Invasion Day: 26th January or 29th April?

[old man emu]

Lieutenant James Cook first landed at Kurnell, on the southern banks of Botany Bay, in what is now Silver Beach, on Sunday 29 April 1770. A day or two later, the first recorded shootings of Aboriginals occurred, when attempts to communicate through a Tahitian travelling with Cook, failed. It is considered that the Aboriginal people thought the Whites were spirits who travelled the sea in a boat under a captured cloud. The two Gweagal men were ghostbusters.

 

The Gweagal (also spelt Gwiyagal) are a clan of the Dharawal people who occupied the south shore between Botany Bay/Georges River and the saltwater bays and estuaries of Port Hacking. They also used the fresh water resources of the upper Hacking River, Heathcote Creek and the Woronora River. Evidence from Curracurrang, an area in the Royal National Park, shows occupation dates from about 8,200 years before present, but that site may have be in the country of another Dharawal clan.

 

The dates obtained for earliest occupation fall into the geological period known as the Holocene (11.7 thousand years ago to today), otherwise commonly known as the post-glacial period. From that time, the sea levels  worldwide were rising. From Aboriginal stories, it is reasonable to conclude that at the beginning of the Holocene,  the coastal plain extended further to the east over the continental shelf. Also from certain Aboriginal stories relating to astronomy, it is concluded that humans were occupying the continent as far south as Tasmania before 10,000 years ago. As the sea level rose and inundated the coastal plain, the occupants moved west, stopping when sea levels somewhat stabilised to their present position. Other Aboriginal stories tell of people coming by canoe from the east, which would support that movement. 

 

A similar situation is known to have occurred with the inundation of Doggerland. At the beginning of the Holocene, the area between mainland Europe and the eastern coast of Great Britain formed the northwest corner of an icy continent. Warming climate exposed a vast continental shelf for humans to inhabit. Further warming and rising seas gradually flooded low-lying lands. Some 8,200 years ago, a catastrophic release of water from a North American glacial lake and a tsunami from a submarine landslide off Norway inundated whatever remained of Doggerland.

 

 

So, we are back to the old argument - Invasion Day: 26th January or 29th April?

[willedoo]

Cook was one ship with 100 men on an exploration mission with no brief to stick around, so I'd say 26th. January. That was a fleet intending to colonise. I can't see Cook as any more of an invasion than the French landing in W.A..

[old man emu]

8 minutes ago, willedoo said:

I can't see Cook as any more of an invasion

Yeah, but that's your opinion based on a knowledge of Cook's mission and a logical approach to history. There's lots of people who don't accept that knowledge and lack the ability to discuss it logically.

[spacesailor]

SO ! .

What was Cooks ' tally ' of injured or dead natives .

At Botant Bay in April 1770 .

A proper question as I am a new Australian. 

I found, " he ' stole four spears " , which eventually,  were returned to Australia. 

spacesailor

 

 

[old man emu]

4 hours ago, spacesailor said:

What was Cooks ' tally ' of injured or dead natives

Two.

 

4 hours ago, spacesailor said:

" he ' stole four spears " ,

Originally carried by the Aboriginal men. It's normal practice to secure the weapons of assailants. 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Doesn't it depend on what you mean by "invasion day"? If it means the day that the Brits acquired the knowlesge to determine whether or not they wanted to colonise, it is likely to the April 29; if it is the day a British fleet arrived with the intention of colonising the land, then it owuld have to be Januar 26th (or thereabouts, because the actual date of landing is apparently in dispute).

 

I am going to go on a limb here. Australia Day (as opposed to Invasion Day) should be moved to March 3rd as this is the day in 1986 that the Australia Acts were passed simulatenously in the UK and Australian Commonwealth parliaments which severed all legal ties of Australia back to Britain. This is when Australia became truly independent of Brtiain and should be celebrated.

 

The curernt Australia day should be renamed Invasion Day should be 26th Jan as it was roughly when the first fleet first landed with the intent and initial manpower to establish the new colony of New South Wales. You can't colonise a populated area without invading it (note, invasion is not limited to a military action). But the name, Invasion Day, should probably actually be illegal settlement day. Because, Australia was settled under the doctine of terra nullius, which means empty land; The Brits used this because they thought they could justify the land being empty as the local population had no concept of organised settlement  not discernible laws. However, this was wrong and it was asseted it was intentionally wrong so that the Brits didn't have to adopt parts of the local laws of over 250 countries (after all, that is how many countries were colonised) into the new laws, and of course, there was no need for a treaty. That is what th High Courty of Australia found in 1992 with the Mabo case - that the English broke their own law in the way they settled Australia.

