Recently I was talking to an Australian friend about Aussie sport. Why have the Australians, a nation of a mere 21 million, come to dominate so many of the world's sporting endeavours? (I write this as the Australian cricket size bulldoze their way towards the final of the Cricket World Cup.)
My Aussie mate suggested two reasons. The first was to do with experiencing nationhood and the second with space, planning and investment.
A young country, Australia gained independence from Great Britain in stages, with 'constitutional independence' coming in 1901 and the Statute of Westminster (which formally ended most of the remaining constitutional links between the two countries) in 1931. Yet even after these formal events Australia remained very much a satellite of Britain, looking to her for rule.
The experience of war was the first time Australia gained an awareness of nationhood, suggested my friend. Thousands died first in Gallipolli then in the trenches for the empire during the Great War. The Second World War saw Australia itself threatened by Japanese aggression. Having seen the British Empire crumble under the might of the Japanese advance Australia in some part turned to America as a new ally and in itself found the resources and strength to successfully stave off the strikes looming to the north.
Thus was established the Australian spirit of indomitability and rugged confidence. This spirit continues today in sport and is why Australian stars have an unshakeable belief in themselves as equal to any challenge presented from those outside.
Australia has invested and grown its sporting talents. Nearly every town of a sizeable population has had investment either from government subsidies or corporate sponsorship in the form of pitches, pools and coaching. Over 25% of Australians above the age of 15 regularly participate in team sports. Wide open space and fine weather always lent itself generously to the cause of Australian sport.
Australian authorities have encouraged youngsters to compete, and coached talent to the highest level. In a media release of 8th May 2006 Senator Hon Rod Kemp, Minister for Arts and Sports states:
“Australia has an international sporting record that is the envy of most countries in the world. While we have a relatively small talent pool of high performance athletes, we are able to compete because our elite sport system is based on the delivery of high quality, innovative programmes that are both knowledge-based and built on the latest advances in sports science.”
A look at the aims of the Ministry for Arts and Sports have continuously meant Australians have excelled at Olympic Games, punching well above their weight:
''The Australian Government is also committed to delivering an effective national sports system that offers improved participation in sporting activities by Australians in general. Through the Australian Sports Commission, the Government is working towards:
*increasing the number of people participating in sport, in particular youth, Indigenous Australians, women and people with disabilities through a range of initiatives including Project Connect, Sports Leadership Grants for Women and the Targeted Sports Participation Growth Programme;
*increasing the number of school children participating in structured physical activity and sport; *boosting the active membership and reach of sporting organisations and local sporting clubs;
*building the awareness of the values of fair play, self improvement and sporting achievement.''
Sport is Australia and in many ways one of the glues that binds national pride together:
“Sport is an integral part of Australian life, and sports funding is an investment in the community in terms of national pride, improved health, economic activity and stronger communities.” (Senator Rod Kemp).
Wednesday, 25 April 2007
Saturday, 7 April 2007
Dangerous territory
Just why is it that certain countries have done better than others? A massive question that potentially brings in very awkward questions over history, power and people. I ask the reader to bear with me as I move into sensitive territory...
Using the example of Latin America, countries, generally speaking, have failed to reach their potential. This can be explained by cronyism, corruption, inefficiency and lack of culture (by which I mean a failure to inculcate a sense of national pride in the average citizen).
One person may argue that all of these problems were passed down by the colonists in the first place: thus the guilt and sin lies with colonising nations. Conquistadors, pirates and merchants of the 16th century did not set sail for the New World to establish just and prosperous societies with efficient state apparatus...they went out to get rich and to hell with the natives. From the beginning the colony was viewed as a means to enrich the metropolis, which in turn looked for increasingly useful ways to maximise financial exploitation of its dominions. Powerful elites installed themselves to run and administer the colonies with the primary goal of ensuring production continued to run smoothly. History tells us of course how the nineteenth century brought winds of change to the world and independence was gained by these hitherto vassals of empire. One by one new nations regained sovereignty of people and resources. Joyous celebration and unsurpassed predictions of success eventually gave way to economic difficulties and a concentration of the wealth in the hands of the few, to the detriment of the state. The post-independence ruling elites merely emulated the colonial style of governance.
Another person may say these winners of independence had inherited rich resources, an infrastructure to exploit them and the opportunity to make success of their new nations... and yet failed. Through greed. Through disregard of their own people. Through corruption. Seeing public office as a means by which to get rich quick and to hell with the populace.
There is the opinion that a nation is the sum of its parts. People make up a nation and the state of a nation is therefore a reflection of its people. How far this may be true is the bone of contention...are some nations more lazy than others? More prone to corruption? To what extent do we make our bed and lie in it?
Using the example of Latin America, countries, generally speaking, have failed to reach their potential. This can be explained by cronyism, corruption, inefficiency and lack of culture (by which I mean a failure to inculcate a sense of national pride in the average citizen).
One person may argue that all of these problems were passed down by the colonists in the first place: thus the guilt and sin lies with colonising nations. Conquistadors, pirates and merchants of the 16th century did not set sail for the New World to establish just and prosperous societies with efficient state apparatus...they went out to get rich and to hell with the natives. From the beginning the colony was viewed as a means to enrich the metropolis, which in turn looked for increasingly useful ways to maximise financial exploitation of its dominions. Powerful elites installed themselves to run and administer the colonies with the primary goal of ensuring production continued to run smoothly. History tells us of course how the nineteenth century brought winds of change to the world and independence was gained by these hitherto vassals of empire. One by one new nations regained sovereignty of people and resources. Joyous celebration and unsurpassed predictions of success eventually gave way to economic difficulties and a concentration of the wealth in the hands of the few, to the detriment of the state. The post-independence ruling elites merely emulated the colonial style of governance.
Another person may say these winners of independence had inherited rich resources, an infrastructure to exploit them and the opportunity to make success of their new nations... and yet failed. Through greed. Through disregard of their own people. Through corruption. Seeing public office as a means by which to get rich quick and to hell with the populace.
There is the opinion that a nation is the sum of its parts. People make up a nation and the state of a nation is therefore a reflection of its people. How far this may be true is the bone of contention...are some nations more lazy than others? More prone to corruption? To what extent do we make our bed and lie in it?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)