Invaded or settled?

Was Australia invaded or settled by Captain Cook?

Quote:

---

A top Australian university has rejected claims it is trying to rewrite the nation's colonial history.

Students are being encouraged to use the term "invaded" rather than "settled" or "discovered", and avoid the word "Aborigines".

The University of New South Wales (UNSW) Indigenous Terminology guide states that Australia was "invaded, occupied and colonised".

---

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2016/03/1465.jpg
University tells students Britain 'invaded' Australia - BBC News

It is been further taught that it is not PC to say the indigenous have been in Australia for some 40,000 years - instead they want to say that they have been there since the beginning of "Dreamtime"

Call it whatever they want,

The fact is,

If the nasty Pomgolians did not rock up in their Boats the Abo's would still be living in Caves and spitting okra onto their hands thinking that the finger marks left on the wall are simply sensational. :smileylaughing:

Actually a good trade would of been to fuk the Abo's off to Pomgolia and send all the Pomgolians to Australia.

The Abo's cause so much trouble in our society it's a tragedy.

Pomgolia would be a brilliant place for them. :)

And there is no need to tell how much they suck out of society and how much they actually return.

The return is Negative 1 million.

Seems fair.

Declaring terra nullius, classifying the original inhabitants 'flora and fauna' and the whole White Australia Policy are national shames. Changing the terminology to better reflect the historical reality will cause the likes of Pauline Hansen and Co. severe butt hurt but that pales in comparison.

I don't think invasion is a meaningful concept when you are talking about a modern (for its time) expedition discovering a vary large land sparsely occupied by tribes of primitive cavemen who are thousands of years off the pace in terms of modern development.

The land was occupied gradually by the new arrivals. There was some friction and bloodshed but there was also trade and exchange going on between the arrivals and the indigenous people.

It is not 'invasion' in the traditionally understood sense of the word. Trying to foist the term onto a new generation of students is a tedious political exercise and is essentially misleading.

Invasion normally means a primarily military force intentionally making a planned incursion into a land defended by an existing force where substantial armed conflict is expected and defines the nature of the relationship between the 2 forces. The new arrivals would be 100% military to begin with. They would be followed up later perhaps by a colonisation force.

But in Australia it was a largely non-military population of arrivals who set up colonies. That is not invasion in the commonly understood sense of the word.

If plans had been drawn up to send over a military invasion force to demolish the tribes and take the land it could be called an invasion but that is not what happened.

^ ^

Yer,

But if you lived there Aunty you would see just how much of a waste of space they really are.

The thing is, they are given special benefits because of the past and if they had a few brain cells firing they could do very well just on these Benefits.

I actually worked with two Guys who had a fart full of Black fella in them, they where head hunted by Government agencies to work with the Indigenous.

Very lucrative gig.

Anyway, it's just the Drunken violent ones I hate, the rest I have no probs with.

They're not all drunken violent thugs, just a fair few of them. :rolleyes:

I don't think it was invaded. The Abo population was not that high, was it?

If not the Brits and inmates, then Indo or someone else would have come.

someone had to do it and better the brits, than the french or spanish

It could be argued that the Dutch and or the Belgians found the continent first. I believe Cook did try to trade with the indigenous inhabitants but, finding them somewhat reluctant to do so, chose alternative methods of persuasion.
Later governors like Macqarie were rather more industrious in pursuit of the locals.
Successive governments have made progress in putting things in perspective but I fear the views expressed by Terry are still typical of many Australians attitude to the aborigine population. Britain has never apologised for what it did to the indigenous population.
Looper is right but in too long winded a way. Invasion is simply not the appropriate word. Cook only discovered large parts of the East coast. The occupation of a penal colony was fraught with danger not only from the locals, but a country that has more things that can kill you than anywhere else on the planet. Better to send crims to occupy it than genuine explorers.
Occupied, colonised or settled are ok, but invasion? No

Less we forget about the Chinese, who were exploring and settling in Australia hundreds of years before the British [or other beloved Europeans] were bold enough to even sail from sight of their coastline.....

