I appreciate conversation whether it is productive or not. Listening to one another respectfully with the ear of your heart is becoming a lost art. This is one way we build trust in one another. I just enjoy how we humans are so unique It is fascinating. It challenges me to wonder what influences each person to think the way he /she does. I learn a great deal by listening
This was a disappointing conversation unfortunately. Josh was asking pointed and important questions and was met with too many non-answers and mis-directs.
Examples with paraphrasing:
Josh - ‘We don’t want young white men primarily defining themselves as that’
Tyson - met with no engagement to the question.
Josh - ‘We need to get to a point where we can have productive discussions’
Tyson - ‘What do productive discussions even look like’
Josh - ‘Lets talk about cancel culture’
Tyson - ‘People lose jobs on both sides. Did you ever see this movie in which fictional lefties lose their jobs’
Josh - ‘From what power base can an invader be welcomed in’
Tyson - ‘you can’t understand the land without an induction’
I wish there could have been more interaction with the topics Josh was proposing.
Tyson had a poor showing last time he was on Uncomfortable Conversations. After that one I Googled some of his articles to see if speaking was not his medium. Same level. I dislike being this critical but after the pump up Josh gave him it was a let down. Again. Though I definitely get the vibe he would be a great mate
Based only on my experience with this podcast, I’m left to believe that “Aussie academic” is the least demanding job in the world.
One of these days I’m going to come into a “Uncomfortable Conversations” podcast pre-conditioned to have the lowest expectations imaginable, and some Aussie guy or gal is going to blow my socks just by being replacement level.
I have to say I agree. I get some of what Tyson is saying but for the most part, he seems sort of incoherent. Lots of empty platitudes and at the end of it all I’m not much clearer on what he actually thinks.
Huge fan of uncomfortable conversations but this conversation felt too… comfortable? I know that Josh would’ve have many disagreements with things Tyson said - especially language around settlers and stealing (as he referenced with apprehension in his intro) yet he totally let Tyson get away with comments that felt really controversial. I love Josh’s interview style, I find him always to be respectful without giving guest any undue latitude and he always has the benefit of the doubt in my book but after all his talk in the intro about treating people as equals beyond identifications, it really felt like he was treating Tyson differently and giving him an unchecked platform on issues he would not let another guest get away with on the basis of Tyson being aboriginal. Of course it counts for something, but it felt like an elephant in the room the whole conversation which guided the conversation in ways that felt unsettling for me as a listener and I left unsure of what Tyson or Josh thought about any of the issues they danced around.
For reference I am an American citizen who has lived for 6 years in Australia as an artist in Melbourne and I am deeply sympathetic to issues about reconciliation with First Nations peoples, but I share Josh’s ambivalence and thing a more variegated conversation is needed and was looking forward to him hosting one. Alas I don’t feel that this chat progress the conversation at all. I think Josh is the guy to do it but this just wasn’t it.
Curious if I’m alone in this conclusion or if this framing lands with any other listeners?
Thanks for asking. I feel my opinion is mudded by the fact that in the time I have been here there has been a shift both in my personal politics and in the political culture broadly. I definitely felt an overwhelming reverence, enchantment and appreciation for the custom when I first encountered it and I still feel in contact with that in many ways but I also feel that this regard has been dampened by the awkward formula of it all and the implications for what a strongly worded welcome or acknowledgment implies for white self-identified Australians with strong cultural and historical ties to this land.
I will say when it is in context it can be a deeply moving and orienting process that connects me personally to an important part of what it mean to be in Australia. Before a gathering out in country or any sort of land-based practice it feels so relevant but in a conference room, before a yoga class in the city, or let alone on a webpage it feels so tokenistic and I’m left feeling very confused and dismayed by the intentionality behind it.
I felt when Tyson was talking about the importance of place in reference to land craft and practice it was totally valid but I expected Josh to push back and put it in the real context at hand which is not activities involved with aboriginal cultural heritage but a podcast or a corporate meeting or an Anzac remembrance service. Can it have a place, sure? But I sympathise with those who don’t think it belongs everywhere and feel their own right to identify with their cultural ties to this land is somehow invalidated and lessened.
I would love to see what an inclusive culture would look like. How the country could move forward together as a modern Australian people who honour their shared and respective history in relevant and deeply felt ways. How to do this? No clue. But it’s a worthy (though uncomfortable) conversation to have.
Reflections on the intro Josh. I’ll revisit the conversation, I usually do. Anzac Day is not a static institution. I was born in 1959. Can recall the last post being played at school, so maybe like Australia Day the holiday and ceremony didn’t coincide? School play in high school was “ The One Day of The Year”. Anzac Day was respected but also Vietnam War, conscription, and peace movement, were running parallel. When did nurses join the parade, always? Recall in the 80’s Women remembering Women Raped in War gate crashed the parade for a couple of years. Sometime a little later the RSL strongly resisted the idea of anyone who hadn’t served in conflict marching in the parade, and wearing someone else’s medals, ( I still find that distasteful). The RSL at sometime changed their position. The booze up and two up thing was for the soldiers, but in the 90s it seemed to become an all in party. Personally i think it’s a day for people who have seen conflict and every one who hasn’t to shut up and respect that it’s an experience unknown to you. One of my favourite Sydney bars, The Albury used dress the place up in camo nets and homoerotic war imagery, I used give that a wide berth. I treat Anzac Day as a quiet day of contemplation, recall the family ties that fought in conflict and how their lives panned out. I avoid the telecasts, to many people who weren’t there verbaling those that were and now dead. Did Dutton hold a sayance to find out that thousands of dead soldiers would object to welcome to country ceremonies. Well I think it’s a national day so a welcome from indigenous person of the region of the given cenotaph is part of it. The welcome in Melbourne got a bit astringent but to me looked like an unscripted response to the booing that started very early in the speech. Yep I thought for a while the welcomes and acknowledgments might get on the nose, mostly I like them. One of the reasons amongst others that I vote Yes to a Voice, the sort of protocol I’d like indigenous Australians to resolve. There is a real indignity of Hearing 97% arguing about 3%.
Interesting conversation and thoughts from Josh. I grew up calling my country both New Zealand and Aotearoa, it wasn’t a competition - both names are relevant and good.
I wish there was more curiosity and respect all round when it comes to how individuals relate to culture and that we weren’t searching for a right/wrong answer.
Gosh we should talk. I'm white Australian, 1840's. Aboriginal history is part of my history too, our shared story as a human beings living on this land. I'm so proud of it. The question is, once we own our shared history, make peace with our present, how do we write the next chapter together. For me welcome to country is a proud part of my Australian heritage. It's deeply symbolic and connective. If you're after another perspective, let's chat. Just back from the Nullabor and can offer a perspective on guesting and custodianship too. Cheers, sarah
What happens if the vast majority of Australians—according to several polls—disagree with your view and don’t find the Acknowledgement or Welcome to Country inclusive?
