Australia 1788: Invasion or Colonisation?

[Camikaze]

In recent days, the Council of the City of Sydney has decided to recognise or label the arrival of the First Fleet in Sydney in 1788 (the beginning of what has been traditionally termed the 'colonisation' of Australia) as an 'invasion'. This has created quite a stir.

Article:

Spoiler :

THE City of Sydney has been forced to use the word ''invasion'' to describe white settlement, after its Aboriginal advisory panel threatened to quit if the word was omitted.
After a week of acrimonious argument about using the word in the preamble in the city's plan for 2030, the council last night included the term, which last week caused a split among councillors who believed it was ''divisive''.
In an attempt to heal the rift among her own group of six that controls the council's numbers, the lord mayor, Clover Moore, had tried to remove the word ''invasion'' but conceded last night that she had underestimated the depth of feeling on the issue, and it was simply impossible to get agreement on any middle ground.
''I have heard from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Panel, and members of the Aboriginal community, that what happened in 1788 is described as an invasion,'' Cr Moore said.
Her new preamble includes the sentence, ''Despite the destructive impact of this invasion, Aboriginal culture endures … ''
The new form of words was prepared after members of the advisory panel met an hour before the council meeting and resolved to accept no term other than invasion to describe white settlement.
Phillip Black, a member of the Clover Moore group who raised original objections to the term of invasion, continued his battle in vain.
Cr Black told the council the word invasion was ''divisive'' and ''counterproductive'' to reconciliation.
''I believe the use of that word has served its useful life and it's time to move on…the City of Sydney, I don't believe should continue to use the term in our official documents.''
In the end, he was supported by Liberal councillor Shayne Mallard after members of Cr Moore's team supported her in a vote that won 8-2.
The rift has seen Cr Black pilloried for his suggestions in emails this week that Aborigines were also migrants.
''Australia has always been a land of immigrants: from the arrival of the first people from approximately 50,000 years ago, to the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788 to the arrival today of refugees from lands of conflict - each arrival has had its controversies but we all join a journey forward together to form modern Australia, '' he said.
His remarks prompted numerous retorts from members of the Aboriginal advisory panel including one from Donald Clark, who took exception to Cr Black 's explanation about the role of the panel.
''Thank you for explaining the function of an advisory panel to me,'' Mr Clark said.
'' This old Jackie-Jackie might not have realised the limits without your sage advice.''
Artist Shireen Malamoo had threatened to resign and was delighted with the final decision. ''I believe in their goodness,'' she said of the council.

And an article on the possible further implications of the Council's decision:

Spoiler :

AFTER succeeding in their push for the City of Sydney to call white settlement an ''invasion'', the City's Aboriginal Advisory Panel now wants the term used in Australia's constitution.
Several members of the panel that convinced the Council to use the word invasion in the preamble to its corporate plan believe the same word should be included in the preamble to the constitution.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has promised a referendum to recognise indigenous Australians in the constitution, probably at the next election, and has appointed an expert panel to discuss with the community the options for constitutional change.
Christopher Lawrence, a member of the City of Sydney's Aboriginal Advisory Panel, said the reason the panel had threatened to quit if the term invasion was not used was because it set a precedent for using it elsewhere, including in the constitution.
''I think we have to tell the truth about what happened, that's why it [the word invasion] has a rightful place in any preamble to do with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, it should be included,'' he said.
His view was echoed by Paul Morris, co-chair of the panel and chief executive of the Metropolitan Land Council who rejected the view that the word was divisive.
''A lot of people feel the way the panel feels, this is a matter that will be raised with the panel looking at the constitution,'' he said.
But other Aborigines were less sure.
Kirstie Parker, the editor of the Aboriginal newspaper, Koorie Mail, said that while the use of the word invasion was ''nothing new to Aboriginal people'' she doubted whether most Australians, in most states, would agree with that language.
''I think it may be a little bit challenging for most non-indigenous Australians,'' she said.
Former ALP president Warren Mundine was also cautious about pushing to include the word in any referendum.
''In regard to the City of Sydney I thought it was a victory, a common sense approach that was great, but in regard to the preamble for the constitution I'm more of a view at this stage to sit back and listen to what the committee comes up with and I'm happy to leave it at that,'' he said.
NSW Aboriginal Affairs Minister Victor Dominello echoed the views of two City of Sydney councillors who opposed its use when he said the term was divisive and would not help reconciliation.
''Reconciliation and progress can only be built on language that unifies us, not language that divides us.''

