A national anthem is supposed to be inspirational and aspirational, it's not supposed to reflect the country we are but the country we want to be. 

About a month ago Gregor Stronach had a bit of a whinge about the Australian National Anthem ("Advance Australia meh..."), and to make his point dissected the song using the time-honoured, if somewhat dishonest, method of taking words out of context and interpreting metaphors literally. The same method could be used against any piece of writing; applied against Stronach's own piece one wouldn't even make it past the title without noticing that "meh" isn't a word and deploring him as an illiterate.

I have another point of view. I like our national anthem. I like the fact that it doesn't talk about war and taking up arms against vile aggressors as so many national anthems do, such as the anthems of the United States, France, Mexico and Portugal to name a few. I like that the words are joyous and welcoming rather than bordering on hubris. I appreciate that the song gives thanks for the natural gifts of Australia but notes that will have to work to make the nation better. Stronach thinks we have "the single most appalling national anthem in the world", which leads me to suspect he's never actually heard any other national anthems. Seriously, can you name one good national anthem?

Perhaps the most ridiculous accusation leveled against the national anthem is that it is dishonest. What of it? A national anthem is supposed to be inspirational and aspirational, it's not supposed to reflect the country we are but the country we want to be. I note that for all his complaining Stronach didn't put forward an alternative, but I've started on something that might meet his approval. It's sung to the same tune and entitled "Cringe Australia, Cringe".

Australians all apologise

for daring to exist

pretty soon we will do what's right

and go and slit our wrists

There is nothing good about our land

and we are racist ....

Well, you get the picture. It's a pretty silly way to make my argument, but I think effectively supports my point that national anthems should not honestly reflect the idea that the people should be embarrassed about their country.

Now I'll pick apart Stronach's picking apart of the national anthem:

"Australians all, Let us rejoice - This has always been a contentious line, and was changed from "Australian Sons" to "Australians all" when women rightfully pointed out that they make up the majority of people in this country, and therefore should probably be included in the anthem".

Pointing out a problem with the original song rather than the current national anthem is just setting up a straw man to knock down. If Stronach wants to criticise the original Advance Australia Fair that's fine -- but I think he'd be more upset with the panegyrical verses about Britain than anything said about Australia. "Australians all" is about as inclusive as it could possibly be, and the exhortation to rejoice is far better than an exhortation to cringe or to take up arms.

"For we are young and free - except, of course, for old people and prisoners. Which is at last count about 27 percent of the population. We should also bear in mind that this line refers to Australia as a 'young' nation, neatly excising the tens of thousands of years of indigenous existence on this continent, a clear indication that Australia doesn't care at all about those who came before us".

This was nicely done -first Stronach misinterprets the line to mean individuals rather than a country, then turns around and takes the metaphorical meaning to attack that as well... maybe he should just pick one.

"We've golden soil - except for the deep red sand of our vast deserts and the occasional startlingly dark loam found in the more verdant regions of the country. It's an interesting euphemism, though - we've managed to translate our 'wide, brown land' into 'golden soil', leading me to believe that McCormick had help with the lyrics from a real estate agent".

I didn't expect to have to explain what a metaphor was, however: A metaphor is "a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphor). In this case the idea is not to say that the soil is made of gold (although in parts of Victoria in the early 19th century it may have appeared to be) but rather that it is good for growing crops and grazing herds. Obviously in many parts of the country this isn't true either -- but the anthem doesn't say that all the soil is like this.

"And wealth for toil - Minimum wage: $14.31 an hour, normally paid to people who work horrible jobs that no one else wants to do. People with cushy jobs (like mine, and probably yours) get paid a whole lot better than that. Putting that in perspective: An individual, after tax, will take home about $480 a week. To buy an average-priced home in Australia, the mortgage payment - per week - is about $840. There's your reward for hard work - an unattainable dream".

Sure, everyone wants wealth without toil, but that generally isn't the way the world works. I've worked for a lot less than $14.31 an hour and managed to significantly improve my financial situation. A comparison of the minimum wage with, say, Mexico finds that it compares well. The minimum wage in Mexico is about 50 pesos, currently about AU$5.40 -- and that is per day, not per hour. Which country would you rather toil in? The Australian minimum wage is more than 20 times that of Mexico, and while living costs are lower in Mexico they're not THAT much lower. Maybe Mexico isn't a fair comparison, so how about the US? Minimum wage currently US$6.55 an hour. As for the "unattainable dream", you can't take the bottom end of one thing (wages) and compare it with the average of another (house prices). People on minimum wage aren't going to be looking for an average-priced house any more than a CEO would be, and not being able to live in the inner suburbs isn't "the end of the dream" for most people.

"Our home is girt by sea - And there it is - the word that every Australian child needs to have explained to them when they learn the National Anthem. For those of you playing at home, 'girt' is the past tense and past participle of "gird". Which means it's got something to do with loins - presumably".

This is a perfect time to decry the falling standards of Australian's literacy skills but I'll pass that up to point out that anyone with an IQ three points above that of a rock should be able to work out the meaning of "girt" from the context. I never had to have the word explained to me, and as far as I'm aware neither has anyone else I know.

"Our land abounds in nature's gifts - Nature's gifts? Let's see... we have the highest concentration of poisonous fauna of any country on the planet. Add to that the fact that the seas that we are 'girt' by are home to sharks, crocodiles and the world's most potent jellyfish. We have vast reserves of environment-destroying coal and radioactive uranium. And the country is prone to drought, floods and bushfires. Thanks Nature! Your gifts will be treasured, always".

We've got some of the most diverse and unique flora and fauna in the world and Stronach whinges about it? Local Eucalypt species are excellent choices for timber plantations, we've got plenty of precious and non-precious metals, most of the world's opal -- and coal and uranium get singled out for their effects on the environment. What about geothermal power using the "hot rocks" beneath Australia, one percent of which could provide enough electricity to meet Australia's power needs 26,000 times over, thus ending the use of coal for electricity in Australia? Is Stronach also going to get sarcastic about that gift of nature?

"Of beauty rich and rare - Australia has produced, by my reckoning, no more than ten Supermodels. Ever. They are beautiful, rich and rare. So how, pray tell, does this line represent the other 20 million or so Australians currently on the books? If you're not rich or pretty or both, then you're outta the club. Thanks for playing".

It's pretty sad that a song about a nation mentions beauty and Stronach associates that with women -- and seems to imply that any woman who is not a supermodel isn't beautiful. Most foreigners I've met think Australian women are drop-dead gorgeous, but I'd rather talk about the line as it was meant. Australia is a beautiful country (especially if you ever leave the city), the beauty is rare because it is different to the way most countries are beautiful, and it is rich because there is plenty of it.

"In history's page, let every stage - What does this even mean"?

I can't believe I actually have to explain what is possibly the most obvious metaphor I've ever encountered. The line is an expression of a desire for everything that happens now, in the past and in the future to make Australia a better nation.

"Advance Australia Fair - An admirable sentiment, make no mistake. But it is, when you think about it, overtly racist. Advance Australia: yes. Only the "fair" people - I really think that this could have been clarified".

Maybe when the song was written over a hundred years ago "fair" was meant to mean light-skinned -- but as I've already pointed out the original song was more about Britain than Australia. However, these days most people take fair to mean "just and unbiased", or sometimes "free from imperfections". In all the definitions of "fair" found in the dictionary, "light-skinned" is well down the list.

"In joyful strains then let us sing - I don't get this bit either. I trained as a singer when I was a kid. I've heard joyful singing, and I've heard strained singing. I don't think I will ever get the two confused. But here we are, being implored by our National Anthem to do just that".

This is just looking for things to complain about. In terms of singing "strains" obviously refers to a passage of melody or music. If you want to link the word to "joyful" then it would refer to the tone and style of the singing.

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross - If by 'radiant' McCormick meant 'twinkling faintly through the light pollution caused by our energy-hungry capital cities', then yes - technically, he got this one right. Mind you, in the late 19th century, the southern cross was probably as bright as the moon is now.

