Thread: Invaded or settled?

Originally Posted by chassamui

The reason why efforts to solve the aboriginal issue have failed, is because all the solutions are presented by white middle class politicians.

Let the elders and aboriginal leaders decide how that pot of money is spent, and allow them to decide if they want to share the spoils of the 21st century, or return to their own cultural lifestyle.

There is certainly no shortage of land for a nomadic existence if that is what they aspire to.

Chas,

There is no way the Abos are going back to hunting and gathering. The closest they get to that these days is hanging out at the Todd river in Alice Springs and gathering cans of piss from the nearest bottle shop.

The isolated communities are rife with social problems of the worst kind and there ain't no White man out there to blame it one.

As far as sharing in the spoils of the 21 st century they have received so much welfare it would last them to the 30th century if not all hovered up sniffing petrol and drinking casts of wine.

As far as leaving it up to the Elders to distribute.

Fooking hell Eh, ya gota laugh at that one.

Life for the early settlers was quite grim, often being rationed due to lack of supply. The early governors all tried to appease the natives but with little success. An administration bedevilled by military and civilian infighting was not best pleased when the expanding colony found more belligerent tribes, the further they expanded. Land grants to serving officers in the early days were still based on the terra nullis presumption, and it took several governors tenure to resolve the issues that were created by this presumption.

Remember it was not until the 1970's that aborigines were recognised as citizens and included in the census.

^

The Abos did not have drinking rights up until the 60's.

I have older friends in Perth who lived amoungst them and said they where fine people when sober.

Once they where awarded the Drinking rights it fuked em. All down hill from there.

They where given drinking rights because it was classed as discrimination to not give it to them.

Look where they have ended up.

Originally Posted by terry57

As far as leaving it up to the Elders to distribute. Fooking hell Eh, ya gota laugh at that one

Only because of the number of different tribes and their varying attitudes to integration.
Many have lost their way due to 200 years of neglect, misunderstanding and poorly thought out white mans solutions.
The early settlers of NSW introduced spirits as a form of payment/bribery in their own communities. Link that to the early native community, and you can see where it all started to go horribly wrong.
You do understand that there were 750 to 800 thousand natives settled there for thousands of years, living peaceful sustainable lives, moving with the seasons and trading with each other. There were hundreds of different tribes all following their own culture and beliefs.

This is how it works Chas.

In Abo land they consider what their relative has to be communal property.

So the Abo that is trying to get ahead and progress in life is fuked up by the tribe who just lob on the door step and move in.

The houses given to them by the Government are just trashed and destroyed.

Dogs fuking breakfast mate.

God help the fooker that lives next to them.

Originally Posted by terry57

The houses given to them by the Government are just trashed and destroyed.

My point exactly. They were nomads, moving with the seasons, living off the land. Would you want the government to give you a spear and a free cave?
White mans solution to a nomad culture, laced with rum.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by terry57

The houses given to them by the Government are just trashed and destroyed.

My point exactly. They were nomads, moving with the seasons, living off the land. Would you want the government to give you a spear and a free cave?
White mans solution to a nomad culture, laced with rum.

You fail to understand. The white man's way is right. Anybody who doesn't want to follow the white man's way is wrong. It is worse than wrong because the white man's way is the only true way. If you do not follow the white man's way you are a savage and deserve to be destroyed. The white man doesn't care about your wants or culture because they are wrong. If they were right then they would be same as the white man's way.

We do not want to destroy your tribes, slaughter your men, rape your wives, and enslave your children. You force us to do it by being wilfully and culpably not white western people. It is your own fault. We have to do it for your own good because our way is better, even though we never bothered asking what your way was.

You people are too stupid to understand why you need to be enslaved and destroyed. Don't worry about it, you are not smart enough to understand the necessity of your extinction. Please have some more alcohol and drugs to help you deal quietly with your despair.

Originally Posted by Looper

Please have some more alcohol and drugs to help you deal quietly with your descent into oblivion.

FTFY

Originally Posted by Looper

The aim of settlement was to build a new country. That involved displacing some natives.

You are a desperate one for euphamisms. We're talking about genocide, Looper. Even if you're too timid to acknowledge it.

So far as I can see, the British "discovered" a land mass, "claimed" it, set it up as a penal colony, imposed English law on the inhabitants and killed a few people who got in their way. Pretty nasty stuff.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Looper

The aim of settlement was to build a new country. That involved displacing some natives.

You are a desperate one for euphamisms. We're talking about genocide, Looper. Even if you're too timid to acknowledge it.

I am not terribly keen on the term genocide. It is poorly defined and has sinister associations which I don't think apply to the conflict actions engaged in by the British in early Australia.

The violent actions were mostly retaliations for specific attacks on the settlers. I don't think there was a designed program of extermination to which the word could more reasonably be applied. Genocide suggests to me a ruthless coordinated plan to exterminate an ethnic group.

