Invasion Day
Invasion! Every time I hear that term used to describe the settlement of Australia by the British it jars me. Every time! I cannot recall when it was that I first heard it used, but I can recall my reaction, it annoyed me. Annoyed me because it seemed at the time to be a needless provocation, an unnecessary divergence from more important issues: ‘why argue about this stuff, let’s solve the real issues’.
We live and learn. At least, you continue to learn if you keep an open mind and accept that maybe, just maybe, there is still much for you to learn.
Australia Day can no longer remain on the 26th of January.
I accept now that invasion is the correct term to describe the settlement of Australia by the British. My initial annoyance stemmed from a sense that it was a game of semantics – arguing over whether Australia was invaded or settled does nothing to change the reality of the present day. My thinking at the time when I first heard the term used was that it is better to focus on the issues indigenous Australians face today, than to argue about yesterday. All that I could see happening through the use of the term is that people would be enraged unnecessarily. Quite possibly, I too may have felt a little angered by it, but being unable to clearly recall that sensation I won’t state it unequivocally.
We live and learn.
I better understand now the importance of the recognition of past wrongs. I understand the frustration, the despairing frustration that is generated by a stonewalling silence to calls for your history to be heard and the impotence that is felt through a lack of engagement on the issues that concern you.
We know enough about how the experiences of a child can shape their future as an adult, so we should be able to understand how the pain of adults can be passed onto their children, which in turn shapes them as adults.
I do not yet completely understand why this frustration at the lack of recognition of past wrongs can so heavily influence outcomes in current generations. This may in part be because my people, the culture I was raised within, have not suffered from this, and in part because it is not the mind-set of the culture that I am belong to. The Australian culture has proved adept at changing and re-making itself and perhaps this is why white Australians find it difficult to appreciate the impact of history on current generations. But that is a discussion for another day.
If I find the term jarring, imagine how it feels to have been invaded.
It is for these reasons that I can see the need to move a celebration of Australia away from a date so strongly associated with the invasion.
Even after reaching a point where I am able to recognise that Australia was indeed invaded, I still find the term jarring each time I hear it.
If you are struggling to accept the term invasion as the correct descriptor for the arrival of the English to Australia then let’s put it aside for the moment and consider the case of another country that has at times struggled to face it’s history.
I recall that a topic of discussion during the 1980’s was the manner in which Japan dealt with it’s war history. It became topical for several reasons, one being the increasing presence of Japanese products in the Australian market, another being the increasing investment by Japanese companies into Australia, with investments in property especially sensitive. The increasing investments triggered general discussions on Japan and the Japanese and some of it focused on the manner in which Japan ignored it’s war history. There were still many Japanese PoW survivors alive and the painful memories of their brutal treatment by the Japanese easily fed anti-Japanese sentiment in the wider community.
A common frustration expressed by Australian’s during this time, and a common topic for schoolyard discussions, was the refusal of Japan to acknowledge it’s role as an aggressor in WWII. There were continual stories in the media about how the war was treated in Japanese school history books – often simply brushed over, and how shameful it was that Japan was unwilling to face it’s militaristic past.
More recently has been the experiences of the Korean comfort women and their battle to gain any recognition that Japan, as part of the execution of the war, forced women from other countries to become sex slaves.
The extent to which Japan would go to avoid facing it’s past appeared to be comical, frustrating, and to us, simply bewildering. It was so obvious that Japan had engaged in an aggressive military campaign it was absurd to attempt to hide it. In 2015 Japan was still threatening United States book publishers if they used the term ‘comfort women’ in their history books to describe the sex slaves.
We would sit around at school, discussing this, asking rhetorical questions like, ’Why can’t the Japanese acknowledge they started the war? Why can’t they just admit they invaded large parts of Asia? How can they try to hide it? Why can’t they just face facts?’
Do I need to spell it out for you? No, but I will anyway. I would like to return to a classroom of my youth, wandering in after lunch, bag carried over shoulder, held just by the tips of the fingers, in the oh so cool way we perfected, the argument we were having in the playground continuing into the classroom, and say something like – ‘well, if the Japanese invaded Singapore, did the British invade Australia’, or maybe ‘if Japanese history books don’t mention the war, what are our history books not mentioning’.
Australia was invaded by the English. And just as I accept the truism about dictatorships, that there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator – all dictatorships are brutal, I must also accept that all invasions are brutal, and therefore, so was the invasion of Australia.
