I have never met a gw alarmist who has been willing to give up their high paid jet setting jobs in order to save the planet. And yet just like with Indigeneous affairs the 'elite' glorify their belief system knowing they have no intention of living a sacrificial lifestyle.

"His attitude towards the indigenous people he found was peaceful and conciliatory, though firm." So, kidnapping people and keeping them in chains is peaceful and conciliatory is it? Ordering a massacre (which thanks to cooler and saner people didn't happen) and demanding the heads of those killed be delivered to him is peaceful and conciliatory is it?

"The great majority seem to like it the way it is." The 'great majority' are generally poorly educated fools when it comes to Australian history.

"...there was no Frontier War, or Wars. Such language implies organised warfare on the part of nations or nation-like entities. That was not at all the case for the indigenous people, and rarely the case, if at all, for the colonial governments." That is straight out of the master narrative whitewash of history. Completely ignores the fact that there was an outright war declared against Aboriginal people in Tasmania. Completely ignores what happened on the 'frontiers' across Australia. Martial law doesn't get declared because people are going to parties.

And no Don, the Treaty of Waitangi did not put an end to the Maori Wars...they came afterwards and a contributing factor was that the British reneged on aspects of the treaty.

Don is just as hopeless with New Zealand history as he is with Australian history. Stick to knitting Don.

The landing in 1788 and the events that followed for the next 6 decades were events in British history and Aboriginal history. The signal event that ushered in the independent, multiracial and democratic nation of Australia was the battle at Eureka in 1854, a battle we lost on the day but won in the aftermath.

I agree totally with those who challenge the relevance of January 28 to the great country we are building. December 03, the date of the Eureka battle, is the most appropriate day for a commemorative national holiday.

(Forget about April 25 - that was an event in British history into which Australians were dragged)

Was the landing of 1788 a blessing to Aborigines? Minataur's post gives good reason why it wasn't.

However unknown to anybody much at the time, the southward march of Islam had reached Bali, and before too long the Moslems would have had the Aborigines for breakfast (and not as guests). British occupation meant a (historically temporary) halt to that.

Emporor Julian, Muslims from Indonesia (Makasasns) had been visiting Northern Australia since around the 1500s and in the 1600s set up the Trepang (sea slug) industry. They would spend months working and trading with Aboriginal people.

Some tribes adapted Makassan ways into their cultures and some Aborigines travelled back to Makassar...there are Aboriginal people today who still have family links to people in Makassar.

The experiences Aboriginal people had with the Makassans was in direct contrast to those they had with the European invaders.

EJ ! Where you been ?!

1788: the context is crucial - a century or more of the development of Enlightenment thinking, the slow liberation from the Churches, the notions of human rights, focus on 'the noble savage', questions about democracy, slavery, absolute rule, etc.

And grappling with the notion of what to do with territory which didn't seem to have systems of government or land ownership. As you say, pretty soon, the Muslims would have been bringing labour (since they didn't do much of it themselves) from 'pagan' areas to work the land in Australia. They wouldn't have wasted any angst or time on Aboriginal people, not being adherents of the Enlightenment.

So sooner or later, Australia would have been claimed by some power. Does anybody seriously dispute that ? Right or wrong, that's how it was going to be regardless. So, what Phillip and others believed and did at the time set the pace: Phillip as an abolitionist - 'no slavery in Australia'. Aboriginal people as British subjects from the outset, with their land-use traditions recognised implicitly, and formally after a lot of trial and error, by the 1840s.

There's a way of thinking which assumes that, if we complain enough about something, we can somehow reverse it. But the moving finger writes and, having writ, moves on, nor all one's complaints nor wits can bring it back to cancel half a line.

Yes, bring on a Truth and Justice Commission: explore the whole truth, not some assertions about the past. Examine the past, establish the past, and move on into a common and equal future.

Joe

Joe, you state that "Aboriginal people as British subjects from the outset, with their land-use traditions recognised implicitly, and formally after a lot of trial and error, by the 1840s." Well, at least you get the bit about Aborigines being British subjects almost right. On paper that may have been the case but reality was very different. As Aboriginal people were not Christians and could not speak English should they be charged with an offence (against British law) then their 'testimony' would not be heard in court as they wouldn't/couldn't 'swear' upon the bible...and naturally they had no idea of what was actually going on as they didn't understand the language being used against them.

As to the argument that it was simply a matter to time before a more technologically advanced people came and 'colonised', well I don't think anyone would seriously challenge otherwise. What made the Australian situation different was that many of those who were sent here were convicts. According to the 'class system' they were part of...and the bottom of...they found themselves with 'class' below them; Aboriginal people. And the acted accordingly by abusing Aboriginal people, stealing from them and raping their women.

It is no coincidence that the first person to be killed after the initial establishment of a penal colony was a convict, Peter Burn...who was speared to death for most likely interfering with Aboriginal women and/or stealing from them. Arthur Phillip's gamekeeper suffered the same fate and on his deathbed admitted his transgressions against Aboriginal people. Phillip himself was speared in a ‘payback’ for his transgressions against Aboriginal law…and he knew what it was for too and ordered no retaliation. Interestingly after the death of his gamekeeper his attitude changed and he ordered a massacre and demanded the heads of those killed be brought to him. Thankfully, one of those ordered to lead the massacre, Lt. Watkin Tench, had a more saner attitude and ensured it never happened.

However, as history graphically shows, massacres and other atrocities, including slavery, did follow in what became an invasion.