Australia Day or Invasion day?

[KingKhanWC]

Australians under 35 favour ‘Invasion Day’ while those over 35 favour ‘Australia Day’

The results of this survey are heavily correlated to age with Australians under 25 in favour of January 26 being known as ‘Invasion Day’ by a margin of almost 2:1 (64% ‘Invasion Day’ cf. 36% ‘Australia Day’).

Their slightly older counterparts aged 25-34 are also in favour of the day being known as ‘Invasion Day’ but by a much narrower margin of 54% cf. 46%.

However, people aged 35+ are increasingly likely to say January 26 should be called ‘Australia Day’ rather than ‘Invasion Day’. Almost two-thirds of people aged 35-49 are in favour of ‘Australia Day’ (65% cf.35%) and this margin increases substantially for those aged 50-64 (75% cf. 25%) and 65+ (85% cf. 15%).

Support for saying January 26 should be known as ‘Australia Day’ has grown across all age groups over the last year, increasing by the most for people aged 35-49 (up 11% points to 65%) and increasing the least for people aged 25-34 (up 1% point to 46%) – and still in a minority point of view for that age group.

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8882-roy-morgan-survey-australia-day-january-25-2022-202201250330

35% feel it should be called Invasion day.

I'd go with them.

I remember this in the memory of the natives esp those of Tasmania who were wiped off Planet Earth.

Years later their conditions are not much better.

 

[KingKhanWC]

[MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION] Do you call it Australia day or Invasion day?

 

[Gilly]

View attachment 114383
[MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION] Do you call it Australia day or Invasion day?

Australia had soldiers in 1816.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Australia had soldiers in 1816.

If thats what you'd like to call them, sure.

But seriously why are 35% calling it invasion day in Aus?

 

[Gilly]

If thats what you'd like to call them, sure.

But seriously why are 35% calling it invasion day in Aus?

Australia did not have a army or any military in 1816 and Lachlan Macquarie was a British Army officer.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Australia did not have a army or any military in 1816 and Lachlan Macquarie was a British Army officer.

Of course the Brits were to blame.

Why do you not agree with calling it invasion day then?

 

[Gilly]

Of course the Brits were to blame.

Why do you not agree with calling it invasion day then?

What do you British call it, are you proud of your country for slaughtering the Natives. Do you think that your country should compensate the natives?.

 

[KingKhanWC]

What do you British call it, are you proud of your country for slaughtering the Natives. Do you think that your country should compensate the natives?.

Its hardly mentioned here for the reasons you have outlined.

I think Britian and Australia together should compenstate the natives. Australia only gained legal independence in 1986, this doesnt mean its only the Brits who caused suffering of the natives.

According to you when did Austrlians take over from the Brits in real terms? When did they become Aussie instead of British. Why lay the blame on Brits only?

 

[Gilly]

Its hardly mentioned here for the reasons you have outlined.

I think Britian and Australia together should compenstate the natives. Australia only gained legal independence in 1986, this doesnt mean its only the Brits who caused suffering of the natives.

According to you when did Austrlians take over from the Brits in real terms? When did they become Aussie instead of British. Why lay the blame on Brits only?

Australia gained independence in 1901 on paper, but Britian still pulled the strings for a long time after.

It was the British army that attacked and slaughtered the natives, Australia had no authority over the British armed forces.

Aboriginies are Australians so why would they have to compensate themselves, that sounds a bit stupid.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Australia gained independence in 1901 on paper, but Britian still pulled the strings for a long time after.

It was the British army that attacked and slaughtered the natives, Australia had no authority over the British armed forces.

Aboriginies are Australians so why would they have to compensate themselves, that sounds a bit stupid.

Are you saying all whites until 1901 were Brits? When did white Aussies come into existance?

Aborginies were forced to be Australians , they had no choice. To this day they are in poor conditions.

 

[Gilly]

Are you saying all whites until 1901 were Brits? When did white Aussies come into existance?

Aborginies were forced to be Australians , they had no choice. To this day they are in poor conditions.

