Australia Day, as January 26, is dead. Gone. Already over. It will keep walking around for a few years, maybe a decade or so, but there will eventually be another national day. What day that will be? God knows. But it will have to be a day that marks something of both settler and Indigenous importance. Maybe “1967 Referendum Day”? “Mabo Day”? It might end up being plain old bloody Anzac Day, since Aboriginal soldiers served. They were shabbily treated then and after, but serve they did, a result which might actually be worse than January 26. The day Trevor Chappell bowled underarm? The anniversary of Khe Sanh’s release? Any of these.
Australia Day was gone as soon as it could start to be questioned by more than a small minority of the population. In 1938, Aboriginal activists, Communists and some radical Christians staged the first Day of Mourning on Australia Day. Such a marking came and went — as did regard for Australia Day itself — over the decades, returning to public attention as “Invasion Day” in the radical 1970s, and again on the Bicentennial in 1988. But it remained the preserve of Indigenous activists and the white radical left, overwhelmingly an inner-urban intelligentsia and related groupings.
Why has it suddenly become a live wire? Because, of course, the intelligentsia are no longer a marginal grouping, at the edge of an industrial economy. They are now the knowledge class, at the centre of a knowledge/culture economy. To operate that economy and society, they must be trained to think reflexively, to incessantly reshape their own work, life conditions, etc. When those capacities are turned towards the consideration of social life, the unquestioning transmission of tradition is interrupted. Everything is held up to scrutiny, against the claims of a liberal society: of equality of all peoples, of the right to live, and to flourish equally as human beings.
[Fuck off, we’re full (of contradictions): the discontents of Australia Day]
Once that has become general among the knowledge class, and once the knowledge class has ensured that it becomes general in the wider primary/secondary education system — amidst a world changed so that everyone lives surrounded by a mass culture emphasising equality, a cosmopolitan world — it’s all over red rover. At some point some things start to seem obvious to people, and their inherited absence absurd. At some point, for enough people, the idea that you celebrate the violent destruction of a life-world — the entire realm of being of a people — just became a ridiculous proposition, something one chokes on.
For decades, Australia Day, Empire Day, etc, were celebrations of one thing: the British race, and its expansion to world domination, as its right. After World War II, race identity was discredited, liberalism enthroned. The 1960s-1990s characterless Australia Day — beer, beach, BBQ — appears to have been a de facto cultural shift in that light. By the 2000s, Australia was no longer Anglo-dominated, so even the ghost of a race holiday had ceased to work. Howard, whose policies had ensured the snuffing-out of Anglo-Australia, tried to re-inscribe it with an ersatz Anglo-derived nationalism layered over the top.
The coda to this was the Cronulla white riots. In response, Rudd, adopting the “progressive patriotism” of Tim Soutphommasane, tried to engineer a content-free national pride focused on abstract values entirely — ending on the absurdity of an ad campaign asking the general public to design their own Australia Day, which pretty much blew the whole thing up. That opened the way for the current contestation, which has been given a powerful boost by the new global rebellion against white narratives and unquestioned authority.
[How the Australia Day culture war came to WA]
Conservatives trying to turn this into a culture war are helping hurry January 26 to extinction — because as soon as the contested nature is acknowledged, what remains of the day’s mystique has been wholly surrendered. If they were genuinely concerned about keeping Australia Day, they would retreat to a pluralist position, say that: ‘No one day can represent everyone in a modern society, and no one is obliged to mark it. We will mark it as a simple gesture to continuity, to the past of the present, to the struggles, triumphs, defeats, hopes and dreams of those who went before, to the world they made that we live in.’
That sort of release valve would probably save the day, drawing on Australian conservatism’s best friend: our nation’s deep residual apathy. Instead, whether out of nihilistic political calculus, or sheer stupidity, the right are fueling the progressive fire. Surely they realise by now this principle: in our era, where a proposed reform cuts with the grain of the liberal ideal of universal equality and rights — and makes a law or institution a simpler expression of that universality — it will begin as a progressive/knowledge class cause, and end up being taken up a mass belief. It is only when progressives try to institute changes that enforce their particularistic view as policy and law, that they get rebuffed. Thus, same-sex marriage triumphs, but Safe Schools doesn’t. Recognition and a treaty would get through, but a “Voice to Parliament” probably wouldn’t. Moving Australia Day will eventually come to be seen as a necessary act to live up to a modern liberal ideal. The more the right campaign against it, the sooner that will occur.
The issue I have with this debate is that for a large proportion of the anti-Australia Day crowd, changing the date is not enough. The deeply engrained ‘black armband’ view of history means that they fundamentally don’t want to celebrate Australia’s national identity.
If enough people are upset that our national day coincides with the landing of the first fleet (something that, as polling suggests, most people no longer even realise happened on 26 January) then by all means change the date. But can we at least have an Australia Day? And can it be in summer?
“Craig”. Funny way of spelling John Winston Howard.
I disagree with Howard on very many thing, but when it comes Western values and Enlightenment principles, he was 100% correct. Might be why so many people attempt to migrate, by any means necessary, to countries that espouse those principles?
Holy crap ! Enlightenment ! John Winston “the rat ” Howard didn’t espouse those values !!!!
The enlightenment was ended by the conservatives who were afraid of a revolution. The co discoverer of oxygen (and soda water) Joseph Priestley was forced to go to the USA when the mob burned his house. Howard was a racist twit and always was since he first appeared in Fraser’s cabinet. Howard did not follow anything that looked like the enlightenment philosophy. Anti-science, anti-intellectual, divisive disaster.
