Thread: Invaded or settled?

Originally Posted by Neverna

Do "cavemen" have flags?

The flag was invented about the time when humans decided to use horses.

horses-mobility-invasion-settled-flags

The Australian Aboriginal Flag is a flag that represents Aboriginal Australians. It is one of the official flags of Australia, and holds special legal and political status, but it is not the "Australian National Flag". It is often flown together with the national flag and with the Torres Strait Islander Flag, which is also an official flag of Australia.
The Australian Aboriginal Flag was designed in 1971 by Aboriginal artist Harold Thomas, who is descended from the Luritja people of Central Australia and holds intellectual property rights to the flag's design. The flag was originally designed for the land rights movement, and it became a symbol of the Aboriginal people of Australia.
The flag's width is 1.5 times its height. It is horizontally divided into a black region (above) and a red (Pantone 179) region (below). A yellow (Pantone 123) disc is superimposed over the centre of the flag.[

Originally Posted by MrG

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".

You are saying that it was an invasion and then complaining that some of the actions were outside the rule of English common law. You can't have it both ways. If it was an invasion then invasions are acts of war so if we are at war then common law does not apply.

Personally I would say that invettlement is neither a state of peace nor a state of war. It somewhere in between where parties are in contained conflict with limited incidents of violence.. Land will be taken by settlers whether the natives like it or not. This will involve some violence and conflict. Hopefully the violence can be kept to minimum and hopefully the natives can eventually be absorbed and given proper status in the new society once it is complete.

During the process of invettlement standards of common law will not be upheld at all times due to the conflict in interests involved in the process. However levels of violence are unlikely to reach what would be classified as war (i.e. invasion).

Looper,

There was a genocide of the Aboriginal people. Whitewashing history - literally and figuratively - won't change that disgraceful period of Australian history.

So Ant, what do you think should have happened after the Australian coast was mapped and the first landings and contact made with natives by the first fleet?

Bearing in mind that this was 1788 and not 2016.

Irrelevant innit. We are talking about what did happen and recognizing those facts.

What I/you/anyone else thinks should have happened won't change diddly-squat. Recognizing and learning from it will though.

Invasion is not a 'fact' to be recognised, it is an opinion, and a very biased one I think.

I think things went about as well as could be expected for the aboriginals. I think they could have gone a lot worse if a Spanish conquistador style rampage had been engaged in.

Today their population is of the order that it was when whitey arrived. They have native title over enormous swathes of land. They have citizenship of undeniably the most desirable country in the world to live in, the creation of which was all the work of whitey. They have special status within Australian society with free medical care, education, housing and so on.

Not saying it was a smooth run all the way but on balance today they have a lot to be happy about which is more than can be said for many other 'invaded' indigenous populations.

Some of the actions in getting here seem harsh by today's standards but they were much less harsh by the standards of the times in which they took place.

I think you should start a post shifting-slash-whitewashing business.

You'd do very well.

Originally Posted by Looper

Today their population is of the order that it was when whitey arrived

After declining to 70,000 in the 1930s. Well done, White Australia, it only took 200 years but you finally gave up (mostly) on your murderous rampages.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Looper

Today their population is of the order that it was when whitey arrived

After declining to 70,000 in the 1930s. Well done, White Australia, it only took 200 years but you finally gave up (mostly) on your murderous rampages.

May I remind you of the ole Aboriginal saying:


"He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a boomerang at her."

Now that the globe is mapped out and the empire race is over and we all know where we stand we can afford to sit back and construct more elaborate moral frameworks to measure our conduct by.

We can even retrospectively apply those moral frameworks to historical deeds and castigate ourselves for our cruelty and make reparations and that is all good fun.

However, the second half of the last millennium was an age when the globe was up for grabs for whoever among the developed European countries had the will and the might to do it.

If you didn't somebody else would.

I think it has turned out best for the planet as a whole that it was the British who colonised Australia and North America and not the smelly spanish, french, portuguese or dutch.

If the Spaniards had got to Australia first aboriginals would now be mythical creatures in old faded drawings and paintings in museums; part of the historical extinct fauna australis.

^^

It ain't over until its over. The cards will be shoveled again. Or have you ever heard of a jew named Adolf ?

Global military spending rose in 2015 to nearly $1.7 trillion, the first increase in several years, driven by conflicts including the battle against the Islamic State group, the Saudi-led war in Yemen and fears about Iran, a report released Tuesday shows.
The study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute also noted that the Chinese expansion in the South China Sea and Russia's annexation of Crimea and support of Ukrainian separatists also accounted for nudging spending up 1 percent in real terms, compared to 2014.