Actually every single person in Australia up until 1900 was living in a British colony. The aboriginies could have rejected Australia and remained under British rule. Is that your angle, do you think that Britain should still rule Australia.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Actually every single person in Australia up until 1900 was living in a British colony. The aboriginies could have rejected Australia and remained under British rule. Is that your angle, do you think that Britain should still rule Australia.

I dont think Britain should have ever invaded, set up colonies and cleansed certain ethnicities.

I know when the British colony ended. Im asking when 'white Austrlians' were made official? A year will do. Thanks

 

[PakLFC]

Aussies are essentially Britishers. Yes they invaded the land as much as the American's did.

 

[JaDed]

Oh the irony here .

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

They should keep "Australia Day" and have another day to honor the indigenous.

 

[Osama Shafeeqe]

The issue isnt Australia day perse, it is more of the date 26th January and what it represents. The date should be changed and 26th January should be held like ANZAC day where we pay our respects to the indigenous people of Australia. Australia day should be 1st January of the day of Federation.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Aborginies were forced to be Australians , they had no choice. To this day they are in poor conditions.

Bro but that's what muslim invaders did to Iran, Iraq and many other countries. They destroyed cultures and beliefs.

All people that follow Abhrahamic faiths be it white, Arabic, Turks or whatever have all done the same thing...

 

[Zaz]

Bro but that's what muslim invaders did to Iran, Iraq and many other countries. They destroyed cultures and beliefs.

All people that follow Abhrahamic faiths be it white, Arabic, Turks or whatever have all done the same thing...

Sorry but thats not quite the same The arabs never colonised the middle east with the intention of diluting the ethnics with a transfer of population like in aus, nz, canda, israel and usa

 

[KingKhanWC]

Bro but that's what muslim invaders did to Iran, Iraq and many other countries. They destroyed cultures and beliefs.

All people that follow Abhrahamic faiths be it white, Arabic, Turks or whatever have all done the same thing...

Bro, all empires have done bad things. Im happy to start a thread discussing which ones were the worst, it wasnt the Islamic empires. Also interested to know why there hasnt been a Hindu empire too.

The topic here is simple, why are 35% of Aussies wanting this day to be known as Invasion day? As you live in Aus, any ideas on this or should I just wait for you to start a thread on the evils of the Islamic Empire?

 

[Gilly]

Bro, all empires have done bad things. Im happy to start a thread discussing which ones were the worst, it wasnt the Islamic empires. Also interested to know why there hasnt been a Hindu empire too.

The topic here is simple, why are 35% of Aussies wanting this day to be known as Invasion day? As you live in Aus, any ideas on this or should I just wait for you to start a thread on the evils of the Islamic Empire?

It has been answered but its not the answer you want to hear.

A lot of Australians, particularly the original inhabitants prefer to celebrate Australia day on a different date because to some Australians Jan 26 is the day Britain invaded their country and slaughtered their ancestors. Also many want the flag to be changed to get rid of the union jack which is the most repugnant symbol to be on the Australian flag.

 

[KingKhanWC]

It has been answered but its not the answer you want to hear.

A lot of Australians, particularly the original inhabitants prefer to celebrate Australia day on a different date because to some Australians Jan 26 is the day Britain invaded their country and slaughtered their ancestors. Also many want the flag to be changed to get rid of the union jack which is the most repugnant symbol to be on the Australian flag.

Thank you. If you only you wrote this earlier

35% is a high figure though. How many natives make up Aus? If they dont like this day, why does Australia continue to celebrate it?

 

[Gilly]

Thank you. If you only you wrote this earlier

35% is a high figure though. How many natives make up Aus? If they dont like this day, why does Australia continue to celebrate it?

You need at least 50% to change things, it will happen and the union jack will be removed and we will get a new flag. Just recently the nation anthem wording was changed. At the moment no one has come up with a suitable plan to make a pathway for change.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You need at least 50% to change things, it will happen and the union jack will be removed and we will get a new flag. Just recently the nation anthem wording was changed. At the moment no one has come up with a suitable plan to make a pathway for change.

What was the issue with the anthem?

