Right: Artist Tony Albert stands in front of his own Hyde Park artwork. Albert, an indigenous man, made this work as a tribute to the Aboriginal servicemen who fought and sacrificed in Australia's overseas wars. Ironically, many viewers of this exibit, Yininmadyemi - Thou didst let fall, are puzzled as to its significance, despite its close proximity to the older Anzac memorial.
Arguments against commemorating Captain Cook as the discoverer of Australia
1. The claim that Captain Cook discovered Australia is historically inaccurate Those who object to a statue of Captain Cook in Hyde Park (and others like it in other parts of Australia) bearing an inscription honouring him as the discoverer of 'this district' note that the claim is simply not factual. This criticism has been made in detail by the ABC's Indigenous affairs editor, Stan Grant. In comments published on the ABC's Internet site on August 20 and 23, 2017, Grant stressed the historical fact, noting, ' My ancestors were here when Cook dropped anchor. We know now that the first peoples of this continent had been here for at least 65,000 years, for us the beginning of human time... surely we need no longer maintain the fiction that he "discovered" this country. It dishonours the people who reached this continent 60,000 years before Cook. '  Referring some days later to disquiet among some at being reminded of original Indigenous settlement of Australia, Grant argued, ' Who would have thought the mere suggestion that Captain Cook did not in fact discover Australia would be so controversial? It seems to have taken some people by surprise, the idea that people were here for more than 60,000 years before the Endeavour dropped anchor.' Though not seeking to have the statue removed, Grant believes the inscription is damagingly misleading and should be changed. He has written, ' "Captain Cook is part of our story but he didn't discover Australia. That has been a very damaging lie for Aboriginal people.' In an opinion piece published in The Monthly on August 25, 2017, Sean Kelly argued, 'In fact - and this is obvious when you think about it for longer than ten seconds - all that Grant is arguing for, really, is accuracy. You don't have to care about politics. You don't even have to care about the lives of Indigenous people. (Though I think you should care about both.) You just have to care about facts, and the precise use of language. The fact that Indigenous people were already living in Australia when Cook arrived is undisputed. So ... why are we pretending something happened when we know it didn't?' 2. Commemorating Captain Cook perpetuates the myths of terra nullius and white superiority Opponents of continuing publicly to endorse the claim that Captain Cook discovered Australia argue that the false assertion is underpinned by a number of prejudiced historical myths. Grant suggests that the claim that Captain Cook discovered Australia rests on two related beliefs - that Indigenous settlement was not valid, either legally or morally, and that only white settlement has value. Grant summarised this position, stating, ' How in Australia do we maintain the ceremonial fig leaf of welcomes to country while a statue stands in the centre of our largest city proclaiming to the world that no one here mattered until a white person "discovered" the land?' Grant had expanded on this position some days before in his comments on The Link and the published transcript on the ABC's Internet site. Grant stated, 'This statue[of Captain Cook, described as the discoverer of Australia) speaks to emptiness, it speaks to our invisibility; it says that nothing truly mattered, nothing truly counted until a white sailor first walked on these shores. The statue speaks still to terra nullius and the violent rupture of Aboriginal society and a legacy of pain and suffering that endures today.' Grant is suggesting that the only way in which it is possible to credit Captain Cook as the discoverer of Australia is to discount the legal claim to the country of its original Indigenous occupants. To claim Captain Cook as the discoverer of Australia, he argues, negates the very existence of its Indigenous occupants. This is what Grant seems to mean by Indigenous 'invisibility', that is, that Indigenous people were deemed effectively not to be inhabitants of the newly 'discovered' land. It is this belief that is given legal expression in 'terra nullius'. The Mabo Native Title Internet site explains 'terra nullius' as a term used in International law to describe territory that nobody owns 'so that the first nation to discover it is entitled to take it over'. Grant explains the ramifications of the 'terra nullius' myth. He states, 'When a nation is founded on a doctrine of terra nullius - literally empty land - then it becomes too easy to ignore the people of that emptiness.' Relatedly, Grant argues, describing Captain Cook as the discoverer of Australia grows out of a belief in white superiority. The land was only truly discovered when it was discovered by a representative of white, British authority. Grant states, 'The inscription that Cook "Discovered this territory 1770" maintains a damaging myth, a belief in the superiority of white Christendom that devastated Indigenous peoples everywhere... The idea of terra nullius was the law of whiteness, that anyone who did not worship Jesus Christ was less than human.' 3. The claim that Captain Cook discovered Australia gives ongoing offence to Indigenous Australians Opponents of Captain Cook being publicly commemorated as the discoverer of either Australia or of Australia's east coast claim that this is offensive to Indigenous Australians. Even those who would retain the plaque acknowledging Cook have indicated that they can appreciate the offensiveness of the attribution. Gary Sturgess, chairman of Public Service Delivery at the Australia and New Zealand School of Management has stated, 'We've had a very British interpretation up until now. For a lot of my life, we were assuming it was discovered by Cook. If that is offensive, I get that.' The offence given to Indigenous Australians by the manner in which Australia's colonial history has typically been presented has been recognised in other contexts. In March 2016 the University of New South Wales established Indigenous guidelines for the manner in which certain aspects of Australian history should be discussed. Among these guidelines are recommendations that British colonisation should be referred to as an 'invasion' rather than 'settlement' and that Captain Cook should not be referred to as the discoverer of Australia. Indigenous historian Jackie Huggins has defended the guidelines stating, ' For far too long it's been very unfair on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in terms of denying and having our history not even talked about at all...' Professor David Dixon, the dean of the University of New South Wales's law school, has defended the guidelines for discussing certain aspects of Australian history. Professor Dixon has stated, ' The reason that we do this is to help our students because of a number of incidents in the past where non-Aboriginal students have quite unintentionally said things in class discussions which have caused offense to their Aboriginal peers.' 