What’s something you used to believe as a kid that seems ridiculous now?

There are many answers to the question above. One obvious candidate for an answer is religion. No need to believe in gods, miracles, virgin births, a talking snake, flying chariots, Hebrew slaves in Egypt, and the rest of the equally fictional stories. However, such an answer would be too easy, and secondly, would not contribute anything original to this question.

So here is my answer – stop believing that the English-speaking nations, what I call the Anglophone world, is a world leader in science. Britain, while an economic powerhouse, is not the centre of scientific knowledge anymore.

To be certain, Britain’s contribution to the sum total of scientific knowledge is awesome. Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Lord Kelvin – these are just some of the heavyweights in the scientific canon of Britain’s history. Oxford, Cambridge, Exeter – Britain’s universities are among the best in the world.

The Enlightenment, the scientific revolution of the 1500s to 1700s, the emphasis on empirical evidence and rational thinking, which built upon but also superseded the Ancient Greek view of nature and the universe – these were momentous achievements, no doubt. These accomplished were taught to us in Australia as the birthplace of modern science.

That is all well and good, but there is something fundamentally wrong with this picture, namely, the rest of the world is excluded. Oh yes, we learnt about Leonardo Da Vinci as a non-British Renaissance polymath. However, we learned next to nothing about the important scientific achievements of other civilisations. This led to a skewed belief that Britain was the epic centre of scientific progress.

Nothing could be further from the truth. That belief lives on in the popular culture of the Anglophone nations. It can be difficult to step outside of one’s own cultural environment to consider other nations and their achievements. But that is what we must do.

Centuries before Da Vinci, and while Britain was still a patchwork of competing kingdoms, there was the Muslim scholar, scientist, astronomer and philosopher Al-Biruni (973 – 1050). Born in what is today Uzbekistan, he was one of the world’s first anthropologists.

He did not reject the heritage provided by the ancient Greeks, but he developed his own work, and built his own foundations. He was a pioneer in the study of ancient India – he made a detailed analysis of that country’s philosophy and social practices.

His work spanned numerous branches of science – astronomy, geography and physics, just to name a few. He spoke Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Sanskrit and Hebrew. In fact, he was the earliest writer to distinguish astronomy from astrology. That was quite a daring and groundbreaking path to take at the time.

He wrote a book which today would be classified as an expose of astrology as a pseudoscience. Using trigonometric calculations, he calculated the radius of the Earth – at a time when in Europe the earth was considered a flat surface.

Far ahead of his times, he surmised that there must be a landmass between Asia and Europe. He was a pioneer in what today is known as geology. No, he did not sail to the continents we know today as the Americas. But to suggest another landmass was quite a stunning claim to make at the time.

Columbus, after he got lost, thought he bumped into Asia and called the indigenous people of the Americas ‘Indians.’

Al Biruni’s work and achievements are part of what we now acknowledge as the Islamic Golden Age. Indeed, it is chronologically correct to say that Da Vinci was the European Al Biruni. Learning about this neglected history helped me to abandon the adolescent belief that Britain was the homeland of science and rationalism.

But that is all history, is it not? What about today? Are not the Islamic nations stuck in a quagmire of fanatical dogma and scientific backwardness? There is an element of truth to this. Yes, Muslim majority nations must be more proactive in the scientific fields.

When we mention Iran, the image we have here in the Anglophone community is a country of mad mullahs, fanatical ayatollahs, gun-toting militants screaming anti-Western slogans, and submissive burqa-clad women. Underlying these stereotypes is the belief that Muslim nations are impervious to logic and reason. How can you talk to such closed-minded zealots?

One of the revelations from the latest US-Israeli attack on Iran is the remarkable advances Iran has made in science and technology. No, not just in the military sphere. Let’s think beyond bombs and missiles. Tehran has cemented itself as a scientific hub and powerhouse in Western Asia.

Iranian surgeons have become world leaders in organ transplantation. Iran’s medical institutions domestically developed vaccines for Covid during the pandemic, all the while under US sanctions. Iranian researchers are leading the world in stem cell technology, gaining international recognition for the development of treatments for leukaemia and blood cancers.

