It seems that once again this question is being
raised. "Should We Change The Date of Australia
Day?" I believe that The Greens have started a
Petition on this issue.

What Do posters on this Forum think?

Yes, let's keep reminding ourselves to say "Sorry" each and every day to the poor misguided wretches of Botany Bay, & Sydney Harbour, those descendants of the Eora, the Kadigal, the Dharruk. Let's also keep saying sorry until Hell freezes over if we ever for one moment forget that. Please write to every radio station, newspaper and media voice to keep reminding ourselves...daily.

Yes, while we're at it, let's forget that it was the 26th January 1788 that truth in this country went overboard with the anchor off HMS Sirius in Sydney Cove that fateful day.

Let's also ensure the 'Gravy Train' does not run out of money & that we throw as many taxpayer dollars into more useless schemes, grants, policies and such designed by inner city academics, Greens and ALP wannabe aspirants. Like housing that is torn down and gutted within weeks of handover, floorboards used as firewood, because it's "traditional"...like hunting protected species with shotguns and rifles...because they are 'traditional weapons'.

Not forgetting that in Scotland, England & Ireland during the 19th & 20th centuries there were also "Stolen Generations" "Ethnic Cleansings" & other shops of horrors...but they don't count in a touchy feely politically correct and media sanctioned Australia anymore.

Dear Albie,

You really sound very emotional about this issue.
I was hoping for more of a discussion on the topic
rather than what sounds like an angry response.
Anyway Thank You for your contribution.

I look forward to the death of "Political correctness".

Bring back common sense.

One needs to be racist, blind and ignorant not to see what a great place the British made Australia.

Definitely not. The push for change is just another Marxist scheme to take people's minds off important things that need doing in this country. They should read what Jacinta Price had to say a few days ago on the subject. But of course she is not the type of aboriginal background person they like. She is too Australian for them.

The self-haters badly misjudged Australians on Anzac Day and Christmas, so they have moved onto another fad which will hopefully blow up in their faces. Lord love a duck: even Malcolm Turnbull wants to leave things as they are.

Personally, I see the current day as a celebration of my ancestors arrival and the bringing of civilization to a continent locked in the Stone Age. I appreciate that SOME people with aboriginal heritage - all who benefited from the "invasion" - might think differently, but that is not my problem, nor should it be a problem of any modern Australian, including those descending from the original inhabitants.

Albie Manton in Darwin puts thought and time into drafting a reply. Only to be immediately set upon, castigated and cat-called 'emotional' and angry' for not giving the approved politically correct reply.

Foxy,
Since you have bowled this one out so many times before and you are already proposing that Australia become a republic in 2018(!), it is YOU, the believer, the left activist with the wooden spoon, who should be putting up your arguments and not playing games.

YOU have the floor: what specifically would changing the flag do to address all of those 'Wicked Problems', such as unemployment, energy, water, housing, infrastructure, drugs, that were on the back burner for years while that most urgent Same Sex Marriage you also saw as most urgent was given first priority?

I should have said date of Australia Day, but changing the flag would be your next thread, right Foxy?

Meanwhile good people like Warren Mundine, who are trying to make things work and are getting somewhere, are obliged to waste time on this nonsense,

"Indigenous not fussed about day: Mundine
Australian Associated Press
January 16, 2018 5:56am

Some indigenous leaders seems surprised at the fuss over Australia Day.

Alice Springs councillor Jacinta Price and indigenous leader Warren Mundine say Aboriginal people in remote communities have bigger issues to worry about.

"I'm with Aboriginal communities every month and changing the date isn't number one, two, three, four, fifth on their agenda," indigenous leader Warren Mundine said.

"It is education, jobs, it is to get business activity happening, and to get better healthcare.

"If the Greens were fair dinkum they would concentrate on these issues rather than something that is not going to make a difference to anyone."

However, their stance has seen them criticised by their peers, The Australian reports.

Ms Price has been abused on social media for wanting to keep the January 26 date."
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/indigenous-not-fussed-about-day-mundine/news-story/6c16cd5cbb33dc4471fb77f0b5649733

Jacinta Price would be a fantastic PM with Warren Mundine in the cabinet. Wouldn't that be a break from the political elite that is destroying this nation.

Runner,

Yes ! Give it time. I think Senator Jacinta Price would certainly liven up the place. Plenty of time to go for that other job.

Australia Day ? So what other day might be acceptable to the ninja-whinjas ? What a pointless exercise. There are so many problems afflicting Indigenous communities that this focus only exposes how superficial the support of the virtuous people, and their hangers-on, is for genuine Indigenous progress and happiness.

Meanwhile, around 54,000 indigenous people have graduated from universities. Does anybody celebrate that ? Or do the virtuous need the helpless to shower their pity on ? And 54,000 are not to be pitied. They should be celebrated every year, maybe with Indigenous Graduates' Picnics, on the last Sunday of November every year, in every major town and city. Just pick a park and rock up.

Joe

leoj,

More of your rants and false accusations.

Dear oh dear.

Firstly I did not attack Albie. I merely noted
that he seemed emotional and yes, upset, from
his post. However I did Thank him for his contribution.

Also - yes, I did start a discussion on the Republic but if
you bothered to read my posts you would see that I am
not for Australia becoming a Republic at all. I like
the stability of what we currently have - and I've
made that quite clear in that discussion. Perhaps you need
to actually read what a person says before you falsely
accuse them.

As for the question of this discussion -
"Should We Change The Date of
Australia Day?" I have not as yet expressed an opinion
on the topic. Many people's views are not set in concrete
and you are jumping the gun with your assumptions.

leoj,

You know what. I am sick and tired of having to deal
with your nastiness. We have a history on this forum.
You persistently harass me - and try to demean -whatever
I say. You are an offensive little man who gets his
jollies by consistently attacking me. Well I am sick of it.
You can simply bugger off!

Most of the time I try to be polite, and then I tried
to not engage with you at all - not even reading your posts
because you never say anything new or worthwhile - but this
time you've gone too far and I've had it.

Go away - and don't bother addressing me any more.
I shan't be reading what you write.
You are an ignorant little man!
And you're the reason God invented the middle-finger.

Foxy,

That is complete nonsense. You make it obvious that you are short on argument.

General Comment

Virtue signalling,
http://www.3aw.com.au/indigenous-councillor-tells-pat-cash-to-get-his-facts-straight/

Now back to the topic.

Should We Change The Date of Australia Day?

My intention on starting this discussion was
to raise awareness and discussion to look
at what this day means on the 26th January
to a whole range of posters. I thought that
having a conversation was important at this
stage - with the day being just weeks away.

It's not about trying to lay guilt on
anyone - its about trying to find out
what this day means to people, and hopefully to
get an understanding of its history.

I've spoken to some of my colleagues at work and
my neighbours - and I was surprised to see that
many of them thought of the day just as a public holiday.
Many thought the day had something to do with Captain
Cook. Others just simply did not know or care.

leoj,

No.
It is not nonsense.
You are a Cyberbully and I have
put up with you long enough.

This has got to stop or I will take
legal action because there are cyberbullying
laws in Australia and cyberbullying is a
criminal offence. Your anonymity does not
make you safe. So heed my warning and leave
me alone!

Accepting there is a valid argument for our sunburnt land to cast off its regal heritage, when QEII passes, gawd help us if we get King Chuck and Queen Camilla Park yer Bowels for the interim.

Ok...rant over. To add to the mix Foxy, leoj, Runner & Joe...Hi all & all the best for 2018 with hopes the incumbent oxygen thieves don't inflict us with another parasite...sorry plebiscite.

When the NT was considering statehood around 2004 - 2006, I was at that time involved with the NT Republican Movement as the Secretary, studying law at Northern Territory Uni aka: Charles Darwin Uni. In hindsight the changes the NTRM proposed then are not entirely what I would put up as a 'model' in today's push for an Australian Republic (not to be confused with proposals at this time from Mick Denigan - NT Republicans or Malcolm Turnbull - Australian Republican Movement). Both of these were in essence a replacement of the crown (Monarch and G-G) with a directly elected President, keeping pretty well everything else as it was before, basically a change of letterheads & stationary.

The “crown” has its place still, and if we were to become a republic the current constitution has a great deal to offer in respect of protections at law. It does not however have in place a Bill of Rights to enshrine more basic human rights. The common law and statute laws of various states do cover some other ‘rights’. But not all of those rights we think we have in Australia are actually rights per se.

Many folk like to quote the 2nd Amendment, not knowing that it is an American legal tradition with nothing in common to Australia. Had Eureka been a victory for those involved, encompassing a wider pre Federation sentiment, we may well have seen a system of laws and government akin to the American model of that time.

@Foxy, Tuesday, 16 January 2018 3:38:29 PM

Quite obviously our posts crossed. Heavens, I have no problem at all with apologies and withdrawing my posts where a poster is feeling personally offended.

So please accept my apologies, made without reservations and I will cease posting to this thread.

Why is there an "Australia Day" to begin with?

Just cancel it - and all other public holidays, so that working-people can take their holidays when they want rather than when told.

I don't care what day it's on as long as we're all together celebrating it.

Councils such as Darebin/Yarraville/Fremantle treading their own paths and dumping AD without councillors having enunciated this as policy before election, are agents of the far left/Greens. If they allowed their constituents a proper vote instead of carrying out sham surveys, their activism would fail.

Di Natale's call for debate is subtext for more activism at local gov't level along the lines above. Greens rule over many local governments because they don't divulge their politics/policies before elections, and have a passionate support army of fellow ideologues who are generally underemployed and at hand to help.

Wot!...give up a holiday....whatta the unions gonna say?
and Australia Day of all days...the day that commemorates the theft of Austalia from the Indigenous...Nah!
What about Anzac Day....the day where, 'We will Remember Them' except nobody can quite figure out what to remember'

Whatever happens - Australia day should be about
unification of Australia, not dividing us as a
society. So having a conversation is very
important at this stage.

It should not be about trying to lay guilt on
individuals but about trying to make sure that
our future, our children and Australians generally
have an understanding of the history of Australia.

We need to raise awareness and discussion amongst
the community to look at what this day means on the
26th January to a whole range of people and then
decide if we are going to change the date or not.
But it should be the people of Australia who decide.
Because Australia Day should be an inclusive national
occasion for us all.

Yuyutsu Quote "Just cancel it - and all other public holidays, so that working-people can take their holidays when they want rather than when told."

Good idea but in too many jobs the employer still gets to dictate when a lot of people can take their holidays.

Warren Mundine has called for the “disgraceful debate” on Australia Day to stop. He is irritated by the “same old people” arguing the “same old cases”. He wants, rather, aboriginal health and unemployment dealt with. Given his attitude and that of people like Jacinta Price, the Greens are making complete fools of themselves. Neither Labor nor the Coalition are interested in this nonsense.

Nobody's giving up a holiday, Special Delivery. An AD holiday will exist on one date or another, but it's what Councils do on that day that is at question.

A council run citizenship ceremony is an appropriate part of AD tradition and when this is not carried out but proposed for another date by a Council, in order to make a protest about the nationally determined date, the right to hold one is correctly withdrawn by the federal gov't.

If Greens want simply to have a national conversation, as Di Natale claims, they don't have to stoke it by this political activism at local council level. Council elections are not compulsory and are poorly participated, so to suggest such activism represents a grass-roots ground-swell is delusional. This is especially so when the electorate was given no idea what it was voting for in the first place

Local councils, not even mentioned in the Constitution, are a joke. Most people don't even bother to vote at council elections. Most people don't care what they think about anything. Most people don't care about the Greens - they get about 8 percent of the vote in real elections. Neither major party wants the date changed, so it will not be changed.

Last year, a Guardian poll which was supposed to show that Australians really did want Australia day changed, confounded the silly Left paper by coming up with 85% wanting it to stay they way it is. The same number did not want a name change either. I don't think much will have changed since then. The Greens are mad dogs barking at the moon.

I am inclined to agree that the changing of the
date of Australia Day has become politicised.
As I stated earlier - many people are not to
concerned about it and some are not even aware of
what the day represents apart from it being a
public holiday. The history of Australia Day is
an interesting one - and the name "Australia Day,"
is also relatively recent - it was known by other
names in the past.

I would be interested to know what percentage of
our Indigenous people really want that date changed?

I think a better use of our tax payer dollars would be to nominate a 'Time to become an Australian Day' so all those who enjoy the benefits we have provided, either choose to be one of us, or not. And I'm not just referring to indigenous folk.

It just seems to me that this indiginous 'victim card' is continually milked for all its worth. Approaching 230 years. At what stage should one move on.

Australia would still be like one of those places Trump recently mentioned if not for British settlement. Thankfully young girls now have a future.

In defence of homosexual marriage, homosexuals used to say that if someone didn't like it, they didn't have to do it.

By the same logic, perhaps di Natale could strongly defend the same principle and declare that, if someone doesn't want to celebrate Australia Day on January 26th, the 69th anniversary of Australian citizenship (i.e. in 1949), they don't have to do it.

Goose-gander.

Well, here's a very good reason to leave the date as it is.
Unknown to most people is the fact that 26th January is the anniversary date that Australian Citizenship came into being.
On 26th January, 1949, all Australians, including aboriginal people, changed from being British Subjects and became Australian Citizens.
That's why we have our citizenship ceremony on that date I presume.
It's a day to celebrate the fact that it's the anniversary of the day we all officially became Australians.

And who says that you don't learn something new on
this Forum? Just kidding.

Thank You Big Nana. I did not know about January 26th
being the date that we became Australians. What a
great reason to leave the date as it is.
Brilliant!

Anybody know why the 26th January date was chosen in 1949? If it was consciously linked to the arrival of the First Fleet the "Invasion Day" crowd would arc up, no doubt.

Lucerifase, regardless of why that date was chosen, nothing can change the fact that it was the birth of Australian Citizenship. For all. I don't know why that fact is not publicised, I only discovered it last night, but it certainly warrants notice because as Foxxy says, we celebrate being official Australians on that date.

Hi Luciferase,

The Australian Citizenship Act of 1948. [Maybe it was called something else]. Everybody born in Australia was thereby an Australian citizen, Black and White, male and female. Up until then, we were 'British subjects' only, (including Indigenous people) which we still were up until about 1986. It didn't mean we were British 'citizens', just subjects. Somebody on OLO might know the difference :)

Cheers,

Joe

I get all that, Loudy, but the if the Act's application date was linked to the coming of the First Fleet the "Invasion Day" crowd would remain feeling entitled to pursue the cause.

While I like the "citizenship" date, I don't care much as long as we're all on the same date in civic celebration, and that's determined at the national level. Greens' subterfuge in gaining power in local councils without revealing themselves, then taking activist actions that break with the nation, is conniving and irksome to me.

Hi Luciferase,

Yeah, probably. I also don't care much either way. After all, if some other date is picked, there would be interminable arguments about some utterly dreadful deed that was done on that day in 18xx, or even 19zz. An occasion to honour 26 January,1949 is fine with me.

Cheers,

Joe

Possession of NSW was formally declared by Governor Philip on 26th. January. Captain Cook had previously raised the Union Jack and claimed the east coast for Britain.

I think lets keep the date as is.
Big Nana gave us a very good reason for it.
I totally agree that the Government should
advertise and let people know what the date
represents regarding the Citizenship Act -
when we became Australians. That would win
many people over I'm sure.

Just a (minor?) point , according to

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

The 1948 Act bestowed Australian citizenship while NOT withdrawing British subject status. It was not until 1984 that British subject status ceased.

Foxy,
If our schools still taught Australian history, there would be no need for adverts telling people what Australia Day was about.

Not long ago, I asked a very bright high school girl (niece) from Melbourne about the founding of Melbourne and she could not tell me. "We were never taught that stuff" she said. No, nothing about our explorers or the opening up of the country.

It used to be if one did not know the date and who first crossed the Blue Mountains, you failed. But now the students must be aware of and appreciate other cultures.

Dear Lucifrase,

Indeed it was 22 November 1984 when we finally were not deemed British subjects. This to me has more significance than any other citizenship milestone in that it we truly stood as an independent nation, were we could be just Australians, subject to no one else. In fact it might just make a good date for Australia Day.

Dear Foxy,

Especially over the last couple of years I have been exploring the local history of white settlement and while it was not as bloody as the Tasmanian experience within 40 years the large Victorian tribes of the Western districts were all gone. The holocaust which befell them could hardly have been more complete.

Not too far from me is a waterway called Mount Emu Creek. It was originally called Taylor's Creek after after one Fredrick Taylor. In 1839 after a couple of sheep went missing Taylor and a few others went and slaughtered between 30 to 40 of a local tribe pretty well wiping them out.

After the massacre was revealed Taylor fled and the locals, disgusted by what had happened, renamed the creek to what it is now.

Change because of historical events can never go back and repair the past but it does seek to acknowledge what happened. I know most Australians really care more about the holiday than anything else, which is fine because most of us aren't into American style jingoism. But just like with the SSM vote probably most think if is upsetting to a significant group of this continent's first peoples then it is probably a fair thing to do to move the day.

Being laid-back and fair-minded are attitudes we should be celebrating as proud Aussies.

Just just get it done.

Hi Steele,

I would fully support a thorough forensic examination of that massacre site. Any chance of crowd-funding it ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Why?

Hi Steele,

To show the world that such things happened, if they did. If you found out that some people massacred your great-grandparents' family, wouldn't you like to prove it ? And to identify the murderers if possible ?

And the same with all those other alleged massacres as well.

Why not ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Steele,

Australia Day should be an inclusive national
occasion and as I stated earlier whatever
happens Australia Day should be about unification
of Australia not dividing it as a society.
So having a conversation is very important at this
stage.

