In many contexts it is inflammatory to speak of myths. When Scripture scholars describe Biblical stories as myths they are quickly taken to task.
As are those who describe such significant national events as the landing of the Australian and New Zealand troops at Gallipoli or the Battle of the Boyne.
To describe events as mythical is always open to misunderstanding, because in common speech myth is opposed to reality. When mythical stories are seen as unreal, the deep significance they have for individuals and groups also comes into question. So a hostile response is to be expected.
Given these predictable responses, why might we want to speak of the Anzac myth or of the myth of the Israelite liberation from Egypt? The use of the word ‘myth’ recognises that any historical event embraces the actions and suffering of many people who plan it, help realise it, or are affected by it. Because countless relationships are involved, the event can be seen from many perspectives.
The landing at Gallipoli can be described as the invasion of Turkey by foreign troops in the prosecution of a European war. It led to the death of very many Turkish soldiers, many French soldiers and slightly less Australian and New Zealand soldiers. Many on both sides fought with great courage, some with less. There were acts of great generosity and some of meanness on all sides. The invasion was badly planned and failed in its goals. And it affected the lives and livelihood of many rural communities in Australia.
To understand such complicated events involving hundreds of thousands of actors, we need to interpret them. Australians look at Gallipoli from the perspective of the Australian soldiers there, seeing the other actors through that lens. When we interpret we highlight some actions, overlook others, making some connections central and overlooking others.
When interpretations are popularly received, they are often embodied in sayings and doings that are emblematic of the interpretation. The capture of a machine gun nest is enshrined as an act of heroic gallantry, the mercy missions of Simpson and his donkey for dogged courage and self-sacrifice. Such actions are taken to represent the whole event with its multitude of actors and sufferers, its mixture of strength and weakness, motives and accidents, and variety of possible perspectives.
It is at this point we can speak of the Anzac myth. The word does not deny that the events described