Australia Day, 1788

Australia Day, 1788

Every year on the 26th of January, Australians are brought together by their shared hatred of this country’s past and of its founding people — the British. Egged on by the media, the universities and the high school curriculum, credulous youth and newly minted immigrants lap it all up. Those Australians who dare commemorate Australia’s British heritage are branded as racist dinosaurs — Bogans — who pose an imminent threat to Australia’s diversity. It is Australia’s diversity, according to the Establishment, that redeems Australia from its shameful history. The British, those plain, white-bread toffs, are a vestige of Australia’s shameful past, destined to fade into the background of Australia’s increasingly multicultural landscape.

What is this shameful history that Australia bears? It is undeniable that the net result of British colonisation was the destruction of the Aboriginal Peoples, and so the discontent that Aborigines express on Australia Day is understandable and justifiable. But to solely define Australia’s British legacy as one of wanton destruction of the Aboriginal Peoples is naive and historically inaccurate. These historical inaccuracies, if unchecked and unchallenged, will fate British Australians (Anglo-Celtic Australians) to the same bleak future presently realised in the Aborigines: cultural and demographic extinction.

Violence was not brought to Australia by the British. Aborigines, hunter gatherers, lived extraordinarily violent lives (as all hunter gatherers do), replete with inter-tribal warfare. If an Alien had observed Australia from outer-space, he would not have made a distinction between the incessant inter-tribal warfare of the Aborigines and the colonisation of Australia by the British, except to note that the British had advanced technolohy and looked different. This stark contrast in appearance between the British and the Aborigines would not have impressed very deeply in the alien’s mind, because for millennia he would have observed not one people in Australia but vastly different peoples, all of strikingly different appearance. Not many people are aware of the fact that Australia had (and perhaps still has) a pygmy population in its far northern tips. This little known fact greatly troubles those who peddle the “one people” myth.

The historical inaccuracies surrounding colonisation demonise British settlers and have robbed Australia of Founding Father figures. Take Governor Arthur Phillip. He was a Naval Captain who commanded the First Fleet, a task so difficult that some historians have described it as the equivalent of ‘an inter-planetary expedition.’ The success with with he discharged his duties should have sealed his fate as one of Australia’s Founding Fathers, but mention of Governor Phillip is exceedingly rare on Australia day, not to mention Governor Macquarie, Matthew Flinders, Governor Sorrel, William Wentworth and countless others. What has become of the reputations of these great men? They have been subsumed into a caricature of a cruel, racist colonialist. For most Australians, this caricature defines Australia’s colonial history.

Governor Arthur Phillip, a Founding Father of Australia

This caricature is historically inaccurate. Governor Phillip held sympathetic views towards the Aborigines, as did almost all of his successors. Personally instructed by King George III to ‘endeavour by every possible means to open an intercourse with the natives and to conciliate their affections’, Phillip befriended an Aborigine named Bennelong, whom he taught English and for whom he built a hut. Bennelong’s English skills enabled him to accompany Phillip on a trip to England, where he toured the country and spoke with Lord Sydney, the politician in charge of the First Fleet. Bennelong wrote to Philip from Australia:

Sidney Cove. New S. Wales Augst. 29 1796

I am very well. I hope you are very well. I live at the Governor’s. I have every day dinner there. I have not my wife; another black man took her away; we have had muzzy [bad] doings: he speared me in the back, but I better now: his name is now Carroway [the names are frequently changed], all my friends alive and well. Not me go to England no more. I am at home now. I hope Sir you send me anything you please Sir. hope all is well in England. I hope Mrs. Phillips very well. You nurse me Madam when I sick, you very good Madam: thank you Madam, & hope you remember me Madam, not forget. I know you very well Madam. Madam, send me two Pair stockings. You very good Madam. Thank you Madam. Sir, you give my duty to Ld Sydney. Thank you very good my Lord. very good: hope very well all family, very well. Sir, send me you please Some Handkerchiefs for Pocket. you please Sir send me some shoes: two pair you please Sir.


Hardly the stuff of racial hatred; and Bennelong’s wife being taken from him by another Aborigine is indicative of the violence endemic to his people.

In an attempt to demonise Phillip, many have made much of his order to capture and kill a random group of Aborigines. Such action, however, must be understood in context: it was a rational tactic of warfare, used by both sides, not wanton racial prejudice. So unmotivated by wanton racial prejudice was Phillip that he refused to retaliate even when he himself was speared by an Aborigine.

Lieutenant Governor David Collins, first governor of the Van Diemen’s Land Colony, told his settlers and convicts that “‘the Aborigines of this Country are as much under the Protection of the Laws of Great Britain as themselves’, and that they had been ‘placed in the King’s Peace’ in order to afford ‘their Persons and Property the protection of the British Laws.'” Collins’ views towards the Aborigines are thus sorely misrepresented by the colonial caricature.