Thanks for your contribution.
It is as always appreciated.

Dear Joe,

'if they did', 'prove it', 'alleged massacres'.

Sorry mate but I have very little inclination to go down this path with you again.

If you want more information you can start here;

“Of particular note for this massacre is the extent of oral history and first hand accounts of the incident and detail in settler diaries, records of Weslayan missionaries, and Aboriginal Protectorate records. Following the massacre there was popular disapproval and censure of the leading perpetrator, Frederick Taylor, so that Taylor's River was renamed to Mount Emu Creek. The massacre effectively destroyed the Tarnbeere Gundidj clan.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdering_Gully_massacre

If you want to be in the probably 1% of the population who thinks this never happened you are welcomed to it.

Dear Foxy,

I did like this little quip in a newspaper;

"January 26th was the date the English established and offshore detention centre in the Pacific, forging a tradition we still observe today."
Rob Dalton, Torquay

Australia Day is a celebration of unity, British settlement also unified the over 200 aboriginal nations within Australia. There are a few vocal activist who do not want to be unified with the majority of aboriginals.The Botany Bay settlement just came ahead of a proposed Spanish settlement by a few days.

The claim that British settlement brought hardship to aboriginal people is totally irrelevant in todays society. They forget the stone age hardship they put up with for thousands of years before modern Australia offered them new opportunities.

The federal govt under PM Ruddy Kev, officially apologised to the Aboriginal Peoples of Australia for all of the atrocities that were committed against them in the past and most especially for the stolen generation of children. All Australians agree that it was a reprehensible action to remove children from their families and we elected a PM knowing full well he was going to apologise for these crimes of humanity.

Now, my only disagreement or criticism of that was there was no Queen or Queen's representative apologising on behalf of the British Govt for all the murder or should I say slaughter of innocent men, women and children. Then they started the stolen generation that we kept going.

My question is, how come after this apology was made, there was no, none, zero, nada, zip, Aboriginal delegation standing in fed Parliament on a momentous day formally accepting that apology and asking that the two peoples begin to work toward reconciliation and being able to forgive, even if we decided to never forget?

So knowing that the Aboriginal people of Australia have not accepted our apology and are themselves much more racist than the average white Australian, I cannot see how they have a leg to stand on and demand we drop Australia Day.

I say keep Australia Day on the 26th of January and don't change it for anyone!

Hi Steele,

If it occurred, then it shouldn't be too hard to find forensic evidence, and to confirm, once and for all, that a massacre did take place where you said it did, and that doubters are fools, liars and scoundrels. Why the reluctance ?

Cheers,

Joe

Thank you Albi. I've been saying that very same thing for years.

PhilS: I look forward to the death of "Political correctness".

Me too.

runner: One needs to be racist, blind and ignorant not to see what a great place the British made Australia.

Too right. They really should be thankful that the French, Portuguese, Spanish, Belgians, Dutch or the Germans didn't come first. They would have had something to complain about then.

In answer to your question Foxy. No! It should be "Grateful Day" for all aboriginal Australian, Otherwise they would have been still living back 80000 years ago, or under the thumb of the Portuguese, Spanish, French, Belgians, Dutch or Germans. How would that have worked out for them?

ttn: I appreciate that SOME people with aboriginal heritage - all who benefited from the "invasion" - might think differently,

The ones that want the change also have their hands out the furthest.

Loudmouth: around 54,000 indigenous people have graduated from universities.

Are they using their Degrees to further their people , or just to create greater havoc in Modern Society & putting their hand out for their own benefit. My Bet. 4000 trying to do some good for their people 50000 trying to work the system.

Albie: Had Eureka been a victory for those involved, encompassing a wider pre Federation sentiment, we may well have seen a system of laws and government akin to the American model of that time.

Happy new year Albie. Peter Lalor went on to a career in Politics & helped design the Australian Constitution. Something I learnt in School 65 years ago.

Foxy: Australia day should be about unification of Australia, not dividing us as a society.

The only people dividing Australia are the Greens & their hangeroners. Best we just totally ignore them like the naughty children they are.

Dear Josephus,

Truly ignorant comments my friend. This is from one of the early settlers. Hardly enduring the 'stone-age hardships' you seem to feel they needed immediate rescue from.

“The aboriginal blacks on and near the western coast of Victoria—near Belfast, Warrnambool, and Portland—had always been noted as a breed of savages by no means to be despised. They had been for untold generations accustomed to a dietary scale of exceptional liberality. The climate was temperate; the forests abounded in game; wildfowl at certain seasons were plentiful; while the sea supplied them with fish of all sorts and sizes, from a whale (stranded) to a whitebait. No wonder that they were a fine race, physically and otherwise—the men tall and muscular, the women well-shaped and fairly good-looking. To some even higher commendation might with truth be applied.”

“One is often tempted to smile at hearing some under-sized Anglo-Saxon, with no brain power to spare, assert gravely the blacks of Australia were the lowest race of savages known to exist, the conecting link between man and the brute creation, etc. On the contrary, many of the leading members of tribes known to the pioneer squatters were grandly-formed specimens of humanity, dignified in manner, and possessing an intelligence by no means to be despised, comprehending a quick sense of humour, as well as a keenness of perception, not always found in the superior race.”

Within 40 years they were virtually wiped out.

Dear peter6,

I was there that day and there were certainly representatives from various aboriginal nations one of whom was handed the written apology from Rudd.

I also witnessed the relief and joy that so many indigenous people appeared to be experiencing on that day. It was well overdue but accepted with good grace by those thousands in attendance. If you have any other questions about the occasion let me know.

Dear Loudmouth,

Yes and we should sift through any remaining ashes in the ovens of Auschwitz every 5 years to pander to holocaust deniers? Sorry mate, still not bloody interested.

@SteeleRedux

You may have been there and it may have been received in good grace by some, but like I said in my other post, where is the delegation appearing before Federal Parliament officially accepting the apology on behalf of all Aboriginal tribes and where is the request and intent from these people to work towards reconciliation and for them to ditch their racism?

So far, nothing has come from these people, except more hatred, more violence, more racism and now they want to shame us into moving our day of celebration.

Aboriginals have allowed themselves to be caught up by the SJW/feminist/LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ snowflake crowd and they are now on the same bandwagon, beating the same 'victim' drum that these women and others of their ilk beat. And of course it is being pushed by the lunatic fringe dwelling Greens.
The same mob that push for all manner of abortions, they want our children force fed pofterism in schools where 6 year olds are told it is natural to stick a penis up another man’s arse and all the other filthy things these Greens are peddling.

The greens are the dregs of our political parties and they will push any low level cause they can get their grubby hands on.

We need to put out a strong message and tell these people to leave Australia Day alone!

Hi Steele,

The Holocaust has been documented in thousands of ways, with the easily-tested testimony of hundreds of thousands of survivors.

Very few massacre sites in Australia have been examined: I believe there is one investigation going on near Mulan, south of the Kimberley, but any reporting on that seems to have gone quiet. Yet there are probably a hundred archaeological (and forensic) digs going on at present across Australia, and have been for many years.

A massacre of Aboriginal people by non-Aboriginal people would be a most dreadful and shameful tragedy. Surely anybody who feels that their own kin might have been killed in this way, would demand that justice can only be served by the thorough exposure of the crimes committed against their own people ? Anything else would surely be intolerable ? Any cover-up, any attempt to block a proper investigation, would only contribute to the original crime ? I know that if any of my loved ones had been murdered, I would move heaven and earth to get at the truth.

I strongly support genuine Reconciliation between Indigenous people and those who may have done them and/or their ancestors any harm. That can come about only with the removal of any doubts about what may have happened, as much as possible, and the coming to terms with that knowledge by all Australians, no lingering doubts that any talk of massacres is nothing more than yet another scam, based on bar-fly talk and hearsay. Surely not ? Surely massacres occurred, and surely forensic scientists and archaeologists would be able to find evidence of them ?

Your reluctance may mistakenly give the impression that you know very well that many of the stories are nothing more than that: stories. But this dilemma cannot be resolved without full and frank investigations of supposed massacre sites. The truth shall set you free, Steele - in fact, it shall set all of us free, good and bad, warts and all :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Steele,

We have covered this subject as you rightly point out
so many times on this forum. And as we know it is
now possible to explore the past by means of a vast
amount of material. We can know a great deal about the
history of Indigenous-settler relations. The following
link gives a list of notes and references at the end
of the article that any reader can follow up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians

Indigenous Affairs Minister, Nigel Scullion, says not a single aboriginal has told him that they want the Australia Day date changed. That would include the black activists who would have his ear.

The gormless Greens seem to be the only ones obsessing about it.

Dear Peter6,

What a piece of self-serving, whinging, victim-hood tripe you served up in your last post. Take a good hard look at yourself mate.

How about you stop flapping your bloody gums for a second, drop all the irrelevant crap and focus on the topic at hand. To me it is pretty simple. How do the reasons for keeping the current date of someone like yourself stack up against the reasons of an indigenous person who might be, for very good reason, very uncomfortable with it and would like to see a change.

You just banged on about a whole bunch of nonsense but said not a word of why you feel so invested in the 26th. The reason to me is pretty obvious. It isn't about and special affection for it rather you just don't like the people who are pushing for it. Is there some racism in there? Of course. Is there insecurities about your own sexuality? Obviously.

Look I'm uncomfortable with the Green's taking this up so forcefully. There is a degree of political opportunism about it that threatens to derail it but here's some advice my friend, try and park all the rest and let us hear the best explanation of why the 26th of January is so vitally important to you that it trumps the hurt and distress it causes a significant group of our first Australians.

Dear Foxy,

This is from my neck of this big brown land;

SCARS IN THE LANDSCAPE a register of massacre sites in western Victoria, 1803–1859
http://nationalunitygovernment.org/pdf/2014/IanDClark-Scars_in_the_landscape.pdf.pdf

Foxy & Steele,

It's great to have some sort of guide to possible massacre sites,as you have both provided. Now all that remains is for investigations to be carried out, to back up - or correct - the hearsay and oral story with substance, with all the physical evidence that can be made available. Even an investigation of just one site would be enormously helpful in the causes of justice, truth and closure. I'm sure you would both agree, and would both be clamouring for such an investigation, if you didn't have more important things to worry about.

The truth will out, sooner or later, and, I hope, in my lifetime.

Joe

Why the 26th. should remain as Australia Day. It was the day a civilized people landed in Australia. Yes they were Convicts & Freeman but they brought civilization & a uniqueness to a place where the people were still living in a 80000 year old time loop.

The Aboriginal people landed here in three waved as far as can be ascertained. 80000, 50000 & 30000 years ago. When they landed it was still the early Stone Age. No improvement in Living Conditions or Technology was made from that time to the present, in fact they were slowly going backwards.

Therefore White Australians & Aboriginal Australians should be grateful for the wonderful advanced Country Australia is after only 242 years. Australia is the most unique Country in the World as far as our Culture, Way of Life, Freedoms & our Peaceful Countenance. No other country in the World has these unique qualities. Not even America.

That's why we should celebrate the 26th of January.

Why the 26th. should remain as Australia Day. It was the day a civilized people landed in Australia. Yes they were Convicts & Freeman but they brought civilization to a place & a people that were still living in a 80000 year old time loop.

The Aboriginal people landed here in three waved as far as can be ascertained. 80000, 50000 & 30000 years ago. When they landed it was still the early Stone Age. No improvement in Living Conditions or Technology was made from then to the present, in fact they went backwards.

Therefore White Australians & Aboriginal Australians should be grateful for the wonderful advanced Country Australia is after only 242 years. Australia is the most unique Country in the World as far as our Culture, Way of Life, Freedoms & our Peaceful Countenance. No other country in the World has these unique qualities. Not even America.

That's why we should celebrate the 26th of January.

Dear Joe,

Sorry mate I'm not going through the exercise of spoon feeding you evidence like I did with the Moore River escapees. Go do it yourself. If you want to make the case that the Mt Emu Creek massacre didn't happen then go for it and I will listen. If you don't want to because of political reasons that is fine but don't burden us with your persistent and often toxic contrariness because I for one have better things to do.

Hi Steele,

No, I assume that the Emu Creek massacre may have happened - but some evidence, besides oral accounts, would settle the issue. I'm certainly not asking you to spoon-feed me any more oral stuff, there's too much of that around already. Substance, factual evidence, something conclusive that nobody can deny - is what we need.

Don't you want to have that too ? No ? Why not ? Why the extreme reluctance to test oral accounts ? Do you think that any substantial evidence might have been obliterated by ploughing over the land concerned ? That the perpetrators and their cronies have deliberately removed whatever they could from the site ? That nobody will ever find any evidence of a massacre there because it's been removed long ago ?

Hmmmm ....... so how would you go about proving in a court of law that 'something' happened at all ? That's a dilemma :(

Cheers,

Joe

OMG! These topics sure bring the brainless amongst us out in force.

From ttbn thinking it is a marxist plot to others not realising that they are bigots it is always a fun read...if you like reading the writings of imbeciles...lmao

Quick ttbn there are reds under your bed... Your bed bugs have mini microphones attached to them...lmao

Change the date and make Australia a happier place for the Aborigines that have been so poorly treated since the invasion.

Changing the date is a simple good will gesture that will improve society that little bit more for all.

We do want a better, more inclusive, more caring, more considerate society don't we?

I certainly do!

CHANGE THE DATE! - Afterall the Christians amongst us celibrate Jesus' birthday on the wrong day, the wrong month and the wrong year and they believe in doing unto others apparently...so the conservative thinkers against the change must be either unPatriotic or unChristian Aussies...you choose!...lmao

@SteeleRedux

You can dismiss me as a blabberer all you like. Knowing that our culture is being systematically disassembled by these left wing nutjobs and how it is the same people behind each and every attack on Caucasian Australia, gives me every right to speak my mind and you have no right to shut me down by trying to belittle my comment. The same people are now pushing the Aboriginals, who by the way are not interested in reconciliation.

I don't need to expand on why I want Jan 26th to be Australia day. That is a stupid question. It is established and I’m not changing!

These same people who are calling for the dilution of our culture are the same ones who financed and pushed the SSM bill that will now see a large portion of Australia lose not just a whole host of freedoms, but freedom of speech, freedom for parents to control what their children are taught and the list goes on.

It is obvious you are a supporter of men sticking penises up the arses of other men, going by your comment. They transmit terrible diseases around the community and are now in the throes of having children with them, that just a decade ago would have been seen as a terrible child abuse. Which it is!

And typical of SSM supporters, you then try to denigrate me with a personal attack about my sexuality.

Just because I agree with humanity for the past several thousands of years as they saw homosexuality as unnatural, disordered and wrong, you think there is something wrong with me. Typical of a left thinking person who subscribes to the social Marxism that is currently tearing apart our once great nation.

You arrogantly think you are the one with the only opinion that counts. Spout your pompous comments to me Mate. Not a problem. Some of us are more mature than you are and don't need to start personally attacking people because they disagree with us.

Dear Pete6,

Bloody hell you can't help yourself can you.

Firstly you get challenged to give a decent reason for keeping the date as the 26th and all we get is this truly piss weak effort;

“I don't need to expand on why I want Jan 26th to be Australia day. That is a stupid question. It is established and I’m not changing!”

Then it was straight back into the blah, blah, blah with absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand except in your own twisted world view.

And what on earth is your fascination with anal sex? Any connection to Australia Day would have to be pretty well impossible for the normal person but here you are desperate to make the link. Why? You might not think it has anything to do with being sexually insecure but it pretty bloody obvious to the rest of us.

Apparently changing the date is diluting our culture? Get your hand off it mate. Does our culture really hinge on a date that has only been relatively recently settled? Of course not.

You really are a special variety of the clueless rightwhinger snowflake aren't you.

Clown!

Says the left wing Social Marxist nutcase!

Lol.

There has been confrontation and physical conflict, a war, over the future of this continent, which aborigines lost. Nobody was invited, they just came, without the agreement of aborigines over any aspect of their coming, and built a modern nation with their own hands (though now I'm hearing aborigines were enslaved into this nation-building). The new-comers reasonably want to celebrate their achievement, and to do so on the anniversary of their first coming. It is unsurprising that they want to defend the date of that celebration, want it to be a holiday, and call it Australia Day. Even now, with the existence of international laws defending the rights of nations, you only own that which you have the power to defend. Australia belonged to its first inhabitants, and belongs now to its current inhabitants, only for as long as it could/can be defended. Ask the Tibetans and Crimeans. For me, part of the 26th of January holiday every year is facing the fact that that we dispossessed aborigines, in a way that any other date will make less poignant. We have land-rights legislation to repeal this, and we are doing what we can to bring aborigines along with the nation, with all its warts. Having said all this, I'll not nail myself to a mast over the date, and perhaps would support Steely's 22nd November proposal

SteeleRedux, You are an uncivilised little man. Answer these Questions: What day do you suggest we keep as Australia Day? WHY? All the massacres you speak of did not happen on 26th of January at the landing of Governor Philip. If it was not the British landing then it would have been the Spanish a few days later. The aboriginals would have suffered the same fate under the Spanish. Governor Philip was told to accommodate the native people and befriend them. The massacres you raise have nothing to do with Australia Day as for the purpose for which it is represented today. WE ARE NOT COMMERATING THE DEATH OF INDIGINOUS PEOPLE 200 YEARS AGO, that is your story. We are celebrating who we as a Nation of Citizens today.

SteeleRedux,
Your claim some identify,"the blacks of Australia were the lowest race of savages known to exist, the connecting link between man and the brute creation". Is the height of your offensiveness.

