Town Talk

However, I still needed to know how I felt — and why. My starting point was this:

I love Australia Day and always have — but, do I want to continue to celebrate it, if it is truly making many people miserable? I was looking for answers to several questions, including: What would have happened, if the British hadn’t come when they did? And do all — or most — First Nations people have the same opinion about the day?

There is some dispute about when the nation agreed on a date and name; some say 1935, some 1949. And the name varied: Foundation Day, Anniversary Day. However, it took Australians some time to become enthusiastic; patriotism didn’t quite fit with the nation’s psyche. But gradually we got the idea that we have a reason to reflect on the past and celebrate what has been achieved. Nothing in our history has changed since then — but has something changed in us?

In an attempt to answer my own questions, I’ve been reading — reading and remembering.

Did you know? I certainly didn’t

On June 7, 1494, Pope Alexander VI divided the undiscovered ‘new world’ into two halves. He gave the western section of each land mass to Spain and the eastern half to Portugal. In Australia, the line ran from east of where Darwin is located, right down the middle of the country to the Great Australian Bight. The Spanish were to have the western section and the Portuguese got us.

This was called the Treaty of Tordesillas and, in 1506, Pope Julius II sanctioned it. Its purpose was to settle conflicts between the nations of the Iberian Peninsula. Invaders could not take the land if it had a lawful leader; however, that didn’t save the Incas from the Spanish or the Aztecs from the Portuguese.

Fortunately, very fortunately, the Portuguese were busy and not interested in this large land mass, so very far away. However, it appears that, from early in the 16th century, it was open slather for established nations (with ships that stayed afloat). The world was their oyster. Most of these invasions appear to have been horrendous. And it went on until the mid-19th century. (Spain declared war on Morocco in 1859.)

Australia in 1788

It has been written that there were more than 500 tribes, totalling between 500,000 and 770,000 people. But it is apparent from the writings of men on the First Fleet that none had any understanding of how the population functioned. There were no fences, and this seemed to be important to the white people. Did fencing indicate ownership?

Within 100 years, the population had decreased by around 80 per cent (which is horrific to me). There were three reasons for this: the introduction of new diseases, settler acquisition of Traditional Owners’ land, and direct, violent confrontation with the colonisers. There was indifference, ignorance and little respect but there was also outright slaughter. To my way of thinking, even worse came later, when comfortable in the ‘superiority’ of their race, children were taken from their families.

The Lower Goulburn area in 1841

Edward Currone, one of our first white settlers, met the Bangerang tribe in 1841. He wrote that there were 10 ‘sub-tribes’ and the total of the Bangerang tribe was 1200 people. He describes, in detail, a fight between the Bangerang and the Oorilim tribes. It came about because a man named Wigilopyka (but called Neptune by the white population) had lost a son — and he suspected the Oorilim of witchcraft. The battle was fierce and loud but Mr Currone concluded that when peace was restored, no great damage had been done. And on the following night, the tribes held a grand corroboree. The Traditional Owners’ name for this area was Kanny-goopna. (This information comes from the Shire of Shepparton’s centenary book, Reflections.) The latest census tells us there are currently 2186 First Nations descendants in Greater Shepparton.

What do local Traditional Owners think about it all, in 2022?

I don’t know because I have no research, but I’d love someone to tell me. In the early 1980s my work took me regularly into the homes of several First Nations families (seven or eight or thereabouts) and we had many discussions. I asked about Australia Day and received no negative feedback, but there could have been a reluctance to talk to a white woman about such concerns. However, I made note of the comment from one lady, with whom I had become friendly. She said “Look, love! I have no interest in hunting a kangaroo for tea. I far prefer to buy my steak at the supermarket. And I don’t think we’d have got here on our own.”

What might have happened — without the British

After 60,000 years, our First Nations people had clearly determined the lifestyle they wanted. Food appears to have been their chief motivation; when it got short, they relocated. How, and why, this would have changed — without outside influence — is difficult to imagine.

When my friend said that she didn’t think the First Nations population would have “got here on our own”, bells rang for me. I don’t think they’d have held this country against any of the invading nations. The land is too large and too rich; the population was too small. And there does not appear to have been any desire for change in the First Nations lifestyle. And the invaders had strong motives: the Spanish wanted to spread Catholicism and increase the wealth of their nation. So, if the Brits hadn’t come, motivated by a need to house their ‘criminals’, what would have happened? I can only think that ‘someone’ would have invaded — and it is probable they’d have come with destruction or annihilation in mind.

So, where do I stand?