Naturally, omitted from your historic perspective.

Because this thread is not about the Chinese.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Heart

The Abo population was not that high, was it?

---

Perhaps one and a quarter million, but soon much fewer ;

It is estimated that between 1788 and 1900, the Indigenous population of Australia was reduced by 90%.


Three main reasons for this dramatic population decline were:

1. The introduction of new diseases
2. Settler acquisition of Indigenous lands
3. Direct and violent conflict with the colonisers

The most immediate consequence of colonisation was a wave of epidemic diseases including smallpox, measles and influenza, which spread ahead of the settlement frontier and annihilated many Indigenous communities. Governor Phillip reported that smallpox had killed half of the Indigenous people in the Sydney region within fourteen months of the arrival of the First Fleet. The sexual abuse and exploitation of Indigenous girls and women also introduced venereal disease to Indigenous people in epidemic proportions.


Map of Aboriginal Australia « Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Looper

The land was occupied gradually by the new arrivals. There was some friction and bloodshed but there was also trade and exchange going on between the arrivals and the indigenous people.

It is not 'invasion' in the traditionally understood sense of the word. Trying to foist the term onto a new generation of students is a tedious political exercise and is essentially misleading.

Invasion normally means a primarily military force intentionally making a planned incursion into a land defended by an existing force where substantial armed conflict is expected and defines the nature of the relationship between the 2 forces. The new arrivals would be 100% military to begin with. They would be followed up later perhaps by a colonisation force.

But in Australia it was a largely non-military population of arrivals who set up colonies. That is not invasion in the commonly understood sense of the word.

If plans had been drawn up to send over a military invasion force to demolish the tribes and take the land it could be called an invasion but that is not what happened.

---

So what do you reckon happened in Tibet, with the Chinese taking control, and saying they had a historical claim on the place ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Heart

I don't think it was invaded. The Abo population was not that high, was it?

---

It was considerably smaller not too long after the British arrived and 200 years later was a bare shadow of what it had been when the first settlers arrived. For a long time native Australians were in danger of being wiped out both by settler-borne diseases and deliberate policies of extermination.

In 1788 the native population of Australia was about 500,000, by 1930 it was 70,000. It's only in the last 30 years that the aboriginal population has recovered to near pre-colonial levels.

Many white Australians deliberately avoid the subject and instead refer to aborigines in terms that would have shocked a 1950's South African Boer. Their attitude reminds me almost exactly of the attitude taken by Turks when their slaughter of the Armenians is mentioned, flat-out denial followed by the assertion that they deserved it anyway.

No, I don't think Australia was invaded, it was settled by people who had no qualms about enslaving, slaughtering, and exterminating the native populations but it wasn't invaded in any military sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

Because this thread is not about the Chinese.

---

Indeed...yet, it is a thread concerning early settlement of OZ and surroundings.
Largely regarding illusional historiography and Euro-perspective, which is largely destructive - as most is wrong, bent on fantasy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Indeed...yet, it is a thread concerning early settlement of OZ and surroundings. Largely regarding illusional historiography and Euro-perspective, which is largely destructive - as most is wrong, bent on fantasy.

---

Was Australia invaded or settled by Captain Cook?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Indeed...yet, it is a thread concerning early settlement of OZ and surroundings. Largely regarding illusional historiography and Euro-perspective, which is largely destructive - as most is wrong, bent on fantasy.

---

Was Australia invaded or settled by Captain Cook?

---

Neither. All Cook did was map the coast of NSW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Neither. All Cook did was map the coast of NSW.

---

Yes, I've already said much the same thing. This is the question posed in the op for Jeff's benefit.
Apologies for the confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latindancer

So what do you reckon happened in Tibet, with the Chinese taking control, and saying they had a historical claim on the place ?

