Gallipoli means different things to different people. To some is a homage to brave soldiers, to others, a visit to the grave yard of one of their relos or friends, to others a tourist destination, an "event", a show, to yet others, a meeting place in their tours. I don't think Keating has denigrated any of those aspects. One can go wherever one's emotions and desires take one. Gallipoli is as good a place as any. What Keating is pointing out to us, is that the notion that that's the place where aussies were reborn in some spiritual or metaphysical sense, is nonsense. We needed no "rebirth," we needed no slaughter, no suicide missions to prove our worth as human beings, nor prove our bravery, our loyalty to our domineering mother, England. We needed no baptism of fire. We have proven our true worth as a sovereign nation in all spheres of human endeavour and we ought to go on proving it. To me, this event shows also another aspect of our leaders back then. It shows how subjugated to the English pompous dictators we were. Had we true independence we would not have suffered that idiotic, certain defeat. And had England the slightest respect for us, we'd be in that war cabinet with equal share at the decision-making process of that war. But that's another story.
One may go to that place of slaughter and light a candle, or zip a tinny open, stare at the horizon and conjure up any pictures one wants but that is a personal act, not one that should be imposed on anyone else, especially not one that turns History into a Myth. I'm reminded of what Daedalus said in James Joyce's "Odyssey:" 'History makes me cry.'
