Thread: Invaded or settled?

Originally Posted by Looper

the remaining sizeable population enjoys privileged status in one of the most envied societies on earth

Yeah except for the fact that they don't. Because institutionalized racism.

Originally Posted by Looper

Yes some rough stuff went down but substantial reparations have been made and the remaining sizeable population enjoys privileged status in one of the most envied societies on earth.

They get given far more than any white family ever gets yet they manage to piss it all away on an ever increasing bender of self destruction.

Na, fuk em.

Originally Posted by MrG

OK, I'll try it like this. There is an old trick question Jesuits teachers reportedly ask their students in logic class. The question: is something wrong because God says it's wrong, or is something wrong because it's wrong, period? It was tricky because if you go with God, then if God said incest was no longer a mortal sin would it be OK to go screw your sister? If you take the second position--say it's still wrong because it's wrong-- then you must believe that there is a higher moral authority than God--defend your position ("you little heretic wanker". Sorry, bad memory).

I have come across this question before but I had no idea that the Jesuits used it as an argument for God. I have only heard it as an argument against God.

Is something good because god says it is good or because it simply is good.

The answer is that something is good because humans agree that it is good. Morality is a function of context. The context being the nature and degree of physiological and sociological development of the evolved species contemplating the nature of their morality. Part of what drives basic ideas about morality are instincts that we are evolved with due to our nature as social animals. It feels instinctively wrong to leave some one injured and in pain when we can easily help them for example. We are evolved to feel this since we are evolved to live communally.

We also have higher order frameworks of morality which have come about through intellectual reflection, discussion and democratic agreement. For example we now agree that slavery is morally wrong but slavery was not always morally wrong. The first caveman to have the idea of tying a captured enemy to a tree and making him carve arrowheads and beating him if he didn't instead of simply killing him must have been hailed as a genius of his time.

We understand what is right and wrong from instincts and intellectual agreement. Religion is a sideshow that usurps the idea of being the source of morality for its own nefarious reasons.

But we are getting a bit side-tracked are we not?

Originally Posted by MrG

Anyway, I know you like to hair-split "philosphical conundrums", but then retreat to fantasies of the "real world" you postulate where the so-called hard choices are made on the ground under the Ivory Tower, so consider: was the slaughter of innocent men women and children by the white settlers justifiable because that was the "way it was done" in those days. It was sanctified by the practice of Empires, a long established historical precedence, you might say. Or was it well known to be wrong to slaughter innocent men, women and children even at that time. Just wrong. Like murder, only mass. Or slavery. Do we have a right to look with modern scorn and judgement at that institution, or do we just say, well, you know...when in Rome....

Moral frameworks evolve over time. At one time doing things for the good of your empire was a highly worthy moral imperative. The suffering of some primitive natives was a relatively minor concern. Nowadays we don't go in for empires any more and the global village has shown us that we are all basically human beings all striving for the same kinds of satisfaction out of our lives so the moral frameworks have evolved somewhat. The actions taken to build the British empire seem harsh in retrospect but they were broadly in keeping with what was acceptable for that day an age I would say. The recent reparations to the aboriginals have been very generous compared to how other indigenous tribes fared in other parts of the world.

Coming from the UK to Australia as an immigrant, I feel that I have no obligation - moral or financial to the indigenous aboriginal.

If my ancestors indeed abused the original Australians then I feel no guilt.
I should in no way be held accountable for the sins of my forefathers.

In the same way that if my grandfather was a mass murderer I could not be held in anyway accountable for his crimes.

What our forefathers did to someone else's forefathers is a poor excuse for compensating the Aboriginals today.

It appears to me that the same lefties who hate the laws of inheritance are prepared to make a major exception and turn a blind eye to their own logic.

If we are talking in some way "fair" then let's hand Australia back to the Aboriginals (who were neither united nor a national entity)
At the same time be prepared to redraw the world map while we sort the rest out.

Originally Posted by Iceman123

It appears to me that the same lefties who hate the laws of inheritance

Who are they, then? Have to say I haven't heard of any major left-wing movement against inheritance laws.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Iceman123

It appears to me that the same lefties who hate the laws of inheritance

Who are they, then? Have to say I haven't heard of any major left-wing movement against inheritance laws.

Let me make this easy for you Bob.

The right wing upper class gentry and wealthy individuals versus the left wing masses who are in general selling their labour to make a living.

Now what is your guess on the side that are avid supporters of the laws of inheritance?

Too hard? Suggest you google. Still too hard? I can give you one on sport

Originally Posted by Iceman123

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Iceman123

It appears to me that the same lefties who hate the laws of inheritance

Who are they, then? Have to say I haven't heard of any major left-wing movement against inheritance laws.

Let me make this easy for you Bob.

The right wing upper class gentry and wealthy individuals versus the left wing masses who are in general selling their labour to make a living.

Now what is your guess on the side that are avid supporters of the laws of inheritance?

