Thread: Invaded or settled?

Originally Posted by Looper

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.

That's what happened to the Tasmanian Aboriginals, finally wiped out by the British.

The Aboriginal Tasmanians (Tasmanian: Parlevar or Palawa) are the indigenous people of the Australian state of Tasmania, located south of the mainland.

Before British colonisation in 1803, there were an estimated 3,000–15,000 Parlevar.

Geoffrey Blainey wrote that by 1830 in Tasmania:
"Disease had killed most of them but warfare and private violence had also been devastating."

Other historians regard the Black War as one of the earliest recorded modern genocides.

Benjamin Madley wrote: "Despite over 170 years of debate over who or what was responsible for this near-extinction, no consensus exists on its origins, process, or whether or not it was genocide".

However, "[using the] UN definition, sufficient evidence exists to designate the Tasmanian catastrophe genocide."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Tasmanians

Cheers ENT but I think Looper is on the ropes now and backpedalling furiously.

Originally Posted by ENT

Geoffrey Blainey wrote that by 1830 in Tasmania:
"Disease had killed most of them but warfare and private violence had also been devastating."

Other historians regard the Black War as one of the earliest recorded modern genocides.

Benjamin Madley wrote: "Despite over 170 years of debate over who or what was responsible for this near-extinction, no consensus exists on its origins, process, or whether or not it was genocide".

However, "[using the] UN definition, sufficient evidence exists to designate the Tasmanian catastrophe genocide."

Again I am not entirely sure about the term genocide. I think of genocide as a premeditated decision to exterminate an entire population.

If they mostly died from disease then that would tend to discount the validity of the word genocide.

Maybe the UN definition is not in line with the common understanding of the word.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Here is another detailed explanation of massacres.

Myall Creek Massacre (1838) - Creative Spirits

Again, the perpetrators were hanged so excessively disproportionate acts of violence against the natives were not generally sanctioned by the settling community.

Originally Posted by Looper

Again I am not entirely sure about the term genocide. I think of genocide as a premeditated decision to exterminate an entire population.

Maybe the UN definition is not in line with the common understanding of the word.

Or maybe your understanding is faulty.

Double post removed.

Originally Posted by Looper

Again, the perpetrators were hanged so excessively disproportionate acts of violence against the natives were not generally sanctioned by the settling community.

I think you did a speed read on this link and selected the bit you liked. It was the first time that the perpetrators were brought to account and punished. Often the local magistrate was the ringleader for such atrocities.
There can be no denial of such genocide when your own government has not only accepted responsibility for it, but declared the massacre sites as 'Heritage Sites'.

After Myall Creek

After the Myall Creek Massacre murderous attacks on Aboriginal people continued for many decades well into the 20th century. White people now went ‘underground’ using poisoned flour [2] which was harder to prove in court [13]. They also took greater care to conceal or destroy the corpses [13]. Many massacres never became known outside the district where they occurred [3].
One of the last big massacres occurred in 1928 when a group of policemen chained together and shot 50 Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. Three women were spared to be raped and later burned [10]. It became known as the Coniston Massacre.
Overall, “premeditated butchery of men, women, children and infants accounted in the aggregate for tens of thousands of black lives,” reported the Sydney Morning Herald [14], a view Colin Clague confirms. Colin was head of the Aboriginal Land Claims Unit from 1983 to 1988 and vividly remembers the struggle to acknowledge many other massacre sites. Many of them could not be claimed, and when you walk along public reserves or in national parks you might as well come across a massacre site

Source: Myall Creek Massacre (1838) - Creative Spirits

More first Australians were killed than Native Americans on the American frontier and Maoris in New Zealand. The state of Queensland was a slaughterhouse.—John Pilger, journalist and film-maker

Source: Myall Creek Massacre (1838) - Creative Spirits

65,180Number of Aboriginal Australians historians estimate were killed in Queensland from the 1820s until the early 1900s.

Source: Myall Creek Massacre (1838) - Creative Spirits

The other problem with the word genocide is that it has connotations of a passive and peaceful population led to a mass slaughter by an evil force bent on its extermination.

