language; however, the Indigenous languages have had significant influence in place naming. Perhaps this has in turn influenced the pronunciation of Australian English. Specifically, it is very common to hear words like ‘arvo’ being used instead of afternoon. Known as diminutives, these shortened words are formed by taking the first part of a word and substituting an a,o, ie, or y sound for the rest. In all, about 5,000 diminutives have been identified in Australian English. The diminutives harmonise many of the sharper English words with the smoother Aboriginal words that are common in the place naming of rural Australia. For example, consider the sentence,

“I will be meeting the journalist near the coolabah tree by the Tumbarumba billabong.”

Such a combination lacks rhythm. By changing journalist to journo, the sentence would be the much more harmonic:

“I’ll be meeting the journo near the coolabah tree by the Tumbarumba billabong.”

Identity

Everyone on earth has multiple identities. These are often based on perceived religious, national, gender, racial, employment or personal characteristics. They are also in a constant state of flux, with different identities being valued at different times according to inter-identity dynamics.

Government policy of Singapore seems to promote an all-encompassing Asian identity that Singapore represents. This was reflected in Lee Kuan Yew’s Bangkok Declaration in 1993, establishment of ASEAN and the lack of British representation in Singapore’s national symbols. Despite the attempts at creating an all-encompassing Asian identity, identities based on racial and religious heritage typically dominate Singapore’s civic life. This is reflected in Singaporeans referring to each other with a racial marker that reflects an individual’s heritage. It is also reflected in Singaporeans holding onto to cultural markers rather than fusing or evolving them into something new.

 Even though ethnic Singaporeans have an ancestral identity, they identify as quite different from the people in their ancestral country. For example, while Chinese of Singaporean ancestry identify as ethnic Chinese, they typically speak English as their first language and believe they have values quite different from Chinese mainlanders.

In Australia, heritage-based identities have either been eroded or are in a state of disintegration. Partly reflecting this was the 2015 census that recorded around 25 per cent of Australians referred to their ancestry as Australian. Such identification runs contrary to almost two centuries of government policy that encouraged identification with foreign cntries. Initially, Australians were expected to identify as British. In the 1970s, this was replaced with a policy of multiculturalism where identification with non-British ancestries was also encouraged. The architect of the policy Al Grassby, liked such identification with being a Nazi. In his own words,

“It would mean there was a secret master race that considered themselves pure Australians…It would be worse than the Third Reich.”

Today, even those Australians who identify as being ardent supporters of multiculturalism are unlikely to personally identify with a foreign country, wear a cultural costume or limit themselves to a historical based cuisine.

Jury duty

Singapore is renowned for its strict laws that include severe punishments for indiscretions that might be considered minor in many other nations. Furthermore, it is alleged that political opponents have found guilty of charges of which they are innocent and this has aided one-party rule.

The strict laws and jailing of political opponents have been aided by Singapore’s abolition of juries in 1969. At the time, Lee Kuan Yew explained that his desire to abolish juries stemmed from his past history as a lawyer where he defended four Muslims who had murdered a Royal Air Force officer, his wife and their child in a religiously charged crime. Although Lee Kuan Yew exploited the jury’s prejudices to get the men acquitted, he felt sick about what he had done. He later said,

“I had no faith in a system that allowed the superstition, ignorance, biases, and prejudices of seven jurymen to determine guilt or innocence.”

Without juries, the Singapore prime minister appoints judges to the branch. The system inevitably fosters yes men who will tow the government line, which is biased in favour of convictions. Furthermore, judges are less likely to have real-world experience that may help them relate or sympathise with defendants. For example, a member of the jury who has suffered police abuse of power is more likely to believe that a defendant has been framed than is a judge who has only ever experienced police respect.

Australia still has trial by jury for all capital offences that can be punished by more than one-year imprisonment. Serving on a jury is one of the few responsibilities that Australians are legally required to perform.

Government intervention in the economy

Singapore is sometimes erroneously described as a free-enterprise economy. In reality, it would be better described as authoritarian steered capitalism. Singapore companies are indirectly owned by the government through sovereign wealth funds like Temasek and the Government Of Singapore Investment Corporation; however, ownership is separated from management in order to promote greater efficiency. In addition to direct ownership of companies, the Singapore government steers the government by regulating land, labour and capital resources.

As well as using economic policies to shape business, the Singapore government intervenes to shape the social decisions that influence the economy in the decades to come. Specifically, it subsides housing, education, health and public transportation. Furthermore, until 1984, the government discouraged population growth by levying additional medical and education costs on families that had more than two children. After 1986, tax rebates were used to encourage college educated women to have more than two children – the thinking was that educated women would be better mothers for Singapore’s future generations than un-educated women.

Like Singapore, the Australian government heavily intervenes in the economy to shape business and social outcomes. Until the 1980s, the Australian economy was best described as national socialist with an under-developed free market. Specifically, major industries such as health, banking, education, telecommunications and transport were either government owned or heavily regulated by the government with the aim of achieving a social justice outcome. In addition, wages were regulated and protection was given to Australian industries and workers so that they would not face non-British competition. It wasn’t only government that embraced the socialist way. Private enterprises formed single desks, co-ops and industry bodies in order to reduce their competition and gain power through solidarity.

After World War 2, some of the restrictions on migrant and non-white workers were relaxed as part of Australia’s attempt to increase population. Then in the 1980s, the federal government implemented a number of reforms that transformed Australia into a post-socialist society. These reforms included privatising government industries and opening up the market to foreign competition. Ironically, some reforms, such as compulsory superannuation, also transformed Australia into a post-capitalist society by making a capitalist class out of all workers. Rhetoric about ‘class warfare’ and ‘control of the means of production’ thus became redundant in Australia.

Like all reforms, there have been winners and losers, not just in the economic sense, but also in the ideological and identity sense. Therefore, whether the reforms have been good or bad depends on the socio-economic or ideological position that a critic is coming from.

Work etiquette

Singapore has a work hierarchy that is quite common over most of Asia. Specifically, superiors are treated with great respect and there is a dislike of assertive, outspoken or diversity in viewpoints. Honorifics followed by family name are expected. Superiors are not just limited to rank in the company; they are also those who are older. This is a wider value expected in Singapore social life where younger generations treat the elderly with respect and the elderly are introduced first in social situations.

Shaking hands is common in most companies but there can be some sensitivity when certain ethnic groups are involved. For example, Malay men shake hands with other men but do not shake hands with women since Muslim men must not shake hands with women in public. Instead, they may bow head. Other ethnicities may or may not shake hands with women.

Unlike Singapore, Australian work culture is not defined by hierarchies. Initially, a new employee may refer to a superior with an honorific followed by family name but this is quickly replaced by first names and sometimes even nicknames. Social egalitarianism is therefore important in the workplace. Alterative viewpoints tend to be valued if they are informed and insightful; however, basic diplomacy is still required. In Australia, there is rarely deference on the basis of age. To the contrary, the elderly are often derided as having views that are somewhat irrelevant. In wider society, “views of an old white man” is a common insult that may be used to invalidate a viewpoint. Men and women usually shake hands; however, sometimes the man will wait for the woman to extend her hand. Kissing on the cheek is a relatively new custom that is sometimes found in the workplace. It is usually the woman who initiates the kiss by signalling with her body.

Shopping

Like most of Asia, Singapore’s shopping districts are both open and vibrant late into the evening. In contrast, Australian shopping districts start to resemble ghost towns after 5.30 pm. Although supermarkets and restaurants may still be open, there are only a trickle of people in the vicinity.

There are numerous explanations for the differences. Firstly, family time after work is perhaps less important for Singaporeans than it is for Australians. Therefore, they are much more comfortable finishing work and walking around a mall, getting a massage or trying on a pair of shoes while the kids study at home. Secondly, Australian businesses have to pay penalty rates to staff who work outside of normal business hours. If the additional salaries result in costs exceeding revenues, there is little point opening. Finally, people attract people. If shopping districts are empty at night, then less people like to be in the area. The desire to go shopping, or be in a shopping area, does not enter the mind.

Cultural Differences Between Australia and Japan

	Japan	Australia
Per Capita GDP	$41,400	$48,700
Population	124,687,293	25,809,973
Ethnic identities	Japanese 97.9%, Chinese 0.6%, Korean 0.4%, other 1.1% (includes Vietnamese, Filipino, and Brazilian)	English 25.9%, Australian 25.4%, Irish 7.5%, Scottish 6.4%, Italian 3.3%, German 3.2%, Chinese 3.1%, Indian 1.4%, Greek 1.4%, Dutch 1.2%, other 15.8% (includes Australian Aboriginal .5%), unspecified 5.4%
Export partners	United States 19%, China 18%, South Korea 6%, Taiwan 6% (2019)	China 39%, Japan 15%, South Korea 7%, India 5% (2019)
Religion	Shintoism 69%, Buddhism 66.7%, Christianity 1.5%, other 6.2% (2018 est.) note: total adherents exceeds 100% because many people practice both Shintoism and Buddhism	Protestant 23.1% , Roman Catholic 22.6%, other Christian 4.2%, Muslim 2.6%, Buddhist 2.4%, Orthodox 2.3%, Hindu 1.9%, other 1.3%, none 30.1%, unspecified 9.6%
GDP rank	3rd	13th

CIA World Fact Book – 2022

History

Because the Japanese environment is not conducive to the formation of fossils, it is unknown how long it has been occupied by humans. Homo erectus was known to be in what is now Beijing (close to Japan) 850,000 years ago so potentially it could be hundreds of thousands of years. Actual evidence of occupation only dates back 30,000 years.

Whereas agriculture commenced in China around 9,000 years ago, it wasn’t until 400 BC that agriculture developed in Japan. The delay could be attributed to the difficulties in adapting Chinese rice varieties to Japanese conditions. (Rice was not suited to the northern island of Hokkaido. As a result, the people of Hokkaido remained hunter gatherers until the early 20th century.)

Once agriculture developed, the social structure of Japan changed. Instead of being egalitarian with tribal elders, it became hierarchical with warlords and emperors. Burial mounds became more elaborate as individuals were able to accumulate more wealth and attempt to take the wealth into the afterlife.

As farming was the basis of economic prosperity, different clans warred over the relatively little arable land. This gave rise to the Samurai in the 12th century, who ruled for more than six centuries. Samurai culture was based on loyalty to a master, a rigid adherence to rules, a distrust of foreigners and a lack of compassion to the weak. Under the Samurai, the emperor had symbolic power but no military power (much like European royal families have today.)

Change came in the 19th century when American Commodore Mathew Perry sailed into Japan and announced that the country would be invaded if it didn’t trade with America. The Meiji Emperor saw the obvious power difference between Japan and America along with an opportunity to gain the military power that Japanese emperors had always lacked. When the Americans returned, the emperor traded with them for guns and subsequently announced that the Samurai could no longer carry swords or behead members of the public that disrespected them. The Samurai rebelled but their swords were no match for the Emperor’s new power.

The Emperor and the general population seemed to appreciate change and the benefits brought by trade. European and America customs became highly fashionable as the Japanese modelled themselves on the west. Initially, the modelling was in regards to clothing but soon it extended to colonialism. Japanese invasions of Korea, China and Taiwan soon followed.

For western powers, Japan had become too much like themselves too quickly and frictions over the carving up of Asia emerged. At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, Japan further tested the western powers by seeking to have a racial equality clause inserted into the Covenant of the League of Nations. It was an assertion the western powers rejected, (although they used Australian prime minister Billy Hughes as the mouth piece of the anti-equality campaign.)

Embittered, the Japanese became more hostile to the western powers, who in turn reacted by trying to constrain Japan’s rise. This led to European sanctions, support for China in their resistance to Japanese invasion and an American led oil embargo. Japan reacted by attacking the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, which brought America into the war and united the Asian and European theatres of the war. The war culminated with America dropping two nuclear weapons on Japanese cities.

After surrendering, the Japanese were expecting the Americans to rape and pillage. Instead, General Douglas MacArthur arrived in Tokyo on August 30 1945 and immediately decreed several laws: No allied personnel were to assault Japanese people and no allied personnel were to eat the scarce Japanese food.

America did not seek to punish or extract reparations from Japan. Instead, it wanted political change. The Americans re-wrote the Japanese constitution to replace Japan’s previous militaristic system with a liberal democracy. Of particular note, the constitution stated of the Emperor that “his position stems from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power”. Such a statement was a marked change from previous declarations that the Japanese emperor was a god. Additionally, the constitution guaranteed equality before the law and outlawed discrimination based on “political, economic or social relations” or “race, creed, sex, social status or family origin”. This paved the way for greater gender equality in Japan. No amendment has been made since its adoption.

Evidence of human occupation of Australia appears longer than human occupation of Japan. The fossil remains of Mungo Man suggest a history that dates back 62,000 years. Excavations of Cuddle Springs in north central NSW has found evidence of grinding stones dating back 30,000 years. These predate all other grinding stones around the world by 20,000 years and may suggest the development of agriculture during a period of more favourable climatic conditions. At the end of the 18th century; however, all people in Australia appeared to be hunter gatherers. In 1788, change came when the British decided that Australia would make a great place to dump criminals. For the next 80 years, Australia was supplied with the humans that Britain didn’t want.

During World War II, Australia and Japan locked horns in Papua New Guinea. Although the Australians emerged triumphant, the fear of another Asian invasion motivated the Australian government to try to increase migration to build Australia’s power. Because the British had little desire to migrate to their old Convict dumping ground, the Australian government targeted economic and social refugees from Southern Europe who were likewise accustomed to unsavoury labels.

The Immigration Restriction Act (White Australia Policy) initially prevented Asians from following the European riff raff. The policy was deconstructed after Australian soldiers stationed in Japan married Japanese women and insisted on bringing them home to Australia. These marriages subsequently opened the door for Korean, Vietnamese and Chinese refugees to head down under. After Asians who had low status in their countries laid the groundwork, high status Asians started migrating to Australia.

The different histories of Japan and Australia are reflected in their respective cultures today. Because Japanese history is considered to be noble (World War II excepted), the Japanese use it as a muse of inspiration for their creativity. On the other hand, because Australian history carries some unsavoury labels, most modern Australians either ignore it, or seek an excuse to degrade it.

Indigenous peoples

The indigenous label is somewhat problematic when talking about Japan. The Ainu people of Hokkaido are often referred to as indigenous on the basis that they were hunter gatherers in the early 20th century and evidence of that hunter gathering can still be seen in their culture today. It is impossible to ascertain; however, whether they are the descendants of Japan’s original peoples.

Language and genetic testing suggests that the Japanese are a mix of origins. It seems that there was a migration of Siberian people from the north, a Melanesian migration from the Pacific Islands and a Han Chinese migration from the Asian mainland. Because the Han brought with them a writing system, the written history of Japan came from their perspective and in turn gave rise to the Samurai.

During the last Ice Age (which ended approximately 15,000 years ago) Japan was connected to the continent through several land bridges.

Like it is for the Ainu in Japan, the indigenous label in Australia tends to be used in reference to people who have hunter gathering in their recent ancestry but it is very difficult to ascertain whether they were the genetic descendants of the first people of Australia.

At 62,000 years old, the fossil of Mungo Man is the earliest example of human occupation in Australia. The ANU’s John Curtin School of Medical Research found that Mungo Man’s skeleton’s contained a small section of mitochondrial DNA. After analysing the DNA, the school found that Mungo Man’s DNA bore no similarity to the other ancient skeletons, modern Aborigines and modern Europeans. Furthermore, his mitochondrial DNA had become extinct. Aside from having unique DNA, Mungo Man had a unique bone structure. His skeleton was thin boned like modern day Aborigines; however, most skeletons between 10,000 and 50,000 years of age where thick-boned. In northern Australia, the 17,000 + year-old Bradshaw (Gwion Gwion) paintings record the history of a people that were culturally distinct from the hunter gatherers at the time of European colonisation. Instead of depicting animals, they use humans as the primary subject, which is very rare for Palaeolithic art. In addition, it shows them with tassels, hair adornments, and possibly clothing. Such body adornments are usually only found in agricultural societies that have developed hierarchical systems of status. The only real expert on the Bradshaw art was the late Graham Walsh, who documented and studied the art for over 40 years. The combination of the pictures themselves and the oral history of the local tribes led Walsh to conclude that they were painted by an unknown Asiatic race before the last ice age. Walsh also concluded that there were a form of iconography (picture writing).

Some archaeologists have classified theories of multiple migrations based upon skeleton structure. Early theories proposed that the first humans in Australia were the “negrito” Tasmanian people, who were displaced by “Murrayans”, who were in turn displaced by “Carpentarians”. These theories tend to be politically sensitive.

At 17,500+ years, the Bradshaw paintings (Gwion Gwion) record a lifestyle that has humans as the primary art focus. Furthermore, they show tassels and hair adornments usually used to mark social hierarchies in agricultural societies. Finally, they use the repetition of figure use found in iconography (picture writing.) Could they have been made by an agricultural society?

The economic organisation of society affects social structure. Both the Ainu of Japan (left) and Aborigines of Australia (right) were hunter gatherers, which produced egalitarian values. Instead of chiefs or emperors, the cultures had a series of elders that shared in leadership.

Religion

Most Japanese define themselves as atheists despite observing customs and traditions that are religious in origin and nature. Perhaps the approach to religion can be explained as stemming from the lack a monotheistic institution ruling Japan like Christianity and Islam ruled in Europe and the middle-east. Without a politically minded institution using a monotheistic god to persuade followers, Japan was able to fuse many religious doctrines into varying aspects of Japanese life. The Japanese could then follow various practices without needing to declare a religious identification.

Shinto seems to be the original religion of Japan. Like religions in hunter gatherer societies, it is animistic and is based on belief that plants and objects have living souls. Devotees worship Kami (spirits) that occupy the same world as humans. Torii are erected in significant sites for the kami to pass through.

Into Shinto beliefs, the Japanese infused aspects of Confucianism and Buddhism that were imported from China. Specifically, the Japanese embraced Confucian philosophy that proposed a social hierarchy in which each individual fulfils the obligations of their place to the fullest for the benefit of the entire society. Buddhism was popular amongst the Samurai; however, it was changed to create the concept of Zen. This taught meditation in order to “awaken,” and live in the immediate present, to be spontaneous, and be liberated from self-conscious and judgmental thoughts. Among other things, this allowed the Samurai to behead people without any guilt.

Christianity is the dominant religion in Australian society. Like the Japanese, many Australians define themselves as atheist but will still observe religious customs like Christmas gift giving. In the penal era, religion and politics were intertwined as they were in Europe but the influence of the church on politics diminished over the 20th century. Christianity is very different from the Japanese religions as it conceives of a spirit realm separated from the real world, it encourages judgmental thoughts, is monotheistic and encourages adherents to live for the future.

Often found at the entrance to a Shinto shrine or other significant places, Torii symbolically mark the transition from the profane to the sacred.

Landscape

The landscape has had a significant influence on Japanese cultural development. About 72% of Japan is mountainous and only 11.26% is arable land. In the past, there was intense warring for the few areas where agriculture was suitable. Those who controlled the land in turn used it to gain maximum yields, which tended to be rice over livestock. Animal protein therefore came from fishing.

Over 90% of Australia is dry, flat and arid. Almost three-quarters of the land cannot support agriculture in any form. It was due to environmental difficulties that agriculture didn’t develop in Australia until foreign plants and animals was imported in the 18th century.

Housing

The prevalence of tsunami and earthquakes influenced Japanese building design. Because solid brick constructions were difficult to build and dangerous when the earth was shaking, Japanese designed houses out of wood, paper, bamboo and mud. These moved with the ground during earthquakes and if they did fall down, they could be rebuilt quickly. The downside was that they were very cold in winter and were a fire hazard. Today, small Japanese houses still use the flexible building materials. Larger houses that use concrete are built to be able to move with earthquakes.

Australian housing has generally followed European approaches thus is yet to show significant adaption to the landscape. Specifically, houses are rarely designed with bushfires in mind or the extreme heat of summer..

Love hotels

Love hotels are a very prominent feature of the Japanese urban environment. They are hotels that exist for the sole purpose of having sex. To ensure discretion, payment may be made to hands that appear from behind curtains or via an electronic display with buttons.

Foreigners typically interpret the existence of love hotels as evidence of a decadent side to Japanese culture. In their eyes, a hotel that exists solely for sex must mean that Japanese are prone to cheating. Such an interpretation tends to reflect the motivations for hotel sex in foreign countries. The real explanation is far more conservative. In short, traditionally married Japanese often live with parents in houses with walls made of paper. It is therefore difficult to have sex in ways that don’t draw the attention of parents or children. In addition, children often live with their parents until they get married so it is not always easy to have sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend in ways that don’t disturb their parents. The love hotel provides the solution for couples that want to do more than hold hands but don’t want share their intimacy with family members.

In Australia, there are no love hotels because there is less of a culture of married couples living with parents or children living at home until they are married. Furthermore, houses usually have thick walls where couples can gain some privacy. If teenage couples really need privacy that they can’t get at home, the car or a green belt in the city provides a degree of isolation.

Social etiquette

On Japanese streets, it is generally considered polite for sick people to wear a face mask so that they don’t spread germs. Blowing one’s nose into a hanky or tissue is considered to be a disgusting habit so swallowing mucus or spitting the mucus onto the pavement is preferred. It is acceptable for drunk men to urinate on the street. (Women are expected to use a toilet.) Honesty is a highly prized trait and lost wallets and purses are often returned with money still enclosed.

In the restaurant or izakaya (drinking establishment with cheap eats), etiquette is reasonably relaxed aside from refraining from actions that have death associations. One taboo is sticking chop sticks up right in rice, as this is how rice may be presented to deceased ancestors in the obon festival. Another taboo is passing food using chop sticks. While passing food with chopsticks maybe a flirtatious act in many Asian countries, in Japan it has associations with passing the bones of cremated loved ones. Tipping is not required in Japanese restaurants and may even be considered to be rude. Other customs, such as the manner of holding chopsticks and methods of serving, relate to eating in refined ways. Expensive sushi is eaten with the hands.

When entering the home, shoes are removed and exchanged for a pair of slippers. It is rare to be invited into the home so it is considered polite to bring a small inexpensive gift.

In business, bowing is sign of respect and the lower the bow the more the respect given. Business cards are usually exchanged and respect is typically demonstrated by accepting the card with two hands, studying it, looking impressed and then putting it away.

On Australian streets, sometimes drunk men are seen urinating but it is considered very poor etiquette and may attract police attention. An obvious swallowing of mucus would be viewed as disgusting as would spitting mucus on the pavement. Honestly is a prized trait but it is less likely a lost wallet or purse would be returned with money still enclosed.

In a restaurant, etiquette varies according to the nature of the restaurant but generally it is taboo to use hands on anything except chips and bread. Australians do more entertaining in their homes than Japanese, which is turn reflected with Australians spending more money on entertaining areas and renovations. When being invited to a dinner party or barbeque, it is generally polite to make a contribution of alcohol such as wine or beer.

Renting

In Japan, renters pay key money when they move into a house or apartment. This is a sum of money that is given to the landlord and which the landlord keeps. It covers the cost of new mats and any other repairs once the tenant moves out. When moving into a neighbourhood, it is polite to give a gift to the neighbours.

In Australia, renters pay a bond. This is a sum of money that they get back if they have not damaged the property. There is no need to give a gift to the neighbours.

The different renting systems can perhaps be attributed to the desire of Japanese for new tatami mats whenever they move into a new place versus an Australian comfort with second hand things.

Shame culture versus guilt culture

American anthropologist Ruth Benedict classified Japan as a “shame” culture . In contrast, she defined Christian based cultures as “guilt” cultures. She basically meant that shame is ruled by external moral standards while guilt is ruled by internal moral standards. Benedict used the cultural framework to explain the behaviour of Japanese soldiers, who often considered a sense of honour to be more important than their own lives.

Some Japanese have used the shame-versus-guilt definitions to explain why Australians are more opinionated or honest about their beliefs than they are. For example, if a Japanese person was given food he or she didn’t like, he or she may politely say it is tasty. The intention is to keep harmony in the communities.

Aside from the different religions that underpin the value systems of the Australia and Japan, there are numerous influences that may make the Japanese less likely to express their opinion and more likely to be shy. Firstly, the Japanese language is hierarchical. As a result of using it, individual Japanese become relatively more conscious of their inferior social status as they are growing up surrounded by people superior in status (because they are older). Because they are more aware of their inferior social status, the Japanese may be less likely to express their opinion for the same reason an Australian might not express their opinion around their boss. Specifically, individuals usually only express an opinion when they don’t feel they are inferior in status. Unlike the Japanese, because Australians use a language that does not accord status, they feel more egalitarian as they are growing up. As a result, they have more confidence in their opinions because they feel more equal with those around them.

A second reason for the reluctance of Japanese to express their opinion is that Japan lacks the social diversity of Australia. Therefore, the Japanese are less likely to feel that being different is acceptable.

A third reasons is that democracies place symbolic power in the common person. Furthermore, they diversify the population by encouraging debate. In this way, democratic government can counter hierarchical social structures as well as the oppressive nature of monocultures. Because Japan has only had democratic governance since World War 2, it hasn’t had the same amount of time to diversify its national myths like Australia. Perhaps the recent influence of democracy could be seen in the behaviour of Masanori Murakawa, a former wrestler turned politician. On his first day of work in 2003, Masanori arrived wearing a mask in addition to his suit. In response to criticism, he said,

“I have absolutely no intention of taking it off, no matter how much opposition there is,”

Masanori Murakawa

Egalitarianism

Most Australians like the idea of a labourer being able to have a beer with the Queen and seeing her as different but his equal. For example, the trucking magnate Lindsay Fox (net worth $350 million) said of Australia: 

‘We don’t have a class structure. We have people who relate to people. No body is superior. No body is inferior. The people who I went to school with collect the garbage around here. But if they want to come in and have a drink, that’s fine with me.’

The egalitarian sentiments are reflected in Australian English. Australians may refer to some foreigners as “mate” instead of using more respectful titles such as your honour, sir, madam, mrs, mr, ms, lord, and your highness. For example, when cricketer Dennis Lillee greeted Queen Elizabeth, he used the words: “G’day, how ya goin’?” For many Australians, Lillee’s actions were an act of equality and understanding. After all, it wasn’t the Queen’s fault that she couldn’t play cricket and that her subjects were terrible players as well. For the British; however, Lillee’s act of equality was the act of an upstart colonial who didn’t know his place.

Unlike Australia, Japan is a hierarchical society. A different language is used for addressing people of different status. When addressing people of higher status, Japanese use a more formal language that includes different words and honorifics.

The hierarchical nature of Japanese can cause some confusion when dealing with Australians. For example, in 1980 a Japanese prefecture sponsored a weekend seminar to discuss problems that Japanese people might experience in Australia. One speaker, Hiro Mukai, stated:

“Australians appear very naive to the newly-arrived Japanese. They speak the same way with everyone.”

Dealing with problems

The Japanese often deal with problems by politely looking the other way. This has led to a psychological condition known as Hikkomori Syndrome, which involves a young person withdrawing from society. Unusually, a kid will go to his room and stay there for years. His parents will leave food at the door. The parents are confused about what to do so they just ignore it.

Due to the cultural mentality, gambling and pornography thrives in Japan even though both are illegal. According to the Japanese, someone is only gambling if money is won. If a prize is won instead, it is not gambling. To exploit the loophole, pachinko parlours (like poker machine palaces) give gamblers the chance to win prizes. These can be then be sold for money at a shop located next to the pachinko parlour. Even though it is obviously in violation of the spirit of the rule, the Japanese look the other way. Pornography is treated in the same manner. A loop hole states if the penis and vagina is pixelated, the material is not porn. Exploiting the loophole, pornographers depict extreme hard core sex acts yet can still sell it legally as long as the vagina and penis are pixelated.

Australians are usually quick to denounce anyone exploiting loopholes or problems in societies. (Dealing with pornography is perhaps an exception. Technically, pornography is illegal in every Australian state. Even so, the porn industry thrives due to a mail-order business operating out of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.)

When Australians visit Japan, the cultural difference can cause problems. The Australians are in the habit of looking for problems in Japanese society so that they can be exposed to a wider audience. For example, Ryann Connel, the ex-chief editor of the English website of The Mainichi Daily News, busied himself with writing columns about a Japanese restaurant where patrons allegedly have sex with animals before eating them. For a while, Japanese politeness held sway and they simply ignored the Australian. Eventually, the Japanese just returned fire. A blogging campaign commenced with comments such as:

“Ryann Connell is a degenerate scatologist – a typical Australian.”

Sponsors also reacted, and pulled advertising estimated to be worth more than 20 million yen ($195,000). The newspaper issued a 1277-word apology, reprimanded several staff and put Connell on three months’ disciplinary leave.

Relaxation and socialising

To relax, Japanese often sit in hot springs or hot baths that are seen to have medicinal benefits. To socialise, karaoke boxes are popular. Groups of friends rent out a room with a karaoke machine and take it in turns singing. Instead of pubs, Japanese have izakaya, where alcohol is cheap and is consumed along with small meals.

The beach is to Australia what the hot spring is to Japan. Karaoke is popular in Australia but it tends to be in pubs in front of strangers instead of private boxes with friends.

Whaling

Most Japanese don’t eat whales and have no desire to eat whales. They do; however, reserve the right to eat whales. They consider criticism of whaling as a form of racism that is akin to an Indian telling an Australian not to eat beef. According to Buddhist ideology, there is no difference between a fish and a marine mammal and Australians have no moral right to say there is. In any case, the Japanese have noted that they are being targeted in a way that other whaling nations, such as Norway and Iceland, are not. This selective targeting of Japan is seen as a sign of Australian racism. In addition, because Australia has actively tried to stop the Japanese taking whales from Japanese waters, the Japanese consider Australia’s anti-whaling stance to be interference in its territorial integrity

Like Japan, Australia has a long history of whaling. In 1792, Sydney Cove was the centre for the profitable whale and seal trade around the southern coasts. Numerous other coastal whaling stations were established around Australia in the late 1820s to 1830s. The whaling stations were the economic heart of communities, they brought in a cosmopolitan mix of people from around the world, and they inspired paintings, scrimshaws, and novels.

The whale’s role as an object to be consumed continued until 1978, when commercial whaling ended with closure of Australia’s last whaling station, the Cheynes Beach Whaling Company, in Western Australia. In 1979, Australia adopted an anti-whaling policy.

Today, whales are still part of Australian culture; however, the role they play reflects a degree of cultural evolution. Instead of been harvested, they are watched. Tour groups take people to watch the whales as they migrate up the Australian coast. This industry is worth an estimated $250 million a year.

As well as contributing to the economy, whales also contribute to community spirit. As they swim up the Australian coast, people will flock to watch them, photograph them, paint pictures of them and give them names. Occasionally, a whale will swim into Sydney Harbour, and for days Australians will gather on the harbour foreshores to watch the whale play. The community spirit is covered in local newspapers, and on the TV news.

In order to protect the whales that migrate up the Australian coastline, in 2000 the Australian Whale Sanctuary was created in Australia’s Antarctic Territory. Should those whales be killed, then part of Australia’s culture dies with it. Japan might be deliberately targeting these waters because Australia is trying to stop the Japanese taking whales from their own waters.

The Japanese are correct that Australians have targeted them in a way that they have not targeted Icelanders and Norwegians; however, it probably isn’t for racist reasons. Many Australians can’t stand loopholes being exploited so when Japan argues that it is hunting whales for scientific reasons, Australians want to expose the lie. If the Japanese simply said they were hunting for commercial reasons, as do Norway and Iceland, they would probably be ignored just as Norway and Iceland are ignored.

Immigration identity

Although Japanese are open to change, they don’t want that change to include non-Japanese migrating to Japan. If they do, they are not recognised as Japanese. For example, the descendants of Koreans who migrated to Japan a century ago are still defined as Koreans and must carry foreigner cards (Gaijin cards).

To deal with the social problems caused by an aging population, Japan is allowing some Brazilians of Japanese descent to migrate to Japan. These people are classed as Brazilians, not Japanese.

While the Japanese define migrants as foreigners, when a person migrates to Australia, they are pressured to see themselves as Australians. Many Australians dislike migrants waving the flag of foreign countries. They want the migrant to identify themselves as Australian and if they do, they will be treated as an Australian. The idea of a 3rd generation Australian identifying with a foreign country is off-putting for many Australians.

Blood type

Japanese often use blood types to define personalities much like some Australians use astrological signs. For example, Type As are peaceful but high-strung. Type Bs are caring but selfish. Type ABs are rational but indecisive, and Type Os are sociable and honest but dislike authority.

Not only are blood types used as an ice-breaker, they are also used when forming opinions on other cultures. Because O is the most common blood type in Australia, Japanese tend to view Australians through the prism of the blood type. Specifically, Australians are viewed as not liking authority and being rude but being good at team sports. (A is the most common blood type in Japan.)

Ironically, Japan never wanted to invade Australia prior to World War 2 because officials felt that with so many O blood types, Australians would be too difficult to control. The Japanese had had similar experience with Type Os in Taiwan and felt they were far more active than the submissive Blood Type As in Haikado.

War remembrance

Australia is one of the few countries in the eastern hemisphere that doesn’t have a major issue with Japan’s approach to remembering its war dead.

The Japanese approach to remembrance doesn’t involve judging whether the dead were good people or bad. All that matters is that they died serving Japan. The approach comes from the Shinto religion, which views the spirit of the dead as being separate from the body of the living. Consequently, Shinto does not recognise the crimes of spirit’s body when walking the earth.

In the 1800s, the Yasukuni Shrine was designated as a place to pray for the souls of the fallen. The Shrine does not honour the soldiers. Because Shinto views all killing as a crime, the shrine exists as a place where spirits can be preyed for so that they may rest peacefully. Yasukuni literally means “Pacifying the Nation.”

For the Japanese, the approach has a positive effect in creating passivism. Not only does it encourage the Japanese to remember the fallen, it discourages them from being bitter at their enemies. From the 1850s to the 2000, France, Holland, Russia, England, China, Japan and America all had competing self-interests in east Asia that expressed themselves in conduct many Japanese would consider to be morally objectionable. The Shinto faith makes it easier for the Japanese to simply forgive and move on.

Concerning some of Japan’s neighbours is the fact that 14 soldiers convicted of being Class A war criminals are enshrined at Yasukuni along with 2,466,000 other men and women. Visits to the shrine by Japanese politicians are therefore judged to be a sign that Japan lacks remorse over World War II.

The Australian approach to war remembrance has some similar elements to Japan, and this may explain why Australians haven’t had the same violent reaction to Japanese remembrance as have other countries. A central feature of Australian remembrance is the Ode, a paragraph taken from the poem ‘Ode for the Fallen’:

” They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old;

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them. “

Like Shinto belief, the Ode doesn’t encourage judgements about right or wrong. The only thing that matters is that people died and those who live should remember them.

In addition to refraining from judgement, the Australian approach is on remembering fallen soldiers, not the evil of the enemy. Because it’s more focussed on the self, there is less attention given to the wrongs committed by others.

While the Japanese approach is anchored in the Shinto religion and national pride, the Australian approach is anchored in mateship. The tradition of Australian remembrance commenced with an informal gathering of ex-soldiers in 1923. These ex-servicemen were not interested in politics, nor national pride. They simply wanted to express their sorrow and remember fallen comrades. It wasn’t until 1927 that their tradition received any political sanction or recognition.

Cute – kawaii

Most Japanese, from old men to young girls, love cute things. At times, the cuteness can be a little extreme by Australian standards. For example, when Japanese women refer to each other, they may add the title ‘chan’, which means ‘child.’ As far as most Japanese are concerned, there is nothing strange about a business woman wearing a suit but having someone refer to her as a child as she adjusts her make up using a pixie power mirror.

Cultural Differences between Australia and the USA

	USA	Australia
Per Capita GDP	$60,200	$48,700
Population	334,998,398	25,809,973
Ethnic identities	White 72.4%, Black 12.6%, Asian 4.8%, Amerindian and Alaska Native 0.9%, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 0.2%, other 6.2%, two or more races 2.9%	English 25.9%, Australian 25.4%, Irish 7.5%, Scottish 6.4%, Italian 3.3%, German 3.2%, Chinese 3.1%, Indian 1.4%, Greek 1.4%, Dutch 1.2%, other 15.8% (includes Australian Aboriginal .5%), unspecified 5.4%
Export partners	Canada 17%, Mexico 16%, China 7%, Japan 5%	China 39%, Japan 15%, South Korea 7%, India 5% (2019)
Religion	Protestant 46.5%, Roman Catholic 20.8%, Jewish 1.9%, Church of Jesus Christ 1.6%, other Christian 0.9%, Muslim 0.9%, Jehovah’s Witness 0.8%, Buddhist 0.7%, Hindu 0.7%, other 1.8%, unaffiliated 22.8%, don’t know/refused 0.6%	Protestant 23.1% , Roman Catholic 22.6%, other Christian 4.2%, Muslim 2.6%, Buddhist 2.4%, Orthodox 2.3%, Hindu 1.9%, other 1.3%, none 30.1%, unspecified 9.6%
GDP rank	1st	13th

CIA World Fact Book – 2022

For different reasons, both Australians and Americans are a little uncomfortable with stereotypes being used to define the characteristics of their respective cultures; however, just like the accent that each uses to speak the common language of English, there are some subtle differences that can be used to distinguish Americans as a group from Australians as a group. For example, the author of this article (an Australian) was once giving a presentation to a post-graduate marketing class. To explain the difficulty in building a patriotic image for a brand in Australia, he draped an Australian flag over his shoulders and struck a pose as if looking at the sunset in an American aftershave commercial. As expected, the class looked unimpressed. He then took the flag off his shoulders and enthusiastically polished his arse with it. The class started laughing (as expected). He then asked if anyone was offended. A chorus of nos went up. A lone voice said that, although he wasn’t offended, he was disappointed. The lecturer, who had previously worked for the defence forces, gave the presentation a distinction. It the same thing had been done in America, expulsion from the university would have been a distinct possibility.

History

America has always had a diversity of strong groups, and strong conflict between those groups. Some archaeologists believe that the first humans made it to America 20-30,000 years ago. They originated in South East Asia and used boats to island hop across the pacific. Other archaeologists believe the first humans made it to America 12,000 years ago. They originated in north Asia and made it to America via a land bridge between Russia and Alaska. Whatever the exact origins, the people of North America evolved into diverse groups in conflict with each other. In the south, cities formed around agriculture while a nomadic life following game was pursued in the northern regions.

After Europeans discovered the Americas in the 15th century, Spanish, French, Dutch and British colonists competed with the pre-existing Americans for slices of the new world. English speaking Americans emerged to dominate all others and in turn formed colonial governments under the direction of the British crown.

In 1776, taxation tension over British rule led to the Declaration of Independence, which not only stated an intention to cut ties with Britain, but also symbolically stated:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The ensuing war ended in 1783 with Britain’s recognition of the US. Rather than go on a purge of dissidents, reactionaries and other threats to their power like most revolutionary heroes, America’s heroes did something very unusual in world history by creating a constitution and Bill of Rights aimed at protecting civil rights and freedoms.

In the mid 19th century, disagreement over whether freedoms were being protected led to the American civil war. Some states wanted the freedom to have slaves while other states wanted the slaves to be freed. The anti-slave states emerged victorious.

World War 1 proved to be very lucrative for America as it sold war supplies to both sides before entering on the side of the Allies and subsequently sharing in the victory spoils. World War 2 followed a similar pattern and culminated with America having military bases spread throughout Asia and Europe, along with Asia and Europe owing it a great deal of money.

After fighting the good fight in World War 1 and 2, Americans had trouble staying on the sidelines whenever they saw tyranny, which unfortunately often made them the tyrants in Asian and middle-eastern wars.

Due to its harsh environmental conditions, Australia developed in a very different way to America. Mungo Man, dated at 62,000, is the oldest evidence of human occupation in Australia. Mungo Man’s skeleton was fine-boned like modern Aborigines; however, the skeletal record between Mungo Man and the present day indicates a great deal of diversity.

In 1770, the British discovered Australia, but like the Spanish, Portuguese, the Dutch, and Chinese who had discovered it previously, they decided it had little of value and initially left it alone. After the American war of independence; however, Britain needed a new dumping ground for its criminals and in 1788, Sydney became that dump.

Because Britain was the only European country to show an interest in it, Australia was never a battlefield for Europeans as was America. Furthermore, because the land was poor, Australia never had pioneers setting off to build new towns along the river to escape persecution or establish a new idealistic community. Instead, the defining characteristic in the shaping of Australian culture was British policies aimed at preventing Australia following the American lead towards revolution.

In the penal colony’s early years, the British felt that the best method of control was extreme dictatorial policies that had Convicts being flogged for something as simple as having their hands in their pockets. In 1804, this provoked about 330 of the Irish Convicts into a full scale insurrection. Although their catch cry was “liberty or death”, most of the Convicts got neither. The ring leaders foolishly tried to negotiate a deal and were caught. The stunned mob was then fired upon and after 15 minutes of confusion, they fled to the bush. The principle ring leader was hanged almost immediately, eight others shortly followed, four received 500 lashes, thirty were sent to goal gangs and another thirty were sent to Newcastle. The Convicts who ran away surrendered in twos and threes over the next few days.

Castle Hill Rebellion of Convicts

Empowered by the dictatorial policies, Governors turned their attention to soldiers and the threat of free enterprise that had helped spark the American Revolution. In 1808, Governor Bligh was particularly zealous in trying to increase government control of industry by arresting soldiers and ex-soldiers involved in the rum trade and farming. The soldiers responded by arresting Bligh and assuming control of the colony for the next two years. Britain subsequently had a choice of either deciding that the Sydney colony had rebelled and come down with an iron fist or take a conciliatory approach to bring the colony back into the fold. Appreciating their mistakes in the USA, the later option was pursued.

Rum Rebellion

In 1853, the discovery of gold posed a new threat to British rule. Miners from all over the world descended upon Australia and brought with them ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity. Anti-authority sentiments reached boiling in 1854 when miners on the Victorian Goldfields burnt their licences, flew the Eureka flag, built a stockade and subsequently dug in for a battle with the troopers. A few days later the English attacked the stockade. In a battle lasting only 15 minutes, 30 Diggers were killed and 100 others were taken prisoner – all for the loss of only four English red coats.

A subsequent trial illustrated some of the various propaganda wars that in turn shaped the Australian identity over the next century. The Resident Commissioner defined the stockade as an attack by various nationalities upon the Queen’s rule. This subsequently shaped which miners were selected for prosecution. Over 1,500 men trained at the stockade in preparation for battle but only 13 were arrested and tried with treason. Two of these men were black, one was an Italian, another was a Jew and the rest were Irish. It seemed that British authorities had specifically targeted non-Anglos to be the criminal face on show. If so, the play backfired as all the men were found non-guilty by a jury. One of the men, John Joseph, a black man from America, was carried around the streets of Melbourne in a chair in triumph by over 10,000 people. The Italian was elected to the local court at Ballarat to adjudicate mining disputes.

Eureka Massacre

One final stand of resistance came from the bushranger Ned Kelly in 1880. The son of an Irish Convict, Kelly was declared an outlaw on the words of a drunken police officer who molested Kelly’s sister and was later dismissed as “not being fit to be in the police force; that he associated with the lowest persons in Lancefield; that he could not be trusted out of sight; and that he never did his duty”. Although Kelly did not appear at his trial, the judge declared that had he been present he would have been sentenced to 20 years jail. With no legal options available but with significant public sympathy, Kelly probably tried to start a revolution. It failed due to an unexpected act of police cowardess and a loss of nerve by sympathisers.

In the 20th century, the ballot paper (rather than the weapon) became the favoured method of dealing with grievances against the British. Leading the way was the Australian Labor Party, which deliberately chose to use the American spelling of Labor to associate itself with America’s progressive ideals. Its intentions were stifled by a political system in which the ultimate power in each state and federal government resided with an appointment of the Queen.

Despite significant public opposition to Britain, Australian politicians gave Australia’s support to Britain in World War 1 and 2. Ironically, both wars helped erode support for the motherland. Specifically, in World War 1, the British were blamed for using Australians as canon fodder at Gallipoli. In World War 2, the England capitulated to the Japanese in Singapore and subsequently redirected war resources from the Pacific to Europe. Left to fight the Japanese with the Americans, the fall of Singapore marked a shifting of Australia’s allegiance from England to the United States. An Australian desire to strengthen this relationship led to Australia’s involvement in the Korean, Vietnam, and Gulf Wars (which in turn alienated many Australians from the relationship with America.)

Because of the divided allegiances and deliberate attempts to erode the threat of Australian patriotism, Australia has become an individualistic nation that lacks a group psychology to conform to culture. Australia still has its “wardens” that want to flog the country, its people and any conception of community pride. Australia also has its rebels who dislike the wardens. As neither personality wants to share a group with the other, it has been difficult for individual Australians to create cultural expressions accepted by all or feel the sense of family that is usually associated with a national identity.

Why aren’t Australians as patriotic as Americans?

Like most people around the world, Americans are very patriotic people. Some of the patriotism can be attributed to the impressive array of American achievements that include landing on the moon, taking a leading role in stopping Nazi Germany, inventing the internet and winning 30 per cent of Nobel Prizes. Some of the patriotism can be attributed to American history, and the emotive rallies that were initially used to unite diverse groups into once force capable of overthrowing the English. Some of the patriotism can be attributed to American psychology, which has always fostered a strong identification with the group. The group psychology that was initially cultivated on a racial, religious, civic or state level, has now been transferred to a national level.

Although patriotism can unite Americans, it can also divide them. Each American subculture has a tendency to believe its culture is what America is about, and they will fight to preserve that culture by using the American flag as a rallying symbol. For example, many American Christians believe that America is about obeying god’s laws. Many atheists believe America is about escaping god’s laws. Texans may believe America is about the cowboy culture that refused to surrender at the Alamo. Californians may believe America is about the Hollywood dream. New Yorkers may believe America is about holding the golden lamp to the citizens of the world that want to breath free. Some Americans believe America is about self-reliance so they will oppose taxing the rich to help the needy. Other Americans believe America is able setting an example so they want to tax the rich to help the needy.

As each subculture asserts its own respective definition of American patriotism, it can come into conflict with subcultures that have a different definition. In the past, such conflicts were dealt with by simply moving up the river to found a new town or initiating a civil war. In modern times, such an option is no longer available.

For many Australians, patriotism is a negative concept. In the colonial era, patriotism was a threat to British rule and discouraged accordingly. Today, a variety of justifications are used to argue that patriotism has no place in Australia. For example, at the 2007 Sydney Big Day Out (a music festival held on Australia Day) organisers argued that the Australian flag was symbolic of racism and needed to be banned. According to promoter Ken West,

“The Australian flag was being used as gang colours. It was racism disguised as patriotism and I’m not going to tolerate it.”

There are two main explanations for the relative lack of patriotism. One is that, in the 19th century, patriotism was seen as a threat to British rule and discouraged accordingly. Perhaps as a legacy, Australian accents were banned on the state-controlled ABC until the 1970s and British newsreaders were imported to read the news. A second explanation is that Australian history lacks the glorious stories of defeating invading armies, landing the first man on the moon, or championing the good fight like America. Instead, it has 80 years of Convict transportation at its urban foundations. Striking a seductive pose in tribute to the founding mothers or donning the ball & chain in tribute to the founding fathers just doesn’t have the same emotional resonance as spilling blood in the pursuit of empire building.

How was racial segregation in both countries inspired by opposite ends of the political spectrum?

Some states in both America and Australia practiced racial segregation; however, they were underpinned by ideology from opposite ends of the political spectrum in each country. In America, segregation was largely a right-wing policy in that it was based on an ideological viewpoint that whites were superior to non-whites. The whites wanted to keep their blood uncorrupted and non-whites in a state of under development. Most of the laws that enforced segregation were passed at the end of the civil war and continued until 1968.

In Australia, segregation was a left-wing policy that was based upon an ideological viewpoint that lower class whites were sexually exploiting Aboriginal women, corrupting Aboriginal men and generally introducing sin to the Aboriginal “noble savage.” For this reason, the laws did not punish Aborigines who had interacted with whites, rather, they punished the whites who interacted with Aborigines.

As well as being left wing as it was based on a view of white degeneracy, Australia’s segregation laws were left wing in that they were based on a belief that government intervention into the social world was the best method to advance individual Aboriginal people. In the colonial era, the segregation policies commenced with the creation of “Aboriginal Protection Societies” These usually involved allocating an “Aboriginal Protector” to a region who would subsequently try to get Aborigines in school, church and employment. States later implemented policies aimed at Aboriginal advancement which included wage quarantine, prohibition on the sale of alcohol to Aborigines, laws prohibiting fraternisation between Aborigines and non-Aborigines and laws making Aboriginal children wards of the state.

In 1967, the federal government gained the constitutional power to make laws specifically targeted at Aborigines. It then used its power to dismantle many of the state laws, particularly those related to fraternisation and the provision of alcohol. All federal governments did, however, continue the left wing ideology of intervening in Aboriginal culture for the purpose of Aboriginal advancement.

When the sale of alcohol to Aborigines eventually became legal, separatism was a continuing legacy of the past ban on the provision of alcohol to Aborigines. The above photos show white and black Australians drinking on opposite sides of a Darwin street. Aborigines bought alcohol out of a window at the back of the bar called the “dog box”, a process of buying that originated when selling booze to Aborigines was illegal.

“All Convicts are inferior – regardless of colour” versus “all men are created equal but black men aren’t men“

When America’s founding fathers declared that all men are created equal, they considered men of colour to be property, not men. Equality therefore became difficult to attain. Ironically, Australia never had declarations of equality, which in turn allowed a truer form of equality to emerge. Nearly two generations into Australia’s urban era, nearly 80 per cent of the population was a Convict, Emancipist, or of Convict descent. Amongst the ruling class, all these people were inferior. Race was insignificant compared to the stigma of Convict ancestry, which in turn allowed people of colour to become icons in Australia long before they became icons in America. Billy Blue was such an example. Arguably, Billy Blue was Australia’s first icon. Billy operated a ferry in Sydney Harbour and had such a colourful personality that his frequent law infringements were looked upon with a ‘benevolent ‘ air by police.

Billy Blue

Likewise, Chartist William Cuffay was the son of a West Indian slave and started agitating for political change in Britain. In 1848, he was charged with “sedition” and “levying war” after organising a Chartist rally. He was subsequently sentenced to 21 years transportation. He arrived in Hobart in 1849 but was immediately granted a ticket-of-leave, which allowed him to work. He was pardoned three years later. Upon receiving his pardon, he started campaigning against the Master and Servant Act, which aimed to restrict trade unions. He died in 1870 and was honoured with obituaries in numerous Australian newspapers.

William Cuffray

The Eureka Stockade also showed the insignificance of colour compared to the content of character. A collection of miners from a diverse range of nationalities rebelled against the British. The miners were crushed and survivors arrested. One of the men arrested was John Joseph, a black man from America. Joseph had been arrested along with other American nationals; however, because he was black, the American government did not secure his release as it did for the other American citizens. Joseph stood trial and was subsequently found not guilty by a jury of his peers. He was then was carried around the streets in a chair of triumph by over 10,000 people.

Even during the era of the White Australia Policy, an exception was made for American blacks who were allowed to migrate freely to Australia. Such sentiments were evident in the comments of Henry Lawson, a nationalistic poet of the era. Lawson wrote an essay saying the Chinese must be kept out because they were not good colonists; however, he also said:

“The American negro is already a man and brother.”

Likewise, the Australian Workers’ Union specifically excluded Asians and Pacific Islanders, but extended membership to New Zealand Maoris and American Negros.

It was in the boxing ring where the respective attitude to black people by whites of Australia and America first became a point of friction. From 1880s to the 1890s, the Australian boxing ring was dominated by Peter Jackson, a black migrant from the West Indies. Nicknamed the ‘Peter the Great’, he won the Australian heavyweight in 1896 and went on to prove himself against the best fighters from England and America. Unfortunately, he never got a chance to fight for the world championship because the white American champion, John Sullivan, refused to defend his title against a black man. Upon his death, Jackson was buried in Australia with great pomp. A huge tomb was erected along with the words, “this was a man. “

In 1891, Australian Peter Jackson (left) fought American James Corbett. The world champion of the time, American John Sullivan, wouldn’t fight him because he was black.

More conflict came in World War 2 during the infamous Battle of Brisbane, which involved between 2,000 or 5,000 soldiers American and Australian soldiers fighting each other on the streets of Brisbane. The American army had a policy of segregation and restricted African American soldiers to the south side of the Brisbane River. The Australians were appalled by the segregation, and refused to support it. Local dance halls allowed black Americans to enter, white Australian soldiers drank with black American soldiers and white Australian women appeared as attracted to black Americans as they were to white Americans.

The Australians positive attitudes towards black Americans inflamed tensions between white Americans and white Australians. It also inflamed tensions between black and white Americans. After being encouraged to see themselves as equals, black Americans tried to cross the Brisbane River, and some were subsequently assaulted and killed for doing so by American military police. In the process, the white Americans further alienated themselves from the Australian population. Ironically, the spark that lit the powder keg was Australians coming to an aid of a white American soldier being beaten by the American military police over an unrelated issue. Onlookers just saw an Australians fighting Americans and soon took sides.

Cowboys fought Indians but did stockmen fight Aborigines?

While America developed a Cowboy-fights-Indian culture that was expressed in comic books, movies, paintings, novels and children’s games, Australia never developed a similar Stockmen-fights-Aborigine culture. Instead of developing culture based on conflict with Aborigines, Australian colonists developed a culture that built its credentials by associating itself with Aborigines. For example, most Australian paintings depicting Aborigines and whites show them acting in quite a friendly manner. In regards to song, Waltzing Matilda, (a song of nationalism from the 19th century) used Aboriginal words like billabong, jumbuck and coolibah to build an Australian sounds. Furthermore, most of rural Australia was named using Aboriginal words like Canberra, Wollongong, or Ulladullah.

Some Australian academics have written that there was a “secret” war going on between colonists and Aborigines; however, the written descriptions of the conflict was also used at the time to create “Aboriginal Protection Societies” and religious missions to “save” Aborigines. As the evidence was used to further agendas, there can be some suspicion of his accuracy. As argued by historian Keith Windschuttle,

“These missionaries took any rumor about violence towards Aborigines, no matter how unreliable or vague, and propagated it without checking its accuracy. Why would they do such a thing? They wanted to show the need for their own institutions. By portraying colonial society as awash with violence towards the blacks, they justified their policy of separating Aborigines from white society. They wanted their missions to appear as havens in a heartless world. This fulfilled the Protestant evangelical theology on which their actions were based: the everyday, material world was full of evil and corruption and the only road to salvation for Aborigines lay in a closed religious community. Here they could be kept apart from the modern world and separated from white society. It also meant the missionaries would keep their funding and their jobs. They hoped to be seen by their peers in the colony and their sponsors in London as the saviors of the Aborigines.”

Irrespective of whether the accounts can be relied upon, the inconsistency between the “secret” records and public culture indicates that colonial public had positive sympathies towards Aborigines but perhaps did not have positive policies.

Cultural Reflections: Cowboy battles Indian for America while escaped Convict joins Aboriginal tribe

The different nature of public sympathies towards the native population can be attributed to different environmental influences. Australia’s poor soils and frequent droughts made the land unsuited to high-density farming communities. As a consequence, most colonial farmers lived an isolated existence with only sporadic contact with nomadic Aborigines for human company. It would have been unwise for these farmers to pick a fight with Aborigines when they didn’t have strong communities to back them up. Furthermore, once Convict transportation came to an end, farmers lost the free labour that had been working the farms. To compound matters, settlers did not want to work on farms as it carried the stigma of Convict work. Unable to work farms on their own, farmers turned to trade with Aborigines to attain farm workers. In short, friendship was more in their interests than conflict.

As well as not being conducive to high-density farming communities, the Australian environment also contained a host of native animals that increased as a result of farming. The kangaroo was one such animal. The farmer’s dams gave kangaroos permanent water supplies that helped them survive drought. Likewise, the cutting down of trees increased available pasture that kangaroos could graze upon. Even though farmers wanted to kill the kangaroos as pests, or build fences to keep them out, the kangaroos simply jumped the fences, drank the water, ate the grass, and then hopped back into the bush where they remained a valuable food source for Aborigines. Consequently, the colonists and natives never had to fight over food as they did in America.

Why is religion is virtually absent from Australian political life yet dominates American political campaigning?

When defining the different role that religion played in Australian politics relative to America, art critic Robert Hughes said,

“(In Australia) any political candidate who declared God was on his side would be laughed off the podium as an idiot or a wowser (prude, intrusive bluenose).” 

Perhaps the difference can be explained with history. Whereas American Christian leaders were firmly on the side of the general population, Australia’s Christian leaders were very much against them. Instead of looking at the Convicts as humans to be helped, the Australian Christians looked at them as sinners to be punished. In response, the Convicts returned the hostility.

An early example of the mutual hostility can be seen in the rein of Governor Hunter. Hunter was a morals crusader who frequently ordered Convicts be flogged for petty crimes. Although the Convicts were able to put up with the floggings, they were pushed to breaking point when they were ordered to attend Church on Sundays. They responded by burning the Church to the ground. More anti-institutional sentiment could be seen in the scorn for Samuel Marsden – a reverend of the colonial era. In New Zealand, Marsden is celebrated as a great man who brought the gospel to the Maori. In Australia, he is remembered as the “flogging parson”. The Convict men said of him:

“He prays for our souls on Sunday, and takes it out of bodies during the rest of the week.”

Convict women also had their concerns with religious authorities. In 1838 at the Cascades Female Factory in Hobart, the governor of Van Diemens Land visited the factory and attended a service in the chapel. Entertaining the governor was the Reverend William Bedford; a morals campaigner whose hypocrisy had elicited the lady’s scorn. Keen to impress the governor with a fine speech, the Reverend addressed the women from an elevated dais. Once at the dais, the 300 women turned around and mooned him.

Although Christianity is anchored in criminal symbolism, Christian evangelists struggled in Australia’s penal colonies.

Differences in the social life of American and Australian universities

Universities (Colleges) provide a very good illustration of the different ideologies that have shaped American and Australian intellectual life. The most significant difference is outcomes. American universities dominate world rankings, irrespective of which ranking system is used. For example, in 2014, The Times Higher Education World University Rankings (which ranks universities on teaching research, knowledge transfer and international outlook) had American universities occupying 8 of the top 10 places. Only five Australian universities made it into the top 100, and only one made the top 50.

There are various reasons for Australia’s poor performance relative to America. One is that Australian universities are more dependent on government for research funding, which has produced an intellectual culture defined by advocacy rather than curiosity. This advocacy influences who gets hired, how grant applications are framed, what research gets funded and how the relevancy of the research is sold to others. Furthermore, it influences whether academics believe that students should question research or merely be passive recipients of the advocacy gospel. In 2013, Gregory Melleuish, an associate professor of history and politics at the University of Wollongong, said of the culture,

“This culture of intellectuals (has become) embedded in key institutions, including the universities, the world of the arts and the ABC. It (has become) a subculture isolated from mainstream Australia in intellectual ghettos. It is a world which bristles with hostility, negativity and nihilism.”

Not surprisingly, few people within the universities see Australia’s intellectual environment as contributing to the poor rankings. For example, when explaining Australia’s low rankings in 2014, University of Melbourne vice-chancellor Glyn Davis attributed them to cuts in government funding.

The ratio of public to private universities is another significant difference between America and Australia. Almost 20% of American students study in private universities and these universities rank amongst America’s most prestigious. These universities maintain strong links with the private sector and in turn attract the children of some of America’s wealthiest families. In Australia, the federal government has traditionally wanted to maintain control over higher education. As a result, the first private university, Bond University, wasn’t established until 1989. Without private universities using various methods to elevate themselves relative to others, Australians are far less conscious of the prestige of the university they graduate from than are Americans.

In regards to campus life, most American universities have fraternities and sororities, which may require an admission process and often culminate with individual pledges, initiations and perhaps requirements to publicly demonstrate allegiance. These societies may date back centuries and they provide significant benefits to those who join. They also make campus life highly social.

Australian universities do not have fraternities and sororities but they do have clubs and societies which can be joined by anyone who pays the fee. Most of these societies tend to be quite transient, with little history behind them. Many simply take a fee and a slice of funding but never actually organise any activities. For many students, this makes Australian university life quite a dull affair.

In regards to paying fees, America has a strong scholarship system so that talented (but financially disadvantaged) students can attend university. Those who don’t qualify for a scholarship need to take out a loan (unless they have rich families). Ideologically, it is a system that places responsibility on the individual to save for their education or study hard so that they can gain a scholarship. (The fee paying system has contributed to only 22% of Americans attaining a degree (diploma).)

Australian universities have few scholarships but do have a system known as HECS (HELP), which allows students to pay their university fees by taking out an interest free loan from the government for each subject they study. When the student gets a job and reaches a certain income threshold, the money owed is taken out of their salary. If they never get a job they never need to repay the loan. Ideologically, it is a system that is designed to ensure that everyone can go to university. (The HECS (HELP) system has contributed to around 30% of Australians attaining a degree).

A republic to realise the dream or to express the bigotry

America became a republic because some Americans had a dream of a country built on equality free from government oppression. It was a dream that was so contagious that it was able to rally other Americans to give their lives to make it a reality.

Australia is not a republic because those in favour of a republic have never had a dream of what Australia could or should be. For example, in 1999, Australia had a referendum to become a republic. Polls showed that 90 per cent of Australians were in favour of a republic and both sides of parliament supported a republic. The one sticking point was the republic model. Polls showed that 80 per cent of voters wanted the president to be directly elected by the people; however, the initiators of the republic wanted the president to be appointed by a two-thirds majority of parliament. To persuade the population, they stated that a direct-election model would lead to a “populist” president or would make Australia like America. In short, the “leaders” didn’t believe in a dream and didn’t have any of the patriotism to persuade. Instead, their persuasion relied of soft bigotry against America, the British royal family and even the Australian public. The soft bigotry was not enough to persuade and Australia voted no.

Opposing prime ministers from the 1970s joined in trying to persuade Australians to become a republic in 1999.

Bill of Rights – Freedom from laws or laws to protect freedom?

In 1789, America created a Bill of Rights which enumerated freedoms not explicitly indicated in the main body of the Constitution. These rights included freedom of religion, freedom of speech, free press, free assembly; the right to keep and bear arms; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, security in personal effects, and freedom from warrants issued without probable cause; indictment by a grand jury for any capital crime, guarantee of a speedy, public trial with an impartial jury; and prohibition of double jeopardy.

Australia has no Bill of Rights thus has no constitutional guarantee to have the freedoms that Americans take for granted.

There are three main reasons for why Australia has no Bill of Rights. The first is that when the Australian Constitution was being written at the end of the 19th century, Australian authorities were very concerned about the threat of revolution. They didn’t want to give Australians the right to assemble, protest, criticise governments or carry weapons. Furthermore, they did they want to deny themselves the power to search members of the public.

Secondly, one of the clauses of the constitution proposed that the federal government have the power to make laws targeted at any race except Aborigines (the federal government gained the power to target Aborigines in 1967). Potentially, these race power laws would be inconsistent with a Bill of Rights.

Thirdly, contemporary activist movements to have a Bill of Rights inserted into the Constitution have usually been conceived in opposition to the “average” Australian. In short, instead of wanting a Bill of Rights to protect the average Australian, they want a Bill of Rights to protect a minority from the average Australian in a “mob” mentality. Not surprisingly, the average Australian is concerned about introducing a set of laws that are designed and interpreted by people who are hostile to them.

Ask what you can do for yourself or what you can do with others?

Americans, and the outside world, generally see America as a highly individualistic nation. Such a perception is inconsistent with a line by former president John F Kennedy, who said:

“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

Kennedy’s line is one of the most famous in American popular culture. Each time an American has volunteered to fight, to spread the bible, or to garner support for a political cause, they believe they are doing something for others.

In the 19th century, the propensity of the grassroots to form groups was noted by French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville, who said,

“Wherever, at the end of some new understanding, you see the Government of France or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association…If it be proposed to advance some truth or foster some feeling of encouragement of a great example, Americans form a society.”

Ironically, it is perhaps the expectation that individuals contribute to the greater good that results in America as a whole having a relatively weak sense of obligation to the individual, and this in turn results in a perception that Americans are selfish. For example, America’s lack of state-funded health care often gave the world the perception that individual Americans only care for themselves.

Contrasted to America, Australia has strong popular support for government health care, and government welfare. Furthermore, Australians have a strong propensity to volunteer to guard beeches, fight fires or clean up after a disaster. With a greater sense of the social supporting the individual, some people believe that Australia appears less of an individualistic nation than America.

Taking the piss and laughing at ourselves

In myth, many Australians believe that Australians can laugh at themselves while Americans are thin skinned. Such myths were somewhat undermined when the American sitcom The Simpsons created the episode Bart versus Australia. The show portrayed the first Australian prime minister as an unnamed convict with his shackled wrists raised in triumph! It also showed the Australian flag with a bare bum being given the boot.

Flag of Australia, according to the Simpsons

The Australian flag as designed by the Simpsons. Perhaps there is an element of truth in a boot kicking a bare arse being a defining feature of Australian cultural life.

The Simpsons portrayed the first prime minister of Australia as an unnamed Convict. In truth, the first prime minister was a drunk but not a Convict. Most Australians don’t know his name.

First Prime Minister of Australia

Despite the mythology of being able to laugh at themselves, many Australians did not find the jokes to be funny. For example, the Newcastle Herald’s James Joyce was outraged by the episode and wrote:

“Who are the Americans trying to kid here? I agree Australia has its faults, as does any other country. But laughing in our face about it, then mocking our heritage was definitely not called for. It embarrassed and degraded our country as well as making us look like total idiots”.

All things considered, the episode showed a fair interpretation of Australia’s nuances. Specifically, most Australians don’t know the name of their first prime minister so it was somewhat culturally respectful of the Simpsons to show they didn’t know his name either. As for depicting him as a criminal, in truth, he was a renowned drunk but did not spend any time in jail. Ironically, considering that an Australian expression proposes that having a politician in one’s ancestry is far worse than having a Convict, there was nothing really defamatory about showing him in shackles.

As for the bare bum on the flag, mooning has long history in Australia and a great deal of cultural life revolves around authorities metaphorically sinking the boot into Australians. Furthermore, it has to be said that Australians have a propensity for lewdness that vastly exceeds that of America. This lewdness has shocked foreigners. For example, prior to the Sydney Olympics, American commentator Phillip Weis wrote,

“Australian culture feels as grotesque as The Day of the Locust. There’s no sense of a high culture anywhere, and extreme characters abound. TV ads are often leeringly sexual “These are the only balls you’ll see at our health club” says an ad for a women’s workout center, focusing on some tennis balls.

Because the Simpsons have (usually) been a very popular sitcom in Australia, it can be argued that Australian and American humour has a great deal of overlap but perhaps many Australians may not be as thick skinned as myths propose.

The extent of government involvement in the economies of Australia and America

Socialism is best thought of as government ownership of industry to achieve social justice. The level of socialism in a country reflects something about the ideological beliefs of the community as well as the government’s belief in itself to guide society for the better.

In America, there is some socialism but it has largely been rejected in favour of an economy that is perhaps best described as national capitalism. Internationally, the American government works to further the interests of American companies and it may use military force, sanctions, subsidies and protectionist legislation to do so. Domestically; however, American governments not only try to ensure that the private sector supplies most of the goods and services, they also enforce laws to ensure that the market operates according to principles of competition, not the abuse of power.

For the first half of the 20th century, Australia’s economy was best described as protectionist and socialist. The protectionist policies ensured Australia’s unions would not be undermined by companies importing foreign labour and that Australian industries would not be subjected to competition from foreign produce. The socialist policies also ensured that governments would have a monopoly on education, transport, telecommunication, banking and power generation. Commencing in the 1980s, the protectionist and socialist policies were dismantled in favour of economic liberalism. State owned enterprises were sold off, the dollar was floated and tariffs on imports were removed. Even retirement pensions were somewhat privatised with compulsory superannuation being introduced so that a percentage of all worked wages was given to private superfunds to manage for the worker’s retirement.

Variances in English accent according to race, location, ideology, class and gender

The diversity of accents in a country is a reflection upon the country’s diverse social identities. In America, different regions and different races speak English with different accents. The northern regions speak with what is known as a general American accent. The southern regions speak with a southern American Accent. The differences in speech are believed to have originated in the American civil war.

In addition to regional variance in language, America also has racial variance. Some African Americans have a distinct dialect known as ebonics. Not only is the accent different, so is the syntax. For example, instead of saying, “there are apples” or “there is water”, they will say “there be apples” and “there be water.”

In Australia, there is no variation in accent according to region, race, or socio-economic class. Instead, the accent varies according to ideology and gender. Two Australians can grow up side by side but end up speaking different versions of Australian English. 10 per cent of Australians speak with what is known as a broad Australian accent (Bob Hawke.) These people usually have a positive attitude to Australia. Around 80 per cent speak with a general Australian accent (Nicole Kidman.) Around 10 per cent speak with a British received accent (Malcolm Fraser.) These people may proudly declare that they don’t say “g’day”. The Australian men who speak with the accent have a negative attitude to Australia.

Contrary to myth, Australia has no regional variance in accent. Each Australian city has roughly the same mix of the three accents. Likewise, children of migrants do not speak with ethnic accents. As for Aborigines, many continue to speak pre-colonial languages and don’t speak English at all. Of those that speak English, the majority do so with Paul Hogan style broad Australian accents.

Finally, Australia does not have a socio-economic difference in speech. Billionaires born with silver spoons in their mouths are quite likely to speak with the same accent as tradesmen.

Differences in the political systems

Australia’s urban society commenced in an extremely polarised manner. On one end of the spectrum there were the “pure” settlers and on the other there were the Australians of Convict decent. Unlike Australia, America’s urban society commenced in a relatively harmonious form. Pioneers found solidarity in their church groups.

The different origins shaped political evolution. Australian politics has evolved to become relatively homogeneous while America has become extremely polarised. Although Australia has ideological divisions, the two main parties have very similar policies. Unlike Australia, America’s Democrat and Republican Parties are extreme in their differences.

Australia became less polarised because it introduced political measures that made it difficult for extremists to gain political representation. Compulsory voting was one such measure. In America, voluntary voting means that the extremists are great assets to a political campaign. It is the extremists that get out to vote, and convince others to vote as well. To keep the extremists happy, the American political parties must pander to their interests, and this can result in a polarised society. In Australia; however, the extremists are not really important at all. The political party that they have chosen can simply take them for granted and ignore them. The party can then devote its resources on the swinging voters that will decide the election. As a consequence, it is the moderates from the middle-ground that need to be kept happy. Consequently, both parties position themselves as moderates.

Preferential voting is another innovation that keeps extremists out of Australian parliament. The system forces voters to rank candidates in order of preference. When the ballots are collectively tallied, it is the candidate that is the least hated, rather than most liked, that represents the people. In the 1990s, the system kept the extremist Pauline Hanson out of parliament even though she won the most votes in her electorate.

Praise and insults

Americans tend to be very complimentary people. They may praise others for their artwork, sporting ability, ideas or their country’s achievements. Although the American’s willingness to praise others could be seen as a sign that Americans are easily impressed, at times it is difficult to believe the sincerity of their praise.

As a nation, Americans have an outstanding record of achievement and surely the achievements of people from other countries would seem diminutive in comparison. Perhaps Americans have decided that being polite is superior to being honest. Alternatively, perhaps they have become so accustomed to hearing compliments that they just can’t stop themselves from being complimentary as well.

Australians are quite different from Americans in the praise regard. In Australia, you are far more likely to get a criticism than a compliment. Even if Australians are impressed, they often keep their admiration to themselves. According to one website on Australian business culture:

“Australians are very difficult to impress; even if you do manage to impress them, they may not openly admit it.”

The insular world policeman

Whenever there is injustice in the world, it is America that is asked to help. When Christians were persecuted in Egypt, it was the Americans who answered their call. When the Koreans were faced with execution at the hands of a communist invasion from the north, it was the Americans who gave them a fighting chance. When mainland China threatened to invade Taiwan, it was the Americans who let the mainland know that such a use of force would not be tolerated. John Langmore, an Australian politician, used the American willingness to help as a distinguishing feature between Australia and America. In his own words,

“Americans maintain their sense of being God’s own country with a manifest destiny to lead the world to freedom and democracy. Australia has no global ambitions, and those related to the region are for stability and economic advancement rather than dominance.”

While America’s good deeds have won it some admiration, it has also made it many enemies. Many in the Islamic world sees it as meddlesome, or only after its oil reserves. Some south Koreans see America as responsible for keeping their nation divided. Most Vietnamese see Americans as murderers. Many African countries, who America hasn’t helped, accuse America of forgetting about them.

American foreign policy, whether it be motivated by money or a genuine desire to help, has now seen Americans soundly disliked the world over. Not surprisingly, most Americans have no desire to leave America and experience the condemnation that most countries have for them.

Because Australia has only involved itself in foreign issues to show support for a major power like Britain or America, it has been sparred most of the hostility directed at Americans. (*Facilitating the independence of East Timor from Indonesia is perhaps a minor exception. As a result of the facilitation, many Indonesians now hate Australia. Even some East Timorese hate Australia on the grounds that Australia didn’t come soon enough, or it only did it to gain a better deal for its resources.) Because Australia has generally lacked the power to interfere in other country’s affairs, Australians are not as disliked as Americans.

To have white Christmas traditions in the middle of summer

Due to the prevalence of American media in Australia, many Australian Christmas traditions follow the white Christmas theme even though Christmas falls in the middle of summer. Consequently, it can be strange listening to people sing about snow when the temperature is hot enough to fry an egg. Furthermore, when the temperature is 40 degrees, the last thing people want to do is open the door of an even hotter oven to extract a Christmas ham or pudding.

Sometimes people try to get the northern hemisphere Christmas spirit with lights, charity and carols. Again, the Australian environment is a little problematic. Because it doesn’t get dark until 9pm, it can be a bit difficult taking the kids on a tour to see some Christmas lights before bedtime. Furthermore, helping a needy person always feels much better when the needy person is freezing in the snow. It just doesn’t provide the same emotional gratification when it is hot, and the needy person looks like a bogan whose been kicked out of pub for having too much to drink.

The hot weather is also having an effect on the design of the Christmas tree. In the northern hemisphere, the Christmas tree is of great importance due to the amount of time a family spends indoors around it. But in Australia, families spend more time outdoors on verandas and barbecue areas where the tree is never seen. Consequently, the tree is often some stringy shrub that has only been included because it’s the “traditional” thing to do.

Questions to think about

Look at the comments made below. For each one you agree or agree with, find evidence in America and Australian culture to support your position.

Australians have a tendency to be loud and obnoxious when they are beered up, which in my experience, is much of the time. They’re descendants from pockets and cut purses, and as we all know, the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree. Michael Carey – American

As a result of all this hardship, dirt, thirst, and wombats, you would expect Australians to be a dour lot. Instead, they are genial, jolly, cheerful, and always willing to share a kind word with a stranger, unless they are an American. Douglas Adams – English

Australian culture feels as grotesque as The Day of the Locust. There’s no sense of a high culture anywhere, and extreme characters abound. TV ads are often leeringly sexual “These are the only balls you’ll see at our health club,” says an ad for a women’s workout center, focusing on some tennis balls Phillip Weis- American

They are not a nation of snobs like the English or of extravagant boasters like the Americans or of reckless profligates like the French, they are simply a nation of drunkards Marcus Clark – English

The first thing you notice about Australian culture is that it’s pathetically thin….. The thinness means that modern Australia has fallen for American culture in a way that no one else could….Mimicry is a point of pride.” Philip Weiss – American

I can personally affirm that to stand before an audience of beaming Australians and make even the mildest quip about a convict past is to feel the feel the air conditioning immediately elevated. Bill Bryson – American

Australians love an underdog. We love people who are humble, down to earth, almost embarrassed by their own successes. We love Ian Thorpe, who is not only a decent young man, but who can just get on with the job without all the pomp and ceremony that Americans love to employ. We love Susie O’Neil, sweet, quiet, hard-working. Michael Diamond – could you possibly see a more humble person than this?

We don’t boo Yanks because we think they are better than us. We boo yanks because they think they are better than us. Nicole Beatty – Australian

“Americans maintain their sense of being God’s own country with a manifest destiny to lead the world to freedom and democracy. Australia has no global ambitions, and those related to the region are for stability and economic advancement rather than dominance” – John Langmore (Australian politician)

“I don’t think of myself as either American or Australian really, I’m a true hybrid. It’s a good thing for me because both of them are really good countries.” – Mel Gibson (actor)

This is a true republic, the truest, as I take it, in the world. In England , the average man feels he is inferior, in that he is superior: In Australia he feels that he is equal. ” Francis Adams – minister to Britain (1861-68) and son of American president John Quincy Adams.

” Australian settlements … had been formed out of the crucible of British social ferment. Australian colonization followed the Industrial Revolution in Britain and reflected many of the social innovations which it had made. The development of large-scale enterprise, the deplorable conditions of work in the factories and mines, and the high tariff on the import of grain had created a class which, if it did not fundamentally repudiate the liberal philosophy, at least desired a radical transformation of the theory of liberalism in the direction of greater social and political justice.”(Professor Richard Rosecrance of the University of California)

Cultural Differences between Australia and Russia

	Russia	Australia
Per Capita GDP	$26,500	$48,700
Population	142,320,790	25,809,973
Ethnic identities	Russian 77.7%, Tatar 3.7%, Ukrainian 1.4%, Bashkir 1.1%, Chuvash 1%, Chechen 1%, other 10.2%, unspecified 3.9%	English 25.9%, Australian 25.4%, Irish 7.5%, Scottish 6.4%, Italian 3.3%, German 3.2%, Chinese 3.1%, Indian 1.4%, Greek 1.4%, Dutch 1.2%, other 15.8% (includes Australian Aboriginal .5%), unspecified 5.4%
Export partners	China 14%, Netherlands 10%, Belarus 5%, Germany 5% (2019)	China 39%, Japan 15%, South Korea 7%, India 5% (2019)
Religion	Russian Orthodox 15-20%, Muslim 10-15%, other Christian 2%	Protestant 23.1% , Roman Catholic 22.6%, other Christian 4.2%, Muslim 2.6%, Buddhist 2.4%, Orthodox 2.3%, Hindu 1.9%, other 1.3%, none 30.1%, unspecified 9.6%
GDP rank	11th	13th

CIA World Fact Book – 2022

History

Russia has a history that seems to support the notion that a people need to be strong and united otherwise they will be wiped out by the cold or an invading force. In prehistoric times, southern Russia was populated by various nomadic tribes that had warfare as a central feature of their way of life. From the 8th century BC, Greeks, Romans, Huns, Turkic started encroaching into the region to either trade or plunder. The people who are defined as Russian today are believed to have originated in the area that is now Poland and Ukraine and by the 7th century, they constituted the bulk of the western Russian population.

The Principality of Muscovy was founded in the 12th century but soon fell to the Mongol armies who ruled over the region from the 13th-15th centuries. When the Mongol rulers fell, the Principality of Muscovy started conquering and absorbing surrounding principalities and expanded Russia from Siberia to the Pacific.

In the 18th century, Peter the Great came to power and started modernising Russia along European lines. The modernisations helped expand Russian territory to the Baltic Sea. Peter’s daughter, Elizabeth, continued Russia expansion with the annexation of East Prussia. 

Russia’s golden age came under Catherine the Great who ruled for the latter half of the 18th century. She extended Russia’s frontier into central Europe and downwards into the Black Sea. In addition to expanding Russia territory, Catherine abolished serfdom, established universities and art academies, increased industrial output to improve the standard of living of all Russians and reformed the bureaucracy. She also established public schools that promoted two ideologies above all others: the need to be patriotic, and the need to accept innovation.

In the early 19th century, Russia colonized Alaska in the east while fighting and defeating Napoleon’s invading armies in the west.

In 1856, Russia ascendency took a backwards’ step. The Ottoman Empire was in decline and Russia wanted to exploit the decline but France and England wanted to prevent Russian gains of Ottoman territory. Russia lost and with its defeat, Russia was prevented from having a Black Sea navy.

More defeat came at the hands of the Japanese in 1904-05, which in turn helped spark the Revolution of 1905 leading to the formation of a parliament. Even more crushing defeats came in World War 1 and by 1917, famine and disenchantment led to the Communist revolution that over threw the Tsar and plunged Russia into civil war. In 1918, the new Soviet leadership accepted demands from the central powers that saw Russia surrender the Ukraine, Finland, the Baltic provinces, the Caucasus and Poland.

By the time of World War 2, Russia was seen as decrepit and rich for the pickings. Germany abandoned its non-aggression pact to invade and although it made early ground, ultimately the Russians turned the tide. With the German military machine broken, Russian soldiers marched into conquered German territory, installed puppet Communist governments and positioned their country as a world superpower.

Communism didn’t prove the utopia that had been hoped for. Tens of millions died and the economy stagnated until General Secretary Mickhail Gorbachev tried a modernization program. Gorbachev’s initiatives led to the Soviet Union breaking into 14 independent republics, a significant decline in industrial output and a corrupt transfer of state-owned business to private entrepreneurs.

Appreciating the horrors of authoritarian dictatorships, the newly abandoned Russia created a democratic constitution that aimed to limit the ability of new strong men to rule like Lenin or Stalin of the past. Ironically, Vladimir Putin, one of the very first leaders of the new Russia, was able to subvert the rules to become a modern Hitler who openly killed his opponents, arrested critics and invaded other countries in the name of national glory.

Whereas Russia has been central in the minds of empire builders for the last millennia, Australia has been absent from them. The continent was discovered by Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch mariners but they looked at the harsh landscape populated by nomads and decided it had little of value. The British planted a flag on the basis that they needed a place to dump criminals in a way that wouldn’t put any economic interests in other colonies at risk.

Some revisionist historians have written that 19th century Australia was characterised by a secret bloody conquest and frontier wars between colonists and Aborigines, but their evidence has been based on false citations and partly reflected a desire to make Australian history more dramatic. While it is possible that a “secret war” existed, it was not recorded in written books nor did it lead to national myths that shaped identities. To the contrary, popular culture on the 19th century shows colonists trying to build relationships and associations with Aborigines in order to build their cultural capital relative to British migrants. Australia has no Cowboy and Indian story telling genre like America or national myths of killing blacks like white South Africa. Conflict tended to be more like gangs fighting for regional power.

The 20th century also seemed to be quite placid on the domestic front. Not even the depression motivated Australians to resort to violence. Instead, they went to the racetrack and sporting grounds to cheer on the heroes like Phar Lap and Don Bradman.

For some action, Australians volunteered to fight in World War 1, and World War 2 and subsequently discovered that war wasn’t that much fun. After World War 2, the Australian government positioned Communism as a threat. With few volunteers to the cause, introduced conscription. Australians were then forced to fight Communist forces in Korea and Vietnam, which in turn sparked an anti-war movements in Australia.

War remembrance

Russia and Australia remember war in very different ways. In Russia, Victory Day marks the Soviet Union’s defeat of Germany in World War 2. The day typically involves military parades showing advanced war machinery, ceremonial meetings, receptions and fireworks.

In Australia, the traditions associated with war remembrance commenced with veterans, not politicians, which resulted in them being far more sombre. On the 25th of April 1923 at Albany in Western Australia, the Reverend White led a party of friends in what was the first ever observance of an ANZAC Day dawn service. This date was the anniversary of the Gallipoli landing; a failed invasion of Turkey which cost the lives of 7600 Australians and was then evacuated. (It wasn’t until 1927 that the first official service was held at the Sydney Cenotaph.)

Dawn is central to the ANZAC Day service as it was one of the most favoured times for an attack. As the half-light played tricks with the soldiers’ eyes, they were awoken in the dark, so that by the time the first dull grey light crept across the battlefield, they were awake and alert. The fresh light instilled a sense of optimism for the new day tempered by the fear that it could be their last. For those who survived, it bequeathed memories of burying a mate along with the awareness that they would have to preserve the feelings of what they had lost. In one, it was both the beginning and the end.

Another central feature of the ANZAC Day service is a paragraph taken from the poem ‘Ode for the Fallen’:

” They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old;

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them. “

The poem neither attributes right or wrong nor does it glorify war as the liberator of freedom. It simply articulates what the war meant to those who were involved in it.

Whereas Russia’s military day commemorates a victory, Australia’s commemorates a defeat.

Political overview

The constitution that Russia adopted in 1993 was drafted to ensure the separation of powers and to prevent a dictatorial leader building up a power base that would enable him or her to rule for decades. Executive power resides with the president and the prime minister. Legislative power resides with two houses of Parliament. Like the US, a president may only two terms consecutively. 

In practice, Vladimir Putin seems to have found a way to attain the power the constitution was drafted to constrain. After serving two terms, Putin gave up power and the presidential election was won by his anointed successor, Dmitry Medvedev, who then confirmed his predecessor (Putin) as Prime Minister. In 2012, Putin returned to the presidency and appointed Medvedev as his Prime Minister. By 2022, Putin had attained Hitler and Stalin levels of individual power that allowed him to invade Ukraine and have his critics executed or imprisoned.

In theory, power is dispersed in Australia so that no one person or body can ever have complete control. One power is the legislative, which is Parliamentary power to make law. The second is the Executive, which refers to the different Ministers of the Crown’s power to execute and administer law. The third is Judicial power, which refers to a court’s power to interpret and enforce laws.

For many years after Federation, judicial power resided with the privy council of London, and its power to interpret and enforce Australian laws positioned it at the apex of the Australian legal system. The apex of Judicial power has now been transferred to the High Court of Australia, with the justices being appointed by the Australian parliament.

Because federal parliament has the power to make and administer laws, as well as choose the justices that interpret them, Australia doesn’t have a true separation of powers. Furthermore, because the federal government selects the governor general, it has managed to gain control of a system designed to preserve British rule in Australia. The result is quite a weak democracy, yet one that is incorrectly perceived to be a strong democracy. Fortunately, Australians seem to have a cultural trait that sees it get bored with a party if it has been in power for 10 years or more. The frequent change of governing parties has a way of preventing excess corruption by federal politicians.

Nationalism

Like most people in the northern half of the eastern hemisphere, Russians are very nationalistic. Perhaps the nationalism can be attributed to almost a century of Communism, which demanded individuals subordinate their individual desires for the “good” of the nation. Perhaps it can be attributed to almost constant conflict over the last millennia where Russians learnt that if their village, their faction or their nation was not united, a stronger group would take control and dominate. Perhaps Russian nationalism can be attributed to an inherent mental weakness amongst Russians. Specially, they crave strength so attain it vicariously through the strong man. Ironically, the ability of the strong man like Lenin, Stalin and Putin to reputedly rise and dominate is also testament to a weakness of those around them, and those that the men lead. In short, too many Russians are too weak to say no or to push back.

Some Australians are patriotic but their patriotism doesn’t resonate widely because many other Australians are anti-patriotic, (especially in the arts, universities and government.) In the 19th century, patriotism was probably seen as a threat to British rule and discouraged accordingly. Perhaps as a legacy, Australian accents were banned on the state-controlled ABC until the 1970s and Englishmen were imported to read the news. Another difficulty with patriotism is that Australian history lacks the glorious stories of defeating invading armies or expanding the empire as do countries like Russia. Instead, it has 80 years of Convict transportation at its urban foundations. Striking a seductive pose in tribute to the founding mothers or donning the ball & chain in tribute to the founding fathers just doesn’t have the same emotional resonance as spilling blood in the pursuit of empire building.

Reflecting the lack of patriotism, at the 2007 Sydney Big Day Out ( a music festival held on Australia Day) organisers argued that waving the Australian flag was symbolic of racism and needed to be banned. According to promoter Ken West,

“The Australian flag was being used as gang colours. It was racism disguised as patriotism and I’m not going to tolerate it.”

A cartoon created at the time of federation alluding to the Convict heritage and public drunkenness that made it a little difficult for many Australians to feel patriotic.

Visual art

Visual art is often used as a visual representation of a culture and Russia’s visual art is very much in the western tradition. Prior to the modernist movement at the start of the 20th century, Russian paintings were similar in style to European paintings in that they used oil as the medium and created imagery with depth, perspective, and tonal variance. When the onset of modernism, not only was Russia involved, it took at the lead. Complete abstract art as pioneered by Wassily Kandinsky while Kasmir Malevich went on to produce a manifesto starting that complete abstraction was the rediscover of pure emotional art. Ironically, the art was labelled decadent by the Communists, which inspired America’s CIA to appropriate the movement and make it the face of western America via painters like Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko.

Australia visual art has also been significantly influenced by Europe and American traditions, but it has also infused influences from Asia via the like of Tim Johnson and Bret Whitely and Aboriginal Australia via the likes of Sidney Nolan. Aboriginal artists like Clifford Possum adopted the mediums of the west in order to adapt traditional practices of art creation to a gallery exhibition format.

Russel Drysdale – Emus in the Landscape

Homosexuality

In Russia, it is illegal to promote homosexuality to people under the age of 18; however, it is not illegal to be homosexual. For some in Russia, the public stance against homosexuality is an expression of a non-western identity.

In Australia, In Australia, homosexuals have been very visable in politics and entertainment since the various Australian states decriminalized homosexual sex between the 1972 and 1997. Gay pride marches receive political support and numerous sporting organisations have pride rounds to show support to homosexuals. In that regard, Australia is one of the poster nations for the link between western identities and gay inclusion.

National enemies

Throughout its history, Russia has had a lot of threats. World War 2 conflict against Germany was particularly brutal and has not been forgotten but Russians don’t seem to have the same hostility to Germans that Chinese have to the Japanese and even western Europeans have to Germans. Perhaps installing a Communist government in East Germany led to a degree of cross-cultural understanding.

During the cold war, Russia went to war with China over border disputes and leadership of the Communist world. After the death of Stalin, Mao considered himself the leader of the Communist world and he created propaganda to visually communicate that. Russian communists didn’t agree. The USA was also an enemy during the cold war and the two countries proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the USA and other NATO countries worked to try to bring Russia and other former Soviet states into the Western alliances. For NATO, including former threats as allies not only made it stronger, but also paved the way for win/win economic integration.  In in 1999 the former members of the Warsaw Pact – Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic – were simultaneously admitted to NATO. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined in 2004.

 Both Ukraine and Russia were also targeted for inclusion but their autocratic leadership saw the personal dangers to such inclusion. In 2014, a popular uprising in the Ukraine saw the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych, which in turn paved the way for the Ukraine turning west although it didn’t actually join NATO.

In 2022, Vladimir Putin ordered an invasion of the Ukraine on the basis of its western orientation and the possibility of it joining NATO.

There are numerous reasons why Russia saw inclusion in NATO as a threat rather than an opportunity. One is the Chinese saying that a mountain can’t have two tigers. In NATO, the USA is the lead tiger and it would be a threat to Russian pride to occupy a similar rank to other former powers like France or Spain. A second is that western values undermine autocratic regimes that the average Russian seems to gravitate to. 

