Invaded or settled?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terry57

Fuk all to do with Racism.

---

I agree, it's about them being viewed as backward worthless trash right from the start. It was the excuse for the massacres because they were not seen as human.
It's the same way they are viewed today, because they don't aspire to the same kind of societal norms that you do.
The truth is, they are not even vilified in the same way that white trash are. They are criticised because they don't fit in and comply with the white mans ways, and that's ok because they are still worthless.
I say they are just different instead of worthless. Their undisturbed occupation of the land for 40 or 50 thousand years should give them the right to be different, and not automatically comply with someone elses idea of what is right.

^

Jees Chas,

Social norms in Australia are Low So. One does not need do much to stay out of the shit.

This extends to paying ones Way, not attacking people and breaking into houses or stealing cars, not being pissed up 24-7 and not hoovering up all the social welfare and blowing it on piss and drugs.

Australia is chock full of Immigrants who seem to get by under financially trying circumstances but the good old Abo who receives a shit load can not. :confused:

Na,

Juries out, verdict returned and they have been found guilty of being truly fuked up oxygen thieves.

^ Seems we have contradicting opinions on the natives. I have tried to understand the history of this subject from both sides and the only positive I can come up with, is that the early settlers and particularly, the early governors did not deliberately set out to destroy the natives. In most cases they tried to rub along with each other, but the settling of a penal colony in a far off land was beset with too many other serious issues for them to afford the protection of native interests much in the way of priority.
As far as I am concerned, your view of aboriginal life just proves that the white mans solution does not work. Aboriginal problems require aboriginal solutions. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

Aboriginal problems require aboriginal solutions. :)

---

Right on.

I'd like to pick up on Looper's view that if the British hadn't done it, someone else would. My view is that is a nonsense argument and also a poor justification. It's also dangerous to promote such thinking even in the modern age.

Below is the same argument from a modern day killer.

Quote:

---

"If I had not done this others would and there would have been more killing and violence in the world.

---

Fury over Facebook tributes praising taxi driver who knifed 'Happy Easter' shopkeeper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

I'd like to pick up on Looper's view that if the British hadn't done it, someone else would. My view is that is a nonsense argument and also a poor justification. It's also dangerous to promote such thinking even in the modern age.

---

That's what I also said, that if it wasn't the English then it would have been the French or Spanish, only a matter of time, first up first served.

Considering the fact that England settled Australia under terra nullius and eventually found and removed a significant native population, all other claims are null and void. The French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese and others all left it a bit too late to stake a claim.
I'm pretty sure that Cook never realised the massive extent of his claim, or he might have been followed by an even larger group than the first fleet.

French language, Spanish architecture or Dutch caps, we will never know. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

I'd like to pick up on Looper's view that if the British hadn't done it, someone else would. My view is that is a nonsense argument and also a poor justification. It's also dangerous to promote such thinking even in the modern age. Below is the same argument from a modern day killer.

---

Not a very relevant comparison. I am not saying that 'somebody else would have done it' is a complete justification in itself for any action in any situation. I am saying it is a valid mitigation against complaints by aborigines in this particular situation. In the situation of the settlement of Australia it was in the best interests of the human species as a whole that this vast resource be usefully developed. If the British had not done it then somebody else would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

Considering the fact that England settled Australia under terra nullius and eventually found and removed a significant native population, all other claims are null and void.

---

I think Terra Nullius was a reasonable basis for the claim. There was no established civilisation. The land had not been developed in the way that you recognise land being developed where modern human civilisation has been established. If the aborigines had vanished the year before Cook arrived there would be almost nothing to tell you that the land had ever been inhabited by humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

French language

---

I think we have to be grateful that it was not the French. Can you imagine French being spoken with an Australian accent,

:frog:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

Aboriginal problems require aboriginal solutions. :)

---

Right on.

---

Absolutely agree 100 % and most Australians feel the same and voice this opinion.

Trouble being, there are simply not enough reliable and responsible ones available to reign in the trash amoungst them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Looper

I think Terra Nullius was a reasonable basis for the claim. There was no established civilisation. The land had not been developed in the way that you recognise land being developed where modern human civilisation has been established. If the aborigines had vanished the year before Cook arrived there would be almost nothing to tell you that the land had ever been inhabited by humans.

---

Surviving in a fairly hostile environment for 40/60 thousand years counts for nothing then? Australia has more native plants and animals that can kill you than anywhere else in the world. Do you apply the same rules to primitive tribes in the Amazon rain forests, or the Inuit, the Sentinelise, Korawai, Mashco Piro etc. Should their existence be ended in the name of progress by advanced civilisations?