As an Australian, I have to be honest: I don’t personally connect with these acknowledgements. My concern isn’t about the intent behind them, but rather the narrowness of the gesture. When we consistently acknowledge only one part of our history or one group of people, it inevitably raises the question: why not others?
For instance, what about the Australians who’ve given their lives in service to this country? If these acknowledgements were framed more broadly—recognising not only Indigenous heritage but also the sacrifices made by others in shaping the nation—we might see a more unifying impact. But that’s rarely the case. In my experience, these statements seldom, if ever, mention Australia as a whole or reflect a shared national identity.
That’s where many people feel a disconnect. It starts to feel less like an inclusive act of recognition, and more like the promotion of a particular narrative. If inclusivity were truly the goal, wouldn’t it be reasonable to suggest that acknowledgements also honour all who’ve contributed to the country’s story, including those who’ve died defending it?
This isn’t about dismissing one part of history in favour of another. It’s about striving for balance—something that resonates with all Australians, not just some.
It would so lovely to have a conversational dialogue, rather than this series of comments. But as it is, let me try to explain my perspective. Welcome/Acknowledgement of country, is in the name. It's more centrally about land, place, location. It's about a shared belonging. Aboriginal people did this ritual welcome/acknowledgement traditionally. I wonder if in a conversation like this, we slow down and feel a sense of awe about this 65,000+ year human lineage. We are shared custodians of this culture, and we have visited great trauma on Aboriginal people. Rarely does a conversation like this touch on how we as recent arrivavals might benefit from finding our place in this ancient story. Josh touched on guests/custodians. My perspective is slightly different to the reading in the podcast, as it's about relationship to country. I will never be Aboriginal, but feel the need to honour this history and my relationship with the land as either a good (non-TO) custodian or a respectful guest. I am a custodian of the acreage land I live on/own in Brisbane. Many Australians love this country and I would love us to learn the things Aboriginal cultures and people can teach us. Examples include, care of country, only kill animals for food, grief, kinship ties, extended communities, humour, shared resources, equality and difference, spiritual awareness, music, and much more. In my bones. I'm from this land and will return to this land. An Aboriginal elder once told me, that people born here are indigenous but not Aboriginal. This is different but both valuable. It would be so lovely to educate newer arrivals so they can find their place in our shared national story. Welcome to country for me is about all of us acknowledging our land and what it means to be from here. This is just my, as you might call it, minority perspective.
Thanks, Josh. I had a somewhat frustrating listening experience with this episode. At times, it felt like Tyson was unwilling to directly engage with the questions being posed.
As I listened, this feeling started to seem familiar. It reminded me of my efforts to understand why China often refuses to fully engage with the current world order. In that case, it often stems from a fundamental belief that the existing system is deeply flawed and in need of significant change. I wonder if Tyson's reluctance to answer directly might stem from a similar feeling – perhaps a sense that the questions themselves were framed within a problematic or limiting framework, or a cynicism that nothing would change regardless?
This created a space for me to listen more deeply and appreciate a perspective that, to someone who feels marginalized or unheard, criticisms of Welcome to Country might be just another chapter in an overwhelmingly brutal story.
It was different from what I normally get from this podcast, but valuable just the same. I appreciate the opportunity to consider these alternative perspectives.
Australia Day does not mark the date of the British arrival in Australia.
Not even three minutes in, and it’s worth clarifying a key historical inaccuracy: 26 January is not the date the British first arrived in Australia, as claimed by Josh.
The earliest British arrival dates back to 29 April 1770, when Lieutenant James Cook, commanding the HMB Endeavour, landed on the east coast of the continent and claimed it for the British Crown, naming it New South Wales.
Even if Josh was referring instead to the arrival of the First Fleet, he still would be incorrect in stating that 26 January marks the beginning of British settlement.
Here’s a more accurate timeline:
• 25 January 1788: The British naval ensign was raised at Sydney Cove in a small ceremony led by Captain Arthur Phillip and attended by officers and marines.
• 26 January 1788: HMS Supply entered Sydney Cove with Captain Phillip, marines, and 40 convicts. Ground was cleared for an encampment.
• 7 February 1788: This is arguably the more significant date in legal and constitutional terms—the colony of New South Wales was formally established, with proclamations made and land officially vested in King George III.
This distinction matters. Critics of Australia Day, particularly Indigenous Australians and activists, highlight the pain and dispossession tied to colonisation. Yet, if the objective were purely to protest the British arrival or the establishment of the colony, they could arguably have chosen 29 April, 25 January, or 7 February—each with stronger historical and legal significance.
Instead, 26 January has become the focal point of protest. While it may not be the most historically accurate marker. If we’re going to have a national conversation about history, identity, and unity, it’s essential that we base it on accurate facts and acknowledge the complexity of the history—not simplify or misrepresent it for convenience.
Thank you for pointing out this historical inaccuracy. The earliest records of people celebrating this day - at least that I can find online - speak of early 1800s era New South Wales settlers celebrating "Foundation Day," with the first public celebrations held in 1838 around the 50th anniversary. This historical context is important because it highlights that the date has always been somewhat symbolic.
In that context, the distinction between the 25th or 26th of January seems less important than why that date was chosen in the first place.
Let's accept for a minute that we're choosing a day to celebrate everything that is good about Australia. Not just the founding stories in Aboriginal history, but also the establishment of a new society and the welcoming of people from all over the world to be a part of that story. You could choose to celebrate that on any day, but if you choose to do it on an important anniversary for one part of it, invariably some folks are going to feel left out. This is because focusing solely on the European settlement narrative can minimize or even erase the experiences and perspectives of Indigenous Australians, for whom that date represents dispossession and ongoing trauma.
I agree with your original point that historical accuracy matters. But so does context. We can quibble about which day - 25th Jan, 26th Jan, 7th Feb, or 29th April - would be MOST tied to European Settlement, but the reality is that all of them focus on that particular part of the Australian story. An important chapter? Yes. But far from the whole story.
Sorry for the delayed response, I don’t often check the app, so I missed the notification.
I understand your view that Australia Day should be inclusive and for everyone. I’d argue that the issue isn’t really about the date itself, especially since the current one doesn’t mark the most historically significant moment in terms of settlement or national foundation. If historical importance were the true focus, there are arguably more appropriate dates we could choose.
I know opinions are divided, even within Aboriginal communities about whether the date should change. But I think some of the opposition might see things differently if the historical framing were broadened. For example, 26 January 1949 marked the commencement of the Australian Citizenship Act, the first time Australians were formally recognised as citizens, independent from the British Empire. That’s a defining milestone in our national identity, and if seen through that lens, could serve as a unifying point of reflection if people were willing to change their perspective, however I don’t think they are willing.
