Search

Some argue that national identity is constructed from the shared myths and 'collective memories' of a nation, where heroes from a 'golden age' and legendary figures embody national identity. However, when a national sample of British adults were asked to name the most important Britons, living or dead, they did not hark back to legendary figures, military leaders or sporting heroes, but identified their monarch, political leaders, and to a lesser extent, 'household heroes' within their own family. 'Banal', quotidian political leaders and Queen Elizabeth II symbolise national identity in Britain, although they sit alongside 'hot' signifiers of nationalism personified, such as football hero David Beckham. This research suggests that studies of national identity should not be limited to examining essentialist claims of ethnonationalism, or civic attachments to laws and institutions, but also explore those whom the citizens of a given country identify as embodying their national identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the 1988 Bicentennial and the 2001 centenary of federation celebrations colonial images have flourished in Australia, highlighting the roles of convicts and free settlers during early colonization. Old sites, such as Port Arthur have been re-invigorated, and in 2004 Tasmanians celebrated the bicentenary of ‘white’ settlement. However, social scientists have given little attention to the role of colonial and post-colonial figures and myths as aspects of Australian national identity. We seek to address this issue by examining how convicts, free settlers, bushrangers and ANZACs are associated with contemporary identity in Australia. 2 We examine evidence from the 2003 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes and find that historical figures such as the ANZACs and post-World War II immigrants comprise important aspects of national identity. A substantial majority of Australians judged ANZACs to be important, countering recent claims of the ‘demise of the digger’. Sporting heroes are also at the core of Australian identity. Colonial figures appear to be far less important, although views on national identity vary according to social location. In particular, left-wing, university educated, younger, postmaterialist Australians view convicts and bushrangers as relatively important, indicating the salience of the larrikin in Australian identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Claiming descent from convicts who were sent to Australia during the early period of British settlement is more than just about blood ties, it is also an aspect of national identity for many Australians. Analyses of nationally representative survey data show that younger, left-leaning, working class Australians are most likely to identify as convict descendants, while older, high income, educated, city dwellers are least likely to identify. Our findings also suggest that the 'hated stain' of convict ancestry is senescent, and will diminish with intergenerational replacement. Yet claims to convict descent remain divided along status lines. Interest in convicts and claims of convict heritage may comprise an element of 'popular taste', but as a consequence of this popularity, 'convict chic' is rejected by educated elites. Embraced by 'middle Australia', but shunned by cosmopolitan elites, convict ancestry is a neglected aspect of Australian identity. Whether claims of convict ancestry are 'real' or 'imaginary', the power of foundation myths to provide shared memories is evident in the salience of convict connections in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]