Notes on Section 4

	THE RIGHT WAY	QUESTIONS ARISING
118	“War Memorial” a new term used after WWI. Previously Fallen Soldiers Memorials; After WW1 war in the past gives rise to the War Memorial Movement	Does knowing the variety of monuments and memorials, from the past and in other cultures, add anything to our understanding of how best to replace our existing cenotaph?
	Built on private and public land, in cemeteries – rarely elaborate; message readily intelligible	Is there a difference between elaborate and comprehensive when considering the design of a new cenotaph/memorial?
	Not just memorials – returned servicemen honoured in every setting – workplaces, churches, sporting clubs – Honour Boards everywhere	Would it be meaningful to engage the town’s businesses and institutions in the revitalisation of remembrance?
	Memorials to Jewish soldiers dedicated by Monash in several cities	Unique circumstances led to the recognition of a generally unwelcomed minority. Is there an equivalent opportunity in our time?
	Light Horse monuments to dead comrades rather than as citizens	[somewhere an explicit reference to the Light Horse? And a water feature
	Horse memorial troughs – over 40,000 horses sent, none returned	in the form of a horse trough? Not entirely kidding about this]
119	Memorial Movement underway before the end of the war – Newcastle 1916, Thirroul 1917, memorial drinking fountain... reticulated water a symbol of municipal progress	[somewhere a reference to the memorial at Thirroul, if for no other reason than the name of the fictional town, in DHL’s Kangaroo – based on his time in Thirroul – is Mullumbimby!]
119-120	Fountain fund not a partisan enterprise – healing of wartime divisions, especially over conscription – Granny Riach collected money for causes on opposite sides of the division within society from the same people - land donated near common assembly area (School of Arts/Mechanics Institutes) – Postmaster collected names to be inscribed; free labour from architect and plumber, free cement from merchants and builders – workers gave up holiday to dig foundations – “a real township monument” DHL, fabricated by an Italian immigrant who heard that there was work for his skills – unveiled early 1920 - Other places less harmonious, took longer to accomplish	How might we engage other parts of the community in our revitalisation of remembrance and replacing the existing cenotaph? Why should anyone else be interested? How might we demonstrate its relevance to their lives? What are the issues in our society that can connect people with their history?
120	Local circumstances produced variations on the universal theme of mourning the dead and honouring the returned from this place by name	Does the universal theme of the WMM in the first half of the C20 still resonate in the second decade of C21?
122	“The making of Great War memorials was a quest for the right way, materially and spiritually, to honour the soldiers.”	Doing things “The right way” reflected the inadequacy of earlier forms for remembrance of WWI. Do we need to consider what “the right way” might be in our time?
122	Conflict in some places resulted in more than one committee – sometimes between Catholic and Protestant, but rarely as clear as that	Should we try to identify the cause of conflict among ourselves? Would ensuring that all points of view are heard and thoroughly considered lead more readily to the formulation and acceptance of a considered position?
122	In one place one group erected a pillar and another an arch five years later – by then the disagreement had vanished and the chairman of the first committee unveiled the second monument stressing that the names on it called for unity in peace and war	Thinking about this scenario as an exercise in promoting reconciliation in our own times, how might this situation have been prevented – or be prevented now wherever it arose? Are there instances in our own community of division over the way things are done? [community gardening, drumming, doofs...]
122	A single committee usually defined a catchment for fund raising, but parochial friction between towns and even within a single town resulted in competing monuments	Should we approach neighbouring communities about the revitalisation of remembrance? [not necessarily about upgrading cenotaphs, but about this reading project]
	RAISING THE MONEY
123	Territorial jealousy drove competition between some places for the biggest and best – and crass jibes in newspapers about other towns’ efforts	Is ‘territorial jealousy’ something to be avoided, or can it be harnessed in a constructive manner?
	Rich pastoralists and publicans made it easy for some committees	How should we acknowledge significant contributions from businesses or other benefactors?
124	Full range of all known money raising techniques except gambling and pleasure – goods and services included in the funds raised – this measure talked up to encourage others	What fundraising techniques are used most successfully these days? Is there any means of fundraising that would be unacceptable today?
	Flu epidemic interrupted fund raising which never returned to its initial vigour – then the depression made it even more difficult to continue	What might cause difficulty in fundraising today? [not necessarily physical obstacles, but attitudinal etc]
125	Women often more available and more successful – and built memorials in their own right – the Mothers’ Memorial in Toowoomba; at Gladstone NSW built by town’s ‘women workers’; at Maryborough Vic by Women’s Patriotic League who engaged a woman sculptor; female workers of manufacturing plants	How might women have an equitable role in the revitalisation of remembrance? [Inglis talks of the contribution gender studies made to his understanding of the WMM]
125	Money not always fully raised by commencement of work – critical stages occasions for further fundraising -	How reasonable and or responsible would it be to undertake a project on a scale greater than can be funded at present? Should we aim for the best possible outcome and commit to “whatever it takes” to fund it over time?
	Most projects in NSW £100 - £1000; 1/5 £1000 - £2000 - £100 = $8000 – Thirroul £230 = $20,000 – Rockhampton £2600 = $200,000	Is there a way of determining what an appropriate budget might be for a town the size of ours? Are there other criteria than the size of the town that might be more important?
126-7	Victorian govt legislated to allow local govt to subsidise monuments; banks preferred projects of commercial value rather than monuments – Victorian committees raised above the national average	What role other than providing funds might we seek of the state government?
128	Commonwealth not expected to contribute except to National Memorial in Canberra – however, it gave funds to employ former servicemen and changed tax arrangements to allow tax deductibility for donations... BUT total gave funds from all three levels a small fraction of the whole raised – the War Memorial Movement, like the AIF celebrated as voluntary	Is there potential for a memorial of significance to the whole Commonwealth in Mullumbimby? [Ballarat’s POW memorial started out as a local venture and became a National Memorial]
	CHOOSING THE SITE
128-9	Monuments to earlier conflicts and causes all in prominent places, but too few in number to prevent GW memorials from generally being in the most prominent and accessible locations – main intersections; parks; near public schools; post offices; on hills – always on “common ground” as distinct from War Memorial Churches which were not seen as belonging to all	Choosing a site in not something we have to consider. But what if our answer to a question above [Do we need to consider what “the right way” might be in our time?] calls for us to change the way we define the site – how we exercise our stewardship of it?
130	Conflict over location often caused delay – not always about religion... in one place the noise of passing cattle herds which paled beside the later traffic noise – many memorials became traffic hazards	We have a goal of completion in time for rededication on 11/11/2014. Should we forego this goal if we can’t reach agreement on what to build, and what it represents – or should we avoid internal conflict by plumping for the lowest common denominator from the outset? Is conflict the same thing as disunity? Is there benefit to be gained from some degree of internal conflict?
	THE SACRED AND THE USEFUL
131	Monument or utility? Could be both as in Thirroul: Statue, column, drinking fountain	Can/should we build a structure that is both a monument and a utility?
	Utility most vigorously promoted in the USA but not in France or Italy – British empire voluntary philanthropy provided public amenities – English term War Memorial meant something not purely monumental	Would knowledge of how remembrance is shaped by cultural differences deepen our understanding of our own needs?
132	In Scone Anzac memorial a children’s ward “in keeping with the spirit of a more enlightened and humane age.”	Do we still talk as though we live in an enlightened age? Does our form of enlightenment differ from any previous? How might we benefit from knowing the results of what previous generations considered enlightened? Should we give up on imagining a better future – seeking enlightenment?
	State and municipal authorities encouraged utilitarian memorials to reduce budgets	To what extent should we look to state and municipal authorities for financial support?
	Labor politicians had to tread carefully in case support for utilitarian memorials was seen as reluctance to honour soldiers	Is the RSL as non-political as it professes to be? If not, what would cause it to have a political bias? Is there an alternative to political bias?
	Opponents of utilities said making them memorials was a cop out – pointed to the possibility of their being replaced and therefore not permanent memorials – also to the time when people would forget their origin	How have events borne out or run counter to this argument?
132-3	A hall cannot evoke the necessary ‘religious’ sentiment ie uplift and express the sacred, whereas a marble soldier could	Is this still a viable point of view? How do you respond to the use of the word religious – does it mean something different here from what it means today?
133	Opponents of monuments called them “relics of barbarism”	What would prompt someone to say this? Does this suggest that the clear picture we have today of what War Memorials came to represent was not as clearly understood when the WMM was in its infancy – that what War Memorials came to be was still being worked out?
	Revolving majorities resulted in revolving decisions	Would disinterested negotiation have prevented this from happening? What makes it possible for a community to settle its differences? Is there any such thing as the common good? Can the common good be known in advance?
	“When memory vanishes...” a reason to prefer utilities over monuments – human service of memorial utilities would be a living witness	How can the same argument be used in support of opposing goals? Are they both right? Are they both just words that we make fit into our interests?
	Public meetings dealing with conflicting visions were stormy and had to be reminded of the reason they were happening	Is stormy debate a sign of a divided community or a vital community? Can you think of situations where little or token debate conceals an authoritarian mindset?
134	Sometimes returned servicemen were asked what would be appropriate, but they were as divided as any other sector of the society	Why would any definable group not have a common answer to any question? How does diversity of opinion promote a flourishing society?
135-6	RSSILA tended to prefer halls where comradeship could be maintained through reunions	Is the practical solution necessarily the best solution for the wider community? Could the practical solution foster a ghetto mentality? How might this possibility be avoided?
136	But the sacred could be desecrated by entertainment in halls – even hospitals not seen by some as proper monuments	Silence and solemnity is not an uncommon way of evoking the sacred, but is it the only way? Is there any danger in preferring one way exclusive of the other?
137	Compromises – stone soldiers over entrances	How is this compromise different from what was built at Thirroul?
	Anyone familiar with municipal affairs would not be surprised at the difficulty of achieving consensus in some places	Does this opinion reflect an inescapable truth about the nature of public affairs, or does it divert attention from ways of successfully achieving consensus?
	No resistance to building High Schools as war memorials – became places for ceremonies	In what way is building High Schools as memorials an explicit engagement with the sacred? How might it be merely utilitarian?
137	Sometimes two memorials: a monument and a utility – but in general, monuments preferred to utilities: 60% monuments; 20% halls; 1-2% hospitals, schools etc; 18% both monument and utility	Does the lack of uniformity in what was done mean that some communities got it wrong? Given the RSSILA’s preference for halls, what conclusion might be drawn from the fact that they were only 20% of the memorials built?
	EXPERTS AND ARTISANS
138-9	Design competition a way of minimising arguments about details – raised more issues... the fairness of eligibility criteria; expert adjudicator’s decision final or not; and more	Why design competitions? Would it not have been more efficient for a single authority to design a range of options from which communities with different budgets could choose?
	Architects necessary for halls and hospitals; stonemasons preferred for low budget projects; sculptors for more ambitious projects	Does this seem like a perfectly obvious division of labour? Can you think of any reason why the output one of these roles might have been made subject to the scrutiny of the other two?
139	Professional jealousy laced with unapologetic high-culture snobbery on the part of architects and sculptors who deplored the take up of stonemasons’ offerings	Is high culture still the measure of human ingenuity? Is it still at the top of a hierarchy of cultural styles? What is the relationship between high culture and political power? Is high culture compatible with celebrity? How does celebrity relate to popular culture? What is the relationship between popular culture and political power?
140	Where sculptors were engaged the result was not always pleasing to all stakeholders – committees had to tolerate some artistic freedom when they engaged artists	Is the term “artistic integrity” a self-serving “myth”? Should artists just give the public what it wants? Is educating the public a legitimate role for artists? What is the actual relationship between artist and audience.
141	Sculptors did get some work, but the most acclaimed Australian sculptor made only the Sydney Cenotaph – no municipal memorials – other high profile artists made monuments for private/institutional patrons but not local authorities	What does this suggest about the public influence of artists at the time?
141	The most commissioned sculptor operated outside of his profession’s norms by advertising and by working for wages on other people’s projects	Is there a “lesson” in this for aspiring artists?
