ethics – Humanist Blog

Stand By For Action!

“Stand By For Action… Anything can happen in the next half hour!” – so begins the opening narration of a British children’s TV series from 1964. Sixty years later, such a call for action and anticipation remains pertinent when considering our relationship with both ourselves and the world’s oceans.

4th October 1964 marked the seventh anniversary of the start of the Space Race, when the USSR launched Sputnik 1 into Earth orbit. It is noted that “Sputnik 1 demonstrated the feasibility of sending artificial objects into orbit. It inspired rapid technological evolution… Sputnik 1’s success accelerated research into new materials, propulsion systems, and miniaturization techniques.” Whether by coincidence or otherwise, the seventh anniversary of its launch also served as the launch date for “Stingray”, a ‘Supermarionation‘ children’s television series that explored another unknown frontier – Earth’s oceans; and although this TV series did not have the same immediate impact as Sputnik, it nevertheless pointed the way towards both technological and societal/attitudinal changes that would become as profound as the space program.

A Drop in the Ocean

“Most people think the bottom of the ocean is like a giant bathtub filled with mud — boring, flat and dark. But it contains the largest mountain range on earth, canyons far grander than the Grand Canyon and towering vertical cliffs rising up three miles—more than twice the height of Yosemite’s celebrated El Capitan” – Robert Ballard (2014).

Humans have had a relationship with the oceans since before we were human. Our earliest known ancestor may have been a microscopic aquatic creature over half a billion years ago. Subsequent aeons of evolution have left signs to show that we evolved from marine life and retain tantalising clues within our anatomy. Even as a modern land-based species, it appears that sea caves may have saved African homo sapiens from extinction less than 150,000 years ago. It is known that Australia’s own indigenous peoples have interacted with marine environments for probably over 50,000 years.

It might be said that looking up into the night sky – as Sputnik challenged us to do in 1957 – can fill us with awe as we contemplate that everything we know is merely a drop in an infinitely larger cosmic ocean. So too should we consider with awe that the Earth’s actual marine oceans comprise the planetary amniotic sac that birthed us, and were the home within which our distant ancestors grew and evolved. Such notions should be as natural to us as a human baby’s bradycardic response and “diving reflex”, or a child’s natural propensity to play at the beach.

And yet, despite the Australian tradition of visiting the beach and getting sunburnt, it appears that most people around the world cannot swim. In our quest for modernity, we have lost touch with our roots. Our imagination is one way we can cast a glance backwards (and forwards) to the oceans around us.

Photo of a turtle swimming underwater by Belle Co (Pexels)

Marine Science Fiction

Mike Nelson: “Underwater: That’s where I do my work.” – “Sea Hunt”.

There have been many imaginative attempts to explore underwater, oceanic or submariner worlds in literature, film and television. The earliest popular work is, “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” (1870) by Jules Verne, and the most overlooked might be Fantastic Voyage, a 1966 film about a submarine shrunk to microscopic size and injected within a human bloodstream. Both of these explore the marine world that is within or around us, and our relationship to that environment. Both posit that we are a part of that environment and should treat it with respect and care.

Aside from “Stingray”, two other popular TV shows in subsequent decades have featured a submarine crew. The first was “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea“, a US series based on a 1961 movie of the same name; commencing its television run on 14 September 1964 – almost the same date as “Stingray” – and concluding effectively four years later, on 31 March 1968. Featuring Admiral Harriman Nelson and Captain Lee Crane, the submarine Seaview and its crew encountered adventures ranging from spies and nuclear alerts, to aliens and monsters of the week.

The other show was “SeaQuest DSV” (12 September 1993 to 6 June 1996), a series following the adventures of the Deep Sea Vessel (submarine) SeaQuest, operated by the United Earth Oceans organization (UEO). With a 1990s flavour, the show featured action adventure mixed with politics, environmental issues, intrigue, military adventures, and a teenage prodigy.

Both “Voyage” and “SeaQuest” followed the same formula of “Stingray” in that they feature military structures under the command of a male who is entrusted with a ship and a crew in pursuit of a mission. Other TV series with marine themes, such as “Sea Hunt”, “Flipper”, and Australia’s own “Adventures of the Seaspray” and “The Rovers”, were all programs that featured seaboard or shipboard life rather than submariner adventures, and moved outside the collegiate (teamwork) principles of “SeaQuest”, “Voyage” and “Stingray”, focussing on more individualistic stories (the “Stingray” production team would venture into this individualistic perspective in their later – and most successful – series: Thunderbirds”).

The Future Was Fantastic

“Marina, aqua Marina,
What are these strange enchantments that start
Whenever you’re near?”
– Barry Gray (musician), ‘Aqua Marina’, in “Stingray”.