I stated,"The claim that British settlement brought hardship to aboriginal people is totally irrelevant in todays society. They forget the stone age hardship they put up with for thousands of years before modern Australia offered them new opportunities". There is a difference between hardship as I stated, and your claim of savages, and brute creation. You are intending to offend. I have worked with aboriginals and changing a date is irrelevant to their needs. Dates mean nothing compared to getting a feed, which many struggle with in remote communities even today.

Oh Josephus...you are the uncivilised little man...And aren't you prone to fibbing as I caught you out doing on another thread?

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone...lmao

Let me answer the questions for you...

The day we should celebrate it...You should be arguing any day that suits the aborigines in our community...Do unto others!

I mean you don't give a damn that we celebrate Jesus' birthday on the wrong day in the wrong month and for the wrong year, and he is the one you supposedly worship so why would the 26th of January be a problem for you. You celebrate your saviour's birthdate on the dates of heathen Gods and don't care...lmao

Josephus you are very conveniently trying to re-write history and are wrong again. So the Spanish were equally as bad as the Spanish or maybe the Spanish were worse... Why do you condone of theft, rape, murder and other atrocities so easily? Is it another flaw in your dubious character?

Someone on one thread said the Spanish would have been worse... Excellent now we are comparing what is better from the worst as our yardstick!

But you are right for once on one thing...Most of us at least aren't commemorating the deaths of aborigines...BUT you are conveniently and intentionally turning a blind eye to the true history of what actually happened...

The aborigines are right to object to the 26th as I do...and as all reasonable, thinking intelligent people do.

As usual you are on the wrong side of history and the wrong end of the facts and reasonableness.

Religion hasn't done you much good now has it!

Jesus must be so proud of people like you...NOT!

Change the date and unite our nation into a stronger, fairer, loving, respectful one... I suspect Jesus would have approved of that...lmao

Josephus: The aboriginals would have suffered the same fate under the Spanish.

No, It would have been a lot worse. The Spanish & Portuguese when they colonized killed all the men & forcibly married the women, converted them to Catholicism. Those that refused were killed. If you go to Malacca, The Philippines or South America you will find that the indigenous people nearly all have Spanish or Portuguese names. In Aboriginal terms there would have been no Aboriginals left because the Aboriginal Gene is a Caucasian Sub-race.

Josephus: SteeleRedux,
Your claim some identify,"the blacks of Australia were the lowest race of savages known to exist, the connecting link between man and the brute creation". Is the height of your offensiveness.

Putting it that way, I suppose it is. I couldn't find that bit. Are you are referring to my earlier post?

< The Aboriginal people landed here in three waved as far as can be ascertained. 80000, 50000 & 30000 years ago. When they landed it was still the early Stone Age. No improvement in Living Conditions or Technology was made from that time to the present, in fact they were slowly going backwards.>

Regardless of PC, It is what it is. The Aboriginals in Australia where still living as they were 800000 years ago. Actually this is good study for Anthropologists.

Are Aboriginal people better off now, having been lifted out of the Early Stone Age ? i.e. people as intelligent as anybody else, but condemned to the most primitive way of life then known to the world ?

I was mildly surprised to read that W. E. H. Stanner, one of our finest anthropologists, commented, after nearly fifty years of research, that he didn't know of a single Aboriginal person who had gone back out into the bush, once they had experienced the outside world, principally its ration system. The right to do just that is still available, as it always has been: let's see how many of the Indigenous Industry elites will choose to do this in the future. Perhaps as few as have ever done so in the past. Or fewer - but can you get 'fewer' than 'none' ?

So on balance, would it have been better for the British to blockade the continent of Australia and keep it 'inviolate' from the marauding of any other imperialist power, right up the the present ? Would that have been possible ?

Or would it have been better to deny Aboriginal people the human right to join the rest of humanity, after 80,000 years of isolation ? To learn from the rest of their fellow-humans, to share experiences, to travel, to see the wonders that their fellow-humans have been devising all these years ?

The Greens and the other 'virtuous' people would, of course, say no.

Joe

It appears that we're looking at quite a divisive
debate that's still not settled because there seems
to be no clear answer for what date Australia Day
should be moved to if such a decision was ever made.

Well, at least it's still a live debate and people appear
to be willing to engage in that debate.

Aaaaargh ! I always have trouble with double-negatives, especially when I'm off on some flowery rhetorical track:

"Or would it have been better for Aboriginal people to exercise their right to re-join the rest of humanity, after 80,000 years of isolation ? To learn from the rest of their fellow-humans, to share experiences, to travel, to see the wonders that their fellow-humans have been devising all these years ?

"The Greens and the other 'virtuous' people would, of course, say no."

Yeah, that's better.

Joe

As usual, the subject has descended into a slanging match. Some people are simply using the topic to disagree with and attack other individuals. You were asked what you thought about AD, not how nasty you could be to people who think differently. You childish idiots know who I'm talking about.

Guess what people, I have not detected any push to alter Australia Day or push for a republic. I get around quite a bit to pubs, clubs, shopping centres and so on, and i do not hear people saying we need to change the Day.

Frankly it is all bull,the greens want something for publicity and the left media has taken it up, making out it is a big issue. There has been no reputable polls done and the only supporter is a Liberal polly in WA, whom no one has heard of.

There are far more important issues we can debate,such as why do we keep bringing people here from groups that cause trouble and will not accept our social values and why do we have such a high immigration rate anyway? It lowers our living standard, makes queues longer, reduces parking spots and raises the price of housing for young people.

No forget the bull about Australia Day changes, like a bad smell it will blow away.

Gee Loudmouth... Your question Are the aborigine better off since the invasion really shows your ignorance.

So let's try to answer it for you by using you as an example...

Would you be better off if we came and took your home, your family, your culture and destroyed it?

Would you be better off if we forced a false religion down your throat and treated you like a third class citizen?

Would you be better off having know nothings like you asking such silly questions?

How would you cope if your numbers of your ethnicity dropped from he from 1,250,000 in 1788 to 50,000 in 1930 due mostly to small pox and other diseases introduced in the invasion? Would it affect your society much?

How would you feel about your fellow countrymen ignoring the massacres that your people suffered? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians

How would you cope with your children being stolen from you and put into institutions where they were abused physically, emotionally and sexually?

How would you have coped as a child being torn away from your parents?

How would you have dealt with knowing that the whites deliberately tried to breed the black out of you? http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/caught-up-in-a-scientific-racism-designed-to-breed-out-the-black/2008/02/13/1202760399034.html

How would you have coped having alcohol introduced into you lives that ruined them? http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/health/aboriginal-alcohol-consumption

How would you have coped with the heads of your relatives being stolen? http://theconversation.com/museums-are-returning-indigenous-human-remains-but-progress-on-repatriating-objects-is-slow-67378

I could go on but I think you get my drift.

Of course some aborigines have transitioned fairly well into modern society.

We have had thousands of years of change into what we are now but hey we expect them to change from day one and till now 230 years later starting totally from nothing!

The aborigine lived at one with the land, with no need for structures and minimal impact on the environment for over 50,000years. We have plundered and nearly destroyed this place in 230 years.

How dare we ignore these facts and pretend we are better!

Wake UP!

Banjo....Try mixing with a more educated mob...you'll find the push amongst reasonable, caring people is there.

They don't waffle on about..."Doing unto others"...whilst doing the opposite like believers...They actually do there best to follow that great rule...

ttbn as usual you dish it out but when called to account you turn to jelly. You refer to people as self haters, childish idiots and this a marxist plot but you are totally wrong as usual.

Leoj, Some aborigines don't care about the date but most do and a better date would go to healing some of the pain.

We have whitewashed history and we need to set things right. We caused the problems in Aboriginal Australia with our theft, deceptive practices, alcohol, culture-busting and oppression.

Why attack Foxy wanting change for the better?...Keep up the good work Foxy! Fair dinkum Aussies that want everyone to benefit from a prosperous united Australia are on your side.

Warren Mundine wants the same as most thinking Aussies...better health, better opportunities and better outcomes for indigenous Australians but closing down this debate won't help that.

People who use Warren Mundine to stifle debate are only scared of better outcomes for aborigines and are being deceptive.

Many Governments in our country have used the 26th of January to introduce change but that doesn't undo the fact that the majority of aborigines would appreciate the change. Again these are arguments brought up without the aboriginal wishes in mind and simply against reasonable change.

Luciferase knows his/her stuff...The fact that 26th of January 1948 and 1949 were chosen regarding citizenship changes was based on the invasion of the first fleet which means the same thing anyway.

Steelredux and Luciferase make the best intelligent arguments for the date... 22 November 1984 That was the real date of greatest unity amongst all Aussies.

So in effect we have two groups of people...Anti-changers and those who are pro change for the better.

The believers on here generally oppose all change and yet say they follow Jesus...I think Jesus was a man of change!

Religion hasn't served these people well!

When I see (I no longer read them) the over-long and generally incorrect diatribes of the immature Left posters among us, I am reminded of a comment that I read: "Sometimes the only people willing to give advice in a relativistic society (the one we live in now) are those with the least to offer". The more sensible and knowledgeable - and experienced - including those of the old, traditional left as well as conservatives, are tending to keep out of things, probably stunned by the silliness and abuse of the new Left who are not aware that they are parroting stuff that we older people have actually seen fail.

I just read a legal argument that stated that if January 26th 1788 was an "English Settlement" aboriginals are entitled to native title of land, i.e. Marbo. If it was an invasion before WW11 there is no entitlement of the occupants to native title land. For those that call it "Invasion Day" they must now just submit to the new occupiers of the land. Because Native Title was granted the English came as a settler, not an invader.

Quote,"Because international law recognises all territories acquired through invasion and annexation by force, prior to World War II, as lawful conquests.
This 'Right of Conquest' doctrine was first conceived by the International Law Commission of the United Nations and later adopted as UN General Assembly Resolution 3314.
Provided that all citizens of a lawfully conquered territory are granted equal rights by the local law, international law doesn't consider the descendants of the conqueror and the conquered as two separate peoples.
This in turn invalidates any claims to separate land rights under the same jurisdiction.
As one of the 193 member states of the United Nations, Australia is not exempt from this doctrine.
Yet we do recognise separate land rights because the historic Mabo Decision in 1992 rested on the correct presumption that Australia was settled, not invaded.
In their ruling, Justices Brennan, Deane, Gaudron, Toohey, Mason and McHugh acknowledged that native title could have been intentionally extinguished by the use of government powers, but wasn't.
Had Australia actually been invaded, the descendants of its native population would be classified as a conquered people and their land rights would be abolished under UN Resolution 3314."

Self-Op2,

As a know-nothing, I still have as much right to my il-informed opinions as you do, provided I'm prepared to defend them :)

Massacres ? I'm glad you brought that up: with thousands of massacre rumoured, that would male many thousands of Ivan Milats. Surely anybody who could trace their ancestry back to someone on the receiving end of one of those massacre, would be vitally interested in uncovering the truth, i.e. evidence of a massacre. Surely they would be clamouring for thorough forensic examinations of such sites ? Listen, you may hear them ................... hmmmm, no, I can't hear anything. I wonder why that is ?

We can drag up all the bar-fly rumours of this and that atrocity, but others are entitled to draw your attention to the need for evidence of them: after all, it's THEIR ancestors you may be slagging. So let's see:

* from the earliest days, Philip was instructed, in writing, to recognise the traditional use-rights of the Aboriginal people, to use the land as they always had done,to hunt, fish and gather food, camp, carry out ceremonies, etc. Those rights were enshrined in colonial legislation in the late 1840s - certainly in SA in 1850. Such specific clauses were written into every pastoral lease. Current legislation continues to recognise those rights.

*. forcing religion on people ? Any evidence of this ? Missionaries preaching, is that it ? What would you expect, that's their bag.

*. it's fun to exaggerate early populations. I would have put the 'real' population, taking drought into account, at 300,000 - perhaps up to 500,000 after a long period of very few droughts and plenty of food: pretty rare in Australia. Droughts killed off great numbers of people, forcing groups in harder country to move into the territories of other groups, provoking intra-group battles, and stopping births for many years - after all, young children and old people would have died, no babies would have been born, etc.

[TBC]

[continued]

*. And nobody in the world had cures for many of the diseases that ravaged Black and White alike - often not until after the Second World War.

*. Stolen Generation: how many cases brought successfully before a court ? One. Anybody who thinks they have a case, would also have a file, somewhere in their State Archives, it would just a matter of asking. My wife easily found hers, with its inevitable surprises :)

*. 'Breeding out the Black' ? Then why was there legislation to prohibit casual relations between White men and aboriginal women , but never any legislation against inter-marriage ? Or are you suggesting that inter-marriage should have also been illegal ?

* Alcohol ? In all colonies, it was illegal to supply Aboriginal people with alcohol. A publican could lose his licence, or do six months, or both. Other whitefellas could also be jailed too. One of the implicit demands of Aboriginal people after the War was the right to drink. One major reason why Aboriginal men worked was to buy alcohol from sly-groggers. One reason why the 1950s seemed to be one of the worst periods for child neglect and mortality was there was enough work, therefore enough money, to keep the wife pissed as well.

*. your take on the pace of change, that people should stay in the Stone Age: well, currently there are around 54,000 Indigenous university graduates, mostly in mainstream, standard courses. Perhaps you want to complain about that ?

*. minimal impact on the environment: well, ecologists may disagree with you, that Aboriginal firing practices helped to transform the landscape, wipe out many botanic species, promote (slightly, I would suggest) soil erosion and impair the habitat of many animal species. Not consciously or deliberately, but inevitably. All human societies have transformed their environments, usually for the worse.

Yes, how dare we ignore these facts ?

Joe

Dear Josephus,

You wrote;

“You are an uncivilised little man.”

Because I called your comments 'truly ignorant'? It doesn't take much to prick your self esteem does it.

Then you demanded;

“Answer these Questions: What day do you suggest we keep as Australia Day?”

This was despite the fact that in the post directly above you Luciferase has said; “I'll not nail myself to a mast over the date, and perhaps would support Steely's 22nd November proposal”.

You said;

“All the massacres you speak of did not happen on 26th of January at the landing of Governor Philip.”

International Holocaust Rememberance Day is held on the 27th of January even though there were many concentration camps liberated this date is chosen because it was when Auschwitz was liberated by the Russians. Don't you think the victims of events like these should get some say in the date they find significant?

You postulate it would have been the same if the Spanish instead of the British colonised Australia. They certainly did not have a great track record either. But Spain has returned virtually all of its colonies to the original inhabitants. That did not happen here or in NZ.

You loudly proclaimed; “WE ARE NOT COMMERATING THE DEATH OF INDIGINOUS PEOPLE 200 YEARS AGO, that is your story. We are celebrating who we as a Nation of Citizens today.”

Bollocks. All those re-enactments of a long boat being rowed ashore in previous Australia Day celebrations are certainly commemorating a historical narrative. Well the slaughter and dispossession experienced by this countries original inhabitants is also part of that narrative and attempts by people like yourself to sanitise them out of it is both selfish and reprehensible in my book.

And what on earth was this?

“Your claim some identify,"the blacks of Australia were the lowest race of savages known to exist, the connecting link between man and the brute creation". Is the height of your offensiveness.”

Why is directly quoting reflections from an early settler deemed so offensive in your eyes? It is too non-PC for you?

Care to try this again?

Oooo, I should have pointed out, in that section on alcohol and Aboriginal people that, although it was an offence to supply Aboriginal people with alcohol, it wasn't a punishable offence for an Aboriginal person to HAVE alcohol: it would be taken off them, if they were caught unawares and had no time to drink the contents, but unless they were D&D or somewhat abusive, no offence had really been committed.

I'm sure, many are the stories around Australia of evading police, secretly contacting groggers, how much the bastards charged, what liberties they took with the women, what they adulterated the grog with, the times they got beaten up, or dobbed in. I recall, even after it was legal here in SA but we still had six o'clock closing, friends would wait until after six, come around and get me to go with them to their local grogger, a bloke up in Gllles Plains with a huge freezer in his backyard. Great days, exciting times ! Free beer for me !

Excellent legal point, Josephus, though aborigines were originally dispossessed nevertheless.

I'll play the devil's advocate here and ask change proponents why there is something wrong with wanting a holiday celebration of the modern nation we newcomers have built, on the annual anniversary of our coming, and calling it Australia Day.

When I have a party, I let my neighbours know there's going to be noise, and apologise in advance. I even invite them to join in.

How about each Australia Day on 26th January including a prime-ministerial or Gov-Gen address, apologizing for the original dispossession (land-rights legislation has mitigated this now) and inviting aborigines to consider what benefits our coming may have brought them, while inviting them to join in the celebration our success.

They would be better off now obviously. They were living the most primitive way of life continuously for 80000 years without change. I consider them to be extremely intelligent considering the land they had to deal with & their isolation from the rest of the civilized World, except for some fleeting seasonal contact with the Moluccans.

Banjo: I have not detected any push to alter Australia Day or push for a republic.

I agree. Only from the loony Left & Greenies.

Opinionated2: Would you be better off if we came and took your home, your family, your culture and destroyed it?

We only have to look to “Today” to see that happening, only in reverse, with the invasion of the mahommedeans into Western Society. Western Civilized Society strives to enhance civilization. Mahommedeans strive to drive Society back to the Stone Age.

Opinionated2: if your numbers of your ethnicity dropped from he from 1,250,000 in 1788 to 50,000 in 1930 due mostly to small pox and other diseases.

We acknowledge that but it wasn’t intentional. People in those days didn’t even know what caused any diseases. In fact it’s been only been in the last 100 years that they have.

Opinionated2: How would you cope with your children being stolen from you and put into institutions where they were abused physically, emotionally and sexually?

