Jump to content

January 26 is not the anniversary of Cook's arrival in Australia.


red750
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here is the text of an email I received. The author is listed as one Ray Payne OAM.

 

Interesting set of facts not widely known…

Australia Day

I have fact-checked this very good synopsis of the facts that appear to have disappeared over the years of selective education…. 

Facts about Australia Day 

Our Education system is not competently advising our children !! 

Don't expect the media to educate you that's not part of their agenda. Australia Day does not celebrate the arrival of the first fleet or the invasion of anything. 

 

Captain Cook did not arrive in Australia on the 26th of January. The Landing of Captain Cook in Sydney happened on the 29th of April 1770 - not on the 26th of January 1770. 

 

The First Fleet arrived in Botany Bay on the 18th of January. The 26th was chosen as Australia Day for a different reason; however, Captain Cook's landing was included in Australia Day celebrations as a reminder of a significant historical event. 

Since the extravagant bicentenary celebrations of 1988, when Sydney-siders decided Captain Cook's landing should become the focus of the Australia Day commemoration, the importance of this date for all Australians has begun to fade. 

 

Now, a generation later, it's all but lost. 

 

This is because our politicians and educators have not been doing a good job promoting the day. Our politicians have not been advertising the real reason for Australia Day, and our educators have not been teaching our children the importance of the 26th of January to all Australians. 

 

The media, as usual, is happy to twist the truth for the sake of controversy. 

 

In recent years, the media has helped fan the flames of discontent among the Aboriginal community Many are now so offended by what they see as a celebration of the beginning of the darkest days of Aboriginal history, they want the date changed. 

Various local Councils are seeking to remove themselves from Australia Day celebrations, even refusing to participate in citizenship ceremonies, and calls are going out to have Australia Day on a different day. 

The big question is, why has the Government allowed this misconception to continue? 

Captain Cook didn't land on the 26th of January. So changing the date of any celebration of Captain Cook's landing would not have any impact on Australia Day, but maybe it would clear the way for the truth about Australia Day. 

The reality is, the Aborigines in this country suffered terribly under the hands of British colonialism. This is as much Australia's history as the landing of the first fleet, and both should be remembered, equally. Both should be taught, side by side, in our schools. 

 

Australians of today abhor what was done under British governance to the Aborigines. We abhor what was done under British governance to the Irish and many other cultures around the world. So, after the horrors of WWII, we decided to fix it.

 

We became our own people. 

 

On the 26th of January 1949, the Australian nationality came into existence when the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 was enacted. That was the day we were first called Australians and allowed to travel with Passports as Australians. 

 

Under the Nationality Act 1920 (Cth), all Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders born after January 1, 1921, gained the status of British subjects. In 1949, therefore, they automatically became Australian citizens under the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948. 

 

Before that special date, all people living in Australia, including Aborigines born after 1921, were called 'British Subjects' and forced to travel on British Passports and fight in British wars. 

 

We all became Australians on the same day! 

 

This is why we celebrate Australia Day on the 26th of January! 

 

This was the day Australians became free to make our own decisions about which wars we would fight and how our citizens would be treated. It was the day Aborigines were declared Australians. 

 

Until this date, Aborigines were not protected by law. For the first time since Cook's landing, this new Act gave Aboriginal Australians by inference and precedent the full protection of Australian law. 

 

Because of this Act, the government became free to help Aborigines, and since that day much has been done to assist Aboriginal Australians, including saying 'sorry' for the previous atrocities done before this law came into being. 

 

This was a great day for all Australians! 

 

This is why the 26th of January is the day new Australians receive their citizenship. It is a day which celebrates the implementation of the Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1948 - the Act which gave freedom and protection to the first Australians and gives all Australians, old and new, the right to live under the protection of Australian Law, united as one nation. 

Now, isn't that cause for celebration? 

 

Education is key! There is a great need for education on the real reason we celebrate Australia Day on the 26th of January. This reason needs to be advertised and taught in schools. We all need to remember this one very special day in Australia's history, when freedom came to all Australians. 

 

What was achieved that day is something for which all Australians can be proud! 

 

We need to remember both the good and the bad in our history, but the emphasis must be the freedom and unity all Australians now have, because of what was done on the 26th of January 1949, to allow all of us to live without fear in a land of peace. 

 

Isn't it time all Australians were taught the real reason we celebrate Australia Day on Jan 26th?

