January 26th 2025

[Cmarsh]

For those who don't want the date changed, a question about the impact on you if it is changed. Let's say hypothetically in 2026, Australia day becomes Feb 1st. How will that impact your life?

Why Feb 1st? And what would happen on Feb 1st?

 

[geoffjennings79]

Why Feb 1st?

It's an arbitrary date, that carries no baggage/trauma for anyone, and can be developed with a clean slate to incorporate everyone from indigenous descendants to the latest refugees from Ukraine/Africa/ME/anywhere/everywhere and everyone in between to celebrate our UNITY??

 

[schneebly111]

Why Feb 1st? And what would happen on Feb 1st?

It's an arbitrary date, that carries no baggage/trauma for anyone,

February 1st 1981 – Cricketer Trevor Chappell bowls an underarm ball against New Zealand causing outrage with officials and fans.

 

[campbell]

February 1st 1981 – Cricketer Trevor Chappell bowls an underarm ball against New Zealand causing outrage with officials and fans.

I was at that match in Bay 13.....crowd went bannanas.....Great day.

 

[schneebly111]

Why Feb 1st? And what would happen on Feb 1st?

And to be fair you didn’t answer his question.

If the date of Australia Day was changed (let’s say Feb 22, Steve Irwin’s birthday ) and that was now the new national day, tells us exactly what the negatives of that would be. All the ceremonies, citizenship awards, even the BBQs would shift to that day.

How would that negatively affect you or anyone else

 

[Frank Bunn]

There's intellectual interest in what you say... when did different Aboriginal mobs learn about the light-skinned people coming to their shores, how much communication was there, was WA/NT completely removed from events until much later. However, it does not seem that you are raising these issues in good faith, rather to have a pot shot about Aboriginal history and to diminish the the effects of settlement.

I agree it is interesting. I am trying to inject some rationality into the debate. I don't diminish the effects of settlement but I do question some aspects of history.

The First Fleet landing at Port Jackson in 1788 was not the first encounter between indigenous tribes and Europeans. There were several Dutch explorations that made land before James Cook did in 1770. It goes against all evidence that there was a continent wide system of communication between remotely separated groups that warned each other of the threat from the light skinned people.

It's relevant to the Australia Day discussion because January 26th has been labelled as 'invasion day'. But as I have argued, January 26th 1788 is not relevant to most indigenous groups. Some tribes did not have contact with Europeans until decades later.

 

[CM86]

Why Feb 1st? And what would happen on Feb 1st?

You cannot think of a single reason to oppose it, so you go fishing for an excuse.



This is the problem with this discourse. The same with nuclear.
It's about delaying, preventing and airing grievances towards groups or ideas that they aren't brave enough to stand by.
It's a desire to prevent the acceptance of a people prior to European settlement. It's a 'fear' of a 'slipperyslope', were is Aboriginal people are recognised, it could negatively impact 'our' way of lives.
Any gain for 'them' is coming out of 'our' way of life.


On one side, you have people who want the date changed because of what it means to them and why it has been celebrated.
That Australia didn't begin with European settlement. That the idea of celebrating the atrocities committed etc, is harmful.

On the other side, you have people who are a mix of those who are tricked into thinking it's a 'woke' agenda, are exhausted by it, and then just the racists who view ATSI as subhuman.
They view Australia as empty, until European settlement, other than 'flora and fauna'.
The people on this side don't actually care about working together to find a new date, or a different way of celebrating an multicultural Australia. They just throw up these things as a delay and distraction. Because it prevents any outcomes.


How can logical and empathetic people convince themselves to be part of the latter 'side', in opposition to the former, if not for outside influence from media, social media and targeted campaigns?
Apathy, ignorance.

 

[CM86]

I agree it is interesting. I am trying to inject some rationality into the debate. I don't diminish the effects of settlement but I do question some aspects of history.

The First Fleet landing at Port Jackson in 1788 was not the first encounter between indigenous tribes and Europeans. There were several Dutch explorations that made land before James Cook did in 1770. It goes against all evidence that there was a continent wide system of communication between remotely separated groups that warned each other of the threat from the light skinned people.