“Stingray” was produced by the creative team of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson, the same people who went on to create a variety of increasingly technologically and conceptually complex series, including “Thunderbirds” and “Captain Scarlet”, and some live action series such as “UFO” and “Space: 1999“. Consequently, “Stingray” seems to have been largely overlooked, overshadowed by its successors – although it was groundbreaking in its own way.

“Stingray” was primarily a children’s action-adventure series, prominently featuring model work and vehicles from the same team that would later wow the world with explosions and space age vehicles in “Thunderbirds” and other productions. The Stingray submarine and its drydock were reminiscent of the Skydiver and its dock that would later appear in “UFO”, and the launch of this submarine would later evoke images of the launch of the “Thunderbirds” in that subsequent Anderson series; a myriad of such futuristic vehicles would inhabit the other worlds of the Andersons and their production team. One critic acknowledged that a strength of “Stingray” was its powerful Anderson trademark special effects work:

“Anderson and his colleagues were always far better as technical wizards rather than tellers of compelling tales. And when the eponymous sub unleashed hell via its torpedo tubes, the result is explosive in more ways than one.”

For a puppet show, it may be surprising that some of the groundbreaking material in “Stingray” was in its implicit portrayal of humans. The series had a surprising amount of subtle humour, but also some serious underlying messages. Commander Shore was a disabled man in a hoverchair, unrestricted by his disability to exercise leadership of his military unit. Marina was a mute young mermaid woman who manages to live, love, communicate and engage in cross-cultural interactions despite her disability and her culturally alien background. Such portrayals are rare even today. Furthermore, Marina and Atlanta Shore are shown as capable, proficient and accomplished women in their own right, despite the restrictions of their world – this form of female empowerment also appearing in other Anderson TV shows, including “Thunderbirds”, “Captain Scarlet”, “UFO”, and “Space:1999” – during the concurrent rise of second-wave feminism.

And despite the limitations of the stories and the exotic, other-worldly setting of the series – simplistic, deep sea “shoot-’em-up” adventures at the bottom of an alien ocean environment – the budding romance between Troy Tempest and the Marina might be seen as a symbolic love for exploration, new knowledge and reconciliation. This quest is set up in the opening scenes of the first episode:

Co-pilot Phones: “There are people living under the sea, and I’ve got fairies at the bottom of my garden.”
Troy Tempest: “Okay you can laugh, but someday I’m going to prove it, and maybe sooner than you think.”

Other meta-analysis in the series revolves around Titania’s deference to their god, Teufel – a fish whose divine fishbowl-lens wisdom leads his adherents to constant defeat. Perhaps humanist Gerry Anderson is challenging viewers to ponder whether their seeking of knowledge through religious perspectives assists or hinders their lives; and is encouraging them instead to use the lens of scientific, evidence-based reasoning that was supposedly the basis for the philosophies of the victorious aquanauts.

Cold Waters, Cold War

“War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of state policy with other means.”
– Carl Von Clausewitz.

Reflecting the era of Cold War and Space Race, “Stingray” depicted a Cold War between the land dwellers of Earth versus the underwater denizens of Titanica. Led by aquanaut Troy Tempest (captain of the underwater craft “Stingray”) and his crew, the World Aquanaut Security Patrol (WASP) fought to repel the aggressive hostilities of King Titan and his spies and marine creature henchmen. On its most basic level, the series could be seen as a simple reworking of the traditional “good guys versus bad guys” theme, of heroes versus villains, as was later revisited in other Anderson shows particularly “Captain Scarlet” (humans versus Martians) and “UFO” (humans versus aliens). However, set in the domain of Earth’s largely unexplored oceans, “Stingray” metaphorically asked questions about who might win this underwater version of the Space Race; implicitly suggesting that the people of Marineville (land dwellers who were transitioning into people who explored the oceans) might be the best compromise for taming, colonising and exploiting this final frontier, and thereby win the quest for possible dominance of the world.

This was an era which we might now view in hindsight as being somewhat culturally problematic – women were portrayed in sexist, demeaning ways; James Bond movies were using “yellowface” to represent Asians – and while “Star Trek” was being created as an “Wagon Train in Space”, “Stingray” might be seen as an underwater version of the “western” template. The conflict with underwater denizens can now be seen as equivalent to an imperialist or colonial quest for dominance over indigenous people, complete with an Orientalist flavour and the placement of WASPS (or “White Anglo-Saxon Protestants” – a term that was becoming increasingly widespread in the 1960s) as the heroes by default. If “Stingray” was being produced today, it would undoubtedly be more nuanced in its portrayal of characters from both sides of the conflict. Children’s programs today are much more willing to explore discrimination, bullying, empathy and equality.

