Reflecting on Australia Day

This year, Australia day stirred controversy once again. There was a widely attended protest, there was a campaign of guirella advertising, there was a hashtag and of course there were uncountable social media protests. Once again, the occasion proved divisive and once again it left a bad taste in my mouth. What struck me this year was the polar nature of the argument- there seemed to be very little middle ground. Most opinions were total in their condemnation or celebration. The rhetoric of those who disagreed with the occasion also seemed to escalate. To be honest, I found serious flaws with both sides of the discussion. The criticisms of the traditional celebration are well-established at this stage and reproducing them here would not be particularly useful. What i'd like to look at are the problems I identify with the other side of the discussion; those who see Australia day as a celebration of genocide and destruction.

The countless social media protests reminded me of how distasteful I always find the acknowledgements of indigenous title that precede so many public events, particularly in the educational sector. Acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land should be a useful reminder of our country's history. It became a predictable prelude to almost every lecture I attended when I was at university. I thought it was tokenistic. It is certainly true that all Australians live on what was originally indigenous land. There are no exceptions to this statement, and of course it is worth recognising that we do have an obligation to remind ourselves of these facts and recognise them. However, these statements contribute very little to actually resolving the original injustice. They are not accompanied by concrete actions to remedy the problem they are identifying. If it is acknowledged that the traditional custodians of the land are not the people who occupy it, shouldn't that statement be accompanied by an effort to return the land to the original owners? If you acknowledge without acting, it's kind of like recognising that you possess stolen property at the same time that you admit you have no intention of returning it. To me, this seems like adding insult to injury. If you're not planning to vacate your home and hand it back to the descendants of the traditional custodians, then reminding them that you own something that you agree is not yours seems insensitive. It's not a matter of ignoring the facts, but repeating them as a disclaimer of your sensitivities towards indigenous history can seem very self-serving.

Referring to Australia day as 'Invasion day' seems like an extension of this dynamic. Of course, part of the problem is the date that is chosen to celebrate this occasion. There is a huge problem here- commemorating the date of Arthur Phillip's arrival as a symbol of nationalism connects the celebration of Australian culture mainly to those with anglo-saxon heritage. Not only is this divorcing the celebration from indigenous people, it's also leaving out the successive waves of migrants that have given Australia such remarkable vibrancy. To that end, I would support those who call for the date to be changed. It would seem like a more inclusive celebration if that particular date were not marked. Personally, I think a constructive way to make the occasion seem more inclusive would be both to move the date, and establish a national indigenous history day as a separate occasion to discuss the realities of Australian history in a slightly less febrile fashion.

I also think there are issues with the use of the term genocide in reference to the occasion. Before I proceed further, I should note that Australian history is both a subject that I've taught for the past few years and a subject of personal interest. It is undoubtedly true that the arrival of Europeans on this continent caused immeasurable damage to Indigenous culture. The destruction is hard to comprehend but it is fair to say that indigenous culture is a shadow of what it once was, and the arrival of European settlers was directly responsible for that destruction. Using the term genocide to describe these events is somewhat problematic. It's worth looking at the definition of the term, of which there are many. I'll use part of the definition adopted by the International Criminal Court as an example:

"Article 6 of the Rome Statute provides that "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"

A key term reflected in almost every definition genocide is intent. In my research, I think it's quite difficult to identify any explicit programmes designed with the intention to destroy indigenous culture. Of course the first response to that claim would be the stolen generations. That's a good example of an explicitly designed government program that had the effect of destroying indigenous culture. The best thing that could be said about that programme was that it was terribly misguided. It is true that assimilation is a version of destruction, but my reading of the intentions behind that project is that it was a futile attempt to 'rescue' some members of a race that many white Australians saw as destined for extinction.

The incredible destruction that European expansion wrought progressed with stunning speed. It did not go unnoticed by the settlers, and many were horrified at what they saw. It's worth looking at a few historical sources to understand the dynamic. Many European settlers saw the desperate situation faced by indigenous people, and their attempts to arrest this destruction were equally desperate.

