Q
Question
What made the Day of Mourning a turning point — and what does "turning point" actually mean when the changes it set in motion took decades to materialise?

On the morning of 26 January 1938, while official celebrations of the 150th anniversary of British settlement filled Sydney's streets, a group of Aboriginal men and women walked into the Australian Hall on Elizabeth Street for a very different kind of gathering. They called it the Day of Mourning and Protest. The hall was full — approximately 100 Aboriginal people from across New South Wales — alongside sympathetic non-Aboriginal supporters. It was the first national conference of Aboriginal people ever held in Australia.

The date was chosen deliberately. The sesquicentenary celebrations — the parades, the re-enactments, the official speeches about 150 years of progress — provided both an occasion and an audience. While Australia celebrated its colonial founding, Aboriginal Australians publicly mourned what that founding had done to them and demanded that it be undone. The juxtaposition was intentional and powerful.

"We, representing the Aborigines of Australia, assembled in conference at the Australian Hall, Sydney, on the 26th day of January, 1938, this being the 150th anniversary of the whiteman's seizure of our country, hereby make protest against the callous treatment of our people by the whitemen during the past 150 years."
— Opening of the Day of Mourning resolution, 26 January 1938 — the first formal political declaration issued by a national Aboriginal conference in Australian history

The word "turning point" is used often in history and often carelessly. A genuine turning point is not simply a dramatic moment — it is a moment after which things that were impossible become possible, or things that were inevitable become avoidable. The Day of Mourning was a turning point in this precise sense: it established the model of organised, national Aboriginal political activism that would eventually produce the 1967 Referendum, the Land Rights Act, and the Uluru Statement. But the path between 1938 and those later achievements was long, difficult, and incomplete. Understanding what the Day of Mourning actually changed — and what it did not immediately change — is the central task of this article.

Your inquiry question
What do you think made 1938 the moment for organised national Aboriginal political activism? What conditions — political, social, or cultural — had to be in place for this to be possible?
Record your initial thinking. Return to it after reading the Unpack tab's account of the conditions Aboriginal people were living under in 1938.
U
Unpack
Understand the conditions Aboriginal people were living under in 1938, the key figures who organised the Day of Mourning, and what the conference achieved

Aboriginal life under the protection system

To understand the Day of Mourning, you need to understand what Aboriginal people in Australia were actually living through in 1938. The frontier wars had ended — the last officially sanctioned large-scale killings occurred in the late 1920s — but their aftermath had produced a system of control that was, in many ways, just as destructive.

Reserve and Station System
Most Aboriginal people in south-eastern Australia lived on government-controlled reserves or pastoral stations, where they required official permission to leave, to marry, to seek employment, or to live with family members. Aboriginal Protection Boards controlled almost every aspect of daily life. In NSW, the Aborigines Protection Act 1909 gave the Aborigines Protection Board sweeping powers over Aboriginal people's lives.
Child Removal
Across Australia, Aboriginal children were being forcibly removed from their families — separated from their parents, their communities, their language, and their culture. The policy was described officially as "protection" of Aboriginal children but was driven by the belief that Aboriginal people were dying out and that mixed-descent children should be assimilated into white Australian society. This is the beginning of what would later be called the Stolen Generations.
Legal Exclusion
Aboriginal people were not counted in the national census. They could not vote in federal elections (in most states). They were excluded from many public facilities, hotels, and services. They were paid lower wages than non-Aboriginal workers — or in many cases paid only in rations — for the same work. They had no rights at law that the colonial state was obliged to respect.
Policy of "Absorption"
Commonwealth and state governments in the 1930s were actively pursuing policies aimed at the "absorption" of Aboriginal people into white society — particularly people of mixed descent. A.O. Neville, Chief Protector of Aboriginals in Western Australia, expressed the goal explicitly: within three generations, Aboriginal people would be "bred out." This was the active policy of the Australian state in 1938.

The people who made the Day of Mourning

The Day of Mourning was organised primarily by the Aborigines Progressive Association (APA), founded in 1937 by Jack Patten and Pearl Gibbs. But it was the culmination of activist work by a wider network of Aboriginal leaders who had been building the case for Aboriginal rights for years.

