Invasion or arrival?

Early Australian settlers with Aborigines Were the first white settlers to Australia new "arrivals" or "invaders"?

How should white settlement be characterised in the wording of the Australian constitution? The question has been raised after Sydney City Council decided to change the preamble in its corporate plan to describe the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788 as an "invasion" and "illegal colonization". It replaced the phrase "European arrival".

For many of the councillors, the issue was clear-cut. They thought it was simply historically dishonest to go on describing white settlement as anything other than an invasion, given that Australia was already home to the world's longest continuous living culture and that Aborigines were conquered and slaughtered by the British. After all, the first settlers routinely used words like "invasion," "warfare" and "enemies" when they spoke of the indigenous population.

Peter Fitzsimons, one of Australia's most read popular historians, has applauded the move. "Just say that next week, a flotilla came into Sydney Harbour with people and weaponry so powerful that we were powerless to resist their intent to occupy our land, and they did not even begin to recognise our ownership of it," he wrote recently. "Just say that within a few years we had been all but wiped out, with the survivors pushed to the outer regions. Here is the question, requiring an intellectually honest answer. Would that be characterised as 'an invasion', or not? We, surely, all know the answer, however uncomfortably that answer might sit."

Writing in The Guardian, the Australian journalist John Pilger also expressed his full support. He said the move "counters a cowardly movement of historical revision in which a collection of far-right politicians, journalists and minor academics claimed there was no invasion, no genocide, no stolen generations, no racism."

Others have condemned the move by Sydney Council. The Sydney councillor Phillip Black, noted: "Healing the past will not be achieved by alienating others." The New South Wales Aboriginal Affairs Minister Victor Dominello said the term invasion was divisive and thus unhelpful. "Reconciliation and progress can only be built on language that unifies us, not language that divides us," he said. The historian Keith Windschuttle, who has long claimed that the violence of white settlement has been exaggerated and who has also railed against what's called "the black armband view of history" said the council's decision "fans hostility and hatred".

The Sydney Council decision, which has echoes of the row over whether Australia Day should commemorate British colonization, has opened up a new front in the ongoing culture wars in Australia. The arguments over history have always been some of the most angry and intense, especially when they touch upon the moment when what at that time was the world's most modern culture clashed with the most ancient.

Where do you stand?

Nick Bryant Article written by Nick Bryant Nick Bryant New York correspondent

Bloomberg's contested legacy as NYC mayor

Michael Bloomberg has overseen the transformation of New York City during his 12 years as mayor. But as he prepares to leave office the billionaire businessman's political legacy is still contested.

Read full article

More on This Story

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 70.

    What the hell is with the 400 character limit??? Is the BBC serious?

  • rate this

    Comment number 69.

    #65 jaction

    It doesn't matter if they were Aussie ancestors or YOUR ancestors. They were British and no amount of twisting history is going to change that. The British govt. simply can't pass off blame by saying "look, it was YOUR lot that done it."

    I have to wonder if these ancestors had developed the cure for cancer if the modern Brits would be quick to say they were NOT their own.

  • rate this

    Comment number 68.


    Yes, it was. I was simply ridiculing some 'holier-than-thou' statements, particularly by Europeans & Americans who seem to have forgotten their own genocidal histories.

  • rate this

    Comment number 67.

    #60 PeterD

    Will this do?

    "The abuse of indigenous Australians was mostly perpetrated by the ancestors of modern Australians who also reaped any beneftits from such abuse. So why should modern Britons, whose ancestors mostly had nothing to do with such actions, be liable for compensation?"

    As I said, your reasoning is it wasn't the British but Oz's ancestors wot
    done it to the natives.

  • rate this

    Comment number 66.

    jaction, I think #35's original comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek and I can't believe you guys are arguing over whether to lay blame with Britain or Australia. As #62 and I have pointed out, the fate of the indigenous people of Australia (and everywhere else!) was tragic, but inevitable. No blame needs to be apportioned.


Comments 5 of 70



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.