Photo by Pew Nguyen: https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-can-on-the-shore-11607726/

Treasure Down Below

“The sea, the great unifier, is man’s only hope. Now, as never before, the old phrase has a literal meaning: we are all in the same boat.” – Jacques Costeau.

There are many reasons why we should explore and protect the oceans. For one thing, it remains home to vast numbers of species and potentialities that we have yet to discover, leading Sir David Attenborough to compelled to declare in Blue Planet II that, “Hidden beneath the waves, there are creatures beyond our imagination.” The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concurs:

“Scientists estimate that 91 percent of ocean species have yet to be classified, and that more than eighty percent of our ocean is unmapped, unobserved, and unexplored. While these statistics may sound daunting, they have not stopped the global scientific community from striving to amass as much knowledge as possible about ocean life.”

They also note that the oceans provide us with food and medicine, economic resources, and climate regulation.

But the oceans are the birthplace and cradle of life on this planet; the location of the natural terrestrial chemical laboratory within which natural tidal forces likely churned up abiogenesis, and the source of photosynthesis that created the oxygen in our atmosphere. These waters remain our largest unvanquished planetary frontier. We need to stop using them as a garbage can for our pollution, chemicals, wastes and plastics. Instead of worrying about treasures, pirates and monsters at the bottom of our seas, we need to tackle the problem of trillions of microplastic shards that humans have discarded, the species of marine life that we are making extinct due to overfishing; and the destructive impact of human-caused climate change upon the 70% of the Earth’s surface that makes ours the Blue Planet. Even NASA has joined the call, using space technology to further extend its mission to planet Earth.

To explore, respect and protect the world’s oceans is a worthy cause today, and groups such as Oceana and Ocean’s Harmony lead the way, with their appeals for support and volunteers and youth activism.

And let’s pay tribute to a humble children’s puppet series, launched sixty years ago today, that also contained a call for action regarding our oceans and marine life.

Just What the Doctor Ordered

In the middle of a now-forgotten epidemic that killed millions of people, a now-forgotten Australian TV series presented its plea for rejecting stigma and discrimination, respecting diversity, and encouraging the dissemination of information and public education.

As the 1980s drew to a close, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation commenced a long-running soap opera which, like many other TV series before it, focused upon the professional and private lives of doctors and medical practitioners – but with a twist. Australian television historian Moran observes:

“In developing “G.P.”, the ABC took a leaf out of both Seven’s “A Country Practice” and Nine’s “The Flying Doctors” in focusing on the business of doctoring but smartly decided to orient the program towards an urban milieu.” (Moran, 1993, p. 204.)

Given this change of setting, G.P. promised to be less reliant upon utopian rural stereotypes, and more willing to examine modern reality in urban/suburban Australia. In this contemporary setting, G.P. offered more gritty realism and less faux nostalgia as could be found in some overseas medically-oriented fictional programs, such as, Doctor Finlay’s Casebook or All Creatures Great and Small.

7 March 1989 saw transmission of the first episode of G.P. (Shore, 1992, p. 48.) The series introduced a number of characters and storylines which covered a broad range of medical and social issues – and demonstrated a mature and inclusive attitude to diversity. This also meant that episodes portrayed a wide spectrum of people, including those affected by HIV/AIDS. Lasting eight years and running for 318 episodes (imdb.com, n.d.), this series tackled AIDS in a way that no other Australian TV drama series ever did before – or has done since.

Whereas A Country Practice and The Flying Doctors had contained tokenistic, usually single-episode stories on the epidemic that was killing thousands of Australians, G.P. took a more comprehensive approach. The series was willing to tackle stereotypes and invisibility, attempting new additions to Australia’s folklore and culture in the midst of a terrifying plague.

Paediatric AIDS

Like the producers of The Flying Doctors before them, the creators of G.P. fashioned a story about AIDS early in their series – the 22nd episode during their first year of production. Telecast on 8 August 1989 (imdb n.d. #2) and titled, “Toss A Coin”, the episode told the story of five year-old Zoe, who had contracted paediatric AIDS from her now-deceased mother. Complications were added when the little girl was victim of prejudice and discrimination at her school. The director, Geoff Nottage, reportedly cast his own daughter as the only school friend to stick by Zoe (Shore, 1992, p. 58). This episode won the 1989 Human Rights Award for TV Drama (ibid, p. 110).

Unlike the stories in The Flying Doctors and A Country Practice, this story in G.P. may have actually been inspired by real-life Australian events such as the case of Troy Lovegrove or – more pointedly, the experiences faced by Eve Van Grafhorst, a young girl with HIV whose family were ultimately hounded out of Australia. The producers of G.P. were clearly not afraid to reflect gritty realism, confronting viewers with nuanced stories that were more challenging and confronting to their own perspectives and prejudices – and more likely to inspire sympathy or empathy. Like the aforementioned TV shows, this episode avoided linking HIV and AIDS to gay men as the primarily affected cohort – but this invisibility would quickly change in the series.

