Invaded or settled?

**ENT** · 31-03-2016, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by chassamui

and must also assuage my guilt for the way we treated these people in the days of the Empire. It's such a burden

I don't see it as a guilt issue, just more of an acknowledgement thing. I certainly don't feel personally guilty for anything. Maybe ashamed over some historical things that occurred in my own country - although I don't think that's quite the correct word either.

I dunno really, I'm actually kinda stuck between two worlds on the issue - literally and figuratively - so that probably also influences my thoughts on it.

It certainly does.

**Listerman** · 31-03-2016, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by terry57

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.

Whilst that may be correct, it would also be the case that Aboriginal land at Maralinga would still be habitable, and not be contaminated with Plutonium or Uranium Isotopes for the next 25,000 years or so, as a result of the UK government's [with the agreement of the Australian government] testing of nuclear bomb components (kittens, rats, tims, and vixen tests). Which involved burning of sub critical mass nuclear weapon components in the open atmosphere to see what happened, hence spreading RA contamination over a wide area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...s_at_Maralinga

Also weapons testing would not have happened which created fallout on Brisbane and Queensland, as detailed in this documentary:

Even when the Australian government belatedly decided to give the Aborigines some land rights (on land which they initially thought to be worthless) when they subsequently discovered massive Uranium ore deposits, they used a smear campaign accusing the Aboriginals of systematic child abuse to get them off this land.

John Pilger: Under cover of racist myth, a new land grab in Australia | Opinion | The Guardian

The ongoing cost to the Australian tax payer for "sit down money" is orders of magnitude less than the profits that the likes of BHP BILLITON are presently making from this, and similar mining operations for coal and other mineral deposits.

**VocalNeal** · 31-03-2016, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by terry57

Fook spending time cleaning that big house.

..and sitting on chairs to eat.. in that huge kitchen.

**VocalNeal** · 31-03-2016, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Latindancer

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.

Spot on, keep talking.

I had not heard of the Piri Reis map.

Whilst it may show something believed to be a continent (I can't see Aus. but that doesn't mean it isn't there) there doesn't seems to be much in the way of lat/long to show others the way.

It is more of a diagram than a map. Or maybe we should say Cook charted Australia.

Anyway settled or invaded? I'm gong with settled and still being settled.

Edit: Apparently genetically Aborigines are from Africa.

**frank barber** · 31-03-2016, 03:33 PM

Invaded or Settled ?

**klong toey** · 31-03-2016, 04:07 PM

I reckon they were out looking for some nice native women,ones that don't nag to much same as them nice Polynesian girls.
Found out the girls were not so pretty so turned the place into a prison colony big mistake.
Should have hung all those criminals back in England because now we have to put up with Terry whinging all the time.
No offense meant Terry just my opinion.

**Looper** · 31-03-2016, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

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

Seems a slightly patronising approach to our fellow humans to withhold technological advancement as some kind of social experiment like they are specimens in a zoo. Would it even be ethical to leave cavemen living as cavemen just for an anthropological live experiment when we know that we could make their lives longer, safer, happier, healthier, intellectually elevated and more spiritually fulfilled. I say spiritually fulfilled since I think it is more spiritually fulfilling to have the privilege of contemplating the true marvels of the universe rather than having to make do with fairy stories and mumbo jumbo.

**AntRobertson** · 31-03-2016, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Looper

Seems a slightly patronising approach to our fellow humans to withhold technological advancement as some kind of social experiment like they are specimens in a zoo.

Quite the opposite is true in my opinion: imposing it on them (even against their will) because 'we' somehow know what's best for them is what's patronizing.

I'm not sure where the social experiment part comes into it. Nobody has suggested that as far as I can see.

**chassamui** · 31-03-2016, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Looper

we know that we could make their lives longer, safer, happier, healthier, intellectually elevated and more spiritually fulfilled.

I question the authenticity of that comment. Why can we not just leave well alone. Native Americans were living a sustainable lifestyle without ruining the environment, until supposed civilisation arrived.

**thaimeme** · 31-03-2016, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Latindancer

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.

Indeed. The Piri Reis maps were claimed to be of Portuguese origins but strong evidence has held that the maps were copied from more ancient sources. Other mapping and navigating systems of the world and particular regions of the world were long established and passed on throughout the centuries.

Ancient maritime cultures were exploring the ancient world [and circumnavigating it] when the Europeans attached themselves to the flat earth theories and wouldn't travel much beyond their shores.

**DrB0b** · 31-03-2016, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by VocalNeal

Edit: Apparently genetically Aborigines are from Africa.

All humans are.

**Umbuku** · 31-03-2016, 06:18 PM

Murdoch press storm in a tea cup article appealing to their average readership by fanning racist flames. That Australia was invaded or forcibly colonised, being much the same thing, has been the mainstream position in schools and universities for decades now.

**bsnub** · 31-03-2016, 06:33 PM

Do this forum a favor. Ban Laverna and Jeff.

Fucking idiots.

**Looper** · 31-03-2016, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by Looper

we know that we could make their lives longer, safer, happier, healthier, intellectually elevated and more spiritually fulfilled.

I question the authenticity of that comment. Why can we not just leave well alone. Native Americans were living a sustainable lifestyle without ruining the environment, until supposed civilisation arrived.

That is the 2nd time in 2 days that you have cited the environmental credentials of the native Indian.

I would humbly submit that the reason for their environmental 1st prize is that they had neither

1. Invented the internal combustion engine

or

2. invented drilling technology and discovered oil

**terry57** · 31-03-2016, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by wasabi

Prays system in the U.K. Should be adopted pronto by Australia, every new recruit for the fire brigade and police should be an Aboriginal, even if a Honkey is better qualified.