What also leads me to think the controversy is about more than just the date is the way Australia Day is actually observed. It isn’t defined by nationalism, military parades, or denial of the past. Instead, it’s a day where people gather quietly with friends and family, in parks, at beaches, in backyards, to simply enjoy each other’s company. This is important and shouldn’t be overlooked. It’s not about exclusion, but about a shared, often unspoken, sense of connection, a uniquely Australian sensibility that cuts across backgrounds. The only thing that makes it divisive, in my view, is how it’s framed by some.
When you also consider that we have a number of days throughout the year dedicated specifically to recognising and celebrating Aboriginal culture and history, I don’t believe the debate is truly about a lack of recognition. For some, the discomfort seems to stem from the idea of celebrating Australia at all, that the concept of a national day is itself the issue. That’s a more existential view, and one that, I think, overlooks the extraordinary benefits that have come from the country’s foundation, not just for those of us who live here, but for people around the world. Australia contributes significantly to global welfare, through food exports, energy, humanitarian assistance, and more.
It’s a complex issue, of course, but I do think there’s room to acknowledge both the difficult parts of our history and the good that has come from it, without having to reject the idea of celebrating Australia altogether which seems to underpin a lot of the conversation around the 26 January.
Thanks for this Josh, you raised good points and it was good to listen to Tyson's take on them.
I've only given an acknowledgement of country once and can agree it was a conflicting experience. I wanted to do it genuinely, but reading a script doesn't achieve that. At the same time I was worried going to far off script would be seen as disrespectful.. I like Tyson's approach of weaving it in, making it part of the conversation.
I think one thing that gets confused (even here in the comments) is that the word "country" means a different thing to Indigenous people. It doesn't mean "Australia" it's a broader concept of place that Tyson was trying to get accross (and I wont pretend to fully appreciate). So in that context, no a Welcome to Country, is not "welcoming you to the place you were born". Also, as Tyson mentioned, Indigenous people welcome eachother, and they were born here.
While I will continue to (metaphorically) roll my eyes at the white people reading Acknowledgement scripts, I will also keep trying to understand the Indigenous point of view and their connection to Country.
Thanks Jay, I struggle with this manipulation of words. Don’t all cultures have a connection to Country? So why should we only acknowledge one group of people’s connection and not others? Obviously this has a deep meaning for aboriginal people but it’s clearly been weaponised, if it wasn’t an acknowledgment of country would be updated to include references to the “other” people who have been here for 250 years.
My questions is will there come a time when non-Indigenous Australians are viewed by Aboriginal peoples in the same way as the dingo — an introduced presence that, over time, has been accepted and even valued? Although not native, the dingo has become an important part of the landscape and holds spiritual significance for some Aboriginal communities. Why not accept the White fella? I mean we’ve fought and died for this Country many times.
Other examples of manipulation or stretching of a words meaning to push an aboriginal agenda are included below;
1. Custodians - suggest that Australia as a continent wouldn’t have survived without aboriginals. Rubbish. It would have been fine. Aboriginals exploited the land to survive.
2. Knowledge and Science - there’s no such thing as aboriginal knowledge or science. It’s just knowledge. A discovery in America isn’t considered American knowledge, it’s just knowledge. It all goes into the collective knowledge. No one has a monopoly of knowledge and nor should aboriginals.
3. Longest continuous culture - how is this possible when many aboriginals tribes lived completely independently of one another, didn’t even speak the same languages and had differing customs, ceremonies, and laws tied to their specific Country. While there are obvious similarities between tribes, it’s an absolute stretch to consider all aboriginals from the same culture.
For example, Aboriginal groups in the Northern Territory differ significantly from those in Tasmania. The Tasmanian peoples looked different with more tightly curled or woolly hair compared to straight usually found elsewhere. They also wore distinct clothing such as animal skins (like wallaby). They also did not even use spear throwers, shields, boomerangs, or didgeridoos—tools and instruments commonly associated with other Aboriginal communities.
4. First Nations and Sovereignty: ‘First Nations’ and ‘First People’ are based on the unexamined assumption that all people should be defined by their family tree. This is the ancient idea of aristocracy, that a person’s place in society should be determined not by their personal characteristics, but by their family tree. So, the use of expressions such as ‘First Nations’ or ‘First People’ is an attempt to create an entitled aristocracy. Using the term “nation” is projecting a European concept onto aboriginals. They did not have defined borders, national identities or centralised administrative systems. The diversity of Aboriginal Australian societies is better described as comprising hundreds of separate Indigenous cultural/language groups or communities, rather than unified nations. The Uluru statement from the heart also identifies aboriginal sovereignty as “of a spiritual nature” which “co-existing with the sovereignty of the Crown”. Sovereignty under International law is defined as “sovereign states having a permanent population, defined territory, a government not under another, and the capacity to interact with other sovereign states.” The Australian High Court has repeatedly rejected the notion of aboriginal sovereignty.
1. If you do a land acknowledgment and say the land belongs to X people but don’t give it back to those people it’s bullshit. Plain and simple.
2. Id like to have a beer with your guest he seems awesome. That said what he talks about is his religion. So having to acknowledge his religion is like going to Italy as a Muslim and acknowledging Jesus died for our sins. Lol
3. Multiple times it’s said the people that are there have been there for 10,000 years. I have a hard time believing anyone has been anywhere for that amount of time.
“Young Australians are turning g to the Right in record numbers” hasn't aged well. Looks like while Australia voted No, they're still happy to vote progressive.
Should I waste a minute of this glorious day in the southern highlands to pursue this further . Ok the Macquarie uni law stuff is embarrassing, sounds like dialogue from some very late night party in the 80’s after a lot of depth chargers, pot and a few packets of gauloises. Not sure that law students have to agree with this position or is it just a required module to consider? The law will be increasingly crucial. Since the rejection of the Voice, and treaty there is no way forward other than the courts. Indigenous people had some terrific wins navigating an imposed legal system that doesn’t recognise any law outside the system inherited from the UK. Could you say that since the Marbo decision the door has bolted on the notion of one people one nation, indigenous Australians do have specific individual rights under the law, good luck to me if I wanted to file a land rights claim, I certainly wish claimants all the luck in the world. Ken Whyet recently flagged future legal tussles. Britain colonised this country with a disingenuous Christian benevolence, when so often acting counter to moral and legal values. Spose the thinking was that these indigenous people are so primitive we’ll just get away with it. Are there further legal implications given that no war was declared, no victory won, no surrender or capitulation no treaties? Should have at the very least given them a constitutional voice so that aboriginal people of very varied perspectives can consult and advise. It’s sad that many aboriginal people can’t avail themselves of the avenues already won.