WC
William Cooper
Secretary, Australian Aborigines' League (Victoria)
Cooper was a Yorta Yorta man from Victoria who spent decades campaigning for Aboriginal rights through petitions and correspondence with state and federal governments. In 1937 he organised a petition with over 1,800 signatures to the King calling for Aboriginal representation in federal parliament — the government refused to forward it. In December 1938, Cooper led a delegation to the German consulate in Melbourne to protest the Kristallnacht pogrom against Jewish people — one of the only formal protests in the world against that event. He saw the connection between racial persecution in Germany and the treatment of Aboriginal people in Australia.
JP
Jack Patten
President, Aborigines Progressive Association
Patten was the principal organiser of the Day of Mourning conference. He chaired the conference, spoke powerfully about the conditions Aboriginal people were living under, and authored much of the conference's written material. His approach was explicitly confrontational — he argued that polite petitioning had achieved nothing and that Aboriginal people needed to make their demands loudly and publicly. He was arrested on several occasions for his activism.
PG
Pearl Gibbs (Gambanyi)
Co-founder, Aborigines Progressive Association
Gibbs was a Ngemba woman who was one of the most important Aboriginal political figures of the 1930s and 1940s. Co-founder of the APA with Patten, she was also a key organiser of the Day of Mourning and a powerful speaker at the conference. Her advocacy bridged the gap between urban and rural Aboriginal communities and between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal reformers. She later became an important voice in the 1967 Referendum campaign.
DN
Doug Nicholls
Community leader and AFL footballer
Nicholls was a Yorta Yorta man who had become one of Australia's most celebrated Aboriginal athletes — a professional Australian Rules footballer with Carlton who would later play in Melbourne and become one of the most well-known Aboriginal figures in Australia. His presence at the Day of Mourning gave the event significant public attention and connected Aboriginal political demands to a figure widely respected in mainstream Australian society. He would later be appointed Governor of South Australia.

What the Day of Mourning actually achieved

The conference produced a formal resolution — a document of protest and demand — that articulated for the first time a comprehensive Aboriginal political agenda. Its key demands were: full citizenship rights for all Aboriginal people; an end to the powers of the Aborigines Protection Board; and the establishment of a Commonwealth Ministry responsible for Aboriginal affairs.

The Aborigines Claim Citizen Rights — the pamphlet produced by the APA for the occasion — was widely distributed and marked the beginning of a public advocacy campaign that would continue for the next three decades.

None of the conference's immediate demands were met by the government. The Curtin government did not abolish the Protection Board; the Constitution was not amended; Aboriginal people were not given the vote in all jurisdictions; children continued to be removed. The Day of Mourning produced no immediate policy change. What it produced instead was a model — a demonstration that organised national political activism by Aboriginal people was possible — and a set of political demands that would animate the empowerment movement for the next three decades.