Let us step away from Iran for a moment, and have a look at the Nature Index, an international ranking of universities for scientific research. In 2025, that ranking released its top ten universities for science – nine of them are in China. Beijing has surged ahead over the last few decades, surpassing the US and Britain as hubs for scientific expertise.

These rankings not only reflect Chinese scientific knowledge and competences, but also a stunning triumph for Beijing’s vision as a global leader in science.

If we maintain the misguided belief that we, meaning the Anglophone West, are still the best in science, we risk becoming the scientific backwaters which we accuse other nations of being. This is not a competition to see who is best, but a recognition that if we maintain teenage-like beliefs in our own superiority we will face a rude awakening one day.

What’s a piece of media (book, movie, song) that changed how you see the world?

There are many books, movies, songs and music genres that inform our world view. They influence the way we see ourselves, and our connections to humanity and nature. Rather than list all the books and media content that impacted our lives, I thought it best to select a major scientific project.

When we think about science, we usually think about technology. The inventions that remade, and are still remaking our lives, are there for all of us to witness. Mobile devices, personal computers, functional magnetic resonance imaging, vaccines, wireless communication, the transistor – all of these have changed our lives and the ways we interact.

It is the Human Genome Project (HGP) that has most profoundly changed us, and our vision of humanity, at least since 1990.

But wait a minute, the HGP is not a book, or a video, or a piece of music, or a CD, is it? Yes, that is true. However, journalists working in science communication, and the geneticists themselves, have routinely likened the human genome to a piece of technology. A blueprint of life is a favoured metaphor; DNA is the book of life, an instruction manual for making a human being. DNA is information, similar to the software coding of a computer programme – another analogy.

It is not my intention to respond to each and every metaphor, no matter how well-intentioned and misplaced. It is relevant for us here to note one egregious example; in 1992, (I think his name was Dr Gilbert, but I would have to check my notes) a geneticist at a press conference held up a CD-ROM and said ‘this is you.’ He was explaining, in his own way, the significance of mapping the human genome to the assembled journalists.

He was both right and wrong; no, DNA is not reducible to a CD, but he was correct in pointing out the enormous repercussions of the HGP on our way we view humanity. In the Stanford University’s monumental encyclopaedia of philosophy, there is an extensive section examining the human genome project.

Wait a minute, surely the HGP is a scientific endeavour? What is an online philosophy encyclopaedia doing discussing that topic? Actually, the philosophy area is precisely the place to discuss the human genome, because it directly relates to what makes us human, and how we see ourselves in the natural world.

I studied biology and geology at school some 40 years ago. It was fascinating, and I have many fond memories of those times. Genetics was obviously a branch of biology, but I had no idea about genomes, gene sequencing, genetic determinism, DNA databases, genomics and the commercialisation of genetic testing – all that lay in the future.

Earlier this year, (April I think), pioneering geneticist and researcher J. Craig Venter (1946 – 2026) passed away. He was one of the first scientists to not only realise the importance of the human genome, but dedicate his scientific career to mapping it. He was driven by a strong motivation to achieve in science. I wish more people would take science as seriously as he did.

His death marks a kind of bookend for a scientific project. While I am quite certain that genomics, a field he helped to develop, will continue to grow, his passing reminds us that scientific goals are equally important with political and environmental issues.

His work, along with the scientists working at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) helped to finally achieve a full sequencing of the human genome. Where I disagreed with Venter, much as I admired his scientific work, was in the privatisation of genomic material. Private genetic companies collect our DNA, and unlock the information about our lives contained within, as private property.

Genomics has become big business. Multinational genomic corporations have spread across the globe, collecting and analysing our genetic data. Does this mean we have come closer to understanding ourselves as humans?

Of course genes play a role in our development as human beings. There have been numerous heavyweight boxing champions, but only one Muhammad Ali. He was born with faster than normal reflexes, and his leg speed was lightning fast. Most heavyweights, while powerful punchers, move like refrigerators.

Ali could throw seven, eight punches while his opponent only threw two. His reflexive dodging of punches was extraordinary. If you can hit, and avoid getting hit, you have made it in the sweet science of boxing.

