January 26th 2025

Remove this Banner Ad

As much a technicality as australia not starting on 26th 1788

Australia didn't start on 26 Jan 1788 but it's a significant date that has been recognised for centuries and nationally adopted across Australia for almost 100 years.

If you are having trouble with 26 Jan 1788 you should also be problematic with it being 'invasion day' to all indigenous groups.
 
Australia didn't start on 26 Jan 1788 but it's a significant date that has been recognised for centuries and nationally adopted across Australia for almost 100 years.

If you are having trouble with 26 Jan 1788 you should also be problematic with it being 'invasion day' to all indigenous groups.
Of course the British didn't invade every single Indigenous nation on 26.1.1788.

But they eventually did.
 
Of course the British didn't invade every single Indigenous nation on 26.1.1788.

But they eventually did.
On the one hand: we know January 26 was only the start date for NSW but it was the beginning of the process and is therefore important.

On the other: January 26 was only the invasion of NSW and not the rest of Australia so it should not be an issue for most Aboriginal people.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

On the one hand: we know January 26 was only the start date for NSW but it was the beginning of the process and is therefore important.

On the other: January 26 was only the invasion of NSW and not the rest of Australia so it should not be an issue for most Aboriginal people.
I think the first point carries more weight than the second.
 
I get it that indigenous Australians consider 26 January 'Invasion Day'.

The First Fleet sailed from England with explicit instructions that no Indigenous people were to be harmed and the First Fleet observed that edict. The first fatal shooting happened in September 1789.

So, what I don't get is what should have happened on that day for it not to be considered 'Invasion Day'? Is it as simple as the First Fleet should have sailed on? The French might have stepped in if the English sailed away. They were hovering around Botany Bay at the same time, and they fired at indigenous Australians in February 1788.

A treaty at the time with all indigenous tribes was a physical impossibility in so many ways.

No matter what, 26 January is a significant date. For me it signified nothing more than the founding of Sydney.
 
Last edited:
I get it that indigenous Australians consider 26 January 'Invasion Day'.

The First Fleet sailed from England with explicit instructions that no Indigenous people were to be harmed and the First Fleet observed that edict. The first fatal shooting happened in September 1789.

So, what I don't get is what should have happened on that day for it not to be considered 'Invasion Day'? Is it as simple as the First Fleet should have sailed on? The French might have stepped in if the English sailed away. They were hovering around Botany Bay at the same time, and they fired at indigenous Australians in February 1788.

A treaty at the time with all indigenous tribes was a physical impossibility in so many ways.

No matter what, 26 January is a significant date. For me it signified nothing more than the founding of Sydney.

Any occupation by the British (or anyone else) is an invasion for the people who had already been living here for ~ 50,000 or so years, yes.
 
Any occupation by the British (or anyone else) is an invasion for the people who had already been living here for ~ 50,000 or so years, yes.
I do get that, but what should have happened? Are "we" saying nobody should ever have landed in Sydney Cove and occupied the country? If it wasn't the English it would inevitably have been someone else, the French, Dutch, or even the Japanese.
 
I do get that, but what should have happened? Are "we" saying nobody should ever have landed in Sydney Cove and occupied the country? If it wasn't the English it would inevitably have been someone else, the French, Dutch, or even the Japanese.

From the perspective of the Aboriginal people already living here? Any of it would have been an invasion.

That someone would eventually have done it even if the British didn't, doesn't change it.
 
I do get that, but what should have happened? Are "we" saying nobody should ever have landed in Sydney Cove and occupied the country? If it wasn't the English it would inevitably have been someone else, the French, Dutch, or even the Japanese.

Those countries had been in and out for quite a while. As there apppeared to be no ‘riches’ to be had they didn’t.

The need for somwhere to transport ‘criminal classes’ to after no more america appears to be the catalyst. Those countries still had other options.

I suppose indigenous here are also ‘lucky’ America had already been supplied with enough slaves too?
 
And that flag that our ancestors fought for in two world wars though it wasn’t gazetted till 1954.

Again could we end the nonsense that the flag should remain the same because the diggers “fought for it”,

This is a nation behind just a military. We should aim for this to be a peaceful secular multicultural nation. Someone being in the military gives them no further weight over a civilian when discussing the flag, or national day or other symbology. If you think it does then North Korea is a more suitable nation for you.
 
I do get that, but what should have happened? Are "we" saying nobody should ever have landed in Sydney Cove and occupied the country? If it wasn't the English it would inevitably have been someone else, the French, Dutch, or even the Japanese.
I'm not sure anyone's saying history could have panned out differently given the attitudes and politics of the times.

What they're saying is that doesn't mean we have to celebrate our nation on that date as if everything is hunky dory.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

So, what I don't get is what should have happened on that day for it not to be considered 'Invasion Day'?

If eventually a government, British colonial or Australian, had signed a treaty ala the treaty of Waitangi then a co-existing status could be established between indigenous and British to formalise the legality of the arrival and nation.