E
Examine
Analyse the Day of Mourning resolution as a primary source — and consider two historians who assess its significance differently
BA
Historian
Bain Attwood
Monash University · Rights for Aborigines (2003, with Andrew Markus)
Attwood and Markus provide the most comprehensive historical account of the Day of Mourning and its place in the longer arc of Aboriginal political activism. Their central argument is that 1938 represents a qualitative shift — not just another protest but the emergence of a new kind of Aboriginal political consciousness, one that used the language of rights and citizenship rather than the language of welfare and protection. Aboriginal activists in 1938 were not asking for better treatment within the protection system — they were demanding that the protection system itself be abolished. This distinction between reform within the system and abolition of the system is crucial to understanding what made the Day of Mourning a genuinely new departure.
AC
Historian
Ann Curthoys
Australian National University · Freedom Ride: A Freedom Rider Remembers (2002); various essays on Aboriginal civil rights
Curthoys situates the Day of Mourning within a broader context of Australian civil rights activism and international currents — particularly the influence of American civil rights movements and anti-colonial movements globally. She argues that the Aboriginal activists of 1938 were aware of international developments and deliberately framed their demands in the language of universal human rights — a language that was gaining traction globally through the League of Nations and later the UN. This international dimension is important: Aboriginal activism in Australia was never solely a domestic affair, and understanding its connection to global rights movements helps explain both its language and its eventual success.
Source Analysis — The Day of Mourning Resolution, 26 January 1938
Nature and context
A formal resolution passed by the conference of approximately 100 Aboriginal people at the Australian Hall, Sydney, on 26 January 1938. Drafted primarily by Jack Patten and endorsed by the conference. The APA published it as part of the Aborigines Claim Citizen Rights pamphlet distributed at the conference and subsequently circulated nationally. It is the first formal political declaration issued by a national Aboriginal conference in Australian history.
Key claims and demands
The resolution protests 150 years of dispossession and mistreatment and demands: full citizenship rights for Aboriginal people; equality before the law; the right to vote; access to the same social services as other Australians; and the abolition of the Aborigines Protection Board and similar bodies. Crucially, it demands Aboriginal rights as a matter of justice, not charity — "We ask for justice and fair play" — framing Aboriginal people as rights-bearing citizens rather than objects of government protection.
What it reveals about Aboriginal political thought in 1938
The resolution is sophisticated in its political framing. It uses the language of liberal citizenship — rights, equality, justice — rather than the welfare language that official discourse imposed on Aboriginal people. It protests the specific mechanisms of control (the Protection Board, the reserve system) rather than simply asking for better conditions. It was produced by people operating under severe legal disabilities — many of the attendees needed permission from their Protection Board to be in Sydney — and the resolution's assertive language reflects considerable political courage.
Limitations
The resolution reflects the perspectives primarily of urban and mixed-descent Aboriginal people from New South Wales — the reach of the APA was limited, and many remote Aboriginal communities were not represented. Its demand for "citizenship rights" has been interpreted differently — by some activists as a demand for full inclusion in Australian democracy, by others as an inadequate frame that accepted the legitimacy of the colonial state rather than challenging it on the basis of sovereignty. This tension between citizenship and sovereignty runs through the entire empowerment movement from 1938 to the Uluru Statement.
S
Synthesise
Assess why the Day of Mourning was a turning point — using a three-level framework that explains both what changed and what didn't

Why 1938 was a turning point — and why that needs careful argument

Calling the Day of Mourning a "turning point" requires explanation — because in the immediate term, nothing changed. The government did not respond to the conference's demands. Aboriginal people continued to be removed from reserves, children continued to be taken, the vote remained restricted. A turning point that produces no immediate change needs a more nuanced account than simply asserting its importance.

Three dimensions of the Day of Mourning's significance
1
It established a new political language — rights, not charity
Before 1938, public discourse about Aboriginal people in Australia was dominated by the language of protection, welfare, and government benevolence. The Day of Mourning explicitly rejected that language. The demands were framed in terms of rights — things Aboriginal people were owed as a matter of justice, not given by a generous state. This shift in framing was fundamental: it meant that subsequent activism could be conducted in terms that mainstream Australian and international audiences recognised as legitimate. The language of rights had a political power that the language of charity did not. Evidence: the resolution's own language; Attwood's analysis of the shift from welfare to rights framing; comparison with earlier Aboriginal petitions.
2
It created a model of national organisation that all subsequent movements built upon
The Day of Mourning demonstrated that Aboriginal people from different communities, states, and backgrounds could act collectively as a national political force. This was not self-evident in 1938 — the protection system deliberately fragmented Aboriginal communities and restricted their ability to communicate and organise across state borders. The fact that the conference happened at all was a significant organisational achievement. The Federal Council for the Advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People (FCAATSI), which coordinated the 1967 Referendum campaign, built directly on the organisational model the APA established. Evidence: FCAATSI's organisational structure; testimony of 1967 Referendum activists about the influence of the 1938 conference.
3
It placed Aboriginal political demands in an international frame that made them increasingly difficult to ignore
Curthoys' argument about the international dimension is crucial here. By framing Aboriginal rights as human rights — universal claims rather than domestic charity — the Day of Mourning connected Australian Aboriginal activism to global movements that would only grow in influence after World War Two. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), decolonisation movements across Asia and Africa, and the American civil rights movement all created an international environment in which Australia's treatment of Aboriginal people became increasingly embarrassing and internationally visible. The seeds of that international pressure were planted in part by the deliberate internationalisation of Aboriginal rights claims that begins at 1938. Evidence: William Cooper's Kristallnacht protest; international coverage of the Day of Mourning; later UN submissions by Aboriginal organisations.
Essay question — QCAA style
"The Day of Mourning conference of 1938 was the most significant turning point in the history of Aboriginal political activism in Australia." To what extent do you agree?
A strong response acknowledges what the Day of Mourning achieved (new language, national model, international frame) while also explaining why its significance only fully materialised in later decades. Consider whether 1967 or the Mabo decision might equally claim the title of "most significant turning point." Reference Attwood and/or Curthoys.
T
Transfer
Consider William Cooper's Kristallnacht protest as a comparative case — and connect 1938 to the broader arc of the empowerment movement

