If they want to change it, which might be a good idea simply to silence people, a good date would be the 27th of May, which was the day that Aborigines officially became part of the Constitution.
I hope this will be an interesting discussion. Thanks for starting it, EEEEEEP. Just noting that those first arguments you've mentioned are not confined to Indigenous Australians.
And I'm not sure that changing the date "simply to silence people" is a good idea. I'd personally find that pretty disrespectful, and it merely avoids the above-raised concerns rather than addressing them.
Personally, I don't particularly mind whether it gets changed or not. To most people it means nothing except another day off, but then to most Aborigines it's a day of mourning. So maybe instead of changing it, we recognise Reconciliation Day on the 27th of May, to instead celebrate our biggest step towards atoning for our former crimes against the natives
What I meant is not to silence the people that actually have a reason to protest the date, but the SJWs out there that would complain for the Aborigines, instead of them, who won't be silenced until people actually respect their complaints. Anyone that has a good argument for the date change doesn't deserved to be silenced.
We should just abolish it entirely. Any form of patriotism is toxic.I couldn't disagree more. I believe that a country is a legal manifestation of the will of a group of individuals. Therefore, a country stands for certain principles and values, populated by citizens bound by a common history, language and morality. Given this, it's absolutely reasonable to cherish our country and be patriotic.
After all, what's the main reason we celebrate the holiday? To commemerate the arrival of the First Fleet. Like it or not, that happened; it was arguably one of the most culturally significant events in Australian history, the precursor to the founding of our great country.
Those hardliners who claim it's emblematic of 'Invasion Day' are difficult to take seriously IMO. Often, these people are happy to embrace all the wonders of Western society, but will simultaneously use that same platform to deride the very society which afforded them such wealth and opportunity. If they really believed this is stolen land, then they should get on a plane and be true to their word: leave. I believe these sort of people are very similar to a common perception of anti-capitalists - young people who use IPhones to preach against the Free Market from the comfort of Starbucks.
I believe that a country is a legal manifestation of the will of a group of individuals. Therefore, a country stands for certain principles and values, populated by citizens bound by a common history, language and morality. Given this, it's absolutely reasonable to cherish our country and be patriotic.
Coming out of my hibernation just to post in this thread! xDI disagree with you so fundamentally but I'm so happy to have your perspective around 😂. Stay out of the woodwork!
Anyhow, its an interesting question, but I'm strongly opposed to any fiddling with Australia Day, no ifs ands or buts. After all, what's the main reason we celebrate the holiday? To commemerate the arrival of the First Fleet. Like it or not, that happened; it was arguably one of the most culturally significant events in Australian history, the precursor to the founding of our great country. That's not to discredit the richness of pre-colonial Aboriginal history of course, but I'm not sure any other event was quite as formative. Of course, I can understand the argument for change and sympathise with those whom the current regime upsets. However, I think people get caught up in symbolic imagery rather than practical solutions, especially in a case like this. Think back to the Apology in 2008 which didn't do much of anything.
Those hardliners who claim it's emblematic of 'Invasion Day' are difficult to take seriously IMO. Often, these people are happy to embrace all the wonders of Western society, but will simultaneously use that same platform to deride the very society which afforded them such wealth and opportunity. If they really believed this is stolen land, then they should get on a plane and be true to their word: leave. I believe these sort of people are very similar to a common perception of anti-capitalists - young people who use IPhones to preach against the Free Market from the comfort of Starbucks.
TBH I don't really understand the "changing the date would just be symbolic and avoiding the actual problem" argument? I would argue that symbolism is extremely important. If you're not willing to even offer a symbolic apology, then really, what are you willing to offer? If you're not even willing to take the effort to change an arbitrary date, then how would you be willing to challenge the status quo, to invest the immense amount of resources required to tackle the entrenched issues that are disadvantaging Indigenous Australians? Taking a symbolic step doesn't mean that actual action is precluded - in fact I would argue that it helps acknowledge the issue, raise more awareness and accelerate the process. Reconciliation and Close the Gap isn't exactly hurrying along right now. Australia Day is just one of the many issues that we need to address and a start of a difficult journey to reconciliation.Why? Because all too often when the argument for symbolic change is advanced, the very same reasoning you just illustrated is used. "Oh, it's a useful first step". The problem is, public policy operates on the basis of a cost/benefit relationship, for better or worse. Therefore, actions which are beneficial to a government's image are enacted, funded and publicised first and in many cases, to the exclusion of future policy. Not only does this put style over substance, but it means that once a government has been seen to 'tackle' an important issue, they often see no need to do anything further, thinking that in the minds of voters, the issue has been dealt with even though nothing much has been done. I doubt anyone could name one piece of substantive Indigenous policy passed by the Labor government after the Apology.
If you're not even willing to take the effort to change an arbitrary date, then how would you be willing to challenge the status quo, to invest the immense amount of resources required to tackle the entrenched issues that are disadvantaging Indigenous Australians?If anything the opposite should happen; substantive change should occur first, ending with a final symbolic gesture as a consummation of all the progress made.
