Australia Day: What's In a Date?

 Greetings,

Every year when the 26th of January rolls around there are celebrations and protests about "Australia Day", or what some people now call "Invasion Day" in empathy for the indigenous peoples who were present on the continent when the Europeans arrived and settled. This is a contentious subject of dates and questions of what will make people happy, and in the end there will always be a group of people who will be unhappy about the date or the celebrations.

26th January is commonly known as "Australia Day" and the beginning of the country, is not accurate, even from an historical perspective. It may have been the date of arrival for settlers to the Colony of New South Wales in 1788. I say "may" because unless someone pulls the logs from Captain Arthur Philip's ship or his personal diary, or some equivalent, we will never know the date of disembarkation.

Either way there is a problem, I say the Colony of New South Wales because "Australia" did not exist until 1901, when it was federated, so historically there is kind of a problem to start with. "Australia" cannot technically count its birth-date back to 1788, but only 1901. Federation, the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia occurred on 1st January. This is kind of an inconvenient day for a celebration of national pride considering the celebrations that already occur on that day.

Almost 100 years before Federation, the 26th of January was more significantly as it marked the beginning of the Rum Rebellion, Australia's only coup d'état, where Governor Bligh (Yes, that Bligh, the one infamous for the mutiny on the "Bounty") was forcefully removed from office by the next governor Governor Macarthur. Australians tend to only get up in arms when they really have had enough, have a look at the Eureka Stockade. Maybe the date should be set to the date of either of these, well it is for the first, 3 December is the other end of the year, for Eureka. Again, not Australia, all before Federation. They do, however point toward the Australian psyche as the larrakin.

Consider that one of the most famous, and beloved folk-heroes in Australian history is one Edward "Ned" Kelly, a bushranger (who attempted to start a rebellion of his own, according to his letters and some of his most ardent historians), and you have much of Australian mentality down; rebels, but lazy ones. Fight for the underdog, but not quite enough energy to stand next to them all that often.

Any date that is chosen is going to annoy some one. There are some who are campaigning to change it to May 8, "Mate Day", Australians are colloquially known as saying "G'day mate." and calling each other "mate" so it is trying to harness this idea. It will coincide with World Red Cross Day and also VE (Victory in Europe) Day, among other days. If it is left the same it will annoy, if it is changed it will annoy. As with any matter of contention, it is a matter of choosing who you are going to annoy, and what's the point of doing it in the first place?

Personally, I think it is more the purpose of the day which is important, not its date, not the remembrance of some small fleet of boats which arrived in some bay some 200+ years ago. It is the gathering of all the people of a nation together, regardless of where they originally came from, where their ancestors were from, and recognise that we are all from here, this is our nation, this is a place which we hold dear to our hearts. Find the things that we have in common with one another, not the differences; find the ways in which we can work together, not against one another; find the ways that we can truly be friends and communities together for the benefit of our nation.

Cheers,

Henry.

Bought Out: Mental Health for the Lower Income Earner

 Greetings,

When a person has mental health issues they are often told to go and seek assistance. In some cases, this can be solved through a simple phone call, in other instances it requires long-term mental health support from a psychologist or psychiatrist. The number of these individuals being recognised has only grown over the past couple of years, which means it should be a "boom time" for psychologists and psychiatrists, and it would seem, like any other occupation or any other business, they are going to forget the reason that they are there and take advantage of the situation, leaving a percentage of the population behind.

Now, you will be told by many that there is a "safety net" for those who cannot afford to pay the full price of these professionals. That Medicare will has a rebate for the money that you initially pay for a consultation. The problem is that a person has to have the money for the consultation in the first place before they can get the rebate. Low income earners and those on social welfare payments most often do not have this kind of money to begin with.

