Introduction

DAVID STEPHENS & ALISON BROINOWSKI

'History means interpretation', said EH Carr, and he was right. The discipline of history is a contest between interpretations. Honest history – the concept – is interpretation robustly supported by evidence. History is distinguished from myth by the strength of the evidence supporting the interpretation. Dishonest history is characterised by tendentious interpretation or inadequate evidence. All historians select evidence. It is how they select it that matters, not the fact that they do.

The study of history involves choosing not just evidence but also subject matter. Recently in Australia there has been a sharp focus on military history, specifically the centenary of the Gallipoli landing – the invasion of the Ottoman Empire – in 1915 and of World War I as a whole. The Anzac centenary has been expensive: the commemoration industry has become shy about publicising figures but an overall amount of $A600 million seems about right. Yet many Australians and some people overseas have been puzzled by our fixation on military exploits. The novelist and historian Thomas Keneally said in 2014 that 'there needs to be a certain amount of de-mythologising' about Gallipoli and associated events. One way of doing this would be to attack the 'Anzac legend' head on. There are, however, more intelligent and inclusive options. The Honest History coalition has always recognised that war is important in our history – not so much because of what Australians have done in war but because of what war has done to Australia, to Australians and to others – but so are many other events and influences. Our mantra has been 'Not only Anzac but also' – the 'also' being shorthand for all the non-Anzac influences.

Some people believe the Australian nation was born on the beaches of Gallipoli in 1915. But focusing on that single foundation moment oversimplifies Australia's history and constrains its identity. Honest History – the coalition – has argued instead for a rebalanced view of Australian history, where Anzac is reduced to a proportionate place and other influences are recognised. Downsizing Anzac need not mean doing away with Anzac altogether (as we shall see inchapter 9 of this book), but does mean winding back its excesses. Geoffrey Serle, historian and biographer of Sir John Monash, coined the term 'Anzackery' in 1967 to apply to the sentimental, jingoistic commemoration of Anzac. When Serle wrote, Anzackery seemed to be fading away, but it has come back, stronger, more sentimental and just as jingoistic, in the last 25 years. Finally, in 2016 the word 'Anzackery' appeared in a dictionary: the second edition of the Australian National Dictionary defines it as '[t]he promotion of the Anzac legend in ways that are perceived to be excessive or misguided'. The definition is significant because it marks an analytical rather than a sacralised take on the Anzac legend.

Despite the recognition of Anzackery – the extreme version of the legend – there has still been considerable wariness about criticising Anzac itself. The Honest History coalition has responded by pointing to the words on the King's Penny (or Dead Man's Penny) a grateful King George V sent to bereaved families after World War I: 'He Died for Freedom and Honour'. Honest History has always felt this included the freedom to have dissenting views about Anzac, and that exercising this freedom was not unpatriotic. Still, as historian Peter Cochrane wrote in 2015, 'never has the Anzac tradition been more popular and yet never have its defenders been more chauvinistic, bellicose and intolerant of other viewpoints'.

Some people blame governments for imposing a particular view of Anzac. Yet this top-down version of how historical myth takes hold is too simple. Asked in 2013 why the Australian government was putting so much effort into military commemoration, a senior official responded, 'It's what the bogans want'. Governments were simply responding to public demand, triggered by nostalgia or pseudo-spiritual longing or simply a desire for entertainment. One could add to this two-way explanation a version of Parkinson's law: interpretations of history, some of them dishonest because they lack or misuse evidence – they are really just myths – expand to fill the space available, particularly if there is no contest from alternative interpretations.

When a single thread of our nation's story is teased out to excess, it strangles the other threads. Australian history is social and cultural, political and economic, religious and anthropological, archaeological and scientific, as well as military. It is made by women, men, individuals, families, artists, philosophers, scientists, businesspeople, public servants, soldiers and politicians. We carry the imprint of the First Australians; the builders of the CSIRO, the Sydney Opera House and the Snowy scheme; the pioneers of the bush frontier in the 19th century and the urban frontier in the 1950s and 1960s; and 'boat people', whether convicts, post-war 'ten pound Poms' and 'New Australians' or asylum seekers. Australian history is to the credit – and discredit – of all of us, not just our Diggers.

We established the Honest History coalition and website (honesthistory.net.au) in 2013 because we were concerned that the forthcoming Anzac centenary would unbalance Australians' appreciation of their history, emphasising the military parts at the...