 

Ray Payne OAM

 

End of text.

 

Click here for more information, including this quote:

 

"Nonetheless, the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 was passed and came into effect on Australia Day, 26 January 1949."

  • Like 2
  • Informative 1
  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RED, I am not quoting your words as I write this, but correcting the errors and voicing other opinions from what Payne said.

 

12 hours ago, red750 said:

The Landing of Captain Cook in Sydney happened on the 29th of April 1770 - not on the 26th of January 1770. 

Wrong. Captain Cook never landed in Port Jackson (Sydney Harbour) in 1770. He was killed in 1779. If Cook had sailed into Port Jackson in 1770, the British would have been here in the mid-1770s following what would have been a glowing report of the naval value of Port Jackson. On August 1770, on Possession Island in the Torres Straight,  Cook " once more hoisted English Coulers and in the Name of His Majesty King George the Third took possession of the whole Eastern Coast...by the name New South Wales, together with all the Bays, Harbours Rivers and Islands situate upon the said coast"

220px-Captain_Cook_takes_formal_possession_of_New_South_Wales_1770.jpg

 

12 hours ago, red750 said:

The First Fleet arrived in Botany Bay on the 18th of January.

In 1788. The First Fleet arrived in Botany Bay between January 18th and 20th, 1788 before relocating to Port Jackson on January 26th when they realized that Botany Bay was not as marvelous as James Cook had provided (the soil was poor, and there wasn’t much water).

 

12 hours ago, red750 said:

The reality is, the Aborigines in this country suffered terribly under the hands of British colonialism.

I strongly object, firstly to the word "terribly" as it is inflammatory. Secondly, what was the real suffering? We the Aborigines captured and sent away as slaves as so many millions of Africans were at the same time? No. Were they driven off traditional lands and forced into other areas as the Native Americans were? No. Did they fall to diseases not previously present in Australia? Yes. Were Aborigines subjected to vigilante justice? Yes, in some remote areas. Were the Europeans' treatment of land ownership and resource use based on European cultural history? Yes. Has European immigration to Australia made available to Aborigines all the benefits of European culture? Yes.

 

12 hours ago, red750 said:

all people living in Australia, including Aborigines born after 1921, were called 'British Subjects' and forced to travel on British Passports and fight in British wars. 

"Forced .... to fight"? Unlike those living in Britain, no Australian has ever been "forced" into any British fight. Australians are proud that if called on by Britain for assistance, our military forces were filled with volunteers. It wasn't until Australia sucked up to the USA after 26th January 1949 that people were conscripted to fight other people's  wars.

 

12 hours ago, red750 said:

This is why the 26th of January is ... a day which celebrates the implementation of the Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1948

That's a new one!

 

12 hours ago, red750 said:

Until this date, Aborigines were not protected by law. For the first time since Cook's landing, this new Act gave Aboriginal Australians by inference and precedent the full protection of Australian law.

 

From the time that the British flag was raised on 16 January 1788, all persons living on the Australian continent, and the island of Tasmania were deemed to be subjects of the British Crown and subject to and protected by British law until 1st January 1901, after which all persons were subject to Australian Law, but still British subjects. 

 

Payne might hold the OAM, but he has a much higher award, his earning of which makes him worthy of great respect.

 

In May 1969 he was commanding the 212th Company of the 1st Mobile Strike Force Battalion when it was attacked by a strong People's Army of Vietnam force near Ben Het Camp. His company was isolated and, surrounded on three sides, Payne's Vietnamese troops began to fall back. Payne, by now wounded in the hands and arms and under heavy fire, covered the withdrawal before organising his troops into a defensive perimeter. He then spent three hours scouring the scene of the day's fight for isolated and wounded soldiers, all the while evading the enemy who kept up regular fire. He found some forty wounded men, brought some in himself and organised the rescue of the others, leading the party back to base through enemy dominated terrain. Payne's actions that night earned him the Victoria Cross.

 

Despite that respect, I think he is on the wrong track with this material.

  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red asks what about the stolen generation.

I believe that the stolen generation was an attempt to improve the lot of aboriginal children. Looking back it was obviously wrong, but the intention was good.

There are still problems in some aboriginal communities, where the children are treated poorly and e have no idea how to get over that problem.

From what I see the aboriginals have had a tough time and some were treated atrociously, but what can we do to improve their situation? They seem to want a voice in government, over and above what we now have.