Yes of course he trained, building up his strength. His environment certainly helped him become a great champion. Malcolm X, in his autobiography, relates how when he was young, he wanted to be a boxer. He trained, exercised and ate nutritionally appropriate foods. In his very first amateur fight, he got knocked out in five minutes. Getting up from the canvas, he realised he was never going to be a boxer.

While our genes are important, it is vital that we do not fall into the trap of genetic determinism. The catch-all phrase ‘it’s in the DNA’ has been deployed to explain away social inequality, warfare and racism. If our DNA is rotten, what is the point of change?

The rottenness is not in our genes, but in our unjust socioeconomic relations and exploitive ecological practices. If anything, the HGP has revealed just how similar we all are under the skin, rather than highlighting any differences.

Hey, I have some news for white nationalists; genomic studies of Viking DNA, you know, those tall, fair-skinned, blond haired warriors you are so fond of? Even they, yes the Vikings, were not the pure white master race you would like everyone to believe. If you want to read further (presuming you can actually read), have a look at the admixture the Vikings were back in the day. Viking did not necessarily equate with Scandinavian ancestry.

Such findings as the one I summarised above are only possible because of the remarkable work of thousands of scientists on the HGP.

What’s the best advice you’d give to someone younger than you?

Everybody has a mobile device these days, whether it be a mobile phone, iPad, tablet or some other variation. We all like to talk to our friends, catch up on the latest news, shop online, and share our ideas and gossip. But if there is one piece of advice I would give a young person today, it is this; our mobile devices are there to make us available, they are not an electronic leash.

When you are on the phone, please be mindful of your surroundings. While it may be a matter of life and death to you whether you get mayonnaise on your sandwich, the rest of us have our own lives and problems, and really do not care about your daily dramas.

It started innocently enough…..a young woman, probably in her early twenties, got on the train at Blacktown station in western Sydney. She was on the mobile phone. Not many passengers were on the carriage, and I was reading on my iPad. You cannot help but overhear parts of her conversation.

She was talking with someone about whether or not she would go to university, or TAFE, and what kind of job she wanted. Typical fodder of conversation for a person her age, I thought – indeed, that is what I talked about when I finished schooling, and contemplated university education.

I ignored her and went back to my reading. And then it started; voices became raised. The train is moving, there is another hour until we get to the city. Tensions are rising. The entire carriage can now no longer avoid overhearing her conversation.

At this point, it turns into a full blown rage episode. Shouting at the top of her lungs, she launches into a torrential tirade against her interlocutor. The volcanic eruption is in full swing.

Hurling words like it’s my life!’ and ‘Uni is not for me!’ as verbal missiles at the person on the receiving end of her broadside, I did my best not to react. Indeed, the other passengers buried their heads ever deeper into their mobile devices.

I dared to turn around, however briefly, to catch a glimpse of our local firebrand. Not many other passengers risked incurring her terrible wrath by turning to look at her. She was completely oblivious to her surroundings. The shouting and expletives continued for the remainder of the train journey. She got off at Redfern station, the one within walking distance of Sydney University.

I never saw her again, but I remembered her as an example of a mobile phone zombie. Unaware or uncaring about their environment or other people, mobile phone zombies are dead to the world, walking while completely entranced by their mobile device, much the same way that Dustin Hoffman’s character in Rain Man walked around transfixed by his portable television.

In 1988, that behaviour was considered eccentric; only a developmentally delayed person, incapable of understanding social norms, would walk around staring at a small portable tv. Well, here we are today, a nation of Rain Man-like Raymond Babbitts, unable to raise our collective gaze from our mobile phones.

Reading books, you know, those iPhone-like things that don’t need batteries or charging, is a declining practice in the age of social media. TikTok reels and short form videos have largely overtaken every aspect of our lives, from our shopping habits to news feeds.

The brain needs practice, just as the biceps need regular exercise and weightlifting to increase in strength. Books are the weightlifting of the mind. Tackling the heavy-going books is its own reward.

No, I am not insistent that everyone become a history professor or literature expert. Every person has their own preferences and tastes. I have never read J R R Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy. If you have, congratulations – I doff my cap to you.

