Let the Anzac diggers remain in Australian nostalgia
One thing that has always irked me has been the use of the term “digger” as a blanket reference to anyone in the Australian Army, I just can’t help but cringe when someone mentions our diggers in Afghanistan or Iraq.
When I think digger, I think old guy from world war one or two with the oldschool uniforms on and a sense of battle grittiness. I think of young men who went off to fight wars with nothing more then the shirt on their back and whatever the army supplied them. If things broke down or got lost they made do with whatever they could find on the battlefield. Sure they might have been a bit rag-tag and run down at times but it was part of the tour of duty, not because their government was too busy running Halliburton.
You know back when people actually fought in wars and didn’t just set their megaextremeBFGautorifleXP to ‘kill enemy mode’ and then go play cards.
The term digger apparently comes from the reputation our boys had back in the early wars of last century due to “the fact that ANZAC troops were especially good at digging tunnels between their own trenches and the enemies, and were regarded by both sides as diggers”.
Back then I imagine digging tunnels between trenches must have been a nightmare, let alone when you run into an enemy team of diggers and assumedly have an all out firefight. This sort of workhorse and danger is what made the diggers legendary and are the values I respect and associate with the term.
Honestly if someone told me to go halfway across the world to start digging tunnels between trenches I’d go tell them to jump and do everything I could to get out of it. That’s why I’m not a digger and even if I was in the Army today, would feel strange being referred to as one.
I think the primary reason for this is that Australia itself really hasn’t taken any initiative or been an integral part of any military conflict since the world wars. I mean sure, we busted some heads in east Timor so we could get at their oil and we’ve done some peacekeeping in the pacific but in any of the major conflicts we haven’t really done much.
We did put some effort into Vietnam but nobody really refers to serving soldiers there as diggers, they’re Vietnam Vets (you see you can’t be a digger if the public turn on you).
I think it’s time we came up with a new token name for army personnel, something more reflective of their current duties; like the spectators or the escorts.
At the end of the day the current army personnel riding on the coattails of the achievements of the diggers that fought a century ago isn’t really helping anyone. These days “digging” probably involves some sort of compact Tonka truck style machine which let’s face it isn’t something you’d immortalise in the memories of a nation.
No related posts.


April 25th, 2009 at 11:45 am Scribbler(Quote)
Wow, this post will definitely offend more than a few readers out there. I agree with you about the term, ‘diggers’. Only WW1 and WW2 veterans should be called that. As for the rest of your diatribe …
April 25th, 2009 at 12:56 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
There wasn’t much more to disagree or agree with beyond the digger sentiment.
I have nothing but respect for the diggers and that’s why I cringe at everyone being called diggers.
Why don’t we just hand everyone Victoria Crosses too.
September 18th, 2009 at 7:36 pm jummy(Quote)
Australian soldiers are called diggers. Try joining the Army and passing basic training and infantry training. After that, see how you feel when the Sergeant calls you “digger”. It’s traditional. But you don’t have to like it. Good luck.
September 24th, 2009 at 11:09 am Kain(Quote)
If you have such strong oppinions why don’t you do something other than whine about it, try joining the Army. If that does not take your fancy why don’t you sit back relax and enjoy the freedom that is offorded by the protection provided by “spectators or the escorts”.
September 24th, 2009 at 6:00 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Joining the army isn’t for me. It’s not physical disqualification it’s just that I don’t see the point in guarding some farmer in Afghanistan’s opium crop.
I also fail to see how anything we’ve been involved with in the middle east has ‘offorded’ Australians any enjoyment or freedom.
July 12th, 2011 at 10:55 pm Pte(Quote)
Believe it or not, we do a hell of a lot of digging with entrenchment tools (ie. shovels). Digging shellscrapes, and I mean, hell, nothing compares to what the vets did in WWII but suggesting that we use any sort of technology when it can be done by the sweat of our brow is fucking ridiculous.
Particularly your comment on weapon systems – it takes a lot of skill to become proficient on any weapon. Assuming it can be done without any assistance is once again quite naive. We’re not exactly afforded the luxury of gucci equipment. But, with regard to your main statement, we are called diggers because that is a title appointed to us by tradition – proud sons of ANZACs.
Perhaps you should be stripped of the title human. It doesn’t sound like you’ve done a lot to deserve that. Spend a little time in the sand pit and then comment (i’m not even going to start on the reasons why we should be there).
July 13th, 2011 at 1:22 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Like you said, ‘nothing compares to what the vets did in WWII‘, which is where the name originates – so why not just leave it there?
And why is suggesting the use of technology ridiculous? Why don’t we just go back to spears and bows and arrows then too?
Yeah, because that’s a perfectly balanced and rational response…