Looking at the Uluru agreement I still cannot see what they want, except maybe for all the non aboriginals to go away. What would they do then? It is my taxes that go towards giving them their benefits.

Over the years I have worked with many aborigial and Torres Straits people and they were no different from the rest of us, but they didn't live in missions and they did want to work for money and to get a better standard of living.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One cannot deny that in the outer limits of settled country, the Aborigines were treated as badly as were the Native Americans of the same time. The photo RED put up was taken in the 1880s. At the same time European expansion into the western USA was happening, and the Native Americans, better organises and in much greater numbers were fighting to keep their lands and traditional ways of life. Although we now abhor it, that is the way things were.

 

But, and it's a big but, that was closer to 100 years ago than ten years ago. In the intervening period the ideas of the people with European ancestry have changed so that now it is acknowledged that people cannot be treated unfairly because of ethnicity.  It was the same in early 19th Century Britain. Britain had grown wealthy form its early involvement in Afro-American slavery, but from about the mid-18th Century pressure had been building to outlaw it throughout the Empire. On 1st August 1834 it became illegal to be involved in slavery in the Empire. 

 

This year is the 100th anniversary of my father's birth. Did he have anything to do with aboriginal mistreatment? No, he was a city person and probably saw his first Aborigine when he was working on a sheep property near Warren, NSW in his teens. While Aboriginals have been seeking true equality with the rest of the citizenry since at least Federation, it was probably only in the mid-60s that educated Aborigines such as Charles Perkins were able to incite Baby Boomers into calling for change in racist attitudes.

 

But if people of Aboriginal ancestry want absolute equality, they can't go on crying, "Poor bugger me", and not doing anything to obtain equality. I will say again, as I have said before, until governments actually make an effort to understand how Aboriginal people established their "Country" eons ago, and how a subsistence culture molded their intellects, throwing money and European cultural ideas at them is boungd to fail. 

 

Governments need to realise that Aboriginals are an ethnic sub-group, just as the Nordic peoples, the Celtic peoples, the Slavic peoples and the Mediterranean peoples are ethnic sub-groups. However, just like Europe, Asia, Africa, The Americas, the Aboriginal people established many nations on the continent (about 500+). Just look at the languages Europeans speak, as language shows how the mind works. The structure of each European language is different in some ways from its neighbours. The same holds true of Aboriginals.

 

When Governments make the effort to learn how Aboriginals think, then programs which enable traditional lifestyles to work within Western lifestyles can be created. Slowly, Europeans are recognising the wealth of knowledge about Australia's unique flora that Aboriginals have. Sources of income could be established locally to capitalise on local knowledge. Making dot paintings for tourists will generate some income in the short term, but will not improve the overall lot of Aborigines living within their National boundaries. 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, old man emu said:

Payne might hold the OAM, but he has a much higher award, his earning of which makes him worthy of great respect.

 

In May 1969 he was commanding the 212th Company of the 1st Mobile Strike Force Battalion when it was attacked by a strong People's Army of Vietnam force near Ben Het Camp. His company was isolated and, surrounded on three sides, Payne's Vietnamese troops began to fall back. Payne, by now wounded in the hands and arms and under heavy fire, covered the withdrawal before organising his troops into a defensive perimeter. He then spent three hours scouring the scene of the day's fight for isolated and wounded soldiers, all the while evading the enemy who kept up regular fire. He found some forty wounded men, brought some in himself and organised the rescue of the others, leading the party back to base through enemy dominated terrain. Payne's actions that night earned him the Victoria Cross.

 

Despite that respect, I think he is on the wrong track with this material.

ome, you have your chokos crossed. You're talking about Vietnam Veteran Keith Payne. Red's article is written by Ray Payne, a different person.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith Payne VC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Payne

image.jpeg.d9a771aa5ee87a5a92433a7ea15e2ab8.jpeg

 

Ray Payne 

http://www.veteranweb.asn.au/about/

image.png.eaaf5275aa2de8812f32eddf0c0601bd.png

I served with the First Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (1 RAR) during 1965-66 at Bien Hoa, South Vietnam.  Our battalion group was attached to the 173rd Airborne Brigade (Separate) and operated as the third battalion of the brigade.

 

Sorry, my mistake.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I grew up in Alice Springs in the 1950's and there were no stolen generation there. In grade 4, I sat next to a black kid called Walter who came from Borolloola  and was no more stolen than I was. He used to go home during school holidays.

