Popular Post old man emu Posted January 23 Popular Post Share Posted January 23 I'm not succumbing to the Wokeism surrounding the rights and wrongs of the debate about celebrating our national day on a date that corresponds to an historical event, but I can't ignore the debate. I think that considering the matter it is a duty all of us must undertake. The Fleet arrived in Botany Bay between 18 and 20 January 1788, but it was immediately apparent that it was unsuitable as a place for a settlement. On 21 January, Phillip and a few officers travelled to Port Jackson, 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) to the north, to see if it would be a better location for a settlement. It was, so the fleet moved there. On 26th January 1788, certain European international law formalities were completed, resulting in the inclusion of the eastern half of the continent into the British realm. Probably no other modern country can definitely state the date on which its colonisation by another country began. However, celebrating the creation of the Nation we know of as Australia on 26th January is incorrect. That Nation came into being on 1st January 1901. Prior to that we could identify a number of dates to celebrate the establishment of the various colonies prior to the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia. If you live in South Australia, you don't celebrate Boxing Day. You celebrate Proclamation Day on the 26th December. Apart from New South Wales being able to identify the 26th January as its foundation date, does anyone know the foundation dates of the other States and Territories? Prior to 1935, 26 January was known as First Landing Day or Foundation Day in Australian states and territories, but from 1935 onwards all jurisdictions used the name Australia Day to mark the date. Australia Day was not consistently celebrated as a public holiday across Australia until 1994. The controversy over any celebrations on the 26th of January is basically one between the descendants of the indigenous inhabitants and, for the most part, descendants of British immigrants. Without labouring the reasons that the day might be labeled as a remembrance of an invasion, in 2024 we should be celebrating not the bad, but the good that being a citizen of a Nation which celebrates the concept of a fair go. We can acknowledge that every person living in this Nation doesn't get a 100% fair go, but compared to the rest of the World's Nations we are pretty close to it. So, do we keep the 26th of January as our National Day? In the interests of historical accuracy, Australia Day should be celebrated on the 1st of January. That recalls the day in History when the Nation came into existence under International Law. The population of Australia is no longer simply the sum of those descended from pre-colonial occupants and British immigrants. What Australians are in 2024 is encapsulated in the lyrics of a song We are one But we are many And from all the lands on earth we come We'll share a dream And sing with one voice I am, you are, we are Australian "But," you say, "the first of January is New Year's Day. It's already a holiday." What is more important? Having a day off to recover from a late night out, or celebrating the creation of a great Nation? 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 I'm not laughing at the theme of your proposal. I laugh at yor last sentence. Would it appease the complainers if we simply rename 26th Jan to 'Colonisation Day'? It would reflect the event more accurately. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted January 23 Author Share Posted January 23 My idea is to consign the 26th of January to the list of forgotten dates. Afterall, it really doesn't mark the arrival of the First Fleet to where it was sent - Botany Bay. Do you still celebrate Commonwealth Day (formerly Empire Day)? Bet the date isn't on the tip of your tongue. Even the official celebration of our Head of State's birthday only has a 1/365 or 1/366 probability of falling on that person's actual birth day. We are supposed to be a fair-minded Nation. What is wrong with acknowledging that politics has sullied the reason for selecting that date, and that our history and the composition of our population has moved on. If you want a long weekend at the end of January, why not call it Multicultural Celebration Day? That should be all-inclusive. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Foundation Day in W.A. was June 1st, 1829. On that day we celebrated by chopping down a tree, and we haven't ceased chopping down nice trees, ever since that day. I feel for all the murdered trees. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Queensland was established on 6th. June 1859, now commemorated as Queensland Day. I'm all for ditching the 26th. in favour of January 1st.. The 26th. has no relevance to the Commonwealth of Australia which is our legal federated entity. Before 1901 there was no Australian nation, just a collection of British colonies and territories. Why celebrate the date that the first white inhabitants of one of those colonies decided to move camp a few k's further north. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 Under international law of the time, the east coast of Australia became part of the British realm on 22 August 1770 when Cook climbed the summit of Possession Island and claimed it for Britain. There's another politically incorrect date. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_Atrick Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Australia Day on 26th Jan seems to commemorate the landing of the first fleet, finally. But, as you point out OME, it really is about proclamation of part of the land of Terra Australis as being part of the realm. And in fact, it is the basis of the formation of the colony of NSW. So, this is hardly a celebration of the founding of Australia, but let's be honest, it is the catalyst, so does have significance to Australia. For that reason, it does not personally worry me about the date. However, it was an invasion, if we take the dictionary definition:, which, is to enter a region or country to subjugate or occupy it. So I understand the first nations objections. Under international law (which was really only European law in this context), the proclamation was made under the doctrine of terra nullius, meaning that there was no permanent occupation nor settlement of the land. In other words, there was no conquest of the land; it was merely taking possession of effectively empty (of humans) land. The High Court of Australia declared in the Mabo No. 2 case that the declaration of terra nullius was defective and, therefore unlawful. I haven't read the entire court report, but I would imagine it would require some level of at lest negligence on the part of Cook and whoever else was involved to do this, in order for it to be unlawful; In other words, they musy have had good reason and taken reasonable steps to satisfy themselves of an absence of permanent settlement (the lack of appearance of permanent borders and dwellings being man made, for example, was not enough). The significance of this is that, id the land was not terra nullius then, under "international law" at the time, the conqueror had to come to a treaty with the existing inhabitants including ownership rights of land. This is one key difference between NZ and Australia. So, therefore, with a finding of a defective proclamation and without a treaty, then in accordance with international law at the time, the colonisation of Australia was effectively illegal. I don't know what the recourse was at that time in law to the native inhabitants, to be honest. However, at least in theory, when the High Court found that the declaration was illegal, it could be argued that the very nature of land ownership was no longer legal until a treaty with the first nations was agreed. The High Court got around with with the invention of the common law principle/doctrine of native title that can co-exists with Westminster title. My point is, that at the time, the proclamation was not legal in accordance with "international" law at the time.. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 From a Colonial point of view, maybe the 26th. January is only relevant to residents of NSW. Here in Queensland, we broke away from NSW in 1859 so we don't give two hoots for January 26th.. In fact, once a year they still come up and try to infiltrate Lang Park but we do our best to send them packing. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 I'll go with 1 Jan, as long as we get another day off on 2 Jan for New Year's. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Ok, don't feed the fuss. Cancel Australia Day 26th Jan. We really don't care so long as we still get a long weekend. Call it Clover Moth day or whatever, but let's have a barby. Yeah, Jan 1st makes more sense and it gets a bunch of trouble makers off our back. But rational common sense doesn't come into it when it comes to threatening the sacred concept of a long weekend. Besides, I think the new Australians really love Australia day. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said: it was an invasion, if we take the dictionary definition It depends on whose definition you want to use. The Cambridge Dictionary says: to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it. That implies the intention to use military force to wrest sovereignty from those already occupying a place. That was hardly the case with the British arrival. The military was there to control the "civilians". The military knew from history that those unarmed civilians would need armed protection from the original residents if disputes arose. Can't access the Oxford English Dictionary or the Macquarie Dictionary online. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_Atrick Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 There are about 7 - 10 definitions of invasion or invade.. but they all include occupation and by force (in this context) and usually subjugation 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_Atrick Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 13 hours ago, old man emu said: I'm not succumbing to the Wokeism surrounding the rights and wrongs of the debate about celebrating our national day The objections to Australia Day seem to be driven, in some measure by fact and not simple ideology. Whether or not these justify a change, is a personal value judgement. But given the current hijacked defintion of Wokeism on the other (EV?) thread, it would appear the objections are not purely ideological - unlike, it appears the people who are staunch supporters of leaving Aussie Day where it is. It doesn't even appear to be anywhere near the date of the formation of Australia, as a nation - which includes bringing together 6 disparate states. I am guessing the Wokeism that people are not succumbing to is that of the ones who want to retain it? 54 minutes ago, nomadpete said: But rational common sense doesn't come into it when it comes to threatening the sacred concept of a long weekend. Defo.. I never remember the date - even before I left Australia. I relied on ads on the TV to remind me. Thanks, chaps.. as UK TV doesn't contain ads about it, and not that I watch TV anymore, anyway, I needed someone to remind me of the day. I will try and commandeer the pub on Saturday. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 5 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said: I will try and commandeer the pub on Saturday. Why would feel the need to do that? It isn't particularly important. Although I never felt that way until this forum debated it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_Atrick Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Not really, but it is an excuse to go to the pub... and maybe someone will get me a beer 😉 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 According to the "fatal shore" book the local aborigines didn't even look up from their oyster-gathering as the fleet went by. This was noted by more than one of the passengers. Some invasion, thinks I. Well not up there with d-day huh. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Some thought the Boat had Ghosts on it. Better to keep collecting oysters than disturb the Ghosts. Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 The comparison is reasonable. When I hear the word 'invasion', I picture Putin invading Ukraine or Hitler invading Poland. I don't associate 'invasion' with a bunch of sailing ships coming into a harbour and setting up a bunch of tents. Of course that's just my sentiments. Clearly others see it differently. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_Atrick Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Is their intention setting up a bunch of tents, or establishing a colony and displacing the native people? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 In this vast open and sparsely populated country, I suggest the first fleet didn’t think they were actually displacing anybody. No more so than a plane load of modern migrants would think they are invading and displacing the existing population. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_Atrick Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 I agree the first fleet probably didn't think they were displacing anyone.. However, the High Court of Aus, begs to differ that Cook (and I guess the first fleet) took sufficent steps to ascertain whether they were or not.. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 hour ago, nomadpete said: I suggest the first fleet didn’t think they were actually displacing anybody And you can understand that. You arrive and find no buildings, no agriculture, no delineation of property. Sure, they ran into a few natives, but they could have been visitors like you. No indication that they were permanent residents. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 The English weren't the first to land here. We all know Dirk Hartog and Abel Tasman were here years before Cook. They were dead before Cook landed. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 4 minutes ago, red750 said: The English weren't the first to land here. We all know Dirk Hartog and Abel Tasman were here years before Cook. They were dead before Cook landed. True enough, but they didn't set up a permanent camp. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 it was a place to chuck their felons into. Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now