For some, Australia Day means barbeques and beaches, a day to put on funny patriotic thongs and sink a few coldies, have a good time day. For the native Gamilaroi people from around Moree NSW it is a day of sorrow. January 26th 1838 seen officially 40 Gamilaroi men, women and children, some say the number was closer to 200, brutally hunted down and killed at Waterloo Creek. For to many of our indigenous folk, Australia Day, starting in 1788, has come to represent the day that oppression and injustice begun for the native people.

Until recognition of Aboriginal Australia becomes a reality, putting on the funny patriotic thongs (I don't own a pair), standing around the barbie at the beach, sinking a few coldies will be nothing more than a phoney expression of what it should be, to be a true Australian. Why by 2020 we are not a much better society, recognising the injustices of the past, and embracing equality for all, I do not know.

Don't the Aborigines have their own version of a national Day ?
Australia day is celebrated by those who appreciate Australia the Nation ! Whatever there was before should be celebrated also. I'm certain many Australians would participate once they were informed of what there was before Australia so it can be celebrated.

I can't rationally understand how in cases like this the descendants of such a event, even though it is what would be regarded by today's standard an abuse of human rights, can really be that upset about it.

Because rationally* they (as the individual that they are today) simply wouldn't exist if the event DIDN'T happen. In other words they own their very life/existence to the event. So if you value your own life then how could you possiblly not say that the event has been a positive result overall with respect to your individual life.

Also, on a non-rational but an irrational emotional level, I still can't understand it because it is such a long time ago that nobody that they know is directly connected cotemporously to the event. Given that it happened about 9 generations ago (if you give a generation to be 20 years) then: 1)they did not experience the event, 2)nor did anyone currently living experience it, 3)nor indeed did anyone living during the life of anyone currently living experience it. I find it difficult to understand/believe that they really can feel that it personally effects them. In other words, since it was such a LONG time ago how do they still feel personally connected to the event?

*rationally in the sense of accounting for cause and effect.

Just another day.

Paul,

Back in the old days, around the time of the Waterloo Creek massacre, when trouble was brewing, Aboriginal groups would scatter and seek refuge, hopefully temporary, in the bush, which they knew far better than any white fella. So finding a group of more than ten people would have been unusual.

Of course, bar-flies through the years have disagreed, piling on the casualty rate and being rewarded with gasps of wonder, shock and horror and beers. And their recounting of atrocities grew with each telling. After all, who's to know otherwise ?

Of course, a thorough archaeological and forensic investigation would clear up such allegations. But it's so much easier to run with belief than evidence, eh, Paul ?

Yes, at some day of the year, we have to remember Inevitable Invasion Day and ponder over what could have happened to Indigenous people here if the British had sailed past and left the place to some other imperialist power.

Jan 26 is as good a date as any, if we remember that it was, indeed, an invasion - and if we remember that it was, indeed, inevitable.

One forgotten aspect about Phillip's proclamation on that day in 1788 is that it was the first time in history when an authority (and presumably with royal assent) declared that there would never be slavery in New South Wales, i.e. in Australia.

Whether Aboriginal women had lived under slavery here for sixty thousand years already, I will leave up to the feminists. In defence of Aboriginal culture, I have to point out that such devaluation of women was also inevitable in all traditional, pre-class societies. Check out Engels' 'Origin of the Family' for Marxist confirmation.

Joe

Why not just celebrate Australia Day if you want to & those who don't can make it Invasion Day !
As they say, kill two birds with one stone !
Those who simply just want to create more problems could be dealt with by taking them off any benefits !

Here we go again. Joe on one hand you claim the Waterloo Creek massacre is nothing more than the talk of bar-flies trying to garner free beer. A bit like those old soak's down at gods waiting room telling what great hero's they were back in the days of war, all for a free beer, eh Joe! The official record, is it on your web site? It puts the number at 40.

"One forgotten aspect about Phillip's proclamation on that day in 1788 is that it was the first time in history when an authority (and presumably with royal assent) declared that there would never be slavery in New South Wales, i.e. in Australia."

No one told that to the convicts, and they weren't even there to hear it, the so called proclamation. Did you know, the second fleet in 1790, the convicts were transported by private contractors (50% died). The normal business of these private contractors was transporting black African slaves to the Americas, including British colonies in the Caribbean. The sign above the main gate of Auschwitz, read "Work makes You Free" did Phillip bring one of those sign with him to show the convicts and non persons, the aboriginals.