Some times listening to the intro to this conversation, is there an implication that identity politics and culture Wars are only engaged in by minorities? If we want to be all one under one flag maybe the Union Jack should go, it’s extremely identity politics, Canada did. Australia Day is an important historical day, it marks the coming together of two peoples and all the history that followed, but if it’s just about a party it is culture war and identity politics by the majority on overload. One of the things that really moved me about the voice referendum was that it was the second time that Aboriginal people were subjected to the indignity and humiliation of being voted on by every registered voter. Something they have delt with with such grace. 1967 they were voted in with out the option of perhaps declining, the second time a great act of faith and then so unempathicly and callously used as a political football. The liberal party hadn’t opposed a voice prior to the 2022 election, infact Julian lessor and Ken whyet were actively consulting on it? Dutton briefly proposed subjecting aboriginal people to a third referendum, likely tapped on the shoulder and informed that putting some Weasley words in the constitution is likely far more legally dangerous than a specific Voice, he’d unleashed so much hate and confusion it would also most likely be defeated. And giving people something they haven’t asked for is like dumping your dirty mattress out side vinnies, culture war and identity politics at its most vile. Marcia Langton was totally cancelled for suggesting that much of the argument against the voice was white supremacist and racist, I’d agree with her. On Australia Day this year susan ley gave a address in an Anglican church, clearly to evoke a reference to Tumps inauguration day service, likening the 1788 arrival in Australia to Musks future arrival on Mars, an uninhabited planet. What a monstrous ack of culture war. Jacinta Price said in an address to the National press club that colonisation put water in the taps and food in the shop. A very flawed interpretation of history I think. Let’s say you are descended from a hundred generations of Scottish highlanders who have spent history it a turf hut grovelling in the mud searching for a turnip or a spud if you’re Irish, ultimately to be chucked of your land, by the fact of your white complexion you can make an cultural claim to all that is fabulous about modern Australia. But if you’re aboriginal and your immediate ancestors worked cattle stations, assisted exploration and guided settlement, dug the trenched of the pipes, emptied the shit cans and maybe even did the murdering because white folks don’t like getting there hands and souls dirty, you don’t have a cultural claim on the best parts of modern Australia. Again culture war and identity politics coming from the top. If the Uk is the Prototype of our culture they don’t seem to have any problem accommodating multiple cultural identities, English, Scottish, welsh, Irish. Maybe not so much Irish, and others. Wales gained autonomy over its internal affairs as recently as the early 2000s without being accused of engaging in a vile offensive ungrateful culture war.
Brock, there’s a lot to unpack in what you’ve said, but I want to respectfully challenge the notion that Aboriginal people were not respected at all by the British. I think that’s an oversimplification and doesn’t do justice to the historical context.
If the British Empire, at the time the most powerful empire in the world, had truly wanted to eliminate Aboriginal people, it sadly had the means to do so. But that’s not what happened. Instead, the British arrival in 1788 was accompanied by a directive from King George III, which stated:
“You are to endeavour by every possible means to open an intercourse with the Natives and to conciliate their affections, enjoining all Our Subjects to live in amity and kindness with them. And if any of Our Subjects shall wantonly destroy them, or give them any unnecessary Interruption in the exercise of their several occupations, it is our Will and Pleasure that you do cause such offenders to be brought to punishment according to the degree of the Offence.”
All Aboriginal people were declared British subjects, which in principle meant they were entitled to the same protections under British law as anyone else. That doesn’t sound like the actions of a power intent on destruction.
Of course, in practice, things were far messier and often tragic. But to understand that, we need to use some imagination and think about the realities on the ground. Imagine a convict boy from London, transported for stealing a loaf of bread, who serves his sentence and is granted a small plot of land in an unfamiliar, remote colony. He struggles to grow crops, feed his family, and survive. Meanwhile, Aboriginal groups, understandably seeing this as encroachment on their land, may take food or resist. With no shared language or cultural understanding, mistrust grows. Conflict eventually erupts, and tragically, people die—both Aboriginal and settler.
Is that man entirely to blame for what followed? I’d argue not. It’s a deeply human story of two cultures coming into contact, often clashing, and struggling to coexist. That story, for better or worse, is repeated throughout human history. To suggest that Australia’s case should somehow be immune from that broader pattern seems unrealistic.
Yes, the colonial experience came with profound challenges and injustices, but we should also acknowledge that, compared to other parts of the world, there were efforts (however imperfect) to include and respect Aboriginal people. For example, less than 100 years after the First Fleet, Aboriginal men in South Australia were granted the right to vote in 1856. And Aboriginal women gained the vote there in 1895—23 years before women in the UK.
Think about that: Aboriginal women in South Australia had the vote before any woman in the UK. That’s not something you often hear about on the ABC.
Yes John, I should have phased it arrived with a benevolence that very often proved disingenuous. Yes I’m familiar with the (draft) instructions issued to Phillip, and also to Cook that show unambiguously that the Crown recognised the humanity of indigenous peoples. In both documents are passages relating to the inevitable sexual contact between arrivals and existing inhabitants and how that was to be handled. The British already had vast experience in the process of colonisation. The South Australian voting rights in SA is an excellent point, not sure that I was aware of this. I was aware that the statice of aboriginal people varied from colony to colony/ state to state, which was the point of the 1967 referendum I think. After federation with the introduction of the white Australia policy( which didn’t apply to aboriginal people) nether the less it’s about this time that aboriginal people who had already become integrated into modern Australia got shipped off to reserves and there fore isolated and excluded. Henry Reynolds book “ North of Capricorn” is very interesting on this subject. All of my great grandparents made their lives in far North Queensland, and there fore at the coal face of the colonial enterprise.
I’m disappointed that Australia has retreated from truth telling on the bogas notion that it’s just a guilt trip. Much of this history will be confronting but there would also be humanity, beauty, pathos, humour, endeavours and bonds and commonality. We won’t look at it and there’s so much misnomer. Looking at social media posts there is so much ignorance on both sides, and so often down right nasty more on the right, pure white supremacy, often not intended. Just a note I’m not clear at what point aborigines became subjects of the crown and untitled to the protection of the crown, 1770, 1788 or later?The crown can’t delare war on its subjects I believe, marshal law maybe?
I think much of The Australian identity we are so fond of dates from these early interactions with the native people and with this landscape. We are now three generations away from that experience and indigenous Australia is now only 3% of the population I think. So truth and perspective is lost. So much current discourse sounds to me like people who’ve reverted to whining poms a bit uncomfortable and defensive about their place in the world. Same about Anzac Day, to much dialogue from people who weren’t there. I’d disagree with you in general about the ABC, it can be a great source of primary source history. SBS series from Rachael Perkins, Australian Wars is very good. Plenty of good literature out there that is only likely to be reviewed by ABC. Again it’s a very human story.
I appreciate conversation whether it is productive or not. Listening to one another respectfully with the ear of your heart is becoming a lost art. This is one way we build trust in one another. I just enjoy how we humans are so unique It is fascinating. It challenges me to wonder what influences each person to think the way he /she does. I learn a great deal by listening
This was a disappointing conversation unfortunately. Josh was asking pointed and important questions and was met with too many non-answers and mis-directs.
