English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of this paper is to analyse the Fremantle City Council’s decision to celebrate One Day on January 28th 2017 instead of the usual Australia Day on January 26th, as well as the ensuing media debate between its supporters and opponents, especially Noongar leaders and WA Government. The discourse is examined in the context of the disruption of colonial violence. The City of Fremantle, as a place, itself serves as a point of reference for the analysis. Although today Fremantle is often perceived as a “progressive island” in a largely conservative Western Australia, the Fremantle prison and nearby Rottnest Island are stark reminders of the maltreatment of the Whadjuk people after the formation of the Swan River Colony in 1829.1 In December 2016, I attended the International Australian Studies Association’s conference in Fremantle, Western Australia (WA). The conference was titled “Re-imagining Australia: Encounter, Recognition, Responsibility.” Going there, I had little knowledge of Fremantle itself, and it was my fi rst visit to WA. I read up on the city’s history and was looking forward to visiting the famous Maritime Museum and Fremantle Prison. It was not until I met my hosts, whom I found via a traveller website that I heard about, how progressive Fremantle was supposed to be, especially compared to the rest of Western Australia. The couple seemed to have quite a liberal approach to issues such as immigration, personal freedoms, etc. On the following day, prompted by the news on TV, they told me about the Fremantle City Council’s decision to move the celebrations of Australia Day from January 26th to January 28th in 2017. They were outraged and insisted that the celebrations of Australia Day had nothing to do with the history of genocide, and that they were about the wonderful and multicultural nation that Australia has become. I was perplexed not only by the argument itself, but also by what seemed to me like a dissonance in their attitudes toward immigrants and the Indigenous Peoples of Australia. Later on in our discussion, it also turned out 60 Zuzanna Kruk-Buchowska that their attitudes toward the issues faced by Indigenous communities, such as crime, incarceration or alcoholism were defi nitely not ones one would normally associate with left-wing views. They not only blamed Indigenous communities for their fate, but also saw Australian society as the saviour of the Indigenous victims of crime and neglect saying, for example, that if some Aboriginal children had not been taken away from their families, they would have died. The National Australia Day Council, which was founded in 1979, views Australia Day as “a day to refl ect on what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our great nation,” and a “day for us to re-commit to making Australia an even better place for the generations to come” (National Australia Day Council; qtd. in Korff 2018). Australia Day is supposed to be a commemoration of Captain Arthur Phillip’s formal possession of the colony of New South Wales, on January 26th, 1788, when he raised the British fl ag for the fi rst time in Sydney Cove (Korff 2018). It became a public holiday in 1818 and in the early 1880s, it was known as “First Landing,” “Anniversary Day,” or “Foundation Day.” In 1946 the Commonwealth and state governments agreed to unify the celebrations on January 26 and call it “Australia Day” (Korff 2018). Since 1994 all states and territories celebrate Australia Day together on that day, during which citizenship ceremonies are held. People also celebrate with barbecues, contests, parades, performances, fi reworks and other fun events. 1. ‘Change the Date’ Debate However, for many Indigenous Australians, there is not much to celebrate. Quite the contrary, it is a commemoration of a deep loss for them: “loss of their sovereign rights to their land, loss of family, loss of the right to practice their culture” (Korff 2018). As stated by Aboriginal activist Michael Mansell, “Australia Day is 26 January, a date whose only signifi cance is to mark the coming to Australia of the white people in 1788. It’s not a date that is particularly pleasing for Aborigines” (qtd. in Korff 2018). Such sentiments have been present for a very long time. In 1938, on the holiday’s 150th anniversary, William Cooper, a member of the Aboriginal Progressive Association, declared it a “Day of Mourning,” referring to the annual re-enactment of Phillip’s landing (Korff 2018).2 Cooper, together with Jack Patten and William Ferguson organised a conference to “grieve the collective loss of freedom and self-determination of Aboriginal communities as well as those killed during and after European settlement in 1788” (Korff 2018). By 1988, the re-enactments were stopped. Today, the day is called “Invasion Day,” “Day of Mourning,” or “Survival Day” by many Aboriginal people. In 1992 the fi rst Survival Day concert was held in Sydney. On this occasion, Indigenous and