If we accept that Australia was invaded, it is untenable to continue to celebrate a date central to the invasion. I believe it is untenable for two main reasons: that the current date has more significance for the British than to Australians, and the current date does not reflect the duality of Australia’s history. Continuing to celebrate on that date highlights the consequences of the invasion without recognising the actual event. It is a form of victor’s triumphalism.
There should be little emotional connection by Australians to the current date for celebrating Australia. The current date recognises when Arthur Phillip planted his flag in Sydney Cove. Phillip was an Admiral in the British navy, not an Australian. The date is significant for the English, and only indirectly for Australians. Australia did not exist until Federation. Of equal or greater significance for Australians should be the events after Phillip’s landing that contributed to the formation and shaping of Australia.
An essay by Noel Pearson, not directly on the question of Australia Day, was useful for putting into context Australia’s past. From his essay I can see that we need to separate out those events that more correctly form English history, and were the responsibility of England, from those events that Australia must bear responsibility for, and therefore form our history.
The period of time prior to federation should be considered English history as much as it is considered Australian. In summary, the English invaded Australia. The establishment of a colony required the defeat of an existing population. From the existing colonies a new country was created that while it shares common traits with the colonising power, it now has an entirely distinct culture.
The placement of Australia day on the date that England invaded Australia means that the existence of an Australian culture separate and distinct from England is not recognised and celebrated. The arguments in favour of retaining the current date run parallel to the arguments for retaining the monarchy. To argue in favour of retaining the current date is really to argue against an independent Australia.
There is also a need for the day that celebrates the founding of the nation to reflect the duality of our history. Australia is not unique in having once been a colony of another. Among those countries that have been colonised we can make a distinction between the countries where the colonising power became dominant, and those countries where it didn’t.
Where the colonising power didn’t become dominant, think Indonesia and Vietnam, the period of colonisation is a part of the single history of the one nation, or to invert it, there is a single history for the nation that includes a period of colonisation. The culture of the colonists never really took hold, and therefore there is little to celebrate from that culture. The period of colonisation is remembered, but only in so far as it is one of the notable events in the history of the nation.
Australia is an example of a country where the colonising culture became dominant, but not universal, in that the earlier culture still exists in parallel with the new, transplanted culture. Where Australia is becoming unique is in our failure to recognise that the earlier culture still exists.
Australia has a dual history: we cannot escape this. Our history does not follow a single path, where there was the existence of a single culture, that was then completely replaced by another culture. In Australia there are two cultures within the one nation: black fella & white fella. I am ignoring here the concept of multi-culturalism, as I am considering that to be an element of the white fella culture. That Australia has two cultures means a single event may be viewed quite differently by each culture.
There is no question that the white fella culture is dominant, and will continue to be so. However what Aborigines request is that the existence of their culture be recognised. The placement of Australia Day on the day Captain Phillip landed infers that this was the day Australia was created, not true, and that either there was no existing culture, not true, or that the arrival of the British extinguished the existing culture, also not true.
Australian’s, both white fella & black fella, need to recognise the duality of our history. This point is for me, the most important in deciding that we must move Australia Day from the current date.
Where to from here? I can make a number of recommendations.
Firstly, we retain 26th January as a public holiday (woohoo!) and rename it to Invasion Day, or something similar. There should be no shame or embarrassment by white fella Australians over this day, because as Noel Pearson points out, the invasion was conducted by the English, for the English. Nominating this date as Invasion Day will be a reminder for white fellas that it occurred, and for black fellas, an acknowledgment that it occurred. The creation of an Invasion Day recognises the dual history of Australia.
When do we celebrate Australia Day? Unfortunately I cannot give you a date, because the event required to celebrate the creation of Australia hasn’t yet occurred.
Australia Day should be celebrated on one of two dates; the date the referendum is held where Australian’s vote in favour of removing the Queen or King as our head of state; or the date the enabling legislation for such a change is approved by parliament. It is only on either of these dates that we truly become Australian. Neither of these dates are exclusionary to black fellas or rescind the existence of their culture.
The most magnificent way for a new Australia Day to be created is to hold the referendum for the removal of the Queen or King of England as our head of state on the same day as the referendum for giving effect to the Uluru statement.This date would then become Australia Day.From that point onwards it will be possible for there to be both dual histories, and a shared history.
