I'm starting to think that, like 1950's Catholic CL, Sinclair Davidson is man living in the wrong era - he's a throw back to somewhere, probably pre-war England? (Don't get me started on dover beach - he's an escapee from the 13th century.)
I say this because the way he writes, he seems regretful about missing out on historical chances to physically be able to put the boot into Leftists; perhaps he's a re-incarnation of some upper middle class Englishman in a suit, out on the street to try to wallop unionists during the General Strike.
Not for the first time, I also find his meaning unclear. Writing on Ian McFarlanes' opinion that we should just go and change the date we celebrate Australia Day, he says "caving in to lefty demands is always and everywhere a mistake" while simultaneously acknowledging there are some good arguments for moving it. So good arguments should never win if they are held by "Leftists" who will be seen to be getting their way if you agree? He probably doesn't mean that, but his clarity is, as is often the case, missing.
In any event, his silly post has encouraged me to look around at potential alternative dates for Australia Day, and there is a list at SBS of various dates that have been proposed, and their reasons.
Of course, the obvious one (1 January, when the nation became official) is out for the simple of expediency of it already being a holiday, and one with too many hangovers to do any nationalistic ceremonies.
But it has occurred to me - if Anzac Day is now considered a remembrance of the day the nation first felt all grown up, but it of itself cannot bear a further burden of celebration, why not just make the next day - April 26 - a follow up holiday where we celebrate the nation that it had become? (I see that candy at Catallaxy has come close to that - suggesting that Anzac Day be beefed up into also being Australia Day - but I can't see that working.)
As far as I can tell, there is nothing of particular significance one way or the other to make people question the date for having a particular partisanship to one group or another - which is the problem with going for things like changing it to the date that aboriginals got certain rights.
The benefit - we get two public holidays in a row - this alone will convince many it is a worthy change.
The only downside - it may fall too close to Easter some years. But hey, we can handle that.
I wrote today it should be January 1. A great day to celebrate as people will be too hungover to do much at all!
ReplyDeleteYes, I also have argued for January 1. If the bloody symbolism is so important to people then they may as well get it right. As for myself, couldn't care less if we just forgot about Australia Day.
ReplyDelete