 |
| PUNCH, NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AUSTRALIA. PHOTO: DRAGI MARKOVIC |
Here is an extract from the Brisbane Courier of 4th September 1899 -
Australia is born: The Australian nation is a fact....Now is established the dream of a continent for a people and a people for a continent. No longer shall there exist tose artificial barriers which have divided brother from brother. We are one people with one destiny.
This was one response in the press to the successful referendum on federation held in the then colony of Moreton Bay.
Previously, successful referenda had been held in Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania. After Queensland, Western Australia followed suit, but only after the Australian constitution had become law in the United Kingdom, although the eventual vote in the west was strongly in favour, with double the number of "yes" votes to "no" votes. It was closer (although earlier) in Queensland, with a slim majority of "yes" of 54%.
The various colonial referenda followed a process which had been kicked off in February 1890, when delegates from each of the colonial parliaments, and the New Zealand parliament met at the Australiasian federation conference in Melbourne.
The conference produced a resolution which agreed that "the interests and prosperity of the Australian colonies would be served by an early union under the crown".
An economic depression stalled the process for a while, but it was rejuvenated in 1893, and by 1895 had gathered momentum.
After the various votes (albeit in dribs and drabs in the cases of Queensland and Western Australia) popular support solidified, and the actual ceremonial recognition was massive.
About 500000 people turned out on January 1st 1901 in Sydney at the ceremonial declaration. That crowd size was unprecedented in 1901, and only exceeded in actual numbers by the Vietnam moratoriums in Melbourne in 1970.
There are a couple of bizarre aspects to the celebration of Australia Day now, when considered in the light of this history. One is the depth of ignorance of the average Australian of the federation process. It is simply not covered in Australian schools. If you doubt this, ask any of your school age children to provide a brief outline of how Australia became to be a nation, and how our constitution was developed.
You'll probably hear something about Phillip planting a flag on the sand at Port Jackson in 26th January 1788. Three questions to ask in response could be - Why do we celebrate the arrival of a fleet of ships carrying British convicts and marines on our soil? Weren't they simply setting up a jail? Did any of these people consider that they were establishing a nation?
So yesterday marks the one hundred and twenty second anniversary of the establishment of our nation, based on a series of decisions made freely by Australians voting to set up a constitution and a parliamentary bicameral system of government.
I believe that is worth celebrating.
Instead, we celebrate the opening of a jail, set up to rid the old country of a bunch of losers that were an inconvenience.
It beggars belief, when you think about it, and that's before any consideration of offence caused to our original indigenous inhabitants.
It's time we moved the date. January 1st is a no-brainer, but if that is considered an unsuitable date because New Year's day is already a public holiday, why not find a significant date remembering an important step in the constitutional process?
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 was passed by the British Parliament on 5th July 1900, and given royal assent by Queen Victoria on 9th July.
Either of those two dates would work.
Comments closed.
15 comments:
A total of 200,000 people took part in the first moratorium in May 1970 in Melbourne.
The second and third moratoriums took place on 18 September 1970 and 30 June 1971 respectively. These events were dominated more by left-wing extremists, and fewer people attended.
That seems at odds with your claim of exceeding 500,000 attendees in Sydney in 1901 (when the entire population of Sydney at the time was 481,000).
Oh McGoo, you've done it again.
I reckon that Australia day should be the most memorable day I can think of...my birth date.
That is when Australia became important to me. I will admit that I have become most disappointed by the attraction this country has for communists and socialists that feel they have to change everything to suit what they feel is important and stuff those that made the original decisions to do a lot of notable things.
That seems at odds with your claim of exceeding 500,000 attendees in Sydney in 1901 (when the entire population of Sydney at the time was 481,000).
What I wrote was - About 500000 people turned out on January 1st 1901 in Sydney at the ceremonial declaration. That crowd size was unprecedented in 1901, and only exceeded in actual numbers by the Vietnam moratoriums in Melbourne in 1970.
That figure is taken from an article from the Parliamentary Education Office. I'm not in any position to question their figures.
The Moratorium figures were sourced from the National museum of Australia - The Vietnam moratorium protests, the first of which took place on 8 May 1970, were the largest public demonstrations in Australia’s history at the time.
Which of the two figures is larger is irrelevant. What is significant is that both had enormous public support.
I'm wondering which "communists and socialists" you're referring to. Are the communists those that have been under the bed since the 50s? I'm still waiting for them to emerge. And "socialists"? - First you'll have to define the term.
You might want to check how many zeroes for the numbers quoted for 1901 turnout. If your quoted 500,000 is correct where did they come from? If the number is correct then it exceeds the turnout for the largest moratorium in Melbourne which as you say was in May 1970, by almost 300,000. Your quote from the Government record is the same source I referred to and quotes 200,000 as the moratorium number. Don't quote that though, it shows that 500,000 in 1901 is BS (the entire population of Sydney plus a further 19,000). Your stuff up indicates that as usual you fudge the facts in an effort to appear an expert. We know differently.
Communists and socialists... as you should know prior to being disbanded there was a Communist Party in Australia. I think I can assume safely that it had communist/socialist members and voters.
It is reported that once the party broke up a good many of the members moved sideways to the Greens (whom you have previously admitted voting for). Labor and Greens make no secret that they are socialists/leftists and the current PM has been nicknamed after Trotsky by his own party members. I do believe we currently have socialists and communists here in the lucky country... and you know it for a fact.