---

I am embarrassed to admit that I do not know much about the history of Tibet so I am unable to offer an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

Successive governments have made progress in putting things in perspective but I fear the views expressed by Terry are still typical of many Australians attitude to the aborigine population. Britain has never apologised for what it did to the indigenous population.

---

People who do not live in Australia have no idea what's actually going on regards providing for the indigenous.

They read shit written by pen pushing faggots with an agenda.

The Abo's are given far in excess than a White person gets welfare wise and this is simply because they are Indigenous.

It is now 2016 not back in the Dark ages when the Poms rocked up yet silly people want to drag up shit that went down way back then and apply that to today's situation.

The Aboriginal people in 2016 are the cause of all their own problems and are simply a pain in the arse.

They receive everything yet appreciate nothing. Most do not work but just collect welfare getting pissed up and creating havoc.

When they get put in the lock up a Government appointed Lawyer comes and bails them, they pay nothing.

They get Housing, they destroy it, they do crime and get very lenient sentences because they are indigenous.

Many of the Ex cops I worked with always said the indigenous where a nightmare to deal with. A law unto themselves.

Na, fuk Em.

Fuk em off somewhere else, preferably to a country who recons us Australians are Racist.

Oh yes,

I am not racist simply because I only hate Aboriginals and not all other spongers.

Now Thai people, I like them,

but those Poms ???

Take em or leave em. :spam2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terry57

I actually worked with two Guys who had a fart full of Black fella in them, they where head hunted by Government agencies to work with the Indigenous. Very lucrative gig. Anyway, it's just the Drunken violent ones I hate, the rest I have no probs with. They're not all drunken violent thugs, just a fair few of them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terry57

People who do not live in Australia have no idea what's actually going on regards providing for the indigenous. They read shit written by pen pushing faggots with an agenda. The Abo's are given far in excess than a White person gets welfare wise and this is simply because they are Indigenous. It is now 2016 not back in the Dark ages when the Poms rocked up yet silly people want to drag up shit that went down way back then and apply that to today's situation. The Aboriginal people in 2016 are the cause of all their own problems and are simply a pain in the arse. They receive everything yet appreciate nothing. Most do not work but just collect welfare getting pissed up and creating havoc. When they get put in the lock up a Government appointed Lawyer comes and bails them, they pay nothing. They get Housing, they destroy it, they do crime and get very lenient sentences because they are indigenous. Many of the Ex cops I worked with always said the indigenous where a nightmare to deal with. A law unto themselves. Na, fuk Em. Fuk em off somewhere else, preferably to a country who recons us Australians are Racist. Oh yes, I am not racist simply because I only hate Aboriginals and not all other spongers. Now Thai people, I like them, but those Poms ??? Take em or leave em.

---

These two accounts don't quite match up Terry.

Not saying your view is right or wrong, just that it mirrors the impression I get from almost every Aussie I have met.

Some historians claim they lived and survived for 40 or 50 thousand years before the white man arrived. Who do you think introduced them to grog in the first place.

It's not like there isn't fucking oodles of space for them to choose their own way of doing things is it. If they want to mix with the white fella then fair enough. Pretty sure some have made it as top sports people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Indeed...yet, it is a thread concerning early settlement of OZ and surroundings. Largely regarding illusional historiography and Euro-perspective, which is largely destructive - as most is wrong, bent on fantasy.

---

Was Australia invaded or settled by Captain Cook?

---

I believe Capt. Cook mapped Australia. That was his mission. I don't think HE invaded or settled. But having mapped it Britain claimed it.

Once there is a map everyone will arrive! It's the old equivalent of TripAdvisor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

Pretty sure some have made it as top sports people.

---

Yep, I will agree some of them are very fast sprinters. One ran off with my daughters IPhone at a service station a couple of months ago.
She went online and did 'find my iphone' and 1 hour later we were at his welfare paid for unit and got it back.

confused the fvck out of the smelly prick how we caught him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceman123

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

Pretty sure some have made it as top sports people.