As opposed to staying within the Tribe & where they were abused physically, emotionally and sexually?

Opinionated2: How would you have dealt with knowing that the whites deliberately tried to breed the black out of you?

This was mainly a Spanish & Portuguese thing where they killed all the males & intentionally married & impregnated the women to make the Country Catholic. As I have stated previously.

Opinionated2: Of course some aborigines have transitioned fairly well into modern society.

Oh yeah! They’re the ones you see sitting in the Tent Embassy in front of Parliament House with their hands out. None of who could live without their Maccas.
Cont

Cont.
Opinionated2: Some aborigines don't care about the date but most do

Garbage. The push is only within those groups that wish to cause mayhem. The Left & the Greens.

Opinionated2: We caused the problems in Aboriginal Australia with our theft, deceptive practices, alcohol, culture-busting and oppression.

Admittedly at first now that role has been well & truly taken over by the 54000 University educated Mob. They are making themselves rich on the Government Grants that are supposed to help their fellows, but aren’t.

Loudmouth: Massacres ?

Let’s clear one up. My Grandfather was almost a party to one on Massacre Hill near Ravenwood except he was call back because Grandma went into Labour with my Aunt that night. They got seven years for shooting the Chinese nothing for the 100 Aboriginals. 2 years later they were released in Custody of their wives who had been given portions of land at Giru. They were all my Great Uncles & Aunts. Known History.

Loudmouth: Stolen Generation: how many cases brought successfully before a court ?

Sase in point. “The Rabbit Proof Fence.” The women the Movie portrayed & their Aunts said the Movie wasn’t anything like their story. The Story line was changed to make the Movie more dramatic for Movie audiences

Steelie: <Joesphus: ,"the blacks of Australia were the lowest race of savages known to exist, the connecting link between man and the brute creation".>

Lets not forget that a modern day person would consider the person who said that to be primitive by todays standard. It’s all relative, isn’t it.

I propose that we leave Australia Day as it is & propose that Aboriginals celebrate it as “Thank God you’re here Day.”

Hi Jayb,

So would you support the call, so loud from activists, for through forensic investigations of massacre sites, such as that at Ravenwood ? It may raise all sorts objections from Whites, especially from those related to the mass-murderers, but the truth must be discovered, and told, warts and all.

Reconciliation can only come about on the basis of truth, which can only be discovered on the basis of evidence.

Cheers,

Joe

Captain Arthur Phillip didn't land in Australia on
26th January. He first landed in Australia on the
18th January 1788 in Botany Bay. But because he
couldn't find fresh water there, he sailed into Sydney
Cove on the 26th where he found what he was looking for.
Problem solved?

http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/landscape/settlement/display/22780-landing-of-captain-arthur-phillip

The blind stupidity of some of the pro 26th people is in plain site.

Apparently in their convoluted minds the facts against what happened to the aborigine is bigotry against whites...

JayB you make stuff up as you go...

You say most aborigines don't want the change... Where are you getting your facts?

Do you have evidence that the abuses we now see in aboriginal communities occurred prior to the white man? Of course you don't you are just muddying the waters so the ill informed can be like you.

And why would you insert your anti-Islam bias into this debate as evidence. You simply can't compare the two on many matters at all but it was a good way to divert the question.

Of course the disease wasn't spread intentionally but the crimes against the aborigines were. Why are you scared to admit how badly the aborigine has been treated when it is obvious to everyone else?

Nice that you can whitewash the breeding out of the black systems that have been widely exposed in many papers...

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/47547227

http://daa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Reading-7_StolenGenerations.pdf

To pretend it was minimal is simply ill informed garbage.

Your comment about the tent embassy shows you full ignorance. Sad to be you really!

It's great that you can speak on behalf of every aborigine and place a political attempt to undermine doing the right thing. Your bias is emotionally charged clap trap.

So you don't see anything positive about a more caring, and fully inclusive Australia for us all...Nevermind history will leave you in it's wake also.

Claiming aborigines are lucky that we are here is really a sign of your foolhardiness on this matter.

Trying to pretend that they are better off with us than having been left alone for another 40,000 years living at one with their environment is a senseless argument as is the pathetic position of it could have been worse under someone else.

You can't assume what another nation might have done worse. Picking the worse case scenario and saying we did better than that is simply an infantile position to take.

Dear Lucifrase,

You asked;

“I'll play the devil's advocate here and ask change proponents why there is something wrong with wanting a holiday celebration of the modern nation we newcomers have built, on the annual anniversary of our coming, and calling it Australia Day”.

It depends on how inclusive you would like the day. Should our first peoples be included or not? Because when you use a term like 'we newcomers' it can't be anything but divisive.

Further the idea of an “annual anniversary of our coming” raises the question of who the 'our' really are. At one stage I believe a quarter of Queenslanders were Chinese. Perhaps our large number of non-white immigrants might like to celebrate the date we dismantled our white Australia Policy.

Nah. Let's insead look to our close neighbour New Zealand. Their national day is the Waitangi Day, named after Waitangi where the Treaty of Waitangi was first signed. Ceremonies take place each year on 6 February to celebrate the signing of the treaty, New Zealand's founding document, on that date in 1840. It is not without its controversy but it is far more inclusive for all New Zealanders.

So here is another idea, why don't we continue to push for a treaty with indigenous Australians and then use the day it is signed as our national day?

Persons born in Australia no longer were classed as British subjects but as Australian citizens.

"Australian citizenship was created through the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948, and came into effect 26 January 1949, soon after the post-war mass migration program was launched (in 1945).[1] Prior to 1949, Australians could only hold the status of British subjects. The development of Australian citizenship has been intertwined with immigration since Federation. This relationship has developed formally through government administrative structures and has been demonstrated in the way that changes to citizenship law have reflected changes in immigration policies. The success of the migration program has been consistently linked to citizenship outcomes for migrants."

That is why we have citizen ceremonies on the 26th of January. This has nothing to do with murders carried out by early settlers, it has everything to do with being a citizen of Australia; and it also includes all aboriginals.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/0910/AustCitizenship?print=1

Hi Steele,

Interesting idea: of course, a treaty is usually an agreement at the beginning of a relationship, looking forward on the basis of what's been agreed, so if that's the case here, what can everybody agree on, and what can we look forward to together ?

In other words, what should be in a treaty, and who should it be with ? If a separate existence is ruled out, and a united co-existence is assumed, then what rights and responsibilities should be set down in a treaty that we can all be comfortable with ?

If 'nations' are the players, would here be different treaties with different 'nations' ? Would those 'nations' have to sign treaties with each other, and/or would they'll have to sign separate treaties with some common Australian political entity ? i.e. parts of 'Australia' signing treaties with 'Australia'.

How long might this all take ? Will time be good enough to stand still long enough to allow the process to run its full course ?

There's one thing I'm not clear about, though:

*. WHAT'S THE POINT ?

Joe

Loudmouth: So would you support the call, so loud from activists, for through forensic investigations of massacre sites,

I doubt if it would do anything. It's a matter of Court Record. They were all great uncles involved, seven of them. There would have been eight except aunt Winnie came along that night. They only were Sentenced for killing the Chinese who were living with the Aboriginal Women. That's how Giru became to be settled. My Grandfather & Grandmother used to tell me stories of those days.

Actually in the Palmer River Gold Fields the local Aboriginal used to raid the Mines & take the Chinese. They would tie them to tree branches by their Topknots & butcher them later. Grain fed meat tastes better apparently. But I suppose we are not supposed to talk about aboriginals killing Whites or Chinese. It's only bad if it's the other way around.

OP2: You say most aborigines don't want the change... Where are you getting your facts?

Where did I say that?

OP2: Nice that you can whitewash the breeding out of the black systems

I whitewashed nothing. I said it can be done because they are essentially Caucasian Sub-race Australoid. The Aboriginal DNA will readily mix with Anglo-Saxon because of that. No so with the Amerindians & SE Asians.

The British didn't set out to do that on purpose, unlike the Spanish & Portuguese. However it's happening now. the more interbreeding the less aboriginal & the more white they become. Have a look at Manson, now there's a Ranga Scotsman if I ever saw one.
Cont

Cont
OP2: and fully inclusive Australia for us all...

I support a fully inclusive Australia but they have to come this way. I don't fancy sitting in the dirt around a log fire after a had day chasing Wallabies with a sharp stick.

OP2: Picking the worse case scenario and saying we did better than that is simply an infantile position to take.

No it's not.

Steelie: Let's instead look to our close neighbour New Zealand.

The Kiwi's were a lot further advanced civilization than our still in the Stone Age Aboriginals. Not only that they embraced an Advanced Society, for the time, immediately.

Steele says, "It depends on how inclusive you would like the day. Should our first peoples be included or not? Because when you use a term like 'we newcomers' it can't be anything but divisive."

Perhaps it is divisive, but is it unreasonable if the dispossession is formally acknowledged a on each anniversary (which it has been already by giving back under land-rights legislation)?

Furthermore, given that land-rights is enshrined in legislation, is it unreasonable for aborigines to oppose the newcomers' desire to celebrate their success in building a modern nation, on each anniversary of their coming? (I can't roll with your cherry-picking deflection on this point. The newcomers were of British decent and the later-comers came at their invitation for nation-building purposes. Your 22nd November proposal was better and not yet another swipe at your own culture. At what point will you acknowledge its successes, or is it ALL bad?).

A treaty is signed with a government or ruler when a country was invaded. A Treaty is recognised to live together in Peace after a war. The fact is there was no recognised Government or Ruler recognised by all aboriginals, and there was no war with the inhabitants. If aboriginals consider the British invaded before WW11 then they are now subject to the new occupiers as I have stated above. Anyone who massacred aboriginals or settlers were subject to the same justice of British law.

Hi Jayb,

You suggest that " .... I doubt if it would do anything..... " I guess it would allay any doubts that something occurred, and hopefully the manner and scale of the atrocity. Of course it's far too late to punish any murderers, but at least it may be possible to bring proper closure for the descendants of those murdered.

It's hard for me to judge, of course, since there were not really any massacres by Whites of Aboriginal people in South Australia. Battles yes (Rufus River, 1841, after a Black-on-White massacre); skirmishes after isolated killings, yes (Eyre Peninsula); hangings (two) after Black-on-White massacres (28, Coorong, 1840), yes; Black-on-Black massacres, yes (Mt Eba, 1872); but White-on-Black massacres, no.

But with 60,000 - 80,000 Aboriginal people killed in massacres in Queensland, according to Henry Reynolds, that would be a couple of thousand massacres, on average one for every twenty-mile-square, so surely they shouldn't be too hard to identify and thoroughly examine forensically. Aboriginal people, the descendants of those so brutally murdered, so many, deserve proper closure, after all. Without that closure, how can proper Reconciliation take place ?

Joe

Perhaps the British should have left the country in the Stone Age, or left it for France. That way we could have stayed in the lands of our ancestors and escaped all the whining and self-hatred we get every year from a loud mouthed minority of malcontents. I believe that the Brit's have pretty much recovered from their 1066 invasion.

Dear Lucifrase,

You asked;

“is it unreasonable if the dispossession is formally acknowledged a on each anniversary (which it has been already by giving back under land-rights legislation)?”

Well ultimately that would be a question that should be put to our indigenous people and I suspect that the answer would be different around the country depending somewhat on the amount of destruction experienced by the various Aboriginal nations.

My personal opinion is that it is certainly unreasonable. Returning land is separate to addressing the genocide that occurred in many parts of this nation during its formation as a country, nor was it designed to do so.

Then you put this;

“Is it unreasonable for aborigines to oppose the newcomers' desire to celebrate their success in building a modern nation, on each anniversary of their coming? (I can't roll with your cherry-picking deflection on this point. The newcomers were of British decent and the later-comers came at their invitation for nation-building purposes....”

Well you have loaded that up beautifully haven't you and it is rather inane I'm afraid, as well as divisive as discussed.

I don't think there would be too many aborigines who would oppose celebrating what we have become as a nation. Tolerant, fair, inclusive, often progressive, still to a large measure egalitarian, democratic with a decent social safety net and sporting a laid back attitude to life.

Cont

Cont

But why does it have to be “on each anniversary of their coming”? The treatment of our first peoples is one of the blights that any nation worth it salt should be keen to work through and redress to its best ability. Retaining this divisive date can hardly be part of that.

But let's look at main national days in other countries besides New Zealand. Canada Day celebrates the joining of the colonies into a single dominion. In the USA it is the date of independence. I invite you to find a single country where the occupiers have invaded, stayed and now celebrate the arrival of the colonisers.

Finally mate don't tell me I'm taking “yet another swipe at 'my' own culture”. I am a proud Australian trying to live up to the values I cherish about this nation and heightened sense of fairness is one of them. I will leave you with the words of our national anthem; “Advance Australia Fair” and those who aren't aboard should just get out of the bloody way.

Dear Josephus,

You wrote;

“A treaty is signed with a government or ruler when a country was invaded. A Treaty is recognised to live together in Peace after a war. The fact is there was no recognised Government or Ruler recognised by all aboriginals, and there was no war with the inhabitants.”

At the risk of you lashing out again I am going to repeat my admonishment of earlier, what a hell of an ignorant comment.

The Treaty of Waitangi initially signed by representatives of the British Crown and M&#257;ori chiefs from some of the tribes of the North Island of New Zealand.
“It was intended to ensure that when the declaration of British sovereignty over New Zealand was made by Lieutenant Governor William Hobson in May 1840, the M&#257;ori people would not feel that their rights had been ignored. The Treaty established a British Governor of New Zealand, recognised M&#257;ori ownership of their lands, forests and other properties, and gave M&#257;ori the rights of British subjects. An immediate result of the Treaty was that Queen Victoria's government gained the sole right to purchase land."
Wikipedia

Over the next months copies of the treaty were taken around the country and ultimately signed by over 500 different Maori Chiefs, about a dozen were women.

So how many aboriginal nations were recognised as being intact at the time of colonisation? About the same number.

“Before the arrival of British colonisers in 1788, Australia was inhabited by the Indigenous peoples - Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, sometimes referred to as the First Australians. Aboriginal people inhabited the whole of Australia and Torres Strait Islanders lived on the islands between Australia and Papua New Guinea, in what is now called the Torres Strait. There were over 500 different clan groups or 'nations' around the continent, many with distinctive cultures, beliefs and languages.”
http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/our-people

Finally of course there was a war with the inhabitants. It was one of the longest military campaigns of the last two hundred years involving significant numbers of men and material. Go learn some history my friend.

Those opposed to Australia Day do so because of the
historical significance - the British arrival and
the destruction it brought. Consequently some
Aboriginal people and a number of other Australians see
Australia Day as a day of mourning - while others
simply believe it is offensive to Aboriginal Australians.

I celebrate January 26th with thousands of others for a
different reason - because Australia is a great country
to live in. I've always felt that Australia Day brings
the community together and it celebrates the good this
country has provided. Of course I now
realise that not everyone feels the same way I do.
But, I can't help but wonder how will protesting the date
and changing the date help those Aboriginal people most
in need? Will it change the sexual abuse, the hard drinking,
the poor health conditions, the tremendous gap in their
living conditions and education, the high percentage in jails,
and so on?

Celebrating on a particular day does not have to be tied
to historical events even if its origins are tied to those
events. Consider Christmas Day. Though traditionally it had
religious significance (and still does for some), for many
Australians they celebrate Christmas for other reasons -
family, end of another hard year, food and drink, and summer
holidays. Like Christmas Day, Australia Day is a holiday
where most can relax and socialise and reflect on matters
that are of importance to them.

I don't have a problem of changing the date of Australia Day
if it means that it really will make a difference to some
of my fellow Australians and become a more inclusive day.
However, I would like to see that it will make a genuine
difference to the lives of others - and not just be a politicised
move that won't amount to much at all.

This was copied and pasted from the link given below - which
I found useful and well worth a read:

http://theconversation.com/changing-australia-day-is-pointless-and-there-is-much-to-celebrate-71010

Hi Steele,

Yes, you're right: The Treaty signed at Waitingi dealt strictly with issues of sovereignty - i.e. the handing-over of the Maori sovereignty, external control of territory only, in exchange for the protection to be given by the British Crown. It clearly did NOT impinge on the relationship of Maori cultivators to their land: in fact, the Treaty prohibited the sale of Maori land to anybody but the Crown.

Of course, the relationship that Maori had (and of course, still have) to their land was that of cultivators, with clear demarcations between plots of clan (hapu) land and, within hapu, family (whanau) land - and certainly clear and ritually-controlled space (rahui) between the lands of 'tribes' (iwi). The relationship which Torres Street Islanders had/have to their lands is very similar, since they too were/are cultivators. The relationship that Aboriginal people had/have to the land is that of foragers, hunters, fishers and gatherers, ranging over specific domains, and with clear (if sometimes shifting) boundaries between the lands of clans and 'tribes'.

The English weren't newbies: they had had enormous experience with different systems of land relations - the Udal system in the Falklands, the Tanistry system in Ireland, the clan lands in Scotland, the various systems of land ownership and land use in India and South Africa, and amongst the Native Americans in the US and Canada. The standard British procedure was to recognise such different land-relationship systems as far as practicable (see C. K. Meek's book "Land Law and Custom in the Colonies" on my web-site: www.firstsources.info, on the Land Page). So Philip was instructed to implicitly recognise the Aboriginal systems of land-use, in their 'undisturbed enjoyment of their lands', etc. - and just occasionally breached.