So there are a set of Medicare programs and fee structures so that people on these social welfare payments can access different services without the out-of-pocket expenses that they can't afford. These are what are called "bulk-billing" programs in many instances. The problem is that there are fewer and fewer mental health professionals who accept bulk-billing as an option, even for people on social welfare payments, regardless of their situation. It is almost impossible to find a psychiatrist who bulk-bills, indeed they will not even perform an evaluation of a potential individual bulk-billed, even though the Medicare code is present for such a thing.

Now it would seem that psychologists are following the same pattern as their learned colleagues. A person on social welfare could previously organise to have 6 sessions with a psychologist, with the possibility of extending it to 10 should it be required, each year on a mental health care plan. Effectively these sessions would be organised for the patient bulk-billed with the psychologist in consultation with the general practitioner so the best was being done for the patient. Now, it would seem that these are even being rejected by some psychologists as well for fee-paying arrangements. Fee-paying arrangements that those of a lower socio-economic status cannot afford.

It would seem that rather than "doing no harm" as the Hippocratic Oath requires the doctor, and the psychiatrist is certainly a doctor, they are also certainly doing no good at the same time. It would seem that the almighty dollar rules the day again and being healthy in the case of mental health is only something that the wealthy are allowed to have access to and the lower income will be left, until something drastic happens. Why is some catastrophic event required before something is done?

Low income individuals are, once again, being bought out of health.

Cheers,

Henry.

Define: History

 Greetings,

I have already had my discussion "About History", but I did not give any sort of definition of the term. It would be expected that this process would be reasonably straight-forward; go to the dictionary, pull out a definition, have a nice discussion about the term, all done, right? Not to be so, because like the content, people like to bend it to suit themselves, adding in and leaving out bits to bend it to their particular preferences. The result is that below will be presented some definitions of "history" and some discussion about them.

Dictionary Definition

Noun, “the study of past events” or “a chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes” or “a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events” Merriam-Webster (2022) “history” in Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/history, [accessed 7/1/22]

The Merriam-Webster provides three definitions of the same noun, the first two describe history as a thing in and of itself, while the third points toward history a branch of knowledge a means to an end. These definitions point toward a simple collection of events as the main part of the definition, with a slight aspect of discussion of explanation of their causes. The purpose of this collection would seem to be self-fulfilling, recording history to record history.

Noun, “the study of or a record of past events considered together, especially events of a particular period, country, or subject” Cambridge University Press (2022) “history” in Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/history, [accessed 7/1/22]

The Cambridge University Press definition is similarly simple, focusing on the collection of a record of past events, the only addition in this case is that it might focus on a particular focal subject area, being time, place or subject. This definition indicates that history might narrow the focus to a particular area of interest, but the focus is still on the collection of past events.

Noun, “the branch of knowledge dealing with past events” or “a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle” or “acts, ideas, or events that will or can shape the course of the future; immediate but significant happenings” Dictionary.com (2022) “history” in Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/history, [accessed 7/1/22]

The definition from Dictionary.com has multiple definitions, like the Merriam-Webster. In this case it starts with branch of knowledge, history as a subject, then examines history as a collection of past events, but focuses it on a particular subject area. The last part of the definition indicates some significance to the events, that they shape the future, that the events are significant in some measure. This definition implies that the history will have an impact on the present and future. It is this impact which tends to be the focus in our current age, rather than a simple cataloguing of events.

Post-Modernist Definition

“History is a shifting, problematic discourse, ostensibly about an aspect of the world, the past, that is produced by a group of present-minded  workers (overwhelmingly in our culture salaried historians) who go about their work in mutually recognisable ways that are epistemologically, methodologically, ideologically and practically positioned  and whose products, once in circulation, are subject to a series of uses and abuses  that are logically infinite but which in actuality generally correspond to a range of power bases  that exist at any given moment and which structure and distribute the meanings of histories along a dominant-marginal spectrum.” Jenkins, K. (1991) Rethinking History, Routledge, London