Surviving is not such a newsworthy feat. We are evolved to survive. It is literally the minimum requirement to qualify for continued existence for another generation and all the animals and plants on earth are fairly adept at it.

The headline story as far as planet earth is concerned is the sudden recent explosion in technological development of homo sapiens and the fact that we have become a lens through which the universe can study and understand itself which is why technological progress is so important and so profound.

If you are a human you qualify for the ride so luckily the aborigines qualify which is why we provide them with housing, schools, hospitals, TV, Mobile phones, cars and a police service. We even gave them back huge chunks of the land after we had put together a world class country from nothing in less than 200 years.

The deaths from the conflict were sad but settlement is not likely to go through without a bit of friction as that is just human nature. But the creation of the modern nation of Australia in such a short time is quite a spectacular feat and a positive story on balance I think.

If you are going to try and push the white guilt/regret/self-flagellation agenda then you must be able to offer an alternative scenario of how it should have gone down. So what is your version of how it should have gone down?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Looper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

I'd like to pick up on Looper's view that if the British hadn't done it, someone else would. My view is that is a nonsense argument and also a poor justification. It's also dangerous to promote such thinking even in the modern age. Below is the same argument from a modern day killer.

---

Not a very relevant comparison. I am not saying that 'somebody else would have done it' is a complete justification in itself for any action in any situation. I am saying it is a valid mitigation against complaints by aborigines in this particular situation. In the situation of the settlement of Australia it was in the best interests of the human species as a whole that this vast resource be usefully developed. If the British had not done it then somebody else would.

---

At what point in history do you believe it became "the best interests of the human species as a whole"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Looper

interests of the human species as a whole that this vast resource be usefully developed.

---

:smileylaughing:

But fuck you post some shite!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Looper

If you are going to try and push the white guilt/regret/self-flagellation agenda then you must be able to offer an alternative scenario of how it should have gone down. So what is your version of how it should have gone down?

---

Sadly it is nothing so simple as guilt, regret or flagellation. You and the rest of the developed world cannot simply dismiss the oldest continuous civilisation in the world, just because they did not develop quickly enough for your liking.
Perhaps they and other simple tribes hold the key to our survival on this planet. How long do you think our modern civilisation can go on squandering natural resources? How do we control population growth? If obesity is the next big killer why are aborigine people invariably skinny?

The estimates of the aboriginal population before Europeans arrived is in the region of 800,000 after 50 thousand years. In just 200 years, the current population of Australia has grown to 23 million plus. Is that sustainable? Just maybe we have something to learn from these people about respect for the planet and our diminution of natural resources.
They had an unparalleled understanding of how nature works, and how to live in harmony with the environment, Surely that can be utilised and adapted to our ways and needs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

At what point in history do you believe it became "the best interests of the human species as a whole"?

---

Well to simplify the scenario you have a situation where 2 populations A and B of the same intellectually advanced species have developed in isolation on islands X and Y. By some chance or for some reason one of those populations (A) has undergone tremendous technological advance while the other population (B) has languished and not developed at all.

I assert that technological advance is in and of itself profoundly important as a wellspring to ultimately being able to document abstract knowledge of how the universe works.

Technological advance requires resources. Populations that are going places (in a metaphorical sense) need room to expand and grow.

It is for the benefit of the entire species population (A+B) across both islands X and Y that the population A be allowed to use the resources on island B to further its intellectual growth and technological expansion for which in return it shares the fruits of its intellectual riches with population B and supports them financially since they were unfortunately unable to bootstrap themselves in the same manner as population A.

Of course human endeavour is driven by self-advancement so there is some self-interest involved in Population A initially taking the land on island B. And of course taking land off people is not likely to be met with smiles so there is some mortal cost involved. But the big picture is that there is a net benefit for the entire population (A+B) as a whole at the end of the day as population B goes directly from caveman to full membership of a modern population with all its benefits in a matter of a few generations where the original process of discovery and invention took population A tens of thousands of years to perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

Perhaps they and other simple tribes hold the key to our survival on this planet.

---

Perhaps, although on balance it is more likely that they do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Looper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

At what point in history do you believe it became "the best interests of the human species as a whole"?

---

Well to simplify the scenario you have a situation where 2 populations A and B of the same intellectually advanced species have developed in isolation on islands X and Y. By some chance or for some reason one of those populations (A) has undergone tremendous technological advance while the other population (B) has languished and not developed at all.

