They include things that have been used from aboriginal languages to describe Austrian species like kangaroo, dingo, koala, galah, and kookaburra. Burridge and de Laps mentioned that words like battler and fair- go are words that have been used by politicians which are noticeable by all Australians. Australian tend to use the words like ‘not bad’ and ‘no worries’ so they can reflect on their own self image of being humble and casual Moore’s claim of the flexibility of the Australian accent has a range of linguistic features which have been found in different variation over the years. Mitchell and Dellbridge’s (1968) description of the Cultivated, General and Broad Australian accent. Moore has shown that people use more a general accent than either a cultivated or broad Australian accent.
But Julia Gillard, the average Australian is not understood by the rest of the world to run our country. No, you see as we are a commonwealth country the world automatically perceives Australia as a Little Britan. They assume British values accurately represent the average Australian. And the prime minister, well she is simply
WAS AUSTRALIA A WORKING MAN’S PARADISE? LIVING AND WORKING CONDITIONS IN AUSTRALIA: 1901-1914 * Was Australia an 'egalitarian' (equal) society at this time? * Were we a country where people were more or less equal, no matter what differences there might be in their education, occupation or family background? * Were we a young country that was different to anywhere else in the world? It is widely believed that it was but there is much evidence that suggests that this was a myth.
He was critical of Australia's overconfidence and essentially said that Australia was "living beyond its means", that it had become prosperous through "mistakes" and that in order to become economically viable Australians would have to "accept a lower standard of living". The report also suggested that Australia’s protectionist attitude was deviating from its true purpose and that it should continue to exist only as a means to supply Britain with goods. This protectionist attitude was deemed to be detrimental to British interests and very beneficial to Australia. Australia’s politicians did not take Niemeyer’s comments lightly as they were fully aware of how important it was to have England on side. An ongoing relationship with England would ensure prosperity going forward and a rise from the
No sugar uses a white western genre in the form of the oppressor to challenge the values of the oppressor and their perspective of Australian history. When the first British settlers arrived in Western Australia in 1826 there were approximately ten thousand Nyoongah people who believed that these light-skinned Europeans were called djanga or ‘the dead’ because it was thought they were the souls of dead ancestors. Initial friendly relations eventually deteriorated into bitter anger when the British simply imposed their own laws and took over the land. Many of these settlers who came to Australia believed their culture, religion and law were the finest in the world and consequently they considered other cultures inferior to theirs. This postcolonial idea is emphasised when the indigenous people are considered sub-human and among the wildlife (“Government of Western Australia, Fisheries, Forestry, wildlife and Aborigines”).
World War II (1939-1945) led Australians to fight for their rights and freedom, and whilst the wars overseas were coming to an end, Aboriginal Australians were still denied basic rights and freedom, yet living in their own country. Although there were government policies that expressed that all Australians must be viewed alike in their attitudes and customs, aboriginal people were still discriminated in all levels. They were expected to assimilate and blend in with the new 'White' Australia. It was very difficult for the aboriginal people to blend into the British community, the reason being that both aboriginals and the British had not much in common, including: Cultures, values, way of living etc. In the other hand, there were also discrimination
One difference that Australia has against the US is that it is under “The Commonwealth” whereas the US is not; this usually means quite differential laws and rights. The Australian Constitution is similar in a way to the US Constitution as it also has a form of amendments, classed as ‘Articles’ and written as chapters. The purpose of the articles is also uniquely different to the US ten amendments. One item, mentioned in the Australian Constitution that states equality and fairness of finance and trade in all Australian States is no.99 of Chapter IV (Finance and Trade); “The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade, commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof over another State or any part thereof” (Parliament of Australia, 2012). Equality of a country’s states should be a legitimate law in all countries, however not all countries have this.
Australia isn’t as big as some of the armies around the world, it needs protection, when we were attacked by the japenese in world war 2, America backed us up and supported us with the supply of their military power, so its on us to return the favour for them, its our turn to stand up as a nation and back up America as they helped us when we were in need. Australia is only a small country compared to some of the bigger around the world and if we were to be attacked tomorrow by a bigger country without America there would be a high chance that we would not win the war, we would be seen as a weak link but with America countries would know that behind our small nation is a bigger nation in America and they will be there to support, so in respect to America and their hard doings its australias time to show were not a weak country and help out our American
The Australian electorate is exceedingly careful about constitutional change, and it is unlikely that even a very limited Bill of Rights could be added to the Constitution. Once added, it would be largely up to the Cabinet to draft more bills to enforce these rights, the Parliament to pass more Acts, and the judiciary to whimsically interpret the Constitutional changes and the new laws. People like Ben could still be denied access to the processes put in place to defend their rights. If Australia had a constitutional Bill of Rights, and Ben's supporters had the money to mount a High Court case, the process could well have taken a much longer period than Ben could sustain his hunger strike, and he would find unacceptable such a long and difficult road to securing basic human
In the past few years there’s been a lot of controversy over whether or not modern day Australians should apologize for the past events of the stolen generation. This essay will support the statement made by John Howard which was “Modern Australians shouldn't be required to accept guilt and blame for past action.” The reasons we shouldn't have to accept guilt and blame for past actions are , we are not responsible for past actions, we directly had nothing to do with it, we are new Australians, and we have made up for our wrong by granting them their rights. The first reason as to why we should not have to apologize to the aboriginals is because we are not responsible for past action. The actions of past Australians towards the aboriginals