Australian Politics: The Albanese Times

[psionl0]

How do our Aussie members feel about celebrating Australia Day? And Captain Cook?

I have no strong feelings either way but if asked ...

James Cook is irrelevant to Australia day.

It makes no sense to me to celebrate Australia day on Jan 26. There was no "Australia" in 1788. There was just the great south land or "Terra Australis". Jan 26 1788 is the day that the first fleet docked on the east coast of this great south land and founded the colony of NSW. So really, it should be called "New South Wales day".

Australia didn't form as a nation until the constitution was adopted in Jan 1, 1901. Before then, it was just 6 different colonies (not to mention New Zealand). Of course, we can't celebrate Australia day on that day because Jan 1 is already a public holiday.

I have seen suggestions that since the first Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia was opened on May 9, 1901 (link), this should become the official Australia day.

I would support a change to May 9.

 

[lionking]

I have no strong feelings either way but if asked ...

James Cook is irrelevant to Australia day.

It makes no sense to me to celebrate Australia day on Jan 26. There was no "Australia" in 1788. There was just the great south land or "Terra Australis". Jan 26 1788 is the day that the first fleet docked on the east coast of this great south land and founded the colony of NSW. So really, it should be called "New South Wales day".

Australia didn't form as a nation until the constitution was adopted in Jan 1, 1901. Before then, it was just 6 different colonies (not to mention New Zealand). Of course, we can't celebrate Australia day on that day because Jan 1 is already a public holiday.

I have seen suggestions that since the first Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia was opened on May 9, 1901 (link), this should become the official Australia day.

I would support a change to May 9.

I don’t think it needs to be changed, but if it does, I’m all for September 1, Wattle Day. Better than May as we slide into winter, but the start of spring.

Wattle is everywhere in Australia and flowers then. It would be better in my opinion than a random first sitting day of parliament.

 

[psionl0]

I’m all for September 1, Wattle Day.

That's as good a day for a public holiday as any.

It would be better in my opinion than a random first sitting day of parliament.

Everything happens on a "random" day so I don't see your point. That was the first day that we had an elected government govern. (Edmund Barton had been appointed as PM on Dec 30 1900).

We could also have March 30 - the first day that we had an elected Parliament.

 

[lionking]

That's as good a day for a public holiday as any.


Everything happens on a "random" day so I don't see your point. That was the first day that we had an elected government govern. (Edmund Barton had been appointed as PM on Dec 30 1900).

We could also have March 30 - the first day that we had an elected Parliament.

Fair enough, but I think changing the date would create more division than unity.

 

[novaphile]

Tony Abbott used to be the worst prime minister. But you have to admit that he held a hose.

I thought he drove a truck?

 

[novaphile]

I don’t think it needs to be changed, but if it does, I’m all for September 1, Wattle Day. Better than May as we slide into winter, but the start of spring.

Wattle is everywhere in Australia and flowers then. It would be better in my opinion than a random first sitting day of parliament.

This 'ere is the wattle,
The emblem of our land.
You can stick it in a bottle,
You can hold it in your hand.

Amen.

Crack a tube!

My instinct is, no matter what date is chosen, some will continue to call it 'Invasion Day'.

So we may as well leave it where it is.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I have no strong feelings either way but if asked ...

James Cook is irrelevant to Australia day.

It makes no sense to me to celebrate Australia day on Jan 26. There was no "Australia" in 1788. There was just the great south land or "Terra Australis". Jan 26 1788 is the day that the first fleet docked on the east coast of this great south land and founded the colony of NSW. So really, it should be called "New South Wales day".

Australia didn't form as a nation until the constitution was adopted in Jan 1, 1901. Before then, it was just 6 different colonies (not to mention New Zealand). Of course, we can't celebrate Australia day on that day because Jan 1 is already a public holiday.

I have seen suggestions that since the first Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia was opened on May 9, 1901 (link), this should become the official Australia day.

I would support a change to May 9.

I seem to recall reading that Jan 26 was the day the first fleet arrived at Botany Bay, but they'd earlier arrived at Port Jackson and had to move on for various reasons.

