In recent years, the issue of Australia Day marking the ‘invasion’ of ‘white man’ has sparked controversy between the Indigenous and non-indigenous populations of Australia. In his article titled “January 26th is the birth of modern Australia – deal with it”, Peter Moore advocates that the date of Australia Day should not be changed and he provides humour and solidarity for those who share his perspective. He does this through heavy use of attacks and generalisations with an informal, aggressive tone. Conversely, Natalie Cromb, with her article titled ‘Australia Day/ Invasion Day debate: #ChangeTheDate – but not right now”, criticizes the idea of the date changing at present time as she attempts to rally supportive readers to stand up to the …show more content…
In contrast, Cromb illustrates her perspective with her use of attacks on “White Australia” to emphasise the futile change of date without first a treaty. Moore often refers back to “97 percent” of the population not identifying as Indigenous and therefore are unaware of the ‘invasion’ on this date. His ignorance is somewhat illustrated in a spelling error of Torres “Straight” Islander which can alarm the Torres Strait readers and make them feel attacked. Moore’s conversational tone alters to be more aggressive as he defends the idea of changing the date of a well-known Australian holiday. “Whether we like it or not” he proudly states that January 26th is the birth of modern Australia. The deliberate use of such evocative language aims to support the intended audience in that “there is nothing to be ashamed about”. Like Moore, Cromb uses a vexed tone through strong emotive language. Although, Cromb uses this in opposition to Moore’s argument. Cromb addresses the “lack of empathy” felt towards the Indigenous people. It is through Cromb’s use of attacks that she gains attention and develops a sense of guilt in the audience. This plays against Moore’s attempt in offering support to his audience who would now see their view on the issue as offensive or …show more content…
However, the way it is presented differs. Moore uses the background of many existing Indigenous dates such as “March 21st” and “June 3rd” to outline that there are already many dates officially recognised for the Indigenous. This point that Moore makes helps to position the reader to agree that it seems appropriate to have a date the “other 97 percent” can have to “celebrate the birth of modern Australia”. While Moore uses logic and reason in this argument, Cromb takes a more emotive approach. Cromb evokes a sense of guilt in the reader through loaded words such as “invaded” and “victims of massacres and murders”. The reader is positioned to feel guilty for not taking action to address this side of history as “we celebrate with nationalistic buffoonery”. The attached image on Moore’s article acknowledges the Indigenous protests that occur on January 26th, however, he uses this image to fuel his attack on the unnecessary change of date. This again acts as support to the readers who also disagree. This visual, in regards to Cromb’s article, has a different meaning. The image depicts the anger of the Indigenous towards the ignorance of “White Australia”. This can be an alarm to those who disagree as well as being a motivator for readers to take action for their
This concludes that Andrews displays the functionality of the contemporary world in its regard to disregard Aboriginal culture, leading to reflection by the
I also thought about how my wife the most important person in my life, how she stuck to me over many hardships and hurdles in life, but somehow we made it, perhaps better than others.” Despite the fight, Mabo said he loved it. In 1998, the Howard government changed the Native Title Act, making it significantly harder for Indigenous peoples to claim land. Today, the fight for recognition in Mabo’s name continues, with campaigns to change the date of ‘Australia Day’, as it is known by many Indigenous people as ‘Invasion Day’. This fight would not have been possible without Mabo’s fight
This correlates to the ideology of heritage and identity within Australia. Australia was known as terra nullius (land unoccupied) when European settlers colonised due to their belief that indigenous Australians were a different race similar to fauna (Byrne 2003). Jones and Harris (1998) expand on this notion with the idea that European settlers deemed themselves the first occupiers of Australian land due to their discourse surrounding the permanency and entitlement of land ownership. This Euro-centric construct of land ownership is discussed within the article with specific importance placed colonials concept of being an inheritor of the land rather than an invader and also the historical European concept of racial identities and their link to ‘the nation’ (Byrne 2003, p. 78). It was seen that because the indigenous Australians didn’t comply to the settler’s social construct of home, then the land wasn’t owned and therefore any remains were also free for the taking.
Recently a controversy was being raised about changing the date of Australian Day, as it is considered the day when aboriginal lost their land and freedom. The issue is being discussed by the Yarra Council Mayor Cr Amanda Stone, who took the initiative to not only commemorate the British invasion of Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders land. Her main point in that article is to basically identify the Australian Day as a date which symbolizes loss of culture, language and the identity of ingenious people. This makes sense to us that the people affected by this issue are mainly Australian citizens (Aboriginals). Following this response, another article was published called, ‘Changing the date of Australian Day won’t change our past’ by Joe
Liddle expresses that the need to hold a survey itself displays the radio station’s lack of support for the Aboriginal community and informs the audience that “60% of the people who responded to the Triple J survey supported a change of date for the countdown”, suggesting “… as far as younger generations are concerned society is becoming more aware”, however juxtaposes this with Triple J’s inadequacy and disappointment at the fact that “there’s still a way to go before the message permeates its ranks”. The audience is able to view the prevalent support throughout Australia as a nation with Liddle’s use of statistical information, regarding the change of date and how this smaller issue supports the move of changing the date of Australia Day as a whole. Likewise, Liddle positions the individual who linger around the issue and remain unaware and unsupportive, as the minority as “now being majority support for a date change”. This furthermore conveys criticism of Triple J, “who do not mention that the major reason 26 January has become contentious is due to what the date means to Indigenous groups”, however in order to escape adopting a supportive stance, provide an excuse of “new programming”. The author continues to expose Triple J’s motives to the readers who have been misinformed and displaying their lack of acknowledgement as to what this day means to the Aboriginals, insinuating that fact that it was purely implemented as a commercial change.