	Two others who started out as stonemasons took up the hammered bronze method and did lots of work for half the price of ‘canonical’ sculptors	Is this evidence of falling artistic standards?
142	Stonemasons, some of whom called themselves sculptors, and others who used titles such as ‘Monumental Sculptors and Designers’ or ‘Workers in Marble and Granite’ produced what might be called ‘vernacular sculpture’	Can you tell the difference between ‘vernacular’ and ‘canonical’ sculpture? Why it important that some people are able to distinguish between them? I don’t know much about art but I know what I like. Discuss in relation to our project.
142-3	Custodians of high culture not only in Australia, but Britain and the USA called for an authority to “control the national expression of hero worship” to prevent the erection of “unsuitable memorials”	Has the word hero been demeaned since this statement was made? Is it capable of rehabilitation? Has controlling the national expression of anything ever been the role of artists? Is it still possible to talk of “unsuitable memorials”?
143	Victoria – War Memorial Advisory Committee made up of heavyweights from Government, architecture and the arts recommended that all committees engage architects and professional experts as designers and judges	Were the custodians of high culture seeking to protect the image of heroes or engaging in a self-serving grab for turf?
	Victorian committee hardly ever consulted, but a similar one in NSW given power in Local Government Act to approve design of monuments to be built on public land	Is there significance in the difference between the Victorian and NSW approaches to this matter? Are you aware of other attempts to prescribe (or proscribe) cultural standards?
	NSW legislators actually listed monuments that would not have been approved by experts and published a booklet of advice which included a picture of a stonemason’s soldier – the real target of the campaign	If you have not already read in the adjacent NOTE/QUOTE column how the committees of NSW responded to this, try to predict what you will find when you come to that part, and explain why you think they would have reacted in that way.
144	Passed with just one dissenting voice – a former Labor Premier who feared inhibiting popular sentiment in the name of art	Australia was no longer at war when the War Memorial Advisory Board was set up (1919) yet every member of the NSW lower house but one voted for it. Can you think of any other measure, before or since then, in Australia or elsewhere, that has attracted such resounding (zealous?) support?
	No other state gave such power to experts (on this issue)	Have experts been given power to approve or reject proposals or products in other industries? Comment on the significance of the examples you give.
	It became known as the Public Monument Advisory Board and oversaw about half the memorials built between 1920 – 1928 – many committees complied with the Board’s standards or modified their designs in response to its advice – but many built monuments without consulting the Board or in defiance of its rulings	Antiauthoritarianism has existed in modern Australia since 18 Jan 1788, so it was not something new when the committees ignored the WMAB, and it has continued to be a characteristic of Australian political and social life, becoming especially significant in the 60s and 70s. Does it always result in better outcomes in public life?
146	Despite the Board’s interventions memorials in NSW were not notably different from those in other states	Can any generalisations about the role of government in cultural policy be drawn from this? Are there issues on which governments still intervene? With what result?
146	“The public Memorials Advisory Board represented an unusual intrusion of the state into cultural policy, provoked by respect for both the expert and the citizen soldier, enabling one to have some effect on how the other was to be honoured – though not enough in NSW to create a memorial landscape notable different from elsewhere in the nation.”	Respect for the expert is very much the way of modernism. Post-modernism is not about disrespecting the expert as deconstructing the relationship between client and expert so that it becomes a relationship between a responsible agent and a source of information and advice. Can you name at least one set of relationships which is no longer based on the authority of one of the parties?