I have, a long time ago, ploughed through the pages of Beowulf, which was tough going to be sure, but ultimately rewarding. An old English heroic epic poem, Beowulf is the first identifiable major work of English literature. Blending elements of myth, folkloric tales, old Anglo-Saxon and Norse mythology, it is an alliterative poem that reflects both old Norse-pagan myths, but also incorporates early Christian themes well.

That is not surprising, when you consider that Beowulf was recorded – derived from the oral tradition – in the early eighth century, when Scandinavian people migrated to what is now the British Isles. Some scholars put the first manuscript much later. Be that as it may, its composition reflects the intermixing Norse-Anglo Saxon cultures and competing religions frameworks, of the time.

The brain requires constant exercise. If you do not like the weightlifting analogy, then how about the following metaphor. Reading the difficult books are to the brain what running a marathon is for the body.

One of Vladimir Lenin’s under appreciated books, but I think critically important as his other works, is Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. Published in 1908-09. In its pages Lenin explores the relationship between physics and philosophy. He emphasised that while these two topics may appear far apart, even physics has a philosophical basis and particular implications for philosophy. He elaborated the relationship between the natural sciences and what became known as the philosophy of dialectical materialism.

Why would a political revolutionary take the time to write about such an obscure topic as physics and philosophy? There were new discoveries in the field of physics – what used to be called the natural sciences – and this had repercussions for philosophy. Lenin saw the politically reactionary application of these underlying philosophical positions proposed by the physicists of the time.

No, it is not my purpose here to go into an elaborate discussion of his book, otherwise this article would expand into 10 000 words. Besides which, I am certain that you will have already fallen asleep.

Nevertheless, I wanted to share my main point – the brain requires exercise. Absorbing the contents of books is muscular training for the mind. No, I am not suggesting that you tackle all the issues of quantum mechanics yourself. But please do not outsource your cognition to AI. It is the gentle friction of problem solving and grasping topics by reading that increases your brain-muscles.

If you could instantly master any skill, what would it be and why?

If there is one occupation or skill set I wish I could master instantaneously, it is that required to be an underwater archaeologist.

Yes, I know your next question – ‘what the hell is that?’ Don’t archaeologists, like Indiana Jones, dig up the artefacts of ancient civilisations, fight off indigenous peoples and treasure hunters, and avoid being consumed by demonic spirits emerging from the pyramids?

Underwater archaeology opens up a whole new world, not just composed of famous shipwrecks such as the Titanic.

The Titanic sinking was a devastating loss, to be sure. No one is minimising the loss of life and destruction accompanying that incident. Immortalised by the 1997 Steven Spielberg blockbuster, and the topic of countless documentaries, the Titanic shipwreck has come to overshadow the vast area of underwater exploration and archaeology.

Each shipwreck is a time capsule – revealing details about its place in the maritime traffic and the connections between the societies joined by that trade. Consider, for instance, the SS Antilla.

Launched in 1939, the SS Antilla was a German cargo ship, intended to carry trade between Germany and the Caribbean. In July 1939, she left Hamburg on her maiden voyage. That journey, and her subsequent journey through the Caribbean, would prove to be fateful – World War 2 began in September of that year.

Unable to reach German ports, or the port of any nation allied to Nazi Germany, she headed for Dutch-controlled Curaçao, eventually docking in Aruba. Unfortunately for her crew, Germany invaded the Netherlands in May 1940. The Dutch were now a hostile power. They had been monitoring the movement of German commercial and military ships prior to the arrival of the SS Antilla.

The Dutch approached the German ship, off the coast of Aruba. The captain of the SS Antilla, confronted by the enemy and with no prospect of outside assistance, decided to scuttle the ship.

The ship sank to the depths of the ocean in May 1940. Today, the shipwreck is a maritime tourist attraction. You may scuba dive to view the wreckage, because it is quite accessible. The Antilla helps to remind us that while we think of World War 2 as a European event, its battles and repercussions extended around the globe. Competing European powers had their eyes on the Caribbean and its resources.