Examples with paraphrasing:
Josh - ‘We don’t want young white men primarily defining themselves as that’
Tyson - met with no engagement to the question.
Josh - ‘We need to get to a point where we can have productive discussions’
Tyson - ‘What do productive discussions even look like’
Josh - ‘Lets talk about cancel culture’
Tyson - ‘People lose jobs on both sides. Did you ever see this movie in which fictional lefties lose their jobs’
Josh - ‘From what power base can an invader be welcomed in’
Tyson - ‘you can’t understand the land without an induction’
I wish there could have been more interaction with the topics Josh was proposing.
Tyson had a poor showing last time he was on Uncomfortable Conversations. After that one I Googled some of his articles to see if speaking was not his medium. Same level. I dislike being this critical but after the pump up Josh gave him it was a let down. Again. Though I definitely get the vibe he would be a great mate
Yep. To me, this conversation felt like Josh trying to have a conversation with a guy who wanted to do a monologue.
Another half-baked Aussie academic.
Based only on my experience with this podcast, I’m left to believe that “Aussie academic” is the least demanding job in the world.
One of these days I’m going to come into a “Uncomfortable Conversations” podcast pre-conditioned to have the lowest expectations imaginable, and some Aussie guy or gal is going to blow my socks just by being replacement level.
I have to say I agree. I get some of what Tyson is saying but for the most part, he seems sort of incoherent. Lots of empty platitudes and at the end of it all I’m not much clearer on what he actually thinks.
People don’t want to listen they want to talk.
Huge fan of uncomfortable conversations but this conversation felt too… comfortable? I know that Josh would’ve have many disagreements with things Tyson said - especially language around settlers and stealing (as he referenced with apprehension in his intro) yet he totally let Tyson get away with comments that felt really controversial. I love Josh’s interview style, I find him always to be respectful without giving guest any undue latitude and he always has the benefit of the doubt in my book but after all his talk in the intro about treating people as equals beyond identifications, it really felt like he was treating Tyson differently and giving him an unchecked platform on issues he would not let another guest get away with on the basis of Tyson being aboriginal. Of course it counts for something, but it felt like an elephant in the room the whole conversation which guided the conversation in ways that felt unsettling for me as a listener and I left unsure of what Tyson or Josh thought about any of the issues they danced around.
For reference I am an American citizen who has lived for 6 years in Australia as an artist in Melbourne and I am deeply sympathetic to issues about reconciliation with First Nations peoples, but I share Josh’s ambivalence and thing a more variegated conversation is needed and was looking forward to him hosting one. Alas I don’t feel that this chat progress the conversation at all. I think Josh is the guy to do it but this just wasn’t it.
Curious if I’m alone in this conclusion or if this framing lands with any other listeners?
I broadly agree.
I think it’s fair to say that Josh went very easy on him. Was it because of his race? I think so.
BTW, as an outsider, how do you find WtC and AoC?
Thanks for asking. I feel my opinion is mudded by the fact that in the time I have been here there has been a shift both in my personal politics and in the political culture broadly. I definitely felt an overwhelming reverence, enchantment and appreciation for the custom when I first encountered it and I still feel in contact with that in many ways but I also feel that this regard has been dampened by the awkward formula of it all and the implications for what a strongly worded welcome or acknowledgment implies for white self-identified Australians with strong cultural and historical ties to this land.
I will say when it is in context it can be a deeply moving and orienting process that connects me personally to an important part of what it mean to be in Australia. Before a gathering out in country or any sort of land-based practice it feels so relevant but in a conference room, before a yoga class in the city, or let alone on a webpage it feels so tokenistic and I’m left feeling very confused and dismayed by the intentionality behind it.
I felt when Tyson was talking about the importance of place in reference to land craft and practice it was totally valid but I expected Josh to push back and put it in the real context at hand which is not activities involved with aboriginal cultural heritage but a podcast or a corporate meeting or an Anzac remembrance service. Can it have a place, sure? But I sympathise with those who don’t think it belongs everywhere and feel their own right to identify with their cultural ties to this land is somehow invalidated and lessened.
I would love to see what an inclusive culture would look like. How the country could move forward together as a modern Australian people who honour their shared and respective history in relevant and deeply felt ways. How to do this? No clue. But it’s a worthy (though uncomfortable) conversation to have.
Reflections on the intro Josh. I’ll revisit the conversation, I usually do. Anzac Day is not a static institution. I was born in 1959. Can recall the last post being played at school, so maybe like Australia Day the holiday and ceremony didn’t coincide? School play in high school was “ The One Day of The Year”. Anzac Day was respected but also Vietnam War, conscription, and peace movement, were running parallel. When did nurses join the parade, always? Recall in the 80’s Women remembering Women Raped in War gate crashed the parade for a couple of years. Sometime a little later the RSL strongly resisted the idea of anyone who hadn’t served in conflict marching in the parade, and wearing someone else’s medals, ( I still find that distasteful). The RSL at sometime changed their position. The booze up and two up thing was for the soldiers, but in the 90s it seemed to become an all in party. Personally i think it’s a day for people who have seen conflict and every one who hasn’t to shut up and respect that it’s an experience unknown to you. One of my favourite Sydney bars, The Albury used dress the place up in camo nets and homoerotic war imagery, I used give that a wide berth. I treat Anzac Day as a quiet day of contemplation, recall the family ties that fought in conflict and how their lives panned out. I avoid the telecasts, to many people who weren’t there verbaling those that were and now dead. Did Dutton hold a sayance to find out that thousands of dead soldiers would object to welcome to country ceremonies. Well I think it’s a national day so a welcome from indigenous person of the region of the given cenotaph is part of it. The welcome in Melbourne got a bit astringent but to me looked like an unscripted response to the booing that started very early in the speech. Yep I thought for a while the welcomes and acknowledgments might get on the nose, mostly I like them. One of the reasons amongst others that I vote Yes to a Voice, the sort of protocol I’d like indigenous Australians to resolve. There is a real indignity of Hearing 97% arguing about 3%.
Interesting conversation and thoughts from Josh. I grew up calling my country both New Zealand and Aotearoa, it wasn’t a competition - both names are relevant and good.
I wish there was more curiosity and respect all round when it comes to how individuals relate to culture and that we weren’t searching for a right/wrong answer.
Gosh we should talk. I'm white Australian, 1840's. Aboriginal history is part of my history too, our shared story as a human beings living on this land. I'm so proud of it. The question is, once we own our shared history, make peace with our present, how do we write the next chapter together. For me welcome to country is a proud part of my Australian heritage. It's deeply symbolic and connective. If you're after another perspective, let's chat. Just back from the Nullabor and can offer a perspective on guesting and custodianship too. Cheers, sarah
What happens if the vast majority of Australians—according to several polls—disagree with your view and don’t find the Acknowledgement or Welcome to Country inclusive?
