Talk:Aussie

Untitled

The chant looks like Oggy Oggy Oggy -- a spin-off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.16.250.33 (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2005 (UTC)

Please Explain!

The section on Aussie as a cultural moniker reads like a defenseve attack upon a so-called "radical egalitarian movement" and goes on to throw in a comment regarding legal the "fictions of arbitrary citizenship status". The paragraph whiffs of polemic and needs cleaning up. mangonorth

The argument (where it should not be an argument but description of facts) posits that it is not the nationalists that are being exclusive in their use of the word Aussie. This seems to fly in the face of their obvious intentions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.228.152.208 (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As Chant?

I have removed the lengthy description of the "Aussie" chant, as there is already an independant page on this topic. As the chant is a relatively new phenomenon, (and one that has been politicized under the current wave of nationalism,) it should not dominate a description of a word that has broader, long standing and more inclusive meaning. mangonorth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.228.152.208 (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Usage of 'Aussie' as ethnic descriptor

Article states:

"While attempts by schools, politicians and the media to use the term as an all encompassing label for those with Australian citizenship, it has continued to retain common usage as an ethnic descriptor, especially among youth."

Are these claims regarding common usage and usage among youth verifiable? --Salada 10:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

....Salada, it is not verifiable. It is strictly a 'slang' term which is normally used only in informal conversation or communication; for example in speaking with another Australian I might use the words "we Aussies", but any attempt to formalise the word as a substitute for "Australians" as a descriptor of those holding Australian citizenship would be met with derision.Geoffrey Wickham 05:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As a white Australian born and raised in Australia, and only 20 years old, I would say that "Aussie" refers to anyone who identifies themselves as Australian, and accepts and respects "Australian Values" (or "Aussie Values") and way of life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.15.169 (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed point of view statements that the term carries any official bearing, that the traditional cultural group is "European", or that it is used by such people in a "multicultural" context (most use it in a reactionary context, as opposed to cultural separatism and the state's destruction of an Australian multiculturalism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottre (talk • contribs) 02:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean?

Read the following:

“

Multiculturalism makes ethnic origin into destiny. So at the last census Australians were asked about their ancestry and encouraged not to answer 'Australian'. Even those whose families have been here for four or six generations were meant to declare a European ancestry. As with individuals, so with society. In the eyes of the multiculturalists Australian society of the 1940s, 150 years after first settlement, is adequately described as Anglo-Celtic. At least this acknowledges that the people of Australia were Irish and Scots as well as English, but it has nothing more substantial than a hyphen joining them. In fact a distinct new culture had been formed. English, Scots and Irish had formed a common identity - first of all British and then gradually Australian as well. In the 1930s the historian W. K. Hancock could aptly describe them as Independent Australian Britons. To say that the Australians were more British than the British carries more of the truth than is usually realised. Britishness was not a very strong identity in Great Britain itself. The heartland of the United Kingdom was England and the English thought of themselves as English and only on the rare occasions when they wanted to be polite to the Scots did they use the term 'British'. In Australia the pressure of the Scots and especially of the [egalitarian] Irish forced the abandonment of 'English' as the identity of the colonies in favour of 'British'. The Irish of course could still bridle at a British identity even when it included them as equals. In time, with the passing of the first generation born in Ireland and the growth of a distinctly Australian interpretation of Britishness, they were prepared to accept it. The Irish had done well in Australia and saw the adoption of self-government within the empire as the solution to the Irish problem at home, the system which had worked so well in the colonies. Multiculturalists pride themselves on their respect for the identity people give themselves. They tell us that if Greeks want to call themselves Greeks, they should referred to as such and not as Greek-Australians, still less as New Australians. In calling Australians of the 1940s and their descendents 'Anglo-Celts' or 'Europeans' multiculturalists depart from their own rule. They were proud that they had constrained particular ethnic identities [in the public sphere] and subsumed them into the broader term of [Australian] British.

”

• This approach was first taken by the neoconservatives, so it's safe to say the majority of cultural historians agree with it. See the WP:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance guidelines.
• In the context of cultural separatism, the identifier (Aussie) is correctly described as a defense against the use of the term Anglo-Australian. This is notable in that the Australian people have resisted English imperialism for at least one hundred years (and this is the only point radical nationalist and marxist historians agree on). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottre (talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 July 2008

That's a nice essay on British and multiculturalism in Australia, your first point seems ok, but the second is POV and quite inflammatory. 'British' used in this way, maybe interpreted as a political term, so perhaps use 'Anglo-Celtic' instead. --121.200.0.46 (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous that. Anglo-Celtic is far more a part of the (culture wars) vocabulary an encyclopedia should avoid than is British. Unless you want to put in a request for mediation, and insert a second (sourced) interpretation of its usage, changing back to "Australian British (Celtogermanic) descent". Ottre (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why use 'post-Grassby' (it doesn't mean much to the average reader, whereas 'multicultural' does)? --121.200.0.46 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Using the term 'multicultural' would politicise this article, whereas 'post-Grassby' or 'post-Grassby (the godfather of exclusive multiculturalism)' would not. Thought the latter alternative is somewhat disjointed for an encyclopedia article. EDIT: see my second last edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottre (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the word 'multicultural' would not politicise the article. Using 'post-Grassby' or 'post-Grassbian' does not belong in an encyclopaedia, in an academic text maybe, but in an encyclopaedia, no. Anyone who reads the article is not going to know what it means, it will be non-sensical to the reader. An encyclopaedia needs to be simple as possible, easy to read, and unbiased. --121.200.0.46 (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article? "The usage of Aussie then is offensive to those who believe that it unfairly excludes outgroups as not equally Australian. It may also be used in a derogatory sense by those who do not consider themselves Australian to label those who do." Clearly judgemental statements which rest upon the rejection of an inclusive multiculturalism by detractors of Australian identitarianism. You absolutely have to go into specifics. Ottre (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "Aussie"

Article states:

"In New Zealand and the United Kingdom the term is sometimes used to refer to the country of Australia, as well as Australian persons. In Australia itself the term is only used to refer to its inhabitants."

Does anyone agree with this? I am an Australian and I have heard a number of people use "Aussie" to refer to the country. Should this un-substantiated claim be removed from the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buvelot64 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Perjorative use

I've removed this topic from the category 'Perjorative terms', as the term Aussie is rarely or never used perjoratively itself. Offensive use of the term 'Aussie' comes from its use as an exclusive term, thus labelling others (particularly Australians with an ethnic heritage) as 'not real Aussies'. I haven't found any reference of the term Aussie used perjoratively; please edit this if you find a solid reference. peterl 21:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, except for the spelling--it's pejorative not *perjorative. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 23:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Autonym

Do we really need that pretentious factoid in the lead? The lead should talk about the most important aspects of the subject matter, and the fact that this happens to be an autonym is an eye-rolling trivia that should be either removed or push well down in the article. When people look up something quickly in Wikipedia they don't want to know about some other smart-arse word that they probably don't care about. Not unless the oh-look-I-know-this-word-logism is necessary to explain the subject. 205.228.108.58 (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Relegated to a category. Hopefully acceptable username (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)