There are a lot of words in Jenkins (1991) definition and there is a lot to work through to understand what it means and the effect that it had and is having on the study of history. The meaning of the definition, in individual parts: "present-minded" meaning that their evaluations of past cultural norms are often based on contemporary norms, not those historically-contemporary norms; "mutually recognisable" meaning that most of their work is recognisable to other historians on the basis of knowledge, ideas and method, not so much to the public; "practically positioned" meaning their location in time and space; "uses and abuses" meaning that their work is usually taken by others and used as evidence to support or deny some other theory or position, which may or may not relate to what has been researched, often carried out by other historians or social groups; "power bases" relating to the "dominant-marginal spectrum" usually based on ethnicity or gender/sexuality, depending on the subject-matter which has been produced by the research performed; and "meanings of histories" which is interpreted by individuals depending on what suits them at the time, regardless of the actual intent of the researcher and author of the history.

The post-modernist definition highlights the method in which history and research into history is taken from the simple recording of events and discussion of the causes as recorded in the dictionary definitions above and twisted about until it can be used for some socio-political purpose. There is no more simple recording of history, there has always got to be a purpose behind it, some sort of cause that can be served, and even if there was no intent for such, then some other person will imply it once it has been published, or use it for such a purpose. The Wikipedia also discusses the subject of history and it will be broken into several parts to show its relationship to both the dictionary definitions and also the definitive argumentative Post-Modernist definition presented above.

Wikipedia

"History (from Greek ἱστορία, historia, meaning "inquiry; knowledge acquired by investigation") is the study and the documentation of the past." Wikipedia (2022) “History” in Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation Inc., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History, [accessed 7/1/22]

First is a simple definition which goes back to its Greek roots, and is more like the dictionary definition, indicating the study and documentation of the past. A very simple definition of history as a collection and documentation of the past. There is more, as the entry also discusses how history is collected.

""History" is an umbrella term comprising past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of these events." Wikipedia (2022)

The definition is expanded to include not only those events which have documentation, but also those events which live on in memory, these are also collected and form part of history, there is all the aspects of history present, collection and analysis before presentation of the events in some complete form. Each individual who studies a series of events will interpret them in a different way, resulting in different histories, the academic version of this collection prides itself on the analytical process.

"History is also an academic discipline which uses narrative to describe, examine, question, and analyze past events, and investigate their patterns of cause and effect." Wikipedia (2022)

 History is an academic discipline, regardless of whether it is practiced inside the halls and classrooms of some academic institution or not. The same level of rigour which is applied to the analysis of evidence which is present in any other area of the humanities applies, or even indeed the sciences. What must be recognised, and often is not is that the creating of a history is selection of events which are recorded and not, depending on their impact on the history. It is a question of qualitative evaluation,  does this event make a significant enough impact to be worth being present in this history? This is affected by the individual's cultural background and the material presented.

"Part of the historian's role is to skillfully and objectively utilize the vast amount of sources from the past, most often found in the archives. The process of creating a narrative inevitably generates a silence as historians remember or emphasize different events of the past." Wikipedia (2022)

Different histories will emphasise different things, it depends on the prime subject matter which is present. There is an unbelievably enormous amount of historical data available on many different subjects, an historian has to choose what they will use and what they will not use. This results in some histories being left behind. 

Does this men that the historian buried or silenced those histories? No, it does not, it just means their emphasis was elsewhere in that history. It certainly does not stop another historian from following the same path, or even politely asking for the material so they can find the path. Acts of recrimination just result in historians being defensive about their sources, and denying access to such sources, this helps no one. 

Why does it matter?

The way we define history is important as it defines our approach to it. If we define it as a search for significant events in history with the purpose of recording those events for posterity, then there is likely to be a much more open approach. If we approach history as a weapon to be used in some socio-political battle where the histories already written are to be abused, and shredded for evidence, historians abused for denying the presence of some aspect because they did not happen to write it, then there is always going to be a problematic discourse with the discipline. Your thoughts on a subject heavily effect your relation with that subject.