There is also another aspect we need to remember about shipwrecks, including the Antilla. It is the remarkable resilience of life. Marine animals and ecosystems, while reeling from the direct impact of a sinking ship, display a remarkable ability to recuperate and even use the bare skeleton of the sunken ship as a refuge.

Not only are shipwrecks a capsule of cultural history, they quickly become a part of the marine life adapting to its presence. Corals and sea sponges have made their homes in the wreckage. Many species of fish, sea turtles and eels make their way through the sunken ship. Life continues to evolve in unexpected ways. An underwater ecosystem thrives, colonised by numerous marine organisms.

It is not just shipwrecks, and submerged airplanes, that provide artefact-materials for underwater archaeologists to uncover and study. Undersea cave systems are being explored, and more is being understood about how life can survive in extreme conditions.

Situated off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, is the Hoyo Negro (black hole) underwater cave system. A vast subterranean domain, it is a relic of the ice ages. What remarkable discoveries lie there, waiting to be uncovered? How much more can we uncover about the geological history of the Late Pleistocene period?

Rather than colonising other planets, let’s devote our energies to exploring and understanding our own planet.

Do you think humans will ever colonize Mars? What would life there actually look like?

Even if we have the technology to colonise Mars, we shouldn’t. Colonisation would lead to a planetary catastrophe; let’s confront the ecological crisis on Earth, and implement solutions which will improve and prolong the life of our species, and all the other life forms on Earth, that make up our biosphere.

The impulse to colonise Mars originates from legitimate concerns. Human induced climate change, the extinction of numerous species and their habitats, and the discovery of the interconnectedness of life on Earth makes us wonder if it would not be better to simply relocate to another planet to continue our existence as Homo sapiens.

Those concerns are perfectly valid – the proposed solution is an even more catastrophic response, based on cultural pessimism. Mars is an appealing candidate for terraforming – the latter being the buzzword for changing the inhospitable conditions on Mars to make them accommodating for human life. This presents an immediate question; if we can reshape Mars to look more like Earth, then why cannot we change our economic and ecological practices on our current planet to make it more like Earth?

In this connection, I would like to share a comment by an Australian federal politician from 2025, which succinctly encapsulates why the mentality of colonisation would inevitably lead to disaster. Do not get me wrong, I do not normally follow the statements of Australian politicians. They are largely a spineless, snivelling opportunistic lot. But occasionally they make comments which indicate their depraved, demoralised and cowardly ideology.

Sussan Ley, who was apparently the nonentity leading a political party of equally insignificant nonentities, made a comment that Elon Musk’s efforts to explore and colonise Mars are akin to the First Fleet, the initial British conquistador foray into what became Australia. The First Fleet, Ley intoned, did not set out to destroy anyone, and neither does Musk’s technological initiatives to explore space, and eventually colonise Mars.

It is clear that Ley has no understanding of Australian history, nor space exploration, nor Musk’s billionaire fantasies of astronomical conquest. Her comment clearly flies in the face of historical reality; the British deliberately set out to destroy the indigenous peoples of Australia. Likening the frontier wars to the proposed colonisation of Mars is reviving the myth of terra nullius, the fiction that Australia was uninhabited prior to the arrival of the Europeans.

Mars is uninhabited, you say, and that is true. But to colonise a territory involves destroying and reshaping what is already there. Mars, long the subject of science fiction writers, is not inhabited by little green men, nor are its ‘canals’ full of water. It was erroneously believed, from the late 1870s onwards, that Mars had canals of water, an observation first proposed by astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli. That belief was definitely overthrown many decades later.

Colonisation has never been a simple matter of packing up and relocating to an empty space, much like we see on television. The coloniser actively re-engineers and reshapes the environment they intend to secure and occupy, no matter how empty it might be. We are only now beginning to understand Martian geology, and the vast mountains, valleys and craters that predominate the landscape of that planet.

Mars definitely has vast amounts of water ice, both at the polar caps and beneath the surface. That’s convenient – obviously we need water for agriculture, food production and cleaning. How will those water reserves be extracted and purified? What about sewage treatment, and the risk of water-borne diseases? What about irrigation? Just those questions are enough to make us realise just how impactful any changes to the Martian environment and atmosphere would have to be to provide conditions hospitable to life.