Do we actually though? I doubt many people actually commemorate the arrival of the First Fleet on Australia Day. For most it is a day to celebrate our country and nation as it is now... or just an excuse to get drunk. I have a feeling that for most people it's the latter.True. In practical terms, I very much doubt the First Fleet and the nation's colonial development necessarily feature as important on the day. However, that doesn't change the fact that the intention is to commerate the arrival, hence the date. I think you give people too little credit. Of course, there's partying, drunken or otherwise. But what I normally see, past all the celebration and enjoyment, are people proud to call themselves Australian. People who, despite outward appearance, do indeed value the principles that the nation of Australia was founded upon. Interspersed between the celebration, I normally see people despondent about the coutnry's direction. I also see strong opposition to changing the date which, together with my previous point, would seem to indicate that people are more invested in the date than you realise.
And that's the problem - the 'meaning' of the date is not significant enough to have much public value, but significant enough to be hurtful for Indigenous Australians. I suspect for many defending the date it's just a matter of keeping the status quo and an unwillingness to "let PC get its way".
I'm not sure why criticising British settlers' horrendous treatment of Indigenous Australians is equated to an attack on Western society...? I'm not denying the good of Western society. It's just that our "lucky country" is built upon the bloodshed and suffering of many forgotten peoples, and I think it's only right to acknowledge and respect the feelings of those who are hurt by this, especially as we (Western society) self-proclaim to be all these lofty values of "just, tolerant, respectful, equal" etc.You misunderstand. It's one thing to criticise and point out where legitimate mistakes were made, the horrific treatment of Aboriginal people on the frontier, for example. It's quite another to question the legitimacy and authority of the modern Australian state using the very political and civil freedoms it bestows. Perhaps this is a by-product of my time studying law but make no mistake, saying that this country is 'stolen land' is far more loaded than simple rhetoric. It implies a certain illegality under international law which I should point out, has never been substantiated in a court of law on any level. Of course, we should acknowledge wrongs, but an attack on the sovereignty of the Australian state is far more than that. This is without even getting into some very moral grey areas by disputing the veracity of some of the more severe claims of Aboriginal suppression, the work presented by Windschuttle, for instance.
Besides, the First Fleet is equivalent to the establishment of a British colony. If it was to truly be a 'national day', wouldn't it make more sense to have a date that has some significance for our current national identity as an independent Australia?
For example, 9 May for the opening of the Commonwealth Parliament, or 12 March for the naming of Canberrabecause Canberra needs more love :'(
Besides, the First Fleet is equivalent to the establishment of a British colony. If it was to truly be a 'national day', wouldn't it make more sense to have a date that has some significance for our current national identity as an independent Australia?The reason why that day is appropriate is because as I said, it heralded the establishment of the Australian state. That state, still in existence today, stands for certain principles. Constituinalism, free speech, free enterprise and so many other contemporary values of relevance today. While there's much to celebrate about Indigenous history, any of that history forging a connection with contemporary Australia is tenuous at best.
Why? Because all too often when the argument for symbolic change is advanced, the very same reasoning you just illustrated is used. "Oh, it's a useful first step". The problem is, public policy operates on the basis of a cost/benefit relationship, for better or worse. Therefore, actions which are beneficial to a government's image are enacted, funded and publicised first and in many cases, to the exclusion of future policy. Not only does this put style over substance, but it means that once a government has been seen to 'tackle' an important issue, they often see no need to do anything further, thinking that in the minds of voters, the issue has been dealt with even though nothing much has been done. I doubt anyone could name one piece of substantive Indigenous policy passed by the Labor government after the Apology.
If anything the opposite should happen; substantive change should occur first, ending with a final symbolic gesture as a consummation of all the progress made.
But what I normally see, past all the celebration and enjoyment, are people proud to call themselves Australian. People who, despite outward appearance, do indeed value the principles that the nation of Australia was founded upon.
The reason why that day is appropriate is because as I said, it heralded the establishment of the Australian state. That state, still in existence today, stands for certain principles. Constitutionalism, free speech, free enterprise and so many other contemporary values of relevance today. While there's much to celebrate about Indigenous history, any of that history forging a connection with contemporary Australia is tenuous at best.
It's quite another to question the legitimacy and authority of the modern Australian state using the very political and civil freedoms it bestows. Perhaps this is a by-product of my time studying law but make no mistake, saying that this country is 'stolen land' is far more loaded than simple rhetoric. It implies a certain illegality under international law which I should point out, has never been substantiated in a court of law on any level. Of course, we should acknowledge wrongs, but an attack on the sovereignty of the Australian state is far more than that.
I agree that is what would happen in an ideal world - however "substantial change" to the current status quo is easier said than done, especially considering the fact that the vast changes needed to Close the Gap is unlikely to be effected in single terms. The fact that even symbolic changes are meeting such resistance is a reflection of the wide-scale entrenched disregard for Indigenous Australian issues.It's pretty clear we take opposing views on this issue. You see stiff resistance to symbolic change as evidence of 'entrenched disregard' that must be rectified at all costs; an exigent to push even more vociferously for that change. I see it as evidence of the need to work on more substantive issues first to illustrate that change won't cause the world to come crashing down. The fact that such symbolic change is meeting stiff resistance would seem to corroborate my theory that the hard yakka and groundwork making the case for change hasn't been made, the kind that would be best illustrated by firm action.
How do we expect a government and a people, who aren't willing to change a mere date, to prioritise and tackle the massive burden of Indigenous issues?Forgive me if I am misinterpreting you, but you talk of a 'mere date'. If that's the case, then why get vexed about it? Aren't there more important issues to worry about?