The history of Aboriginal alienation was an important context that assisted Silvey in the making of his novel, and furthermore establishing a successful play. The year 2009 was an influential year for Aboriginal’s rights. After twenty years of negotiation, the United Nations
The Myall creek massacre occurred 50 years after Europeans arrived in Sydney. For all the 50 years, there had been confliction between the aboriginals and the Europeans over competition of land. “Myall Creek was the tip of the iceberg of frontier violence against Aboriginal people.” (Prof. Rhonda Craven)
From this time, there were many momentous events that exacerbated the issue of Aboriginal Civil Rights in Australia and widened the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. The governments implementation of Protection and Assimilation policy had a major negative impact not only on Aboriginal Civil Rights but also created considerable disadvantage and disparity that today
Australia Day is a national holiday that commemorates the arrival of the First Fleet on January 26, 1788. The celebration of this date has been a debated issue between the Indigenous community and conservative Australians, though the debate is not exclusively limited to the two groups. For many Indigenous Australians, January 26 marks the beginning of a long history of colonization, frontier violence, and the removal of children from their families, known as the Stolen Generation. The traumas from the past still affect Indigenous communities today. Celebrating the day as a national holiday shows a lack of respect for the struggles of the Indigenous people.
On the 26th of January, White-Australian’s all around Australia celebrated the 150th anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet to Port Jackson. To many, it was seen as a day to commemorate the growth and progress of Australia, but to the Indigenous community this day symbolised the ‘frightful conditions’ (Jack Patten, 1938) that the they were forced into and was referred to as ‘The Day of Mourning’. Three Indigenous men saw this day as an opportunity to raise awareness for the mistreatment and discrimination shown towards their people. William Cooper, William Ferguson and Jack Patten revealed a petition seeking equal citizen rights for the Indigenous people. The protest commenced with a march at Sydney’s Town Hall and involved not only
Changing the date of Australia day is more than just a secondary issue for our nation. The week leading up to January 26th, and the week that follows, are essentially the only times of the year when the topic is actually prevalent within Australian news, which is a huge issue – this has led to a lack of understanding – and blatant ignorance – with non-indigenous people in regard to Indigenous Australians culture. The argument most Australians hold for not wanting to change the date is the fact that ‘changing the date won’t change the history behind it’ when that’s not at all the outcome that those who want to change the date are striving for. My name is Shehara Bradley, and I am here to inform you all of how important it is to change the day our nation celebrates Australia day, because change is more than necessary in order for all Australians to move forward. The media often trivialises this and misrepresents the history behind January 26th controlling the narrative that changing the date will ultimately make little to no difference, and therefore positioning their audience to believe the same.
As patriotic Australians we pride ourselves to be a nation that accepts and respects the beliefs of all cultures, but on this historical day majority of Australians tend to forget the true meaning behind the celebration. If you ask today’s society, what they did this Australia day mass numbers would respond with “binged on alcohol” and “indulged in a barbecue.” Consequently, this day cannot be called a national celebration when some of our fellow Australians are grieving while others are out celebrating an occasion they know little about. Giving due regard to the indigenous people and their mostly negative perspective on this issue should be a priority. A new date, not the 26th of January should be established, as rather than unite, it seems to divide Australians into different viewpoints.
This article discusses the speech given by an Indigenous journalist, Stan Grant who participated in a debate where he spoke for the motion “Racism is destroying the Australian Dream’’. Hence, the main points of this article are mostly evidence given by Grant in his debate to support his idea that the Australian Dream is indeed rooted in racism. One of the main points is that the indigenous Australians are often excluded and disregarded as non-Australians simply due to their race and skin colour. Grant pointed out the incident where AFL player Adam Goodes was publicly jeered and told that he did not belong to his country as he was not an Australian despite the fact that Australia indeed is the land of his ancestors.
To some, it means the day the British took over this land and started torturing thousands and for some, it is a fun day to celebrate, a day where people bring out the Barbie and have a party. Celebrating this day is just showing how WE don’t know the history of Australia, it's showing that WE don’t care what happened to the aboriginals, it is showing that WE think that what happened in 1788 on the 26th of January is insignificant. If YOUR
The novel ‘Jasper Jones’ by Craig Silvey is centred around a young man named Charlie Bucktin living in the little Australian town of Corrigan in the late 1960 's. Charlie is presented with the issues of racial prejudice, shamefulness, and moral dishonesty. He is tested to address the idealism of right from wrong and acknowledges that the law doesn 't generally maintain equity. The thoughts are depicted through Silvey 's utilization of story traditions which are to either challenge or reinforce our values, states of mind and convictions on the issues brought before us. The 1960 's was an extremely dull period for numerous individuals whose race was recognizably unique - different to that of the “white” population.