In regards to Australia’s enemies, centuries of being ignored have resulted in few national dislikes. In the 19th century, Russia was portrayed as the threat, probably due to Britain fighting Russia in the Crimean War. At the later half of the century, non-whites were seen as a threat to labour market conditions and the union movements because of their perceived superiority. For example, prime minister Alfred Deakin, the architect of the White Australia Policy, proposed,

“It is not the bad qualities, but the good qualities of these alien races that make them so dangerous to us. It is their inexhaustible energy, their power of applying themselves to new tasks, their endurance and low standard of living that make them such competitors.”

In the 20th century, Japan was a threat during World War 2 but there was extensive trade between the two countries before and afterwards and few Australians hate Japanese based on the war. Russia was promoted as a threat by numerous Australian governments wanting an enemy. The threat was used to justify conscription that sent Australians to fight Communism in Korea and Vietnam. After the wars, Russian spies were the basis of fear campaigns. For example, in 1983 Labor PM Bob Hawke made an example of former national secretary David Coombe to demonstrate how seriously he took the threat of Russian espionage. Security agency ASIO secretly recorded Coombe sharing a drunkard evening with Valery Ivanov, the First Secretary to the USSR Embassy in Canberra. Coombe never said anything to indicate that he was part of a Communist conspiracy or that he had national secrets to share. At the time, Coombe had a private lobby business and the transcripts recorded his plan to use his connections to make money – like a good Capitalist.

The transcripts were shown to Hawke, who then announced to the media the “threat” that ASIO had uncovered. Hawke then expelled Ivanov as a potential spy. As for Coombe, although he was never charged with anything, he was ruined and by ruining him, Hawke demonstrated to the public that the Labor Party would not tolerate potential Communists in its ranks.

Fort Denison was built to defend Sydney against a Russian naval invasion

Female identity

In any group of women there will be a diversity of personalities. Cultural homogeneity tends to occur as a result of cultures creating stereotypes of how “good” women should act, which some women subsequently conform to in order to gain an identity as women or escape the ridicule of others. When the west was having its women liberation movements in the 1970s, Russian women were still being told to uphold the ideal of women portrayed by Communists. Ironically, this ideal was quite similar to some of the ideals promoted by western feminists in that women were expected to strong, masculine and sexless.

When Communism fell, many Russian women seemed to embrace a pre-women’s liberation conception of femininity. In short, they expected men to pay for meals and open doors for them. In addition, they embraced high fashion to make themselves more beautiful.

Soviet posters defined an ideal woman as strong, masculine and sexless. The stereotype is very different to how most Russian women present themselves today.

The Australian female identity is a bit more nuanced than the Russian version. During the 1970s, Australian feminists like Germaine Greer asserted that beauty products were designed by multinational companies to make women feel inadequate about themselves. Many of Greer’s views filtered into the general population and shaped behaviour. Although they didn’t eliminate the desire for beauty products, they reduced the perceived necessity of them and made Australian women more relaxed as a consequence. That said, Australian ladies can be quite complex. They will put on make-up, wax their legs, maintain their bikini line, shave under the arms but then get angry if a “superficial” man appreciates them for anything other than their personality.

Men

Russian men are expected to be strong, both physically and emotionally. In addition, there are expectations that they be chivalrous to women by opening doors, pulling out chairs, and paying the bill. They in turn expect women to cook, clean and look gorgeous.

In Australia, it would probably be fair to say that, just as the elaborate feathers and dance of the male peacock have evolved in response to the desires of the female peacock, the role models of the Australian male have developed in response to the desires of the Australian female. In more simple language, Australian females have worn the pants when defining the male gender identity.

Some of the female agency in the shaping the male identity is revealed in the type of males that females have elevated to sex symbol status. Specifically, most male sex symbols seem to have a heavy dose of testosterone. The first man who could be defined as a sex symbol was a Tasmanian bushranger named Matthew Brady. As a chivalrous outlaw, Brady endeared himself to the women of the colony by showing consideration to their plight. Women showed their appreciation by bringing baskets of flowers, fan letters, fruit and fresh-baked cakes to his cell prior to his hanging. In a community where there were about 5 men for every 1 woman, stories of the cakes and flowers no doubt influenced the behaviour of other men.

The same kind of male is arguably the defining feature of successful Australian actors. For example, Mel Gibson endeared himself to the ladies by playing: a larrikin in Gallipoli; a leather-clad-rogue-cop-family-man in Mad Max; and an outlaw with a propensity for mooning in Braveheart. Other sex symbols have included actors like: Jack Thompson, Russel Crowe, and Hugh Jackman. Aside from the actors, sports stars have proved popular with the ladies.

As for the male poets, dancers and visual artists, if they have had much success with the ladies, they certainly haven’t had enough to be featured in female magazines as particularly eligible bachelors. With so few ladies publicly desiring them, it is perhaps understandable that male poets, dancers and visual artists in Australia are often stereotyped as gay. If poets, artists and dancers started being profiled in Dolly, Cosmopolitan along with questions about the type of woman they like, perhaps the stereotypes would change.

In many ways, the celebrated Australian male is similar to the Russian male except they are far less likely to pay the bill, open doors or expect women to look gorgeous.

Cultural Differences Between Australia and China

	China	Australia
Per Capita GDP	$16,400 note	$48,700
Population	1,397,897,720	25,809,973
Ethnic identities	Han Chinese 91.6%, Zhuang 1.3%, other (includes Hui, Manchu, Uighur, Miao, Yi, Tujia, Tibetan, Mongol, Dong, Buyei, Yao, Bai, Korean, Hani, Li, Kazakh, Dai, and other nationalities) 7.1% (2010 est.)	English 25.9%, Australian 25.4%, Irish 7.5%, Scottish 6.4%, Italian 3.3%, German 3.2%, Chinese 3.1%, Indian 1.4%, Greek 1.4%, Dutch 1.2%, other 15.8% (includes Australian Aboriginal .5%), unspecified 5.4%
Export partners	United States 17%, Hong Kong 10%, Japan 6% (2019)	China 39%, Japan 15%, South Korea 7%, India 5% (2019)
Religion	folk religion 21.9%, Buddhist 18.3%, Christian 5.2%, Muslim 2%, Hindu < 0.1%, Jewish < 0.1%, other 0.7% (includes Daoist (Taoist)), unaffiliated 51.8% (2020 est.)	Protestant 23.1% , Roman Catholic 22.6%, other Christian 4.2%, Muslim 2.6%, Buddhist 2.4%, Orthodox 2.3%, Hindu 1.9%, other 1.3%, none 30.1%, unspecified 9.6%
GDP rank	2	13th

CIA World Fact Book – 2022

History

Nomadic hominids roamed China for around 850,000 years. Around 10,000 years ago, agriculture developed between the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers of northern China. The first dynasty (the Xia) has been traced to around 2070 BCE when a group of people reduced the damage to crops caused by flooding, which in turn led to greater agricultural output and more military power. Around 1600 BCE in the Shang dynasty, descendants of the Xia invented bronze metal working and developed a writing system. The improvements in technology further increased their power and in turn resulted in an expansion of territory. This was expanded even further in the subsequent Zhou dynasty on the back hydraulic engineering and iron casting.

The Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasties increased territory on the back of innovation in metal work and irrigation.

An invasion by Mongols in 260BC from the north caused the break up of the Zhou dynasty into different warring states. The wars came to an end when the Qin (Ch’in) emperor invaded neighboring kingdoms, unified the country, standardised the writing system, and built the first Great Wall. Although the Qin dynasty was short lived, it gave China its contemporary name and many of the symbolic elements that are used by Chinese today (such as the Terracotta Warriors.)

The millennia following the fall of the Qin is generally regarded as the high point of the Chinese civilisation relative to the rest of the world. It was a time of technological progress, engagement with the outside world, intellectual discussion and overall prosperity.

In the 13th century, northern China came under attack from Mongolian nomads and eventually succumbed to them giving rise to the Yuan Dynasty. Han Chinese regained control of China under the Ming Dynasty in the 14th century, but the new rulers were far more insular than those who had gone before. To prevent further invasions from the north, they built 8,850 km of wall. Furthermore, in the early 15th century, China was the leading naval power in the world by a considerable margin. For unknown reasons, the Ming emperor ordered that the fleet be destroyed.

With such inward thinking, it was inevitable that China would fall again. This occurred in the 17th century when the Machus (Qing) from the north bribed a general to let them through the wall and they quickly defeated Ming forces. The new rulers were governed by the same insularity, which in turn stifled progress and innovation. In the 19th century, European powers and Japan started invading to carve up Chinese territory for themselves.

In 1911, the last emperor of China fell. In the chaos of the subsequent years, provinces such as Tibet and Xinjian declared independence and Japan increased its control over northern China. Disharmony gave rise to a Communist rebellion that joined with the Chinese Nationalists to expel the Japanese. After expelling the Japanese, the Communists defeated the Nationalists. For the first time in almost 500 years, the majority Han people were again in control of China.

In 1958, the Communist Party Chairman, Mao Zedong, decided that China should be transformed from an agricultural society to an industrial collective in what he referred to as the Great Leap Forward. The decline in agricultural production led to an estimated 40 million Chinese dying in famine. With China in chaos and members of the Communist Party wanting his head, in 1966, Mao launched the Cultural Revolution. This aimed to purge China of its dissidents, its old ideas, its elitist elements and most important of all, Mao’s enemies. It left China in ruins.

Mao died in 1976. His successor, Deng Xiaoping, was also his enemy. Rather than defame Mao’s memory, Deng blamed Mao’s wife and three of her associates for Mao’s actions. Two were executed and two were sentenced to life in prison. As for Mao, Deng undid his policies by opening up China to the world; however, to prevent an endless cycle of retribution, the party adopted the position that Mao was 70% good and 30% bad. This allowed Mao to remain a symbol of China standing up to foreign invaders without denying the damage his policies caused China.

Buddhist statues in Datong. During the Cultural Revolution, holes were drilled into the statues, perhaps to hold explosives

Although Australia’s history is quite different to China’s, it has produced some modern day commonalities. For 50,000 years, nomadic humans roamed Australia. They probably never built cities because Australia lacked a high yield agricultural crop to build a civilisation around.

Between the 15th and 17th centuries, Chinese, Dutch, Portuguese, Indonesian and Spanish reached Australia, took a look at the barren landscape populated by nomads and then kept sailing. In the 18th century, the English arrived, took a look around and decided Australia would make a great place to punish criminals. For the next 80 years, England dumped its Convicts in Australia.

The type of criminals dumped in Australia were very similar to the type of people that supported Chairman Mao in the Communist uprising. They were political rebels and the poor who lacked food to eat. They also found themselves alienated from an elitist class that treated them with contempt. Just as they did in China, the left-wingers of Australia responded by championing progressive ideals in the belief that equality could only be achieved via the destruction of the past. However, they were never able to fully enforce their ideals because the British had implemented a parliamentary system that diversified power and forced community consultation. The result was a system of government that addressed some of the problems that led to communist rebellions without suffering the damage caused by communist rebellions. This unique mix was noted by Vladimir Lenin, the father of the Russian revolution, who said of Australia:

” What sort or peculiar capitalist country is this in which the workers’ representatives predominate in the upper house….and yet the capitalist system is in no danger?”

Worker domination in parliament resulted in the Australian economy evolving under an ideology of protectionism and socialism. The protectionist policies ensured Australia’s unions would not be undermined by companies importing foreign labour and that Australian industries would not be subjected to competition from foreign produce. The socialist policies ensured that governments would have a monopoly on education, transport, telecommunication, banking and power generation. Commencing in the 1980s, the protectionist and socialist policies were dismantled in favour of economic liberalism.

Gender Identity

For almost 1000 years, China had a foot binding culture in which young girls had their feet tightly bound in order to make them small. The goal was aesthetic beauty; however, it stifled women’s potential to work and earn an income. The consequence was that China’s families valued boys over girls.

Aside from leading to boys being valued more than girls, the economic potential of boys led to gender expectations within the family unit. Girls were sold a bit like a cow and became part of her husband’s family unit where she would do housework and take a caring role for his parents and their children. Meanwhile, the boys would study hard in the aim of earning a high income. They would then be able to get/buy a good wife that could help care for his parents and children.

The valuing of boys over girls was in turn reflected in the gender imbalance caused by the one-child policy. Specifically, the illegal abortion of female foetuses has resulted in around 30 million more males than females in China today.

Ironically, the one –child policy has actually liberated women from many of the cultural traits that impeded their economic potential. Specifically, those parents that didn’t abort their female foetuses devoted resources to their female child that they would not have if they had had a boy. The girls subsequently entered the competitive Chinese schooling system with their parents pushing them to aim for the sky. The result has been the creation of brilliant Chinese women who succeed in most fields of endeavour. Admittedly, politics is still dominated by men, which can be somewhat attributed to the importance of activities associated building guanxi (social connections). Many of these activities are of a “nightlife” nature that women can not easily be part of. The lack of representation does not reflect abilities or inclination.

Aside from encouraging parents to put greater resources into their girls, the one-child policy has arguably made girls more economically advantageous than boys. To be more precise, if parents only have one child and the child is a daughter, it is no longer practical to sell her off to another family. As a result, daughters are retaining stronger links with their biological parents after marriage than in the past and supporting their parents in the process. Meanwhile, the lack of women has forced many parents to increase their financial support to their sons in the hope he can get a wife. This support is often expected to include buying him an apartment and car in the hope this will make him more attractive to women.

From the 10th century until the early 20th century, the practice of foot binding stifled the economic potential of women and instead positioned them as objects of beauty. In conflict with the positioning of the women as beauty objects was the mythological story of Mulan; a woman who posed as a man and joined the army to save her father.

In Myth, China celebrates the woman warrior but in practice, women were literally maimed for a 1000 years to limit them to the beauty sphere.

In Australia, there is a saying that the men are tough but the women are tougher. Certainly in the colonial era, Convict women had to endure extreme hardships. They responded with civic activism that resulted in Australia being the first country in the world to give women the vote and the right to enter parliament. It has always been common for women to work in the private sector. In the public sector, however, there was a cultural value that married women should be housewives. As a consequence, it was not until 1966 that married women were legally allowed to work in the Australian public service.

Within the family unit, there has never really been a cultural valuing of boys over girls nor has there ever been a culture of selling daughters to other families. Furthermore, there are few financial obligations between parents and children. Instead, once children turn 18, they generally try to move towards financial independence with little cultural expectation to financially support their parents. This independence can be partially attributed to state welfare that allows children and parents that suffer financial hardship to survive without family support.

As for what constitutes a “good woman”, Australian women reflect the different pushes and pulls that define what a “model” woman should be like. For example, Australian women are prone to spend thousands on fashion and go to great lengths to look good, but then get angry if they are appreciated for anything other their personality.

Two high profile career women in Australia have a feud over the colour of their clothes.

Baby Formula

For various socioeconomic reasons, Chinese mothers have a bias towards baby formula while Australian mothers prefer breast milk. One reason that Chinese prefer formula is that they are more likely to rely upon extended families for the care of their newborns. Not only does formula make it easier to leave the babies with others, it also makes it easier for the family carers to bond with babies. In Australia, by contrast, generous maternity leave provisions from both the private and public sector employers results in more mothers taking time off work to be with their babies. Furthermore, there is less of a cultural ethic of extended families helping with child raising, which decreases the need for formula.

A second reason for Chinese demand for baby formula is that baby formula companies have been very aggressive with their advertising strategies. Like all advertising, sometime logical facts are communicated but more often the advertisements appeal to some kind of emotion. The relative scientific merits of formula versus breast milk subsequently becomes irrelevant and mothers simply feel they need formula. In contrast, baby formula advertising is banned in Australia as a very vocal segment of the population is very hostile to it. (Many Australians have even joined international boycotts of Nestlé because of its formula advertising in foreign countries.) Instead, public health care nurses are very assertive in promoting the benefits of breast milk over formula. Like some of the advertising in China, their promotion is often based on emotion rather than a logical assessment of the situation or even the relative merits of formula.

National Identity

In the 1960s, the Communist Party of China considered China’s history to be both elitist and repressive. Today, it is common to hear Chinese express pride that they come from 5,000 years of history. The inconsistencies between attitudes to history and the expression of identity across times finds expressionism in much of China’s modern art that juxtaposes the inconsistencies.

From 1644 to 1912, China was ruled by the minority Qing Dynasty which imposed its minority culture on the Han majority. The Dynasty was so prescriptive that the Han men were forced to wear their hair in the favoured Manchurian style of shaved at the front and pony tail at the back lest they be executed. Han men continued to wear the Mancu style – even in Australian goldfields.

The Qing Dynasty was weakened as colonial powers from Europe and Japan carved up China and Manchuria for themselves. Finally, a people’s revolt led by Sun Yat-sen succeeded in realising a Chinese republic. Towards the end of his life, Sun proposed that the west was hegemonic (operated via the exercise of power) while the east was Confucian (a philosophy encompassing a number of values relating to respect for the family and education). He also proposed that colonialism could be resisted with the Confucian Asianism that united Asian countries. Sun’s proposal proved to be ironic when fellow Confucian nation Japan started extending their Asian conquests from Manchuria into China, which escalated into a full blown war that culminated with the Communist Revolution in 1949.

Communist China was led by Mao Zedong who had whole heartedly embraced Karl Marx’s view that the working class identity was the only identity that mattered. To ensure adherence to a transnational working class identity, in the 1960s Mao launched the Cultural Revolution which aimed to destroy religious, national and even gender-based identities that could dilute passion for the working class identity. The Cultural Revolution resulted in churches, temples and mosques being destroyed, women masculinised and mass produced boiler suits being worn by almost the entire population. The Cultural Revolution was a disaster on multiple levels. Furthermore, the transnational Communist identity was never achieved as deteriorating relations between China and Russia saw military conflict between the two nations in 1969. China later went to war with Vietnam in 1979 as the fellow Communist country was accused of being too sympathetic to Russia.

Communism in China did make some attempts to put global citizenship above Chinese nationalism, but this was on the assumption that Mao would lead that global citizenship.