Gay Men

It was not long before G.P. produced another story about AIDS – telecast on 3 April 1990, “Mates” was the eighth episode of their second season (imdb, n.d. #3) and this time, the series challenged Australian audiences to view gay men in a compassionate and respectful light.

One of the doctors, Steve Harrison, discovers that his friend, Mark, has been refused an operation to correct an injury which he sustained during a game of squash. It turns out that Mark had been tested for AIDS without his knowledge and that he had subsequently been diagnosed as HIV positive. Dr. Harrison must come to terms with this news and his own homophobia – but must also break the news to Mark and to Mark’s gay partner, Alex, who is not HIV positive (Shore, 1992, p. 70).

“Mates” was a breakthrough on Australian television because it presented gay men as otherwise fairly ordinary people who lived within society and who enjoyed the respect of their heterosexual friends and colleagues – it was just that some of them happened to have AIDS.

GP: “Lovers” (aired 1 May 1990 – from imdb)

Four weeks later, this story concluded in the episode “Lovers” which was telecast on 1 May 1990 (Zuk, 1998 – 2004). “Lovers” presented the reality of people dying with AIDS, and the discrimination faced by many gay couples at the hands of their own family members. At the time, Australian law did not recognize gay partners, and heterosexual family members had exclusive legal rights as next of kin. In a global context, the World Health Organisation did not remove homosexuality from its “Classification of Diseases” until 17th May that same year (IDAHOBIT, 2023), although tragically, AIDS would entrench an association between homosexuality and medicalisation for many years.

In “Lovers”, Mark is now dying of AIDS and his loving mother arrives – to be confronted by his homosexuality, his medical condition, and by his gay partner. Her furious homophobia puts a great strain upon the relationship between Mark and Alex, and it greatly adds to Mark’s distress as he loses the battle against his terminal medical condition. After his death, his mother freezes Alex out and even refuses to allow him to attend the funeral, despite Dr. Harrison’s pleas for compassion (Shore, 1992, pp. 71 & 72).

Such treatment of gay partners by hostile heterosexual family members was not uncommon in Australia at the time. It is to be hoped that this episode challenged such families to become more accepting of their children’s partners. Perhaps G.P. contributed to a growing groundswell of support that led to marriage equality, inheritance rights, and related family legal rights in the following decades.

“Lovers” reportedly won a number of awards (ibid, p. 71) including the 1990 “Penguin” Award for Best Direction (ibid, p. 110).

Heterosexual AIDS

On 16 November 1993, the episode, “Loose Ends” featured a minor character who was an HIV positive male patient. He chatted with the doctors about his forthcoming marriage. No further details were specified about his background, and he appears to have been included mainly to as a stock character to help “normalise” the existence of HIV positive people in society.

The series’ sixth and seventh years in 1994 and 1995 – the era when one of the doctors was a gay character – seemed to feature references to AIDS or related topics on a frequent basis.

“A Temporary Mess” (10 May 1994) focussed on a young female school teacher whose HIV status was publicly disclosed and she faced fear and prejudice from many of her colleagues, her students and their parents. The issues of privacy and prejudice were examined – and compassion was extended mainly by the gay doctor, Martin Dempsey; and one of the students, young Peter Browning, who had an adolescent crush on her. In a final, touching scene, Peter dismisses the HIV bigotry of his friends and their parents by calling them “dickheads” and shyly befriending his teacher.

Condoms

Two episodes with references to condoms were run concurrently in 1995, and they both seemed to imply that condoms were not necessary for heterosexuals.

Dr. Sonia Kapeck lectures her younger sister about using condoms in the episode, “In Control” (4 April 1995) but the teenager returns the condoms to Sonia in a subsequent scene because she evidently doesn’t believe that she needs them. What may have been a covert reference to celibacy may have also been a warning about complacency against safe sex during an epidemic.

The following week (11 April 1995), the episode, “After Hours” featured an adult heterosexual couple having a casual sexual liaison without condoms and then asking each other if they should be concerned about “diseases”. The question is left open – maybe placing the onus for a decision upon the viewers themselves.

Australia was at that time emerging from an era when condoms had not been widely available like today: often only on sale over the counter, upon request from chemist shops (provided the chemist had no religious objection to selling them) – which made their availability especially limited within certain geographic or demographic cohorts; and which were still barely mentioned in polite society (often referred to by vague terms like “protection”). Following the “liberation” of the condom into widespread useage in 1986 following the arrival of AIDS (Blazey Peter Blazey, 1986, In coming years, scandals would break out in at least one state of Australia (Queensland) regarding the existence of condom vending machines. Such changes were happening across Australia – the colloquial “franger” was being lifted out of impolite backyard conversation and into polite society.