The Van Diemen’s Land Colony was home to the infamous Black War, a war that drove the Tasmanian Aborigines to extinction, though it’s hardly fair to call it a genocide because the Van Diemen’s land authorities made every effort to accommodate the Aborigines. On this Black War, the man responsible, Governor George Arthur, had this to say: ‘It was a fatal error in the first settlement of Van Diemen’s Land that a treaty was not entered into with the Natives, of which Savages well comprehend the nature – had they received some compensation for the territory they surrendered, no matter how trifling, and had adequate laws been from the very first introduced and enforced for their protection, His Majesty’s Government would have acquired a valuable possession without the injurious consequences which have followed our occupation and which must ever remain a stain upon the Colonisation of Van Diemen’s land.’ George Arthur’s ruminations on the Black War make clear that the war had nothing at all to do with racial prejudice, but rather with two different peoples trying to co-exist in small area.

After the Black War, very few Tasmanian Aborigines remained. The ones that did remain were not hunted to extinction, as genocide would imply, but rather were taken under the wing of George Augustus Robinson, Chief Protector of the Aborigines. He won the trust and friendship of the remaining Tasmanian Aborigines, whom he tried to save from extinction, giving the Aborigines their own islands in the Bass Strait on which to prosper. Unfortunately, disease dashed this final hope.

Truganini, one of the last “Pure Blooded” Tasmanian Aborigines, friend of George Augusts Robinson — Protector of Aborigines.

Sympathy towards the Aborigines reached even the lofty heights of London’s Colonial office. Lord Glenelg, Colonial Secretary, said of the Aborigines: ‘[A] People whose proprietary title to the soil we have not the slightest grounds for disputing.` All subsequent Colonial Secretaries shared Glenelg’s view, though they lacked his devotion.

Why do these historical inaccuracies persist even though they are demonstrably false? I believe that it comes down to the poor state of Aborigines today. Aborigines today are imprisoned, diseased and impoverished at far higher rates than the white population. Such vast disparities warrant an explanation, but in today’s politically correct climate, any explanation that lays part of the blame on Aborigines themselves is met with extreme prejudice, and hence it becomes necessary to lay all of the blame on whites, even if this is historically inaccurate.

Australians are going to have to come to terms with harsh realities if they are to understand the present state of Aborigines. It is very likely that Aborigines do poorly in western society because they lack the mean intelligence to compete with Whites and Asians. This cannot be dismissed as blanket racism against brown people, because even Europeans of the 19th and 18th century believed brown skinned Maoris to be intellectually superior to brown skinned Aborigines. Samuel Marsden, an influential settler, said: ‘[The Maoris] are a very superior people [in comparison to Aborigines] in point of mental capacity, requiring but the introduction of Commerce and the Arts, [which] having a natural tendency to inculcate industrious and moral habits, open a way for the introduction of the Gospel.’ At present there are no reliable studies of Aboriginal IQ, but it is known that Aborigines score less than Whites on Educational tests — even when controlling for SES — and that mean Aboriginal brain size is smaller than mean White brain size, strongly suggesting that Aborigines really do possess a lower mean IQ than Whites.

It is essential that these facts come to light because white guilt over the present state of Aborigines has for many justified multiculturalism, and with it the continued marginalisation of Australia’s core and founding people, the Anglo-Celtic Australians. This marginalisation manifests itself every 26th of January, a day on which the Anglo-Celtic pioneers who built Australia ought to be commemorated, but is instead a day on which these Anglo-Celtic pioneers are attacked, and a day on which diversity and multiculturalism are praised above all else.

One example of the attacks that Anglo-Celtic Australians are subject to are the calls to change the flag. The calls to change the flag are a staple of anti-British sentiment. Around about this time of year the sentiment heats up, but it remains relatively warm all year round. Calls to change the flag almost always downplay the British heritage of Australia and overplay the Aboriginal and “multicultural” parts of Australia. Australia is both culturally and demographically British, and our national symbols ought to reflect this reality.

Australia’s British heritage is omitted from the flag.

Another prong of the establishment’s assault on Anglo-Celtic Australia are the calls to change the name of Australia Day to Invasion Day. To this I say: which invasion are you referring to — the invasion by Aboriginal tribes of other Aboriginal tribes, or the invasion by the British of Australia? Thus it is silly to call Australia Day “Invasion Day” because Aborigines had been invading one another for millennia.

Dick Smith proposes that Australia Day’s name be changed to First Fleet Day because ‘For many Indigenous Australians, the date is no holiday but a reminder of their country being taken over by others. It completely disrupted a way of life that had been undisturbed for 50,000 years.’ As previously pointed out, this is nonsensical because Aborigines had been invading one another for millenia.

These attacks on Anglo-Celtic Australia reveal the rank hypocrisy of Australia’s elite. If it is a bad thing that Aborigines are undergoing cultural and demographic extinction, then the cultural and demographic extinction looming over Anglo-Celtic Australia must also be a bad thing, and therefore something our Establishment should be expending all efforts to prevent. But the attacks on Anglo-Celtic Australia and the celebration of diversity above all else make clear that our Establishment has no concern for preserving Australia’s Anglo-Celtic heritage.

Greg Sheridan, writing in The Australian, referred to the cultural and demographic extinction looming over Anglo-Celtic Australia as ‘benign-cultural genocide.’ Had he said that of the Aborigines, he would have been taken to court for violating 18c.

This Australia day, it’s important to realise that for Aborigines, Australia Day represents the destruction of their peoples and ways of life, but Australians should not let this get in the way of commemorating the Anglo-Celtic pioneers who built this country, and whose descendants still form the core of this great nation, lest the the same fate that befell the Aborigines becomes ours.