After Mao’s death, new leader Deng Xiaoping commenced an opening up policy that allowed different identities to flourish in what became known as Communism with Chinese characteristics. In truth, the Chinese system was much like National Socialism in Germany during the Nazi era in that the state held power and ownership of key industries while still allowing private enterprise. Furthermore, strong nationalism based upon perceived strengths in Chinese genetics as well as a victimisation by outsiders, helped build loyalty to the only party allowed to rule. Today, aspects of the national socialist thinking can be seen in many areas of Chinese life, including the Chinese national Anthem, the March of the Volunteers (translation below)

Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves;
With our very flesh and blood Let us build our new Great Wall!
The Peoples of China are in the most critical time,
Everybody must roar his defiance.
Arise! Arise! Arise!
Millions of hearts with one mind,
Brave the enemy’s gunfire, march on!
Brave the enemy’s gunfire, march on!
March on! March on! March on, on!

Just as the Chinese identity is somewhat mixed up, so is the Australian identity. In mythology, Australians have celebrated rule breakers. This can partly be attributed to 80 years of Convict transportation in the 19th century that produced a culture that seemed to believe that rules were made to be broken. In the 20th, that culture made icons out of the likes of swimming legend Dawn Fraser and other larrikins (ruler breakers.) In conflict with the larrikin identity, Australian governments prescribed a British identity up until the 1970s. The loss of the British identity has resulted in Australia experiencing some turmoil as many Australians with British ancestry no longer have a sense of who they are and when they came from. Although some have embraced an Australian identity, others have felt lost and expressed their alienation with anti-social behaviour.

Religion

Religion in China never had the same political control over emperors or the people the way that religion had in Europe, America or the Middle-east. Perhaps this was because China’s religions were not monotheistic, therefore, they were more open to plurality of views and could be complimented by philosophical thought.

The Xia Dynasty had a form of animal worship. This was followed by ancestral worship in the Shang. Philosophical thought in the form of Confucianism emerged in the Zhou dynasty and this acted as a kind of religion. Also in the Zhou Dynasty there emerged a conception of heaven and a belief that heaven would reward a just ruler and punish an unjust ruler. Known as the Mandate of Heaven, it was evoked when one dynasty overthrew another.

Daoism/Taosim emerged in the warring states period. It proposed a set of practices on how an individual could lead a happy and peaceful life. A philosophy known as Legalism emerged in the Qin Dynasty. This proposed that instead of leading by example (as was promoted by Confucianism), the emperor should pass strict laws and rule with an iron fist. As well as rejecting the need to set the example, Legalism also rejected Confucian beliefs that the people should be given education. Instead, it proposed that people should be made to grow crops and fight for the emperor.

Legalism proved to be unpopular with everyone except the emperor. It soon fell apart. The subsequent Han dynasty embraced versions of Buddhism that were seen to share commonalities with Confucianism and Taoism.

The three teachings remained dominant in China until the Communist Revolution in 1949. The new Communist rulers viewed religion as hierarchical and/or a threat to the revolution. Consequently, temples were destroyed, monks executed and religious teaching banned. (Even though Confucianism was not a religion, it was also banned.) Like Qin Shihuang, Communist leader Chairman Mao seemed to like Legalism and ruled with aspects of it.

After China’s opening up under the leadership of Den Xiaoping, religion made another public emergence. This caused some concern amongst the Communist leadership that continued to see it as a threat to the revolution. In 1992, Falun Gong (based on Daoist beliefs) was publically introduced. Its rapid growth in popularity along with its politician edge soon saw it being banned. Buddhism continues to be treated with suspicion due to separatist movements in Tibet elevating the Dalia Lama as their leader. Islam is a point of friction as it is the religion of choice for Uighur separatists in the western Chinese province of Xinjiang. In addition, a great deal of relationship building in China revolves around the consumption of pork and alcohol, which causes friction with Muslims. Catholicism is treated with suspicion as it elevates the Vatican as the head of the religion and requires Vatican approval for the appointment of Bishops. (The Communist Party would like a say in the appointment of Bishops.) Confucianism seems to have returned to popularity amongst the ranks of the Communist Party. Evidence comes in the form of the Confucius Institutes (the organisations that proliferate Chinese culture around the world as a form of soft power diplomacy.)

The Hanging monastery in China where the teachings of three religions are kept.

In Australia, Christianity is the dominant religion but Australian Christianity doesn’t seem to have the same political aspirations or political currency as it does in many countries. In the words of cultural critic Robert Hughes,

“Any political candidate who declared God was on his side would be laughed off the podium as an idiot or a wowser (prude, intrusive bluenose).” 

The rejection of political Christianity can probably be traced to the penal era. For example, Governor Hunter was a morals crusader who frequently ordered Convicts be flogged for petty crimes. Although the Convicts were able to put up with the floggings, they were pushed to breaking point when they were ordered to attend Church on Sundays. They responded by burning the Church to the ground. More anti-institutional sentiment could be seen in the scorn for Samuel Marsden – a reverend of the colonial era. In New Zealand, Marsden is celebrated as a great man who brought the gospel to the Maori. In Australia, he is remembered as the “flogging parson”. The Convict men said of him:

“He prays for our souls on Sunday, and takes it out of bodies during the rest of the week.”

Democracy

Outside of theocratic nations, democracy is one of those words that is almost universally celebrated as a good thing, yet there is little consensus as to what it really means. According to the original Greek definition, democracy is the rule of people. In practice, it is generally conceived to mean that elections are held to decide who rules. Of course, every “democratic” nation has restrictions about who can participate in elections and how they can participate. Furthermore, they have abuses of power that prevent fair participation. In that regard, no country on earth is a true democracy.

China defines itself as a “People’s Republic”, which means that the Communist Party governs for the people. This governing includes the right to eliminate “reactionary” forces that threaten the rule of the Communist Party and its people-first policies. Within the party, elections are held to decide who leads the various positions. China is a democracy in the sense that all Chinese can potentially join the Communist Party where they will have an opportunity to subsequently vote. Around 80 million Chinese have done this. China is not a democracy in the sense that it does not allow new parties to be created that may compete with the Communist Party for rule of China through an electoral process. Furthermore, it does not allow free of communication so that members of the public can initiate a campaign that could influece the voting intentions or decision making of Communist Party Members.

Australia is defined as a Constitutional Monarchy. This means that the Head of State is a Monarch (Queen of England) but the Monarch’s power is constrained by democratic principles of the Australian Constitution. Australia has elections in which diverse parties and “reactionary” forces are free to stand but there are limits on who can vote, rules are skewed that prevent an even playing field and relative freedom of communication ensures that some votes are more influential than others.

Every Australian is in an electorate that has at least 21,343 people. Each citizen over 18 in the electorate must for an individual to represent them in the House of Representatives (permanent residents and citizens under 18 can not vote.) The elected representative are usually aligned with a major party. The party (or coalition) that gets the most members elected will govern. Australians can not vote for who will be the Head of State nor can they vote for who will be the Prime Minister (unless the candidate represents their electorate). The interests of major parties are served with electoral funding being restricted to parties that gain more than 5 % of the vote. They may be further served by pandering to the interests of private and public media companies that can skew voting habits. As a consequence, only two parties have a chance to govern and their rule will be bound by the need to repay the interest groups that helped them win the election.

In western countries, it is often presumed that China will eventually make the transition to a western style democracy. In truth, western democracies are characterised by a great deal of racial conflict, poverty and social ills that China doesn’t want and western countries claim they don’t want either. On the other hand, the one-party democratic system of Singapore arguably provides the favoured model for China in that it has combined economic development with social harmony. Furthermore, there is a widely held belief in China that a People’s Republic will encourage individuals to think of the national interest while the adversarial system of western democracies will encourage individuals to seek power through deal making with interest groups. In other words, just as westerners are prone to see flaws in their own governments, so are the Chinese. It is therefore perfectly understandable that China would not seek to emulate the model.

Social activism

In China, the lack of an independent communications industry prevents the public from being able to initiate change in response to problems. This hinders the remedying of problems in three main ways. Firstly, if a senior Communist Party member doesn’t consider something to be a problem, then no solutions are devised. Secondly, if problem is identified, solutions may devised by an “expert” that considers one perspective rather than a range of perspectives that consider multiple stakeholders. Finally, because the identification of a problem comes from the top, the community has less ownership over the problem and the solutions. As a consequence, the community is not an active participant in ensuring the devised solutions are embraced and values are changed.

The public visibility of environmental degradation is an obvious example that illustrates the failure of Communist Party to effectively implement solutions despite recognising that a problem exist. Some of the Party’s solutions include colour coded recycling bins, policies to limit cars on the road and regulations banning polluting industries. The general public usually ignore the policies while guanxi (social connections) allows the larger industries to keep their polluting ways in defiance of the law. In short, the Communist Party often fails to change values or get public buy in even though its policies are great.

The Communist Party has implemented lots of solutions to improve the environment. Many fail due to the lack of public buy in. In the above example, a public waterway is used to dump fruit wrapped in plastic.

In Australia, an independent communications industry allows members of the public to identify a problem and amplify their voices through the media. Furthermore, a candidate from one of the many political parties is usually more than willing to add their face to a campaign in order to embarrass a rival for not taking the problem seriously. Clean Up Australia Day is one example of how extending freedom has allowed a problem to be identified and the community engaged in ways that has led to significant improvements in the environment.

Clean Up Australia Day has been an effective community led initiative that has fostered a greater appreciation for a clean environment.

On the negative side, campaigns in Australia are dominated by a strategy known as Media Advocacy, which can be defined as a kind of megaphone communication strategy to get something from government. This results in Australia’s politicians responding to the voices that have the means to scream the loudest rather than the voices that highlight the most pressing problem or have solutions that will be effective. In sum, Media Advocacy places an emphasis on:

Linking the problem to inequalities in society rather than flaws in the individual

Changing public policy rather than personal behaviour

Focussing on policy makers rather than those who have a problem

Working with groups to increase participation and amplifying their voices

The voices that have the means to scream loudly tend to be organised interest groups whose solutions generally revolve around receiving government funding or changing government laws in a way that will increase their profitability. There is no attempt to educate the public to change any behaviour.

The failure to remedy disadvantage in Indigenous communities perhaps illustrates how social activism is often skewed for financial advantage rather than problem solving. In the past, strategies to reduce Aboriginal disadvantage included persuading governments to pass legislation that has restricted Aborigines from moving around the country, controlled their salaries, banned them from drinking alcohol, and criminalised sex across the colour line. More recently, campaigns to “raise awareness” of Aboriginal disadvantage have resulted in billions upon billions of dollars being allocated to “remedy” that disadvantage. In 2016 alone, $30 billion dollars was spent on 500,000 Indigenous people. This was almost 50% more than the entire Australian livestock industry generates for Australia. Despite the allocation of such funds for decades on end, statistics show no improvements. In contrast, since the central government of China regained control of Tibet in 1959, the life expectancy of Tibetans has almost doubled from around 32 years to 65 years. In short, Media Advocacy campaigns often do a great deal of evil as a “moral” issue is promoted for personal gain.

Poetry

No government on earth has ever elevated the importance of poetry to the extent of the Chinese dynasties once did. In the first century AD, candidates had to pass an exam in scholastic arts, arithmetic, writing, ceremonies and ritual in order to gain employment in the dynasty’s civil service. In the Tang Dynasty, an additional requirement was that candidates compose original poetry.

At various times, officials debated the necessity of poetry to civil service. Some considered it to be irrelevant and briefly removed the requirement while others proposed that it encouraged careful writing. In hindsight, perhaps poetry also helped candidates identify historical patterns, analyse Confucian philosophy, develop abstract thought and articulate persuasive sentences. For example, Chairman Mao was a noted poet and he showed his persuasive power of language with expressions like, “Women hold up half the sky.” The simple sentence arguably did far more to persuade Chinese about the importance of gender equality that would any detailed report on gender equality backed up by research.

Traditional Chinese poetry blends environmental imagery with beautiful verse to create an emotional aesthetic. Consequently, when translated into English, the poems lose their emotional aesthetic in a way that often results in them sounding a bit silly. For example, the ancient poem:

Guan guan jiu he zhi zhou
Yao tiao shu nu jun zi hao qiu

translates to

Guan! Guan! Cry the fish hawks, on sandbars in the river.
A mild-mannered good girl, fine match for the gentleman.

In Australia, poetry has never been seen as of great importance by government; however, it has been very influential in shaping the Australian identity. Like Chinese poetry, environmental imagery has been at the base of the poetry’s emotional power. For example, in the 19th century, Banjo Patterson wrote the Man from Snowy River. It told the story of an underdog who, along with his horse, reflected the tough Australian landscape and thus showed that looks can be deceiving.

In the 20th century, Dorothea Mackellar wrote “My Country”, in which she evoked the beauty, hardship, pain and disorder of the Australian landscape as a point of contrast with Europe but in a way that filled other Australians with pride. A.D Hope’s Australia was a particularly nuanced poem in that it used the Australian environment as a metaphor of Australia’s cultural flaws; however, in that “Arabian desert of the human mind” Hope finds a spirit of a prophet to which he glady turns.

AUSTRALIA
A. D. Hope

A Nation of trees, drab green and desolate grey
In the field uniform of modern wars,
Darkens her hills, those endless, outstretched paws
Of Sphinx demolished or stone lion worn away.

They call her a young country, but they lie:
She is the last of lands, the emptiest,
A woman beyond her change of life, a breast
Still tender but within the womb is dry.

Without songs, architecture, history:
The emotions and superstitions of younger lands,
Her rivers of water drown among inland sands,
The river of her immense stupidity

Floods her monotonous tribes from Cairns to Perth.
In them at last the ultimate men arrive
Whose boast is not: “we live” but “we survive”,
A type who will inhabit the dying earth.

And her five cities, like five teeming sores,
Each drains her: a vast parasite robber-state
Where second hand Europeans pullulate
Timidly on the edge of alien shores.

Yet there are some like me turn gladly home
From the lush jungle of modern thought, to find
The Arabian desert of the human mind,
Hoping, if still from the deserts the prophets come,

Such savage and scarlet as no green hills dare
Springs in that waste, some spirit which escapes
The learned doubt, the chatter of cultured apes
Which is called civilization over there.

Attitude to Japan

In China, there is a great deal of hatred towards Japan based upon the country’s actions in World War 2 (in China, WW2 is known as the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression). The hatred is so severe that many Chinese will no drive Japanese cars, buy any Japanese products and will be overtly rude to any Japanese that they meet. Even though Australia fought Japan, Australians generally have a lot of respect for the Japanese. Furthermore, Japanese products are highly valued in Australia.
The different attitudes towards Japan stem from the aspects of World War 2 that are told in the cultures of the respective nations in addition to their styles of war remembrance. In China, public school children are taught about Japanese massacres, the rape of Chinese women by Japanese soldiers and the experiments of Japanese scientists on Chinese prisoners of war. Furthermore, the children are taught about the heroic Chinese soldiers that defeated the Japanese and liberated China.

China’s hatred of Japan is tied up with the way it remembers the war along with contemporary political disputes concerning islands, international alliances, and soft power.

Australian POWs likewise suffered at the hands of Japanese, particularly in Singapore’s Changi prison and during the construction of the Burmese railway. Furthermore, they were used for bayonet practice during the Kokoda battle. Such stories have a very low profile in Australia. Instead, it is more common to hear about Japanese prisoners of war escaping at Cowra for reasons of honour, their bravery along the Kokoda track or their ingenuity in their midget submarine attacks on Sydney Harbour. The later stories foster respect for Japanese.

Aside from paying more attention to aspects of the Japanese soldier that are easy to respect, Australia’s approach to war remembrance is one that makes it easy to let go of grudges. Specifically, instead of glorifying a great victory or vowing vengeance for a massacre, it simply remembers the fallen Australian soldier. Perhaps this makes it easier for Australians to also accept the Yasukuni Shrine. This is a shrine that remembers the 2,466,000 Japanese men and women who died in war. Visits to the shrine by Japanese politicians are therefore judged to be a sign that Japan lacks remorse over World War II and have led to hostile protests in Korea and China but not Australia. Perhaps it is because a central feature of Australian remembrance is the Ode, a paragraph taken from the poem ‘Ode for the Fallen’:

” They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old;
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them. “

Like Shinto belief, the Ode doesn’t encourage judgements about right or wrong. The only thing that matters is that people died and those who live should remember them. In addition to refraining from judgement, the Australian approach is on remembering fallen soldiers, not the evil of the enemy. Because it’s more focussed on the self, there is less attention given to the wrongs committed by others.

Australian soldiers suffered at the hands of the Japanese, but the evils of Japanese soldiers are not a significant part of Australian war remembrance.

Guanxi

Guanxi is a Chinese word that refers to the benefits that can be derived from social relationships. In hospitals, patients give doctors “red packets” of money to gain good service. Criminals use social relationships to avoid being brought to justice. Idiots get jobs because of who they know. Although the same thing might happen in Australia, if the social favouritism is outside the law, the law wins. In China, guanxi overrides laws.

Aside from being more important than the law, another unique fact about Chinese guanxi is that it exists in all levels of Chinese society. For example, Chinese restaurant owners must maintain good relationships with police, health inspectors, fire inspectors as well as suppliers. This can be achieved by supplying free food or offering jobs to relatives of influential people.The need to keep such people happy shows just how diversified power is in China. Even powerful Chinese figures are not always sure if the person they are dealing with has a good social network that could counter their power. Ironically, the lack of certainty about who has power can actually reduce conflict or increase the liklihood of giving face to others. No one with power wants conflict because the conflict weakens them, as does needing to call in favours to win the conflict.

In Australia, the enforcement of laws make social relationships less important. As a result, powerful people in Australia only try to maintain good relationships with government or the media. There is really no need to maintain good relations with the police or health inspectors like is the case in China.

Most Chinese dislike guanxi holding such importance. It is stressful to maintain the relationships, is not fair and harms China’s development. Nevertheless, they must conform to its operation otherwise they lack power. They almost feel like an Adam-Smith-style invisable hand is contolling them, and there is nothing they can do to change the situation.

Government officials also recognise the problems caused by guanxi. They want China to develop and they appreciate that guanxi hinders development. Every now and then corrupt officials are executed to try to serve as a warning to others but changing the culture of 1.3 billion people is not so easy. Furthermore, people with good guanxi have a great deal of individual power that they do not want to give up.