non-Indigenous artists play music or dance, information is made available about Indigenous issues, arts and crafts are Scaling Colonial Violence: One Day Celebrations in Fremantle, WA 61 sold, and one can buy food and bush tucker. The name “Survival Day underscores the fact that Aboriginal culture is still strong despite all that has happened (Korff 2018). In major cities you can visit alternative concerts where mostly Aboriginal people gather. Since 2006, the name “Aboriginal Sovereignty Day” has also been used to emphasise that “all Aboriginal nations are sovereign and should be united in the continuous fi ght for their rights” (Korff 2018). Survival Day concerts and Indigenous activism have led to an increase of public awareness about the controversial nature of Australia Day, and have fostered a discussion about ‘changing the date.’ Many Indigenous Australians, including Mick Dodson, Aboriginal Law Professor and 2009 Australian of the Year, are hopeful that Australia will be celebrated on a diff erent day: “To most Indigenous Australians, it really refl ects the day on which our world came crashing down. Many Indigenous people regard it as Invasion Day,” he said bluntly (2010, 21). He continued: “And if we look at the recent survey that showed 90 per cent of people are saying Australia Day should be inclusive of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, I fi rmly believe that someday we will choose a date that is a comprehensive and inclusive date for all Australians” (21). There have been several local responses to the debate, e.g. Flinders Island council in Tasmania decided to end its January 26 celebrations in November 2013, and instead support the three-day-long Furneaux Islands Festival held in January and organised by the Flinders Island Aboriginal Association Incorporated (FIAAI). Fremantle City Council’s decision to celebrate One Day can defi nitely be seen as one of such local responses to the ‘change the date’ debate. Although the Fremantle City Council had announced that it would be hosting a special event to celebrate Australia on 28 January 2017, already a year before, the story made headlines towards the end of November 2016, with the Council’s proclamation of the celebrations of One Day. This “free, family-friendly event is a culturally-inclusive alternative to traditional Australia Day celebrations” was to see “some of Australia’s fi nest artists take the stage” (“World-class artists” 2016). On the one hand, the Council’s decision was met with praise from the traditional owners of the land, the Noongar people, and Australians who condemn the celebration of the anniversary of the arrival of the fi rst fl eet of British ships to Port Jackson in 1788.3 On the other hand, the proclamation sparked outrage in Western Australia, threats on the part of the federal government, and was widely commented nationwide. The issue was also discussed during the conference, and a special panel was held, with Robert Eggington, Noongar Elder, and Executive Offi cer of Dumbartung Aboriginal Corporation, as well as a member of the City Council, and other members of the community participating. This paper aims to analyse the Council’s decision as well as the ensuing media debate between its supporters and opponents, especially Noongar leaders and the WA Government in the context of the disruption of colonial violence. The City of Fremantle, as a place, will itself serve as a point of reference for the 62 Zuzanna Kruk-Buchowska analysis. As aptly put by Suvendrini Perera, “Certainly, this small Indian Ocean town suddenly fi nds itself at the forefront of the Change the Date movement which is gathering daily momentum in the media” (2016). Nonetheless, many Whadjuk and Noongar people living in the area see the celebrations of Australia Day and the strong reactions to their cancellation by the Fremantle City Council not only as an obstacle to creating an Australian society that would be inclusive of its Indigenous population, but also as a reminder and continuation of the violence that they have endured since the creation of the Swan River Colony in 1829. Therefore, the author sees it as important that the discussion around the announcement of One Day celebrations is not only considered as part of the national Change the Date debate, but that it is also viewed in light of the local history of colonial violence, particularly Aboriginal imprisonment and removal from land in what is today Fremantle and its surrounding area. The study considers online articles in the regional WA News as well as in the national media outlet SBS. The examination of colonial violence is carried out in view of Tanganekald Meintangk Boandik scholar Irene Watson’s considerations of the issue, who argues that “the greatest tensions arise out of the state’s justifi cation of the theft of Aboriginal lands and the absorption of Aboriginal lands into western property paradigms” (Watson 2009a: 2). Of equal importance, she claims, is the state’s “failure to acknowledge Ab