I assert that technological advance is in and of itself profoundly important as a wellspring to ultimately being able to document abstract knowledge of how the universe works.

Technological advance requires resources. Populations that are going places (in a metaphorical sense) need room to expand and grow.

It is for the benefit of the entire species population (A+B) across both islands X and Y that the population A be allowed to use the resources on island B to further its intellectual growth and technological expansion for which in return it shares the fruits of its intellectual riches with population B and supports them financially since they were unfortunately unable to bootstrap themselves in the same manner as population A.

Of course human endeavour is driven by self-advancement so there is some self-interest involved in Population A initially taking the land on island B. And of course taking land off people is not likely to be met with smiles so there is some mortal cost involved. But the big picture is that there is a net benefit for the entire population (A+B) as a whole at the end of the day as population B goes directly from caveman to full membership of a modern population with all its benefits in a matter of a few generations where the original process of discovery and invention took population A tens of thousands of years to perfect.

---

A fine piece of waffling, Looper, but nothing more. Let me pose the question again to make it easier for you to understand.

In your opinion, at what point in the history of the land mass of Australia did its takeover by the British come to be in "the best interests of the human species as a whole"?

Clue: After 1770 until the present day.

I remember years ago going to Kanchanaburi and doing the whole bridge, museum, graveyard tour with my then Japanese girlfriend.

She was completely and utterly oblivious to the whole thing and had no idea what it was about. At first I was a little annoyed and incredulous that she could have no idea but then I realised that it was simply because she had never learnt about it - it hadn't been taught in Japanese schools.

Loopy reminds me of my Japanese ex. Only a lot less sexy. And a whole lot more inexcusable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

In your opinion, at what point in the history of the land mass of Australia did its takeover by the British come to be in "the best interests of the human species as a whole"?

---

I don't think it is something binary that is false in 1818 and true in 1819.

I think it is something that is inherently true from the start and the reasons why it is true become gradually clearer as time passes although they are understood at some level of abstraction throughout the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Looper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

In your opinion, at what point in the history of the land mass of Australia did its takeover by the British come to be in "the best interests of the human species as a whole"?

---

I don't think it is something binary that is false in 1818 and true in 1819.

I think it is something that is inherently true from the start and the reasons why it is true become gradually clearer as time passes although they are understood at some level of abstraction throughout the process.

---

So, according to you, the moment the British set foot on Autralian soil, it was good for the human species as a whole.

:smileylaughing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Looper

I don't think it is something binary that is false in 1818 and true in 1819. I think it is something that is inherently true from the start and the reasons why it is true become gradually clearer as time passes although they are understood at some level of abstraction throughout the process.

---

You accused me of trolling in another thread. Is this your idea of payback?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

So, according to you, the moment the British set foot on Autralian soil, it was good for the human species as a whole.

---

In terms of the big picture, yes. The civilisation that is light years ahead of the game in terms of development can make the most productive use of the resources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

Aboriginal problems require aboriginal solutions.

---

Spear the fuckers?:england:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Looper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

At what point in history do you believe it became "the best interests of the human species as a whole"?

---

Well to simplify the scenario you have a situation where 2 populations A and B of the same intellectually advanced species have developed in isolation on islands X and Y. By some chance or for some reason one of those populations (A) has undergone tremendous technological advance while the other population (B) has languished and not developed at all.

I assert that technological advance is in and of itself profoundly important as a wellspring to ultimately being able to document abstract knowledge of how the universe works.

Technological advance requires resources. Populations that are going places (in a metaphorical sense) need room to expand and grow.

It is for the benefit of the entire species population (A+B) across both islands X and Y that the population A be allowed to use the resources on island B to further its intellectual growth and technological expansion for which in return it shares the fruits of its intellectual riches with population B and supports them financially since they were unfortunately unable to bootstrap themselves in the same manner as population A.

Of course human endeavour is driven by self-advancement so there is some self-interest involved in Population A initially taking the land on island B. And of course taking land off people is not likely to be met with smiles so there is some mortal cost involved. But the big picture is that there is a net benefit for the entire population (A+B) as a whole at the end of the day as population B goes directly from caveman to full membership of a modern population with all its benefits in a matter of a few generations where the original process of discovery and invention took population A tens of thousands of years to perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

Perhaps they and other simple tribes hold the key to our survival on this planet.

---

Perhaps, although on balance it is more likely that they do not.

---

Oh, Looper, who're you working for?