Just as the gay community had been forced to learn to love the prophylactic, mainstream Australian society was now also being challenged to embrace the rubber contraceptive. Forget embarrassment or old fashioned notions of morality – lives were potentially at stake! For any television program to mention condoms explicitly during this era was still an achievement of progressive courage, and maybe optimally possible on the ABC-TV network, whose non-commercial TV stations would not be subjected to the concerns of advertisers.

AFRAIDS – Associated Fears Relating to AIDS

Although many TV news programs and other fictional stories featured fear of AIDS (usually subconsciously incorporating it into their storyline without much self-examination), G.P. was the first Australian program to explore many facets of AIDS phobia and to infer its irrational nature.

On 18 April 1995, the episode “What About Your Heart?” included a scene of a doctor who was bitten by a mentally ill patient – then casually dismissing the incident because he claimed to have regular tests for HIV and hepatitis. As HIV is not transmissible by saliva, the scene was evidently an acknowledgement of the potential for people to have irrational fears concerning the virus.

Later that same year, the episode entitled, “Like Father, Like Son”, which was telecast on 15 August 1995, featured a father who needed heart surgery and who strongly encouraged his adult son to donate blood in order to protect him from contracting AIDS from a blood transfusion during surgery.

Another episode, “Hush Little Baby”, telecast on 7 November 1995, included a comment from a parent about her young son getting into a fight at school, in which a punch drew blood from his opponent and elicited a verbal scolding from the parent of the other child – what if he had AIDS?

On 17 August 1993, the creators of G.P. followed up with an episode called “Infected”, which starred gay actor John Hargreaves – who was later to tragically die of AIDS himself – playing a dentist with an irrational fear of infection and disease, including AIDS.

AIDS and Euthanasia

On 4 July 1995, the episode “Not Fade Away” introduced a two-part story which was possibly the nastiest story of the series. Young gay doctor, Martin Dempsey, is treating a gay patient with AIDS who is battling a declining quality of life and eventually indicates that he wishes to die with dignity. Dr. Dempsey assists in his euthanasia – and the patient’s sister reports him to the police. Significantly, the episode features a real-life AIDS Vigil in Sydney – the only known Australian TV program (outside news clips) to spotlight this authentic moment of pain and trauma in the Australian AIDS community.

The following week, on 11 July 1995. The episode title, “A Parting of Friends” is indicative of what ultimately happens between the professional partnership of Dr. Dempsey and his colleagues at the Ross Street clinic as a result of his actions to assist in a suicide of a terminally ill AIDS patient. Although the police enquiry is eventually dropped due to lack of evidence, the other medical staff react angrily to the disclosure of Dempsey’s actions – and the senior doctor sacks him. The departing doctor seems to maintain a friendly relationship with the others, but there seems to be a definite undercurrent of acrimony towards him, and this arguably portrays Dempsey’s colleagues – the main characters of the series – in a rather uncomplimentary light.

This story parallels a Hollywood movie (“It’s My Party”) which was released in April the following year – demonstrating that the writers of G.P. were at the forefront of social comment regarding AIDS.

This story also tapped into a powerful social controversy at the time, highlighted by AIDS – the rights of patients who were terminally ill with AIDS and who asked to be allowed to die with dignity. Their plight helped to bring the topic of voluntary euthanasia to the forefront of Australian politics and society, particularly in the Northern Territory, where the Territory government passed a law allowing terminally ill people to receive assisted voluntary euthanasia (Maddox, 2005, p.50) – the very same month that the GP aired this episode. Under conservative Prime Minister Howard, however, the Federal government responded during 1996 and 1997 with its own legislation which overruled this Territory law (ibid, p. 52). Victorian doctors were later to lead a public call for AIDS-related euthanasia (The Age, 25 March 1995, p. 1) and a veritable army of medical staff comprising a virtual underground army of assistants for those with AIDS who wanted to die with dignity (Magnusson, 2002, p. 23), it would take some decades for Voluntary Assisted Dying to be legally implemented across Australia.

Condoman was first a 1987 Indigenous health initiative to promote condom use.

Indigenous AIDS

During its fifth season, an episode of G.P. entitled, “Dancing with Death” tackled the topic of AIDS and the indigenous community. Telecast on 23 March 1993 (Wikipedia), the episode was notable because one character bore some resemblance to real-life Australian Dr. Fred Hollows – a man who had caused controversy because of his outspoken public comments on AIDS and indigenous people.

Women with AIDS

In season six, G.P. tackled the problem of women with HIV/AIDS in an episode entitled, “A Temporary Mess”. Airing on 10 May 1994 (Wikipedia), it featured a female character who faced prejudice and stigma once her HIV status was publicly revealed.

This was an era that was potentially more difficult for women with HIV than it was for gay men. The LGBT+ communities had support services available for their members, while women – a smaller cohort but impacted by their own specialist medical needs – were often invisible and overlooked. One female activist recalls the programs that were run by women for women:

“We had annual retreats and at each one, we didn’t know who would be alive the following year. It was scary times. Funerals were commonplace. Who would be next?”

While women had initially been at the forefront of leading the fight against AIDS and related stigma in Australia, it was still remarkable for an Australian TV program to sensitively feature a female character battling such difficulties.

Activists Fighting Amnesia

G.P. demonstrated that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, as a government-funded broadcaster, was willing and able to go where commercial television did not dare. More than that, it seems possible that the ABC was keen to promote AIDS awareness in line with the policy of the same Hawke-Keating Federal Governments that had given Australians the frightening Grim Reaper as a way of imprinting AIDS within our collective community consciousness.

A generation later, G.P. has been largely forgotten – partly because it was telecast on a non-commercial network, and partly because it dealt with complex social issues (such as AIDS, itself now largely forgotten) in nuanced ways that defied the typical soap opera formula of stereotypical characters and simplistic binary solutions.

Its legacy may very well be that it helped to save lives by promoting safe sex, anti discrimination and acknowledging the existence of diversity. The program may have contributed to changes in societal attitudes – marriage equality, anti discrimination, condom usage, voluntary assisted dying, anti racism, equality for women – in ways that have now become so much a part of our collective consciousness that we forget where those modern perspectives originated. Most significantly, it served to educate and inform during a terrible epidemic, and its creators should be proud that, like so many other activists of that era, they role-modelled and served when lives were at stake.

Where some people might now see forgotten actors and artists, we should see and recognise them as heroes of their time and culture.

Bibliography:

IDAHOBIT, 2023. The History of IDAHOBIT – May 17, 9 March.

imdb.com, n.d. G.P. TV Series 1989–1996.

imdb.com, n.d. #2 G.P. TV Series Episode List Season 1.

imdb.com, n.d. #3 G.P. TV Series Episode List Season 2.

Marion Maddox, 2005. God under Howard: the rise of the religious right in Australian politics, Allen & Unwin.

Roger S. Magnusson, 2002. Angels of Death: Exploring the Euthanasia Underground, Melbourne University Press.

Albert Moran, 1993. “GP”, in Moran’s Guide to Australian TV Series, Australian Film and Television School/Allen & Unwin.

Harvey Shore, 1992. “GP: The Book of the ABC TV Series”, ABC Enterprises.

T. Zuk, 1998 – 2004. “http://www.australiantelevision.net/gp/episodes1.html”, Australian Television Information Archive.

= = =

The Power of Music

The Power of Music: “Why Wars”
and My Journey from Uganda to the Future

Adastra is a rising musician whose life reflects his experiences across Africa, and whose resilience speaks volumes about optimism and hope. As he celebrates his 39th birthday after a hectic week in a music studio, he reflects on the journey he has made to get to this point, and the long trek he has ahead. His professional name, Adastra, whose stage name comes from the Latin: “ad astra: to the stars” ties strongly with the Afrofuturist perspective of aiming for a better future by challenging us to listen to the better angels of our nature. Meanwhile, refugees in Palestine, Ukraine, Yemen, South Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Myanmar, and across Africa, lie heavy in his thoughts while the world ignores these and other places of conflict. Here, he speaks from the heart of his music and of the future:

= = =

Music has always been a powerful medium for expressing emotions, sharing stories, and advocating for change. My latest music video, “Why Wars,” is a profound reflection of my personal journey and the broader struggles faced by many. As a writer, musician, and human rights activist, my life’s work has been deeply intertwined with my experiences and the challenges I’ve encountered along the way. The way I see it, the past does not control the future, but the present can. I live day to day but with hope for the future to be better than today.

The Song: “Why Wars”

“Why Wars” is more than just a song; it’s a plea for peace and understanding in a world that often seems fractured by conflict and division. The track combines contemporary music styles with a poignant message, highlighting the senselessness of war and the urgent need for dialogue and reconciliation. Its powerful lyrics and stirring melodies aim to reach people across borders, making them reflect on the cost of violence and the value of unity.

Music to me is a way for me to be able to reach many people, and to spread positive energy in a world controlled by negative energy. Also, the chance of one of my songs going viral is high and I just have to continue what I love doing.

My Personal Journey

My journey as an LGBTIQ activist in Uganda was marked by both courage and adversity. In a country where advocating for LGBTIQ rights is criminalized, my work was not only a personal mission but also a significant risk. The oppressive environment forced me to leave Uganda and seek refuge elsewhere, where I continue to face challenges yet remain resolute in my commitment to human rights and social justice.

The struggles I face are emblematic of the broader issues many activists confront, such as financial difficulties, life insecurities, persecution, and so on. Despite these difficulties, I am driven by the belief that my voice and my art can inspire change. “Why Wars” is a testament to this belief, reflecting my own experiences.

The Global Importance of “Why Wars”

The message of “Why Wars” is not just a local or personal one; it is a universal call for action and understanding. In a world increasingly characterized by polarization, conflict, and division, the need for a message of peace and reconciliation is more critical than ever. Spreading the message of “Why Wars” internationally is crucial for several reasons:

1. Universal Relevance: Conflicts and divisions are not confined to any single region. By sharing “Why Wars” on a global scale, we can address the universal aspects of these issues, reminding people everywhere of the common humanity that binds us all.

2. Fostering Dialogue: Music has the unique ability to bridge gaps between different cultures and communities. By reaching a diverse audience, “Why Wars” can foster dialogue and encourage people from different backgrounds to come together and discuss ways to resolve conflicts and promote peace.

3. Raising Awareness: Many people around the world are unaware of the depth of the struggles faced by activists and marginalized communities. The international spread of “Why Wars” can bring attention to these issues, generating empathy and support for those fighting for justice and equality.

4. Inspiring Action: Music can be a powerful catalyst for change. By amplifying the message of “Why Wars” across borders, we can inspire individuals and communities to take action, whether through advocacy, policy change, or grassroots efforts to promote peace.

The Need for “Why Wars” to be Heard

I urge everyone to listen to “Why Wars” and share it widely. Its message is one that needs to be heard everywhere—to inspire individuals, provoke thought, and drive action. Music has the power to unite us, challenge injustices, and foster a sense of shared purpose.

By supporting “Why Wars,” you are not only engaging with a piece of music but also contributing to a larger movement for change. Your support helps amplify voices like mine, who are working tirelessly to make a difference despite the personal sacrifices.

Looking Ahead

“Why Wars” is more than a song; it is a beacon of hope and a call to action. As I continue my work, my commitment to human rights remains unwavering. This music video is both a personal expression and a universal appeal for peace and understanding. I invite you to join me in spreading this message and supporting the cause for a world free from conflict and injustice. Adastra”

If you would like to help Adastra, please donate to his cause

Fandom is a Way of Life

When I was young and idealistic, I helped to start a Star Trek club which will soon celebrate its fiftieth anniversary. Over the intervening decades, I have had many people thank me for starting the club, because it introduced them to lifelong friends or partners, or because it literally saved their lives by giving them a form of inclusive, accepting family when they were feeling otherwise alienated, different and alone. To my mind, any club that can have such impact is remarkable.

Of course, any such impact was none of my doing, but is testimony to what it means to be a fan – that often-maligned cohort of people – and what their life journey can teach all people.

Academic Matthew Hills summarises the most popular problematic stereotype for fans: “… the stereotype of “the fan” has been one of geeky, excessive, and unhealthy obsession with (supposedly) culturally trivial objects such as TV shows.” According to this stereotype, science fiction and media fans are often post-adolescent young men who live in their parents’ basement, spend their days on the computer, and can’t get a date for Saturday night. From my decades of involvement with the fan community, I know this stereotype is dismally wrong. Ironically, it may even have been encouraged by sexist portrayals of related female gender stereotypes: the groupie, the fangirl and the shipper (see Gerrard, 2022).

The negative stereotype of sci fi fans has created difficulties for people who enjoy some literary and entertainment franchises, and who seek social connection within science fiction fan communities that are proudly inclusive of those living with autism and other forms of diversity. In its most harmful manifestation, fans of gaming or social media are linked to hikikimori, which is now recognised as a “mental health phenomenon” resulting in chronic social withdrawal for over a million people.

And fandom – the collective networking of fans within community groups sharing common interests – is actually much more than a few socially awkward people coming together.

Fans are everywhere: fans are humanity.

Shit Hits the Fan

In my childhood, I was told that the word “fan” was short for “fanatic” – with an 1885 sports report in a Kansas newspaper using that exact terminology. This opens up the definition of “fan” to encompass people from sports enthusiasts to those who love music or stamp collecting. From pottery clubs to Potterheads; from dog walking enthusiasts to furries, fans are everywhere.

But modern dictionaries such as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary remain conflicted between defining fans as being either enthusiastic hobbyists, or excessive, uncritical zealots. I see ample evidence that this negative stereotype remains common today across a broad range of fandoms: Are country music fans racist? Are cinephiles unable to have jobs or sex lives? Should certain football fans stop stealing cars, living off Centrelink, wearing moccasins, and aspiring to romance their cousin after he/she gets parole?

Clearly, society needs to outgrow its childish and patronising attitude towards fandoms that are inclusive and diverse. This is true in no small part not only because we need to stop discriminating against others, but because such attitudes also harm ourselves.

We are all fans.

Fandom of the Opera

Fandom and its constituent parts (fan fiction, fan films, cosplay, clubs etc) have a long and complex entanglement with intellectual property rights, copyrights, and modern understandings of literature and culture. Indeed, fandom predates those modern understandings. Everything from Shakespeare’s plays to the Shades of Gray novels are themselves forms of fan fiction that are evocative of other, earlier, inspirational material. So much of our culture proceeds from fandom of our daily soap opera. As I noted in an earlier blog post:

Fan fiction (otherwise known as fanfic or fic) has a long and obscure history. In olden days, before writing was common and oral stories were more popular, it may be that myths and legends, and heroic tales such as those of the Trojan War, Atlantis, Robin Hood, Cleopatra and Hypatia may have included types of fic. In later times, Shakespeare and other authors created classic fic stories.

For example, one only has to ponder the original tales of King Arthur, stories of a local Saxon king who helped to banish the Romans from Britain. Those original tales may now be lost forever in the Dark Ages, but after centuries of oral fan fiction, and getting mixed with the medieval French culture featuring knights in shining armour, chivalry and Camelot, our legends of the boy who pulled the sword from the stone and grew up to lead the Knights of the Round Table, are forever etched in our folklore.

These days, there is even religious fan fiction, which harks back to the origins of mythology and folklore: any difference between the historical and mythologial construction of religious figures was all fan fiction. Collecting and deciding which fan fiction (oral folklore) to accept as Biblical canon was a process that effectively took centuries, and there is dispute even today over whether this was ultimately achieved at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE.

Fandom is as old as humanity.

Fandom of the Opera

Arguably, the first people to become widely accepted under our modern definitions of “fans” were the Janeites, a fandom originally comprised largely of male professors, publishers and readers, who enthused over the works of Jane Austin after 1870. One modern Janeite speaks of the world of plenty now afforded their fandom and, by metaphoric extension, to many others:

“We are fortunate in our fandom to have a sumptuous buffet of pleasures before us. First and most importantly, we have the novels. We also have the wonderful (and not-so-wonderful) film adaptations; we have biographies and histories; we have sequels, retellings, and fan fiction; we have book bags, bumper stickers, and Regency gowns. We can pick and choose from all these delightful manifestations of our chosen obsession, and in true Janeish style, perhaps poke a bit of gentle fun at the more ridiculous. We are all Janeites, under the skin, and in our hearts.” (Elliott, 2001).

Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay

From around the same time as the birth of Janeites, arose the Sherlockians, enthusiasts of Sherlock Holmes who not only wrote some of the earliest modern fan fiction, but actually influenced the fictional life and death (and resurrection due to popular demand) of Sherlock Holmes.

Holmes is often seen as the birth of modern fandoms because of the intersectionality of its meta with real life. As Michael Saler notes:

“The wonderful irony of this situation is that at the same time that Doyle was criticized for claiming that fairies were real, many of his readers were claiming that Sherlock Holmes was real. Indeed, Holmes was the first character in modern literature to be widely treated as if he were real and his creator fictitious.” (Saler, 2003, p. 600).

Saler goes on to note the Holmes franchise as the progenitor of many secular reworkings of older mythological or religious traditions in the modern era that have inspired millions of fans to become conversant in alternate realities of fantasy, living in a mixture of cultural appropriation and continuing the tradition of adding to the original material.

Fandom is part of belonging to a human community; the wisdom is to know what is healthy, helpful and best expresses our humanity.

Future Perfect

Are you a fan of sport, literature, art, music, the Olympics, a political or religious philosophy, pet animals, gardening, certain books or TV shows, your favourite actor or singer, poetry, crosswords, science fiction, anime, astronomy – or a million other topics? Welcome to the family. Just please stop looking down on your brethren in other forms of fandom.

Meanwhile, as my local fan community approaches its half-century of Austrek, we should recognise that fandom as a human movement is larger and older than we can conceive. And ahead, the future beckons.

Bibliography:

Laura Boyle, 2001. “’What’s in a Janeite?”, janeaustin.co.uk, 11 January.

Ysabel Gerrard, 2022. “Groupies, Fangirls and Shippers:The Endurance of a Gender Stereotype”, American Behavioral Scientist, Volume 66, Issue 8, July 2022, Pages 1044-1059, SAGE Publications, 2021.

Michael Saler, 2003. “’Clap If You Believe in Sherlock Holmes’: Mass Culture and the Re-Enchantment of Modernity, c. 1890-c. 1940”, The Historical Journal, Vol. 46, No. 3 (September 2003), pp. 599-622 (JSTOR).