It's relevant to the Australia Day discussion because January 26th has been labelled as 'invasion day'. But as I have argued, January 26th 1788 is not relevant to most indigenous groups. Some tribes did not have contact with Europeans until decades later.

But you don't care about any of this.

Your real position, is that there was no 'invasion'.
This is just a distraction to avoid saying it.


You don't even believe that The Stolen Generation was 'bad'.

 

[CM86]

And to be fair you didn’t answer his question.

If the date of Australia Day was changed (let’s say Feb 22, Steve Irwin’s birthday ) and that was now the new national day, tells us exactly what the negatives of that would be. All the ceremonies, citizenship awards, even the BBQs would shift to that day.

How would that negatively affect you or anyone else

The response is that you somehow need to prove that there will be no negatives for anyone, ever.

-"Do you know it won't negatively affect anyone?"-

It's the delay.


-"If it doesn't matter if a different date harms a group of people, why do we need to change it in the first place? Why is one group more important than another?".- Because one is real, the other is a hypothetical designed to continue harm towards a group you oppose.

 

[Cmarsh]

And to be fair you didn’t answer his question.

If the date of Australia Day was changed (let’s say Feb 22, Steve Irwin’s birthday ) and that was now the new national day, tells us exactly what the negatives of that would be. All the ceremonies, citizenship awards, even the BBQs would shift to that day.

How would that negatively affect you or anyone else

If you are going to set an arbitrary date, ie one pulled out of your arse, the question of negative impact becomes ridiculous. That's because advocates of a new date disconnected from any national significance would not achieve the 'unity' they pretend like they want to achieve. The pulled out of your arse approach would do nothing but leave people confused. The hilarious thing is people like you think it's genius.

 

[CM86]

leave people confused.

Great example of what I'm talking about.

Look at the 'harm' it could possibly do to a hypothetical group of people!

-"If it doesn't matter if a different date harms a group of people, why do we need to change it in the first place? Why is one group more important than another?".- Because one is real, the other is a hypothetical designed to continue harm towards a group you oppose.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Nobody had mentioned it before Dutton was asked the question at a press conference.
You are imagining things again.

Herald Sun has a new one this morning saying Australian Open organisers are " under pressure" to celebrate Australia Day

With a call into the IPA

 

[Gough]

Are we really that fragile as a nation that not marking the 26th will lead us into some sort of death spiral?

 

[rank and file]

Herald Sun has a new one this morning saying Australian Open organisers are " under pressure" to celebrate Australia Day

With a call into the IPA

Nick Kyrgios to sing 'True Blue' and doing a welcome campaigners ceremony would work for me.
Danielle Collins in a stockade set up in the tennis precinct,so punters can let off a bit of steam.

 

[Deliverance]

Why Feb 1st? And what would happen on Feb 1st?

I'll answer once you've answered.

 

[Roylion]

And very few people know about it. It is a massive shame that Australian history is so simple in our consciousness. First fleet, settlers, gold rush, Anzacs, migrants, the end. I mean I’ve seen it on this thread when some posters have mocked the idea that indigenous groups communicated and warned each other of the British arrival. Sort of like how modern conservatives mock traditions like the welcome to country as being “invented” by Ernie Dingo in the 1970s

Early Australian history is fascinating.

For example, there's been considerable speculation as to what happened to the 73 crew members and passengers (at least) from Dutch ships that as a result of shipwrecks or deliberate marooning that are known to have found themselves permanent residents of the central and upper west coast of Western Australia between 16th November 1629 and 1727. The actual number could have been as high as 240 people. They included officers, sailors, soldiers and Dutch East India Company officials (and possibly women and children) from a variety of European nationalities including Germans, French, English, Spanish and Portuguese, as well as Africans.

Did they, like the Makassans traders in the north of Australia, have any interaction or engagement with the local Aboriginal populations and if so, did they influence their culture in some way?

 

[Cmarsh]

Early Australian history is fascinating.

For example, there's been considerable speculation as to what happened to the 73 crew members and passengers (at least) from Dutch ships that as a result of shipwrecks or deliberate marooning that are known to have found themselves permanent residents of the central and upper west coast of Western Australia between 16th November 1629 and 1727. The actual number could have been as high as 240 people. They included officers, sailors, soldiers and Dutch East India Company officials (and possibly women and children) from a variety of European nationalities including Germans, French, English, Spanish, Portuguese and Africans.