Yes, the Rudd government probably did not effect many substantive Indigenous policies - but in contrast the Howard administration, who refused to apologise, effected some policies and decisions that seemed actively hostile to Indigenous Australians: tightening Native Title laws, voting against the UNDRIP, and abolishing the ATSIC amongst others. It just goes to show that in many cases, symbolic gestures represent values and attitudes on a larger scale, which is why Australia Day and constitutional recognition are matters of such significance in this debate.*Deep breath* okay, I'm going to go dissect this point-by-point.
TBH, as to precluding substantive action: really, nothing much is being done right now anyway, whichever way the Australia Day debate goes. Might as well get this issue sorted.
but in contrast the Howard administration, who refused to apologiseYes, the Howard Government refused to apologise, but let's examine why they chose that course of action. The Coalition, most of all Prime Minister Howard, believed that it was ridiculous that citizens who have absolutely no connection with the intial colonisation, have a government apologise on their behalf. Indeed, many (including myself) find such a proposal outrageous. Yes, those things happened and it's important to acknowledge them (which the Howard Government *did* do by its issuing of a statement of regret) and I freely accept them as historical fact. But at the same time, to continue to try and extract that kind of change by playing the blame-game creates all sorts of unecessary division. And for what!? Nothing but a speech.
tightening Native Title lawsThere was no hostility. This was something absolutely necessary in the minds of many people; the Wik Decision had moved the pendulum too far in favour of Native Title claimaints in a way that may have caused lasting economic damage. I might add, this was a position supported by the electorate, highlighted by the Howard Government's three subsequent election victories with this legislation as a key policy. Note that it was not changed by the Labor Party when they won in 2007.
voting against the UNDRIPThis had more to do with affirming the principle of state sovereignty over the heavy hand of international law. It will be for the Australian state to decide how we deal with Indigenous issues, not an unelected body staffed by far more violent human rights abusers, Saudi Arabia, for example. Furthermore, if ever there was an argument for pure symbolism to the detriment of practical policy, then it would be difficult to find a more prescient example than the UN; a toothless rubber-stamp organisation designed to make world leaders feel good about doing...nothing. Hell, UNDRIP wasn't even binding as it was passed by the General Assembly; I'd call that the height of symbolic fecklessness.
and abolishing the ATSICATSIC's abolition was not an attack on Indigenous Australians at all, but merely in response to the widespread allegations of failure, corruption, waste and scandal that had swirled around the organisation like a posionous vortex. Even Labor in 2004 accepted that it had to go.
Australia was founded upon the very much realist considerations of the British Empire to preclude French expansion, to replace the lost territory of the USA, to facilitate trade and to pretty much dispose of convicts. I don't believe the settlers were considering many moral principles when they settled Australia and, if they did, the courtesy was not extended to Indigenous Australians nor the British convicts, many of whom were mercilessly abused by those in power. Political freedom and constitutionalism was not really a thing either - early colonial Australia was practically an autocracy under the Governor until the Legislative Council was established, and even then only the interests of some groups were considered.This is a very reductionist perspective and one I totally reject. But more to the point, it isn't necssarily what I was saying. I never argued that Australia was founded with noble intentions, far from it. I simply said that over time, being Australian and the values that the Constitution have come to stand for have found a special place in the hearts and minds of most Australians. These principles could never have existed were it not for British influence and the arrival of the English; our national identity is not as distinctly independent as you suggest. There is significant British influence, including the values I elaborated on in my previous post.
Morals change over time and I don't believe the values and principles the First Fleet represented is suitable for contemporary Australia, the least of which is our egalitarianism. Today, Australia's national identity is decidedly independent from Britain - hence why the original third and fourth verses of our national anthem was removed - and the date of our national day should aim to reflect that.
But in the technical sense, Australia wasn't settled legally. The "settlement" of Australia was based on the legal fiction of terra nullius denying the Indigenous Australians were even human, that was rejected by the High Court of Australia in Mabo v Qld (No.2). Even though now the ownership is just "native title" and restricted for a number of pragmatic reasons, it's pretty much implied that Australia is stolen land. It's impossible to restore the land to exclusive Indigenous control now, but the least we can do is acknowledge their traditional ownership and respect their wishes.This is a common misconception of the Mabo Decision. The High Court never resolved the question of legal settlement. In fact, in their judgement, they explicitly acknowledge that neither they nor any Australian court has the jurisdiction to hear claims of sovereignty since all the courts in Australia derive their power from that very sovereignty. Now, I know I'm cheating here since I have access to legal databases at UTS (sorry!) but here is what Brennan J discussed (at 23) in Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) (1992) by citing the principle established in New South Wales v Commonwealth (Seas and Submerged Lands) (1975); '...the acquisition of territory by a sovereign state for the first time is an act of state which cannot be challenged, controlled or interfered with by the courts of that state.'
Even from a non-legal perspective, the coercion, deception or outright annihilation that was used to dispossess Indigenous Australians of their traditional lands is absolutely egregious and goes against all the moral principles that we claim to stand by.From a non-legal perspective, it's important to recognise that this happened, certainly. But it's also equally vital to realise that this *was* the 1700s, with a vastly different system of law and morality. Reaching into the past to critique the decisions of past government and people with a modern system of values is the most egregious form of anachronism that empiricists like myself wholeheartedly reject. It creates a bizzare situation whereby we spend most of our time repudating past actions instead of learning from them.