Joe, you have no idea how Aboriginal women lived pre-colonisation, its all in your minds eye, and what you want to believe. Maybe your website has something from the white honky aboriginal controllers on pre-colonisation conditions for women. They made up lots of other nonsense, so why not something on that?

Joe, you have no idea how Aboriginal women lived pre-colonisation
Paul1405,
From my own experience of 40+ years ago up on Cape York I'd guess they lived a pre-colonial way with a few post-colonial commodities thrown in ! Their work load was apparently pretty much the same as before colonisation.

It's a day that will go down in infamy: the sanctioned dispossession of the land from the Aboriginals by the British.

The joke is that what goes around comes around because the Chinese are doing to the whites what the whites did to the Aboriginals.

Joe,
The problem with the "when trouble's brewing" narrative is that you can't always tell when it is until it has.

The date of Australia Day will change once the old conservatives die off. It's just a matter of when to change it to!

___________________________________________________________________________________

Paul1405,
What are those funny patriotic thongs you mention?

I have a funny patriotic hat I wear on Australia day, obtained from Aussie Disposals a few years back. The corks aren't real, but at least it looks the part, so I wear it and eat lamingtons.

Paul,

Convicts weren't slaves. Thy had committed offences and were doing their time - definite time, seven or fourteen years, and then they were free. And while they were slaves, they often spent their off-hours living in the community like anybody else. On getting their tickets-of leave, they often were given 'grants' of land, a few of my ancestors included, cheap land which they had to pay off.

Pacific Islander indentured labourers (i.e. people signed up to work, oblivious of the conditions facing them) were employed on the sugar in Qld and NSW; some re-signed at the expiry of their indentures. They didn't strictly 'belong' to anybody, they couldn't be bought and sold.

So no, no slavery in Australia. That seems to have certainly been what Phillip intended, as a friend of Wilberforce's. So, when Britain became the first country/empire in history to ban the slave trade in 1806, it was more than forty years ahead of the revolutionary French (1849) or Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia, 1962, officially), Mauretania (yet to be determined).

Any other whinge ?

Joe

Porky,

At it again?

" Why by 2020 we are not a much better society, recognising the injustices of the past, and embracing equality for all, I do not know."

We are a much better society, Aboriginal men are not allowed to beat their wives, marry underage girls, nor walk around without clothes, they are treated, by law, the same as the rest of us.

Maybe those people who want to get recognition for "Invasion Day" could compromise a bit and we could all celebrate "Successful Invasion Day".

Gee, of course convicts were not slaves. How did the landed gentry like John Macarthur manage to become so wealthy without paying wages? Why did Macarthur complain that successive Governors were taking too many convicts for public works, and not leaving enough for his enterprise. Shameful.
And the crimes committed, the major crime was the crime of being poor.

"they often were given 'grants' of land, a few of my ancestors included, cheap land which they had to pay off." And whose land was that? Aboriginal land, and how much did your ancestors pay the true owner for that cheap land? Not a penny.

On slavery in Australia;Townsville, the city was named after Sydney-based merchant and trader Robert Towns, who was essentially a slave-trader. He was a central figure in the “blackbird” trade, bringing South Sea Island adults and children to Australia as “indentured labourers” (that is, slaves) to Australia as agricultural labourers.

Towns was at it right up until the mid-1850s, two decades after slavery was abolished in the British Empire thanks to the efforts of the great English anti-slave campaigner William Wilberforce.

This, by any measure, was a bloke who trafficked in human misery for his own profit long after the rest of his own “civilised” peers had abandoned any attempt to defend slavery.

I see Joe, you slipped in your favourite hobbyhorse the Marxist. Can't talk about the rights of Aboriginal people without invoking that boogeyman Karl Marx!

Explain the Waterloo Creek massacre, your first attempt at denial was pathetic. Must do better.

BTW A good book for you Joe; 'The True Facts About WWII' by Hermann Göring, as told to Joseph Goebbels.

It is all very pointless.
History will mean that aborigines will fade away into the general population.
You can see it happening already.
Aborigines need to understand that the moment they got in a car, got
on a bus or a train or a plane, bought packaged food, used electricity
etc etc etc, they joined the rest of us on this planet.
They are no longer the people who were here in 1788.