Any attempt at Martian colonisation would be subjected to the private profit demands of the current billionaire space race. The tech bro giants – Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Richard Branson – want to inflate their already swollen egos by achieving ever-more headline-grabbing exploits in space. Egomania of cosmic proportions has already overtaken the drive to explore space for educational purposes, answering the big scientific questions regarding the cosmos.

The collective wealth of the billionaire parasites could be funding solutions to the problems of ecological destruction. They could devote their considerable financial resources to fighting the loss of biodiversity, supporting renewable energy technologies, reducing our dependence on environmentally destructive fossil fuels, and combating the spread of infectious diseases. The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the need to have an internationally coordinated response to medical threats, because viruses do not stop at borders.

However, we are being encouraged to become cheerleading bystanders to a billionaire space race which only parasitises the scientific community’s knowledge capital. The billionaires are basically leeching off the astronomical fraternity.

When Juan Posadas, Argentine Trotskyist militant and union organiser, made some offhand comments about space exploration and humanity settling on other planets, he was ridiculed as an example of an eccentric, ideologically narrow minded militant indulging cosmic fantasies – Trots in space was the expression.

Whether he deserved to be ridiculed for his flights of fancy regarding extraterrestrial life, I do not know. He died in 1981, so he is not here to defend himself. What I do know is that fantasising about other planets is not confined to the writings of Posadas. An even loonier delusion is now being promoted by the financial-technological-algorithmic complex.

The Washington Post, in 2018, published a fawning series called Companies in the Cosmos. Extolling the virtues of corporate space travel, the writers were advocating that private companies now take the lead in space exploration. Are we to become passive spectators as dysfunctional corporations reproduce their maladaptive consumerism on other planets?

Rather than dreaming about Martian colonisation, let’s focus our energies on reviving and preserving life on Earth. David Attenborough, the great nature documentary maker, said as much in his 2025 work Ocean.

Making the case for hope, he said that over his long lifetime, he has seen species brought back from the brink of extinction due to collective action and political will. Creating scenarios for Martian takeover only distracts us from the urgent task of fixing our own planet. Colonial forays into Martian territory only reproduce the consumerist ideology underpinning the economic practices harming the Earth’s biosphere.

What notable things happened today?

It would be easy to answer this question by simply opening Google or Wikipedia and looking up serious news sources about current political or economic issues. They are notable events in the sense of having a macro impact, influencing world events. On the other hand, I am not so egotistical as to think anyone would be interested in the minutiae of my daily life.

Getting up and enjoying a sunshiny day, plus a cup of coffee, is more than enough achievement for me. In this day and age of social media sensationalism, everyone wants to accrue attention to themselves. Indeed, attention has become a commodity to be monetised. The attentional oligarchy is now a fact of life for most of us in Australia, and throughout the Anglophone world.

However, asking about notable happenings is quite interesting, and opens up a huge range of possibilities.

In my last article, I wrote about a particularly important notable happening – the FIFA World Cup tournament. It is ongoing at the time of writing. I made the point that while the atmosphere of the football cup is celebratory, encouraging crossnational sentiment of solidarity, the tournament is being hit by numerous obstacles.

Extortionate pricing of tickets, travel and visa restrictions on non-American teams, the decline in tourism to the US due to the overheated bombast from the Trump administration – all these factors are making FIFA 2026 a notable event, though not for the reasons intended by the World Cup organisers.

For instance, a notable event directly related to the FIFA World Cup was the denial of entry to the United States of Somali referee Omar Artan. A soccer referee since 2018, his rejection and subsequent deportation is a highlight (if you can call it that) of the vitriolic anti-immigration climate whipped up by the Trump-MAGA cult.

It is funny, in a way, to juxtapose that to a notable event from another time and era, involving a major sporting event. It was easier for Jesse Owens, African American athlete, to enter Nazi Germany for the 1936 Berlin Olympics than for soccer referee Omar Artan to enter the United States for FIFA 2026.

The old saying ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same,’ has never been more applicable.

