[rosiebird]

Same. Because it says 'against british'.
I think it's the wrong day to make a political statement.

Agree. It's like posting "Well at least you don't have ovarian cancer" on autism awareness day.

[meggs1]

According to the Australian War Memorial, Anzac Day is to commemorate all Australians who have served or died in all wars or conflicts.

I think it's fair enough to make a point of remembering the first Australians who did so.

[i-candi]

I thought it was not a reference to WWI but British settlement of Australia.

Same.

Not the right time but the statement is correct.

BTW we are very lucky to have NORFORCE, a great infantry regiment in the NT.

[RealityBites]

Agree. It's like posting "Well at least you don't have ovarian cancer" on autism awareness day.

No. It is trying to make people think about the concept of a nation state, which at the end of the day is what Anzac 'sacrifices' were for. Our nation state was also born in warfare against the indigenous inhabitants (to a limited extent), so why are those 'Australian' warriors not commemorated? Oh, because we don't like to mention colonial warfare, in fact the history wars of the past decade or so have centred on whether this even happened.
There is very little 'reconciliation' on this issue. No constitutional changes. No treaty. No compensation.

This post has been edited by RealityBites: 25/04/2012, 07:23 PM

[RatbagBob]

Couldn't agree more, RealityBites

[Saecularis Angel...]

According to the Australian War Memorial, Anzac Day is to commemorate all Australians who have served or died in all wars or conflicts.

I think it's fair enough to make a point of remembering the first Australians who did so.

Can we really talk about anyone at that time as "Australian"? Surely that's a gross anachronism?

I think the issues and concerns are quite different when comparing settlement to WWI. (NB: both have issues, I just think comparing them in this way does justice to neither).

[SarahM72]

I have my concerns about using Anzac Day for "political point scoring" as such. However I acknowledge that alot of incredibly hurtful stuff happens on Anzac Day in regards to how people talk about the country and the history. For instance, at my children's school the school captains gave a talk at the Anzac Day Service, which included how Australia was a peaceful country which had never known war and how we had never had our land forcibly taken or attempted to be taken.

However for some Aboriginal people the war is still ongoing (their viewpoint which they are entitled to), and for others it is within living memory. And using Anzac Day to create an Australian legend by contrasting a "peaceful" Australia with other non-peaceful countries and all that implies is incredibly angering for some people, when the actual violent history of the country is not even simply forgotten, but not even acknowledged in the first place.

I do therefore think the status is a valid viewpoint to be aired on this day, which will start a discussion for some people about issues which they may never have encountered before. And for others may ease some of the hurt knowing that their relatives are also not forgotten and bring attention to the issues facing Aboriginal people today.

ETA: I also feel the anger in that status, and I think the anger is justified, given that so much of our history is forgotten or deliberately changed. When people are remembering one part of history on this very sad day, and deliberately forgetting another, this has got to hurt.

This post has been edited by SarahM72: 25/04/2012, 08:06 PM

[meggs1]

Can we really talk about anyone at that time as "Australian"? Surely that's a gross anachronism?

I think the issues and concerns are quite different when comparing settlement to WWI. (NB: both have issues, I just think comparing them in this way does justice to neither).

But it's not just about WW1. It's about the Crimea, Sudan, Boer War, WWII, Indonesia (dutch east indies), Malaya (x2) Korea, Vietnam, East Timor, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. No one is equating all those with WWI or each other. Surely we can also find room for Aboriginal warriors who died resisting settlement by people who were (then) foreigners.

By the way, both the War Memorial and the National Archives refers to "Australian" soldiers in the pre-federation conflicts, so I don't accept there is an anachronism.

The War Memorial refers to clashes between settlers and Aboriginal people as "a conflict" and "resistance" and most tellingly as "wars of the frontier".

[Jane Jetson]

But it's not just about WW1. It's about the Crimea, Sudan, Boer War, WWII, Indonesia (dutch east indies), Malaya (x2) Korea, Vietnam, East Timor, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. No one is equating all those with WWI or each other. Surely we can also find room for Aboriginal warriors who died resisting settlement by people who were (then) foreigners.

I agree. I think it's an entirely valid statement and I find it disappointing that many people, when asked to think about the consequences of British invasion, write it off as "divisive".

The fact that I am still conditioned to write "British settlement" (I don't know if they still call it that in schools, but they sure did when I was there) is fairly telling on the subject of how seriously this was taken as an invasion, historically speaking. Why shouldn't we consider Indigenous sacrifice in combat as it pertained to resisting invasion, as well as in the better-known wars? Particularly given that this resistance wasn't all done and dusted by 1789.

[beansidhe]

I think it is incredibly disrespectful to the men and women who died fighting in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc.

I also think that they are lucky they have the luxury to make those statements. I wonder what would have happened if the Japanese managed to invade australia.

We owe our service men and women our thanks on ANZAC day. Not disrespect by scoffing in the face of all the lives lost so that we have the lives we do today.

Its poor form and ridiculous and does nothing to "further" the aboriginal cause.