Their previous isolation was nothing to be proud about.
Except up in the north, & WA they were unaware until Cook turned up
they thought they were the only people on the only land.
That was the equivalent of an alien spaceship landing in Farm Cove.

They had up to 60,000 years to make some progress but they did not
invent the wheel or produce metals or as is now the subject of argument
develop agriculture. As far as I know they did not produce textiles.

So really the arrival of the British snatched them into the modern world.
What are they complaining about ?

Dear Loudmouth2,

You write;

"Convicts weren't slaves. Thy had committed offences and were doing their time - definite time, seven or fourteen years, and then they were free. And while they were slaves, they often spent their off-hours living in the community like anybody else."

Very Trumpesque my friend.

Is it mandatory for anyone to celebrate anything? We have Reconciliation Week each year, sorry day, we had a National apology and we still have Australia hating activist who want to prevent Australian Africans, Australian Asians, Australian Indigenous, British Australians, Australian Arabs, Australian Jews etc etc etc celebrating how God has blessed this nation so richly. I say, grow up.

runner,

But we don't have a Beam Up Me Scotty Day.

So no, no slavery in Australia.
Loudmouth2,
That reminds when I spent a few days in the State Library & the Librarian showed me a ledger containing documents relating to a chap from New Caledonia in the 1890's who was deported eight (8) times from Queensland for being here without a work permit. When it came to the ninth time it was decided he deserved a permit & was allowed to stay.
I'd imagine his descendants are by now Indigenous.

and how much did your ancestors pay the true owner for that cheap land?
Paul1405,
I don't suppose the real figures on how much compensation has been paid since Day 1 but I'm sure it's been paid for for several times over & we're still paying today !

Dear Bazz,

«Aborigines need to understand that the moment they got in a car, got
on a bus or a train or a plane, bought packaged food, used electricity
etc etc etc, they joined the rest of us on this planet.
They are no longer the people who were here in 1788.»

«So really the arrival of the British snatched them into the modern world.
What are they complaining about ?»

Exactly about this irreversible damage.
The loss of innocence, that birth of cynicism.
A meaningful harsh life turned into a comfortable but meaningless death.
A flower plucked out of soil and placed in a vase with water and nutrient powder from the supermarket.

Not much can we do about it, but let us mourn, for ourselves too.

Damage ? Really ? If so why haven't they thrown off their European
cloths thrown out their metal knives and forks, moved out of their
houses and camped in the bush ?

No ? Well maybe the only damage is what they brought with them into
the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.

Dear Bazz,

«If so why haven't they thrown off their European
cloths thrown out their metal knives and forks, moved out of their
houses and camped in the bush ?»

For the same reason that you and I do not - this lifestyle is addictive!

After 40 thousand plus years, it seems a little advancement was well overdue. Feigned indignation is unfortunately something the Aborigines learned from Western Academics !

Neither Cook or Philip landed on January 26, the day would not matter to the activists. The just want to cause division and not have any day to represent our culture. I celebrate a culture and history that has built Australia and its place in the world of human history.

The aboriginals who have not adopted to the introduced culture are still in the stone age. Those that do love the cattle, the horses, the musical instruments, the technology, the food and housing, the education and sport the new culture has brought to this land. The old culture has contributed virtually zero to Modern Australia its laws and values. Those aboriginals that have adjusted are great examples of what adaptation to the new culture can do.

An interesting statement took place a couple of days ago.
Tanua said children should make the declaration of loyalty.
The uproar that this caused is revealing.
We can now assume that the pile on mob are not loyal to Australia
and we can reasonably ask them to leave.
They do not want children to be loyal to Australia.

There was no massacre at Waterloo Creek. There was a police action where a group of aboriginals who'd already killed 5 farmers and attempted to kill police, were cornered and died resisting or attempting to escape arrest. Four or five aboriginals were killed in the melee.

The Bluff Rock Massacre near Tenterfield, NSW, is another good story, in many versions, none of which stand up to much serious scrutiny.
http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/conflict/indigenous/display/23416-bluff-rock-massacre

Modern day Aborigines (not the real ones from the Bush) have become something like the Leftists of humanity. Feigning indignation for the sake of causing disharmony even when they partly owe their own existence to non-indigenous forebears.

mhaze, you seem to be one of histories revisionist on this. Where is your account from?