Did they, like the Makassans traders in the north of Australia, have any interaction or engagement with the local Aboriginal populations and if so, did they influence their culture in some way?

And if they did, was it considered an invasion?

 

[adogsfan5]

For those who don't want the date changed, a question about the impact on you if it is changed. Let's say hypothetically in 2026, Australia day becomes Feb 1st. How will that impact your life?

Nobody would care. The media and those annoyed by it will be over it in a few days.

 

[Kram]

Nobody would care. The media and those annoyed by it will be over it in a few days.

This, as long as it's about the same time of year I reckon the vast majority of people wouldn't give a crap, and those that do would forget about it after about a week.

 

[geoffjennings79]

I agree it is interesting. I am trying to inject some rationality into the debate. I don't diminish the effects of settlement but I do question some aspects of history.

The First Fleet landing at Port Jackson in 1788 was not the first encounter between indigenous tribes and Europeans. There were several Dutch explorations that made land before James Cook did in 1770. It goes against all evidence that there was a continent wide system of communication between remotely separated groups that warned each other of the threat from the light skinned people.

It's relevant to the Australia Day discussion because January 26th has been labelled as 'invasion day'. But as I have argued, January 26th 1788 is not relevant to most indigenous groups. Some tribes did not have contact with Europeans until decades later.

Stone used for axe heads from the Mt William quarry near Lancefield has been noted as being traded across south eastern Australia, into SE Qld and towards Lake Eyre.

How would these trade routes happen if groups were remote from each other? Magic?

But by your (ill-informed) reckoning there was no communication, so maybe the trades were conducted independently of any discussion. Maybe they used charades, or hand signs of some sort.. but only to trade, not to mention any contact with light skinned people?!

"Hey mate, we've seen some li...."
"Sssh, we're only trading goods, don't tell them about the newbies, that's our secret."

 

[Cmarsh]

This, as long as it's about the same time of year I reckon the vast majority of people wouldn't give a crap, and those that do would forget about it after about a week.

It wouldn't even get that far though. Feb 1 would never be legislated as a National day.

 

[GreyWind]

It wouldn't even get that far though. Feb 1 would never be legislated as a National day.

Since when is Australia Day legislated as our national day?

 

[rank and file]

Early Australian history is fascinating.

For example, there's been considerable speculation as to what happened to the 73 crew members and passengers (at least) from Dutch ships that as a result of shipwrecks or deliberate marooning that are known to have found themselves permanent residents of the central and upper west coast of Western Australia between 16th November 1629 and 1727. The actual number could have been as high as 240 people. They included officers, sailors, soldiers and Dutch East India Company officials (and possibly women and children) from a variety of European nationalities including Germans, French, English, Spanish and Portuguese, as well as Africans.

Did they, like the Makassans traders in the north of Australia, have any interaction or engagement with the local Aboriginal populations and if so, did they influence their culture in some way?

No doubt,my partners family on one side is from Shark Bay and a few years ago we went down for 400 yr anniversary of Dirk Hartog,there was a big Dutch contingent there,I remember a few crew saying they gave DNA samples that got sent to The Netherlands to see if there was a link.Not sure what became of that.

Heaps of rock art depicting tall ships.

 

[campbell]

Early Australian history is fascinating.

For example, there's been considerable speculation as to what happened to the 73 crew members and passengers (at least) from Dutch ships that as a result of shipwrecks or deliberate marooning that are known to have found themselves permanent residents of the central and upper west coast of Western Australia between 16th November 1629 and 1727. The actual number could have been as high as 240 people. They included officers, sailors, soldiers and Dutch East India Company officials (and possibly women and children) from a variety of European nationalities including Germans, French, English, Spanish and Portuguese, as well as Africans.

Did they, like the Makassans traders in the north of Australia, have any interaction or engagement with the local Aboriginal populations and if so, did they influence their culture in some way?

Fascinating for some, others not so.

 

[Roylion]

Fascinating for some, others not so.

Err....yes. Like any topic of conversation.