If you had to change your name, what would your new name be?

My name, according to my fellow Anglo Australians, is so incredibly difficult to pronounce, so complex and horrifyingly complicated, it needs changing. Apparently I have to Anglicise my name to make it ‘easier’ for the lazy tongues and marshmallow brains of Anglo Australians to pronounce.

Since my school days, when other kids would stand there looking at me befuddled when hearing my name, to fellow coworkers who loudly expressed that they will never be able to say my name, I have resisted the tide towards monocultural Anglicisation.

I have written previously about why it is important to pronounce foreign names correctly. My name is part and parcel of my identity. It forms the key to my background and ethnicity. It has only been complex and ‘difficult’ to those whose brain power could not even light a candle.

In a multicultural society such as Australia, we all must make the effort to understand each other. Polynesians, Hungarians, Lebanese, Indians, Chinese, Sri Lankans – all of us intermixing requires that we respect each other and learn each other’s names.

In a previous workplace of mine, I came across a particular hardware engineer called Eric. That is a good strong name, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, he was Chinese, I think from Hong Kong originally. One day, as we were talking, I asked him for his name. He told me ‘Eric’. I said no, what is your birth name. He said Puyi.

From that day onwards, I never called him ‘Eric’ ever again. He was Puyi.

Perhaps I should change my name to something more friendlier and romantic, in this day and age of social media and the internet. How about – the Avenging Flamethrower of Uzbekistan?

If you want me to change my name, I will on one condition. I will award you a trophy, to honour your commitment to a monocultural Australia. You will have the Cup to Unite the Nation Trophy, emblazoned with that acronym which accurately describes your position.

I completely understand why people decide to change their name. The birth name no longer reflects the person you are; Cassius Clay underwent a political and psychological awakening when he became Muhammad Ali. Malcolm Little wanted to repudiate the identity bequeathed to him by the slave owners of his ancestors; thus becoming Malcolm X.

In Australia, the social and cultural landscape is dominated by the majoritarian Anglo-Saxon identity. Let’s understand a particular point here; I am supposed to use the term Anglo-Celtic, because that description is more inclusive. It may be more inclusive, but it disguises an underlying deception. For decades the Irish Celtic component has had to confront discrimination and exclusion, fighting to find acceptance among the Anglo-Saxon Australo-British elite.

If you wish to use the term Anglo-Celtic, be my guest. But do not allow that usage to obscure the dark history of the exclusion of Irish Celtic identity in forming the notion of a British Isles.

People from non-English speaking background (NESB) nations have had to make their mark in every aspect of Australian life, and still have to prove their commitment to a unified Australian-ness. Becoming Australian does not mean abandoning your ethnic heritage. Our names are an important component of our individual identity and also a collective identity and culture.

There is another compelling reason why I wish to keep my current name. William Saroyan (1908 – 1981), American playwright of Armenian origin, wrote about the resilience of the Armenians throughout the generations. We have had to fight to preserve our identity, which involves our cultural heritage and our names. Despite tremendous hardships and appalling catastrophes, we have survived and flourished.

He said it best here:

I should like to see any power of the world destroy this race, this small tribe of unimportant people, whose history is ended, whose wars have all been fought and lost, whose structures have crumbled, whose literature is unread, whose music is unheard, whose prayers are no longer uttered. Go ahead, destroy this race. Let us say that it is again 1915. There is war in the world. Destroy Armenia. See if you can do it. Send them from their homes into the desert. Let them have neither bread nor water. Burn their houses and their churches. See if they will not live again. See if they will not laugh again. See if the race will not live again when two of them meet in a beer parlor, twenty years after, and laugh, and speak in their tongue. Go ahead, see if you can do anything about it. See if you can stop them from mocking the big ideas of the world, you sons of bitches, a couple of Armenians talking in the world, go ahead and try to destroy them.

No, I am not imputing genocidal intent in the hearts and minds of every Anglo Australian – though perhaps we should bear in mind what the indigenous peoples think about the genocidal frontier wars on this continent. I am pointing out that keeping my name in its current state is just one small part I can play in keeping the Armenian cultural heritage alive.