Either way, I don't believe anyone (other than the rarely found extremist) is demanding the dismantling of the Australian state or that all non-Indigenous Australians "go back to where they came from"; mostly it's just the acknowledgement and remediation of past wrongs and current injustices.They may not be advocating it, but it's implicit. If something is stolen, do you get to keep it, or do you have to give it back? Of course, we know it's the latter. Just because it's culturally convenient and something that happened so long ago, doesn't change that at all. Naturally, the reason most proponents of this notion of 'stolen land' ignore this fact is because it would be a ridiculous logistical impossibility, not to mention inconvenient for them to embrace. Nevertheless, it is still 100% hypocrisy.
It's pretty clear we take opposing views on this issue. You see stiff resistance to symbolic change as evidence of 'entrenched disregard' that must be rectified at all costs; an exigent to push even more vociferously for that change. I see it as evidence of the need to work on more substantive issues first to illustrate that change won't cause the world to come crashing down. The fact that such symbolic change is meeting stiff resistance would seem to corroborate my theory that the hard yakka and groundwork making the case for change hasn't been made, the kind that would be best illustrated by firm action.
Forgive me if I am misinterpreting you, but you talk of a 'mere date'. If that's the case, then why get vexed about it? Aren't there more important issues to worry about?I say "mere date" because it is a relatively unobtrusive change compared to the complete overhaul required to tackle other Indigenous Australian issues. The fact that people aren't even willing to budge on this small and symbolic change suggest (to me, at least) that the "more important issues" aren't even in our field of vision yet.
Yes, the Howard Government refused to apologise, but let's examine why they chose that course of action. The Coalition, most of all Prime Minister Howard, believed that it was ridiculous that citizens who have absolutely no connection with the intial colonisation, have a government apologise on their behalf. Indeed, many (including myself) find such a proposal outrageous. Yes, those things happened and it's important to acknowledge them (which the Howard Government *did* do by its issuing of a statement of regret) and I freely accept them as historical fact. But at the same time, to continue to try and extract that kind of change by playing the blame-game creates all sorts of unnecessary division. And for what!? Nothing but a speech.
This is a very reductionist perspective and one I totally reject. But more to the point, it isn't necessarily what I was saying. I never argued that Australia was founded with noble intentions, far from it. I simply said that over time, being Australian and the values that the Constitution have come to stand for have found a special place in the hearts and minds of most Australians. These principles could never have existed were it not for British influence and the arrival of the English; our national identity is not as distinctly independent as you suggest. There is significant British influence, including the values I elaborated on in my previous post.
From a non-legal perspective, it's important to recognise that this happened, certainly. But it's also equally vital to realise that this *was* the 1700s, with a vastly different system of law and morality. Reaching into the past to critique the decisions of past government and people with a modern system of values is the most egregious form of anachronism that empiricists like myself wholeheartedly reject. It creates a bizzare situation whereby we spend most of our time repudating past actions instead of learning from them.
There was no hostility. This was something absolutely necessary in the minds of many people; the Wik Decision had moved the pendulum too far in favour of Native Title claimaints in a way that may have caused lasting economic damage. I might add, this was a position supported by the electorate, highlighted by the Howard Government's three subsequent election victories with this legislation as a key policy. Note that it was not changed by the Labor Party when they won in 2007.
This had more to do with affirming the principle of state sovereignty over the heavy hand of international law. It will be for the Australian state to decide how we deal with Indigenous issues, not an unelected body staffed by far more violent human rights abusers, Saudi Arabia, for example. Furthermore, if ever there was an argument for pure symbolism to the detriment of practical policy, then it would be difficult to find a more prescient example than the UN; a toothless rubber-stamp organisation designed to make world leaders feel good about doing...nothing. Hell, UNDRIP wasn't even binding as it was passed by the General Assembly; I'd call that the height of symbolic fecklessness.
ATSIC's abolition was not an attack on Indigenous Australians at all, but merely in response to the widespread allegations of failure, corruption, waste and scandal that had swirled around the organisation like a posionous vortex. Even Labor in 2004 accepted that it had to go.
If anything, the Howard administration passed the most important Indigenous legislation of all time with the exception of Native Title; the Federal Intervention. When the study showing that of the 3,000 Aboriginal communities surveyed in the Northern Territory, every single one had instances of domestic violence, the government acted swiftly and immediately to resolve the issue. This was not publicised, but it certainly was substantive change, whether it was right or wrong.
In a way, you've kind of undercut your own argument. Your listing of all these changes would indicate that the Howard Government was one of the most active in pursuing real and effective change for the Aboriginal community, regardless of whether you disgaree with the actions undertaken or not.
This is a common misconception of the Mabo Decision. The High Court never resolved the question of legal settlement. In fact, in their judgement, they explicitly acknowledge that neither they nor any Australian court has the jurisdiction to hear claims of sovereignty since all the courts in Australia derive their power from that very sovereignty. Now, I know I'm cheating here since I have access to legal databases at UTS (sorry!) but here is what Brennan J discussed (at 23) in Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) (1992) by citing the principle established in New South Wales v Commonwealth (Seas and Submerged Lands) (1975); '...the acquisition of territory by a sovereign state for the first time is an act of state which cannot be challenged, controlled or interfered with by the courts of that state.'