Three months after the Waterloo Creek Massacre, stockmen in the same area slaughtered twenty-eight Aborigines at Henry Dangar's Myall Creek station. Governor Gipps has the perpetrators rounded up and in December 1838 seven of them were hanged, the first time in the colony's history whites have paid the supreme penalty for killing blacks. One the public record.

Paul,

You're referring to the Myall Creek Massacre. There's no doubt it occurred. But that's doesn't prove anything about the alleged Waterloo Creek incident.

Just because one massacre is proven doesn't mean that all the other allegations are proven. Sorry if the logic of that eludes you.

"Where is your account from?"

You first.

There was an incident in the 1860's off Albany Island when 4 Aborigines were shot in their canoe. The Govt Medical officer wrote of how the old Police Magistrate literally enjoyed the killings.
The Doctor wasn't there but the Marines Lieutenant who was wrote " At the request of the Magistrate we intercepted a canoe containing four Natives whom we distinctly recognised as having been engaged in the affrays of the past weeks and we shot them".
Two differing accounts, one from a non witness & one from someone actually being involved.
The former having had idealistic academic education, the latter had actual frontierl experience.
Nothing's changed in 150 years !

Why are we debating aboriginal massacres, instead of identifying what Australia means today?

Hi Josephus, in my opening post I made reference to the Waterloo Creek massacre which took place on Australia Day 1838. Others claimed it wasn't factual. Its this blinked denial of the past which is preventing us as a nation from moving on. I truly want to see the day Australia recognises its past injustices and mistakes and all of us come together in equality as a united people.

Many disagree with the idea of a Treaty, and I at one time I was ambivalent to the idea myself. Having seen the outcome of the 'Treaty of Waitangi' in NZ, but what other alternative is there?

Obviously Paul you cannot move on, and recognising bad things happened in past generations, but we cannot hold hostility for past wrongs. We are a new generation and we must accept the past but learn to live together as citizens of this Country. I spent three hours last night with two first peoples men from Broome WA who had been to Tamworth Country Music. They have no animosity toward Australian culture and values, they have fully embraced it.

Porky,

"..., but what other alternative is there?"

We could try treating all Australians equally.

Why are we debating aboriginal massacres, instead of identifying what Australia means today?
Josephus,
Because it is the crux of the dilemma & dragging up a selective past is what the Lefties are trained to do ! A little bit of fact every now & then helps to keep some truth in the picture !

i think most us know what Australia Day should be about & we also know what it isn't !

Are Australians actually patriotic enough for this day ? By the the way they oppose national Service & general responsibility & respect it looks as though they aren't !

Dear Individual,

But why, pray, ought anyone to be patriotic?

Yuyutsu,
Forgive me but your query puzzles me to no end. Don't you think that Patriotism is akin to family values ? Work together for the benefit of the common good. Are you confusing Patriotism with something political ? Aren't you rather patriotic towards your faith ?
Without some patriotism we'll become just another Europe ! Disconnectedness is not a basis for a nation, it's fertile ground for mayhem ! Remember a Nation called Great Britain ? The remnants of Britons have revitalised Patriotism & are on a path of repairing their Nation !
Australia needs that mentality too !

Dear Individual,

Why one ought to be good to others, is clear with solid religious, philosophical and metaphysical foundations. I believe that there is no need for us to elabourate on this.

Now the idea behind patriotism is that there exists some exclusive group to which one belongs and is "good" to favour at the expense of others.

This idea is no longer supported by solid religious, philosophical or metaphysical foundations. Rather, the basis for this attitude is emotional, biological, social and benefit-driven.

Now I am not denying that practically all of us are infected by patriotism of one kind or another, but the question is whether this is good, whether we OUGHT to have it.

It could be argued that patriotism is OK as an intermediate measure: "For now I am unable to love, respect and be good to everyone, so let me at least love and support one other person of my choice, then two then maybe 10 or 100, as my love keeps growing".

The thing is, love is a personal choice, it cannot be forced, it cannot be expected from others. Telling others whom they should love is NOT an act of love and kindness: ideally they ought to love everyone, but let everyone get there at their own pace, in their own good time.

Forcing "love", of family or country, has been the source of conflicts and wars. The worst expression of it, is to pick two innocent youths, whose only "crime" is to reach the age of 18 (in some cases even less) in relative health, then give them weapons and force each of them to try to make the other's mother childless. Those who refuse are punished (Saddam Hussein used to cut off their ear).