Maybe then indigenous groups would be at peace with what they see as the invasion of their home as that chapter has been closed and a new one started.
 
I'm not sure anyone's saying history could have panned out differently given the attitudes and politics of the times.

What they're saying is that doesn't mean we have to celebrate our nation on that date as if everything is hunky dory.
Yes, it is called “Invasion Day” because the First Fleet sailed into SYDNEY Cove and landed. It was a peaceful landing with no indigenous Australians killed.

My concern is that if we do away with 26 January as Australia Day, and go with another significant date, e.g., 1 January (Federation Day), there will still be people bemoaning the fact we are celebrating something that has its roots in British settlement. In other words, we are erasing history. You cannot celebrate Australia without acknowledging how the country as we know it came to be.
 
Yes, it is called “Invasion Day” because the First Fleet sailed into SYDNEY Cove and landed. It was a peaceful landing with no indigenous Australians killed.

My concern is that if we do away with 26 January as Australia Day, and go with another significant date, e.g., 1 January (Federation Day), there will still be people bemoaning the fact we are celebrating something that has its roots in British settlement. In other words, we are erasing history. You cannot celebrate Australia without acknowledging how the country as we know it came to be.

So we celebrate what's important to you, and screw the people who were here before you?

You absolutely should celebrate Australia without acknowledging the colonial invasion that led to scores of deaths and massacres, that's the entire point of the protests.
 
Yes, it is called “Invasion Day” because the First Fleet sailed into SYDNEY Cove and landed. It was a peaceful landing with no indigenous Australians killed.

Do you know anything about Australian history? On the 26th, no. But not all landings are opposed. Obviously Indigenous Australians didn’t have a coastal defence or navy, but as soon as British troops moved out from the relative safety of the coast and cover from naval gunfire deeper into the bush and towards terrain more favourable to defenders fighting started. The same Royal Marines that came ashore with Phillip were soon fighting Pemulwuy and his clan in a 12 year war around the Hawkesbury and Nepean.

I guess it was all peaceful in Vietnam too as Australian soldiers mostly landed on civilian airliners into Saigon with a shot fired. So therefore all “peaceful” eh? /s

My concern is that if we do away with 26 January as Australia Day, and go with another significant date, e.g., 1 January (Federation Day), there will still be people bemoaning the fact we are celebrating something that has its roots in British settlement.

Well the first legislation passed in the new parliament was the White Australia Policy (Federation did have a lot of roots in anti Asian/-anti-non British racism). We could overturn that by observing March 3 for the severing of some ties with Britain or Republic Day for severing all of them.

In other words, we are erasing history. You cannot celebrate Australia without acknowledging how the country as we know it came to be.

As uninhabited as Mars eh Sussssssssan?
 
My concern is that if we do away with 26 January as Australia Day, and go with another significant date, e.g., 1 January (Federation Day), there will still be people bemoaning the fact we are celebrating something that has its roots in British settlement. In other words, we are erasing history. You cannot celebrate Australia without acknowledging how the country as we know it came to be.
I’m sure we can deal with it.
 
[emoji6]" data-quote="SBD Gonzalez" data-source="post: 0" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">
I’m sure we can deal with it.

Like you’re dealing with the current situation which won’t change for at least a decade ?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
How often do supermarkets and pubs make grandiose pious announcements though?

it’s like the infamous Gillette commercial telling men you can be better, which they can, and people lost their shit about wokeness.
Yeah like about 0.00000000001 % of the population, the types you wouldn't give the time of day.

The way it was portrayed though you'd be forgiven for thinking the war of sexes was gonna start once and for all.
 
You point number 1 is the extract reason changing the date won’t make a difference. No matter when the day and date falls it will still symbolise colonisation and the issues will just transfer to another date.
I'm glad you're here to tell us what Indigenous people think and feel.

I’ve been an advocate for what Sydney did above and have it similar to Anzac Day. Pay the respects and reflection then celebrate the freedoms that the country provides. Changing the date won’t do squat. Better off changing the way the day is acknowledged than the actual date. You can have it both ways
What if we did both? Celebrate another day, pay respects on the 26th.
 
Yes, it is called “Invasion Day” because the First Fleet sailed into SYDNEY Cove and landed. It was a peaceful landing with no indigenous Australians killed.

My concern is that if we do away with 26 January as Australia Day, and go with another significant date, e.g., 1 January (Federation Day), there will still be people bemoaning the fact we are celebrating something that has its roots in British settlement. In other words, we are erasing history. You cannot celebrate Australia without acknowledging how the country as we know it came to be.
invasion is how we came to be as a nation and although no one likes to hear it - genocide. Kinda makes celebration a bit awkward dont you think? celebration is hardly essential especially if it distresses people and we collectively choose to NGAF about that.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

January 26th 2025


Write your reply...

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top