Under the international law of the 18th Century, there were three ways to aquire new territory:
1. Cession (land surrendered by treaty)
2. Conquest (forcible annexation of land)
3. Effective Occupation (where no prior claim to sovereignty existed i.e. terra nullius)
The overturning of terra nullius didn't alter the claim to sovereignty of the Australian and its antecedents, on the contrary. It simply acknowledged that the doctrine of terra nullius was wrong. That there were people with a legitimate system of law here prior to the arrival of the English. I repeat, this most certainly does NOT undermine Australian sovereignty, meaning that there is no implication of this being stolen land. What's the difference you ask? The distinction that this recognition created was extremely important for it meant that the laws and customs of the Indigenous people had not in fact been extinguished. This was in contrast to the doctrine of terra nullius which did not recognise any form of native law at all; the land was believed to be uninhabitied.
They may not be advocating it, but it's implicit. If something is stolen, do you get to keep it, or do you have to give it back? Of course, we know it's the latter. Just because it's culturally convenient and something that happened so long ago, doesn't change that at all. Naturally, the reason most proponents of this notion of 'stolen land' ignore this fact is because it would be a ridiculous logistical impossibility, not to mention inconvenient for them to embrace. Nevertheless, it is still 100% hypocrisy.
Please. If hostility were a barrier to me voicing an opinon, I'd have dropped out of UTS long ago ;) Besides, none of what you've said is anywhere near hostile.
Sorry if I start to sound hostile in any of these responses BTW, I have absolutely nothing personal against you or anyone else!
But like I said, it's actually not an unobtrusive change. The resistance to change which you so deride indicate that people do care about the date and the history it celebrates; they are decidely in favour of maintaining the status quo. Richard Nixon spoke of the 'great silent majority' and I think that such a phrase holds true in Australia, perhaps even more so. Altering the date will do nothing but satisfy a noisy minority which, if it were at least a change of substance, would be more acceptable. But the change you suggest is as practically empty and vacuous as any change could be - maximum division for mimimum reward, little more than a date change.
I say "mere date" because it is a relatively unobtrusive change compared to the complete overhaul required to tackle other Indigenous Australian issues. The fact that people aren't even willing to budge on this small and symbolic change suggest (to me, at least) that the "more important issues" aren't even in our field of vision yet.
Well that's your view and you're entitled to it. I on the other hand, see it as an attempt to inculpate orindary and decent people into a some sort of great genocide for which they had no part in. Why? To try and engender an intrinsic sort of cultural guilt to grease the wheels for change. Utterly unacceptable.
I don't see how it is inappropriate for a successor to apologise on behalf of past administrations and try to remedy past wrongs, especially when the Stolen Generations was by no means something that happened "once upon a time".
Perhaps. But I'd argue they aren't exactly a pertinent example since many who'd subscribe to your side of the argument have deemed these 'apologies' insufficient. It's possible to dispute this, but to my knowledge, Japan has never really issued a formal apology accepting responsibility for the conduct of the war. On the contrary, they've done many times exactly what John Howard did; express their heartfelt regret for what happened but also recognising the need to move forward.[/i] That should be sufficient.
Japan was still apologising for WWII atrocities in 2015. Howard's avoidance of a formal apology had a lot to do with trying to avoid legal (read, financial) baggage related to those affected by the policy, and as such is directly emblematic of an unwillingness to confront the problem. A speech is sometimes not just a speech.
Forgive me if I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to imply that the contemporary nation of Australia has no connection with the past. It manifestly does, specifically for the reasons mentioned previously. Rather, I was trying to show how we as a population of individual citizens have no connection with past atrocities. The sins of the father are not, nor can they ever be, the sins of the son.
Also, if we as a population "have absolutely no connection with the initial colonisation", then why are we celebrating Australia Day on 26th January?
All formative dates, to be sure. But nothing that could ever compare to the founding of the first colony, the herald of this great country's growth into an economic and cultural power with all the rights, liberties and freedoms that accompany such development.
Why not celebrate when those values actually manifested in practice? There are many significant dates that shaped Australia as it is now: when the Constitution received royal assent (9th July), Australia Act (4th Dec or 3rd March), opening of Commonwealth Parliament (9th May), so many milestones that actually correlate with the values we are claiming to celebrate.
Have we evolved since then? Of course. But to dismiss the significance of our founding would be a mistake. There are so many principles ingrained in the British system of government that were transplanted to Australia with the First Fleet. The Rule of Law. Due Process. Freedom from government. All laudible values that began with colonisation.
The Australian nation that we love and celebrate is not simply the British colony founded upon the arrival of the First Fleet - it's gone through and represents so much more than the backwards values of 1788, and I don't believe the date of our current national day does our nation justice.
That's exactly what it means. Keating, like you, tried to tie in recognition with something greater, which would have cemented, not resolved, irrevocable division. We should correct injustices, of course. But as I've said time and time again, a date change isn't going to do anything but anger and dislocate a wide portion of contemporary Australians who have a strong affinity for the day. This is just a rehash of our argument over symbolism, but I digress.
I agree that we should not dwell excessively on the past. But recognition doesn't just mean to acknowledge "Oh, yeah, that happened." We have a duty to go beyond that, to try and correct the injustices, especially when the effects are so widespread and perceivable even today. The least of those actions is to stop celebrating our nation on a date with such divisive connotations.
It's regrettable that there are those of my fellow Australians who feel this way. But I can go on like a broken record about this, changing the date is not the answer. Rather, trying to resolve the practical, day-to-day issues that confront Indigenous Australians would be far more effective in addressing their hurt.