The Enlightenment was a mess of contradictory thinkers, made up of mutually antagonistic radical and conservative wings. I cannot see any hint of even the conservative Enlightenment in our government. Rule by the educated and intelligent, a la Voltaire, Frederick II of Prussia and later Saint- Simon, for example? No: instead we have (usually) greedy and selfish corporations, whose leaders are aped by equally well paid barons of Universities. These increasingly forsake their underlings, who pass on knowledge, and employ better-paid semi literate minions whose aim it is to turn these institutions into corporations too. What then are the benefits of civilisation that the Aborigines are to be grateful for?
Who? Show us this ‘large proportion’. I can only think of 2 people, myself, and a bloke that wrote a blog post on the ‘IndigenousX’ site.
Maybe a ‘large proportion’ was a bit of a stretch, but I think the general point stands. Anecdotally I know of quite a few people who hold that position. Yourself included apparently.
I’m not sure it does stand if there isn’t a real and strong movement calling for it. You even cite the recent polling! How do you look at the polling and even begin to worry about some theoretical push to abolish a national day entirely? It wouldn’t even get up on a public vote let alone parliament.
I do see your point, but I don’t think you need to have a majority of the public behind a movement to cause change.
A small vocal minority can lead to great change in society, particularly where they hold the balance of power in Parliament (think the Greens).
Incidentally, public holidays are enacted on a State/ Territory basis, it’s not impossible to imagine a progressive State with a Green’s balance of power leading to Australia Day being abolished in that State. I do agree that the likelihood is fairly small though.
30000 marched in the largest marriage equality rally – 50000 marched in the largest change the date rally. So far no-one appears to called for or rallied to abolish A.Day. The push is for a date that holds no baggage and is inclusive. There are literally hundreds of such days.
Why not become a Republic and have an Independence Day holiday?
Republic Day is a great idea. However assuming the republic comes about peacefully and not by some sudden uprising we will still have to choose a starting date which raises exactly the same question. Will it kick off on 1 Jan like Federation. Why not 26 Jan as a nice historic bookend? Or why not 25 April for the diggers? Or 24 May for Bob Dylan’s birthday? Could be as much fun as choosing the flag or the new national anthem.
I agree Craig. You don’t need to go deep in the comments of a place like The Guardian (let alone Twitter or Facebook) to see that for many, the objection is to celebrating Australia as a nation at all, because they see it as endorsing the British invasion to begin with.
There’s no doubt at all that the Aboriginal peoples of Australia have been invaded, mistreated, held down as second class citizens, suffered through the policies that created the stolen generations and still to this day suffer from serious inequality. I just don’t believe the solution to any of that involves changing Australia Day or demanding modern Australians reject the invasion any more than we should be demanding modern day Japanese people apologise for WW2 before they’re allowed over the border. There’s not a country in the world today founded without someone invading someone in its past.
Arky, the UK wouldn’t be the country it is today if the Normans hadn’t invaded in 1066, just as we would not be the country we are today without the arrival of the First Fleet. And indeed, in the same way that many Australians are entitled to prize their First Fleet pedigrees, so the UK aristocracy may flaunt any vestige of Norman heritage. But that doesn’t mean the Brits should regard that particular invasion, the day they became an appendage of Norman France, as their founding event. And neither should we feel obliged to celebrate, as our national day, the annexation by Britain of a small proportion of our east coast as a penal colony.
Personally, I would want something far more, well… Australian: e.g. the day when we declare ourselves a republic, preferably occurring immediately after we have properly recognised the original owners.
I agree with the basic thrust of the argument, but the difference from same-sex marriage is that there everyone knew what to do: fixing it was as simple as changing a few words in the Marriage Act (and even that took a long time). While Australia day might seem less significant, it’s more complicated: you have to find an alternative date that people can agree on. And I think inertia will prevent that happening for quite a while.
I rather like the month of July. Definitely a good time for a public holiday.
“The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) was passed on 5 July 1900 and given Royal Assent by Queen Victoria on 9 July 1900”
(Providing, of course, that either of those dates aren’t anniversaries of indigenous massacres.)
Quite like that idea, Paddy. There’s enough public holidays between Christmas and Easter already. Plus we have Queen’s Birthday in June (at least here in Vic) – so Australia Day in July and, maybe eventually, Recognition Day in August. And Republic Day in October.
Party on, people!
9 May might be good, the first sitting of Federal Parliament in 1901. And that would make Australia Day Eve occur on May 8 (ie “Maaaaaate”).
But it’s Australia, and unlike America, we write the date 8 May. So it’d be Eightmay, which sounds weird.
Also, is it just me, or does the crowd pushing May 8 also seem to be same crowd with the biggest aversion to Australian culture? Seems hypocritical
‘eightmay’ is the pig Latin version of ‘mate’
I want to like your comment Zut so ‘like’
That’s hilarious. Thank you.
As shown in the SMH op-ed cartoon last week, there are precious few days that aren’t so tainted.
Why not revert to the system that applied before 1988. Australia Day was observed on the day, with the public holiday on the 26th, or the following Monday. It gave us a long weekend before the schools resumed, and gave many towns a chance to stage an annual event that brought money into the town
The objection is to treating the 26th of January as something worth celebrating.
There are also some who object to celebrating Australia at all, apparently in the belief that merely living here in 2018 endorses the actions of British colonials and unaware that if you hold countries to that standard you couldn’t live anywhere on Earth without shame.
I’ve long thought that moving the public holiday to the 26th instead of having a ‘January long-weekend each’ year was un-Auastralian.
‘…Australian conservatism’s best friend: our nation’s deep residual apathy.’
Is it possible to keep the 26th but, in line with our cultural tradition, simply rename it Apathy Day?