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