This practice has put the great back into modern day England
Australia always copies mother England, just a matter of time.

You are only 21 years behind the times mate but what's a few years EH.

in 1995 the Fire Service in Perth recruited it's first female, after that the Fire Service was tasked to give entry to a certain number of minorities and Females in every new recruitment school.

Entry requirements were dumbed down so they could pass if they could not meet the normal testing.

Needless to say it cost the Fire Service a shit load of money simply because some were not up to the rigors of the job and simply walked out.

In fact some where down right dangerous.

The thing we objected to was the dumbing down of the testing. That was plan fuking wrong .

You either get in by passing all the testing or you don't make the grade, easy as that.

In my time we only had two Guys get through who had a bit of Aboriginal in them.

Both where privately Educated from good families and were good at the job.

One actually made Station Officer which ain't easy.

Both left the Service after being Head hunted by other Government departments to work with the Indigenous.

It's normal now where Minorities are given a leg up by Government departments.

**terry57** · 31-03-2016, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by klong toey

Should have hung all those criminals back in England because now we have to put up with Terry whinging all the time.
No offense meant Terry just my opinion.

That's quite Ok mate,

I've been slagged off on this forum by the best of them.

Water off a ducks Back innit.

But my musing are not whinging but merely pointing out the situation as it stands today.

Fuk these tossers who put shit on us Australians and pass us off as being Racist.

We only hate the Abo's because they are a waste of space and are fuking up our society.

Its 2016, not back in 17whatever when the Pommy coonts landed.

That's my take anyway.

**chassamui** · 31-03-2016, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Looper

1. Invented the internal combustion engine

The horse was much better on the available terrain, more versatile and no problem with fuel consumption. Why go to all the trouble of inventing the automobile?

Originally Posted by Looper

2. invented drilling technology and discovered oil

Pretty sure animal fats would have served most of their needs, especially having no need for the automobile.

You would need a basic understanding of their culture and ethos to see just how appallingly they were treated.

**Looper** · 31-03-2016, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by chassamui

The horse was much better on the available terrain

Yes because right after you invent the combustion engine you invent roads... duh

Originally Posted by chassamui

Pretty sure animal fats would have served most of their needs, especially having no need for the automobile.

Yes because they never invented the internal combustion engine so then they could scrape by on animal fat.... duh

**chassamui** · 31-03-2016, 08:41 PM

^The key here is sustainability Looper. Perhaps they could foresee the end of oil, and perceived no need to invent something that would destroy their environment by building roads and burning fossil fuels? Who is to say we are right and they were wrong?

Originally Posted by Looper

Yes because they never invented the internal combustion engine so then they could scrape by on animal fat.... duh

Or plant oils?

By only taking what they needed, and employing a nomadic lifestyle, they survived without destroying the natural world that provided all their needs. There is a lesson in there for all burgeoning young capitalists.

**Looper** · 31-03-2016, 08:50 PM

^Do you think they sat round the camp fire one night and debated whether to invent the combustion engine or just go on using horses?

Why didn't western folk have these kinds of discussions then we wouldn't be in this environmental mess we're in....

**kingwilly** · 31-03-2016, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by chassamui

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

You havent met all Aussies, but to be fair, many do hold thi sort of view

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

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

I thought he was trying to use a bit of acerbic wit rather than literally meaning it.

**chassamui** · 31-03-2016, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by Looper

Why didn't western folk have these kinds of discussions then we wouldn't be in this environmental mess we're in..

Invasion, settlement, empire building or just somewhere remote to offload the crims?

Many were very minor felons. A child nicking a few handkerchiefs and sentenced to deportation. Really? We certainly sent our finest specimens out there to form a new colony. I wonder which one Terry is descended from?

**Neverna** · 02-04-2016, 12:30 PM

Cook "discovered" Australia but he also "claimed" it for Britain - under instructions from King George III.

Navigator and astronomer Captain James Cook set out in 1768 on the HM Bark Endeavour bound for Tahiti. The official voyage was to observe the Transit of Venus from a location in the South Seas. Unofficially, the voyage was to seek out 'a Continent or Land of great extent'. Under direction from King George III of England, Captain Cook was given instructions that "with the consent of the natives to take possession of convenient situations in the country". If he found it to be uninhabited (terra nullius), he was simply to "take possession for His Majesty by setting up proper marks and inscriptions as first discoverers and possessors".

In 1770, Captain Cook 'discovered' the south east coast of Australia, landing in Botany Bay. On 22 August 1770, he claimed the whole of the east coast of Australia at Possession Island, naming eastern Australia New South Wales.

"Notwithstanding[ing] I had in the Name of His Majesty taken possession of several places upon this coast, I now once more hoisted English Coulers and in the Name of His Majesty King George the Third took possession of the whole Eastern Coast ... by the name New South Wales, together with all the Bays, Harbours Rivers and Islands situate upon the said coast, after which we fired three Volleys of small Arms which were Answerd by the like number from the Ship."

Despite Cook's actions, there were more than 250 tribes of Aboriginal people living on the land, each with their own language, customs, laws and territorial boundaries.

European discovery of Australia - School A to Z

In the circumstances, it seems somewhat cheeky to claim the land and settling it would seem like an invasion.

**sabang** · 02-04-2016, 02:43 PM

Invaded or settled?

Has it not occurred to anyone- the answer is both.

**Neverna** · 02-04-2016, 02:59 PM

^ Yes, that is my conclusion from my above post (#73).

Thread: Invaded or settled?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions