Kudos for an incredible own goal to the person at the ABC who came up with the idea of officially condoning the use of the term “Invasion Day” instead of Australia Day.
The incredibly inflammatory and premature decision is certainly going to polarise the nation further and even set back moves to either change the date or the name of the day.
The whole debate had increasingly begun to move in favour of those wanting a change.
But these things take time and you need to take the community with you. Many people, including some in the middle who might have been swayed over time, were shocked by the ABC’s move and had to read the news for themselves to believe the broadcaster had made such a provocative call.
As evidence: the lead story in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age this morning has the latest survey showing that fewer than a third of Australians support the campaign to change the date. With only 28% in favour the story noted “there is a long way to go if a campaign is to succeed in convincing Australians of the need to change the date from January 26”.
The poll does note that more than half the respondents thought the date would be changed in the next 10 years, which reflected the generational divide on the issue.
And this is my point. The mood was changing already without the risky move by the ABC. The national broadcaster should be reflecting the community’s views, while giving voice to the other side of the argument — not arbitrarily deciding to change them.
Don’t get me wrong. I too have a problem with January 26 being claimed as our national day and believe the day must equally encompass the other side of the story. I absolutely see the case for Invasion Day.
A national day for any country should be about the whole country and the country as a whole. It should be unifying. By all means mark January 26 rightly as Invasion Day. But don’t pretend that they are interchangeable.
Independence Day on July 4 is a good example. Few in the United States celebrate the lesser known and more controversial Columbus Day celebrating the anniversary of Christopher Columbus’ arrival in the Americas.
The other issue is that this is a very political decision from an ABC that had been treading so lightly that its own news director Gaven Morris recently warned its funding could be impacted “if we’re seen to be representing inner city elite interests”.
Talk about an over correction. Morris’ comments were quite correctly called out for being craven. Equally the ABC should never fear taking the right position because of the baying of the Murdoch media and those nasty little imbeciles who suffer ABC derangement syndrome.
Nevertheless, it has to be said that this decision is absolutely playing into the hands of its opponents.
The official edict states it would be inappropriate to insist that staff only call it Australia Day or “use any one term over others in all contexts”.
Strange then that only a couple of weeks ago the same ABC news management told journos not to refer to the attack on the US Capitol as an “insurrection”. You have to wonder just what is going on in the heads of the news management there at the moment.
Thus far the ABC has stood by its Australia Day decision, despite the outrage from the usual far-right MPs and Sky blatherers. Not to mention Scotty From Marketing’s reaction, which will divert from his ludicrous “it wasn’t flash for the First Fleet either” comments last week.
It’s possible that, when the Australia Day finally changes, the ABC move may be looked back on as a catalyst.
But I fear it will have the opposite effect, and instead cement the day and the name and the divisions it provokes.
Has the ABC made the right decision on its use of Invasion Day and Australia Day? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say column.
Hands up anyone who’s surprised to see various self-declared champions of free speech (again) hammering the ABC for its failure to self-censor by limiting itself to only saying things they agree with.
Well, at least the ABC is never going to try and upset the rising property market of roof over your head housing prices.
It doesn’t matter what the ABC does, Murdoch’s skutters would find fault with it because the ABC isn’t in lock-step with Rupert’s/their political agenda.
Those Murdoch minions are part of our society. Their propaganda mainlines (rather than challenges) the beliefs of a particular demographic and obfuscates debate – why can’t we see more coverage in our media of what they’re doing, especially from ex-frat/sorority house-mates?
I blame whoever decided to make it a jingoistic Public Holiday instead of the mostly-ignored long-weekend Monday I grew up with.
Sounds like that would be John Howard!
Ah yes, I do believe you’re right!
It was legislated in 1993. Ironic that Keating, who delivered the Redfern speech, should have then gone and done this.
Hah! The ABC frequently indulges in jingoism… such as the campaign during the first half of 2020 with its awful “nyaah nyaah nyaah nyaah nyaah”-styled cover of “I am Australian” and the vomit-inspiring narration “The Aussie spirit can’t be broken”. And now we have to put up with a string quartet playing Madness’ “It Must be Love” accompanied by self-congratulation.
Having Australia Day on January 26th sounds pretty inflammatory in the first place.
I see your point about the politics around using the term “Invasion Day”. However I don’t want a news outlet that merely “reflects community views”. I want a news outlet that is factually correct, even if it ruffles a few feathers. January 26 was the date of a military force invading a peaceful country, and any effort to deny that fact denies original Australians their story.
It seems that “factually correct” is to accord with your perspective. There was no illegality in claiming the country for George and progeny. Ergo for the voyage.
Black armband-ism upon 18th century mores betrays and inability to read history.
I can’t remember saying the invasion was illegal ( at least as per laws written by British politicians). I just said it is a fact that the invasion occurred.
Doubtless that you will receive this remark as splitting hair but given the right for the ships to set sail (House of Commons) their embarkation point was, just as logically, not the location of an invasion.
You’re right. This is splitting hairs and missing the point. We are talking about whether it is reasonable for the ABC to refer to the invasion of Australia by England as Invasion Day. Which it is.
.mmm we disagree. Yet I am comforted that we share such a tolerant and multicultural country.
Do you disagree that England invaded aboriginal Australia?
Indeed I do. The assertion that there was an invasion is utterly idiotic. I’m almost being tired of typing that Australia was claimed, quite rightly and with due process, for George III.
The land, then, belonged to him and to is successors. Those are the facts of the matter.
The House of Commons had every right to direct a fleet to Australia (the contents being an irrelevance for the discussion) and, ipso facto, the ships had every entitlement to berth at Sydney. Such WAS the REAL WORLD then.
History is to be evaluated from the customs and mores at the time. Surely there is nothing more obvious.
Let me put it this way for your. Should Australia be invaded by country XYZ just what would you do after the fighting had come to an end? The only sensible option would be to learn the mannerisms of the invading elites. Those that do so survive as a survey over two or three millennia will attest.
I was just about to shoot your arguments down in flames again, when I noticed you used the term INVADING elites in your last paragraph. So your argument that the British colonisation wasn’t an invasion was shot down by you. Thanks for saving me the trouble
oh – have a go by all means!
George, via the Commons, could NOT be said to have invaded what belonged to the Crown having been claimed for the Crown. Alternatively, because the Brits owned the land, that is the destination, there was no invasion; just on the definition of the worlds. It is that simple Locust.
Now, if we intend to become sentimental we are in another playground.
Should any aboriginal grievance find itself in the High Court I’ll accept whatever judgement occurs but, for the nth time (today) let’s not hammer-weld 21st century perspectives onto 18th century decisions of the House of Commons. From Monty Python : “its silly”!
Perhaps “occupy” is a better word than “invade”. Nappy invaded, with army and all. The Dutch, French, Portuguese and English just occupied foreign country.
Indeed; post The Roses and certainly post Westphalia into the 18th century.
There is the conquest of the Ottomans and Russia for that matter. Russia was Moscow, more or less until about 1350.
Certainly true for the Peninsula Wars. Trade (advantages) rather than land, per se, was becoming the issue. Also, nationalism had set in. Good point.
Then by your logic there is no such thing as an invasion, as the invading force could just preemptively claim the land they are invading?
Is what you asked a genuine question L or a stir of the pot? My answer is contained in a number of posts from yesterday.
Genuine question, trying to get to the logic of your previous posts. My argument is more comprehensively made by Griselda Lamington in the following comment
In that case, L., I’m happy to expand upon what I have already posted.
The ‘modern’ view of rights being extended to all persons is very new. Matters such as a sense of equality, self determination, job opportunities etc. and deemed ‘normal’ nowadays but at about the turn of the 20th century most people thought the opposite.
The claim is evidenced by reading The Times of the 1890s to about 1910. Bertrand Russell (a famous British philosopher of the Empiricist school) gave a number of interviews to the BBC on his 80th birthday in the early 1950s. Bertie made the point that, as to a concept of class and social customs, “what was in stone circa 1900 is barely in evidence today”. Needless to say that the world has changed again, radically, over the last 70 years.
Deep breath : The negotiations with the East India Company and the various Indian Princes and nobles) we extensive and a matter of record; interesting reading by the way. From the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) there was a clear recognition of the rights of a respective country.
That India was as class-ridden as England (the Act of Union had yet to occur) went a considerable way to
making the arrangement a success. However, given the reports of Dampier (English) and Tasman (Dutch) along with Cook Australia
(modern name) was for all practical purposes, from the perspective of the Commons and the Lords, “empty” or belonging to no one; to wit : terra nullius.
On that basis (different for NZ 50 years later) George was pleased to condescend to the advice of his Ministers and proceed with a new colony.
Ms Lamington is correct when she states “By English law, the local people owned the land”. Indeed : THAT recognition is expressed in
the NZ Treaty of Waitangi (1840). In essence, The Maori gave all land to the Crown and in return the Crown recognised that Maori had a right to easement in regard to the land and its natural contents.
When it became apparent that ownership was ‘individual’ and not community based issues occurred in the 1860s with a good deal of the drama occurring, literally, in and around my home town along with a 30km radius. As an aside, the signature of a relative (W. Motion) appears on the Treaty.
However, in the case of terra nullus, by definition, there are no local people; at least not at law. Read the log books of Dampier. He described the individuals that he saw as (literally) ‘barely human’ and the word of a gentleman counted for something in those days.
Concluding, L., the rights of inhabitants in ‘legitimate’ countries have been recognised since Westphalia at least for European nations which, I hope, has addressed your question. However, by way of conclusion, let’s take a peek at Ottoman Rule.
Having sorted out the Christians (Orthodox – not Latin) in 1453 they controlled from Modern Turkey to the Middle East and a chunk of North Africa and also to Bulgaria in due course. Yet the occupation was never
considered a ‘Turkish’ occupation because there was no sense of nationalism as we understand the term today.
The Ottomans were considered (for good or ill) as a (or the) legitimate Muslim authority. Despite the doctrines expressed in the Quran (with a nod to Russell – above) there was never an assumption (or understanding) that individuals ought to be treated equally in any sense.
Ditto for 18th century UK and Europe. For the Ottoman Empire, one’s religion determined one’s rights and hence how one was to be treated (tolerance to Jews and Christians) but also as to obligations to taxes and associations.
I hope the foregoing has been useful. Enjoy the bbq.
Hey Locust, get a load of the artful dodger’s weaving and ducking below (many comments). He’ll go to impressive lengths to avoid answering a simple question.
Once again, mate, you didn’t answer a simple question question, but chose to suck up the oxygen with your semantic games. When you find a dictionary that accords with your bizarre definition of ‘invasion’, let us know. In the meantime, maybe you could ask your grand-children what the word means.
Reply embargoed mate : maybe tomorrow. Perhaps it was the mention of religions.
Yes, that seems to be his ‘logic’. And, like all lies, if he repeats it often enough, he even starts to believe it. Alice in Wonderland stuff!
Evidence mate or is a current Minister or Goebbels your hero? Could it be that you are miffed (offended?) at being edified?
Some don’t care for the implications of my posts but they do have the education to acknowledge the content.
You are, of course, quite right in our assertion of the fundamental legality of the English colonisation of New Holland – by English law. However, by the laws of the local people, colonisation was absolutely illegal. Hence from the indigenous perspective, invasion is an entirely apposite descriptor.
Notwithstanding the legality, by English law, of the Crown claim to the continent, there was a significant body of English law which was blatantly ignored by the colonisers – this being laws regarding the right of property. By English law, the local people owned the land. It was their property. Hence, their violent dispossession, without compensation, under the legal fiction of Terra Nullius, was, and remains a illegal – under English law; as was found by the High Court in 1992.
You could make quite a strong case that the entire non-aboriginal population of Australia could be said to be living off the proceeds of crime.
Agree, Griselda, with the qualification that the legality of the British colonisation was based on the legal fiction of terra nullius. The implication of the High Court’s Mabo decision (that the Australian continent was not in fact uninhabited) is that the British colonisation was not legal, since it was based on legal BS.
I believe the Nazis didn’t see anything illegal in their moves into Poland, France, Russia, etc. So I guess those invasions didn’t happen either or are just a matter of ‘perspective’. Really Rassie, your sophistry knows no bounds. Did you work for Goebbels in a previous life?
And they did more than just claim technical sovereignty over the land for the Crown. They vested ownership of the land in the Crown and began a 150-year process of forcibly stealing it from its original inhabitants.
But I guess there was no British law against that either, so the historical facts of the frontier war must be just another morally neutral ‘perspective’.
true Peter.
My reply of 24 hours ago to Erasmus is still embargoed by the algorithm. I’ll change a word or two and try again:
I believe the National Socialists didn’t see anything illegal in their moves into Poland, France, Russia, etc. So I guess those invasions didn’t happen either or are just a matter of ‘perspective’. Really Rassie, your sophistry knows no bounds. Did you work for Goebbels in a previous life?
You can’t be serious! However, doing what I can to help, and remain positive, attempt the following :
(1) research and write 500 words on the Treaty of Westphalia associating the intent of the Treaty to National Sovereignty.
(2) Express an opinion as to the Monroe Doctrine relating to the Treaty (250 words)
(3a) Compare (1) to the (Roman) legal res nullius and to terra nullius OR
(3b) compare the declaration of John Adams (6th president) regarding ‘wilderness’ to Hobson’s designation of the South Island of NZ as terra nullius.
Not onerous but edifying I think that you will find Peter.
All irrelevant to the definition of ‘invasion’.
So, doing what I can to help, please find a dictionary, and write out the definition of ‘invasion’ 100 times.
If you find a definition of invasion that excludes situations where the invader justifies it by their own ideology, cultural beliefs, laws or imperial edict, let us know.
Until then, discussion is pointless with someone who fabricates his own idiosyncratic and contrary meaning to words that are clearly defined in any dictionary. I hope you didn’t teach English.
The exercise will assist you in defining an invasion. That *IS* the point of the exercise. Common dictionaries do not define legal or diplomatic terms. The topic does require a sense of sophistication.
You’ve put up a great fight Erasmus. To me, your arguments resonate. And you kept calm under fire from multiple fronts too. I actually commented on another similar article that my capacity to debate Australia/Invasion Day is well over, due to year on year mental exhaustion. The signal/noise ratio is just off the chart for me now. So, the best I can do is to provide my moral support. Good points, and I’m thankful you have the courage to speak them.
My sole belief, R., is that the truth will win but it could require decades or centuries.
I was in my mid 20s when I encountered Ayer’s “Language, Truth and Logic”. It is not a big book but it trashed utterly both Metaphysics and Idealism. Ayer WROTE the book (mid 1930s) at the age that I read it.
I felt better having read Hemingway on both Henry and Arthur Miller (not related). F. Scott F. “The Crack Up” provided a dab of inspiration too.
At the age of 19 I (along with others) had good army instructors. As an aside, the monkeying with gender remains altogether untested. The Crown has a right to select. The individual does not have a right to serve; elsewhere perhaps but not in the military. It is a different world now as is illustrated by Afghanistan.
To help the rest of us grappling with this exercise in creative linguistics, which of the following are NOT invasions according to your more ‘sophisticated legal and diplomatic’ definition:
Not a bad list at all Peter and indicative of Christian fellowship with an exception here and there.
As I say, relate the above to Westphalia and Monroe. The history of the 30 Years War would have done just as well.
As for Australia, for the nth time, rex nullius determines the criteria (which I also suggested that you take a look at – along with the justification for the (so called) 1849-ers.
Please answer the question.
If you are unable to recognise that I HAVE answered your question there is nothing more to say. Religious nutters and similar insist on biblical type answers and typically binary responses.
Were you ten years old I would point out 13 is a clear example of not qualifying as an invasion (ratified by a Treaty) . ‘9’ is a discussion point but I’m surprised that your zealotry prevented Jamestown (1604-7) or the Pilgrims (similar to Oz) being included in your list.
I’m sorry to say that you come across as a lazy correspondent.
Refusing to answer clarifying questions is no way to engage in rational and honest discussion. I note you also refused to answer locust’s question above. Is your position so indefensible?
Not sure how (in the case of 13) a treaty agreed to after an invasion is proof that there was no invasion. ‘9 is a discussion point’ doesn’t answer my question.
I would have thought it obvious that the list was not meant to be an exhaustive list of all invasions, but some examples to tease out your meaning of ‘invasion’. According to my dictionary (and the Google algorithm) they’re all invasions, notwithstanding that some are more justifiable than others. The fact that most of them were authorised by a legal process within the invading state is irrelevant to the definition of ‘invasion’.