Disconnectedness is certainly better than an artificially forced and false "connectedness", such as in "nation" or in unhealthy families.

Yuyutsu,
you simply don't want to understand or don't have the mentality to understand. Being patriotic doesn't entail to dismiss all others. It means to support those who support you. You simply can't do any more than that ! To my way of thinking it amounts to working in with others not against them. The National Service idea is to enlighten young people on their way to adulthood, not as many see it, to deny them a couple of years of running uncontrolled for the rest of us to pick up the bill. If they have the Right to be indisciplined & disrespectful than we should have the Right to stipulate where our tax Dollars are spent ! I certainly don't want my taxes wasted on drug abusers & criminals ! I want my tax Dollars to go to infrastructure development & job creation !
A National Service would create a mindset of care instead of the carelessness we experience now !

"Now the idea behind patriotism is that there exists some exclusive group to which one belongs and is "good" to favour at the expense of others."

or to defend against unjust attack.

Australia day is for all who reside here to appreciate the toils of those before us not just ride on their efforts without a second thought !

individual,
>A National Service would create a mindset of care instead of the carelessness we experience now !
On the contrary, it would create a mindset of resentment and hatred.
Young people value their freedom, even though you don't.

To often nationalism and patriotism are seen as interchangeable. There is a limited commonality between the two concepts. Nationalism brings out the extreme, the bigot, the hater, the racists, the warmonger, a whole range of nasty human qualities. Patriotism is an affection for ones country, and a willingness to defend it. Nationalism is far more extreme, a belief that ones country/government is superior to all others, this often leads to open hostility towards "outsiders" who are perceived as lesser, or a danger to the ideal which is yours. The Nationalist will wrap himself in a flag and call himself a patriot.

"By 'nationalism' I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled 'good' or 'bad'. But secondly--and this is much more important--I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."

George Orwell.

On the contrary, it would create a mindset of resentment and hatred.
Aidan,
NO ! This kind of indoctrination is only pushed by Leftists with their insidious agenda of rebelling against normalcy, decency & general responsibility !
I know many young unemployed people who tell me they'd "love to go out & do things" instead of lulling aimlessly around with no hope of incompetent bureaucrats ever creating an economic environment for them to get ahead.
Perhaps our young aren't as indoctrinated as the ones in the cities ! Young people need hope not brainless & useless bureaucrats & Academics telling the what they can't do but not what they can do & are capable of !

A very interesting discussion, but it seems that we all have different definitions of "nationalism" and "patriotism", so I'll try to avoid these terms and speak of content instead.

Being good towards someone(s) does not imply an identification with any particular group. One can love others and work with them even without considering where they live, what their ethnic background is, or what their views and identifications are. Also without expecting anything in return. If anything is expected, then this is trade, not love.

Defending against an unjust attack can simply be an expression of siding with justice and goodness, rather than with a particular group of people.

Appreciating the toils and efforts of others who lived before us only because we are their beneficiaries, is mediocre. Why not appreciate good works for just what they are?

---

Dear Paul,

Although I am not confident in your use of terms, I very much appreciate your analysis.

---

Dear Individual,

I highly respect your choice of what your tax dollars should go into.
Yet do you respect mine?

I prefer my tax-money to go towards welfare, including to support those who do not wish to hold a paid job. I am happy for some of it to also go towards CERTAIN FORMS of infrastructure, but definitely not any infrastructure (e.g. NBN), nor towards job-creation.

You mentioned "drug abusers and criminals", but these are minorities. I was studying in university when dragged into the army. Besides being a horror, it was the first and only time in my life where I was exposed to, and forced to live with, drug abusers and criminals.

Such imprisonment, torture and slavery of innocent children, tearing them away from their families and good works/company, is so atrocious that whoever does so doesn't deserve to live and whichever country does it, ought to be destroyed. It's better even to let drug-addicts be.

IF, OTOH, all you mean by "national service" is to provide paying public jobs for interested young people, then this is neither national nor service, but just an employment-deal with the state as employer.

Yuyutsu,
You confirmed what I have long suspected ! The urgency to rectify the situation is now greater than ever.
As for "national service" is to provide paying public jobs for interested young people;
No, National Service is for young unemployed people who are interested in escaping the welfare mentality. How many do you think are on welfare for no valid reason ? If you're happy with providing for unemployed because they choose to be unemployed then go right ahead & register yourself as a benefactor. I will not object just as you should not object if I choose not to support a voluntary unemployed ! I prefer to support someone if they are prepared to make an effort to earn rather than simply accept support.
I have paid Taxes on my efforts over 52 years & now I'm living off my investment paid to Govt.