There are millions of westerners, not just Aboriginals, who never ever see the 'full benefits' of civilization, they are the underclass of white society, unable to 'bootstrap' themselves into the ranks of the privileged in their own cultures, because as you well know, there's no room at the top for everybody, who're fooled into thinking that the harder they work for the man the more they get, a total myth.

The top 10% of society enjoys the best fruits of our advances, the rest work to support them.

Technology's all very well, but not at the expense of humanity.
Western ideals aren't everyone's ideals, and Aboriginal ideals suit Aboriginals best.

Sure, old honkey congratulates himself for handing out cell phones and whatever handouts to appease Oz Aboriginals, but it's just more bling, trinkets, no difference from Stuivesant giving beads to Indians in America.
Alcohol and drugs introduced by Ozzies to Aboriginals is just one negative we've been able to share with them in advancing their culture.

Aboriginals by and large don't want to go down that sh*t tunnel that we've been through. they don't have the same values as we have, so why insist on trying to make them just like us, when we've been the chief reason the planet is headed for environmental collapse through the wholesale exploitation of resources and unfettered pollution?

The Aboriginal culture is miles ahead of ours on the conservation game, no matter how primitive you may regard them to be.
What's wrong with living like a caveman? The Aboriginals proved that they could do that well, for nearly 60,000 years, until western influence arrived and nearly wiped them out completely with their much lauded technological advances.

Given the odds, it's not white man who'd survive if all turned turtle, it'll be those living in harmony with the land who'll live.

Western civilization is techno-energy dependent, switch the power off and everything stops, but not for those who've got a few clues and natural resources to live with.
Without electric power, as in a power cut out, the whole city grinds to a stop and crime sky-rockets.
No lights, cooking facilities, tv, phone, internet, communication is reduced to yelling, smoke signals and flashing mirrors, no heating or air-con, hospitals stop functioning at optimum, police and security systems are in disarray, the works, until a lowly technician fixes it.

Meanwhile, 'back at the ranch', Aboriginals, other so-called primitives and those living more more autonomous life-styles wouldn't give a damn, as long as they too hadn't become techno-dependent, as there are many alternative and nature based systems available to live by. Not everybody wants to be on the gravy-train dream-boat rat-race that's promoted as the ideal life-style.

Take a holiday from your city-bound life, go bush for a while somewhere up Queensland, sleep under the stars out along the Mareeba River or on a beach up Cape York way, gathering crabs and breadfruit and coconuts and fish, collect wood for a fire, water from a creek, and don't take a watch or a cell phone with you and understand that the whole world does not revolve around white man's technology, rather the opposite, that the world couldn't give a hoot, that nature still flourishes and still remains our prime source of sustenance, not technology.

Oh, and yes, ask a friendly Abo for advice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

There are millions of westerners, not just Aboriginals, who never ever see the 'full benefits' of civilization

---

The lives of smelly chav monkeys today are way more comfortable than the lives of middle class of 100 years ago or the royalty of 500 years ago. Everyone benefits from development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

Aboriginals by and large don't want to go down that sh*t tunnel that we've been through.

---

Medical care, science, houses, cars, world travel, mobile phones are not a shit tunnel. If we had a vote tomorrow to get rid of them all and go back to scratching in the dirt how would the vote go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

The Aboriginal culture is miles ahead of ours on the conservation game

---

Chas was saying this about the red indians. The aboriginals are not masters of conservation. They wiped out the truly amazing megafauna of Australia with their hunting and slash and burn techniques. Like the bison in USA except in our case it was to complete extinction.

The reason they have not polluted the atmosphere is because they were still 10,000 years shy of inventing the internal combustion engine.

Homo Sapien's skills at harnessing and manipulating our environment to our advantage is the headline story for life on planet earth. It is something to celebrate. Sure we make mistakes as we go along but we learn quickly and eventually put things right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

Given the odds, it's not white man who'd survive if all turned turtle, it'll be those living in harmony with the land who'll live.

---

I think modern man with all the hi tech survival kit and underground shelters would do better than a caveman on the surface in certain kinds of apocalypse. It would be important that a population of advanced westerners survived as they would be able to reboot society quickly in the aftermath by understanding all the information and equipment left behind by civilisation.

It would likely take more primitive people much longer to understand and learn how to use all the information and technology left behind if only they survived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Looper

Homo Sapien's skills at harnessing and manipulating our environment to our advantage is the headline story for life on planet earth. It is something to celebrate. Sure we make mistakes as we go along but we learn quickly and eventually put things right.

---

Total fallacy. Bangkok will be under water in less than 30 years from now, but they keep building more high rise condos, and mugs keep buying them.