The same way that you associate the arrival of the British with cherished Australian values such as freedom and constitutionalism, Indigenous Australians (understandably) associate that same event with dispossession, oppression, humiliation and suffering. The date of the First Fleet's arrival simply isn't suitable to celebrate our national day on.
I don't know how I could disagree more. The scope of Native Title in the wake of the Wik Decision was irrevocably large and was such a significant break with past reasoning, it created fundamental uncertainty among pastrolists, business and ordinary citizens. It was a matter of ensuring certainty and the economic and cultural security of this country that the High Court in a bout of judicial activism, decided to so conveniently ignore.
I guess this is really a conflict of values here. The way I see it, the conditions of native titles can be construed to be less obtrusive for lease-owners and somewhat acceptable for Indigenous Australians. Yet instead of attempting to mediate, the policy outright extinguished native title claims in areas of commercial interest with no room for protest, effectively saying to Indigenous Australians: "If there's big bucks involved, we don't give a shit about you." If that's not divisive then I don't know what is.
This is true. But again, it illustrates my point. You and your side want change, yes? How can you ever hope to succeed when you hold as a matter of course that you are correct and will not try to bring mainstream Australia with you? You could have the most moral argument on Earth, but if you can't get people to support you then you're going to achieve nothing. This is exactly what happened in the United States; they had a damn Civil War over it! Rather than trying to let slavery die a slow death, they tried to impose that change on the South which prolonged African-American suffering for another century. Was it a matter of morality? Sure was! But did it matter? Most certainly not.
Also, whilst it is important due to the structure of our political system, public support does not in and of itself justify the morality of an issue, especially when it's only a minority's rights being compromised.
That's a difference in government policy across generations. The UDHR was signed in the 40s under Labor when people were more hopeful of cementing an international peace and prosperity (and perhaps unaware of how little such a body would achieve). Today, people hold no such misperceptions.
I would argue that Australia later turned its vote anyway and seemed to have no qualms with other 'heavy-handed' instruments of international law including UDHR - but it's pretty obvious by now that we disagree fundamentally on the value of symbolism and no amount of debate is going to change that.
Quite the opposite. Apart from the ideological principle that government shouldn't interfere with race, a government behemoth to 'manage' them is the last thing Indigenous people need. They need people to stop with the good intentions, stop with the guilt and just stop interfering with their lives and communities. Simply creating a new body free from all the issues I described is not as easy as you imply; separating government and corruption is like walking on water.
Yes, the institution had significant problems in its workings, but simply abolishing the ATSIC and neglecting to set up a functional, long-term replacement has ruled out the Indigenous self-determination that is fundamental to resolving the problems.
Perhaps. But if the Intervention is a 'culturally condescending' policy, then what hope for change is there besides what I described, getting the government out of their lives?[/i]You think grants and handouts are any less condescending?
But the NTNERA exemplifies hostility to an incredible degree - it's considered to be a condescending and culturally insensitive policy by many if not most Indigenous Australians.
I think we've established what I think about the UN and government interference.
Not to mention that NTNERA is also generally considered to be incompatible with international human rights laws and completely ignores the social, cultural and at times property rights of Indigenous Australians, and had to suspend parts of the RDA to maintain its legality.
Intentions are irrelevant; results are all that matter. However you slice it, good or bad, at least they tried something.
Perhaps the Howard government had the best of intentions when enacting it - that's what I'd like to think. However, if the "substantive change" comes at the cost of bulldozing human rights, then I'm not sure it's the steps we want, and to be fair the Howard government's initiatives widened the ideological rifts between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia if anything.
[/spoiler]
It's actually not though. They're two completely separate things.
Yes, I'm aware the High Court didn't touch on the issue of legal settlement - however the mere fact that terra nullius was overturned is enough.
The High Court didn't make a ruling on this, but I'd say that it's patently untrue. The implications of overturning terra nullius would seem to suggest conquest rather than effective occupation. Something that was legal and therefore NOT stolen.
International law at the time recognised only the three forms of acquiring territory, as you have listed, and the British acquisition of Australia fits none of the criteria without the justification of a legal fiction.
Speculation.
The fact that the High Court upheld Imperial sovereignty is inevitable: not only because of the precedent you cited, but also because de facto control for a long enough period of time becomes indistinguishable with sovereignty, especially when coupled with colonisation and overrunning of the original inhabitants.
Such a vote of confidence in our legal system! But in all seriousness, there have been many a court that have upheld rulings against the interests of the ruling class and the established order. Perhaps not in Australia but certainly in the USA, Brown v Board of Education, for instance.
Besides, expecting a court of English common law, which has evolved to protect Imperial interests, to deliver an unbiased authority on the issue is... unrealistic, to say the least.
If Native Title is nothing but a 'compromise', I shudder to think what a full realisation of your beliefs would mean.
Native title is a leeway, a compromise between the growing international interest in human rights and the interests of those with de facto control over the land without losing too much face or giving up too much.
All that says is that governments are into the blame game, wasting money and being seen to fix things when they're really doing nothing.
Really, doesn't the fact that state governments are dishing out millions of dollars of compensation for native title claims say something about whether the land was stolen or not?
Perhaps. But that's certainly the implication of the phrase 'stolen land', it's definitely a clever piece of exaggerated rhetoric.
I think you're over-simplifying the process. It's one thing to have an item stolen from you, catch the thief, then demand its return. It's another to be dispossessed of your ancestral home, have it demolished/reconstructed/renovated beyond recognition, and only then be able to demand for its return.
