Thread: Invaded or settled?

Originally Posted by wasabi

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.

You, as most do here, miss a lot - most everything.

^ ^

It's a true story mate and anyone who lives in Australia will tell you so.

The cycle cannot be broken whilst the Aboriginal children are being raised is such a god dam awful environment.

The Aboriginal race are doomed whilst the elders continue to piss their life away.

We do not hate them because they are black, we hate them because they are drunken useless coonts.

Whites who are the same we refer to as White Coons.

Call that Racist, Whatever. ????

It's an equal playing field when it comes to being a drunken useless waste of space.

White or black is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Originally Posted by wasabi

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.

You, as most do here, miss a lot - most everything.

Terry, this thread isn't about modern day social problems with aboriginals, it's about whether Australia was invaded or settled, and/or if those are suitable terms to use for what happened.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Terry, this thread isn't about modern day social problems with aboriginals, it's about me getting a cheap century by starting a bait thread and then sitting back while the folk with an opinion bash each other.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by Looper

Terry, this thread isn't about modern day social problems with aboriginals, it's about me getting a cheap century by starting a bait thread and then sitting back while the folk with an opinion bash each other.

The topic was in the news the day I started the thread, Looper. The fact that 28 people have posted in the thread, expressed opinions and debated the topic shows there is some interest in the topic. And your 11 posts, well, what can be said about that? An old hand like you falling for what you yourself call "a bait thread".

Hmmmm.

The Australian white settlement/aboriginal victim debate... Only been done 87 times before on TD.

Posted up in the form of one line post with a news link by someone who then offers no opinion on the matter either in the OP or subsequent posts since she knows it will rack up a century from the punters who have debated it on the previous 87 times the subject has come up.

Transparently cynical troll thread.

3/10

Originally Posted by wasabi

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.

^ gee wiz and there I thought This piece was as fresh as creation

Originally Posted by Neverna

Terry, this thread isn't about modern day social problems with aboriginals, it's about whether Australia was invaded or settled, and/or if those are suitable terms to use for what happened.

Yes I realise that but we must add the other pieces to the story to keep it all in perspective.

I really hope that the Aboriginals eventually get their act together.

All they need do is stop drinking, stop hating us Whites and really hook into all the very generous welfare they are given.

Preferably get a fookin Job.

The fact being, if other minorities were given a quarter of what the Indigenous receive they would be crying with happiness.

I would much prefer my tax dollars went to the under privileged Thai's.

Regards the Invaded or Settled argument goes, it's simply irrelevant to how they are today.

But never forget the sober ones are decent people.

Originally Posted by MrG

Primitive people living in tents who didn't deserve all this land-- that's the same excuse Europeans used when they Invaded/Occupied/Settled the Americas-- Perhaps the first case of American Exceptionalism on the continent. "They didn't want to share it with us..." was John Wayne's bluster in an oft quoted Playboy interview. In his head I guess that excused the genocide that was perpetrated.

The actions were reasonable within the context of the time.

Invasion is not the correct term. There is no correct term since settlement/occupation glosses over the violence that was involved and invasion suggests a primarily military exercise, neither of which was the case.

Like I said we need a new word.

When a land is sparsely occupied by cavemen and we are living in the age of empires then settlement is a matter of course. There is nothing to even cause pause for thought.

Do you seriously think that the right course of action would have been for the expeditions to come home and set up a debate in Europe about whether they should leave the land unsettled because there are a few cavemen running around so obviously 'they got there first and it would not be fair to them'. That is just a laughable notion within the context of the 1700s.

It is only through the advanced morality prism available through recent developments within advanced cultures that the actions of the 1700s can even be seen as in any way something that deserves redress. But morality is a function of time and place and is something which evolves and grows more sophisticated over time given the right environment to foster its growth. You cannot reasonably apply the morality of today to the actions of the 1700s.

And they have been granted redress recently and they have also benefitted enormously by being catapulted into the developed world with all its benefits instead of spending 1000s of years slowly getting there like the western pioneers did.

Gaining access to technologies thousands of years ahead of where they were at has ultimately been a benefit to Australian aboriginals and they have been granted native title and have privileged legal status.

Would it be moral to leave them scratching in the sand by themselves when we know life can be so much longer, healthier, happier etc.?

Both sides benefitted. We got land. They got modernisation.

Originally Posted by Looper

When a land is sparsely occupied by cavemen and we are living in the age of empires then settlement is a matter of course. There is nothing to even cause pause for thought.
Do you seriously think that the right course of action would have been for the expeditions to come home and set up a debate in Europe about whether they should leave the land unsettled because there are a few cavemen running around so obviously 'they got there first and it would not be fair to them'. That is just a laughable notion within the context of the 1700s.

I do not compare Native Americans cavemen. The comparison is simply not worth discussion. You can make all the high sounding arguments about context of the 1700s all you want, and to some extent is makes sense, But genocide is genocide. Running people off their land and slaughtering them is what it is. Excuse it it with modernization...?

Originally Posted by Looper

Both sides benefitted. We got land. They got modernisation.

God, what mind-bogglaing, complacent exceptionalism.

Originally Posted by MrG

I do not compare Native Americans cavemen. The comparison is simply not worth discussion.

Good point. Why split-hairs over one word ("invasion") whilst invoking another wholly incorrect one ("cavemen").

Originally Posted by Looper

And they have been granted redress recently and they have also benefitted enormously by being catapulted into the developed world with all its benefits instead of spending 1000s of years slowly getting there like the western pioneers did. Gaining access to technologies thousands of years ahead of where they were at has ultimately been a benefit to Australian aboriginals and they have been granted native title and have privileged legal status.