BUT...What would a sensible police person do if they found a baby lying in 2 days of its waste and dehydrated while the mother was drunk? What would you do? I know a police woman who confronted that exact situation more than once. She packed the kid off to hospital.

Maybe that kid is now considered stolen? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OME, we have had military conscription that forced men into "British Wars" - in WW2. Military conscription was bitterly contested in WW1, and two referendums voted against it.

We had conscription in WW2, and it was less contested than in WW1, possibly because everyone knew this War was particularly serious, and not just British adventurism.

We had military conscription from 1951 to 1957, and again for the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1972. I was conscripted (in 1969), but I did volunteer for service in Vietnam as an Engineer.

But if you were conscripted in the Vietnam conscription era, and were put in an Infantry Battalion, and your Battalion was chosen for rotation into Vietnam, you were sent to Vietnam, regardless.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Australia

 

 

Edited by onetrack
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of me posting this thread was to highlight the error in confusing Cook's landing as the source of Australia Day. It does not to celebrate the landing, it was the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948. Therefore it should be celebrated by the aborigines for what it gave them, not denounced and changed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

Sorry, my mistake.

It must be a real Payne when that happens. Keith Payne's VC, as far as I remember was in Maryborough, Qld,. for quite a long time, at the small military museum there. The AWM would have liked it as part of their VC collection, but Keith's theory was that people in S.E. Queensland who wanted to see a VC wouldn't have to travel all the way to Canberra. I seem to remember reading something in recent times that it might have finally gone to the AWM.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, old man emu said:

Were they driven off traditional lands and forced into other areas as the Native Americans were? No.

Sorry, ome but the answer to that is yes. Not every tribe in every area in every state, but many were. I know of one mob that were literally driven off in the back of cattle trucks under Queensland Government policy, and that was not as long ago as one would think. Out of respect, I won't mention the tribal name but they were removed from far South West Queensland and taken hundreds of miles away to Cherbourg near the coast. As far as I know, none of them survived long term. Others from the tribe were taken over the border to NSW for some reason. That lot did all right and have many descendants today. I worked with some of them for a lot of years.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Victorian aborigines were relocated to two reserve areas back in the early to mid twentieth century. I came from NSW and wondered why there were no “ blacks camps” outside country towns like we had. I own several books written by aboriginal descendants about that relocation experience. It was not good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AND !

Black Town,  ( was spelt Blackstown in something l read  ) was were the natives of Parramatta area were made to live. after they kept raiding the Third Settlement Gardens. ( there is a names for the gardens ).

I do my morning walk, along the Third Settlement Walk, besides the Toongabbie creek. Well looked after nowadays.

spacesailor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I was in Blacktown, back in 2000, I couldn't find a restaurant that had an English menu. And no sign of dark skinned brothers anywhere. They and all my old pale skinned friends had been displaced by a mix of middle eastern and Asian people. You can't really call it multicultural - it was an odd bipartisan place that made me feel uncomfortably out of place.

  • Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it a remembrance of an "invasion", establishment of permanent European settlement, or the remembrance of the formal creation of the Nation of Australia? 26th of January is the day set for remembrance of something that made us what we are today. But what "something"?

 

Everyone agrees that the formal establishment of a what was to become permanent European settlement on this continent occured on 26th January 1788. If you are not Aboriginal, then you remember this event as a good thing. If you are Aboriginal, your thoughts might be the same, totally opposed, or somewhere in between. 

 

Re-enactments of the foundation ceremony are a bit hard to stage on their original location because the original landscape does not exist any more. It is possible to reenact Cook's landing of 1770 because the site is a National Park and little changed since 1770. Violence did attend Cook's landing, but in 1788, it appears that the Aboriginal population of the area was pretty disinterested in what was going on.  They definitely were not invited to participate.

 

The formal creation of the Nation of Australia occured on 26th January 1949. The legal status of Australian nationality or Australian citizenship was created by the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948, which came into force on 26 January 1949. Australian nationality and citizenship existed prior to this date but were not legal concepts. Prior to that Australia's nationality law, like that of other Commonwealth countries, was governed by the English common law concept of a British subject. Australia enacted the Nationality Act 1920, which came into effect on 1 January 1921 and codified the concept of a British subject in Australia.