In Mabo, the High Court held that damages were not payable at common law. I certainly hope this trend you describe is overturned by the High Court once more because it's certainly a worrying direction. Besides, do you really think giving these communities more money is what's going to solve their problems? Successive governments have thrown money at this issue for years with little success.
Since it's no longer what you had stolen from you, damages seems a much more reasonable method of compensation - which is exactly what is happening in many native title claim cases around the country.
How else should it be resolved? Cession? War? We have an impartial and unprejudiced system so that anyone can establish a case. That's about as good a description as I can muster.
The process is complicated by the fact that you have to seek justice by going to a court established and run by those very people who dispossessed you - but I digress ::)
Those hardliners who claim it's emblematic of 'Invasion Day' are difficult to take seriously IMO. Often, these people are happy to embrace all the wonders of Western society, but will simultaneously use that same platform to deride the very society which afforded them such wealth and opportunity. If they really believed this is stolen land, then they should get on a plane and be true to their word: leave.
Those hardliners who claim it's emblematic of 'Invasion Day' are difficult to take seriously IMO. Often, these people are happy to embrace all the wonders of Western society, but will simultaneously use that same platform to deride the very society which afforded them such wealth and opportunity. If they really believed this is stolen land, then they should get on a plane and be true to their word: leave.
Really impressed by your discussion, Son of Thatcher! You've made solid points.Thank you! I am trying hard to provide an alternative view that is perhaps seldom heard. I know that for the HSC, I had to cover Keating's Redfern Speech and the lack of debate over some of the more fundamental propositions he advanced was quite saddening.
But, I'm happy to embrace the wonders of Western society, I'm consistently checking my own privilege as a beneficiary of this society, but I also recognise Australia as stolen land.I'm not saying that being critical of Western society's flaws is a bad thing. Indeed, free speech (a distinctively Western invention) was pioneered to do exactly that. However, it is one thing to be critical of something and quite another to promote an idea which undermines the very sovereignty of this country, using the very freedoms it bestows to do so, all of which wouldn't exist were this nation not conceived as a colony.
If we all agreed the land was stolen, seeing as it was not Terra Nullius and therefore taken without permission (aka, stolen), and we all left the country and left the few Indigenous Australians we have to have the country for themselves right now - no "good" is achieved. The problems of entering a country, changing everything, and then leaving the country as a ravished land with new diseases and species and the remnants of a capitalist democracy has been seen before, and there's no benefit to anyone involved if I "be true" to my word of recognising the land as stolen, by leaving.This is very true, eerily so in fact. However, that doesn't change the position of moral hypocrisy. Of course, if you're a consequentionalist where the ends justify the means, then it matters not whether or not this was stolen land, just that something good is achieved at the end of the tunnel. That is not my position however.
Recognising this land as stolen does not mean I have to leave the country to be morally consistent. It seems like such a gaping string: recognises stolen land = must leave country. Perhaps I've misinterpreted what you've said, in which case please let me know, of course.No, you've understood me correctly but I just fundamentally disagree. More to the point, the legal position on this is that Australia isn't[/b] stolen land.
The point you made that I have quoted, and that Elyse just quoted too, really demonstrates an enormous lack of thought, or even knowledge, about this issue. The idea that indigenous people have been afforded wealth and opportunity by western culture is farcical.*Sigh*. This right here encapsulates everything wrong with your side of the argument. I don't know if you've intended it, but your comment comes across as incredibly elitist. Good luck convincing people about the righteousness of your arguments!
The first point I would make is that indigenous people were not given the choice to take advantage of those "opportunities", but rather were forced by their colonial overbears to become "civilised". This involved the forcibly removal of indigenous children from their families and their placement in the care of white families to teach them white values (hence the later apology you say you disagree with).True. Forcible assimilation was a mistake, everyone should have a choice. But the question to answer is, do they have access to choose those opportunities now? There's no longer that institutional barrier excluding them from the wider community. There are no laws specifically discriminating against them, no restrictions on their freedom of movement.
Moreover, these so-called opportunities that we gave them included the "opportunity" to have 90% of their population killed. In Tasmania it included their total annihilation. It included the opportunity to be exposed to systematically discriminated against, such that they live a full decade years less than their white counterparts. It included the opportunity to be exposed to diseases this continent had never seen. It included the opportunity to be massacred without impunity. It included the opportunity to be locked behind bars in the NT, and for much of our history, to have been literally treated like animals.What do you want me to say? Of course, these were bad things and we must accept they happened. But the change proposed isn't going to do anything, that's the heart of it.
Indigenous people have lived on this continent from anywhere between 40,000 to 100,000 years. To suggest that the last 200, where their population went from more than one million, to less than 100000 and their ancient culture was all but extinguished in many parts of this country is wilfully ignorant at best and plain racist at worst.I resent that implication, although I shouldn't be surprised; I was just waiting for someone who call me a racist. Again, it's yet more evidence of why your message isn't resonating with ordinary people across this country. Now, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here but I assume it's in relation to the Windschuttle point? I never said I endorsed his beliefs, in fact I've done the opposite. However, some of the points regarding the legitimacy of some of the more extraordinary claims are valid. Raising important questions about what constitutes evidence is not something that I think should be shut down, simply because people are offended. If you can't even question the history, if you can't even bring counterveiling facts to the argument, then what's the point of historical debate?