 

There ya go.. managed to rename the existing holiday to be more respectful of yet another wrong perpetrated against the first nations peoples in that the English broke their own law; and got ourselves another public holiday.,. You can thank me later. 😉

 

[old man emu]

My aim in creating this thread was mainly to stir the possum in the ongoing climate of "decolonisation" that seems to be the goal of several sets of squeaky wheels. Those squeaky wheels never seem to have rolled beyond the tar and cement of our major cities to experience of indigenous people whose lives are better than their ancestors'. 

 

There are a few sayings I can quote, albeit from European literature, that indicate that people make things better for themselves and their loved ones if they take hold of advantages offered. Gather ye rosebuds while ye may, from a a 1648 poem by the English Cavalier poet Robert Herrick. "God helps those who help themselves" is found in various forms, in many cultures, from Sophocles to the Present, and  "Indeed Allah will not change the conditions of a population until they change what is in themselves."  Qur'an 13:11. Can anyone point out any situation in Australian society that an indigenous person is barred from, if they decide to make the same effort that any other person makes?

 

As Lady Macbeth utters in Act 5, Scene 1  of the Scottish play, "What's done cannot be undone". Go and ask a group of indigenous people if they prefer their lifestyles now, or would they prefer to go back to the lifestyle of their pre-European ancestors. 

[nomadpete]

Whitefella law (the law of the land in modern times) has decreed that the first British settlement was established illegally.

 

So somebody can declare an 'invasion day' to commemorate that if they wish.

 

However, no living person in the country took part in any invasion. Following that thought, no living person can bear the blame for it. I refuse to be bothered by past injustices. Otherwise, where would I stop? Every person could choose to dredge up past injustices committed by or to previous generations. (No matter where those ancestors came from.)

 

Let every person do the best they can with whatever they are born into, and with whatever opportunities present themselves along the way.

 

I can't drive a car very far just by staring into the rear view mirror.

 

Edited April 29 by nomadpete

[red750]

I saw one of those Star Wars pun memes where Capt. Picard says, "England transported all their Colin's to India, Australia, Africa and America." 

His 2 I.C said, "Why?"

"Because they wanted to Colinise the world."

 

Yes, I know it's stupid, they all are.

 

 

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, red750 said:

Yes, I know it's stupid, they all are.

How can they be stupid when the creator has to have a good knowledge of the Art of Punning?

[facthunter]

Don't bring god into this.  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

6 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Whitefella law (the law of the land in modern times) has decreed that the first British settlement was established illegally.

Unless you are talking the law as it was from the 1600s and modern is relative to Aboriginal society, this is a common misconception. The law was applied as it was at the time (actually, the delcaration of terra nullius was in the 1800s from memory). It's a common mosconception that the courts apply todays law to yesterdays events; it does so only when parliament provides for it in retrospective (or as the yanks say and has cottoned on almost everywhere wlse, retroactive) provisions. The declaration was totally illegal at the time of the direction and at the time of the landing of the first fleet; not in what our modern day values are. If you go to most of the states legislation sites, they provide tools to tell you the law at the time in past so if one is working with, say a cold case that has got warm, one knows what the law was at the time of the event.

 

Yes, in common law, a court can overrule an existing precedent, but it can only do so under strict rules of seniority or where it can distinguish the case with more than a trivial difference. Often they will couch the decision in such a way that it doesn't apply retrospectively, so it is moer changing rather than historically reversing a law.

 

6 hours ago, nomadpete said:

However, no living person in the country took part in any invasion. Following that thought, no living person can bear the blame for it. I refuse to be bothered by past injustices. Otherwise, where would I stop? Every person could choose to dredge up past injustices committed by or to previous generations. (No matter where those ancestors came from.)

By that logic, no one living took part in Galipolli, so we should shut down the annual commeroration of what could be construed objecively as a national disaster - losing all those men in a war that had no impact on Australia. You know, the same way Vietnam vets were treated on their return. What is the saying, if we don't learn from history then we ae condemned to make the same mistakes? Frankly, having a day that honours a travesty that has resulted in a disproprtionately intergenerational displacement and disadvataged native population - claimed to be the worst impact of the worlds displaced indigenous populations - is one where living people who ware still living with the fallout shold be in our minds of making lives better. A day a year that focuses the mind (in so far as any public holiday focuses the mind) would be checking the mirror while we ae driving forward - not staring backwards the whole way.