I have just revisited what I wrote to you on January 26, 2021. And I’ll repeat some of it here.

We are 21st century human beings with 21st century sensibilities. To us, every life is precious. We don’t care about skin colour, the language spoken or the religion practised. Each to their own. As long as this person does no harm to others, his or her life is precious. From our perspective, we look back on centuries past and wonder ‘How could they do that? Were they animals?’ However, if we had been raised in the 16th or 17th centuries, our perspective — our view of the world and its inhabitants — would have been very different. It was a fight for survival; a dog-eat-dog existence. Out of necessity, parents sent their children down coal mines.

It is hard for us to imagine but all over the planet, countries with the ability to do so were invading others. If you landed and raised a flag, you considered the country yours. It was awful but it was happening in country after country. North and South America were invaded, as were many parts of Africa, several island nations — and Australia. Europe was on the move.

Today, an educated humankind can see the wrong, feel the pain caused — but can’t turn back time. We can’t ‘fix’ that now. All we can do is try to be an example to the rest of the world with a happy, peaceful, proudly multicultural community.

I am not proud of what was done two centuries ago, but I am proud — in fact, very proud — of what has happened in this land, over the past few decades. ‘We are one, but we are many. And from all the lands on earth we come.’ Despite our heartbreaking start, we have built a dream for those who come from war-torn countries, from famine, from persecution — and, on this day, many join us. We welcome them with open hearts. We respect, encourage and applaud the First Australians.

It isn’t perfect, but it’s ours. It belongs to each and every one of us. To my way of thinking, that’s worth a barbecue and a beer.

That remains my truth because I am not convinced that more than half of our population want the date changed. (If our council has research, I’d love to see it!) For some — feeling a part of a generation past its use-by date — this is the thin edge of the wedge. What next? The republic, I suppose, and then a new flag (that does not reflect our true history and means nothing to many).

There is a strong possibility that changing the date is more divisive than leaving it where it was!

I’d love some opinions! And please remember that I’ve been wrong many times in the past!

Dan Andrews’ evacuation gift.

There has been contact from three of our readers, over the past 10 days or so, regarding the offer made by Daniel Andrews on October 17. Basically, they want to know if anyone has received the money yet.

On that wet Monday, I listened carefully to the Premier; for the past three years I have listened carefully to the Premier — and, frequently, it has been enlightening. In this instance, he was warm and comforting and offered $1000 to those who had to evacuate. He said there was no red tape, no questions asked and it would be quick. People had been inconvenienced by the floods and they needed help now.

I made notes because I’ve learned to do that over time. For example, I made a note about the promise of 4000 new ICU beds. In my ignorance, I thought the COVID-19 thing was on its last legs; so I was surprised by the promise. Months later, I watched one of the few brave journalists ask about the 4000 beds. Mr Andrews gave the young man one of his withering stares and asked ‘Where did you get that from?’ He then flat out denied the promise.

This is what readers are telling me about this latest promise.

The website wasn’t ready. It was clunky and difficult to use. Took three attempts and no response as yet.

The website asked for bank account details but didn’t recognise credit union account numbers. This lady clicked on a ‘please call me’ button and received a call three weeks later. She is now waiting for a second call to tell her whether she qualifies and take her account details. She was told that a small team was working on 70,000 applications.

A third reader asked what happens if you don’t use a computer.

So, this is costing $70 million. And there aren’t enough people to handle it? A successful politician takes advantage of every opportunity and, without doubt, Mr Andrews has been a successful politician. However, if you don’t keep your promises and disappoint/inconvenience voters, maybe they decide they’ve had enough.

Our local election?

If people elsewhere haven’t woken up to Mr Andrews, we need Suzanna Sheed back in. Mr Andrews doesn’t want our seat to swing back to the Coalition, so he will continue to be kind to Ms Sheed — with the exception of the Commonwealth Games! However, if Victoria decides to give the Coalition a go, we need Kim O’Keeffe or Cheryl Hammer. Not easy, is it?

Perhaps we could petition the Victorian Electoral Commission, saying we’ve been wet and we’re not yet dry and we want to vote on the first Saturday in December? Then we’d know what to do. Then, personally, I wouldn’t have to decide between three strong, intelligent women — all of whom I know and like!

Okay, so you don’t think that will work? I’ll dig out my crystal ball!

May it be easy, my friends

Marnie

Email: towntalk@sheppnews.com.au

Letter: Town Talk. Shepparton News. P.O. Box 204. Shepparton 3631.

Phone: Send a text on 0418 962 507. (Note: text only. I will call you back, if you wish.)