Too hard? Suggest you google. Still too hard? I can give you one on sport

That's not an answer. That's just a vague statement with no supporting evidence at all. The reason I asked the question was because I thought you were just making shit up, looks like I was right.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Iceman123

It appears to me that the same lefties who hate the laws of inheritance

Who are they, then? Have to say I haven't heard of any major left-wing movement against inheritance laws.

It must be sad getting old and dottery, so to clarify - your question as you will see related to major left-wing movements -
I made no mention of "major left-wing movements" therefore it was difficult to address your irrelevant query - capice?

However to pander to your pedantry regarding left wing movements and the abolition of TLOH try Marxism - leftist enough for you?

Where do I send my account?

The first governor of NSW, which was what Australia consisted of at the time, was a naval Captain charged with administering the new penal colony. He was aware of the natives and his instructions were clear. No slavery was permitted and the natives were to be treated under the same English laws as the newcomers. Despite one meeting ending with the governor having a speared shoulder, he would permit no recriminations.
His party lacked the agricultural know how and equipment to make farming a success. Prisoners were idle and disinterested even though they knew they were growing their own food.
Granting land rights to officers in support of the expedition, eventually found enough entrepreneurs to make a successful colony.

Queensland was inhabited by many more indigents of different tribes, and the ensuing massacres would be the opposite of NSW Governor Arthur Phillip's experience.

Originally Posted by Iceman123

However to pander to your pedantry regarding left wing movements and the abolition of TLOH try Marxism - leftist enough for you?

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Oh, fuck the embarrassment! The Iceman has just caught me making a proper cvnt of myself again

That's ok Bob, I won't tell anyone.

Originally Posted by Iceman123

It must be sad getting old and dottery

Possibly, how does it make you feel?

I can't remember

What were you talking about?

I think I need a doctor

Is Bob about?

Who's Bob?

Originally Posted by Looper

Moral frameworks evolve over time.

Clearly. When did it evolve to exclude the slaughter of men, women and children as moral. I submit that it has always been recognized by human beings but denied by the God-like Imperial powers that be at the time. For instance:

Originally Posted by Looper

At one time doing things for the good of your empire was a highly worthy moral imperative.

Thanks for making my point. The State (Empire, King, Majesty, Royal Highness) was given (assumed, took, usurped) the role of God in the world. Does that make it alright to commit genocide because the God, The King, says it is, in which case human morality is a decision of the State.

Originally Posted by Looper

The suffering of some primitive natives was a relatively minor concern.

Again, thank you for making my point. The suffering of some precious British Gentleman wanting to off-load their prisoners was a relatively minor concern to those on the recieving end. The practice of High Tea was not compensation.

Originally Posted by Looper

Nowadays we don't go in for empires any more and the global village has shown us that we are all basically human beings all striving for the same kinds of satisfaction out of our lives so the moral frameworks have evolved somewhat.

I think the ancient concept that we are all basically human beings and should not be slaughtered out of greed or avarice, even of self delcared "Great Empires" for the sake of that empire, did not require the modern concept of "global village" to be understood. That the God/King of Western Empire chose to declare it so does not make it right. Are you arguing that Might Makes Right.

In general, the idea of slaughtering men, women and children is wrong. Just because it is practiced does not make it less wrong or excusable. Those societies that perpetrate it are on the wrong side of what I think has been universally recognized as wrong as far back as the time of Alexander, perhaps even the cave.

It has already been said I think but most of the instances of killings of aboriginals were in retaliation for attacks by natives on settlers; yes, the retaliation was often disproportionate because the early settlers were outnumbered and had to discourage the natives from repeating their attacks and had the weaponry to make those retaliations count.

I don't think the British engaged in the type of glorified murder for sport that the conquistadors were famous for.

The situation was that Australia was up for grabs for whichever European nation was willing to take on the challenge of settling the land. The settlement of Australia by Europeans was inevitable.

The world is a better place with modern Australia than it would have been otherwise. The British influence has left its mark in strategically important parts of the planet which is a good thing since western europe has been consistently ahead of the curve for centuries when it comes to important moral progress such as abolition of slavery, womens rights, racial discrimination, gay rights etc..

There were primitive natives in many parts of the world whose days were numbered when the empire fleets set sail. Were they treated worse than they needed to be? It is hard to say since we only have one history to refer back to, we didn't get to replay it many different ways.

The aborigines have been well compensated recently. It would have been simpler to put them all to the sword and not have to deal with their title claims 2 centuries later but the British were not as savage as the Spanish so here we are.

What is it that you are looking for from this discussion?

Originally Posted by Looper

It has already been said I think but most of the instances of killings of aboriginals were in retaliation for attacks by natives on settlers;

It has been said--by you without any back up. I would imagine that there were numerous atrocities committed by people defending their home, families and land, but by virtue of the fact that the European occupiers were uninvited, it could be said that they started it.

Originally Posted by Looper

yes, the retaliation was often disproportionate because the early settlers were outnumbered and had to discourage the natives from repeating their attacks and had the weaponry to make those retaliations count.

Genocide as retaliation...? You really want to go there. Such an evolved morality that could be visited on people there in the Shire, but I doubt if it would be found justifiable by the Shire populace after seeing their loved ones chopped up on the ground, their culture destroyed, their way of life destroyed. Get the picture.