---

Yep, I will agree some of them are very fast sprinters. One ran off with my daughters IPhone at a service station a couple of months ago.
She went online and did 'find my iphone' and 1 hour later we were at his welfare paid for unit and got it back.

confused the fvck out of the smelly prick how we caught him.

---

Thief. Welfare.

Thanks minds me of the IS.

"Disadvantaged"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VocalNeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Indeed...yet, it is a thread concerning early settlement of OZ and surroundings. Largely regarding illusional historiography and Euro-perspective, which is largely destructive - as most is wrong, bent on fantasy.

---

Was Australia invaded or settled by Captain Cook?

---

I believe Capt. Cook mapped Australia. That was his mission. I don't think HE invaded or settled. But having mapped it Britain claimed it.

Once there is a map everyone will arrive! It's the old equivalent of TripAdvisor

---

I believe there were others that mapped the Australian [and surrounding region] coastline long before Cook...

^
Well it wasn't the Abo's - they never had any pencils.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Heart

Thanks minds me of the IS.

---

That'll be because you are a one issue crackpot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

It's not like there isn't fucking oodles of space for them to choose their own way of doing things is it. If they want to mix with the white fella then fair enough.

Pretty sure some have made it as top sports people.

---

Now Chas this is the Problem Innit.

Anyone can mix freely in Australia as long as they behave themselves to a degree.

Trouble being the Abos that inhabit the cities and towns cannot behave themselves.

They fuk up and become Sub human. It's the piss that fuks them up.

Now go up far North Australia on to the ranches where the communities are dry, they are brilliant people contributing to society.

But the City Aboriginals need to be culled like they were in Tasmania in the early days.

There certainly are some great Aboriginals sporting people but you would be surprised how many of those end up in the shit.

The Aboriginals who try and make a go of things are constantly dragged down by the others.

The only way for them to get their shit together is to get off the Piss but that will never happen because our Tax dollars go straight into their pockets so they can buy more piss, cigarettes and cars.

They call it " Sit down money. "

People only need to live in Australia a short time to figure out what the score is.

And that score is that the run of the mill city Aboriginal has a lot to answer for.

Go visit Darwin or Alice springs Chas, that's good fun. :)

Racist coont .....

The aboriginals must be a very contented people, you never hear them saying that they want to move abroad.
Take Africa, all black Africans want to go live in America, you never hear that from Aussie blacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terry57

Now Thai people, I like them, but those Poms ??? Take em or leave em.

---

You were doing really well until then. Am I a Pom ? There is some debate about Poms being English only. I would rather be an Aboriginal than an Englishman, far classier annd generally better educated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

The aboriginals must be a very contented people, you never hear them saying that they want to move abroad.
Take Africa, all black Africans want to go live in America, you never hear that from Aussie blacks.

---

But Aussie Abo's aren't related or descendant from Africans.

^ the cradle of mankind is in Africa, according to the BBC boffins we are all descended from there

terry you are so far off base it aint funny.
what they should do is send em all to ayers rock put a bloody big fence around em , throw in a few gallons of metho and petrol and let en drink and sniff themselves out of existence !
they, the abo's, should be bloody happy the dutch landed on the west coast, where there is stuff all, rather than landing on the east coast, cause the dutch would have done the job on em and there would be none left at all.

but i aint no racist !

Rob.

Pretty sure tezzas done a few in the Todd River bed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terry57

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

It's not like there isn't fucking oodles of space for them to choose their own way of doing things is it. If they want to mix with the white fella then fair enough.

Pretty sure some have made it as top sports people.

---

Now Chas this is the Problem Innit.

Anyone can mix freely in Australia as long as they behave themselves to a degree.

Trouble being the Abos that inhabit the cities and towns cannot behave themselves.

They fuk up and become Sub human. It's the piss that fuks them up.

Now go up far North Australia on to the ranches where the communities are dry, they are brilliant people contributing to society.

But the City Aboriginals need to be culled like they were in Tasmania in the early days.