 

Obviously the date chosen for the 1948 Act to come into force was due to that date being a traditional day of celebration.

 

Early almanacs and calendars and the Sydney Gazette from around 1804 began referring to 26 January as First Landing Day or Foundation Day. In Sydney, celebratory drinking, and later anniversary dinners became customary, especially among emancipists. In 1818, Governor Macquarie acknowledged the day officially as a public holiday on the thirtieth anniversary. The previous year he accepted the recommendation of Captain Matthew Flinders, circumnavigator of the continent, that it be called Australia. The proclamation in 1838 of an annual public holiday for 26 January marked the Jubilee of the British occupation of New South Wales. While Sydney continued to be the centre of Australia Day spectacle and ceremony. The states and territories agreed  in 1988 to celebrate Australia Day on 26 January, rather than with a long weekend. So Australia Day is not "just a long weekend", but a stand alone day of remembrance, like Anzac Day. These are the only truly Australian days of remembrance.

 

It is a shame that on the 1st of January we celebrate the beginning of a new calendar year, since that is also the date that the Commonwealth of Australia became a legal entity. However, since The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), was passed on 5 July 1900, and Queen Victoria gave the legislation royal assent four days later, on the 9th July 1900, declaring that it would take effect on 1 January 1901, maybe we should ditch the Queens' Birthday public holiday and establish Australia Day on the 9th July. 

 

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

However, since The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), was passed on 5 July 1900, and Queen Victoria gave the legislation royal assent four days later, on the 9th July 1900, declaring that it would take effect on 1 January 1901, maybe we should ditch the Queens' Birthday public holiday and establish Australia Day on the 9th July. 

I couldn't see Aboriginal people showing much bipartisan support for that. They would still see it as a white mans day on the anniversary of a foreign Queen signing a bit of paper over what they consider their land.

 

I really think they should forget about British based anniversaries, pick an independent day and make it a day of National unity. The average Australian doesn't give two hoots about proclamations anyway; it's just a day off for most. I'll no doubt cop flak with this view, but I agree with the Aboriginals on the Australia day issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/01/2021 at 6:46 PM, old man emu said:

...Slowly, Europeans are recognising the wealth of knowledge about Australia's unique flora that Aboriginals have...

An enlightened approach, OME, but sadly, much of that knowledge has been lost, perhaps forever. In longer-“settled” areas like mine, most of the menfold were massacred and replaced (often by white trash) at least 7 generations ago.

 

On 20/01/2021 at 6:46 PM, old man emu said:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

much of that knowledge has been lost,

I think that you might just be surprised by how much traditional knowledge is still passed on in the "settled" areas. It only takes one person with the knowledge to state the traditional used for a plant, and then biologists can get to work figuring out how to exploit the plant. Look at the Macadamia. Grows wild in northeastern NSW, but has its natural pests.  Beat the pests and we have a desirable cash crop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, willedoo said:

I really think they should forget about British based anniversaries,

What makes Australia a Nation in legal terms? 

1.  Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) - that joined the independent colonies into a Federation. Date it became available as a law: 9th July Date it became law 1st January

2. Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 - that put an end to Australians being British subjects, and made them Australians. Date it came into force: 26th January

3. 23 August 1770 - Cook claims the east coast of Australia for King George 3rd in accordance with European International law.

 

So what makes Australia culturally?

1. ANZAC Day - most countries have a day of National Remembrance for those who served in military action for the benefit of the Nation.

2. New Year's Day - simply a celebration of putting one year behind us and looking forward to the next one.

 

I'm not going to include the European pagan astronomical celebrations of mid-winter and mid-summer days, or springtime, which have morphed into Christmas and Easter, but abandoned mid-summer. These have become sources of argument as strong believers in other faiths don't accept the background to the celebrations.

 

So, where does that leave us for days of public celebration? There are three things to celebrate on 1st January. One legal thing on the 26th January. We'll skip 23 August as we have done so since 1771. 25th April is a definite. Since the person who is also the Monarch of some other countries is the Monarch of Australia, should we still celebrate that person's official birthday? How many of us attend functions on that day to express our wishes for the health and longevity of the Monarch? What about the Eight-hour day celebration, or since we now are heavily into the 24/7 lifestyle, is the Eight-hour Day relevant? We can ditch Christmas and Easter with a view to promote harmony amongst the different Faiths practised here.

 

  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...