These rights were made more explicit in the 1840s (see H. Reynolds & J. Dalziel's 1996 article on Google Scholar) and

[TBC]

[continued]

and written into law in (I suspect) every colony, although clearly those rights were ignored in some colonies. Certainly they were law in SA from 1850, and relevant Clauses had to be inserted into every pastoral lease, recognising those rights 'as if this lease had not been made', a phrase which has always intrigued me: i.e. traditional land-use rights on Crown land. Those rights to use lands as traditionally, still exist (at least in SA) if people wish to exercise them - in fact, independent of the federal Native Title legislation.

When you write 'war with the inhabitants', do you mean the Maori Wars of the 1850s, and later ?

Cheers,

Joe

Steelie: the Mariori people would not feel that their rights had been ignored.

Eer... The Moriori were farmed like cattle & eaten by the Maoris until the British stepped in in 1838.

Steelie: Finally of course there was a war with the inhabitants. It was one of the longest military campaigns of the last two hundred years involving significant numbers of men and material. Go learn some history my friend

A 200 year with the inhabitance. I take it that you were talking about New Zeeland here. I thought at first it was Australia. The only Army raised to fight the Colonials by the Kalkadoon Aboriginal tribe was in Mt. Isa & was quickly defeated. There was to be a Movie made about it, somehow it was shelved. A couple of my Kalkadoon mates were supposed to be in the Movie. They used to let them out of jail to play football on weekends & they were going to let them out to make the Movie. ?That was back in the 70's.

The Kalkadoon Wars
Date:1870-1890
Location:Mount Isa region, western Queensland
Result:British victory
Belligerents;
British colonists
Kalkadoon people
Casualties and losses:900
The Kalkadoon Wars were a series of encounters between European colonists and the Kalkadoon people of Australia.

Europeans started settling in the Kalkadoon's homelands around 1860. At first relations were peaceful but as numbers of new settlers increased, things became more hostile and the Kalkadoons eventually resorted to guerilla war.

Battle Mountain
In 1884 the Kalkadoons killed five native police and a prominent pastoralist. The Queensland government sent in heavily armed police and ended up fighting the Kalkadoon at Battle Mountain. The Europeans were ultimately victorious.

The only armed insurrection by Aboriginal People in Australia.

Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 20 January 2018 7:10:08 PM
Persons born in Australia no longer were classed as British subjects but as Australian citizens ON 26th JANUARY 1949. We all celebrate as Australian Citizens on that date. No other date has any significance. Aboriginals already have 13 days throughout the year celebrating events on their calendar, none that include all Australian Citizens.

"Australian citizenship was created through the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948, and came into effect 26 January 1949, soon after the post-war mass migration program was launched (in 1945).[1] Prior to 1949, Australians could only hold the status of British subjects. The development of Australian citizenship has been intertwined with immigration since Federation. This relationship has developed formally through government administrative structures and has been demonstrated in the way that changes to citizenship law have reflected changes in immigration policies. The success of the migration program has been consistently linked to citizenship outcomes for migrants."

That is why we have citizen ceremonies on the 26th of January. This has nothing to do with murders carried out by early settlers, which by the way was brought to justice and punished by hanging.

it has everything to do with being a citizen of Australia; and it also includes all aboriginals.

Here is what Aboriginal nations of Australia believe their Treaty should be. Note they see themselves as another Nation within Australia. What does Makarrata mean? Many Aboriginal people use the word ‘Makarrata’ when talking about treaty. It’s a word from the Yolngu people of north-east Arnhem Land and has several layers of meaning: Peacemaking. Makarrata literally means “a spear penetrating”, a traditional practice Aboriginal people used as punishment. If a person was hit by a spear, usually through the thigh, they couldn’t hunt or walk properly anymore. This settled them down, forced them to be calm and rest to heal. Hence Makarrata interpretation as “peace after a dispute”. Conflict resolution. Another meaning relates to a negotiation of peace, or a negotiation and an agreement where both parties agree to avoid dispute or bad feelings. This meaning is closely aligned with what many hope a treaty process would look like. The term was first introduced to non-Aboriginal Australia in 1979 when the National Aboriginal Conference recommended a Treaty of Commitment be entered into between the Australian government and Aboriginal nations. The group decided to use a word from an Aboriginal language for the process and settled on Makarrata. What would an Aboriginal treaty be about? Aboriginal demands for what should be included in a treaty are as diverse as Aboriginal nations and individuals. Here are some of the main ideas: Sovereignty. Acknowledge that Aboriginal people have at no time ceded, relinquished or acquiesced any part of their sovereign existence and status. They want a “a space of our own, free from influence of government”. Land rights. Recognition that Aboriginal people have always maintained a property right in land and the natural resources according to their law and customs. They want an acknowledgement that Australia has not been settled. They want freehold, not native title. People who cannot reconnect to their traditional lands need to be included. Shared power. A sharing of power with non-Aboriginal people through allocated seats. Source: https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/would-a-treaty-help-aboriginal-self-determination#ixzz54nX7E4JD

Cont: Representation. A permanent national Aboriginal body. Guaranteed consideration of interests. Too often governments don’t consider Aboriginal interests in their decisions. A treaty could be an “insurance policy” that puts Aboriginal interests at the forefront of Aboriginal policy. Recognition. Recognition of Aboriginal people as the First Peoples of Australia and the distinct rights that flow from this. (This is not referring to the governments ‘Recognise’ campaign which many Aboriginal people reject outright.) But also recognising the past, the need to first acknowledge what has happened to Aboriginal people. For many it’s about recognising that Australia was invaded and not colonised. Reforms. Agreements on the reforms required to reach a more just society and account for Aboriginal dispossession. Statutory entitlements. This can include reparation, compensation and benefit sharing. John Pilger, a journalist who works tirelessly for the cause of Aboriginal people, sees a treaty as “an effective Indigenous bill of rights: land rights, resources rights, health rights, education rights, housing rights, and more”. [7] A treaty is about “treat—ing” Aboriginal people with respect and dignity. Kamilaroi woman Natalie Cromb has her own definition: “A Treaty would be the basis upon which the sovereign Indigenous people of Australia and the government could negotiate the terms of rights to land, minerals and resources and the self-governing of communities.” [12] For some, sovereignty is even more important than treaty. Treaty is also a lot about the need of leadership. Source: https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/would-a-treaty-help-aboriginal-self-determination#ixzz54nYhtaVL

Note this document above identifies that Australia was invaded and not settled. This means under International Law that if this stands the aboriginals have no rights to land or Government. They need to decide their position!

Hi Josephus,

I'm not convinced about your last point: when the Allies invaded Nazi Germany, I don't think they took anybody's land, except that of war criminals (and maybe not even that). An invasion is, after all, an act to supplant the former sovereignty, political control, by that of the invaders, it doesn't need to affect systems of land ownership and use.

But apart from that, your elucidation of what has to be in a treaty between Aboriginal groups, 'nations', 'tribes', clans (and perhaps between themselves, but that's their business) - sounds like a piece of cake. A doddle. We should be able to put all that in place by the 250th anniversary of Cook's landing in two years.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth, Reread my post on: Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 20 January 2018 12:50:27 PM Was Australia invaded by war or settled. If Aboriginals say they were invaded they have lost title under international law before WW11. The British say we settled Australia which allows for native title.

I just remembered the names of the two brothers that were going to be in the Movie "Battle Mountain" The Daisy Brothers. Vern &, I still can't remember the other brothers name. They were twins & played Rugby League for Mt Isa.

Hi Josephus,

With the greatest respect, I think you may be mistaken. As I tried to point out, " ..... when the Allies invaded Nazi Germany, I don't think they took anybody's land, except that of war criminals ..... "

Perhaps I'm wrong: when the Allies invaded Japan in 1945, perhaps they seized all the land ? And what, sold it back to the Japanese - or do they still own it all ? I should think that the Chinese, one of our major allies during WW II, would be interested to know that.

In the interminable wars between Germany and France over Alsace and Lorraine, going back a thousand years or more, perhaps in the earlier days, the victors took not only the women but the land as well, but not in modern times ? Perhaps it's the mark of an uncivilised society that yes, the victor does dispossess the defeated people of their lands ? But I don't think it has been done for some time ?

Perhaps you can give examples of where this has happened ?

Cheers,

Joe

Josephus,

For all that, I don't think that it could be said that Australia was invaded in the brutal way it's usually portrayed. I used to think so, without much reflection. Of course, there's a fine line between 'invasion' and 'settlement', and yes, the traditional rights of Aboriginal groups, clans, to forcibly exclude non-clan members, others, from intruding on their lands was, by definition, set aside.

But the 'payment' of rations; the prohibition in settled areas, or where the writ of government ran, of fighting between groups; the provision of educational, housing and medical services (at least in SA) from the earliest days; the provision of vastly superior fishing technology, lines, hooks, nets and boats, to assist people in remaining in their lands - these seem to have won the people over, everywhere, once people understood what these newcomers were on about. I don't think the 'Hostility Gap' between Black and White was anywhere near as wide as it is portrayed these days - but of course, I'm thinking only of South Australia. It may have been far wider in Queensland.

I'm not suggesting that, from then on, it was all smooth sailing, since the traditional ways of thinking, cosmology, ethos, habits, etc. continued, and necessarily clashed with the outside ideas. It's taken many generations of experience for Aboriginal people to get to where they are now, many cultural mismatches and modifications along the way. And many successes.

For example, currently, Indigenous women are commencing university study at greater rates than NON-Indigenous Australian men (if we take as even that the Indigenous population makes up 2.8 % of the total Australian population). Total Indigenous graduate numbers now exceed fifty thousand. Yes, I know this is bad news for virtuous people who need Blackfellas to be helpless - how can you feel pity for people who aren't doing too bad ? But there you go.

There is still a lot to do, particularly in remote communities - i.e. what local people can do, mainly to overcome those 'cultural mismatches'. But Australia Day is probably not a focus of their deliberations.

Loudmouth: I know this is bad news for virtuous people who need Blackfellas to be helpless

In 72 years I have never run into anyone who wanted, "Blackfellas to be helpless." I may be wrong, There are always a few strange people around.

I suggest that the Aboriginal People that object to Invader White People & want their Traditional ways respected be given a large parcel of land with all the varied types of Flora & Fauna on it. They can then go & live there. But once they do they can never come back. No contact with the outside world to be allowed. Nothing from later than 1770 be allowed in that area. No clothes, tinnies , guns, fishing hooks or nets, modern medicine, etc.

The others who don't want to go to "Aboriginal Utopia" have the same rights as white Australians. No special privileges in any way & they accept Jan 26 as Australia Day.

Jayb,

A bit racist: neither you or anybody should have the right to dictate what people can and can't do. Any more than the fantasists who think they can put all Whitefellas on boats and send them back to Europe. Racist, both ways.

My point however was that very few, if any, Aboriginal people want to go back and live a foraging life - which they've always been able to do. On the other hand:

Just to put some flesh on the bones of my assertion about Indigenous women commencing university study, I chased up my data on it:

* In 2016, 5353 female Indigenous commencing students outpaced 169,817 male domestic students by 12.6 % of Equity (3.15%: 2.8%);

and

* In 2016, 2.22 % of all female domestic commencing students were Indigenous (5353 of 241,411) - 79.2 % of Equity (2.8 %).

Indigenous participation at universities is increasing annually at about 7-8 %, and is likely to continue to do so for at least another decade. The Indigenous elites will NOT be pleased: how do you control, and co-opt into the Indigenous Industry, thousands at a time ?

Joe

The following link may be of interest. It is
based on the 2016 Census and tells us what's
changed for Indigenous Australians.
It's worth a read for those wanting a broader
perspective:

http://theconversation.com/census-2016-whats-changed-for-indigenous-australians-79836

Dearest Foxy,

Thanks for this ABS document. Isn't it amazing how much more the Indigenous population grows from one Census to the next, over and above the natural growth from births ? That population can grow rapidly even though the number of births barely increases year by year, and in fact may be declining ? There certainly are geniuses at the ABS.

Those maps were very illuminating: the concentration along the east coast, and the constant movement away from remote areas to the cities, are aspects of actual real-life choices that promoters of separatism might reflect on.

In the Education section, it might have been a positive move to point out that Indigenous university graduate numbers had gone up from barely 29,000 in 2011, to nearly 49,000 in 2016. A map of where those graduates were on Census night would have been useful too.

Love,

Joe

Foxy,
Pardon for going off topic, but just to remind you that Andre Rieu will be in Melbourne in November. Bookings now open. I am flying down for date with my step daughter and hubby. By the way, I'd like your opinion of Amira Willighagen. I can't believe how quickly she has gone from a little girl to a woman and am enthralled with her voice.

I may be 'in love' again!

The First Fleet had 211 marines commanded by Major Robert Ross. They first built a redoubt then Fort Bennilong and Fort Phillip and later one at Parramatta.

They were relieved in 1791 and succeeded by the notorious New South Wales Corps consisting of over 300 men plus officers. After governor Phillip left in 1792 the colony was under their complete control with their chaplain telling their commander William Paterson that the Corps was the most violent and outrageous of any British regiment in histoy.

In 1795 near Richmond Hill they fought a pitched battle against the Dharuk people. Then suffered a defeat at Toongabbie in 1797 but victory at Parramatta against the Eora.

After deposing of Bligh in 1808 they ruled for 2 years until the arrival of the 73rd Royal Highlanders after which they were sent back to England.

27 Imperial regiments served in Australia from 1788 to 1870 with the typical regimental strength being 800 men.

Some of the early ones were the Royal Highlanders who served for 17 years. South Devon Regiment (46th) for 4, Northhamptonshire Regiment (48th) for 7, The Buffs (3rd) for 4 and the 2nd Somersetshire or 40th Regiment.

At the time the imperial regiments were finally withdrawn those in service were the Buckinghamshire, the Royal Irish and the Royal Artillery.

Of course there were many duties including guarding prisoners and holding territory from foreign forces but their principle activity, especially in the first 30 years was protecting the colonists from the local inhabitant. Many regiments were shifted from battle to battle, from NSW to Tasmanian for instance.

The resistance in Tasmania forestalled the settlement of Victoria for 30 years. The British Army and its colonial auxiliaries were engaged here for nearly 100 years.

This was not a peaceful settlement of a near empty country, it was an invasion.

Suggestion number...

Invite aboriginal leaders to kick off Naidoc Week on the 26th January, the anniversary of its founding in 1938. Coupled with whiteman's anniversary celebration of his arrival, with appropriate ceremonies we'd have an annual reminder of all the good and all the bad that is our joined history.

Waiting for the date of a treaty, along the lines of returning sovereignty as covered at https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/would-a-treaty-help-aboriginal-self-determination#ixzz54nX7E4JD
, will be waiting for Godot, IMO. Wouldn't 26th January be an appropriate date for beginning any treaty as, like it or not, it's the anniversary of whites and aborigines becoming entwined.

I'd have no issue with a national postal plebiscite determining whether 26th January should remain the date of Australia Day, and offering alternative dates for those answering "no". It has to be better than allowing the far left to dictate at local gov't level where they don't indicate their allegiance or intention to electors before they vote to dump Australia Day, and do so on the back of very low voter turnout

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for letting me know about Andre's coming to
Melbourne. Hopefully we'll be able to get hold of
some decent tickets. As for Amira Willighagen -
I think she's wonderful!

Hi Luciferase,

One problem with your is that Australia doesn't belong only to Whites, but to everybody living here, at least all citizens, including Indigenous people. So one problem may be how a nation might organise a treaty with a sub-set, or sub-section, of itself, and still avoid the implication that that sub-section - of people, citizens, after all - doesn't belong, or no longer belongs, within that nation.

Certainly the legal status of the occupants of that sub-set may drastically change - or at least, those within that sub-set who wish to be party to such a fundamental document as a Treaty, which presumably will set out their rights within - and outside of - the purview of the overall nation.

With such a high proportion of the entire Indigenous population now living in cities and larger towns, a population which increasingly has been born and bred in those urban environments, and will seek to remain there, any clause in a Treaty which impinges on their rights would be fraught with difficulties, even if it is couched in terms of advantage. And what if many Indigenous people want nothing to do with a Treaty ? If they perceive that, as with so many other brilliant initiatives, nothing good will come out of it for them ? Will they have any choices ? Or will some hot-shot 'leaders' 'speak' for them, like it or bloody not ?

And, to drag out the old chestnut, what the hell will be in a Treaty that is realistic and beneficial to anybody but those on the innumerable committees which will no doubt be set up ? And the hierarchy of committees which will be built on them, across regions, States and federally, right up to some Advisory Committee to the PM ? A wancker's picnic, if that image is not too strong for you :)

Cheers,

Joe

Steele,

Aborigines who see it as invasion may yet apply under native title legislation, albeit based on Australia being settled, to regain their land. How does this align with your view of conquest? If policy was genocidal (wiping out a race) invasion, it appears to have been poorly implemented, both in killing and land ownership. Was it as black and white as you assert?

Whatever, settlement with violence, or conquest, as a fifth generation Australian I hold no shame, nor guilt, as a recipient of these actions.

Ultimately, we only possess that which can defend (behold China in the SCS setting a base for invading our north). That is why we have alliances and defense forces. It's no use bleating to an invading power about how you're feeling, or relying on an umpire (UN) to save you, as Tibetans and Crimeans will tell you.

Aborigines have no appeal under UN law on sovereignty. Nevertheless, some want a return of sovereignty to them. Many stridently defend the date of AD because they see it as a step towards this return, symbolically or otherwise. That is why Greens have taken the underhanded approach in Yarra, Darebin and Fremantle, failing to announce their allegiances or intentions until in power. Staying shtum was working a treat for them and Di Natale may have blown the whistle on his own mob, but perhaps relying on enough Australians not giving a rats rather than needing convincing.

