Australia Day is a national public holiday, where Aussies enjoy a day off in the sun with friends, family, fun and laughter. However, there appears to be a sparking debate on whether or not the date should be changed. Those who oppose the debate change such as Ben Roberts-Smith, author of his passionately toned opinion piece entitled ‘Our differences make Australia great, so salute our day of unity’ (published Thursday, 26th January in the Herald Sun), argue it is both a tradition and a part of our culture to honour and celebrate this national day. A proponent of this issue, Kevin V. Russell, writer of the letter to the editor ‘End Australia Day’ (published Thursday, 26th January in the Herald Sun), sarcastically argues the notion of the current
…show more content…
Roberts-Smith evokes his love of our nation through a plethora of appeals to loyalty and patriotism. He begins to remind the reader of the importance of family and friends on a well ‘respected’ day. He explores the conventional traditions of Australia Day from the clichéd ‘barbeque on the beach’ to the ‘shared meals’ highlighting the importance of a day which marks our history. This is made apparent through his use of emotive language, which henceforth encourages the reader to feel that Roberts-Smith is progressing towards an ideal day spent in the ‘comfort of home’. This impression is further reinforced as ‘those who have come across the seas’ have a place to call home, acknowledging many ‘new migrants’ allowing them to feel the ‘freedom’ of our country. Conceding this point, Roberts-Smith employs appeals to family values as he encapsulates sharing the day ‘with loved ones’, inclining the reader to trust his conclusions. To make use of a passionate tone as he anecdotes the days he ‘fought abroad’ for our country, Roberts-Smith leaves the reader as credible, contributing to the acknowledgement of our ‘freedom’ and ‘diversity’.
Roberts-Smith’s portrayal of a multi-cultural ‘diverse’ Australia, through a collection of images, showing the importance of ‘freedom’, ‘diversity’ and ‘identity’. The use of the Australian Flag, echoes the arguments of our nations ability …show more content…
While Roberts-Smith and his accompanied image share a cynicism of being against the date, relying heavily on both family values, patriotism and emotive language. V. Russell in contrast, uses attacks and rhetorical questions to put forward his argument that we as Australia shouldn’t dwell on our history, but to ‘scrap it and start again’, threatening the freedom of society.
Roberts-Smith’s piece has a passionate tone, expressing the view of our cultures commitment to a day of unity. It is possible to distinguish his accompanied photographs as sharing this view, expressed in the figures holding up our national flag to represent our country. V. Russell sidesteps the issue of whether Aussies can acknowledge a day that ‘signifies our history’, framing the issue instead as having no relevance. His tone is sarcastic and disdainful, in contrast to Roberts-Smith’s. All three texts not only take a different angle on the issue, however they draw closer to the values of everyday
Roberts-Smith evokes his love of our nation through a plethora of appeals to loyalty and patriotism. He begins to remind the reader of the importance of family and friends on a well ‘respected’ day. He explores the conventional traditions of Australia Day from the clichéd ‘barbeque on the beach’ to the ‘shared meals’ highlighting the importance of a day which marks our history. This is made apparent through his use of emotive language, which henceforth encourages the reader to feel that Roberts-Smith is progressing towards an ideal day spent in the ‘comfort of home’. This impression is further reinforced as ‘those who have come across the seas’ have a place to call home, acknowledging many ‘new migrants’ allowing them to feel the ‘freedom’ of our country. Conceding this point, Roberts-Smith employs appeals to family values as he encapsulates sharing the day ‘with loved ones’, inclining the reader to trust his conclusions. To make use of a passionate tone as he anecdotes the days he ‘fought abroad’ for our country, Roberts-Smith leaves the reader as credible, contributing to the acknowledgement of our ‘freedom’ and ‘diversity’.
Roberts-Smith’s portrayal of a multi-cultural ‘diverse’ Australia, through a collection of images, showing the importance of ‘freedom’, ‘diversity’ and ‘identity’. The use of the Australian Flag, echoes the arguments of our nations ability …show more content…
While Roberts-Smith and his accompanied image share a cynicism of being against the date, relying heavily on both family values, patriotism and emotive language. V. Russell in contrast, uses attacks and rhetorical questions to put forward his argument that we as Australia shouldn’t dwell on our history, but to ‘scrap it and start again’, threatening the freedom of society.
Roberts-Smith’s piece has a passionate tone, expressing the view of our cultures commitment to a day of unity. It is possible to distinguish his accompanied photographs as sharing this view, expressed in the figures holding up our national flag to represent our country. V. Russell sidesteps the issue of whether Aussies can acknowledge a day that ‘signifies our history’, framing the issue instead as having no relevance. His tone is sarcastic and disdainful, in contrast to Roberts-Smith’s. All three texts not only take a different angle on the issue, however they draw closer to the values of everyday