Originally Posted by Looper

What is it that you are looking for from this discussion?

Clarification of your beliefs. Not is genocide ever justifiable, but was genocide ever justifiable.

Originally Posted by Looper

The world is a better place with modern Australia than it would have been otherwise.

You seem to think that it was OK depending on when it historically occurred, for what reason, and if the pay-off was suitable enough to make it all worthwhile. Puts you in some pretty ugly company if you do.

Originally Posted by Looper

Australia was up for grabs

Can't you at least concede that the indigenous people would have an entirely different perspective? Or don't they exist in your universe.

Today's Australia is a great country, and wonderful people, there is so much that they have contributed to the modern world.
Fastest flat racing Thoroughbreds in sprint races.
Lovely accent.
A safe haven for Ronnie Briggs family
Australian stock saddle
Cricket fanatics
Good movies
Good TV shows
Good health system and services
Friendly people

Then you just need to look at how introduced species have thrived living on this land.
Gone feral thanks to the good life in Australia
Brumbies
Camels
Goats
Pigs
Rabbits

Originally Posted by MrG

It has been said--by you without any back up.

Well I don't thnk they killed the aborigines for fun or for sport. I think a lot of force and violence would have been deemed necessary to achieve the ends of settling the land for the expansion of the British empire. The settlement would have been met with resistance understandably and standing your ground in the face of that resitance would have required some bloodshed.

Originally Posted by MrG

Not is genocide ever justifiable, but was genocide ever justifiable.

Genocide is not a very nice word. It is overly emotive and poorly defined. Certainly there was violence and death and much loss of life as in any territorial conflict.

Originally Posted by sabang

Can't you at least concede that the indigenous people would have an entirely different perspective? Or don't they exist in your universe.

I think you have took at the big picture and ask what is the ultimate good for the species here.

We are as far as we know the only intelligent life in the universe. The most important goal for humans is the expansion of human knowlegde and expanding our inhabitation beyond the limits of our blue planet in order to secure our survival in the face of possible terrestrial disaster. That means we need to get onto the moon and other planets.

Achieveing these goals means exploiting the resources available to us on our tiny planet. We cannot afford to leave a huge natural resource like Australia untapped for the sake of some kind of epic scale zoological experiment with our fellow humans where we leave them scratching in the dirt undisturbed while the rest of the planet gets on with development at relative breakneck speed.

The aboriginals did not need all that land and were not making productive use of it. Western technology has allowed the species to move its sights beyond the horizons of our planet. We need resources to do this.

What should have happened? Should we have sailed past and not landed out of respect for their culture? Should we have landed but treated them nicer? I think they have come out of it not too bad in the end.

Originally Posted by wasabi

Today's Australia is a great country, and wonderful people, there is so much that they have contributed to the modern world.
Fastest flat racing Thoroughbreds in sprint races.
Lovely accent.
A safe haven for Ronnie Briggs family
Australian stock saddle
Cricket fanatics
Good movies
Good TV shows
Good health system and services
Friendly people

By way of clarification; I do not think that Australia or Australians should be judged for what their ancestors did, any more than I think anybody here believes that contemporary Germans should be blamed for the Holocaust or Cambodians should be blamed for Pol Pot. I have met many Aussies in my travels, not enough to make gross generalization by I've enjoyed their company.

I have read American History and know the genocide and other atrocities that were committed in that history, (I've got "kin in the game") but I don't excuse it because "it was necessary" or "the indians fought back so we had to ride into their camp at sun-up and slaughter them in their blankets".

Originally Posted by Looper

Well I don't thnk they killed the aborigines for fun or for sport.

Irrellevant. We've already established why it was done.

Originally Posted by Looper

Genocide is not a very nice word. It is overly emotive and poorly defined. Certainly there was violence and death and much loss of life as in any territorial conflict.

No, it isn't, but that doesn't make it any less applicable.
From the Oxford dictionary 1.the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Originally Posted by Looper

I think you have took at the big picture and ask what is the ultimate good for the species here.

Defending the species, was it...? Well, as they say, go big or go home. As I recall your argument against homosexual marriage was protecting the species too. So we can add genocide to denying homosexual rights as defending the species.

Originally Posted by Looper

The most important goal for humans is the expansion of human knowlegde and expanding our inhabitation beyond the limits of our blue planet in order to secure our survival in the face of possible terrestrial disaster. That means we need to get onto the moon and other planets.

Achieveing these goals means exploiting the resources available to us on our tiny planet. We cannot afford to leave a huge natural resource like Australia untapped for the sake of some kind of epic scale zoological experiment with our fellow humans where we leave them scratching in the dirt undisturbed while the rest of the planet gets on with development at relative breakneck speed.

So the genocide of Aboriginals in Australia was all part of an epic quest to "go where no man has gone before".

And what epic scale zoological experiment are you talking about...? Nobody mentioned interbreeding. Are you suggesting the Aboriginals belong in a zoo?