It does not elevate the quality of the discussion when the aboriginal sympathisers keep trying to hijack overly emotive words which do not really apply.

'Invasion' was the first example. Now we are onto 'genocide'.

I think you do a disservice to the English language when you cheapen the strength of truly emotive words by cynically trying to hijack their impact to prop up your agenda.

If we could keep some perspective on the reality of the situation it might help us to reach some kind of agreement on how to put the subject to bed.

The reality was that the British arrived, claimed and occupied the land that didn't belong to them.

Wandering round in loincloths chucking spears at kangaroos is not really laying claim to land.

They had the place to themselves for 40-60,000 years so they had a fair shake of the sauce bottle.

If it was really their land then where is the evidence of occupation?

Where are the pyramids? angkor wat? chichen itza? the burj khalifa

They had not even figured out how to carve a square block of stone and put one on top of the other.

The pinnacle of their legacy and claims of ownership are paintings on rock walls. I am sorry but that is caveman level stuff so my previous use of the term is entirely appropriate.

They did not have a snowball's chance in Alice of hanging onto full title with the age of empires in full swing and western technological advance cresting like a breaker at Cow Bombie.

Originally Posted by Looper

If it was really their land then where is the evidence of occupation?

Originally Posted by Looper

They had the place to themselves for 40-60,000 years

They had the place to themselves for 40-60,000 years, apparently, but didn't own it cuz there were no pyramids!

Just out of interest, not that it makes a difference to this debate, but where were the pyramids, angkor wat, chichen itza, the burj khalifa in England? Can't say I've ever come across them in England's green and pleasant land.

When Terra-Nullius was declared by Captain Cook (1770) treaties with First Nations were the legal norm and it was illegal to usurp, pirate, steal, murder, kill, occupy or repopulate other lands of peoples - (Customary Law and Maritime Law).

The Other Side of the Coin

If the English hadn't claimed Oz when it did, the Dutch, Spanish or French would have. It was only a race against time to grab the biggest patch of desert in the world.

Better care should have been taken of the Aboriginals from the onset, instead of their organized murder and ill treatment.

The Aboriginals' became alcoholics and drug abusers, welfare scroungers and petty criminals as a direct result of the same practices demonstrated by their new leaders' and masters, the white man, after they'd been robbed of their lands, freedom and cultural dignity and life-style.

No mystery at all as to how Aboriginals ended up the way they are now.

All thanks to their new skippy gubnas.

If the English hadn't claimed Oz when they did, the Dutch, Spanish or French would have. It was only a race against time to grab the biggest patch of desert in the world.

Better care should have been taken of the Aboriginals from the onset, instead of their organized murder and ill treatment.

The Aboriginals' were immediately marginalized and mistreated, becoming alcoholics and drug abusers, welfare scroungers and petty criminals as a direct result of the same undesirable practices encouraged and demonstrated by their new leaders' and masters, the white man, after they'd been robbed of their lives, lands, freedom, cultural dignity and life-style.

No mystery at all as to how Aboriginals ended up the way they are now.

All thanks to their new skippy gubnas singing "God save the queen."

You are coming over as a white supremacist in denial Looper. You dismiss a primitive culture for being less developed, yet that culture remains today, despite the difficulties heaped upon it by the civilised white masses.

Read this if you want to know who did what, to whom.

The Massacres of Indigenous Australia | Treaty Republic - Indigenous Australia Sovereignty, Genocide, Land Rights and Pay the Rent Issues

Originally Posted by Looper

Wandering round in loincloths chucking spears at kangaroos is not really laying claim to land.

They had the place to themselves for 40-60,000 years so they had a fair shake of the sauce bottle.

If it was really their land then where is the evidence of occupation?

Where are the pyramids? angkor wat? chichen itza? the burj khalifa

They had not even figured out how to carve a square block of stone and put one on top of the other.

The pinnacle of their legacy and claims of ownership are paintings on rock walls. I am sorry but that is caveman level stuff so my previous use of the term is entirely appropriate.

They did not have a snowball's chance in Alice of hanging onto full title with the age of empires in full swing and western technological advance cresting like a breaker at Cow Bombie.

This is your best post Loopy and tells it as it really is or was.

They were a bunch of dumb fukers and still are , if the Dodgers did not move in the Indos would have.

Here is another detailed explanation of massacres.

Myall Creek Massacre (1838) - Creative Spirits

Originally Posted by Dapper

Who's Bob?

Bob the Gob.

Don't you mean Dr. Bob the Gob?

The very same!

Originally Posted by Looper

Wandering round in loincloths chucking spears at kangaroos is not really laying claim to land.

They had the place to themselves for 40-60,000 years so they had a fair shake of the sauce bottle.

If it was really their land then where is the evidence of occupation?

What a dumb up-yaself question!