Mowing the tall poppy field
Jan. 26th, 2008 12:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
todayiamadaisyDo you have a national citizen of the year? The new Australian of the Year is announced every Australia Day, which, as I'm sure you have all marked on your calendars, is today (26 January, for those not reading in the same time zone as I'm writing). Mostly, the AotY is a sportsperson of some description; occasionally a scientist, as a sop to those of us who don't think winning the Ashes is humanity's greatest achievement. This year, however, the committee has raised a few eyebrows by giving the award to (drum roll) country singer Lee Kernaghan.*
I have to admit mine was one of the eyebrows raised (oh, all right, mine were two of the eyebrows raised because I can't raise just one, no matter how hard I try), and I followed that up by saying, "Really? Him?" It turned out that Mr Kernaghan is not being celebrated for his music (for which he should be jailed or, at the very least, have his guitar confiscated), but for his charity-raising efforts on behalf of drought-stricken farmers. And that's... good. I suppose.
Except... except. I often find the whole Australian of the Year concept troubling, and this just adds to it. First off, one article said he'd raised one million dollars over the last ten years. Granted, that's one million more than I've raised over the same period, but one million dollars isn't all that much in the greater scheme of things, is it? Not over ten years, anyway. Secondly, even if he stages morale-boosting, fund-raising concerts and doesn't profit from them, he's still a country music artist performing to country music fans. I'm sure they still buy his albums, so it's not like he's losing on the deal. And I don't mean that as a criticism; I know he's got to make a living. If he had been given the award for services to charity and astute marketing, I'd be right behind it. I just think there must be more effective unknown charity campaigners out there who deserve to be publicly celebrated.
Of course, on the ABC online article I read, some of the comments echoed mine, and others responded by saying "ooh, tall poppy syndrome!" and that's where I stopped reading. Tall Poppy Syndrome is an Australian invention, whereby famous and/or prominent people are cut down to size. It's never done pro-actively; for example, I didn't say "Lee Kernaghan is Australian of the Year? What a tall poppy! I'll cut him down to size." Rather, Tall Poppy Syndrome is only ever recognised after the fact, by the tall poppy and/or its supporters. And you know what? I don't think it exists.
Compared to the treatment of, say, Britney Spears, I think our prominent citizens aren't badly served by our media. The small number of prominent citizens and media people probably mean that there is a lot more polite back-slapping and a lot less serious questioning than there should be. And I find it fascinating that the accusation of Tall Poppy Syndrome is often made after the tall poppy in question has done something extremely dubious. Athlete celebrating a gold medal? Positive media attention welcome. Same athlete who has tested positive to banned drugs? Negative media attention is apparently Tall Poppy Syndrome.
And I say, enough. I think the idea of Tall Poppy Syndrome is sustained by those who don't understand complexity, can't bear dissent and would have us all a nation of unthinking cheerleaders. Given that the Australian of the Year should say something about what the nation stands for in 2008, I don't think it's unreasonable to question the decision. And given that one of the other nominees was an apparently famous golfer called Stuart Appleby, it could have been worse.
* The Young Australian of the Year, more predictably, was given to a sportsperson (if you count motorcycle racing as a sport, which I don't and I won't hear otherwise): motorcycle racing world champion Casey Stoner. I'm so tired of sportspeople I can't begin to tell you, but here's something that amused me when reading the comments on the ABC online article: there were some objections like mine, along the lines of "not another sportsman", and someone came back with "but he's living the dream!". And someone responded to that with "it's all very well to say he's living the dream, but what if his dream was to kill people and he lived that? Would you still celebrate him then?" Oh, good point. :-)
I have to admit mine was one of the eyebrows raised (oh, all right, mine were two of the eyebrows raised because I can't raise just one, no matter how hard I try), and I followed that up by saying, "Really? Him?" It turned out that Mr Kernaghan is not being celebrated for his music (for which he should be jailed or, at the very least, have his guitar confiscated), but for his charity-raising efforts on behalf of drought-stricken farmers. And that's... good. I suppose.
Except... except. I often find the whole Australian of the Year concept troubling, and this just adds to it. First off, one article said he'd raised one million dollars over the last ten years. Granted, that's one million more than I've raised over the same period, but one million dollars isn't all that much in the greater scheme of things, is it? Not over ten years, anyway. Secondly, even if he stages morale-boosting, fund-raising concerts and doesn't profit from them, he's still a country music artist performing to country music fans. I'm sure they still buy his albums, so it's not like he's losing on the deal. And I don't mean that as a criticism; I know he's got to make a living. If he had been given the award for services to charity and astute marketing, I'd be right behind it. I just think there must be more effective unknown charity campaigners out there who deserve to be publicly celebrated.
Of course, on the ABC online article I read, some of the comments echoed mine, and others responded by saying "ooh, tall poppy syndrome!" and that's where I stopped reading. Tall Poppy Syndrome is an Australian invention, whereby famous and/or prominent people are cut down to size. It's never done pro-actively; for example, I didn't say "Lee Kernaghan is Australian of the Year? What a tall poppy! I'll cut him down to size." Rather, Tall Poppy Syndrome is only ever recognised after the fact, by the tall poppy and/or its supporters. And you know what? I don't think it exists.
Compared to the treatment of, say, Britney Spears, I think our prominent citizens aren't badly served by our media. The small number of prominent citizens and media people probably mean that there is a lot more polite back-slapping and a lot less serious questioning than there should be. And I find it fascinating that the accusation of Tall Poppy Syndrome is often made after the tall poppy in question has done something extremely dubious. Athlete celebrating a gold medal? Positive media attention welcome. Same athlete who has tested positive to banned drugs? Negative media attention is apparently Tall Poppy Syndrome.
And I say, enough. I think the idea of Tall Poppy Syndrome is sustained by those who don't understand complexity, can't bear dissent and would have us all a nation of unthinking cheerleaders. Given that the Australian of the Year should say something about what the nation stands for in 2008, I don't think it's unreasonable to question the decision. And given that one of the other nominees was an apparently famous golfer called Stuart Appleby, it could have been worse.
* The Young Australian of the Year, more predictably, was given to a sportsperson (if you count motorcycle racing as a sport, which I don't and I won't hear otherwise): motorcycle racing world champion Casey Stoner. I'm so tired of sportspeople I can't begin to tell you, but here's something that amused me when reading the comments on the ABC online article: there were some objections like mine, along the lines of "not another sportsman", and someone came back with "but he's living the dream!". And someone responded to that with "it's all very well to say he's living the dream, but what if his dream was to kill people and he lived that? Would you still celebrate him then?" Oh, good point. :-)