True. Forcible assimilation was a mistake, everyone should have a choice. But the question to answer is, do they have access to choose those opportunities now? There's no longer that institutional barrier excluding them from the wider community. There are no laws specifically discriminating against them, no restrictions on their freedom of movement.
Don't get me wrong, there's definitely room for reform. As a libertarian, I believe the #1 priority should be criminal justice reform, specifically in the Northern Territory, to reduce conviction for victimless or non-violent crimes which unfairly target the Aboriginal community.
What do you want me to say? Of course, these were bad things and we must accept they happened. But the change proposed isn't going to do anything, that's the heart of it.
I resent that implication, although I shouldn't be surprised; I was just waiting for someone who call me a racist. Again, it's yet more evidence of why your message isn't resonating with ordinary people across this country. Now, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here but I assume it's in relation to the Windschuttle point? I never said I endorsed his beliefs, in fact I've done the opposite. However, some of the points regarding the legitimacy of some of the more extraordinary claims are valid. Raising important questions about what constitutes evidence is not something that I think should be shut down, simply because people are offended. If you can't even question the history, if you can't even bring counterveiling facts to the argument, then what's the point of historical debate?
But like I said, it's actually not an unobtrusive change. The resistance to change which you so deride indicate that people do care about the date and the history it celebrates; they are decidedly in favour of maintaining the status quo. Richard Nixon spoke of the 'great silent majority' and I think that such a phrase holds true in Australia, perhaps even more so. Altering the date will do nothing but satisfy a noisy minority which, if it were at least a change of substance, would be more acceptable. But the change you suggest is as practically empty and vacuous as any change could be - maximum division for minimum reward, little more than a date change.
There is a reason that people won't budge on these so-called 'important issues' and it goes back to the heart of my original argument; trying to introduce change without having anything to show first.
It's regrettable that there are those of my fellow Australians who feel this way. But I can go on like a broken record about this, changing the date is not the answer. Rather, trying to resolve the practical, day-to-day issues that confront Indigenous Australians would be far more effective in addressing their hurt.
Perhaps. But I'd argue they aren't exactly a pertinent example since many who'd subscribe to your side of the argument have deemed these 'apologies' insufficient. It's possible to dispute this, but to my knowledge, Japan has never really issued a formal apology accepting responsibility for the conduct of the war. On the contrary, they've done many times exactly what John Howard did; express their heartfelt regret for what happened but also recognising the need to move forward.[/i] That should be sufficient.
All formative dates, to be sure. But nothing that could ever compare to the founding of the first colony, the herald of this great country's growth into an economic and cultural power with all the rights, liberties and freedoms that accompany such development.
Have we evolved since then? Of course. But to dismiss the significance of our founding would be a mistake. There are so many principles ingrained in the British system of government that were transplanted to Australia with the First Fleet. The Rule of Law. Due Process. Freedom from government. All laudible values that began with colonisation.
I don't know how I could disagree more. The scope of Native Title in the wake of the Wik Decision was irrevocably large and was such a significant break with past reasoning, it created fundamental uncertainty among pastrolists, business and ordinary citizens. It was a matter of ensuring certainty and the economic and cultural security of this country that the High Court in a bout of judicial activism, decided to so conveniently ignore.
All that says is that governments are into the blame game, wasting money and being seen to fix things when they're really doing nothing.
How else should it be resolved? Cession? War? We have an impartial and unprejudiced system so that anyone can establish a case. That's about as good a description as I can muster.I've already outlined what I believe to be the most appropriate resolution - compensation for native title claims. I find the current trends somewhat reassuring for its moralities. You believe it to be "worrying" and emblematic of inappropriate "judicial activism". I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree ;)
This is true. But again, it illustrates my point. You and your side want change, yes? How can you ever hope to succeed when you hold as a matter of course that you are correct and will not try to bring mainstream Australia with you? You could have the most moral argument on Earth, but if you can't get people to support you then you're going to achieve nothing. This is exactly what happened in the United States; they had a damn Civil War over it! Rather than trying to let slavery die a slow death, they tried to impose that change on the South which prolonged African-American suffering for another century. Was it a matter of morality? Sure was! But did it matter? Most certainly not.
Quite the opposite. Apart from the ideological principle that government shouldn't interfere with race, a government behemoth to 'manage' them is the last thing Indigenous people need. They need people to stop with the good intentions, stop with the guilt and just stop interfering with their lives and communities.But this hasn't worked. NTNERA was a policy that bulldozed all forms of self-determination and cultural sensitivity and it hasn't worked. In many areas it's worked to the active detriment of those it's trying to help. Sure the Howard administration "tried to do something" - with whatever intentions - but with such a heavy hand that it was akin to doing nothing or even acting against Indigenous Australians.
The High Court didn't make a ruling on this, but I'd say that it's patently untrue. The implications of overturning terra nullius would seem to suggest conquest rather than effective occupation. Something that was legal and therefore NOT stolen.
Such a vote of confidence in our legal system! But in all seriousness, there have been many a court that have upheld rulings against the interests of the ruling class and the established order. Perhaps not in Australia but certainly in the USA, Brown v Board of Education, for instance.
Besides, do you really think giving these communities more money is what's going to solve their problems? Successive governments have thrown money at this issue for years with little success.No. But I don't believe telling them to "get over it" is going to solve the issue and divided communities either.
YARRA Council could rename Australia Day to “January 26” and dump its citizenship ceremony out of respect to Aboriginal Australians.