If you are concerned about the turnout in 1901 feel free to do your own research and post it here. Any "fact" you establish will always be posted.
You haven't identified any "Communists", probably because you have no idea what the label actually means. Sticking labels on political parties doesn't cut it.
And I'm still waiting for your definition of "Socialist".
You have some unusual beliefs lefty. It may surprise you, but I am not source for the label Australian Communist Party. They seem to have "emerged without your knowledge...more diligence is required. Sleeping on picquet is a no no. And being intentionally blind merely shows you for what you are.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=850079fada4f9519JmltdHM9MTY3MjcwNDAwMCZpZ3VpZD0xYmUxM2NkYy0wMzI3LTY1ODEtMzkxZi0yZTUzMDI0NzY0YzYmaW5zaWQ9NTE3OA&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=1be13cdc-0327-6581-391f-2e53024764c6&psq=australian+communist+party+2021&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYXVzY3Aub3JnLmF1Lw&ntb=1
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=40c123ae9b0751c3JmltdHM9MTY3MjcwNDAwMCZpZ3VpZD0xYmUxM2NkYy0wMzI3LTY1ODEtMzkxZi0yZTUzMDI0NzY0YzYmaW5zaWQ9NTE5OQ&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=1be13cdc-0327-6581-391f-2e53024764c6&psq=australian+communist+party+2021&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9jcGEub3JnLmF1L2hvbWVwYWdlLw&ntb=1
Just in case you missed it.
If you're going to link to a url, make sure it works. That one doesn't.
I'm still waiting for you to drag a Commie or two out from under the bed, and identify just one of them. We were told they were a threat in the sixties and seventies, and 500 Australians were killed on the basis of that fairy tale.
Then we decided they were no longer a threat and everyone went home, remember?
I'm still waiting for your definition of "Socialist".
You continue to be an unaccountable, weak p--ck, Bobby boy. Not replying to comments is your escape from realism when the comment is factual but is in disagreement with your view of life.
That is of course the reverse of those prepared to challenge your views and await reasonable debate and acknowledgement of a different perspective.
Now what comment would that be?
I'm happy to respond to something that was actually posted.
ie....Bobby, the quote came from the Washington Post and is repeated by your source. The Post has some connection to Bezos and his stance in relation to the use of the PCR test, which the inventor states is not fit for the purpose it is being used for is pretty well known. The piece would appear to be an attempt to attack the inventors credibility. As is yours. Your claim that he was a snake oil merchant does not indicate that he didn't know the limitations of the technique he invented.
The fact is that he was an internationally recognised Chemist as shown by his awards.
He shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Michael Smith and was awarded the Japan Prize in the same year. Being known as weird or flamboyant does not make you a snake oil salesman, Bobby. Instead of latching on to items of his history that you think will knock his credibility you should acknowledge his capabilities in his chosen field, and that as the inventor of the PCR technique he should be capable of espousing what uses it is suited to.
This has absolutely nothing to do with my post. In future, ad hom comments will be deleted. (By the way "inventors credibility" should be "inventor's credibility", because 'inventors' is possessive).
You never fail to be easily predicted headmaster.
You ask, "Now what comment would that be?", without a requirement for relevance to this particular post.
I answer, " ie....Bobby, the quote came from the Washington Post and is repeated by your source. The Post has some connection to Bezos and his stance in relation to the use of the PCR test, which the inventor states is not fit for the purpose it is being used for is pretty well known. The piece would appear to be an attempt to attack the inventors credibility. As is yours. Your claim that he was a snake oil merchant does not indicate that he didn't know the limitations of the technique he invented.
The fact is that he was an internationally recognised Chemist as shown by his awards.
He shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Michael Smith and was awarded the Japan Prize in the same year. Being known as weird or flamboyant does not make you a snake oil salesman, Bobby. Instead of latching on to items of his history that you think will knock his credibility you should acknowledge his capabilities in his chosen field, and that as the inventor of the PCR technique he should be capable of espousing what uses it is suited to.
You immediately search for and find the cylindrical filing cabinet under your desk for the reply and move into teacher mode. At least on this occasion you publish the comment albeit claiming it has no relevance, although you asked for the comment. You are a headmaster with a heavy touch of self importance. Clever move publishing it in this fashion though, with no indication to which of your posts it was originally not "approved by the blog author". By the way teacher your use of "ad hominem comments" should be directed to comments attacking you, rather than claiming the comment offered as an example, you asked for, is such a comment. You are my only friend, ex Army buddy from Seven that I communicate with, although most of the others do not have public blogs. You have a nice day Bob (I was a virgin until R&R 1971 where I coerced and paid a lady to extract it). 😁😂🤣🙄 Yes I know....not "approved by the blog author"...the lonely old ex teacher/headmaster.
Yours truly,
Ad Hom.
"inventors credibility" should be "inventor's credibility", because 'inventors' is possessive).
This comment is a cut and paste from a saved comment made previously in relation to one of your previous attacks on an expert you have no qualifications to criticise. You obviously did not have your red pen out before deleting my comment to avoid accurate criticism of yourself as the "blog author". Well done detecting the light key stroke on the second perusal. I guess if you had been that lax during your years teaching then I would have been gifted 100% for my piece. Unfortuntely you weren't marking my papers at UQ. You managed to get to be headmaster using your administrative skills, obviously.
Too much (irrelevant) information...
Post a Comment