I really don't get it - why is Australia the only
Commonwealth country that does not have a treaty
with it's Indigenous people? Is it too difficult
foe us? Why are there always excuses being made and
reasons found not to do something? Why did our federal
government reject the proposals of the ULURU Meeting
of Aboriginal Elders when the Government had initially
asked them to make a proposal?

Why can New Zealand do it and we can't?

It somehow just seems not good enough.

And it's also not true that the majority don't want a treaty.
As Stan Grant attests - that's bollocks.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-14/creation-of-indigenous-treaties-being-led-by-states/8119488

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/why-new-zealands-maori-got-a-treaty-and-australias-indigenous-peoples-didnt-20170601-gwhysd.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40024622

Hi Jayb,

Indigenous-controlled land now covers perhaps a third of the continent. If anybody wanted to live the sort of lives you are envisaging, with all the consequent restrictions on movement in and out that you are proposing, perhaps you may well need "helpless Blackfellas" in order to put your Grand Plan into action. But as it happens, Indigenous people are Australians, active citizens, and nobody can tell them where they can or can't live or how they may live, not even their 'leaders'. Your notion is nothing more than the digging-up of an old racist idea from the twenties.

Sorry to go on about the need to investigate massacre sites, but I'm puzzled why nobody much wants to do that. In a murder case just resolved in Perth, the mother of a young girl, [see: https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/emotional-scenes-as-francis-john-wark-found-guilty-of-hayley-dodd-murder-ng-b88721234z] her mother explained, quite reasonably, that. " .... there's no body, we need a body for some closure ...... We want to know what happened, to try to figure out why, try figure out if there's any clues as to why he did it."

That's one lovely young girl taken violently, needlessly. Aren't the living relations of the sixty or eighty thousand Indigenous people rumoured to have been killed in Queensland entitled to have closure too ? After all, we're talking about thousands of Martin Bryants, Ivan Milats. And the thousands of descendants of the victims. We should just let it all rest ? Let it go ? Too painful. But would you, if one of your loved ones had been killed by Bryant or Milat ?

So, why the reluctance ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

There's actually no reluctance. The University of Newcastle
is doing precisely that - a map of the massacres of
indigenous people that reveals the untold history of
Australia painted in blood. The following links explain:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-05/news-map-plots-massacres-of-aboriginal-people-in-frontier-wars/8678466

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/05/map-of-massacres-of-indigenous-people-reveal-untold-history-of-australia-painted-in-blood

Dearest Foxy,l

No, dear, that's exactly what is NOT being done: anyone can draw up any sort of maps they like, but without any investigations, they are nothing more than 'Maps of Rumoured Massacre Sites' or 'Maps of Atrocities Reported by Bar-Flies'. But for many people, that's as far as they dare to go. Easy-peasy.

So yes, there IS reluctance to carry out genuine, thorough, forensic investigations. Imagine, as I've tried vainly several times to suggest, that one of your loved ones had been brutally murdered - would you be content with a vague map of where he or the may have been buried - oh, I dunno, somewhere in the Belanglo Forest, near enough, let's not bother. Only one person after all.

I'm sure that there have been massacres across Australia, but having studied the documentation here in SA, I was surprised (and still uneasy) that there seemed not to have been ANY unprovoked killings - I still find that hard to believe.

So why not elsewhere ? Certainly in Queensland, where so many people are supposed to have been killed ? Why not ?

Love,

Joe

cont'd ...

Dear Joe,

More on the map of the massacres -
The link answers your question - "How do we know it
happened?"

This map details the sources of evidence and is a
useful tool for history students, schools, and
the general public.

http://www.newcastle.edu.au/newsroom/featured-news/mapping-the-massacres-of-australias-colonial-frontier

Loudmouth: A bit racist: neither you or anybody should have the right to dictate what people can and can't do. Any more than the fantasists who think they can put all Whitefellas on boats and send them back to Europe. Racist, both ways.

Racist? It wasn’t meant to be from my prospective. I was only going on the Blackfellas that want to put all us Whitefellas on a boat. If they want “Their Country” back & want their “Old Traditions, Ceremonies, etc”. Then I say they can have it back, but only on the condition they get a clean slate. Like it was in 1770. We (The UN) would protect them from the outside World, not allowing any other country take advantage of a semi vacant land & what lies with-in. I don’t see it a Racist appeasing all those nice City Bread Aboriginals Academics that do all the demonstrating & whinging.

I can’t see us White Fellas walking off & invading Europe. So, the next best thing would be to provide some Prime Land stocked with plenty of Emu’s & Kangaroo’s, even some pointy sticks, but nothing else. They would have no need for money. Let’s face it they were Nomadic Hunter Gatherers sans clothing or housing. Spearing a Wallaby & chucking it whole on the Hot Coals, sans skinning or gutting then tearing it to pieces with their hands. I’m sure they would love that way of life, or so they say they would.
Cont.

cont.
Now those who wish to divest themselves & treat their ”Old Traditions & Ceremonies” as us White fellas do. The Greeks have their “Throwing the Cross in the River Day” The Scots have “Burns Day” The Irish have “St Patricks Day” just to name a few. Then we go back to being Australians. Everybody joins in celebrating each others Day. It’s great & so it should be. At the end of the Day we go back to all being Australian & being treated equally. No special treatment for one section of Australian Society even if they are First Australians. In fact, let’s have a “First Nations Day.” That way we could all celebrate their Traditions & Culture with them on that day.

People go on about equality especially the Left Greenie faction, well, let’s have Equality, for all.

The other alternative is for all to marry into the aboriginal race and the problem would be solved.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for the map. I noticed that even though it is just listing those in the Eastern States there was one showing for SA which was strange because Joe had told us the situation in SA was that there were plenty of killings “but White-on-Black massacres, no.”.

I thought it was referring to the Avenue Range Station Massacre in which at least 9 aborigines were slaughtered over the theft of some sheep.

“Those killed were a blind old man, three women, two teenage girls, and three female children including a baby.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avenue_Range_Station_massacre

But it was instead of the Narracorte Caves where 6 were shot.

Joe's language has now changed however and he now talks about “there seemed not to have been ANY unprovoked killings” in SA. So it seems his measure for provocation for slaughter includes stealing some sheep.

Either way he needs to be taken with a large grain of salt. He appears willing to dismiss any claim of massacres on the flimsiest of excuses. It will be interesting to see him explain away each of the SA listings when they ultimately appear on the map.

If the claim is that Australia was invaded by a British army as SteeleRedux claims, I'm afraid aboriginals have lost claim to traditional lands. However that is not the case as the British troops were here to manage the penal colonies, and manage relationships between the aboriginals and the settlers. Not to war against the aboriginal inhabitants.

I had lived in and near Richmond NSW for over 50 years and know that Memorials exist for the Daruk people at St John of God Hospital at Grose Vale, that the Youth Detention Centre was called Daruk, that National Park is called Daruk. Hardly an eradication of the aboriginal links to the land. I worked with local aboriginal people in attempting to retain native land from development.

In fact the Battle of Vinegar Hill at Rouse Hill was between the convicts and the troops, nothing to do with aboriginals.

"The mostly Irish rebels, having gathered reinforcements, were hunted by the colonial forces until they were sequestered on 5 March 1804 on a hillock nicknamed Vinegar Hill. Under a flag of truce, Cunningham was arrested and troops charged and the rebellion was crushed by a raid. Nine of the rebel leaders were executed and hundreds were punished before martial law was finally revoked a week after the battle."

In fact the Myall Creek Massacre was not carried out by troops but stockmen who were hanged under British justice for their crimes of murder.

Hi Steele,

I apologise, yes, there was certainly that massacre at Guichen Bay in the SA south-east in 1848. Brown's ride along the Coorong to Adelaide, in order to establish an alibi, was well-known. My memory of typing up the details in Dr Moorhouse's Letters is sometimes patchy, which I'm cursing myself for. His account is on my web-site, www.firstsources.info, on the first page, 'Protector's Letters'. There were other reported cases of suspected poisonings around Port Lincoln, also described by Moorhouse, in which the alleged murderer escaped by ship to California. There was also a rumoured massacre on the upper Murray, maybe in the 1880s.

Forgive an old man for his lousy memory, Steele.

So yes, South Australia wasn't exceptional. Moorhouse thoroughly examined the massacre scene at Guichen Bay, grave by grave. If he could do that back then, with their rudimentary forensic abilities, then surely similar investigations could be carried out on the two thousand or more massacres in Queensland ? If I was an archaeology or forensic science student in Queensland, I would be very interested to carry out post-grad research on the most likely sites there.

Or do we let the Ivan Milats of the nineteenth century go undetected and unaccountable ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Steele,

With some people you're never going to gain common
ground and arguing with them is a waste of time.
You'll only end up further apart. Therefore no matter
what the evidence that's presented to them - they'll
always find another road to divert the discussion.
Some people can't know what they haven't been taught
and they can't feel what they haven't been hurt by.

Today, things are changing as the four year extensive
research project at the University of Newcastle shows -
there's research being
done that details the sources of evidence and this is
a useful tool for history students, scholars and the
general public. Hopefully, we shall get out of this
"us" and "them" cycle - and acknowledge the evidence
being presented.

Dear Steele,

This may be of interest:

http://newmatilda.com/2018/01/19/january-26-to-mark-launch-of-national-broadcast-of-the-original-100-always-was-always-will-be/

Dear Steele,

Did you know that Mark Latham has a petition running
to - "Save Australia Day?"

I just noticed that if you took away the letters and
left only the initials - S A D.
It reads - SAD.

I wonder if Mr Latham realised that?

I note the date proposed by the Greens is: "May 9 – the same day in 1901 when we became a self-governing federation; again in 1927, when the Parliament shifted to Canberra (from Melbourne); and finally, in the bicentennial year of 1988, when the current Parliament House was opened." However in 1901 aboriginals did not have the vote or were considered legal citizens of Australia. "It was on 27th May in 1967, that indigenous people were formally recognised as Australian citizens. ON 27 MAY 1967, 90.77 per cent of Australians voted 'yes' in a constitutional referendum to improve indigenous rights and award citizenship to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders."

His mother was part of the stolen generation, but he wants 26th January to remain Australia Day. https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/celebrate-the-country-we-are-today-shearer/3316394/

Dear Josephus,

Australia Day for millions of Australians means
barbeques, lamingtons, and being proud of your
country. All of those things are great. Celebrating
Australia Day is not the problem, just the date that
it currently falls on. Many Indigenous people feel
their ancestors suffered badly the consequences of
colonisation. That's why 26th January is a hard day
for them.

Changing the date I guess is an opportunity for Australians
to own the wrongs done in the past and take another step
in making things right.

This is what we need to discuss and decide what if anything
we are going to do.

I suggest that we make ON 27 MAY 1967 Aboriginal Peoples Day & have a Public Holiday to celebrate everything Aboriginal. As we do with Paddy's Day, Burns Day, etc. We leave the 26th Jan as Australia Day to be celebrated by all Australians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RmvMbbvI28&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKQWBy0GyFU There are more than 5 million people have become citizens since Australian citizenship was introduced in 1949. New Citizens of Australia remember they received their certificate of citizenship on 26th January. They have reason to celebrate on that date. We all born before 1949 known as British subjects on the 26th January became Australian citizens. More people have become Citizens on 26th January than disaffected aboriginals.

Dear Josephus,

I guess changing the date is an opportunity for
Australia to own the wrongs done in the past and
take another step in making things right for our
Indigenous People.

Australia Day should be celebrated
on a Day that would include everyone and - apparently
January 26th is a date that some of our Inidgenous
People object to because they have suffered badly the
consequences of colonisation - and they assume that we
are celebrating the colonisation of Australia on that
day. If we're not - (and many of us are not)
then there should not be a problem in changing the date.
But it is something we all
need to agree on. And I can see that this is not going to
happen quickly.

At a recent dinner-party it was suggested that
the date of Australia Day should be flexible each year
and adjusted
to correspond with a Friday or a Monday on the calendar - creating
a long week-end. This situation is demonstrated by the changing
date of Easter each year. With a locked in date of January 26th,
which shifts through the week - this is disruptive to the economy.
People do tend to take extra days off to gain a longer
week-end. This could be something for the government to consider.

Hi Josephus,

Not quite accurate: Aboriginal people (including women) who had the vote at the time of Federation (Jan 1, 1901) continued to have the right to vote. But it's true that Aboriginal people turning 21 after that date couldn't register or vote until the 1960s. They had the vote at the time of the Referendum.

And Aboriginal people became citizens, like other Australians, on Jan 1, 1949. They were citizens at the time of the Referendum. At the time of the 1967 Referendum, they had pretty much all the rights of other Australians, but were not specifically counted in the Census (although they were, in State reports), nor could the federal parliament make laws in relation to Aboriginal people, that was still a State prerogative. But of course, they came under federal law like anybody else, regardless, in practice.

Joe

Josephus,
I checked my citizenship certificate. 'Twas June, not January, when I became an Australian Citizen.

But even if it had been on January 26th when my citizenship was granted, I still wouldn't object to a change of date for Australia Day.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Loudmouth,
Though I agree with your basic point about land ownership in conquered countries, you should be aware that Russia seized some islands from Japan, and Königsberg (which subsequently became Kaliningrad) from Germany. In both cases the land was seized from the original inhabitants. I think a similar thing happened in the parts of Germany that were absorbed into Poland.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Foxy,
I think the real question is: when should Australia Day be moved to?
January 1st seems to be the leading contender, but there are many others.

The reality is that even if the date was moved from 26th January you can be sure the loathers will start campaigning for the abolition of Australia day. How else can activist keep their funding flowing and propaganda spread. I see already members of the religion of 'peace' are comparing settlement of Australia and Israel supposedly in 'occupied' land. Truely sickening how the press print this vomit.

Hi Aidan,

The English language is notoriously fickle: when you say 'seized', do you mean that when Russia seized the Kuriles from Japan, and East Prussia from Germany, that the people living in those territories thereby lost their land ownership ? Or that the political administration changed from Japanese and German, to Russian ?

Land tenure and political sovereignty are two very different fields.

Joe

Dear Aidan,

You're spot on - yes Russia went into the Ukraine
to save their Russian citizens living there (sarcasm)
just as they went into the Baltic countries to "save
them" as well. It's all a question of interpretation
isn't it - but try telling that to the people
living there who lost their entire families.

As for the date of Australia Day? No matter what date we
choose, I'm sure there will always be some who will object.
For whatever reason.

Loudmouth -
The former. Mere change of political administration would not be worth mentioning in this context. Sorry, I should have made it clear that in the cases I mentioned the people lost their land and were forcibly expelled from the country.
____________________________________________________________________________________

runner -
So what if they do? There are very small numbers of people who whinge about everything, and the best response is to let them whinge but occasionally highlight the stupidity of their position.

But when it comes to the date of Australia Day, the issue isn't just haters whinging, it's a large number of people with a valid complaint!. Australia Day should be a day that unites the nation, but it can't do that while it remains on January 26th.

Aidan,

"But when it comes to the date of Australia Day, the issue isn't just haters whinging, it's a large number of people with a valid complaint!. Australia Day should be a day that unites the nation, but it can't do that while it remains on January 26th."

Who are this large number and what is their valid complaint?

Dear Aidan,

Here's a link on the power of language that's
worth a read:

http://theconversation.com/discovery-settlement-or-invasion-the-power-of-language-in-australias-historical-narrative-57097

Dear Is Mise,

Here's a link that explains:

http://theconversation.com/first-reconciliation-then-a-republic-starting-with-changing-the-date-of-australia-day-89955

Foxy,
How many aboriginals were murdered on January 26th 1788? The date is just a decoy to really remove the title "Australia" from the Aboriginal identity of Nation. They see themselves as a Nation within the Nation of settlers and independent of the settlers. No day on their calendar is acceptable as Australia day. Have a look at their Treaty proposal for them to be identified as a Nation separate to Australia, which term "Australia" is an invaders identity of Nation and not theirs.

They have been brainwashed by Muslim politics that have challenged our history and culture, and portrayed the English as murderers. Comparing the Balfour Declaration of injustice caused by the British to Arabs in Palestine. These presentations are available on U Tube. Of Australian aboriginals and Muslim students misrepresenting our History aided by the Marxist Greens.

Nothing learnt: Balfour and Britain's generosity with other people's lands. Bilal Cleland is a retired secondary teacher and was Secretary of the Islamic Council of Victoria, Chairman of the Muslim Welfare Board Victoria and Secretary of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/balfour-and-generosity-with-the-lands-of-other-peoples,10839

For foxy, https://www.facebook.com/fatima.mawas/videos/10160261677660157/

Hi Foxy

Thank you for your link about the power of language. I have no problem with use of the word "invasion". The British arrived, occupied the land and used violence where necessary. That is an invasion. However, I dislike the term "first Australians". It is possible that the first Aborigines displaced other people, very likely that the first Torres Strait Islanders invaded and almost certain that different Aboriginal groups have fought over land. Everyone's family tree includes some men who clobbered another bunch of men to death. "First Australians" has undertones of moral superiority, when we are better served by acknowledging that we are all descended from people who have been violent.

While we are talking about the power of language, racism is usually a subjective judgement and our language should reflect that. Some people claim to be strongly opposed to racism. However, the problem is with the unstated bit; my definition of racism is the definition that counts. Some people have no problem with things that I find racist, but that doesn't mean that they are bad people, with no understanding of the importance of racial tolerance. Conversely, some people piss in their own pocket about how hardline, anti-racism they are. However, they can be unconcerned when other people are offended by something, which is simply rude.

