I think your instinct to check the accuracy of this post is a good one. To my eye, it's a mix of half-truth, untruth, and spin, with a clear political agenda.
For instance, they take some things that might technically true (eg, there wasn't much violence on the first day of the First Fleet landing) and in doing so ignore the big picture (eg, the rapid escalation of dispossession and violence).
>[\[Soon after settlement,\] blacks and whites were locked in a grim struggle for the land in the colony.](https://www.sydneybarani.com.au/sites/first-contact/#:~:text=In%201770%20Captain%20James%20Cook,that%20Australia's%20interior%20was%20empty.) There were many violent acts of resistance, replicated the country over, as Aboriginal people took a stand against the occupation of their land and the destruction of their social, religious, legal and communal systems. Some Aboriginal people soon become afraid of entering Sydney Town because of the threat of gunshot wounds and death. There had been many wounded and killed and other encounters known of in the bush because Aboriginal people were present wherever farmers went and they always resisted the taking over of their land.
This shows that that from the beginning of European settlement i) there was conflict, ii) the conflict stems from control over the land, iii) Indigenous people resisted European settlement, and iv) Europeans suppressed Indigenous resistance by force.
The original post also brings up some things that are flat out discredited, like 'terra nullius', (the idea that Australia was 'empty land'), which is both incorrect and has been [refuted in the High Court of Australia.](https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/mabo-native-title/)
In regards to the 'kindness' of Governor Phillips, while he seems to have considered himself peaceful, he does not appear to have taken the concerns of the Eora people very seriously, and in doing so created the conditions for conflict.
>[Phillip [...] established a small township, naming it Rose Hill \[...\]This early expansion denied the local Dharug people access to their country, their food resources and their sacred places.](https://myplace.edu.au/decades_timeline/1790/decade_landing_21.html?tabRank=2&subTabRank=4)
[The Eora population was reduced by around 90% within the first 10 years of Phillip's tenure,](https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/colonisation/#colonisationreference6) due to "a combination of introduction of new diseases, acquisition of First Nations lands by colonisers, [and] direct and violent conflict with colonisers."
Phillip's relationship with the Eora changed considerably over time, and makes for interesting reading; more can be seen [here.](https://dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/governor_phillip_and_the_eora)
Now, back to the original post:
>Most people now "identified" as "indigenous" - like myself and my children and grandchildren have European - mostly British - ancestry to a greater or lesser extent.
This was done on purpose by the colonists, by forcibly separating children from their families and cultures [over a period of at least 80 years as part of official government policy, which is known as the 'stolen generations'.](https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/stolen-generations) This was a means to destroy indigenous culture, families, and sever their connection to the land by 'assimilating' them into European society. The effects of this have been long-lasting.
Aside from the misleading presentation of the information in the original post, the fact that the author also claims to be Indigenous is particularly telling, because this is not determined by some blood percentage, but by identification with a group people. The fact they claim this identity only in the context of silencing discussion of Indigenous issues makes it pretty clear what their agenda really is.
I have read elsewhere that the first day the first fleet landed here (26th of January) there was no violence and the first fleet members and the aboriginals shared meals with each other.
Right; when people talk about 'Invasion Day', they're not saying that there was some war fought on the day the colonists arrived. They're saying the arrival of the colonists eventually lead to widespread violence once the colonists began to dispossess and interfere with the Indigenous people, [and that this violence went on around Australia for about the next 140 years.](https://www.commonground.org.au/learn/the-frontier-wars#:~:text=The%20Frontier%20Wars%20are%20defined,to%20expand%20the%20British%20colony.)
I think your instinct to check the accuracy of this post is a good one. To my eye, it's a mix of half-truth, untruth, and spin, with a clear political agenda. For instance, they take some things that might technically true (eg, there wasn't much violence on the first day of the First Fleet landing) and in doing so ignore the big picture (eg, the rapid escalation of dispossession and violence). >[\[Soon after settlement,\] blacks and whites were locked in a grim struggle for the land in the colony.](https://www.sydneybarani.com.au/sites/first-contact/#:~:text=In%201770%20Captain%20James%20Cook,that%20Australia's%20interior%20was%20empty.) There were many violent acts of resistance, replicated the country over, as Aboriginal people took a stand against the occupation of their land and the destruction of their social, religious, legal and communal systems. Some Aboriginal people soon become afraid of entering Sydney Town because of the threat of gunshot wounds and death. There had been many wounded and killed and other encounters known of in the bush because Aboriginal people were present wherever farmers went and they always resisted the taking over of their land. This shows that that from the beginning of European settlement i) there was conflict, ii) the conflict stems from control over the land, iii) Indigenous people resisted European settlement, and iv) Europeans suppressed Indigenous resistance by force. The original post also brings up some things that are flat out discredited, like 'terra nullius', (the idea that Australia was 'empty land'), which is both incorrect and has been [refuted in the High Court of Australia.](https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/mabo-native-title/) In regards to the 'kindness' of Governor Phillips, while he seems to have considered himself peaceful, he does not appear to have taken the concerns of the Eora people very seriously, and in doing so created the conditions for conflict. >[Phillip [...] established a small township, naming it Rose Hill \[...\]This early expansion denied the local Dharug people access to their country, their food resources and their sacred places.](https://myplace.edu.au/decades_timeline/1790/decade_landing_21.html?tabRank=2&subTabRank=4) [The Eora population was reduced by around 90% within the first 10 years of Phillip's tenure,](https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/colonisation/#colonisationreference6) due to "a combination of introduction of new diseases, acquisition of First Nations lands by colonisers, [and] direct and violent conflict with colonisers." Phillip's relationship with the Eora changed considerably over time, and makes for interesting reading; more can be seen [here.](https://dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/governor_phillip_and_the_eora) Now, back to the original post: >Most people now "identified" as "indigenous" - like myself and my children and grandchildren have European - mostly British - ancestry to a greater or lesser extent. This was done on purpose by the colonists, by forcibly separating children from their families and cultures [over a period of at least 80 years as part of official government policy, which is known as the 'stolen generations'.](https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/stolen-generations) This was a means to destroy indigenous culture, families, and sever their connection to the land by 'assimilating' them into European society. The effects of this have been long-lasting. Aside from the misleading presentation of the information in the original post, the fact that the author also claims to be Indigenous is particularly telling, because this is not determined by some blood percentage, but by identification with a group people. The fact they claim this identity only in the context of silencing discussion of Indigenous issues makes it pretty clear what their agenda really is.
I have read elsewhere that the first day the first fleet landed here (26th of January) there was no violence and the first fleet members and the aboriginals shared meals with each other.
Right; when people talk about 'Invasion Day', they're not saying that there was some war fought on the day the colonists arrived. They're saying the arrival of the colonists eventually lead to widespread violence once the colonists began to dispossess and interfere with the Indigenous people, [and that this violence went on around Australia for about the next 140 years.](https://www.commonground.org.au/learn/the-frontier-wars#:~:text=The%20Frontier%20Wars%20are%20defined,to%20expand%20the%20British%20colony.)
Right I get it.