Sure, im only interested in the reasons WHY 35% want to call invasion day? Im assuming a large % of these are white Australians.

 

[Gilly]

What was the issue with the anthem?

Sure, im only interested in the reasons WHY 35% want to call invasion day? Im assuming a large % of these are white Australians.

The anthem was changed to recognize the original inhabitants.

They want to call it invasion day because that was the day Britain raised the union jack and declared Australia belonged to the king of England and then Britain started to slaughter the Aboriginies.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The anthem was changed to recognize the original inhabitants.

They want to call it invasion day because that was the day Britain raised the union jack and declared Australia belonged to the king of England and then Britain started to slaughter the Aboriginies.

An anti-British stance being the main reason. Ok.

Appreciate your responses.

 

[Gilly]

An anti-British stance being the main reason. Ok.

Appreciate your responses.

You have to look at it from their perspective, when Britain claimed Australia in 1788 there were approx 750,000+ aboriginals. By 1900 when Australian formed their own government there were less than 150,00 aboriginals so under British rule 600,000 aboriginies were wiped out.

Since 1900 aboriginal population has increased from 150,000 to 850,000 under the Australian government.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You have to look at it from their perspective, when Britain claimed Australia in 1788 there were approx 750,000+ aboriginals. By 1900 when Australian formed their own government there were less than 150,00 aboriginals so under British rule 600,000 aboriginies were wiped out.

Since 1900 aboriginal population has increased from 150,000 to 850,000 under the Australian government.

The problem with this is, it cannot be said from 1788 to 1900 it was only the British who persecuted the natives. British military and those bought over eventually became Austarlians. Each of these Brits are ancnestors of Aussies, they are not separate species.

 

[Gilly]

The problem with this is, it cannot be said from 1788 to 1900 it was only the British who persecuted the natives. British military and those bought over eventually became Austarlians. Each of these Brits are ancnestors of Aussies, they are not separate species.

The British millitary killed thousands and thousands of white people too, not just Aboriginies. My Great grandfathers brother was killed by the british millitary because he didn't have a miners permit. Many more starved because the millitary would come and confiscate their food to feed their soldiers. All the resources (lumber, wool, grain) were taken back to England as property of the king. It was eventually a rebellion by the miners that pushed the British out of Australia. Most of the land holders lived in England but it was the royal family that profited the most from the slaughter of the aboriginies.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The British millitary killed thousands and thousands of white people too, not just Aboriginies. My Great grandfathers brother was killed by the british millitary because he didn't have a miners permit. Many more starved because the millitary would come and confiscate their food to feed their soldiers. All the resources (lumber, wool, grain) were taken back to England as property of the king. It was eventually a rebellion by the miners that pushed the British out of Australia. Most of the land holders lived in England but it was the royal family that profited the most from the slaughter of the aboriginies.

Can you please point me to the date of this event?

Tragic and disgusting what happened to your grandfathers brother. Ill admit I need to do a bit more research into the conflict between the British and the white Australians.

On a side note its sad to see the current politicians in Aus acting just like the British even if not shooting/killing people. Their mindset is similar.

 

[Gilly]

Can you please point me to the date of this event?

Tragic and disgusting what happened to your grandfathers brother. Ill admit I need to do a bit more research into the conflict between the British and the white Australians.

On a side note its sad to see the current politicians in Aus acting just like the British even if not shooting/killing people. Their mindset is similar.

I dont know what you mean by current politicians acting like British, the Australian government have given land rights to the Aboriginies which is currently 40% of Australia (That would be at least ten times the size of England) and something like $135billion is budgeted to the Aboriginies. The have their own medical services, education system, welfare payments, job training, housing, legal services and a host of other services plus they can use any government service other people use.

Its 2022 and not 1920 and there has been massive advancements in all aboriginal care. You really need to do more research because some of the things you write are so wrong I don't know if you are what I suspect as just trolling or you actually believe what you write.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Bro, all empires have done bad things.

Agreed..

Im happy to start a thread discussing which ones were the worst, it wasnt the Islamic empires. Also interested to know why there hasnt been a Hindu empire too.