 

Edited April 29 by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

Please enlighten !.

April 1770. Cooks landing .

Is to be called " invasion " , even though he left with four spears And two dead natives .

The " Invasion day " celebrations are to be January 26 th .

SO.  Are we to get another day off ,  Cooks arrival day & invasion day .

spacesailor

 

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

Please enlighten !.

I was trying to be a bit sarcastic of the people who make a song and dance about the 26th January, but seem to have forgotten the important dates associated with Cook's journey up the east coast. Those dates are his arrival in Botany Bay (29 April), and the date he formally took possession of the east coast, about the end of August 1770.

 

It seems that anything associated with European settlement is cause for protest and blaming. I often wonder what these activists do to earn a living. 

[nomadpete]

4 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

By that logic, no one living took part in Galipolli, so we should shut down the annual commeroration of what could be construed objecively as a national disaster - losing all those men in a war that had no impact on Australia.

I am not saying that past events had no impact or value. I acknowledge the impact of past decisions and actions. However I am saying that it is pointless laying blame on today's people for the past events.

 

For instance I cannot blame the present German people or Japanese people for acts of war committed by their parents/grandparents.

 

Likewise I am not responsible for the illegal declaration that the British made about terra nullius a couple of hundred years ago.

[nomadpete]

4 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Frankly, having a day that honours a travesty that has resulted in a disproprtionately intergenerational displacement and disadvataged native population - claimed to be the worst impact of the worlds displaced indigenous populations - is one where living people who ware still living with the fallout shold be in our minds of making lives better.

We seem happy to honour the travesty of the Anzacs in Gallipoli so a precedent has been  set with that sort of thing.

 

I would argue that the fallout of which you speak is actually a mixed bag. In my opinion a large proportion of the disadvantage is self inflicted. What would you do to make the lives better, of either the disadvantaged descendants of the indigenous, or even of the disadvantaged descendants of poorer 'invaders' ?  Both these demographic groups frequently tend to find difficulty seizing the opportunities to better their lot.

 

Would cancelling or renaming a public holiday on 26th Jan (or any other day) end discrimination and bring peace and good will to everyone?

 

I doubt it would change anything at all.

[Jerry_Atrick]

54 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

However I am saying that it is pointless laying blame on today's people for the past events.

I am not sure how recognising the day for what it really is, is somehow laying the blame on everyone today. Remember, it is the anniversary of the first fleet landing - this was to establish the colony of NSW - not even Australia. If we are going to argue it is the catalyst of tthe fouding of Australia, then I would argue, April 29 is the real date. In other words, the country is celecrating the invasion day (intention to create a colony of NSW, and can't do that to a populated land without invading it) as Australia day, and it would seem that date is not he most appropriate.

 

39 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Would cancelling or renaming a public holiday on 26th Jan (or any other day) end discrimination and bring peace and good will to everyone?

I doubt that, by itself will bring peace and goodwill to mankind.. but one has to take small, but meaningful steps in that direction, right? Or are you suggesting something like waving a wand and magically the full solutions to the worlds problems appear is the only way to solve them? Sorry if I am coming across as flippant or cynical, but it really is an equally flippant or cynical question.

 

But, I guess some feel it would be a meaningful step in the right direction...  And if it does that, then I would support it: https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/australia-day-indigenous-figure-kyra-galante-tells-pm-shifting-date-from-january-26-would-help-reconciliation-c-13196716

 

My preference is Australia Day is moved to March 3rd which is when we finally completely unhitched our remainin legal dependence on Britain. But, if we are insistent on keeping the date, evern as a white dinki-di Aussie, it should be renamed to be reflective of what it really celebrates.. NSW Conolisation Day - because it certainly isn't Australia day.

Edited April 29 by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

30 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

I would argue that the fallout of which you speak is actually a mixed bag. In my opinion a large proportion of the disadvantage is self inflicted.

I would agree - it isn't all about displacement and years of systematic oppression, but I would wager that it has a bigger impact than many think - IMHO, of course.

[Jerry_Atrick]

48 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Likewise I am not responsible for the illegal declaration that the British made about terra nullius a couple of hundred years ago

Sorry about the multiple posts.. I don't think people are blaming individuals today for yesterday's crimes. Neither you nor I are at fault  for the illegal declaration nor the mistreatment for generations afterwards. But, as a society, i.e. collectively, we are in a position to start to make things right... Are we not?