William Cooper and the Kristallnacht protest

On 6 December 1938 — six weeks after Kristallnacht, the Nazi pogrom in which Jewish businesses, homes, and synagogues across Germany and Austria were attacked and destroyed, and 91 Jewish people were killed — William Cooper led a delegation from the Australian Aborigines' League to the German Consulate in Melbourne. They delivered a letter of protest against the persecution of Jewish people in Germany, condemning it as a violation of human rights and an act of racial violence.

Cooper's protest was remarkable on multiple levels. First, it was almost certainly the only formal protest by any civil society organisation in Australia against Kristallnacht — a fact that illuminates how little mainstream Australian society was prepared to publicly challenge Nazi racial policies at the time. Second, it was made by a man who had spent decades fighting against racial persecution in Australia, whose petitions to his own government had been ignored, and whose people were living under a system of legal control as severe as anything in apartheid South Africa. Third, Cooper explicitly drew the connection — to protest racial persecution in Germany was, implicitly, to insist that the same principle applied at home.

Cooper's Kristallnacht protest is now recognised by the Jewish community in Australia as an act of extraordinary solidarity. The Australian Aborigines' League and Cooper himself are commemorated at the Jewish Holocaust Museum in Melbourne. The protest also illustrates a principle that runs through the entire history of the Aboriginal empowerment movement: that the language of universal human rights, applied consistently, has no geographic limits. Aboriginal rights advocates who protested racial persecution in Germany were simultaneously — and consciously — protesting racial persecution in Australia.

From 1938 to 1967 — the arc of the empowerment movement

The Day of Mourning was the beginning, not the culmination. The demands it made — citizenship rights, the abolition of protection legislation, Commonwealth responsibility for Aboriginal affairs — would take nearly three more decades to partially realise. The path from 1938 to the 1967 Referendum (F2) ran through World War Two (in which Aboriginal men served in the Australian armed forces, which many activists argued gave an unanswerable claim to citizenship), through the establishment of FCAATSI in 1958, through the Freedom Rides of 1965 (which exposed continuing discrimination in NSW to a national television audience), and finally to the overwhelming 90.77% vote in favour of the constitutional referendum that counted Aboriginal people in the census and gave the Commonwealth power to make laws for them.

The Day of Mourning did not cause these changes — but it established the political framework within which they occurred. Every subsequent step in the empowerment movement was argued in the language of rights and citizenship that the Day of Mourning introduced into Aboriginal political discourse in 1938.

Australia Day — the contemporary resonance

The Day of Mourning's deliberate choice of 26 January as its date has become increasingly resonant as the Australia Day debate has intensified. The day Aboriginal Australians called a day of mourning in 1938 is the same day that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people — and a growing number of non-Aboriginal Australians — describe as "Invasion Day" and oppose as a date for national celebration. The contemporary debate about changing the date of Australia Day connects directly to the political argument the Day of Mourning made in 1938: that the date of British settlement is not a date all Australians can celebrate without erasure of what that settlement did.