Did they ask to be catapulted into the benefits of the developed world? Perhaps the government has taken them somewhere they did not want to go. They have seen, first hand, how the developed world treats displaced indigenous peoples and want no part of it?
Enforcing your own version of a morally superior developed society does not usually fit a primitive but self sufficient one.

Originally Posted by Looper

Would it be moral to leave them scratching in the sand by themselves when we know life can be so much longer, healthier, happier etc.?

What rights does any nation have to impose its own brand of superiority on the unwilling? Who is to say the would be healthier, happier and live longer? Developed countries don't always have the best solutions to these problems. How would you feel if a superior society forced you to live the way they thought was best for you?
Sometimes indigenous peoples are best left to their own devices.
https://www.ted.com/talks/mark_plotk...pt?language=en

Originally Posted by terry57

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.

Really...?
Over here we did it for the same reason, we said. But it was really part of the colonization/genocide process. You know, rob them of their language, their culture, their spiritual beliefs, and you essentially have genocide. Nice...easy...no military...no blood or ovens.

Originally Posted by terry57

The cycle cannot be broken whilst the Aboriginal children are being raised is such a god dam awful environment.

Didn't they try the same thing with native Americans?

Without pointing fingers, the one thing I do not countenance is the viewpoint that the 'Primitives', the aboriginals, deserved it. You find much the same viewpoint elsewhere against the native Americans, or the indigenous people of South America (possibly the worst genocide of all). Bullshit. Lets not pretend we are whiter than white.

I am not sure what outcome people would expect when a technologically advanced civilisation finds large swathes of land sparsely occupied by primitive pre-civilisation humans and this occurs during an age of global empire building.

The land will inevitably be colonised by the modern civilisation.

If the modern civilisation are particularly brutal they will engage in a project of active extermination of the indigenous population like in South America (although the Incas etc were relatively developed compared to the aboriginals).

If the indigenous are lucky then the arrivals will not put them all to the sword but will try to co-habit with the natives while taking control of the land they want.

Inevitably there will be episodes of conflict and bloodshed but if the arrivals are morally progressive they will ultimately try to care for the well being of the remaining indigenous once the settlement is essentially wrapped up.

The indigenous do benefit from the technological advancement of the arrivals although it is at the expense of some (but not all) of the land.

I don't see that this is something to start self-flagellating over in moral retrospect.

Originally Posted by Looper

it is at the expense of some (but not all) of the land.

More like all (except some) of the land.

Originally Posted by Looper

If the modern civilisation are particularly brutal they will engage in a project of active extermination of the indigenous populatio

Which is pretty much what happened. Remember that a significant number of early settlers were convicted murderers, thieves and petty criminals. The attitude of the settlers was often determined by the Governor. Some were ambivalent, but others blamed the natives for pretty much everything and they were hunted down and slaughtered in their hundreds.

Originally Posted by Looper

I don't see that this is something to start self-flagellating over in moral retrospect.

Don't take this too personally Looper. I blame the English. Australia is still a young country and only around 2% of the population are natives. Just remember the oldest surviving culture on earth belongs to the Australian Aborigine. If it is any comfort to you, I agree that the word invasion is too strong. Occupation would be more accurate.
The aborigine right to self determination should be decided by their own leaders and not imposed by any government.

Seems to be a list of attacks in retaliation to attacks made on settlers.

Might seem like a long list of events but these are spread over a history of 150 years of settlement frontier confrontation.

The attacks often involve killing many natives in return for a few settlers being killed by natives. This is frontier justice. When you are vastly outnumbered by the natives but you have the combat technology then reprisal to discourage future attacks will always be disproportionate.

I think if the natives had backed off and let the settlers get on with a peaceful settlement then there would have been little of this bloodshed. Of course it is not human nature to back off so these bloody attacks and reprisals are the inevitable result.

The article gives totals of 20,000 blacks and 2,500 whites dying in confrontations during the course of the invettlement. These are spread over 150 years. Over the course of 150 years these do not seem like extraordinarily high numbers.

I would now like if I may to invite you on a journey back in time in the TeakDoor time machine. It is 1788. The first fleet has just landed at Botany Bay. You are Captain Cook. It is the age of empires where land, colonies and trading relationships are being sought by competing European nations travelling around the world.

What is your next move? If you regret history then tell us a story about what should have happened next in Australia.

Cook: Excuse me old chap, would you mind awfully if we invade ... sorry, settle here in your lands?
Native: gowvni cfowi a vjngioa nnai
Cook: I SAID, WOULD IT BE OK FOR US TO TAKEOVER YOUR LANDS?
NATIVE: gowvni cfowi a vjngioa nnai pakfnbus abbdvyuc
Cook: Listen old chap, it would help immensely if you spoke the King's English like what I is.
NATIVE: gowvni cfowi a vjngioa nnai issht yutrasin
Cook: OK. I get it. We aren't welcome here. No problem. We'll try somewhere else. Good day to you sirs.

I despair for the teaching of history in Australia.

Originally Posted by Looper

The attacks often involve killing many natives in return for a few settlers being killed by natives. This is frontier justice. When you are vastly outnumbered by the natives but you have the combat technology then reprisal to discourage future attacks will always be disproportionate.
I think if the natives had backed off and let the settlers get on with a peaceful settlement then there would have been little of this bloodshed. Of course it is not human nature to back off so these bloody attacks and reprisals are the inevitable result.

You clearly didn't read the post

Thus it was noted in 1868 by chief justice Charles Lilley in Queensland that the Native Police Force is an unlawful "avenging force" and that there was "not a single line" to make this force "a legal force". Indeed, "there was nothing in the common law of England, or in the law of nations, to justify the conduct of the white population towards the aboriginal inhabitants of the country".