Mate, sorry but you simply don’t get it. I’m not responsible for your knowledge or comprehension. Should anyone whose opinion I regard conveys that an answer of mine is incomplete I will revisit the subject question.
Peter, is it really the case that you deem the invasion of (eg) Poland in 1939 equivalent with a legal voyage in 1788 to current day Sydney because if such is case then, generalising to the electorate, the quality of government in regard to technological innovation and diplomacy should be no great wonder.
Very different invasions, but both invasions, according to English dictionaries (unwelcome intrusions into another’s space) and Google algorithms. I have no idea what the second half of your response means.
Please make an effort. You have been told previously that dictionaries ARE NOT A SOURCE for definitions of legal or diplomatic terms.
I rather liked –
#17 Normandy invasion of 1944.
Did Normandy become self aware, discover time travel and the ability to invade Time?
Hence my homework to the fellow. He would have had, at least, a concept of a nation state by now.
Allowing for the warfare that I referred to, the entire list has to be stacked into distinct, qualifying, piles but I realised that I had to confine an reply to the level primary school.
Not sure what the concept of the nation state has to do with the definition of ‘invasion’. Are you saying that ‘invasion’ can only be used when it is a European-style nation state that is invaded?
I would have thought inability/unwillingness to clearly explain and justify one’s position was more primary-school level than asking intellectually rigorous questions.
Invasion is like bullying and sexual assault. You don’t just ask the perpetrator, because they redefine it as something much more honorable. You also ask the victim. Maybe your eighteenth century eurocentric filters have you air-brushing the events of 1788. We’re now in the 21st century.
Peter, do undertake some formal reading of the matter. The concept of the the nation state DEFINES what is (and what is not) an invasion.
Rassie, I know answering questions is not your forte, but in 100 words or fewer, please explain how the nation state defines what is and is not an invasion.
I could ask you what the nation state has to do with the following examples of invasions (taken from reputable English dictionaries):
home invasions
alien invasions
invasion of tourists/shoppers
soccer/cricket pitch invasions
invasion of privacy/personal space
locust/insect invasions
cancer cells invading surrounding tissue
Hispanic invasions.
But I’ll save you the trouble. The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
So I’ll satisfy myself awaiting your <100 words on how the nation state defines what is and is not an invasion – no ducking and weaving, no irrelevant historical references, just nice, clear, rational exposition.
Peter, I’m suggesting that you read some basic articles as to statehood post the Treaty of Westphalia. Such is required of any student taking a basic course in international relations.
Characteristics as to Sovereignty will leap from the page. Diplomatic engagement is the basis which is sustained by these principles (albeit far from clear to Cky staff who have attempted articles on HK and surrounds).
In 17 words, the rightful claim that George had (to Federation) vested with Cook claiming the country for the Crown.
In short, until Cook, no one “owned” the place. For January 1788 that was the state of play.
If you requesting 100 words on Westphalia, Sovereignty and, hence, nation states I’m happy to oblige.
Thankyou. That is an adequate explanation of the eighteenth century European mindset, based on the legal fiction of terra nullius. They didn’t see themselves as invading someone else’s homeland, but we do. So in our understanding, it was an invasion.
Previous generations didn’t see the evils of slavery or racism either, but we call them that now. Hitler and co. didn’t see anything wrong with the holocaust either, but we don’t just shrug and say, ‘It’s not our place to judge a previous era’s actions’.
And that, my friend, is where we must agree to disagree. To me evil is evil, regardless of how the perpetrators may justify it (and justify it they always do). You (like most white Australians) may well choose to whitewash historical evils and their present-day sequelae, but I don’t.
So it would appear mate. Despite your laudable hopes for the world, the reality is that diplomacy is conducted as I have conveyed.
Take a peek at the the politics of the the South China Sea and the Middle East (ex Ottoman with borders drawn with the fountain pens of bureaucrats) to identify two examples. Good luck with your campaign.
Common English usage, but possibly depends on how well-read one is.
The problem with the ‘common usage’ excuse is that it demonstrates the need for specificity in language which the lowest common denominator cannot provide.
Peter ought to sit in the gallery where an insurance case is being heard. Despite a policy in (so called) “plain English” the semantics from both sides amount to a barrister’s picnic.