	FORMS
147-8	Hall most common utilitarian form especially in soldier settler areas where it had multiple functions including club house and town hall
	No predominant type of monumental form – commemorative arch, column, pillar, urn, cross, obelisk, statue, clockless tower, pavilion – NEW FPRMS: the Cenotaph and the Avenue of Honour
	Cenotaph = empty tomb, but the word came to be applied to all forms, all of which thereby came to signify an empty tomb – even statues of soldiers
	Cenotaph a deeply imperial form the Avenue of Honour an indigenous form intended to assure recruits that they would be memorialised – by 1918 Ballarat AoH 4000 plaqued trees – Victoria, the garden state promoted AsoH more than any other state
	Memorial Arches rejected by committees opposed to proclaiming victory – arches with gates at the entrance to parks, however, symbolised the threshold to peace
150-2	Cross chosen more often then the arch – common in Britain but not in the USA, Australia or NZ where strictly secular symbols were preferred + awareness of jewish sensibilities – where used crosses given explicitly secular significance – only one crucifix erected by a civic committee – RSL president saw it as an example of self sacrifice for others - rejected by the board but sent back until approved
	Obelisk 10 to every cross erected – most popular form – non sectarian symbol of death or glory – inexpensive and easily erected, readily approved by the Board, and susceptible to embellishment where affordable
154	Symbolic ornaments such as crossed rifles and shrouds focused meaning
	Upright form linked character of soldier with heavenward orientation – upright later reinterpreted as “phallic” unleashing unresolvable debate about psychoanalytical interpretation
154	Diggers on pedestal second only to obelisk – uneven distribution – more in Qld because vigorously promoted by a particular firm to committees – cost £150 = $12,000
	Australian firms, but also Italian supplied Britain and Dominions, little resistance to their being “foreign” – uniforms judged to be correct at the time, always the uniform of a Private, life size, slouch hat, clean shaven in contrast to Bushmen of Boer War
155-7	Where material permitted, facial expression given critical attention to achieve the right combination of regret and triumph
	Posture – great variety but rarely aggressive – hard to accomplish in stone but not in bronze – helping hand popular since Boer War – about comradeship rather than enmity
159-61	Passive rather than active stance – never lying down as was common in Catholic countries where model of hero-victim was the recumbent Jesus
161-2	Notable exception in crypt of St Mary’s Cathedral – called Dead Soldier by sculptor, but the Unknown Soldier by others who saw it
162-3	Other memorials of startling expressive character at Geelong Grammar and Angaston, SA
	Digger rarely accompanied by sailor – very small Navy and very few notable actions – but there are exceptions, one of which also includes the bust of a nurse
	Diggers with abstract female figures in 4 places
164-7	Female figure – allegorical female figures on some monuments – sometimes to avoid representing weapons
	Britania, Justice, Peace, Grief & Peace, Christian angel or messenger of classical gods irrelevant
	Never scrutinised for authenticity; not supposed to be representative... the role of effigies of uniformed men – female role to display gravity and inspire appropriate sentiments
	Significant selectivity – not the Roman Goddess of War; nor Venus, Liberty or even an allegorical female Australia -
	Realistic female figures rarer than allegorical – exceptions, nurse on memorial at Maryborough, the only representative of her service on a local GW memorial – bust of a nurse shot by German firing squad – young woman with baby reunited with her uniformed man – the Weeping Mother which embodies not the mouened but the mourners
168	The Digger perceived dislike of Digger on Pedestal drove exaggerated accounts of it as ubiquitous and clichéd... believed without checking by those who it suited – but no two are identical... client chose a theme and supplied variations
	Liked by people not into high art but much experienced in statuary in churches and cemeteries
	Whiteness signifying death and purity a source of comfort – their simplicity able to absorb the observer’s thoughts and feelings
170	Erected within a few years of the events that directly affected those gathered at the unveiling [the critics are entitled to their preferences, but they are also allowed to respect the feelings of those they sneer at]
170	Trophies enemy weapons captured and sent home to be incorporated into war memorials... part of an ancient tradition of disarming and taking spoils
	Some municipalities slighted if weapons offered perceived as nit significant enough
	Others refused to accept symbols of war
	DHL able to invest the machine gun at Thirroul with special significance
	‘THEIR NAME LIVETH FOREVERMORE’
171-2	Recording the names of the war dead to everyone’s satisfaction was nearly impossible – policies on place of enlistment varied	How would we define the area of Mullumbimby for the purposes of “honouring people from this place by name.”
	Some places so few dead everyone knew then; in others too many to record on an affordable memorial - Names sometimes left off altogether	Is leaving the names off an option? Why would we leave the names off? Why shouldn’t we leave the nemes off?
172-3	Distinctions became complicated – symbols for killed, killed in acrion, died, died of wounds, died on service	Who should decide whether or not these distinctions should be included if practicable?
	Individual details or listed simply as a son of this place -	What would determine the amount of detail to be included?
	Seniority of recruitment, theatres of war, rank order, decorations,	How does all of this compare with the RSLs position that all are equal in death?
	Alphabetical order gave every man equal honour... which pleased the RSL	If seniority of recruitment was relevant in the immediate post war decade but no longer, is there an argument for preferring date of death to alphabetical order?
	Egalitarianism in death not just an Australian disposition	Is egalitarianism universally an Australian disposition? How do high and popular culture relate to egalitarianism? What about the cult of celebrity?
173-4	Unique Australian practice of listing names of all who went, not universally followed, reflects pride in unique volunteer status of AIF	Is the volunteer status of people serving in the military now different from that of the AIF? Did National Service change the Army in any way?
	Volunteer army applauded in Senate within hours of the Armistice – ironically, most loudly by those who tried to implement conscription	There were two referenda during WWI to introduce conscription. Both failed – 48.4% in 1916 and 46.2% in 1917. It was one of the most divisive issues Australians have ever dealt with. Is there anything in our time that compares with that experience?
174-5	The singular purity of the AIF became a theme of soldier reunions and Anzac Day rallies – Monash: “We were all men of one nation and all volunteers.”	Did this Myth affect the cohesiveness of the military in subsequent years? Why were conscripts during WWII demeaned as “chockos”?
	The most powerful reason for inscribing the names of all who went
175-6	Roll of Honour also the roll of dishonour – those judged to have shirked their responsibility... which raised the need for yet another list – those who missed out through no fault of their own ...ie enlisted before the armistice – and then another... those who were required for home service, munitions workers – and finally, yet another list... rejected volunteers	What does this sequence of lists say about the social cohesion of Australia at the time? With all these heroes in their midst, why did Australians feel the need to vilify men who did not join the AIF? [Was it a case of shooting the messenger?]
177	Not all names on pedestals were males – 2300 women in the Australian Army Nursing Service... 21 died of illness; 154 MID; 7 MMs;	Can you think of any films, novels or historical accounts of these women? Were there other women who served?
	1/10 memorials record nurses names – much of it laced with the post-Crimean war sentimentalism about FN	Is it the role of interested people in later generations to find ways of giving recognition to people not adequately honoured in their own time? Are there people other than nurses whose who deserve belated recognition?
	Did not prevent blunders of nurses being recorded as “men who answered the call”	What is the name given to the systematic failure to treat women as equals? Why do men feel affronted by talk of sexism?
178	Ambiguity of status - made honorary officers to protect them from enlisted men (which did not please many nurses) but when it came to military honours, MMs awarded instead of MCs	Is this illogical and discriminatory? Is it related to discrimination against other people who served?
178-9	Immigration meant German and Chinese names among the honoured – including monuments inscribed in honour of men who fought to preserve a white Australia	How could German and Chinese names be included among the war dead? Weren’t Germans interned and Asians excluded from the armed forces in Australia at that time?
179-80	400 men of Aboriginal descent got into the AIF – often indistinguishable except where explicitly marked as Aboriginal	Aborigines were not eligible for enlistment until after the 1916 referendum, and then only if one parent was of European descent. Are there still barriers to full participation by Aborigines in Australian society?
	Honour boards on reserves seen only by family and friends	Were there other ways in which there service of Aborigines was rendered invisible to the rest of the society?
	On one 19 names – local member of state parliament: “so few because as a dying race Aborigines did not have the same incentive as white people to serve” in complete disregard of how difficult it was for Aborigines to enlist	Does the “dying race” mind-set explain why the Aborigines’ white brothers felt little or no compunction in taking their land from them? Or was the “dying race” mindset invented to justify taking the land? Were the Aborigines ever a dying race? Is there a need to redress errors in the way we remember Aboriginal history?
180	Listing both those who went and those who died showed that 1/5 did not return	Try personalising the figure of one in five deaths. For example, there were 200 boys in my secondary school in any one year. Had we enlisted over a four year period, forty of us would not have returned. Will personalising such information focus our efforts on ”the right way” for our times?
	‘LEST WE FORGET’
181-2	Inscriptions reveal variety of decisions on how to express grief and pride	Should we attempt to document as many inscriptions as possible?
	Provided by wordsmiths in some cases, and people with other skills in others	Should we workshop inscriptions for our new structure over an extended period of time?
	Australia unusual in its candid use of the word WAR on its memorials ...	Should we consider various attitudes to using the word “war” in the name of our new structure? [if it is a cenotaph the issue doesn’t arise]
	...and pride in the scale of participation	What place has expressions of pride in the message of our new structure?
	Dates but not campaign – the point being that anyone who served took part in the one Great War	Does the spirit of this point apply to the artwork on the inside of the walls? What of the museum function on the outside?
	Tributes to men variously, described from formal to colloquial, who were volunteers fighting for something rather than against enemy who were almost never named	Does this point go to the substance of the message of the artwork? The long search for justice and peace
	Carefully worded to avoid disharmony	How conscious should we be of the multicultural nature of the society? Has Australia always been more multicultural than we have been comfortable to acknowledge?
	In the name of the interchangeable concepts of empire and nation	Can we acknowledge our origin as part of an empire without feeling the need to either justify or apologise?
182	Euphemism and other language devices – made the supreme sacrifice; laid down their lives; passed from the sight of men; and even gone west	If “the medium is the message”, do we need to consider the suitability of the language that has traditionally been used? Is our message different?
183	Not just DEAD, but GLORIOUS DEAD; CALLED TO HIGHER SERVICE; OUR IMMORTAL DEAD – open to Christian or Pagan interpretation such as “The brave go to some kind of Valhalla”	Is this language appropriate now? Should we try to understand why it was used at the time? Should we try to find language that pays tribute in suitable terms in our time?
	FALLEN and FELL the most common words used to invest being killed in action with transcendent significance	Do we need to deconstruct the words we use to better recognise the way they do instruct?
	Words chosen to comfort and uplift, not instruct	We are unlikely ever to give these words up on the grounds that they sound sentimental to most but the services community. But should we deconstruct these words in particular to ensure that we are not instructing ourselves in misleading expectations.
	Ritual language drawn from classical idioms, and archaisms of modern language invented for the purpose of saying what every day language could not	Deconstruction has mostly been used to attack unexamined assumptions, but it can equally be used to clarify why we do certain things. Should we be afraid of what we might find by deconstructing “our most sacred things”?
	Almost nothing from the Bible – ‘Not representative of people from every denomination and none’ – the few chosen theologically non committal, or simply changed to suit a purpose ... GREATER LOVE HATH NO MAN – the rest of the verse omitted, or changed by substituting COUNTRY for FRIENDS	Would it be acceptable practice these days to alter verses from any form of scripture to suit our purpose?
	THEIR NAME LIVETH FOREVERMORE the most popular text readable as no theological content	How intellectually honest is it to take words from one context and give them a new meaning?
184	LEST WE FORGET Kipling’s words first used on Boer War memorials had “acquired a patina” by 1918 and could be addressed or interpreted as exhortation, encouragement, reproach	These words are non-negotiable... But should we be concerned about their use in inappropriate situations? Does the service community always use them in a way that does not diminish their value?
185-7	War poetry seldom chosen – lines from Lawson, not generally known to be his at the time, connected Australia’s bellicosity with Australian flora	Almost a century later, should we look again at war poetry for words that may have acquired resonance in the collective consciousness?
	Remembering made the dominant theme - Tennyson invoked for glory; O’Hara for FAME’S ETERNAL CAMPING GROUND; and Kipling’s LEST WE FORGET	In spite of efforts to reject religious identity, much of the language perpetuates a religious view of existence. Should we look to writers who worked out how to maintain integrity in the absence belief in God? [eg Albert Camus]
	Dads’ Association of Victoria gave Kipling’s words a local accent WE WON’T FORGET	Is local accent what we are looking for, or language that carries us beyond the familiar into the wholey?