I like the Wikipedia's definition of history as it encompasses many of the aspects of history and tells home-truths about the way history works. I appreciate the dictionary definitions as they are simple approaches to the subject and tell simply what the subject is about. I grow concerned about the Post-Modernist definition and approach to history as it deliberately creates a battleground where researchers are more likely to hoard than to share their knowledge and this cannot be good for the discipline overall.

New discoveries are important. Re-writing histories which are incorrect is important, but there is a way to do this which does not put others off-side in the process, a way which encourages a co-operative approach that encourages all to participate in the discourse, rather than having people fight over the resources to prove that they were more right than the other. I will leave you a quote to think about in regard to historical "truth".

“Historical truth, … is elusive, disorderly – and often downright uncomfortable.”
J. Christoph Amberger The Secret History of the Sword

Together we can make them just a little bit more comfortable if we can agree to work toward the same goals, the collection and interpretation of those "truths" to find out which ones are really worth keeping and which ones do more harm than good.

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

 

Buried and Forgotten

 Greetings,

One way that we try to forget about things is that we collect things together and then bury them so they can be forgotten. This approach is sometimes accompanied with the burning of the objects and then burying of the associated ashes of the objects. In any case, the concept is to remove the thing from thought, to remove it from sight and from thought. This happens with history, and all sides do it.

Burying History

There have been complaints throughout history in society about the ruling elite burying other people's history, especially when this history is inconvenient for them. Most often this is directed by people of colour against those historically in power, in regard to the slave trade, or appropriation of their native lands, or similar issues. There has been a lack of the recording of the history of those who are not in power, a lack of the recording of their histories in the past. There are historians who are trying to correct this, but the pendulum should be centred, not completely swung in the opposite direction.

The almost reverse is occurring now in some situations where people are tearing down monuments to those of the former ruling elite, because they were involved in historically-incorrect activities such as slave trade. What they do not realise that they are doing is that they are also burying the history that goes along with it, and buried history, is forgotten history. Things that cannot be seen are forgotten, the reason that the monuments are being torn down is because they remind people of what happened. Is this not a good enough reason to leave them where they are?

An Example

Tearing down of Saddam's Statue Firdos Square 2003
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firdos_Square_statue_destruction

Here is an example of a statue that was torn down, some almost twenty years ago now. Without clicking on the link, do you remember who did it? Was it the US troops or was it the Iraqi citizens? What was the result of this act? Now, read the article attached to the link, read what was thought by someone who was there during this pivotal scene in world history, then think about what has come after-ward. Have a look at the news in Iraq, news that is not currently reported, and see how settled things still aren't.

A Reminder

When something is destroyed, torn down and nothing is left, or put in its place to remind people what was there before, people forget. Go down town, find a block where a new building has just been built, try and remember what the building which stood in its place previously looked like, it's the same thing. We build monuments to remind us of things. We build war monuments not to remind us about the wars, but the sacrifices made by the people who fought in those wars. We have ANZAC and Remembrance Day in Australia, not to glorify war, but to remind us of those who served, and those who still serve.

For your history to be known it needs to be brought into the light. In the tearing down of a monument, all people remember is the tearing down of the monument, and that memory will fade, and quickly. People remember that a group were offended and they destroyed something. Build something that people can walk by, and remember and people will remember it. Then people will remember that someone built something, and they did it for a reason.

Build Don't Destroy

If you go to most cities you will see statues, in some older cities you will see statues that have stood for centuries. They have stood the test of time because they were built, not because something was destroyed. The memories of people in history last because they are brought into the light, not because some other person who opposed them was buried. We remember Leonidas not because he was buried, but because he stood, we remember Xerxes because he stood against Leonidas. We remember him not for what he fought against, but for what he fought for.

Tell your truth, but remind yourself that it is one truth among many truths. History is replete with truths; each person has their own story and own truths to tell. Individuals perform actions and individuals tell the stories, it is something that is often forgotten. Each truth needs to be told, as there is always multiple sides to each story that is told. Build don't bury, this is the way to be remembered and have the stories which are important remembered.

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.