Aug 2005 #3 - Frocking up with Johnny

Play Now -->

DATE : Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:00:00 EST
Entered in Database : 2005-08-18 12:00:00
length : 4700000
Link to the Show / Show Notes

Last weekend saw some in the Australian media once more go into overdrive, or should I say over-hype, as another government sponsored day of remembrance was turned into another day of great forgetting. Writing in the Melbourne Age this week Tony Kevin puts forward a case that one of the most successful programs run by the current government is the take over of our military remembrances. Kevin argues that the remembrance of VP Day has become, like so many other occasions under the Howard government, "ever more jingoistic, ever more grandiloquent." He asks, "what's it all about?" and then offers the following reply."Well, it's really simple: it is about our Prime Minister projecting his simplistic goodies-and-baddies world view, using his control of our money as taxpayers. He is giving us all history lessons - but it is his version of history, not mine. We have to be more like our American allies - we have to learn to celebrate and be proud of our military victories, not just mourn our fallen in war on Anzac Day, that's for wimps, not for a proud military people like us."A more appropriate reference to Howard's need to project himself as some sort of military leader can not be found than in the images of him during his most recent visit to Iraq. There we saw Howard in bullet proof vest, flack jacket and helmet while all around him were men in business suits and soldiers in basic uniform. Furthermore, and what is striking, is that he was stepping from a US Blackhawk helicopter rather than an Aussie one. This begs the question why and what relevance it has to Kevin's observations.Throughout history kings (and a few queens) have loved to frock up. Historians who have studied the dress of the Middle Ages report on the elaborate and complicated dressing rituals that the ruling classes went through. They note that the peasants also had rituals surrounding dress and what is referred to by Irving Goffman as "the public presentation of self". As Christina Larson wrote in the Washington Monthly, "At a time when most mortals wore course shirts of flax and wool, the king brandished strategic splendour as later rulers would display military might".The dress of the day and the rituals surrounding it were all wrapped up in class and power relations. While its redundant to say that the more wealth you had the better threads you purchased, it is worth remembering that while many of the outward signs of poverty and wealth are now generally less obvious in casual observations of dress, there are still clues to a person's class and social power position to be seen in the dress of today. These clues reveal much more about a person's self image than first glance reveals.Military uniform was quite often worn when the King came out to address his soldiers but his uniform was not the same as theirs. Gaudy epaulets, chunky braids, fine embroidery, well cut pants and fitted boots signalled to the troops that someone of power and influence was addressing them. We only have to look back 100 years to see that many of the European rulers of the day still frocked up in jodhpurs, feathery hats and a stiff sword when they paraded in public.By the end of the Second World War the personal accoutrements of militaristic might were replacedby the suit. As part of the bigger PR picture during WWII the rulers of the righteous West wanted to delineate themselves from their counterparts in the evil East. In turning to the dress of the wealthy, however, these new rulers were still able to send a powerful signal to their wealthy benefactors that they would continue to protect the wealth of the mighty, no matter what the cost. While Hitler and Mussolini strutted around in uniform, Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman eschewed the garb of the military for the business suit and started a revolution in the dress of modern rulers.Rodney Barker, author of "Legitimating Identities: The Self Presentation of Rulers and Subjects" argues that one of the chief functions of governments and bureaucracies is the legitimation of their position. These activities of legitimation, Barker argues, is pursued not to impress only the population but to send clear and unambiguous messages to their allies and enemies.Public exhibitions that continue to "wow" us today such as huge fireworks displays, large public parades, and other spectacular events are nothing new. The ancients had festivals and were using fireworks long before the harbour bridge went up. Although we laugh at the myth of Nero fiddling while Rome burned, the point is that the ruling classes and their lackeys to this day use vast sums of public money to keep the public ignorant or turn the facts of history into myths for their own purposes. When they do, as Kevin so eloquently asks, "Do these people have no grace, no sense of the privacy of memory? They appropriate everything to their own ends, and they besmirch us all".Howard's dressing up in military garb is part of the ongoing reconfiguration of the public presentation of rulers in a war that is slowly revealing itself within our so-called "free" and "democratic" societies. This war, so long fought in secret and largely hidden from the public gaze, is emerging and beginning to show the true colours of those who would lead us.In the battle for the hearts and minds of ‘we the people' there are no rules. There are only sides. We only have to look back a few short years to see how stark this statement seemed at the time. The message Bush was sending out was multilayered and while many lampooned him did anyone notice that Howard, Blair and most of the rulers we hear about each day from Putin in Russia to German President Horst Koehler didn't try and refute him? It is quite possible that the message Bush was sending to them was two fold.Firstly, identify with me and I and the might of the US army will protect you and your wealth and secondly, if you do identify with me then make sure your allegiance is visible and unambiguous. The current ‘global war on terror', or as it's now known, "a global struggle against violent extremism", is not about destroying Islam. I believe them when they say that, truly. What the "global struggle against violent extremism" is all about is making changes to the very fabric of the society its proponents say they want to protect. Howard's visit to Iraq in battle dress was an act of further confirming his government's commitment to winding back basic human rights and re-implementing long lost laws of repression and state terror.The great forgetting that Howard's crew has implemented does, as Kevin observes, "besmirch us all". The dress, the festivals, the parades and the fireworks all send clear messages well beyond our borders. They send clear messages to, as John Pilger calls them, "the new rulers of the world" that say, "we're on your side and will do what ever it takes to secure your freedom, even if it means winding back the freedoms of those we rule".Howard's frocking up in Baghdad was all about sending a message. It is one we, as Australians, should take note of and ensure he does not get away with it. He cares little for the diggers and their families but cares a lot about the image he hopes to leave as his legacy. The question is, is it a legacy we can afford to allow him?

Play in your Iphone