As an Australian, I have to be honest: I don’t personally connect with these acknowledgements. My concern isn’t about the intent behind them, but rather the narrowness of the gesture. When we consistently acknowledge only one part of our history or one group of people, it inevitably raises the question: why not others?
For instance, what about the Australians who’ve given their lives in service to this country? If these acknowledgements were framed more broadly—recognising not only Indigenous heritage but also the sacrifices made by others in shaping the nation—we might see a more unifying impact. But that’s rarely the case. In my experience, these statements seldom, if ever, mention Australia as a whole or reflect a shared national identity.
That’s where many people feel a disconnect. It starts to feel less like an inclusive act of recognition, and more like the promotion of a particular narrative. If inclusivity were truly the goal, wouldn’t it be reasonable to suggest that acknowledgements also honour all who’ve contributed to the country’s story, including those who’ve died defending it?
This isn’t about dismissing one part of history in favour of another. It’s about striving for balance—something that resonates with all Australians, not just some.
It would so lovely to have a conversational dialogue, rather than this series of comments. But as it is, let me try to explain my perspective. Welcome/Acknowledgement of country, is in the name. It's more centrally about land, place, location. It's about a shared belonging. Aboriginal people did this ritual welcome/acknowledgement traditionally. I wonder if in a conversation like this, we slow down and feel a sense of awe about this 65,000+ year human lineage. We are shared custodians of this culture, and we have visited great trauma on Aboriginal people. Rarely does a conversation like this touch on how we as recent arrivavals might benefit from finding our place in this ancient story. Josh touched on guests/custodians. My perspective is slightly different to the reading in the podcast, as it's about relationship to country. I will never be Aboriginal, but feel the need to honour this history and my relationship with the land as either a good (non-TO) custodian or a respectful guest. I am a custodian of the acreage land I live on/own in Brisbane. Many Australians love this country and I would love us to learn the things Aboriginal cultures and people can teach us. Examples include, care of country, only kill animals for food, grief, kinship ties, extended communities, humour, shared resources, equality and difference, spiritual awareness, music, and much more. In my bones. I'm from this land and will return to this land. An Aboriginal elder once told me, that people born here are indigenous but not Aboriginal. This is different but both valuable. It would be so lovely to educate newer arrivals so they can find their place in our shared national story. Welcome to country for me is about all of us acknowledging our land and what it means to be from here. This is just my, as you might call it, minority perspective.
Thanks, Josh. I had a somewhat frustrating listening experience with this episode. At times, it felt like Tyson was unwilling to directly engage with the questions being posed.
As I listened, this feeling started to seem familiar. It reminded me of my efforts to understand why China often refuses to fully engage with the current world order. In that case, it often stems from a fundamental belief that the existing system is deeply flawed and in need of significant change. I wonder if Tyson's reluctance to answer directly might stem from a similar feeling – perhaps a sense that the questions themselves were framed within a problematic or limiting framework, or a cynicism that nothing would change regardless?
This created a space for me to listen more deeply and appreciate a perspective that, to someone who feels marginalized or unheard, criticisms of Welcome to Country might be just another chapter in an overwhelmingly brutal story.
It was different from what I normally get from this podcast, but valuable just the same. I appreciate the opportunity to consider these alternative perspectives.
Australia Day does not mark the date of the British arrival in Australia.
Not even three minutes in, and it’s worth clarifying a key historical inaccuracy: 26 January is not the date the British first arrived in Australia, as claimed by Josh.
The earliest British arrival dates back to 29 April 1770, when Lieutenant James Cook, commanding the HMB Endeavour, landed on the east coast of the continent and claimed it for the British Crown, naming it New South Wales.
Even if Josh was referring instead to the arrival of the First Fleet, he still would be incorrect in stating that 26 January marks the beginning of British settlement.
Here’s a more accurate timeline:
• 25 January 1788: The British naval ensign was raised at Sydney Cove in a small ceremony led by Captain Arthur Phillip and attended by officers and marines.
• 26 January 1788: HMS Supply entered Sydney Cove with Captain Phillip, marines, and 40 convicts. Ground was cleared for an encampment.
• 7 February 1788: This is arguably the more significant date in legal and constitutional terms—the colony of New South Wales was formally established, with proclamations made and land officially vested in King George III.
This distinction matters. Critics of Australia Day, particularly Indigenous Australians and activists, highlight the pain and dispossession tied to colonisation. Yet, if the objective were purely to protest the British arrival or the establishment of the colony, they could arguably have chosen 29 April, 25 January, or 7 February—each with stronger historical and legal significance.
Instead, 26 January has become the focal point of protest. While it may not be the most historically accurate marker. If we’re going to have a national conversation about history, identity, and unity, it’s essential that we base it on accurate facts and acknowledge the complexity of the history—not simplify or misrepresent it for convenience.
Thank you for pointing out this historical inaccuracy. The earliest records of people celebrating this day - at least that I can find online - speak of early 1800s era New South Wales settlers celebrating "Foundation Day," with the first public celebrations held in 1838 around the 50th anniversary. This historical context is important because it highlights that the date has always been somewhat symbolic.
In that context, the distinction between the 25th or 26th of January seems less important than why that date was chosen in the first place.
Let's accept for a minute that we're choosing a day to celebrate everything that is good about Australia. Not just the founding stories in Aboriginal history, but also the establishment of a new society and the welcoming of people from all over the world to be a part of that story. You could choose to celebrate that on any day, but if you choose to do it on an important anniversary for one part of it, invariably some folks are going to feel left out. This is because focusing solely on the European settlement narrative can minimize or even erase the experiences and perspectives of Indigenous Australians, for whom that date represents dispossession and ongoing trauma.
I agree with your original point that historical accuracy matters. But so does context. We can quibble about which day - 25th Jan, 26th Jan, 7th Feb, or 29th April - would be MOST tied to European Settlement, but the reality is that all of them focus on that particular part of the Australian story. An important chapter? Yes. But far from the whole story.
Hi Paul,
Sorry for the delayed response, I don’t often check the app, so I missed the notification.
I understand your view that Australia Day should be inclusive and for everyone. I’d argue that the issue isn’t really about the date itself, especially since the current one doesn’t mark the most historically significant moment in terms of settlement or national foundation. If historical importance were the true focus, there are arguably more appropriate dates we could choose.
I know opinions are divided, even within Aboriginal communities about whether the date should change. But I think some of the opposition might see things differently if the historical framing were broadened. For example, 26 January 1949 marked the commencement of the Australian Citizenship Act, the first time Australians were formally recognised as citizens, independent from the British Empire. That’s a defining milestone in our national identity, and if seen through that lens, could serve as a unifying point of reflection if people were willing to change their perspective, however I don’t think they are willing.