Global Military Spending Nearly $1.7T Amid Mideast Conflicts - ABC News

US Tops 2015 Military Spending at $596 Billion - 24/7 Wall St.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I think you should start a post shifting-slash-whitewashing business.

You'd do very well.

No, I don't think he would. His pathetic arguments scramble for footing as it is.

^^^I am not sure what point you are trying to make MrG.

I have addressed the quote from the queensland constable in what I thought was a direct way.

If you think I have missed the point could you explain what the point is in your own words?

Originally Posted by Looper

You are saying that it was an invasion and then complaining that some of the actions were outside the rule of English common law. You can't have it both ways. If it was an invasion then invasions are acts of war so if we are at war then common law does not apply.

I did not say it was an invasion, therefore the logic of you "rebuttal" that English Common Law does not apply in the case of invasion is off the mark. These are not my words but the words of the Australian Authorities in 1868. You are lost in your own illusions.

So do you think it was an invasion or not? I am getting confused now.

They are the words of one man criticising the zealotry of one native-subjugating government organisation.

Yes we know there was brutality and killing and the natives were forced off a lot of land.

I am saying this was inevitable given the empire building nature of the times.

Sure there is nothing wrong with retro-actively applying our modern moral frameworks and self-flagellating a bit in retrospect, as many people seem to enjoy doing that, but the reality is that most of what went down was par for the course at that time and could have been a lot worse.

Originally Posted by Looper

So do you think it was an invasion or not?

I answered that question twice. You keep returning to it when everyone keeps telling you it's not the real issue.

Originally Posted by Looper

I am getting confused now.

Been going on for awhile. Maybe the penny will drop soon.

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

^^

It ain't over until its over. The cards will be shoveled again. Or have you ever heard of a jew named Adolf ?

Global military spending rose in 2015 to nearly $1.7 trillion, the first increase in several years, driven by conflicts including the battle against the Islamic State group, the Saudi-led war in Yemen and fears about Iran, a report released Tuesday shows.
The study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute also noted that the Chinese expansion in the South China Sea and Russia's annexation of Crimea and support of Ukrainian separatists also accounted for nudging spending up 1 percent in real terms, compared to 2014.

Global Military Spending Nearly $1.7T Amid Mideast Conflicts - ABC News

US Tops 2015 Military Spending at $596 Billion - 24/7 Wall St.

What has any of that got to do with this thread?!

Looper, your give-a-fuck-o-meter is broken along with your moral compass.
It was the lack of a rule of law which gave some of the early settlers the freedom to act in such an atrocious manner towards the native population.
Certain members of government have recognised this, and apologised. It remains for the Australian people to accept that what was done was not only wrong, but wholly unnecessary.
If the general population views the actions of your founders acceptable in the way that you and Terry do, then teaching of history in Australian schools is clearly in need of serious revision.
I suspect that early historians were so ashamed of what actually happened, that they buried the truth, and sanitised their version for public consumption.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

What the fuck do they teach in Australian schools??

Originally Posted by chassamui

teaching of history in Australian schools is clearly in need of serious revision

Great minds think alike...
























... Mediocre ones also, apparently.

Originally Posted by chassamui

If the general population views the actions of your founders acceptable in the way that you and Terry do, then teaching of history in Australian schools is clearly in need of serious revision.

So because of shit that went down a few hundred years ago that gives them the right to be a bunch of useless drunken violent scum today. ?

Oh yes. that's right innit.

Given that line of thinking every person in Australia who has had bad stuff happen to them should be exactly the same and we can turn around and say....

Well, That's Ok because that guy was fuked up the arse by a Catholic priest.

Originally Posted by Looper

The reality is a horde of young single males.

Originally Posted by Looper

and the other party are prehistoric cavemen.

Originally Posted by Looper

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

Could you possibly be any more wrong, any more often ?

200 plus years ago the Poms invaded / settlled the place , If there is any claims to be settled / apologies to be made, the fukin Poms should step up to the plate , not the the innocent descendants of the original settlers who were forced to settle.

Everyone is self-flagellating by applying today's moral compass to yesterdays actions.

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.

Colonisation was inevitable for such a primitive people sparsely spread across such a large land mass in the age of empires. It was just a question of who would be doing it. They could have done a lot worse than the Brits.