There certainly are some great Aboriginals sporting people but you would be surprised how many of those end up in the shit.

The Aboriginals who try and make a go of things are constantly dragged down by the others.

The only way for them to get their shit together is to get off the Piss but that will never happen because our Tax dollars go straight into their pockets so they can buy more piss, cigarettes and cars.

They call it " Sit down money. "

People only need to live in Australia a short time to figure out what the score is.

And that score is that the run of the mill city Aboriginal has a lot to answer for.

Go visit Darwin or Alice springs Chas, that's good fun. :)

---

Perhaps it is a well meaning but misplaced government attitude to the problem? The North American Indians suffered a similar fate. These people were killed, displaced and generally broken by western settlement. Their goals in life were simple and they cared for their environment.
Keep giving them guilt money and it will undermine their culture further. Have the Aborigines opened any casinos yet? Should they be encouraged to adopt a western materialistic lifestyle, or did we just fuck over their culture and belief systems?

As white middle aged folk with a reasonable standard of living and few natural enemies, do we not have any responsibility for the less well off, when our forefathers actions led us to where we are now?

Giving them sit down money and access to hard liquor is so obviously not the answer. Not trying to plant all the blame on colonisation. Where would all these lovely countries be without railways, tea, cricket and the English language?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thaimeme

I believe there were others that mapped the Australian [and surrounding region] coastline long before Cook...

---

yep. Tasman and others from the Dutch East India company mapped the west calling it New Holland.
Cook mapped the east coast calling it New south Wales and Finders discovered that the west and east were the same land mass.

Only 16 years after Cook returned with his map there was a settlement in New South Wales.

But no one invaded!

There is some evidence that a Chinese fleet found Oz long before even that, and a smaller amount of evidence that the Phoenicians may have also. Hence the Piri Reis map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

Keep giving them guilt money and it will undermine their culture further.

Did we just fuck over their culture and belief systems?

Giving them sit down money and access to hard liquor is so obviously not the answer.

---

A few issues here.

Because we are an equal society the Aboriginals are entitled to social security and numerous other entitlements same as anyone else.

Whether they spend it all on piss, drugs or sticky pudding and not feed their kids is up to them. Way the system works in Nanny Australia.

When People suggest the Abo's should only be given food stamps and have their rent paid the goody goody faggots cry black and blue that it's being Racist to do that. :confused:

The aim is to get the coonts to feed their kids, get of the Piss and take some responsibility in their shitty fuking life. Same as us White coonts must do.

Did we fuk over their Culture and belief system. ?

Like fuk, the useless coonts done that all by themselves.

Na fuk em, Nasty useless drunken filth mostly.

On the other hand, the ones who do not drink have made a very nice life for themselves catering to tourists especially up North.

They put on cultural shows , dances and act as guides.

These one I salute.

Well in the fookin minority though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

Where would all these lovely countries be without railways, tea, cricket and the English language?

---

I find that argument a bit flawed myself - not specifically aimed at you chass, just that it's almost always trotted out in response to this sort of thing. Basically saying that people Y are better off because 'we' gave them Z.

The issue I have with it is that firstly it ignores that there's nothing to say that those peoples / cultures wouldn't have eventually developed independently anyway, secondly the question of whether being 'developed' is actually a better state in any event - that is to say who is better off: the Kalahari bushman who granted may die a horrible death from some easily treatable disease but lives life at his own pace, or the 'modern' guy with access to all the technology and medicine but stuck in a job where the stress is slowly killing him (caricatures, but they serve the point) - and, lastly, the high cost that came with all these wonders of civilization that 'we' gave to them / forced on them.

It's kinda like someone coming around to your house, rearranging all your furniture, putting you to work for them growing their food in your own garden, being forced to sleep outside and generally told what you can/can't do or think... And then having them tell you it's all for your own good, you should be grateful you're still allowed to live as a second-class citizen in your own home and, hey, look how much better your house looks now!