To be fair only reason why I bought up the Abhrahamic faith's here is because I felt it seemed similar to Caucasian whites colonizing a country (Australia), conquer and rule.

Hinduism is more spiritual which believes all faiths lead to god, hence the one's who practice is it does not have a mentality were if you do not believe in their god; you are bad or go to hell etc and there is no compulsion to spread a Hindu message hence they didn't go to country after country like an Abhrahamic faith to spread their message and removing the existing beliefs that were already there, which led to the crusades, wars and killings etc.



The topic here is simple, why are 35% of Aussies wanting this day to be known as Invasion day? As you live in Aus, any ideas on this or should I just wait for you to start a thread on the evils of the Islamic Empire?


I don't know why all the 35% of Aussies want the day to be known as Australia day, however I do know that some including a close friend of mine who has aboriginal blood in him wants Invasion day to remember the atrocities that was done to their forefathers..

bold....

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

All people that follow Abhrahamic faiths be it white, Arabic, Turks or whatever have all done the same thing...

Invasions were not restricted to "Abrahamic faiths". What do you think the Vikings, or Romans, or Aztecs, etc, were doing? Since the beginning of time humans have been killing each other and conquering land.

Bro but that's what muslim invaders did to Iran, Iraq and many other countries. They destroyed cultures and beliefs.

Their is a difference between conquering land, and assimilating people into your own culture versus committing a genocide on the population.

So as far as culture change, in some countries like Iraq the culture did change, however that is because the population was Arabized. Not because the indigenous inhabitants were wiped our like the aborigines.

And in places like Iran it did not change that much.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

bold....

Hinduism is more spiritual which believes all faiths lead to god, hence the one's who practice is it does not have a mentality were if you do not believe in their god; you are bad or go to hell etc

So? That did not stop Hindus from conquering land. And I understand the Hindu mindset that views conquests in South Asia as an "internal" conflict, so I will bring up Indonesia, and Malaysia. They did not go their for peaceful purposes.

And the reason that Hindus did not do more conquests outside of South Asia like conquer Europe or Africa was not out of benevolence, it was because they could not do so. Same reason that the not so peaceful Native Americans did not conquer Europe was not because they were minding their own business. It was because they couldn't. If they could they certainly would have.

no compulsion to spread a Hindu message hence they didn't go to country after country like an Abhrahamic faith to spread their message and removing the existing beliefs that were already there, which led to the crusades, wars and killings etc.

Have you considered the possibility how like Hindus conquered land for reasons beyond religion, that Muslims and christians also did it for the same reason?

 

[Romali_rotti]

So? That did not stop Hindus from conquering land. And I understand the Hindu mindset that views conquests in South Asia as an "internal" conflict, so I will bring up Indonesia, and Malaysia. They did not go their for peaceful purposes.

And the reason that Hindus did not do more conquests outside of South Asia like conquer Europe or Africa was not out of benevolence, it was because they could not do so. Same reason that the not so peaceful Native Americans did not conquer Europe was not because they were minding their own business. It was because they couldn't. If they could they certainly would have.

Nah not really, Hindu civilizations before the start Abrahamic faith's like Christianity and Islam were quite advanced in mathematics, architecture etc. Building boats and travelling via seas/or land to conquer other lands were well within their reach if they wanted to.

It goes to back to what I was saying, they believe all paths lead to god and there are no teachings in their religious text such as the Christian and Islam to spread the message and convert...

 

[Romali_rotti]

Their is a difference between conquering land, and assimilating people into your own culture versus committing a genocide on the population.

I agree with you on the genocide of a population like what was done to the aboriginals. However there would have been plenty of resistance from the natives or Iraq and Iran etc who did not want to assimilate and resisted not wanting to be part of an unknown way of life, as a result many would have been killed. If you look at Iraq and Iran now is there much of their ancestor's history still left in those countries ? Such as buildings, teachings or other means ? would be very minimal if there are any... My whole point was it is similar to what was done to the aboriginals, just not as extreme.


.

Bold..