Australia Day doesn't look racist to me. However, that doesn't mean that I am unconcerned about how upset some (not all) Aboriginal or TSI people are. If Australia Day can't unite us, it isn't doing its job.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you. The frustrating thing is just how pervasive this reaction to Howard's derision of a 'black arm band of history' can be. Things that are under people's noses are just not seen. Often it is a willful ignorance that survives even though multiple assertions are dismantled with facts.

Dear Joe,

I acknowledge and accept your apology on this point.

Dear Josephus,

This really is becoming a chore now. Every assertion by you that I have corrected is easily addressed by doing a little research yourself. Perhaps rather than spouting a mantra you do some reading on Australian history.

You wrote;

“The British troops were here to manage the penal colonies, and manage relationships between the aboriginals and the settlers. Not to war against the aboriginal inhabitants.”

So what do you call the Battle of Bathurst? The rapid expansion into the Wiradjuri lands after the Blue mountains were crossed was unprecedented. In quick time over much of their lands, as described by an early settler Suttor, “the blacks were not allowed to wander at pleasure, hunting kangaroo and emu … the hunger was providing a bar to the peaceful settlement of the country and no doubt ill feeling was thereby created between the two races”. He understandably saw the problem not as the settlers but the soldiers and prisoners who he said raped and looted regarding the Wiradjuri as “a sort of dangerous wild animal whose speedy extermination was the best thing that could happen.”

Early skimishes had the commandant of the fortifications at Bathurst capture the man he identified as a Wiradjudi leader called Windradyne. He was released after a month of being chained in the barracks where constant beatings were so severe that all his ribs were said to have been broken. This was to have been a warning. It sparked clashes throughout the tribal lands and the withdrawal for a time of many settler communities. These clashes cost lives on both sides. The Wiradjudi warriors were able to capture weapons and become quite proficient with them.

Cont...

Cont...

Their successes finally caused the Bathurst troops to be reinforced by the 2nd Somersetshire Regiment in 1824.

Martial law was declared in august 1824 and the new commander of Bathurst base Major Morisset stated “Mutual Bloodshed may be stopped by the use of arms against the natives beyond the ordinary Rule of Law in the time of peace. Resort to summary justice has become necessary”. He then commenced search and kill operations where the mere sighting of Wiradjuri meant opening fire until all were dispatched including women and children.

One such instance was related in “Windradyne of the Wiradjuri : Martial Law at Bathurst”, I quote from “Six Australian Battlefields”. It “took place in the Capertree district north-east of Bathurst where a camp, a refugee centre, had been established principally for women and children. A party of soldiers open negotiations with the camp. The women and children and the few men present were invited to leave the camp and take food which had been placed within musket range of the nearby station buildings. As the people came forward to take the food the soldiers … opened fire. They did not cease until the entire group was dead.”

There was 2 months of open warfare before the “Battle of Bathurst” which broke the back of the resistance. It was followed by 2 months of retribution with nearly daily massacres which took an estimated 1000 lives before Windradyne was finally forced to sue for peace. He ultimately marched 260 of his warriors and women and children into Parramatta in December 1824 to met with the governor and to “surrender with honour”.

The governor formally proclaimed the end of hostilities and announced “that the war was over and that peace would now reign”. He presented Windradyne with a cap “decorated with a label bearing the word peace”.

There were many other instances of this brand of warfare being conducted you you want to maintain the lie that this was not war but a peaceful settlement.

The pansies in Adelaide responsible for organising AD events have cancelled some of them because it's going to be 42 here on the day. For heaven's sake, what is wrong with these people. There is nothing unusual about very hot weather in Summer, in Australia.

It has become obvious that SteeleRedux is a malcontent with the current state of Australia and is behind the push for the removal of the White British view of Australian history and British justice. He is feeding into the Muslim education of the aboriginal disposition of their lands. He cannot accept the present and forgive the past, he promotes the past hurt which does not affect him in the slightest. He would be Republican, wanting a new Constitution, a new flag and the feeding to establishment of an Aboriginal Government under Sharia laws.

My great grandparents and friends came to Australia in 1837 and settled among aboriginals whom they accommodated on their farms in the area. A disabled child later born to the family was taken in as an adult, in her 60's, to my grandparents home when I was a boy in 1946 and cared for till her death.

Dear Josephus,

Oh mate that is really petty and juvenile.

When you care deeply about something you learn its history. I have repeatedly shown how little you know and appreciate what went on through those years. Your grasp on the history of this wide brown land is so shallow and determinedly oblivious to its nuances that it makes me cringe.

Then you spout some paternalistic tripe about your grandparents accommodating aboriginals on their farms? Oh very bloody big of them. Who did they get their farms from in the first place? Well of course they must have paid the traditional owners a fair price. There was no dislocation involved. There was no impact on hunting or yam gathering or access to ceremonial sites. There was no transmission of diseases or wilful poisonings in the area.

Yeah right.

Look mate I get that you are still sulking about being labelled as ignorant but it is a demonstrable truth. Yet it doesn't take much to educate yourself about our history and I can recommend some starting books if that would help.

Many Australians who is interested in embracing not only white history but also the indigenous one. In doing so they are investing far more deeply into this country than the likes of yourself. In a sense this makes them far more Australian. I understand this threatens you and your sense of place and you have lashed out in response, but I would counsel you to take a more enlightened path, one that will allow you to better accept and be comfortable with this country's past, both good and bad.

So much for those that claim majority support for moving the Date.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/01/24/07/10/poll-shows-big-support-for-keeping-australia-day-date

SteeleRedux, I note you are not happy with Australia's past or its present, that you cannot accept the past as history and move on. You prefer to brow-beat Australians who are happy to celebrate on Jan 26 with 200 year old history, instead of embracing who we are today. You are locked in a 200 year time warp, instead of accepting how Alice Springs Mayor Jacinta Price sees Australia. A change of Date will not make one iota of difference to your opinion.

Dear Joshephus,

You wrote;

“SteeleRedux, I note you are not happy with Australia's past or its present, that you cannot accept the past as history and move on.”

Oh no mate, I accept the past as history, the trouble is you don't. You want to either ignore or revise it. Without that acceptance, and you are a shining example of it, how can we properly move on? You and others like you are keeping us mired in this when it should be worked through with empathy and good grace, none of which you are exhibiting.

Look I am prepared to love this country warts and all. Our beginnings as a nation were not pleasant at all. It was filled with violence, death, destruction and dislocation far more than for instance New Zealand, but we have managed to strive towards a fairer more compassionate nation. Still a way to go though.

As I have said before you really need to get aboard or get out of the way mate.

Josephus, we are all here to express opinions. If Steele is unhappy at how he got here, his feelings and opinions are to be respected.

If some wish to undermine his reasons for feeling as he does, then they must expect to be challenged. I support him in bringing whatever he can to the table to support his view, as the more information there is the more we can inspect and inform our own beliefs.

I'd support him in his view that to be Australian is to be as knowledgeable, and acknowledging, as we can about the past before we form our opinions about matters affecting aborigines. The expression of informed opinion is what we want here, isn't it?

Jayb,

The IPA poll: " .... only 11 percent think it should be moved from January 26....."

If that poll could be replicated by a much larger sample, I would tentatively suggest that only a slightly larger proportion might vote in a referendum for the latest demand by the Indigenous Recognition advocates - that for a separate Indigenous representative body to observe and comment on any legislation presented in federal parliament. Say 20 %: not really enthusiastic support for the notion.

After all, people are not silly: they would be aware that a separate body which can observe and comment on legislation would also, by implication, have the power to disapprove of any legislation, No, they would not have a direct veto, but their disapproval with any particular piece of proposed legislation could conceivably be transformed into outright opposition on the streets. In fact, the very fact that such a body does not have any veto powers could be turned into yet another injustice wrought by an unjust system on helpless and innocent First Nations people, yet another pretext for mobilising.

But that's all part of Plan A. So far, the tragedy for Indigenous people is that there is no Plan B.

Joe

Look at all the ridiculous arguments being put forward just to deny the aborigines amongst us a better day to celebrate Australia.

Apparently we can't trust historians about the massacres so let's stop it for that reason.

Even though we managed to wipe out most aborigines we were better than others so we deserve a pat on the back... What an imbecilic position to hold.

You dills that follow that as reasonable thinking could suggest that seeing not everyone has been molested by religious institutions we should send letters of praise because it could have been worse...

We took 1000s of years to get to where we are now as we are a blended country from many nations...but you people expect the aborigines to get to our level in 230 years when you couldn't do it given the same circumstances. Hypocrites much?

The changing of Australia day to a day that best suits our aboriginal brothers is the moral thing to do - It is that simple.

So I guess you guys who object so strongly on this issue are probably immoral and don't give a damn about the much trumpeted "fair go" especially towards people who have black skin and come from a hunter gatherer background.

Time to unite this nation and ignore the nay sayers of this world by changing the date for the benefit of all Australians.

Time to leave the backward thinking pro 26th Januaryites in histories dust like we did with the anti gay marriage crowd. (oh look many of you who lost that vote are trying to hold Australia back again on this issue...What a shock!)

Time to "Do unto others", (someone important in your lives apparently said that but hey you ignore most other things he said), for the benefit of the nation and to ignore the nay sayers.

CHANGE THE DATE!

Sel-Opinionate2,

I'm intrigued by your assertion that " .... you people expect the aborigines to get to our level in 230 years when you couldn't do it given the same circumstances."

The great majority of Indigenous people in Australia live in urban environments. They or their ancestors have got up to 'our' level. The ancestors of many did so a very long ago. I'm thinking of my late wife's great-grandfather, born around 1848 on the Coorong here in SA, who worked for some years as the gofer for the Protector, Dr John Walker (1863-1868) and later took out a land lease. His numerous children averaged ten years' schooling, from around 1880 until after his death in 1905. Most went straight out to work as shearers, etc., since not much else was open to them. English was his, and their, first language. I've lost count of how many of his descendants would now be university graduates, certainly fifty, dating from 1964 probably up to the present.

So perhaps you might like to qualify your off-hand remark; as it stands, it is rank, if quite common, racism.

Joe

Changing the date will not change history or the hurt some maybe experiencing. The agenda is to remove white skinned people, the Westminster Democratic system, the rule of whitefella Laws that imprison blacks, and implant an aboriginal Government and laws.
They believe they are still being killed, supressed by capitalism and imprisoned under British Justice.

This is their mantra.

"Our common enemy is capitalism. Let’s unite to fight it together and win that better world, with a Treaty as its cornerstone.
Until then, every day is a day of genocide in Australia. There is nothing to celebrate until we are all free."
https://independentaustralia.net/australia/australia-display/australia-day-changing-the-date-changes-nothing,11129.

Oh puleeze.....this is about a holiday pure and simple.
Most couldn't give a rat's about 'Australia Day' other than the flag waving jingos who want to be recognised as 'true blue ostralians because they represent little else.
It's the way people act that defines them, not the jingoistic yapping about when to 'celebrate'....what?.... being a society consisting of social disjointed fragments called multiculturalism....give me a break!
Make every day an Australia Day....just no holiday.... otherwise bring in a four day week and do away with all the so called holidays...Queens birthday, another joke...Labour Day wank of the year, and the list goes on.

I've just come across a suggestion for a date
for Australia Day - for those wanting a change.
How about May8?

May 8?

May8?

M8!

Maaaaaate.

Many people apparently approve.

Foxy, I heard that also, but what history or purpose would it serve as it is bordering on colder weather. No beach party!

Dear Josephus,

I think the suggestion was not made to be taken
seriously.

Dear Lucifrase,

Thanks for that but I think Josephus is still smarting from being referred to as ignorant. It is not something I am inclined to withdraw here given his responses but I acknowledge I probably need to temper my language in the future.

Dear Foxy,

Of course it would be an excellent date because of the irreverence and humour attached to it. Seems quintessentially Australian even though there are a lot of people overly attached to the current date. Josephus has eluded to the real reason for the reluctance and I think we should all probably be a bit more honest with our selves, it is just a bloody good time of year for a barbie.

I've just refilled the bottle, broke out the Banjo Patterson books and shook out the flag for the occasion. I am firmly of the opinion the date needs to be changed but until then...

A question for anyone who cares to answer, leaving aside The man from Snowy River what is your most favourite Banjo poem to read aloud? Mine is still The Man from Iron Bark but my brother does a great Mulga Bill's Bicycle. All will get an outing though. What is yours?

Hi Jpsephus,

That quote from independentaustralia, " .... every day is a day of genocide in Australia. ..... " might go down well in Bilger-land, but it needs some rebuttal. Genocide means the wanton killing of numbers of people. Have large numbers of Indigenous people been killed today ? Yesterday ? This week ? This month ? This year ? Decade ?

Self-serving hyperbole. It's a bit like the stereotype of Whitefellas raping Black girls: so when was the last time ? I would suggest that it's a long way before the last Blackfella raped - and murdered - a White woman, such as that poor nurse in SA's north-west. And the last time a Black man raped a Black woman ? Hmmmm ...... the time now is about 10 pm, Wednesday. What do you reckon the likelihood is tonight ? Maybe already tonight ?

God, I wish people like that mob would admit reality and work with that, instead of trying to stir up the crowds.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Oh come on mate. Even a cursory look at indigenous suicide rates must tell everyone but the most jaundiced that we are failing large swathes of the indigenous population and the implications for the future survival of these people and their culture is constantly imperiled. Genocide comes in many forms and neglect is one of them.

Dear Steele,

One of my favourite poems by Banjo is of course -
"Clancy of the Overflow." And Dorothea Mackellar's
"I love a sunburnt counry" still manages to put a lump
in my throat.

I'll be spending Australia Day with my mum and the residents
in the dementia wing of her nursing home. There'll be losts
of music, singing, and laughter.

If you look at the proposed Treaty, you will note that they are asking occupiers for rent for being on their land. It is obvious the Muslims are among them feeding the Arab hate of the Bowfour disposition of Palestine so suggest equivalent of a Jizz tax for not being Black on their land. This will go on until a civil war is accomplished. This is the agenda of the Muslim influence. Those that cannot move on over the atrocities committed 200 years ago will continue to use the invasion theory of their land. And invasion theorists will continue to feed this view.

However I thought we were already paying royalties to aboriginal land holders, and welfare, education and health services to persons in remote communities, well beyond the percentage to other Australians on welfare, except maybe for the Muslim population.

Note what the banners say in the March in Melbourne on Friday.

I can predict that Australia is headed for a civil conflict as in other Muslim growth areas as Europe and Africa.

Steelie: Genocide comes in many forms and neglect is one of them.

With all the money the Government has spent on Aboriginals since 1976. Most of the money only goes as far as the Organization setup to administer that money. The money gets skimmed of by the CEO's of those organizations. Whitefellas at first now the highly educated Blackfella CEO's. What schemes there were set up to help the aboriginals have all failed. Machinery never maintained & left to rot where it stopped in the bush, etc. This is not an unusual happenstance with AID. The CEO & Organization gets the Cream & the remainder is just Photo Opportunity to solicit more Funds & the CEO's can point the finger & say "You're not helping us."

It sounds good Steelie, but it's not quite correct.

Josephus: Those that cannot move on over the atrocities committed 200 years ago will continue to use the invasion theory of their land. And invasion theorists will continue to feed this view.

I agree. The Romans invaded Britain 2000 years ago & the French invaded Britain 1000 years ago. Should we go on about the atrocities committed. No, Who are we going to demand reparation from. For Gawd Struth it was all 100 years ago. let it go.

Let's keep Australia Day at the 26th & have a Native Day sometime later, so we can all dress down naked & cover ourselves in White Acrylic Paint stripes & dance around a fake fire all day. That 'id be nice.

Hi Steele,

Yes, indeed, suicide is a terrible scourge in remote and rural communities: Indigenous deaths from suicide OUTSIDE OF custody is vastly higher, proportionally, than it is for Indigenous people IN custody, where the rate is no higher than fo non-Indigenous people in custody.

Why ? I've come to suspect that any young person, say around fourteen or younger, who suicides, has been sexually abused, and by people in the community, which has done absolutely nothing about it. To people, especially young people, in a small community, that community is their world, it provides the boundaries of their existence, and when people there do nothing about some dreadful hurt, it's as if the whole world couldn't give a sh!t about them: they are worthless, whatever happens to them doesn't matter a damn.

My wife had a very dear friend living in the community who hanged herself, I suspect quite gruesomely, after she had been raped by at least one community 'member' from a powerful family. Nothing whatsoever was done by the community. That followed the suicide of a mutual friend, who also had been raped, but in a different community, and again, it seems, nothing was done - no outrage, no repercussions. Perhaps not so much because of the internal politics of the communities, but simply because nobody cared - except, of course, the girls' own politically-powerless families.

I can't imagine what outsiders, even though they may seem all-powerful, are supposed to do about that: it's a terrible problem arising from within the community, and an outcome of either (or both) a complete lack of caring or the delicate balancing of intra-political forces, deals made between families, plus utter boredom and opportunity. Like so many other issues, this is something only Indigenous communities can fix - although indirect means, such as training and employment schemes, getting kids to go to school, etc. etc. may, in an ideal world, work.

Cheers,

Joe

Here's a poem that I'd like to share prior to
Australia Day tomorrow:

"They loved this sunburnt country with its dreaded
flooding rain,
They'd fought the wild bush fires, battled drought out
on the plains,
They weathered the recessions and all the ills that
brought them pain,
They'd say The Spirit of Australia is the getting up again.

Daylight brought the message I watched it on TV,
With a thousand other people in the same boat just like me,
The Premier was speaking on that awful, awful day
And she used the same old phrases that my oldies used to say.

