Thread: Invaded or settled?

Many years ago got chatting with a seemingly well educated West Coast Indian as we both filled up at a North Van gas station. For some reason he needed to tell me that the gas was being paid for by the Canadian government and he and his tribe were supported by Canadian government funds with housing, health,education etc, etc. He felt that it was the least they could do since they had occupied /stolen Indian lands. Hard to argue methinks...Good on him!

I come from the UK originally - In 1066AD we were invaded and conquered.
Where is my compensation!!

^We have a disassembled Normandy longhouse and several packs of French letters awaiting your collection. We have allowed for inflation and added VAT at 20% backdated to 1066.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

The asylum seekers are depicted as a man, woman and 2 children. The reality is a horde of young single males.

The white settlement of Australia is depicted as a gunboat military action against unarmed natives. The reality was a largely civilian population creating penal colonies. Interaction with the natives was only partly hostile. There was also trade. It was not a military action. Invasion is not an accurate term when one party is technologically advanced and trying to settle areas of land with the minimum conflict possible and the other party are prehistoric cavemen. Unless you want to redefine 'invasion'.

Also the events in one picture happened in 2015. The other in the late 1700s. So not really a relevant comparison.

Originally Posted by chassamui

and must also assuage my guilt for the way we treated these people

Did you know that assuage is an anagram of sausage

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Left: the making of another shithole

I think the problem is basically that the English language does not have a word for this type of activity.

A technologically advanced civilisation finds a remote land sparsely populated by prehistoric cavemen during the age of empires.

The inevitable happens and the land is settled by the advanced civilisation. The settlement activity is largely non-violent when it can be avoided but there is inevitably some friction and violence.

The natives suffer to some extent initially but ultimately benefit from the advanced technological, engineering and scientific knowlegde of the arrivals.

Eventually differences are settled and the natives are treated fairly, granted special status and given land titles and voting rights in the newly sprouted futuristic civilisation.

What we need is a new portmanteau like invoccupation or invettlement or pomvasion to describe the above scenario.

^
Just settle for Lebensraum

Well the eastern europeans were not cavemen and the the age of empires was over before the 20th century and the eastern europeans did not benefit in any way.

Also Lebensraum was a policy of the Nazis which by association always carries a negative connotation.

I think pomvasions have been ultimately mutually beneficial activities.

I think pomvasions have been ultimately mutually beneficial activities.

^
I can't see the Abo flag

Do "cavemen" have flags?

More seriously, I don't agree with Looper's apparent "superiority" complex (what 'we' did is/was OK. What others do is not OK unless its the same as what 'we' do/did.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Do "cavemen" have flags?

Did any traditional culture/civilization?

If so.....why?

Originally Posted by Neverna

More seriously, I don't agree with Looper's apparent "superiority" complex (what 'we' did is/was OK. What others do is not OK unless its the same as what 'we' do/did.

Yep...
An all too common standard cultural disposition from the likes of Loop.

Wouldn't expect anything different, would ya?

Originally Posted by Neverna

Do "cavemen" have flags?

They never had one before we arrived, but they have one of their own now. That's progress for you!

Originally Posted by Looper

The white settlement of Australia is depicted as a gunboat military action against unarmed natives. The reality was a largely civilian population creating penal colonies. Interaction with the natives was only partly hostile. There was also trade. It was not a military action. Invasion is not an accurate term when one party is technologically advanced and trying to settle areas of land with the minimum conflict possible and the other party are prehistoric cavemen. Unless you want to redefine 'invasion'.

Also the events in one picture happened in 2015. The other in the late 1700s. So not really a relevant comparison.

What the fuck do they teach in Australian schools??

Make no mistake, the colonization of Australia was coupled with a genicide of Aboriginal people.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

What the fuck do they teach in Australian schools?

Very few aboriginals apparently.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Make no mistake, the colonization of Australia was coupled with a genicide of Aboriginal people.

In the 1700s age of empires invasion and conquest was a normal part of international engagement.

The actual term 'invasion' was normally understood to be where a military force engaged another military force in an open act of hostility and succeeded in pushing them back and acquiring control of their territory.

The acquired land was already developed by a modern civilisation and the land aquisition did not involve any benefit to the original inhabitants, only loss of title.

When the brits rocked up in Australia they were not met by a military force defending a developed civilisation. The land was undeveloped and there were a few savages running round the jungle.

The occupation of the land was not a military exercise. It just involved setting up camps in largely uninhabited and completely undeveloped land. There was no formal concept of land title or ownership in place.

When the engaging civilisations are so disparate in their levels of development I don't think invasion is a very accurate term. They were not turfed out of existing towns and cities by maurauding invaders like vikings. There were no towns or cities or any infrastructure to be seized. There was only undeveloped land with a few cavemen running around.

The aboriginals would still be scratching around in the dirt today and dieing from easily curable disease and primitive tribal warfare if it was not for the creation of the nation of Australia.

Their lives are immeasurably richer since they now live in 21st century comfort with healthcare and education and housing and sit down money. They enjoy a privileged place (in a very real legal sense) in Australian society.

When the Brits rocked up in the 1700s there was no question about whether this totally undeveloped raw natural land would be occupied by european forces or not. The only question was who would be doing it.

They now have native title over massive swathes of Australia. They are free to go feral again if they want but they seem to enjoy the comforts of 21st century life like trucks and mobile phones and hospitals.

Considering the fate of the south american natives maybe they can consider themselves fortunate to be at the hands of a pomvasion and not a spicvasion.

What the fuck do they teach in Australian schools??

Asked and answered.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

What the fuck do they teach in Australian schools?

Very few aboriginals apparently.

That is because the kids are out the back sniffing petrol and glue.

Picked that habit up at home watching their parents do it, they know no better.

For the Aboriginal kids to move forward and progress they need to be removed from their horrid squalid drunken environment.

They simply can never succeed or move forward when living in an environment of drunkenness and violence.

That's all they know.

The outsiders never ever take this on board and blame the White man for the abos problems.

Fuk the outsiders.

The two indigenous I worked with were raised in a solid family back ground, they powered on in society.

Most Indigenous kids are doomed from the get go.

Sadly that was tried before and it's used today to bash the folks way back then who tried to give these aboriginal children a better start in life.
That Aussie movie, I think it's called "The Rabbit fence " dramatisers this social experiment.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

The asylum seekers are depicted as a man, woman and 2 children. The reality is a horde of young single males.

The white settlement of Australia is depicted as a gunboat military action against unarmed natives. The reality was a largely civilian population creating penal colonies. Interaction with the natives was only partly hostile.

There was also trade.

You're kidding right? Trade in what? witchety grubs? The natives didn't produce anything so what would they have had to trade?

It was not a military action. Invasion is not an accurate term when one party is technologically advanced and trying to settle areas of land with the minimum conflict possible and the other party are prehistoric cavemen. Unless you want to redefine 'invasion'.

I don't think you'll find any definition of 'invasion' that includes mention of technological disparity.

^ ^

The only reason the Whites at the time removed the Kids from their families was to try and give them a decent start in life.

As history tells us that never works on a mass basis, the abos must sort their own shit out.

Unfortunately the Abos have no interest in doing that no matter how much tax payer money is thrown at them.

Hence why many Australians simply do not give a flying fuk about them.