Restaurant etiquette

In China, guanxi is often built via good restaurant etiquette. It is perfectly acceptable for diners to yell out something like, “Fuwyuan, wu yao cha” which translates as “waiter, I want tea.” In China, the customer has higher status than the waiter and the use of language reflects that status hierarchy. In Australia, such a phrasing would be considered extremely rude by other diners and the waiter. The polite Australian phrasing would be to use modal verbs like ‘could’, ‘may’ or ‘can’ instead of ‘want’ so as to indicate the customer’s uncertainty about the waiter’s desire or ability to provide tea. By using uncertain phrasing, the customer engages with the waiter under a myth of egalitarianism.

Generally, in China, the person paying the bill will order everyone’s meals and these will be placed in the centre of the table to share. In contrast, in an Australian Asian restaurant, each diner will order something and the meals shared. The bill will usually be split. Again, egalitarianism governs the Australian custom.

Drinking is a big part of the Chinese experience. Baijui (white spirit) is a favoured drink and is often used to demonstrate respect. Chinese will often say ‘gambai’, which translates as ‘bottoms up.’ Failure to gambai is a sign of disrespect. There will also be a tap of the glasses with people of inferior status showing deference to someone of superior status by tapping the lip of the glass below the corresponding lip of someone of higher status. When there is a significant number of high status people that don’t want to offend others, there can be a number of quick drops of the hand to ensure deference is shown. Unless the very expensive Maotai is being consumed, the drinking will continue until people are very drunk. Being a strong drinker that is able to hold alcohol is a status symbol.

In Australia, it is usually only university students or military personnel who bottom up their booze. Older Australians drink more slowly, mix in conversation with the drinking, and generally frown upon people who get very intoxicated. Australians will toast, but the toast only requires a little alcohol be drunk. (It doesn’t require the whole glass be downed.) Furthermore, when glasses are tapped, no status is communicated by where the lips of the glasses are tapped.

Inventions

Chinese are very proud of their record of inventiveness. Among hundreds of useful agricultural and industrial innovations are the four great Chinese inventions of gun powder, printing, the compass and paper making. Unfortunately, Chinese inventiveness seemed to have largely disappeared by the 13th century.

It is open to debate why China has been in a state of inventive stagnation for almost 800 years. Perhaps the Yuan Dynasty was not conducive to invention because Mongol invaders were chiefly concerned with war. After the Yuan, the Ming briefly had a world outlook but were soon burning their boats and building large walls to keep the foreigners out. Inward looking cultures tend to lose curiosity and lack the leadership that is receptive to ideas. Like the Yaun, the Qing were minority invaders so perhaps not open to domestic innovations. Finally, the Communist revolution in the 20th century was not particularly enlightened as it went burning books, vilifying critics and trying to make everyone think the same. Today, a lack of enforcement of intellectual property laws makes it more economic to simply steal foreign inventions than to devote resources to develop their own.

The Great Wall commencing in Xibehe – The Great Wall was a great feat of engineering, but building it along mountain tops where no invader would ever tread was a waste of resources as was the whole strategy of building a wall to keep out invaders. It marked an insular mindset that perhaps explained the lack of inventiveness in recent centuries.

Over the large 230 years, Australia has built up an impressive array of inventions. Some of the inventions have been simple things like the notepad. Some of the more high tech inventions include hi-speed wifi, which is used in almost all mobile devices that connect to the internet, the Jindalee radar system, which made America’s invisible stealth bomber visible to radar, and the scram jet engine that may one day make it possible to fly from Sydney to London in 30 minutes.

In 1988, the US military announced to the world that it had developed the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter, which it believed could not be detected by radar. The stealth fighter had cost more than $11 billion to develop and had been in operation for seven years. Seeing a challenge, Australian scientists at the CSIRO speculated that if the plane could not be detected, perhaps the turbulence it made passing through air could be. $1.5 million later, the Jindalee Radar system had transformed the stealth bomber into nothing more than an unusual looking aircraft.

Nobel Prize winners

Chinese have a stereotype that they are smarter than other people around the world, which perhaps fuels a desire to win Nobel Prizes to affirm the stereotype. Unfortunately, it wasn’t until 2012 that China had a laureate that they could accept.
The Dalai Lama won the Nobel peace prize in 1989. Even though Chinese consider Tibet to be part of China, they didn’t consider him to be a Chinese laureate. Perhaps this was because he was Tibetan so couldn’t affirm the stereotype of Chinese intelligence or perhaps it because many Chinese didn’t like what he had to say. Dissident Liu Xiaobo won China’s second peace prize in 2010. Unfortunately, he was in a Chinese jail at the time so the award was widely received as an insult. Arguably, the awarding of the peace prize to Liu Xiaobo was un-strategic by the committee as no nation cared as much about the prize as did China. Instead of rejoicing, official media suggested that seeking a Nobel Prize was not a worthy goal. Perhaps as a peace-building exercise, in 2012, China got a laureate that they could officially accept when Mo Yan won the Nobel Prize for literature, (the most subjective of categories.) Some people in China, such as artist Ai Wei Wei, were still disappointed as they considered Mo Yan be a political choice as he had strong connections to the Communist Party.

In Australia, the Nobel Prize is close to a non-event. Perhaps this is because Chinese-style talk of intellectual superiority would be seen by many Australians as racist. Without a desire to seem intellectually superior to other nations, there is no need for a prize to affirm beliefs in superiority. (Athletic superiority is freely talked about in Australia and is not seen as racist. As a result, Olympic gold medals and World Cup wins are desired to affirm the beliefs.)

Despite the lack of acclaim, Australia has produced 10 Nobel laureates. Most have been in the fields of science and two have come from literature. Australia has never produced a peace prize laureate and probably never will. Peace prize winners tend to come from cultures that have a lot of conflict and Australia just doesn’t have enough conflict.

Stereotypes

It may be stereotypical to say but Chinese like stereotypes. They constitute a large part of their social identity and are frequently used in public persuasion campaigns. For example, the website http://www.index-china.com describes Chinese people as:

“peaceful, hardworking and easily contented. They respect elders, love children and are patient with their fellows. Chinese in general are reserve and humble. They believe in harmony and never look for confrontation.”

Although not all individual Chinese could be defined with these personality characteristics, almost all Chinese would be happy to be defined with these personality characteristics. Furthermore, if the stereotype were evoked in an international situation, almost all Chinese would temporarily conform to it to make it a reality. In these two regards, the stereotypes are an accurate reflection upon reality.

In Australia, there is more of a tendency to create a negative stereotype of the national character that will in turn cause Australians to recoil from. For example, the fictional movie Wolf Creek tells the story of a psychopath that tortures and murders foreign tourists. It also states that it is based on actual events, which are a conflation of some Australian serial killers and a perceived darkness in the Australian character. According to director Greg McClean:

“The Australian culture is bright sunny beaches, Crocodile Dundee and all that kind of shit, and the shadow side of that is xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, all that kind of stuff that we squash down but is alive and well”.

In another example, Dr Tanja Dreher, UTS Shopfront Research Manager actively gone searching for examples of the Australia’s fair go stereotype being accurate in order to deconstruct it. Subsequently, she released press-releases of the vein:

“There is in fact evidence of a serious gulf between the myth of ‘a fair go’ Australia and the reality. As a society we need to start taking responsibility for the intolerant and frequently ignorant nation we have become.”

Small talk

A study of difficulties the Chinese born may find in Australian workplaces identified small talk as a particularly challenging obstacle. Specifically, the study found:

“that engaging in workplace small talk presents the most challenge to Chinese professionals, and this is because the nature and dynamics of small talk is new to their social experience. Often unexpected and ambiguous, encounters requiring small talk show the Chinese involved lack the sociolinguistic competence to accurately interpret the situation they are being placed in, as well as the linguistic repertoire needed to appropriately express an efficient and acceptable response. This situation is exacerbated by gaps in their local knowledge in a range of dimensions. Underlying these more explicit gaps and differences are evident mismatches in the deeply held beliefs and values of the two groups about the nature of personal identify and interpersonal relationships, and hence differences in their belief about how relationships beyond the intimate circle of family and close friends should be best managed. It is these mismatches which account at base for the Chinese lack of sociopragmatic competence to engage in small talk, and are the fundamental cause of dilemmas they experience when dealing with challenging situations.”

from Cui, X. (2012). Problematic Chinese-Australian social interactions at work. PhD thesis, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne.

Some of the difficulties can be traced to the Australian version of English. The use of diminutive words like arvo, pollie, journo and chrissy, idioms like, ‘have a crack’ and similes like ‘built like a brick shithouse’ even confuse foreigners for whom English is a first language, let alone Chinese for whom English may be a second, third language or fourth language. Furthermore, Australian phrasings like, “how did you get on at the beach?” and “how did you go at the beach?” (instead of “did you have a good time at the beach?”) don’t make much literal sense.

As well as language, some of the difficulties may be traced to differences in small talk topics. In China, small talk questions often include such things as “are you married?” and “how old are you?”, which would often be considered rude in Australia. Australian small talk often revolves around jobs, weekend activities or sport. If the sport being discussed wasn’t soccer, basketball or ping pong, the Chinese probably couldn’t participate.

Finally, the difficulties may be traced to the fact that, on average, Chinese are relatively poor communicators due to the nature of the Chinese education system. Because the Chinese education system is teacher centred, it doesn’t encourage the kind of class discussions or discussions between students that are common in Australian classrooms. Ironically, when Australian classrooms fail due to poor teacher pedagogy, the classes become noisy as a result of students talking because they are not engaged. Although students may not learn what they need to know about a battle in Hastings in 1066, at least their communication skills are getting a workout.

The difference in pedagogy is in turn reflected in social life. When Chinese socialise, it is more common to engage in an activity than have a conversation. For example, Chinese may go to a restaurant and get blind drunk, go to Ktv and sing, sit on the street and play cards, or go to a bar and play dice games. When Australians socialise, there is lots of talking. They will talk in a pub, talk at a dinner party, talk at a café and even talk at the cricket.

Education

Chinese classrooms are teacher focused while Australian classrooms are more student focused. In more simple terms, a Chinese teacher is more likely to deliver the answer whereas an Australian teacher is more likely to give students some basic knowledge and subsequently expect them to do something with it. Furthermore, whereas Chinese classes don’t have a great deal of interaction between students, Australian classes do.

Although the teaching styles are expressed in all classes, it is the physical education classes where the differences are most salient. In China, it is common to have a teacher standing in front of students demonstrating a skill. The students then copy it. In Australia; however, teachers usually aren’t involved in the activity itself. Like a coach of a football team, they design exercises that develop skills and subsequently tell students to do them. Students learn by doing, by interacting with other students, and by their own initiative. The teacher is more of a facilitator than an instructor.

Arguably, the differences in teaching styles originate from language differences. The pictorial writing systems of China can only be taught via teacher instruction followed by student repetition. On the other hand, Australian students only need to learn the 26 characters of the alphabet. Once they are mastered, teachers need to instruct students in grammar.

There are strengths and weaknesses of each approach. The Chinese approach encourages people to learn from others. This approach can cause problems when others say silly things, such as the myth that the Great Wall of China can be seen from the moon. In such circumstances, silly ideas can be written in textbooks, taught by teachers and accepted without question by students. The students then make a fool of themselves by telling foreigners the Great Wall of China can be seen from the moon. The Australian approach encourages individuals to express their ideas even if they are in contradiction to established thought. The main problem is that it often means Australians kids are constantly expected to keep reinventing the wheel rather than learning how cogs work so that they can invent machines.

Multiculturalism

Although both Chinese and Australians define their respective countries as multicultural, the word means something different in each. In China, multiculturalism refers to the 56 different groups that have distinct cultures anchored in a region. These groups may speak different languages, wear different clothes, and be of different racial groups. The cultural integrity of the ethnic groups is supported by the central government; however, the ethnic groups are required to learn Mandarin Chinese as a common language.

In Australia, multiculturalism used to mean a form of cultural apathied. Now it basically means lots of people with different coloured faces living together.

Consideration

In China, it is important to show consideration for others. Typical shows of consideration include sending a getwell text message when a friend is sick, giving some health advice, or helping an elderly person down the stairs.

While the Chinese show consideration to their friends and acquaintances, public consideration is a bit lacking. For example, Chinese spit in swimming pools, on the street, and sometimes even inside buildings. Chinese people also casually throw rubbish on the street, and men frequently urinate on the street.

Australians are less likely to show consideration on an individual level. The general idea is that a person is able to take care of themselves and doesn’t need well wishes or help. Receiving help, when it hasn’t be asked for, is usually seen as annoying. Australians are; however, more likely than Chinese to show public consideration. Few Australians throw rubbish on the street and most would never spit in a swimming pool. Occasionally drunk men urinate in public; however, etiquette stipulates that they should at least seek out a tree to prevent a urine smell from lingering.

Family values

Because Australia is populated by migrants and descendants of migrants, Australians don’t have extended families as large as in China. This changes the approach to family relationships.

Aside from having smaller extended families, the nuclear family in Australia operates in a different fashion to China. In Australia, each generation tends to be independent. Parents will support children until they are around 18, and then they concentrate on saving for their own retirement. Parents will then live independently until they are unable to care for themselves. When that occurs, their children will be put them in a old-age home, or convince their parents to live with them.

In China, parents will almost bankrupt themselves giving their children every possibility in life. Huge loans may be taken out to fund the child getting an international education, or buying a home for the boys in the family. In return, the parents will move into their children’s home once they get married. The living situation is not ideal for everyone. Chinese men, like men all around the world, are not always fans of their mother-in-laws living with them.

Because parents share a very significant part of their child’s adult lives, they naturally want to take part in the selection of their child’s spouse. In China this is particularly important as the one-child policy may result in one man supporting 7 people (two sets of parents, wife, child and himself) and naturally parents would like a son-in-law or daughter-in-law with a good income and a prestigious family that doesn’t require a lot of supporting themselves.

Homosexuality

Until 2001, Chinese psychiatrists officially categorised homosexuality as a mental illness and used drugs to treat it. Even though their sexual desires are no longer defined as signs of a mental illness, homosexuals are not widely accepted. Under the one-child policy, parents fear that a homosexual child means the end of their evolutionary line. Consequently, homosexuals probably get into sham marriages and keep their homosexuality a secret.

Homosexuals in Australia have had a prominent role since the various Australian states decriminalised the act between the 1972 and 1997. For example, Australia has had a gay prime minister, a gay high court judge, numerous gay MPs, and most of Australia’s famous male actors have played the role of a gay man. Australia also has a gay and lesbian street party that culiminates in a homosexual orgy known as the Sleeze Ball. The street party and orgy receive congratulations and financial support from governments.

Even though homosexuality is more widely accepted in Australia than in China, Australians are more motivated to reject behaviour seen as gay than are Chinese. For example, straight Chinese women walk down the street holding hands with each other and Chinese men walk down the street with arms on each others shoulders. In Australia, straight women don’t hold hands with friends nor do straight men puts arms around each other as they don’t want to appear gay.

Freedom

Freedom can be difficult to define. Every government on earth imposes restrictions on individuals to protect other individuals. For example, Singapore restricts the freedom of the individual to chew gum in order to protect the freedom of people who want to walk down the street without stepping on used gum.

The Australian government is very bureaucratic and imposes many restrictions on its people that Asian governments do not. For example, Australians can not smoke inside, drink alcohol in many public areas, ride a bicycle without a helmet, or defame public figures. Furthermore, Australians may lose up to 47 per cent of their income in taxes, which is far more than the 10-20 per cent in China. The Australian government uses this income tax revenue to alter the natural balance of social society. Although the altering of the balance may help Australia, governments have an uncanny habit of getting things wrong, or using revenue for their own agendas. In the process, the individual Australian is denied freedom.

While Chinese have more freedom from government than Australians, they lack freedom in their social sphere. Because they have very strong cultures, a great deal of social pressure is exerted upon the individual in almost every facet of his or her lives. This pressure can be likened to a form of political correctness that constrains the individual when they choose a marriage partner, career, clothes to wear, values to hold, or morals to support. If the individual’s desires and values are in conformity with the cultural norms, then the individual feels a sense of belonging. If they are incongruent; however, then they can suffer the same kind of stress that is suffered by Australians when they feel that politically correct values or concepts are stifling their free expression.

If individuals break the cultural taboo by exerting their individual values, they are not going to be taken away and shot anymore than Australians would be taken away and shot for getting a swastika tattooed on their foreheads. However, they will find that their friendships, job opportunities and family prestige will all suffer.

Because Australia lacks a strong culture, individuals can free themselves of a great deal of conformity pressures. Admittedly, Australia has subcultures that exert conformity pressures on the individual, but it is relatively easy for the individual to simply leave the subculture and join another one. Consequently, the subculture can never be too strict. The same can’t be said of China. For Chinese who feel constrained by social pressure, the only real option available to them is to migrate to a foreign country.

Insults as terms of endearment

In personal relationship, the Chinese are prone to use insults as terms of endearment. For example, a girlfriend may constantly refer to her boyfriend as fat or stupid. Likewise, a boyfriend, or good friend, may refer to a woman as a fatty or someone with bad taste in clothes.

Australians also are prone to use insults as terms as endearment, but generally refrain from referring to a woman as a fatty or a man as stupid. Instead, the insults tend to be more generic such as bastard or dickhead.

Face

For the Chinese, face is very important, not only for themselves, but also for their dealings with others. Often they refrain from expressing their true feelings because they do not want to strip someone of their dignity. This makes China a very friendly place to visit. Chinese tend to be very complimentary towards the visitors, and want the visitor to leave with a good impression of their country. Even if the visitor is rude and obnoxious, the Chinese will usually refrain from expressing their true feelings and pretend to be respectful.

For historical reasons, face is not important for Australians. For the first 80 years of its urban existence, Australia was a penal colony. This naturally elicited ridicule from foreigners, migrants and Australian civic leaders. That ridicule has never really gone away. Consequently, Australia remains a place where people freely criticise others and are criticised themselves. This makes Australians quite thick skinned, and not very sensitive to causing offence in others. For example, when former Prime Minister Paul Keating referred to the Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamed, as a “recalcitrant”, he didn’t really have any idea that his remark would cause problems. However, rather than ignore the comment, Mahathir Mohamed viewed Keating’s remark as indicative of the country he came from and subsequently said:

“We can’t do anything. If people have no manners, I mean children we can smack them I think that a whole nation, or there generally is one nation who have no manners. It’s very difficult, who resort to personal vilification and all that.”

Compared to Chinese, Australians don’t really care what foreigners think of their country because they are so accustomed to hearing negative things about it anyway. So much so, Australians will even join with the foreigners in criticising it. Even when they want to give a compliment, Australians might mask it as an insult.

Three different Australians