Ask Sue-belinda

Words and trivia with Sue-belinda Meehan email: sue-belinda.meehan@outlook.com.au

NOEL sent me an email asking why it is that we classify politics into ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’.

My mind went rushing back through the decades to modern history class and Miss Just.

She was a lovely lady, clever with a mind like an encyclopaedia and brave – in World War II she had been one of the telegraphists in Singapore and had been on duty when they were commanded to send the message that Singapore had fallen.

Taken prisoner, her treatment had been far from kind. I might never have known, but for the fact I saw her chatting with Jim Iliffe (Channel 9 personality whom I knew to have been in action on the Malay Peninsula and been driven down to Singapore trying to outrun the Japanese). Curious, I asked her if I might know how she knew him.

The story unfolded and I began to see my modern history teacher in a whole new light.

I’d been impressed by her knowledge of her subject but now I admired this lady. So, it hurt me deeply when she told me that she thought I was a bit ‘left wing’. I equated this with radical tendencies and I certainly did not see myself in this light. I decided to ask her to explain.

She told me that my imagined definition of ‘left wing’ was far from the intent and I ought to do some research. Fortunately for me, my brother was studying at UQ and I begged a ride with him to the library that weekend.

After many hours I had my origins. ( Who knew it would be a bit over 50 years until someone would actually ask me to share it?)

Armed with my new knowledge, I went back to my teacher and asked her this question: ‘So in this situation, am I to assume you are playing the role of king?’ She laughed heartily, smiled broadly and told me ‘well done!’. Such compliments were rare in her classroom and to be given one was special.

Confused? Let’s get back to Noel’s questions shall we? The terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ first appeared during the French Revolution of 1789. During this period of unrest, an assembly was formed on 17 June, 1789 by representatives of the First Estate, who were the clergy, the Second Estate, the nobility and the Third Estate, the commoners or bourgeoisie who had twice as many representatives as the other two estates.

The title of the assembly would be the National Constituent Assembly, but was more commonly known as the National Assembly.

It would last until 29 September, 1791 when bickering would tear it apart. It was then replaced by the Legislative Assembly.

There were no strict ‘sides’ in the Assembly, people simply came in and took a seat where space existed.

While the nobility and clergy were familiar with the rules of conduct within a political assembly, the Third Estate was not and their shouting, swearing, catcalls and general rudeness began to irritate the clergy and nobility. Records of the day note Baron de Gauville: “We began to recognise each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp.”

So it came to be that the defenders of the old ways sat to the right together, those who were prepared to listen to all arguments from both extremes sat in the middle – the ‘middle ground’ – and those wishing to bring about innovation, social and political change, those who wished to question the status quo, moved to the left.

The terms left and right therefore did not apply to a particular political persuasion or ideology, but rather to where they sat.

Those of you who are regular readers know I’m happy to share the research and rarely insert my own opinion into discussions – now I’m throwing that out of the window.

The reason being that search as I might, there is no definitive reason for how ‘left’ and ‘right’ became ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’.

When the National Assembly was convened, King Louis XVI had agreed thinking that if he held out this olive branch to the commoners, everything just might settle down.

It didn’t. Louis offered the assembly the use of a tennis court for their meetings.

Many, if not most, were offended.

Then the tennis court was taken away from them and the pressure that ultimately led to the revolution began to rise. They were then offered the Church of St Louis. The king addressed the assembly and told them what he wanted done. When met with stony silence he ordered them to disband and leave.

The nobles and clergy, in the main obeyed. The Third Estate remained and thereafter began holding their own private meetings and called themselves the ‘ Communes’ ( Commons in English – ring a bell?). The king surrounded the church with troops and the countdown began to one of the bloodiest revolutions in history.

Anyway, there was no reference to why it became ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’, so I’d like to suggest a possible reason. I’ve already revisited my modern history teacher and now I’ll revisit my French teacher – I do know from my schoolgirl French and the odd bit of travel, that the French ‘les ailes’ – pronounced ‘lays aisles’ means wings – I’m wondering if some English speaker heard ‘les ailes gauche’ and ‘les ailes droit’ and thought that it meant those to the left of the aisle and the right of the aisle?

It seems logical to me, but I’m suggesting a possible reason after the event - guilty of a back formation myself. Take it or leave it, it’s the only possibility I can think of.

There you have it Noel – a potted history of the origins of the terms left and right wing.

Steve, Belgian Gardens, are you for real? Some of us are old enough to remember just what it was like under a Labor government and it was not good long term. There is no one that really stacks up at present. Be careful what you wish for Australia. R.G, 4812

TB Saturday 7th. Tim Ross letter. Would you prefer a Labor bloke in. No. Look what our three muppets have done for Townsville. Nothing. They always blame the federal government. Take it you’re a Labor lover. COOP, 4814

Shari, if you want changes for the go card in the regions, I suggest you contact your local state member. I believe he was elected to represent you on such matters. Good luck. ARJAY, 4818

Tim Ross, Pimlico. Phil did get federal funding for pipeline but your Labor mob knocked it back. NORM, KELSO

Tim Ross (Letters to the Editor 7/5), the track record of Phillip Thompson gets my vote because Townsville does need a fierce advocate who puts the community first and themselves second unlike our local state MPS. Shame these three dumbbells don’t practice your in-house advice. LOCAL, NORTH WARD

Bully, instead of printing someone’s opinion in 3-inch letters

across the whole page namely Albanese not up to demands of a difficult job, why didn’t you print someone else’s opinion in Thompson’s A failure? Your bias is becoming a little bit too obvious. RAB, 4814

Early-bird voters might be voting blind but they are over it. They just want a break from the onslaught of false promises. AL, MT LOUISA

What’s with the thought that taxpayers should subsidise child care. Having a child is a wonderful experience. We had two and could afford it. Didn’t do it with financing from the government in mind. BILL, KIRWAN

Isn’t it just a bit hypocritical that the saviours of the planet the Australian Greens who want to ban all use of plastic have plastic corflute advertising signs on the side of roads all over the country? RON, KELSO

With skyrocketing fuel costs leading to rising import costs wouldn’t it make more economic sense to develop and manufacture our EVS in Australia? Some will think that’s a dumb idea and it can’t be done but history has proven otherwise, one example is the 1934 Ford Ute and another the 1948 48215 better known as the FX Holden. TM, 4812

NRL, what is the difference between Penrith group tackle, sometimes five or six men, completely surrounding the ball carrier from the well documented wrestling tackles of Melbourne Storm in earlier days, which were eventually banned or controlled? RAY, KIRWAN