4. The claim that Captain Cook discovered Australia impedes reconciliation It has been claimed that an inability to appreciate the indigenous perspective is a major impediment to establishing positive relations between black and white Australians. In the paper, 'Reconciliation between Black and White Australia: the Role of Social Memory', authors David Mellor (Associate Dean in the Faculty of Health at Deakin University) and Di Bretherton (founding director of the International Conflict Resolution Centre at the University of Melbourne) have described reconciliation as a process that aims 'to improve relations between white and black Australians at the community level through increasing understanding of Indigenous history and culture from the time of white settlement to the present.' The social theorists stress the importance of perspective and the barriers that failing to appreciate the Indigenous point of view create. They outline the conflicting views of Australian colonisation that Indigenous and white Australians typically have. 'From the white Australian perspective, the subsequent colonisation is represented as a process of taming a new and inhospitable land, bringing agriculture, technological development and culture. From the Aboriginal perspective, colonisation began a process of dispossession, attempted genocide and cultural genocide that continued up to and throughout the twentieth century.' The authors argue that reconciliation has three stages: coming to terms with the past; taking responsibility in the present and finally working together to make a better future. It is in this area of coming to terms with the past that the role of 'social memory' is argued to be vital. The authors claim that social memory is a collective view of self heavily influenced by one's perspective on one's history and social position. They further argue that, unless white Australia appreciates and respects the Indigenous worldview and 'social memory', collaborative problem-solving will not be possible. Stan Grant argues that reconciliation is not possible until there is a shared sense of the past. He has quoted the High Court's Mabo ruling, ' The nation as a whole must remain diminished unless and until there is an acknowledgment of and a retreat from those past injustices.' and then stated, ' Statues, plaques, inscriptions - these are symbols. They are important because they tell us who we have been, they illustrate our story. Still so much remains undone; histories untold. Our rightful place remains unsettled.' Frank Bongiorno, Professor of history at the Australian National University, has argued that we must, as a nation be able to hold in our minds the two different perspectives on our nation's colonisation. 'It is a fundamental test of our pluralism, of our ability as a society to hold more than one idea in our collective heads at the same time. Being able to do that is arguably a precondition for living civilised and ethical lives in a settler society.' 5. Captain Cook should be commemorated for his genuine achievements Those who dispute Captain Cook's claim to be regarded as the discoverer of Australia do not dispute his historical importance or his personal stature. Stan Grant, the ABC's Indigenous affairs editor has called for the inscription on Cook's statue in Hyde Park to be altered; however, he has not called for the statue to be removed. In a subsequent article published on the ABC's Internet site, on August 25, 2017, Grant gives his view on Cook as navigator and explorer. Grant states, ' Here is a man far from his home, commanding a ship on a voyage to lands whispered of and imagined. Through his words I see him; not a figure cast in bronze - a statue - but the man James Cook; a man of doubt and fear and perseverance and undoubted courage. He had navigated the waters of the eastern coast of our continent, his maps recorded his journey...As an Indigenous person, my admiration for his feats is mixed with the reality that he looked upon my ancestors, in his words, as "some of the most rude and uncivilised upon the Earth".' Despite his reservations about Cook, Grant sees him as a man of exceptional ability and courage and one worthy of commemoration. Grant explicitly stated, ' Captain Cook's statue stands in the centre of our biggest city. There are Indigenous people who for good reason would prefer to see it removed. Personally I accept that it remains; Cook is part of the story of this nation. But surely we need no longer maintain the fiction that he "discovered" this country.' On September 2, 2017, The Australian began a series of articles, drawing heavily on Captain Cook's journals, designed to commemorate the 250 year anniversary of Cook's departure from Great Britain on a journey in which he would finally reach Australia, navigate its eastern coastline and claim the territory for England. In the article published on September 4, 2017, Trent Dalton describes Cook's voyage as one which 'transformed our knowledge of mathematics, navigation, geology, geography, botany, psychology, nutrition, astronomy, medicine, cartography and languages.' Among those who would have Captain Cook honoured within Australia are many who would argue that the navigator and explorer was a man of sufficient stature to be commemorated without it being claimed that he discovered Australia. |
Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said.