But Jan 26 was the day Governor Phillip raised the flag and pronounced the settlement.

I have issues with celebrating the day the British arrived, no matter what the date.

September 1 Wattle Day sounds good.

 

[psionl0]

Fair enough, but I think changing the date would create more division than unity.

You are probably right.

Although there are arguably more suitable dates for celebrating Australia day, appeasing a vocal minority from the indigenous population and their **** stirring activists should not be one of the reasons for changing the date.

Yet, that is the only reason that would be seen for changing the date and that would generate too much controversy.

 

[arthwollipot]

It makes no sense to me to celebrate Australia day on Jan 26. There was no "Australia" in 1788. There was just the great south land or "Terra Australis".

Give it its full title - Terra Australis Incognita, which was ridiculous since it had been known for tens of thousands of years before that title was coined.

I do not celebrate Australia Day. I attend Cancon, the annual games convention that is held on the long weekend, but that's it.

 

[psionl0]

Give it its full title - Terra Australis Incognita, which was ridiculous since it had been known for tens of thousands of years before that title was coined.

Terra Australis Incognita means "Unknown Great South Land". That title alone means that it couldn't have been "known".

Its existence had been speculated on since Roman times and even appeared in maps starting from about the 15th Century but there were no confirmations about its existence until, beginning in the 17th century, Dutch traders started getting blown off course and bumping into the west coast of this continent

 

[arthwollipot]

Terra Australis Incognita means "Unknown Great South Land". That title alone means that it couldn't have been "known".

Its existence had been speculated on since Roman times and even appeared in maps starting from about the 15th Century but there were no confirmations about its existence until, beginning in the 17th century, Dutch traders started getting blown off course and bumping into the west coast of this continent

And of course there had been people actually here for at least 40,000 years before any of that. They "knew" it.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Isn't it 60,000 years?

 

[rjh01]

Isn't it 60,000 years?

Yes
https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/australias-first-peoples

There are varying estimates for how long Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have lived on this continent, however, upwards of 60,000 years is what current research reveals.

Edit

Aboriginal people are known to have occupied mainland Australia for at least 65,000 years. It is widely accepted that this predates the modern human settlement of Europe and the Americas.

https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/evidence-of-first-peoples

 

[Orphia Nay]

I nearly said 65,000 years.

 

[psionl0]

And of course there had been people actually here for at least 40,000 years before any of that. They "knew" it.

So what? This isn't about whether the land was occupied or not (and you know this).

If you were referring to "Terra Nullius" then you would have a point but as it is, this is just a clumsy attempt at a trick question.

 

[Wildy]

My instinct is, no matter what date is chosen, some will continue to call it 'Invasion Day'.

So we may as well leave it where it is.

If I understand the reasoning behind 'Invasion Day' that would be the case. It's one of the reasons why I don't think changing the date would mean anything.

But September 1st does seem like a good new date, but I think it might be better to just drop the whole "Australia Day" thing if that were the case.

 

[psionl0]

If I understand the reasoning behind 'Invasion Day' that would be the case. It's one of the reasons why I don't think changing the date would mean anything.

But September 1st does seem like a good new date, but I think it might be better to just drop the whole "Australia Day" thing if that were the case.

What? And lose a public holiday?

 

[arthwollipot]

So what? This isn't about whether the land was occupied or not (and you know this).

My point is that it was only "unknown" by Europeans. Plenty of people knew about it, but apparently only Europeans count.

If you were referring to "Terra Nullius" then you would have a point but as it is, this is just a clumsy attempt at a trick question.

Related, but separate.

 

[psionl0]

My point is that it was only "unknown" by Europeans. Plenty of people knew about it, but apparently only Europeans count.

Stop being pathetic. I shouldn't have to add "except for the inhabitants" to every sentence I write just to avoid you saying "gotcha"!

It is trivially true that the inhabitants of the land knew that it existed but nobody else knew about the land and much less that it was occupied.

 

[Orphia Nay]

This topic inspired me to look up pre-cook Australian discovery, and there appears to be plenty of evidence that Indonesian (Macassan) people visited and traded with indigenous Australians such as the Wolngu people. I'd believe that.