The first is an editorial from the Tasmanian Colonial Times published in 1826. This was at the height of the 'black war', a series of conflicts that contributed to the wholesale destruction of the Tasmanian Aboriginals.

"We make no pompous display of Philanthropy. We say this unequivocally SELF DEFENCE IS THE FIRST LAW OF NATURE. THE GOVERNMENT MUST REMOVE THE NATIVES—IF NOT, THEY WILL BE HUNTED DOWN LIKE WILD BEASTS, AND DESTROYED!”

“let them be compelled to grow potatoes, wheat, catch seals and fish, and by degrees, they will lose their roving disposition and acquire some slight habits of industry, which is the first step of civilization.”

“If they are put upon the shores of New Holland they may be destroyed. If they remain here THEY ARE SURE TO BE DESTROYED. If they are sent to King's Island, they will be under restraint, but they will be free from committing or receiving violence and we are certainly bound by every principle of humanity to protect them as far as we can."

There are two things worth noting here. The first is the recognition of both the stunning speed of destruction faced by indigenous people and the inevitability of their extinction if no action is taken. The government's control over the frontier was loose in the early years of settlement, particularly in Tasmania. The majority of the violence was perpetrated by settlers and squatters seeking to improve the price of the land they claimed by eliminating natives. It is true that the official response to this violence was entirely inadequate, but it is not correct to assume this was a deliberate programme. The second element is a pretty hard-nosed acknowledgement that there is a compulsion to respond to this carnage in some way. The brutality of the measures taken to 'protect' indigenous people deserves some context, and that context is the both the brutality and alarming speed of the situation they were responding to.

The second source is an interesting assessment of the situation on the ground. This is an excerpt from the diaries of Charles Darwin, who visited Tasmania in 1836:

“All the Aboriginals have been removed to an island in Bass's Straits , so that Van Diemen's Land enjoys the great advantage of being free from a native population. This most cruel step seems to have been quite unavoidable, as the only means of stopping a fearful succession of robberies, burnings, and murders, committed by the blacks; but which sooner or later must have ended in their utter destruction. I fear there is no doubt that this train of evil and its consequences, originated in the infamous conduct of some of our countrymen. Thirty years is a short period, in which to have banished the last aboriginal from his native island—and that island nearly as large as Ireland. I do not know a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage people.”

The pathos is notable is both sources. This is not an attempt to slide away from the definition of genocide. It is worth noting that in my research it is hard to identify an explicit governmental programme designed to destroy indigenous people. Of course, this point is one that can be argued. Assimilation, expansion, and dispossession are all versions of destruction. Indigenous Australia was almost destroyed, regardless of the intention. Intention never insulates you from culpability for the result of your actions. At the end of the day, it was Europeans that were responsible. However, applying the term genocide in retrospect is probably unhelpful when it comes to reaching a common resolution. Invoking such a total term is divisive, and I would think this is a division that those protesters would seek to resolve.

At the end of the day, the one thing all Australians have in common is modernity. We have an opportunity to resolve the injustices that indigenous Australians suffered since the arrival of Europeans. The first step in that process is a clear-eyed look at the events of the past. As I mentioned, this is a topic that I've taught at a high-school level over the past few years and a clear understanding of the events is something that I always try and impart. This argument is a polarised one, and history is rarely polar. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle. I don't think that acknowledging dispossession without any real attempt to resolve it is helpful. I also think that constant use of the term genocide is counter-productive. It's divisive, and division should be what we're trying to stop. Let's consider moving the date of Australia day. Let's also consider establishing an Indigenous history day so that these events are the focus of our attention rather than the shadow of something we're celebrating. Finally, I think it's worth mentioning that there is plenty to be proud of in modern Australia. There is something unique about our country, and there are things worth celebrating about our post-colonial history. Australia is a complex place, and it means different things to different people. Our history should be celebrated, it should be mourned, but most of all it should be learned from. We need more than a single day on the calendar to do all of those things properly.