When I was travelling in Britain in 2023 I picked up a strong sense of national identity, emanating from the cobblestones. I am only second generation Australian, of British stock, and I started to feel a sense of cultural emptiness/inferiority as an Australian. Us Australians who are of British stock are in a weird position of exile, in a culture with behaviours influenced by British traditions but its sentiments with a distinct anti-British twist (this followed the Bairstow stumping incident if memory serves!)… our true people, if we go by bloodlines, are Brits; our true homeland Britain. I actually got quite down about the fact I lived away and apart from what makes me who I am, my race, my ancestry, a sort of “second-rate European” as Manning would put it.
Later in the trip my instinct towards self preservation kicked in and I started to knuckle down and take pride in being Aussie — and I sought out books that would help me feel proud to be Australian. Clark is talked of as a historian who recognises grand themes in Australia’s history and I can see why. In this history he shows how the major international conflicts of Catholic/Protestant, capitalist/communist, Labor/Liberal, upper/lower classes have been driving forces of Australia’s history, many times applying them in unexpected or fascinating ways. Just one example being that before this read I had not connected the dots and realised the significance of Ned Kelly’s Irishness.
The book touches on the major historical events you would expect of a history, from the rum rebellion, gold rush, eureka stockade, the world wars, the federation, and so on. The more pedestrian but less pretentious summary of the decades that occurs at the end and which has been added since original publication of the book, penned by Manning’s son, was interesting but seemed like an unnecessary addendum. This will never be a textbook history and doesn’t set out to be.
Clark has a flair for the dramatic so this is no bland retelling. He tends to focus less on the everyday people who make up our history and more on the major historical figures, and among these, most intensively on the politicians — he has a habit of talking of the traits that nature ‘endowed’ them with and interpreting their trajectories (and therefore the nation’s fate) as a product of their character flaws (the Greek tragedian in Clark shining through). So politics is the focus, sometimes in granular detail, such as the structure of government. Sport and the experience of the average Aussie on the street are largely left out.
His continually negative tone also accounts for this four star rating… he seems to enamoured with the element of the tragic in our history, that he unwittingly makes it out like a trainwreck. I was not around in the 1970s and 1980s to know just how grim things were but it seems dramatic for Clark to title the chapter ‘an Age in Ruins’. Just one example of many.
The scathing analysis can lead to vivid and exhilarating moments of insight (like his spiel on Lawson’s experiences and how they shaped his writing), a bit like a watered down version of say, Bernhard or Roth, while at other times making Clark seem a bit smug and like he always knows everyone better than they know themselves. But I continually loved the elegance of his theories and interpretations, which were psychologically sharp, and seemed to express something broader about human nature than the historical detail being described.
In talking of politicians he likes to blithely say that they defined themselves by what they stood against, not for, and says they often had no agenda at all — in a concise history this sort of quickfire glossing over of complexity is necessary but to me it beggared belief that so many politicians on both sides did not at least present a vision of a future Australia (particularly when elsewhere Clark had given examples of this vision).
This history is markedly different from Blainey’s much more pragmatically focused Tyranny of Distance, which focuses on technology, transport, etc. as the deterministic force in our history and character, more so than Clark’s, where I would say the character of individuals is given a larger role.
In summary this was definitely a flawed history but totally worth a read and if read with some skepticism and distance, then a really interesting introduction to our history and some key historical moments. It was great to see an element of greatness invested into a history that is often merely recited.
.