 

In the 90s I think, Germany started paying reparations for the atrocities they committed in WWII.. That includes de-nuding poeople of their assets such as businesses, fine art work, etc (it cut across religions and races, BTW). Very few Germans by that time were alive who were anything but children in the war - and one could hardly hold them accountable. But the society recognised they needed to try some token of making goof for what their forebears did.

 

I think the press make a meal out of it and portray it as if Aboriginals are blaming people today for the colonisation of Australia; some may, but I think you will find many don't.

[nomadpete]

8 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

My preference is Australia Day is moved to March 3rd which is when we finally completely unhitched our remainin legal dependence on Britain.

Great idea! That makes sense.

8 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I think the press make a meal out of it and portray it as if Aboriginals are blaming people today for the colonisation of Australia; some may, but I think you will find many don't.

Here I respect your view, but disagree. Sure, the NSM try to make money out of 'reporting'. But I feel that quite large mobs use the Australia Day issue as leverage to promote blame. If these people (demonstrators) really want to improve the lives of the people they claim to represent, why aren't they out in the bush working with the most needy communities to improve the presently destructive indigenous culture. By destructive culture I refer to normalised tribal and domestic violence, and the loss of moral compass.

 

Personally, I  cannot understand why we celebrate the visit by Capt Cook any more than the Dutch or French who also dropped in for brief visits. So the day has no significance to me whatsoever.

[old man emu]

As I was researching this topic I came across this: In his journal, Cook wrote: ‘so far as we know [it] doth not produce any one thing that can become an Article in trade to invite Europeans to fix a settlement upon it’.  Not exactly a reason to promote colonisation.

 

The myth we have been fed, that the reason for attempting colonisation in 1788 was due to overcrowding of prisons after the loss of the American colonies should be shown up for its falsehood. A lot is made of the effects of loss of the 13 American colonies, but people forget that Britain still held what we now call Canada, as well as places in the Caribbean and Africa which were more convenient places to dump the unwanted. The geopolitical situation in Europe was different in the mid 1780s - a generation after Cook's voyage. France and Britain were at it again, more so in trade than militarily. France held territory in the Pacific. The reports of Cook's voyages had been published, so the French were well aware of the east coast. The Dutch were still a trading force in south-east Asia, and the China and Indian trade was going strong. 

 

So the British government decided to establish a colony close to the holdings of its rivals. The colony was meant to produce material to support Britain's navy. Don't forget that a big product of India was hemp, which the British had to buy from the growers. Rope was made from hemp, and a British naval vessel required miles of it. How more profitable would it be to grow your own?  On 10 October 1774, on his second voyage to the South Pacific on HMS Resolution, Cook discovered Norfolk Island and its famous Norfolk pines, which could be used to repair or replace the masts of naval vessels.

 

So, the basic reason for establishing a colony was not to clear the gaols, but for military advantage. It would be a place to grow hemp and to process timber from Norfolk Island, even possibly establish the pines near the colony.  Obviously the British government would never be able to get volunteers to be the "first settlers on Mars", so it staffed the initial expedition with people who had already been sentenced to transportation. The role of the first arrivals would simply be to build the basic infrastructure of a settlement, so there was not a great effort made in selecting for trades skills. A strong back and a weak mind were highly desired qualities.

[spacesailor]

" England held Canada " .

Not quite ! .

French Canadians ' will ' disagree with you there .

Lost America .

But sold English men as slaves , to them .

 

Don't blame our ' new ' Australians.  Blame the crooks in power .

Labor has lost our vote for the next election,  because of trying to split Australians 

Into two factions. 

spacesailor

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

" England held Canada " . Not quite ! French Canadians ' will ' disagree with you there .

 

In 1754, Great Britain and France began to fight in Canada. France allied itself with Aboriginal Canadians to boost its small troop numbers, but it was no match for British forces. By 1759, the British had roundly defeated the French and the French and Indian War (part of the broader conflict called the Seven Years War) ended soon after. The war officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on February 10, 1763. As part of the treaty, France formally renounced its claims to all its North American lands to Britain (of which the French colony of Canada was a part), except Louisiana (which had been instead ceded to Spain).

 

Britain gained control of a strip of territory along the St. Lawrence River with a population of at least 70,000 French-speaking Roman Catholics, which was expanded and renamed as the Province of Quebec under the Quebec Act of 1774. The Quebec Act allowed the French Canadians to retain their Catholic religion and their French system of civil law.