And they never cursed the country no matter how far down
There's always someone else worse off on the other side of town
A hug, a smile, a cuppa will help ease the pain
The Spirit of Australia is the getting up again

In the drought of fourty seven they were farming on the Downs
They shot the weak and the dying stock and moved on into town
Dad got a house Mum made it home they raised a family
They lost two kids but raised two more and one of them was me.

And they never cursed the country no matter how far down
There's always somone else worse off on the other side of town
A hug, a smile, a cuppa will help ease the pain
The Spirit of Australia is the getting up again
The Spirit they instilled in me - the getting up again."

(Keneth Moses).

//It is obvious the Muslims are among them feeding the Arab hate of the Bowfour disposition of Palestine so suggest equivalent of a Jizz tax for not being Black on their land.//

O....kay.

Still, I don't like the sound of this 'jizz' tax (giggle).

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jizz
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/jizz

For one thing, it's unfair that only half the population will be taxed. Although Peter the Great did implement a beard tax, which is in a similar sort of vein. I'm also deeply concerned about how the tax will be implemented: I don't want the taxman watching me conduct myself in the solo symphony. And finally, studies have shown that the regular jizzing reduces the risk of prostate cancer, and that jizzing plays a fundamental role in human reproduction*. This tax could lead to negative impacts on public health, and a decline in birth rates.

Are you sure you don't mean 'jizya', Josephus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

*[citation needed]

Jan 26 when the first fleet landed was one of the few really pivotal moments in Australian history. The ships arrived from 18th to the 20th of Jan and settlement was formalized on the 26th when the flag was planted and possession of the land taken. On the 26th there was no conflict with the natives, and none of the killings or brutality that the black arm band brigade weep and wail about, in fact Phillip went out of his way to maintain amicable relations with the aboriginal people.

So in short, the black arm band brigade want to stop the celebration of the foundation of Australia and everything that followed. Moving the date is the thin edge of the wedge.

We celebrate all sorts of days of the People that immigrated to Australia. The 26th. is when we celebrate the bringing of Civilization to Australia. Although by todays standards you wouldn't call our ancestors fully civilized. Going by the Political Correctness Standards of today 'n all. So I don't see anything wrong with leaving the Whitefella Celebration at the 26th.

Australia could have an Aboriginal Peoples Day, like everyone else's day. It could be on Sorry Day. We could celebrate all things Aboriginal. As I said before, dance around naked covered in white acrylic paint eating roast wallaby whole, unskinned,& unguttered (dressed,) cooked over open coals. Maybe some Porcupine & Snake too.

Really, I think it's all about reparation money. But, who would be entitled to collect the money. It would have to be a direct descendent of someone who was massacred. They would have to prove that they were a direct descendent, of course. Now the Lawyers would step in. Those people that were killed because they committed a crime descendants would be ineligible, naturally.

I have worked out a reparation scheme.

Let's say we make $100000 for each person massacred 200 years ago. That $100000 would go to his wife. Lose 25% for the next Generation & 50% for each succeeding Generation. These children have passed on (died)& we are now down to about the 10th. Generation from there. That works out at about 3050 descendants per person massacred. Dividing about $3180 (10th. Generation) between each of the 3050 descendants works out at about $1.05 each, hardly seems worth worrying about, but it's the thought that counts, isn't it?.

Hi Jayb,

Aboriginal people who want to change the Date could try May 27th and spend the entire day naked in the open air, carrying out new-found ceremonies. Others can rug up and watch respectfully.

As for reparations: yes, many of those people massacred by Whites would have direct descendants - that's why it would be important to examine rumoured massacre sites and identify the DNA in the bones of those so brutally taken. That DNA would be in the genomes of present-day Aboriginal people, so clearly those people could make legitimate claims, as you suggest. That's why there is such unceasing clamour for archaeologists and forensic scientists to carry out thorough site investigations, eventually at ALL suspected massacre sites.

Genuine reconciliation demands no less.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

I have no doubt that sexual abuse plays a part in the figures just as I have no doubt it plays a part in many small towns were the rural youth suicide rates can be well over 5 times the norm.

It is a challenge in many small communities, black and white, were people are prepared to look the other way and where a pathway to reporting sexual abuse is not clear or doesn't exist at all. The culture through the late 70s and most of the 80s in small country towns, especially around the local football club, was quite permissive toward non-consensual sex, even of minors. In the town I grew up there were quite well know instances of forced sex by celebrity footballers being 'managed' by police and club administrators to a conclusion via monies being paid to victims who understandably couldn't see much future in being outwardly shamed in a small community.

Just like any of these small communities in Australia, again black or white, without proper policing the predators will hold sway. This obviously includes church communities where by their very nature those in power find the means to abuse those within their care/reach easier and where there is far less likely of censure.

Law and order with decent social services make a huge difference and where some churches like the Catholic and Anglican varieties as well as some towns controlled by powerful tribal families are prone to reject 'outside interference and scrutiny then abuse occurs often unchecked.

Wouldn't you agree?

Dear Shadow Minister,

Good lord mate, you really have become a boring old fart. You pop in every now and again and read out of the alt-right playbook then sit back with some self-serving smirk as though your work here is done.

How on earth do you managed to keep doing it? Is you soul that bloody withered that this is all you can manage? You even used the term “the black arm band brigade”.

Come on old chap why don't you try again. Why not explain why you are so attached to the date you just can't bear to see it change. Tell us how your raise a glass and shed a tear just thinking about that boat crunching into the sand at Sydney Cove. Tell us how your breast swells with pride and you buttocks clench at the thought of the Australian flag being thrust aloft proclaiming ownership not just over what could be seen but over all the continent. Tell us even how the strains of advanced Australia Fair echoed off the cliffs and how the indigenous hordes raised their spears and beat their boomerangs in time with that magnificent chorus.

You can do it mate, I know you can.

Steelie: Good lord mate, you really have become a boring old fart. You pop in every now and again and read out of the alt-right playbook then sit back with some self-serving smirk as though your work here is done.

As opposed to also being a boring old fart popping in here & there reading out of the Far Left Greenie, Commo, muslim Playbook, & sitting back with a smirk.

My work here is done. ;-)

Okay folks, Thank You for all of your contributions
on this emotive discussion. Whatever you decide to do
tomorrow (26th January 2018), whether it's protesting
or celebrating - at least let us all remember that
we do live in one of the best countries in the world.

I look forward to engaging with you on other discussions.

Note what the banners say in the March in Melbourne on Friday. You will understand what are aboriginal views, and desire for Treaty.

//and desire for Treaty.//

Oh, thanks for the reminder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf-jHCdafZY

And furthermore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_DHwp5vYBI

Happy Australia Day everyone :)

Well we won't be celebrating Australia Day this year.
Last night after midnight we got the telephone call
that we'd been dreading - my mother passed away
peacefully at midnight in the dementia wing of her
nursing home. We shall be organising her funeral with
Tobin Brothers today.

I'm sorry for your loss Foxy. Chin up.

Dearest Foxy,

I'm so sorry to hear of your loss. I'm sure that you and your family will be in the hearts of many OLO contributors in the coming weeks of grieving.

Love and very best wishes,

Joe

Hi Steele,

" .... when .... some towns controlled by powerful tribal families are prone to reject 'outside' interference and scrutiny then abuse occurs often unchecked.

"Wouldn't you agree?"

Certainly. But Aboriginal 'communities' are much more 'closed' than most country towns, in the sense that they are the entire world for most of their inhabitants - they've grown up in its tiny confines, they know more or less only the people there who have done the same, they feel very uncomfortable even going to the nearest big town for shopping, the people they take their advice from are mainly their close relatives: 'closed' in Karl Popper's sense. To be mistreated BY that community, ignored, nobody giving a toss what the most dreadful acts done to you, must be devastating, crushing, as if cast out of that world for something done to you BY the community.

I was amazed back in 2007, when the Intervention was announced, to learn that some decent-sized 'communities' had never had police stationed there, and that smaller 'communities' saw a copper drive through maybe only once a month (and during the daytime) - no outside interference or scrutiny then. No questioning of why kids are on the streets at three in the morning. So it must be ridiculously easy for 'powerful families' and individuals to do whatever the hell they like, with whoever they like. If Dante was dropped into one, he would invent a few more circles of Hell especially for some Aboriginal 'communities', and then run a mile.

Cheers,

Joe

Foxy, Sad to hear that your mother passed away. In the aboriginal treaty put forward by Elders want to re-establish their tribal laws. This includes rape and beatings of women as perfectly acceptable in Culture. There is no theft but the sharing use of property, it belongs to the mob. You see White fella laws deny these freedoms and incarcerate our youth. These behaviours I witnessed while working among the aboriginal community out from Alice.

SR,

We can count on you to monotonously regurgitate the loony left whinge talking points.

Perhaps your black armband version is hordes of savage pirates led by Philips descending on the peaceful natives caught meditating after eating an organic meal washed down with Soy lattes, and butchered in an unsustainable fashion.

Given that the minimum requirement for civilization is a written language Perhaps the 26th of January should be celebrated as the start of civilization in Australia.

Hi Everyone,

Thank You for your condolences. We'd been expecting
mum's passing on and off during these past weeks but
it's still a shock when it happens. However her
suffering has now ended and we will concentrate on the
positive, the legacy she left us and all the happy
memories that will live forever in our hearts.

I've got an hour before I head to Tobin Brothers to
make all the funeral arrangements. Her funeral won't be
in Melbourne. It will be in Sydney. Her wish was to be
buried with my father (her first husband). Tobin Brothers
will arrange everything.

Thank You for all your condolences. They are deeply appreciated.
Mum and I were very close - and it was hard seeing mum's
dementia affect her so greatly.

Anyway, back to the topic.

We've celebrated Australia Day for decades. And to me it was
always a day that we celebrated everything that's good about
this country. It did not even occur to me that there were
people who were actually grieving. Now I guess I'll have to
have a re-think about the date - and what if anything we
should do.

I can't help wondering though - is it all politics, and how
many of our Indigenous people really want the date changed?
This is a controversial issue I know - and there's so many
heated feelings about the issue. Personally, I don't mind
if the date is changed - providing that's what most people
decide they really want to do. Perhaps we should put it to
a vote?

On another thread, Luciferase has suggested moving NAIDOC Week to the week surrounding Australia Day, Sunday to Sunday. This sounds like a brilliant idea, solving one problem in a way that enhances and focuses attention on Indigenous issues, and centering it around a
Day that we can all commemorate.

What do you reckon ?

Joe

Hi Foxy- I am also sorry for your loss.

Hi Joe- I forget where I saw the idea, but I like the suggestion of keeping Australia Day where it is, but replacing another public holiday, possibly the Queen's Birthday, with a public holiday on a day that is important to Indigenous people.

It won't please everyone, but it might be the best compromise.

Dear Joe and Benk,

Joe, I think Australia Day should be inclusive of all
Australians - not just a select few - so No - I do not
believe that anyone group should be the emphasis on
that day - which is what we currently have - isn't it?

If we're going to change the current date make it a date
that we can all share - such as Federation Day? Or when
and if we become a Republic?

Dear Benk,

Thank You for your condolences.

The Irish have St Patrick's Day
The Yanks July the Fourth
The French love their Bastille Day
A source of pride, of course.

We celebrate Australia Day
On a day that many grieve
So perhaps we need to change the date
To provide them some relief

Why not have a National Day
A day we all can share
I propose Federation Day
I think that would be fair.

Dear Foxy,

My condolences, it's hard but it will pass.

Hi Benk & Foxy,

Of course, keep the data where it is, but sort of wrap NAIDOC Week around it - in other words, shift NAIDOC Week from July to January - it's a far better holiday season in January anyway. That might concentrate everybody's minds, for a week, on BOTH the Indigenous presence, and the post-1788 realities.

Cheers,

Joe

Foxy: We celebrate Australia Day On a day that many grieve So perhaps we need to change the date To provide them some relief.

I don't think so Foxy. It's only a few Socialist Academic Fund sucking Aboriginals & the Greenies who would complain regardless of what day Australia Day was celebrated. These people need to be ignored with the contempt they deserve, & I do. Hopping on their Band Wagon because it's fashionable is not my thing. A lot of people hop on Band Wagons because they love the Wagon not so much the Band. Going by interviews I've seen, most of the people don't really have a clue what it is they are really Demonstrating about. Just jumping on the Wagon because it's going past.

Foxy: The Irish have St Patrick's Day The Yanks July the Fourth, The French love their Bastille Day. A source of pride, of course.

I say again; Let's keep Australia Day at the 26th & have a Native Day sometime later in the year. We can all dress down naked & cover ourselves in White Acrylic Paint stripes & dance around a fire of gidgery coals all day. We could eat roast wallaby, whole, unskinned & ungutted (dressed,) cooked over open coals, Yumm! Maybe some Porcupine & Snake too. That 'id be nice, don't you think.

//We can all dress down naked & cover ourselves in White Acrylic Paint stripes & dance around a fire of gidgery coals all day. We could eat roast wallaby, whole, unskinned & ungutted (dressed,) cooked over open coals, Yumm! Maybe some Porcupine & Snake too. That 'id be nice, don't you think.//

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl76rTxIyzI

Stop!... it's racist.

Also, where the hell are you going get porcupines in Australia? Raiding zoos?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porcupine

And what does Southeast Asian cuisine have to do with indigenous cultures?

You haven't really thought this racist caricature through properly, have you?

Having spent some time with tribal Australians in my youth, I can't wait till an Aboriginal Cook Book appears!!

All the ones that I've seen have a strong European overtone.

Keeping Australia Day on its current date offends some Australians, because it can seem insensitive to celebrate the start of a series of events which included a large amount of violence and other human rights abuses.

Asking to move Australia Day also offends many Australians, because it veers close to asking a whole group to feel collective guilt, because of something that other members of that group did. I personally didn't steal any land. I don't expect other Aboriginal people to feel guilty because some other Aboriginal people are criminals. I don't expect modern day Japanese, German or Italian people to feel guilt because of World War 2.

Having two separate days is my preferred compromise. Wrapping NAIDOC week around the current date might also work.

TL: We can all dress down naked & cover ourselves in White Acrylic Paint stripes & dance around a fire of gidgery coals all day.

Are you saying the Aboriginals who perform these rituals are Racist? Are you saying that if us whities join them in their ritual ceremonies we would be racist? I don't get it.

Porcupine, Ok Echidna. Same, same but different. Anyway the Zoo is the only place where City Academic Aboriginal whingers could get an animal to roast. It would have to have a name tag on it so they could identify what it was.

TL: And what does Southeast Asian cuisine have to do with indigenous cultures?

Ay?

I'm sure the people protesting were happy to have a day off work. If they aren't happy with the day maybe they should tell their Employer that they will work and will have another day in lieu. This would should also apply for people that don't celebrate Christmas too.

The Protesters are happy enough protesting wearing clothes and holding banners made of materials from now. They would have slept nicely in their homes on Australia Day Eve. They wouldn't be able to bear it if they had to sleep out in the wilderness, still hunt for food, like in the 1700's! Put them back in the bush and see if they can last a week!

Howmany of the Protesters actually have full-time jobs?

If they are white, well then obviously somewhere along the line a mum or dad has been with a white man/lady! That's lucky for them!

Changing the Date is not going to solve any of the Aboriginal activists claims. They want Treaty to give them rule over Australia as every Council recognises the land belongs to the Native tribe
1. We are on aboriginal lands so we must pay rent to the first Nations. In their view "Australia as developed" is an invasion, and must be burnt to the ground, because they committed genocide against our people.
2. The aboriginal nations were here first so they must be the administrators of the Land by tribal Land Councils.
2. Our Australian laws are not compatible with customary aboriginal law. It is very much akin to sharia, men are able to beat to submission and rape their wives. Girls at puberty are ready for marriage. Property belongs to whoever needs it in the tribe [white fella laws of stealing is not an offense]. That is why Australia imprisons our people against our cultural traditions. If we have need of a car and there is one not used we can take it

Foxy et Al,

Most national days celebrate the foundation of the nation based on some upheaval which is in most cases bloody.

For example Bastille day was followed by 10 000's of people being guillotined, the USA was founded after the war of independence, etc, etc.

So the minuscule minority that are offended and the 11% of people that actually feel the day should be changed, should not be allowed to override the wishes of the about 70% that don't want it changed.

Dear Foxy,

Experiencing the passing of a parent is never easy and my thoughts are with you.

Before the Australia Day storm in a tea cup gets to run over into the saucer there ought to be a lot done about some of the real problems.

Homelessness, housing, and health will do for starters.

Hands up all those who think that changing the date of Australia Day is more important than those three.

We need to get our priorities right, if more money is wasted on a referendum to change the date, as some are suggesting, the NSW Government might have to cut back on the New Years fireworks!!

Is Mise: as some are suggesting, the NSW Government might have to cut back on the New Years fireworks!!

OMG, Struth! That'd never do. I think I'd have to slash my wrists & have someone beat me with a hair cloth. How could even think of such a thing? Travesty, travesty....

I see on Facebook all the Dole Bludger & Socialist Academic Aboriginals dancing in the Socialist Red Nappies, covered in white Acrylic Paint. I didn't see a wallaby on some hot coals. Probably couldn't get one a Woolies. Lovely chant I could hear. "Fu(# Australia." It must have been a wonderful day for them.

Hi Jayb,

No exaggeration, but you may have influenced some Aboriginal groups to compose traditional corroborees along the lines of: "Fu(# Australia, Fu(# Australia, Oy ! Oy ! Oy !" I've heard something very similar, but without the profanity, and called a corroboree.

Perhaps it could be chanted, and televised live on the ABC and NITV, at the next Welcome to Country ceremony, coming soon near you.

Cheers,

Joe