Analysis Of The Article 'Invasion Of Australia Day' By Peter Moore

In recent years, the issue of Australia Day marking the ‘invasion’ of ‘white man’ has sparked controversy between the Indigenous and non-indigenous populations of Australia. In his article titled “January 26th is the birth of modern Australia – deal with it”, Peter Moore advocates that the date of Australia Day should not be changed and he provides humour and solidarity for those who share his perspective. He does this through heavy use of attacks and generalisations with an informal, aggressive tone. Conversely, Natalie Cromb, with her article titled ‘Australia Day/ Invasion Day debate: #ChangeTheDate – but not right now”, criticizes the idea of the date changing at present time as she attempts to rally supportive readers to stand up to the

In contrast, Cromb illustrates her perspective with her use of attacks on “White Australia” to emphasise the futile change of date without first a treaty. Moore often refers back to “97 percent” of the population not identifying as Indigenous and therefore are unaware of the ‘invasion’ on this date. His ignorance is somewhat illustrated in a spelling error of Torres “Straight” Islander which can alarm the Torres Strait readers and make them feel attacked. Moore’s conversational tone alters to be more aggressive as he defends the idea of changing the date of a well-known Australian holiday. “Whether we like it or not” he proudly states that January 26th is the birth of modern Australia. The deliberate use of such evocative language aims to support the intended audience in that “there is nothing to be ashamed about”. Like Moore, Cromb uses a vexed tone through strong emotive language. Although, Cromb uses this in opposition to Moore’s argument. Cromb addresses the “lack of empathy” felt towards the Indigenous people. It is through Cromb’s use of attacks that she gains attention and develops a sense of guilt in the audience. This plays against Moore’s attempt in offering support to his audience who would now see their view on the issue as offensive or

However, the way it is presented differs. Moore uses the background of many existing Indigenous dates such as “March 21st” and “June 3rd” to outline that there are already many dates officially recognised for the Indigenous. This point that Moore makes helps to position the reader to agree that it seems appropriate to have a date the “other 97 percent” can have to “celebrate the birth of modern Australia”. While Moore uses logic and reason in this argument, Cromb takes a more emotive approach. Cromb evokes a sense of guilt in the reader through loaded words such as “invaded” and “victims of massacres and murders”. The reader is positioned to feel guilty for not taking action to address this side of history as “we celebrate with nationalistic buffoonery”. The attached image on Moore’s article acknowledges the Indigenous protests that occur on January 26th, however, he uses this image to fuel his attack on the unnecessary change of date. This again acts as support to the readers who also disagree. This visual, in regards to Cromb’s article, has a different meaning. The image depicts the anger of the Indigenous towards the ignorance of “White Australia”. This can be an alarm to those who disagree as well as being a motivator for readers to take action for their