For reference, the NSW draft syllabus for History labels it as 'colonisation and settlement':

A student:
2.2 describes events, actions and consequences related to world exploration and British settlement of Australia
2.3 describes changes and consequences of British colonisation of Australia

This is an issue that people have strong opinions on, but to be honest, I'm not entirely sure why it's that big a deal. A friend of mine (studying to be a history teacher, no less) ranted on facebook about political correctness gone mad in calling it an 'invasion', but I honestly can't see why using an accurate descriptor is an issue. 'Colonisation' and 'settlement' to me appear to be words used to reduce collective guilt; to dress history up as something other than what it actually is. I don't see why we can't agree that it was an 'invasion', but concede that that doesn't necessarily make it bad. I mean, we invade things all the time, and although the word has come to have negative connotations, it isn't an inherently bad thing.

So what are your thoughts on what we should be calling it? 'Invasion' or 'colonisation'?

 

[azzaman333]

Colonisation is a more accurate description.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

There is a case for calling it either- the question is if the 'litmus test' should be violent resistance, or the fact that the conquest was so one-sided.

 

[Cheetah]

I suppose there are some definitions of the term 'invade' that may allow what happened in Australia to be termed an 'invasion'.

But the most obvious meanings of the term makes it wrong to use it IMO. The term 'invasion' in this context involves moving into and taking over a territory belonging to someone else. The aboriginal people were too few and too little in control of the territory for that to be correct.

The term 'colonization' seems far better. And the term 'colonization' does not exclude the possibility that there were less advanced indigenous people living in the area prior who then became oppressed.

In conclusion, I can't help but agree with your friend: This is yet another example of PC going too far/wrong. Terming it an 'invasion' hints that the aboriginals had some kind of state set up by themselves, which obviously isn't true. The most they had were one or two tribes who had semi-permanent seasonal dwellings in some very specific areas.

 

[Maniacal]

Invasion is usually part of the colonization process anyway, so I don't see the need to label it as an invasion.

 

[bathsheba666]

Are they classifying the breaking away of Australia from Pangaia as a rebellion, or a secession ?

On topic, it seems clear that it was an invasion.

With an (apparent?) complete absence of any opposition, it it not difficult to see why the invaders failed to realise this.

 

[Masada]

'Colonisation' and 'settlement' to me appear to be words used to reduce collective guilt; to dress history up as something other than what it actually is.

Well what was it? Moreover, I'm inclined to believe that the use of 'invasion' is likely to cause more distortion of the historic record than the use of 'colonisation' and 'settlement' do now. The latter two happened, whether or not the former did is still open to debate. Even were we to agree that an invasion happened was it significant enough to warrant de-emphasising the others? Personally, I still think the best restorative in this case is just to acknoweldge that horrible things happened and make a point to illustrate that horrible things were still going on into the 70s. Collective guilt is also ten kinds of rubbish. I literally don't see how I can have collective guilt for what my not-ancestors did in a country I've had links with for only a decade.

Terming it an 'invasion' hints that the aboriginals had some kind of state set up by themselves, which obviously isn't true.

The implications of that statement are scary.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Dumping ground for criminals (Penal Colony) isnt exactly an invasion.

 

[Yeekim]

But the most obvious meanings of the term makes it wrong to use it IMO. The term 'invasion' in this context involves moving into and taking over a territory belonging to someone else. The aboriginal people were too few and too little in control of the territory for that to be correct.

I believe this is the kind of thinking that the aboriginals are trying to get rid of - and having seen it actually expressed, it seems to me like their agenda is justified.

 

[Masada]

That kind of logic was legal writ here - Terra Nullius.

 

[Camikaze]

But the most obvious meanings of the term makes it wrong to use it IMO. The term 'invasion' in this context involves moving into and taking over a territory belonging to someone else. The aboriginal people were too few and too little in control of the territory for that to be correct.