Dear Individual,

«No, National Service is for young unemployed people who are interested in escaping the welfare mentality»

Other than the fancy name ("national service") which may warm your heart but is different from the usual meaning of this expression, this is just a rewording of what I suggested: a paying public job for interested young people.

So long as there is no coercion, so long as children are not torn away from their families on fear of prison or of having their ears cut off, so long as nobody is commanded to act against their conscience, including by shooting at others, so long as no good young person is forced into working and living intimately with others of unwholesome character and habits, so long as this does not involve those who already and happily have a good job or study, then there is nothing principally wrong about this and nothing we disagree on, other than your claim that unemployed young people should not receive free welfare payments.

Now this has a simple solution - a tick-box on our tax-return:

"
Should my tax-money go toward:
1) providing a meager income for those who rather not work [for money]
2) paying large salaries (about 10 times as much) to public-servants so they can enforce draconian regulations on the public
3) compensating large corporations for changing their business-model in accordance with United-Nations demands.
4) subsidising other people's hobbies and leisure activities (such as sport clubs)
...
"

I would tick box #1 while you may tick some other box - nothing will really change as it will roughly all balance.

Yuyutsu,
More unrealistic suggestions merely result in more unworkable outcome ! Prolonging Status Quo is what I'm so dead against !
A National Service is for young unemployed people to get a better start for adult life. Handing out welfare nilly-willy has proven beyond reasonable doubt to be of increasing welfare dependence. If you think that is Nation building than go right ahead & put your TFN down for being a benefactor.

Yuyutsu,
the reason why we have # 2, 3 & 4 is bacause people don't want to change the situation for better. Are you aware that I proposed a disaster levy of extremely low percentage for various levels of salaries ? To-date, not one post followed with ayone agreeing to contribute. Now, who do you blame for that ? The Govt or the people who vote for Govt which then does nothing until it affects the popularity polls ?
I blame all ! No-one is prepared to help others unless of course there's a chance of getting a medal & be seen as a hero ! Hundreds of thousands of Dollars are spent on such frivolities instead of going to those in desperate need ! I'll gladly give 0.5 % of my pension towards a disaster relief fund under the condition it doesn't go through a public service level 8 bureaucrat to "manage" it !

Dear Individual,

I have nothing against public bodies employing young and willing unemployed people and paying them, say, twice as much as the dole - it is much better than paying bureaucrats 10 times as much. I just wouldn't call this "national service" as the name is misleading and usually, in other countries, refers to forced conscription under threat of imprisonment or losing one's ear. Also, such employment is neither national nor a service - it is paid work.

As for others who choose, temporarily or permanently, to not commit themselves to work [for money], but rather live on a meager budget, I see this as a positive thing.

We already have over-employment, with too many jobs that do not contribute anything real to people's happiness, some of them even harmful. Such jobs only complicate our lives, waste energy and congest the roads with unnecessary commute-traffic. This pressure to work at all costs brings people to compromise their conscience and moral values (also their health) in compliance with their boss's demands. It is practically impossible today to have a job without a measure of lying and cheating. Unconditional welfare ought to reduce this pressure!

Work can still be performed by the "unemployed", but informally, without pay thus without pressure or a need to compromise one's values.

«If you think that is Nation building than go right ahead...»

No, it isn't. It is a measure toward giving ourselves and others a happier, stress-free life.

I shriek at the thought of "Nation building". Wasn't it Juliar from Labor who pushed this concept on us? I want no nation built, only to increase the happiness of myself and all others.

«I blame all ! No-one is prepared to help others»

This is not true: many helped others during the fires and on other occasions. Many still do and even more will once they are not as worried about their own financial safety.

Leave the date for Australia Day where it is because it coincides with the Chinese New Year, which makes it now part of our Chinese future.

I shriek at the thought of "Nation building"
Yuyutsu,
You'd shriek even more at the alternative under your proposal !