Agni, if you’re struggling to understand the wonderful variations possible in the rich English language in general and the telegraphic dot point, ‘Normandy invasion of 1944’ specifically, then I suggest you proceed no further and go back to watching ‘Play School’.
Not sure whether you’ve noticed, Rassie, but since 1992 terra nullius has been judged a legal fiction.
Not sure how European treaties and US imperialistic ambitions are relevant to the definition of the English word ‘invasion’.
You have not been paying attention to the comments of others Peter; just from last evening.
Leaving the “revision” of Terra Nullius to one side, for the nth time, the intent of the voyage of 11 ships to Sydney WAS legal. As I have explained previously : Australia was the property of George III from (1st day) 22Aug1770; Cook having taken possession the previous evening.
Regarding your last sentence / paragraph let me explain. To the Americas transportation and settlement was occurring WELL PRIOR to the Act of Union and continued AFTER the Act of Union.
If you wish to write to Wyatt or Porter to sort it out to your liking please don’t hesitate.
So you think terra nullius still applies, do you – that the Australian continent was uninhabited when Cook ‘took possession’ of it thereby (in your view) making it the property of the British crown?
If so, what do you make of the 1,000,000-odd people living on the continent in 1788? Sub-humans, maybe?
Please note, I’m not asking how the eighteenth century British imperial mind would answer the questions, but what you think was actually the case in 1788. (By way of comparison, the mediaeval Catholic mind thought that the sun revolved around the earth – but that didn’t make it true.)
Because the issue we’re debating is not whether the British imperialists saw their colonisation as an invasion, but whether we today consider it as an invasion.
I intended to add : if the event was not an invasion then (1788) just as obviously it cannot be considered an invasion now. However, if parliament wishes to obliterate Torrens System with the High Court concurring I will just have to find another fence to sit upon.
I have answered the question (ad nauseam) but you won’t be told. I wasn’t there to make the rules or to umpire the game. However, with the least inconvenient reading, I do know what the rules mean and how they came to be.
As to your generic description, there is no homogeneity over the history. Migrations occurred in drips and drabs, a the appearance of the dingo confirms.
While there is uncertainty about Mungo Man then invasion day is unknown.
The people of MungoMan were H.Robusta and much later entrants, at least of the south, than the resident H.Gracile who only survived as a population in the Merkin Isle.
This small point really causes heads to explode amongst the neoDarwinists.
I wonder if Mungo apologised.
Unlikely.
I also doubt that a treaty was discussed.
You’re right! With this provocative move, the ABC might cause journalists to write about the issue!
p.s. National Days! (spot the odd one out)
USA – 4 July – 4 July 1776 the US federation was created, with the declaration of independence from Britain
Canada – 1 July – 1 July 1867 Canadian federation was created, with the passing of the Constitution Act
NZ – 6 Feb – 6 February 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was signed which marked the end of the colonial war between Britain and the Maori
China – 1 Oct – 1 October 1949 the People’s Republic of China was created, following communist victory in the civil war
Japan – 11 Feb – 11 Feb 660BC Japan was (supposedly) founded by Emperor Jimmu
France – 14 July – 14 July 1790, the people of Paris stormed the Bastille prison, leading to the formation of the French Republic
Germany – 3 Oct – 3 October 1990 the modern country of Germany was formed by the reunification of East and West after the cold war
Norway – 17 May – 17 May 1814 the Kingdom of Norway was formed with the signature of the Constitution by King Karl Johan
Australia – 26 Jan – 26 January 1788 people (including convicts) debarked from a fleet of 11 ships of British settlers in Sydney cove, to take over the continent of Australia
Correction – The Treaty of Waitangi did not end war between the colonisers and Māori. The New Zealand wars came later partly because Māori failed to see the treaty being applied as they interpreted it / as explained to them.
Thank you Richard. Updated to:
The treaty of Waitangi was signed marking British recognition of Maori ownership of the products of the land, the sea and the sky.
\land
I think that you will find that the people of Norway finally won their independence and became a sovereign country, separating from Sweden on 26th October, 1905.
Two countries with the same king. Kind of like England & Scotland
Brian Boru might have had an opinion re the kingship of John Bull’s Other Island.
Try telling that to the Norwegians.
Closer to our shores, 17th August 1945, the Proclamation of Independence of Indonesia, formally beginning the struggle against Dutch colonial rule.