What also leads me to think the controversy is about more than just the date is the way Australia Day is actually observed. It isn’t defined by nationalism, military parades, or denial of the past. Instead, it’s a day where people gather quietly with friends and family, in parks, at beaches, in backyards, to simply enjoy each other’s company. This is important and shouldn’t be overlooked. It’s not about exclusion, but about a shared, often unspoken, sense of connection, a uniquely Australian sensibility that cuts across backgrounds. The only thing that makes it divisive, in my view, is how it’s framed by some.
When you also consider that we have a number of days throughout the year dedicated specifically to recognising and celebrating Aboriginal culture and history, I don’t believe the debate is truly about a lack of recognition. For some, the discomfort seems to stem from the idea of celebrating Australia at all, that the concept of a national day is itself the issue. That’s a more existential view, and one that, I think, overlooks the extraordinary benefits that have come from the country’s foundation, not just for those of us who live here, but for people around the world. Australia contributes significantly to global welfare, through food exports, energy, humanitarian assistance, and more.
It’s a complex issue, of course, but I do think there’s room to acknowledge both the difficult parts of our history and the good that has come from it, without having to reject the idea of celebrating Australia altogether which seems to underpin a lot of the conversation around the 26 January.
Thanks for this Josh, you raised good points and it was good to listen to Tyson's take on them.
I've only given an acknowledgement of country once and can agree it was a conflicting experience. I wanted to do it genuinely, but reading a script doesn't achieve that. At the same time I was worried going to far off script would be seen as disrespectful.. I like Tyson's approach of weaving it in, making it part of the conversation.
I think one thing that gets confused (even here in the comments) is that the word "country" means a different thing to Indigenous people. It doesn't mean "Australia" it's a broader concept of place that Tyson was trying to get accross (and I wont pretend to fully appreciate). So in that context, no a Welcome to Country, is not "welcoming you to the place you were born". Also, as Tyson mentioned, Indigenous people welcome eachother, and they were born here.
While I will continue to (metaphorically) roll my eyes at the white people reading Acknowledgement scripts, I will also keep trying to understand the Indigenous point of view and their connection to Country.
Thanks Jay, I struggle with this manipulation of words. Don’t all cultures have a connection to Country? So why should we only acknowledge one group of people’s connection and not others? Obviously this has a deep meaning for aboriginal people but it’s clearly been weaponised, if it wasn’t an acknowledgment of country would be updated to include references to the “other” people who have been here for 250 years.
My questions is will there come a time when non-Indigenous Australians are viewed by Aboriginal peoples in the same way as the dingo — an introduced presence that, over time, has been accepted and even valued? Although not native, the dingo has become an important part of the landscape and holds spiritual significance for some Aboriginal communities. Why not accept the White fella? I mean we’ve fought and died for this Country many times.
Other examples of manipulation or stretching of a words meaning to push an aboriginal agenda are included below;
1. Custodians - suggest that Australia as a continent wouldn’t have survived without aboriginals. Rubbish. It would have been fine. Aboriginals exploited the land to survive.
2. Knowledge and Science - there’s no such thing as aboriginal knowledge or science. It’s just knowledge. A discovery in America isn’t considered American knowledge, it’s just knowledge. It all goes into the collective knowledge. No one has a monopoly of knowledge and nor should aboriginals.
3. Longest continuous culture - how is this possible when many aboriginals tribes lived completely independently of one another, didn’t even speak the same languages and had differing customs, ceremonies, and laws tied to their specific Country. While there are obvious similarities between tribes, it’s an absolute stretch to consider all aboriginals from the same culture.
For example, Aboriginal groups in the Northern Territory differ significantly from those in Tasmania. The Tasmanian peoples looked different with more tightly curled or woolly hair compared to straight usually found elsewhere. They also wore distinct clothing such as animal skins (like wallaby). They also did not even use spear throwers, shields, boomerangs, or didgeridoos—tools and instruments commonly associated with other Aboriginal communities.
4. First Nations and Sovereignty: ‘First Nations’ and ‘First People’ are based on the unexamined assumption that all people should be defined by their family tree. This is the ancient idea of aristocracy, that a person’s place in society should be determined not by their personal characteristics, but by their family tree. So, the use of expressions such as ‘First Nations’ or ‘First People’ is an attempt to create an entitled aristocracy. Using the term “nation” is projecting a European concept onto aboriginals. They did not have defined borders, national identities or centralised administrative systems. The diversity of Aboriginal Australian societies is better described as comprising hundreds of separate Indigenous cultural/language groups or communities, rather than unified nations. The Uluru statement from the heart also identifies aboriginal sovereignty as “of a spiritual nature” which “co-existing with the sovereignty of the Crown”. Sovereignty under International law is defined as “sovereign states having a permanent population, defined territory, a government not under another, and the capacity to interact with other sovereign states.” The Australian High Court has repeatedly rejected the notion of aboriginal sovereignty.
Wowee he can waffle on can’t he? 😂
Just rambling. I don’t think Tyson did the cause much
good. Quite the contrary
A few thoughts;
1. If you do a land acknowledgment and say the land belongs to X people but don’t give it back to those people it’s bullshit. Plain and simple.
2. Id like to have a beer with your guest he seems awesome. That said what he talks about is his religion. So having to acknowledge his religion is like going to Italy as a Muslim and acknowledging Jesus died for our sins. Lol
3. Multiple times it’s said the people that are there have been there for 10,000 years. I have a hard time believing anyone has been anywhere for that amount of time.
“Young Australians are turning g to the Right in record numbers” hasn't aged well. Looks like while Australia voted No, they're still happy to vote progressive.
This was a fabulous and inspiring discussion- thank you
And that's where you lost me...
Should I waste a minute of this glorious day in the southern highlands to pursue this further . Ok the Macquarie uni law stuff is embarrassing, sounds like dialogue from some very late night party in the 80’s after a lot of depth chargers, pot and a few packets of gauloises. Not sure that law students have to agree with this position or is it just a required module to consider? The law will be increasingly crucial. Since the rejection of the Voice, and treaty there is no way forward other than the courts. Indigenous people had some terrific wins navigating an imposed legal system that doesn’t recognise any law outside the system inherited from the UK. Could you say that since the Marbo decision the door has bolted on the notion of one people one nation, indigenous Australians do have specific individual rights under the law, good luck to me if I wanted to file a land rights claim, I certainly wish claimants all the luck in the world. Ken Whyet recently flagged future legal tussles. Britain colonised this country with a disingenuous Christian benevolence, when so often acting counter to moral and legal values. Spose the thinking was that these indigenous people are so primitive we’ll just get away with it. Are there further legal implications given that no war was declared, no victory won, no surrender or capitulation no treaties? Should have at the very least given them a constitutional voice so that aboriginal people of very varied perspectives can consult and advise. It’s sad that many aboriginal people can’t avail themselves of the avenues already won.