Mabo seems highly relevant here. Terra nullius is a void concept. I think that by itself indicates some sort of invasion occurred, rather than purely settlement, which is implied in colonisation. There was actually something to invade, and British encroachment would seem to constitute an invasion in that light.

Well what was it? Moreover, I'm inclined to believe that the use of 'invasion' is likely to cause more distortion of the historic record than the use of 'colonisation' and 'settlement' do now. The latter two happened, whether or not the former did is still open to debate.

How should 'invasion' be defined, anyway? A forceful encroachment on land belonging to another entity? If that's the case, I don't see how we can say that didn't happen. If that's not the definition, then has it simply been twisted so as not to be applicable?

Is the first still only open to debate because it hasn't previously been termed that?

For that matter, what does 'colonisation' mean? It has come to be associated with 'settlement', but is it just a word used to make an invasion sounds prettier? Is it really something that is specifically not an invasion?

Even were we to agree that an invasion happened was it significant enough to warrant de-emphasising the others? Personally, I still think the best restorative in this case is just to acknoweldge that horrible things happened and make a point to illustrate that horrible things were still going on into the 70s.

I'm not sure I quite understand this point. Why does calling it an invasion mean de-emphasising the colonial aspects of it? It's not really about labelling certain aspects of it an 'invasion' and certain other aspects 'colonisation', but about labelling the whole thing an invasion, which involved settlement and colonial policy.

Collective guilt is also ten kinds of rubbish. I literally don't see how I can have collective guilt for what my not-ancestors did in a country I've had links with for only a decade.

Not everyone has to have collective guilt for it to exist. And it's more to do with the entire legacy of what we'd be calling an 'invasion', up to and including the present living standard of the Indigenous population. I could also say that I shouldn't feel guilty about that now because I pay tax and can't be held responsible for poor government policy, but most people would feel some sense of collective shame regardless. The same applies to the past, and labelling this an 'invasion' says that what we have now is based off that, which sounds much more icky than 'colonisation' or 'settlement'.

Dumping ground for criminals (Penal Colony) isnt exactly an invasion.

Why not, when that involved establishing a territorial claim and control?

 

[IglooDame]

Invasion = (primarily) military force. Colonization = (primarily) civilian settling. Clearly Australia 1788 was the latter.

 

[Masada]

How should 'invasion' be defined, anyway?

I have no idea.

A forceful encroachment on land belonging to another entity?

Eh, I wouldn't use entity. Terra Nullius' basic premise wasn't that people didn't live there, that's arrant nonesense, but that those people living there had no claim or right to the land as a result of a lack of corporate (i.e. group) identity and laws as a result.

If that's the case, I don't see how we can say that didn't happen.

I don't know if that's the case, but I suppose, if we accept that it is, then sure we can.

Is the first still only open to debate because it hasn't previously been termed that?

It has actually, but it didn't quite catch on. The problem with invasion is that if we use it, there's a risk of downplaying the significance of settlement and colonisation. There's two questions we need to ask ourselves as a result (1) was there an invasion and if so (2) does it justify a change (full or partial) in the language we use to describe 'the event(s)'? There's all kinds of other issues that we haven't even considered like do we call the whole period 1799 - 1920 a slow conquest of Australia? What about Sydney that was conquered fairly quickly, does that then become an occupation? (Meanwhile in occupied Sydney...).

For that matter, what does 'colonisation' mean? It has come to be associated with 'settlement', but is it just a word used to make an invasion sounds prettier? Is it really something that is specifically not an invasion?

I think Imperialism and colonialism are rather distinct from settlement and colonisation...? But I'm honestly not sure where the literature stands on this.

I'm not sure I quite understand this point. Why does calling it an invasion mean de-emphasising the colonial aspects of it? It's not really about labelling certain aspects of it an 'invasion' and certain other aspects 'colonisation', but about labelling the whole thing an invasion, which involved settlement and colonial policy.

Then you've shifted the emphasis and the whole historical narrative with it. It wouldn't be much different to me labelling the present Palestianian occupation of the West Bank a literal occupation of historically Jewish territories. It might be technically correct, in a sense, but is it the narrative we want to be telling people?

 

[Tee Kay]

How about both?

