Para 1 - Chris Kenny introduces the controversial topic of Australia Day by suggesting that it isn’t what it used to be, once a “phlegmatic and relaxed” celebration of our achievements, now it has become a day in which we must “express your guilt for generations past”. “Sadly Australia Day has become a day of sanctimony” attacks those who view the day, and life in general, in an ultra politically correct light, stating the “new breed of Australian” must “speak in approved phrases” in order to prevent from offending someone. Kenny exposes this behaviour through appealing to the tradition and customs of Australians who may be reluctant to accept this behaviour, mirrored by his romanticising of the past, “Our nation was founded in a spirit of optimism and co-operation”, positions the audience to see the absurdity of this way of thinking, and align themselves with more old fashioned notions. It is this notion however, Martin Flanagan believes, will “drive us apart” showing that the view Kenny portrays would create a “divide” in our country. Explained in “The Problem with Australia Day”, Flanagan gives insight into the history of our national day, aligning audiences to concur with the evidence, which states John Howard is the instigator of Australia Day as we know it today. This old fashioned thinking which Kenny and Howard employ is shown to be divisional, as it ostracises the Indigenous population, who just like every other Australian, deserve to “proudly be themselves”, which aligns with Chris Scanlon, who contends that the “progressive side of politics need to …show more content…
“Is nationalism really so bad?” compels readers to introspect on what nationalism is really about, imploring them to look past the “racist, aggressive, vulgar and just plain awful” expression of nationalism that many Australians