Some times listening to the intro to this conversation, is there an implication that identity politics and culture Wars are only engaged in by minorities? If we want to be all one under one flag maybe the Union Jack should go, it’s extremely identity politics, Canada did. Australia Day is an important historical day, it marks the coming together of two peoples and all the history that followed, but if it’s just about a party it is culture war and identity politics by the majority on overload. One of the things that really moved me about the voice referendum was that it was the second time that Aboriginal people were subjected to the indignity and humiliation of being voted on by every registered voter. Something they have delt with with such grace. 1967 they were voted in with out the option of perhaps declining, the second time a great act of faith and then so unempathicly and callously used as a political football. The liberal party hadn’t opposed a voice prior to the 2022 election, infact Julian lessor and Ken whyet were actively consulting on it? Dutton briefly proposed subjecting aboriginal people to a third referendum, likely tapped on the shoulder and informed that putting some Weasley words in the constitution is likely far more legally dangerous than a specific Voice, he’d unleashed so much hate and confusion it would also most likely be defeated. And giving people something they haven’t asked for is like dumping your dirty mattress out side vinnies, culture war and identity politics at its most vile. Marcia Langton was totally cancelled for suggesting that much of the argument against the voice was white supremacist and racist, I’d agree with her. On Australia Day this year susan ley gave a address in an Anglican church, clearly to evoke a reference to Tumps inauguration day service, likening the 1788 arrival in Australia to Musks future arrival on Mars, an uninhabited planet. What a monstrous ack of culture war. Jacinta Price said in an address to the National press club that colonisation put water in the taps and food in the shop. A very flawed interpretation of history I think. Let’s say you are descended from a hundred generations of Scottish highlanders who have spent history it a turf hut grovelling in the mud searching for a turnip or a spud if you’re Irish, ultimately to be chucked of your land, by the fact of your white complexion you can make an cultural claim to all that is fabulous about modern Australia. But if you’re aboriginal and your immediate ancestors worked cattle stations, assisted exploration and guided settlement, dug the trenched of the pipes, emptied the shit cans and maybe even did the murdering because white folks don’t like getting there hands and souls dirty, you don’t have a cultural claim on the best parts of modern Australia. Again culture war and identity politics coming from the top. If the Uk is the Prototype of our culture they don’t seem to have any problem accommodating multiple cultural identities, English, Scottish, welsh, Irish. Maybe not so much Irish, and others. Wales gained autonomy over its internal affairs as recently as the early 2000s without being accused of engaging in a vile offensive ungrateful culture war.
Brock, there’s a lot to unpack in what you’ve said, but I want to respectfully challenge the notion that Aboriginal people were not respected at all by the British. I think that’s an oversimplification and doesn’t do justice to the historical context.
If the British Empire, at the time the most powerful empire in the world, had truly wanted to eliminate Aboriginal people, it sadly had the means to do so. But that’s not what happened. Instead, the British arrival in 1788 was accompanied by a directive from King George III, which stated:
“You are to endeavour by every possible means to open an intercourse with the Natives and to conciliate their affections, enjoining all Our Subjects to live in amity and kindness with them. And if any of Our Subjects shall wantonly destroy them, or give them any unnecessary Interruption in the exercise of their several occupations, it is our Will and Pleasure that you do cause such offenders to be brought to punishment according to the degree of the Offence.”
All Aboriginal people were declared British subjects, which in principle meant they were entitled to the same protections under British law as anyone else. That doesn’t sound like the actions of a power intent on destruction.
Of course, in practice, things were far messier and often tragic. But to understand that, we need to use some imagination and think about the realities on the ground. Imagine a convict boy from London, transported for stealing a loaf of bread, who serves his sentence and is granted a small plot of land in an unfamiliar, remote colony. He struggles to grow crops, feed his family, and survive. Meanwhile, Aboriginal groups, understandably seeing this as encroachment on their land, may take food or resist. With no shared language or cultural understanding, mistrust grows. Conflict eventually erupts, and tragically, people die—both Aboriginal and settler.
Is that man entirely to blame for what followed? I’d argue not. It’s a deeply human story of two cultures coming into contact, often clashing, and struggling to coexist. That story, for better or worse, is repeated throughout human history. To suggest that Australia’s case should somehow be immune from that broader pattern seems unrealistic.
Yes, the colonial experience came with profound challenges and injustices, but we should also acknowledge that, compared to other parts of the world, there were efforts (however imperfect) to include and respect Aboriginal people. For example, less than 100 years after the First Fleet, Aboriginal men in South Australia were granted the right to vote in 1856. And Aboriginal women gained the vote there in 1895—23 years before women in the UK.
Think about that: Aboriginal women in South Australia had the vote before any woman in the UK. That’s not something you often hear about on the ABC.
Yes John, I should have phased it arrived with a benevolence that very often proved disingenuous. Yes I’m familiar with the (draft) instructions issued to Phillip, and also to Cook that show unambiguously that the Crown recognised the humanity of indigenous peoples. In both documents are passages relating to the inevitable sexual contact between arrivals and existing inhabitants and how that was to be handled. The British already had vast experience in the process of colonisation. The South Australian voting rights in SA is an excellent point, not sure that I was aware of this. I was aware that the statice of aboriginal people varied from colony to colony/ state to state, which was the point of the 1967 referendum I think. After federation with the introduction of the white Australia policy( which didn’t apply to aboriginal people) nether the less it’s about this time that aboriginal people who had already become integrated into modern Australia got shipped off to reserves and there fore isolated and excluded. Henry Reynolds book “ North of Capricorn” is very interesting on this subject. All of my great grandparents made their lives in far North Queensland, and there fore at the coal face of the colonial enterprise.
I’m disappointed that Australia has retreated from truth telling on the bogas notion that it’s just a guilt trip. Much of this history will be confronting but there would also be humanity, beauty, pathos, humour, endeavours and bonds and commonality. We won’t look at it and there’s so much misnomer. Looking at social media posts there is so much ignorance on both sides, and so often down right nasty more on the right, pure white supremacy, often not intended. Just a note I’m not clear at what point aborigines became subjects of the crown and untitled to the protection of the crown, 1770, 1788 or later?The crown can’t delare war on its subjects I believe, marshal law maybe?
I think much of The Australian identity we are so fond of dates from these early interactions with the native people and with this landscape. We are now three generations away from that experience and indigenous Australia is now only 3% of the population I think. So truth and perspective is lost. So much current discourse sounds to me like people who’ve reverted to whining poms a bit uncomfortable and defensive about their place in the world. Same about Anzac Day, to much dialogue from people who weren’t there. I’d disagree with you in general about the ABC, it can be a great source of primary source history. SBS series from Rachael Perkins, Australian Wars is very good. Plenty of good literature out there that is only likely to be reviewed by ABC. Again it’s a very human story.