A very nice way to imply that Australia is only found within the capital cities. Head to the outback and look at the night sky -- the Southern Cross is incredibly radiant.

"We'll toil with hearts and hands - Again with the toiling - and this time not only with our hands (which makes sense), but also with our hearts (which is medically impossible). I defy anyone to dig a hole using only their heart".

I've made both of the following points before but I'll make them again. Even though Stronach may not like work doesn't mean it's a bad thing, and even though Stronach can't recognise a metaphor doesn't mean they shouldn't be made. When people care about the work they do and why they do it the results are far better when they're just looking for something above minimum wage.

"To make this Commonwealth of ours - By "ours" we mean "Queen Elizabeth's" - on paper, she owns the lot. Which explains why she always looks pretty grumpy - the operating costs of something so large must be prohibitive".

This statement is ... odd. The Commonwealth is a form of government, in this case the form of the government of Australia. our government. There is a vast difference between being Head of State and owning something.

"Renowned of all the lands - Finally! We're getting somewhere with this line - and for some reason, it's buried halfway down the second stanza that nobody in their right mind would ever sing, unless they're up for re-election and things are looking hopeless".

Here we come to the crux of the matter, apparently Stronach doesn't want what's best for Australia, he just wants to be popular. The world is not high school.

"For those who've come across the seas - Except, of course, if you arrived from a foreign country, seeking refuge. In which case, you can expect to spend at least a couple of years in a detention centre. If you're lucky, it'll be somewhere warm. Like the middle of a 'boundless plain'.

We've boundless plains to share - "Boundless: Adjective, meaning 'infinite'". Which is true, right up until we remember that our home is 'girt by sea'. Also: historically, we've not been all that keen to 'share' the supposedly infinite bounty of Australia, particularly with those who have 'come across the seas' without our government's express permission".

I'll ignore the missed metaphor (if the point hasn't been made by now it never will be) and move onto the complaint that the national anthem doesn't reflect the actions of the Australian government towards asylum seekers in the past couple of decades. The incarceration and traumatisation of people fleeing oppressive regimes and hopeless circumstances is an embarrassing blight on our history. At the time it occurred it was pointed out that it contradicted the national anthem, and by implication what Australia wants its values to be. Rather than change the national anthem to reflect some of our worst qualities I suggest it would be better to try and live up to the ideals expressed in the anthem.

"With courage let us all combine - This is only the second line in the whole damn song that stirs any sort of pride or national spirit, and it's the last thing we're supposed to sing. For shame..."

So, Stronach objects to "Australians all" but not to "let us all combine"? I strongly suspect he spent several hours trying to think up something negative about the line but in the end had to settle for its location in the song.

The biggest argument against changing the national anthem is simply that no matter what we change it to the majority of people won't like it. When Advance Australia Fair was chosen as the national anthem a competition was held that reportedly received 2,500 lyric and 1,400 music entries, and none were considered acceptable. When a vote was held between God Save The Queen, Advance Australia Fair, Waltzing Matilda and Song of Australia, the current national anthem reportedly received 43 percent of the vote and Waltzing Matilda 29 percent -- after preferences were distributed Advance Australia Fair claimed 65 percent of the vote.

My point is that if we were to go to all the effort and expense and national soul-searching involved in choosing a new national anthem it's pretty much guaranteed that the majority of people won't like it, and we'll end up in exactly the same situation we're in now. People's taste in music are too varied and their ideas of what our national anthem should be too erratic to get anything even approaching consensus. Which would give Stronach another column, because I can almost guarantee he'll be near the top of the list of people who don't like whatever would replace Advance Australia Fair...(www.hamilton.net.au/advance.html)

James Quintana Pearce holds a B. Tech in biotechnology from Macquarie University and a Masters of Journalism from the University of Technology, Sydney. He has been a professional online journalist for ZDNet Australia and a professional blogger for MocoNews. He currently lives in Mexico studying complex conjugations.