Yuyutsu,
Come to think of it, at least here in Australia since 1972, the bulk of legislation has been & is at this moment, Leftist. So, are you happy with the situation ? If so then you should have no reason to dispute much of what is happening. If you're not satisfied should you not at the least make an effort to improve things ?
Are you happy with an increasing number of young people becoming drug abusers because of very poor direction from our authorities, taking into account that 90% of bureaucrats & legislators are Labor ?
I can not get myself to believe that without a National Service or whatever you think it should be called, our society will become more cohesive. thus far, under Leftist influence, it has been sliding into the negative or are you denying that fact !

Dear Individual,

«the bulk of legislation has been & is at this moment, Leftist. So, are you happy with the situation ?»

There are many many things in legislation that I am not happy with, but I do not think in these primitive terms of "Left" vs. "Right" - I look at each issue as it comes.

«If you're not satisfied should you not at the least make an effort to improve things ?»

Indeed, we are obliged to make an effort on things that matter, even when there is nothing that the ants that we are, can actually change.

«Are you happy with an increasing number of young people becoming drug abusers because of very poor direction from our authorities»

I am not happy whenever people take drugs, but I am unaware of any so-called "authority" that directs young people to take drugs. Are you?

«I can not get myself to believe that without a National Service or whatever you think it should be called, our society will become more cohesive.»

While it would be a nice step to take, making a number of young people happier and kept away from drugs, this would not produce cohesiveness.
The question is, why in the first place would you want such a huge society of people to be cohesive?
If cohesiveness is important to you, then you should be looking at having smaller societies where everyone knows each other.

«thus far, under Leftist influence, it has been sliding into the negative or are you denying that fact !»

99% or respondents, I believe, including myself, would tell you that things are getting worse in Australia. But what is "negative" for you is not necessarily what is negative for me, and vice versa.

[continued...]

[...continued]

Let me give you an example:
Politicians are currently attempting to abolish cash. Does this initiative come more from the Leftist bureaucrats of from the LNP government? I really don't know.

Such a move could make happy many of the younger generations who would willingly replace their brains with electronic gadgets, but us the older generations who experienced a better life before the proliferation of computers and digital devices, will thus become miserable.

Why then would you want cohesiveness where some win but others bitterly lose? Must we all live as clones of each other and in this particular example use the same means of payments just so we can sing that "we are one but we are many [of the same]"?

Why then would you want cohesiveness where some win but others bitterly lose?
Yuyutsu,
How & who would lose in a more cohesive society ? Working for the common good does not create a "them & us" as you infer. General discipline & respect does not divide good, decent people. Only those who have no desire to pull their weight will argue against !
Would you really expect the situation that has taken 50 years to degrade to suddenly be rectified overnight by a National Service ? Even if a national service were to be introduced it'd still take 3-5 years to start showing improvement. The real issue here is do we want to change or don't we !

Dear Individual,

«Working for the common good...»

I thought that you identify with the "Right" whereas the concept of "common good" comes form the "Left"... Anyway, there is no such thing - there is good and there is evil, but they have little to do with personal interests or human aspirations. One ought, first and foremost to do no harm, then [only] if possible, to also do good to others.

«General discipline & respect does not divide good, decent people.»

Certainly, but disciplined and respectful people do not impose themselves on others, telling them how they must or must-not do things.

«Would you really expect the situation that has taken 50 years to degrade to suddenly be rectified overnight by a National Service ?»

But it was your expectation, not mine, that all things will be solved by this small measure. While the outcome of what you call "national service" should be positive, it can only improve certain things in a modest way, even over time. If you expect it to overturn human/animal nature, then you will end up disappointed.

Yuyutsu,
You just don't have what it takes to care about others !

On Australia Day we celebrate all the things we love about Australia: land, sense of fair go, lifestyle, democracy, the freedoms we enjoy but particularly our people.

Australia Day is about acknowledging and celebrating the contribution that every Australian makes to our contemporary and dynamic nation. From our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people - who have been here for more than 65,000 years - to those who have lived here for generations, to those who have come from all corners of the globe to call our country home.

Fullstackadvisory, firstly welcome to the form. Don't take this to seriously. Your above post, can you really do all that wearing a pair of stubbies, and funny thongs, with zinc cream on the nose while enjoying a beer and a barbie down at the beach? Just asking.

enjoying a beer and a barbie down at the beach?
Paul1405,
Now which Govt was that again that prohibited having a beer on the beach ? I think it was the same lot that has killed off social interaction by making fun illegal ! Their backing appears to come from half-witted pseudo-intellectual, inept in anything social !

No retort from Paul1405, so it must have been a Labor Govt !