 

[Camikaze]

Invasion = (primarily) military force. Colonization = (primarily) civilian settling. Clearly Australia 1788 was the latter.

Well, going by the wikipedia numbers, about 56% of the First Fleet arrivals were convicts (don't think they count as civilians) and the remainder were crew, officials or marines. That seems to indicate more military force than civilian settling to me. The civilian settling came later on, when convicts had served their terms, for instance.

It has actually, but it didn't quite catch on. The problem with invasion is that if we use it, there's a risk of downplaying the significance of settlement and colonisation. There's two questions we need to ask ourselves as a result (1) was there an invasion and if so (2) does it justify a change (full or partial) in the language we use to describe 'the event(s)'? There's all kinds of other issues that we haven't even considered like do we call the whole period 1799 - 1920 a slow conquest of Australia? What about Sydney that was conquered fairly quickly, does that then become an occupation? (Meanwhile in occupied Sydney...).

2 is probably a bit more of an interesting issue than 1 (because it's purely historically based, and whilst I would think that one obviously did occur, it's not like I have a solid historical backing for that). I don't think that there is really any justification for not changing the language used. I don't think using 'colonisation' in the positive sense in which it is used is really a good thing, and the use of 'invasion' automatically puts it in a negative light. Okay, maybe some people don't want to see 1788 as a bad thing (and maybe it wasn't), but framing it as a negative historical event in name (remembering that it's still going to be viewed largely positively even when framed in this negative light) can only be beneficial to shaking traditional paradigms that can have contemporary impacts (and I can't for the life of me think of how to describe the possible flow through effects of viewing the coming of the Europeans as a Good Thing on the way the Indigenous population are treated in society today; having the situation informed by a view of white man bringing civilization can't be all that positive). I think that's just why Aboriginal leaders want the word used.

Then you've shifted the emphasis and the whole historical narrative with it. It wouldn't be much different to me labelling the present Palestianian occupation of the West Bank a literal occupation of historically Jewish territories. It might be technically correct, in a sense, but is it the narrative we want to be telling people?

Well, why shouldn't a narrative informed by a starting point of 'invasion' (or a mid-point, even) be what we want to be telling people, if it is technically correct?

 

[IglooDame]

Invasion = (primarily) military force. Colonization = (primarily) civilian settling. Clearly Australia 1788 was the latter.

Well, going by the wikipedia numbers, about 56% of the First Fleet arrivals were convicts (don't think they count as civilians) and the remainder were crew, officials or marines. That seems to indicate more military force than civilian settling to me. The civilian settling came later on, when convicts had served their terms, for instance.

I'm unconvinced. I do count convicts as civilians - they were certainly more "settlers" than they were conscripted soldiers. 'Crew' is a wash - the ships needed crew no matter what the overall thrust of the expedition was. 'Officials' is very nearly (leaning slightly to the "colonization side") another wash - if you're starting a colony, you need leadership beyond the military brass, and if you're invading, you need a puppet government of some sort for the occupied populace. And some marines would be needed as a garrison for a colony, so while I'm not sure of the numbers of marines actually embarked in this case, less than half of the debarked population (according to your percentage above) would seem less than would ordinarily be advisable for a classic invasion by force of arms, even against a numerically and technologically vastly inferior foe.

But overall, the convicts' status as "forced settlers" rather than "conscripted soldiers" is the decisive element for me.

 

[Communisto]

I agree with Masada.

I dont see the need for the change, especially since the goal of said switch was quite obviously done in spiteful guilt inducing rage.

I mean, historically, its not like "colonization" has been any more benign a concept than "invasion."

 

[warpus]

There is no precedent for calling the colonization of Australia an invasion, is there? Do any historians call it that? That should be the basis for what it ends up being called, not an appeal to emotion.

 

[IglooDame]

This is the approximate numbers of people that landed:

Officials and passengers.......14
Ships' crews.......................269
Marines.............................245
Marines wives and children....54
Convicts (men)...................543
Convicts (women)...............189
Convicts' children................18
Total................................1,332

It occurs to me that aside from "garrison" and "invading force", the marines were also functioning as "prison guards".

 

[warpus]

And the battles that ensued when the ship landed, how fierce were they?