I think most of the violence against the aboriginals was isolated incidents which were tied in with tit for tat exchanges of aggression.

Again I think the word is being hijacked to try and paint the brutality of some of the settlement activity as more calculated than it really was.

I don't think there was an organised programme of extermination sanctioned by the governing forces of the empire.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by Looper

Again I am not entirely sure about the term genocide. I think of genocide as a premeditated decision to exterminate an entire population.

Maybe the UN definition is not in line with the common understanding of the word.

Or maybe your understanding is faulty.

Yeah... Loopy or the UN... I'm gonna go with the UN on that one.

Originally Posted by Looper

I don't think there was an organised programme of extermination sanctioned by the governing forces of the empire.

The colonial Australian frontier war was unofficial, undeclared and unrecorded. The official actions of government forces were typically veiled as "policing" and "law-enforcement." The reason was simple, put by numerous primary sources, police were not constitutionally allowed to engage in acts of warfare. 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".[1] In 1879, a former officer in the Queensland frontier force stated openly that;
"Of all semi-military or police organizations under the British flag, the native mounted police of Queensland is certainly the most anomalous. Successively has such a force operated in protecting pioneer occupation in both Victoria and New South Wales, but never from its origin to its existence in Queensland at the present moment, has its legitimacy been defined. In point of fact it stands as the most illegal force ever constituted, having the powers of life and death, without the sanction of militarians, as provided by enrollment under the Articles of War and the Military Act. Not being so, it is nevertheless a life-destroying instead of a criminal arresting force, and carries out its sanguinary will without the intervention of judge, jury, or law. Practically, there is no appeal from its almighty vengeance."[2]

Originally Posted by Looper

I think most of the violence against the aboriginals was isolated incidents which were tied in with tit for tat exchanges of aggression.

Similar and contemporary comments on this issue can be found numerous places[3]). Frontier collisions and punitive expeditions against indigenous people on Australia's frontier were thus generally veiled in secrecy due to fear of possible legal consequences, especially following the Myall Creek Massacre in 1838.[4]
In cases where reports had to be written, the records can at times be seen as having been later destroyed. Recent studies into the most significant and notorious case of this kind, that of Queensland and its Native Police Force, show that all Native Police reports and monthly enumerations of patrols originally stored in the Queensland Police Department went missing sometime after 1905 when the last station closed.[5] It is generally acknowledged that the European as well as indigenous death toll in frontier conflicts and massacres in Queensland exceeded that of all other Australian colonies, yet it is certainly not possible to map out more than a small percentage of the numerous massacre sites in Queensland. We can calculate in various ways the minimum amount of frontier 'dispersals' performed by the Native Police Force during half a century (as was indeed done recently by Dr Raymond Evans and Robert Orsted-Jensen based on a small portion of monthly native police summaries of now lost 'collision reports' stored in the archives). However, we will never be able to locate or describe in detail more than a small percentage of these events. Thus any attempt to list all events of this kind will of nature (at least in Queensland), be more deceptive than revealing.[6]
The concepts of invasion, frontier wars and massacres, although frequently mentioned and debated in the early Australian legislatures, has become a highly contentious issues in modern Australia. For discussion of the historical arguments about these conflicts, see the articles on the History Wars and in particular the section on the "black armband" view of history, plus the section on impact of European settlement in the article on Indigenous Australians. In total at least 20,000 indigenous Australians died from conflict and massacre with white Australians whilst between 2,000 and 2,500 white Australians died.
The following provisory list tallies a few of the better documented massacres of Aboriginal Australians, which took place mainly during the colonial period.


Invasion, genocide, massacre are all quite emotive words, but I don't believe an educated man such as yourself would argue the toss over any of them unless you were a racist, struggling to keep your head above the argument. Denial is not a long African river.

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
Contents

• 1 Some frontier collisions and massacres on record
  • 1.1 1780s
  • 1.2 1790s
  • 1.3 1810s
  • 1.4 1820s
  • 1.5 1830s
  • 1.6 1840s
  • 1.7 Tasmania
    • 1.7.1 1800s
    • 1.7.2 1820s
  • 1.8 Victoria
    • 1.8.1 1830s
    • 1.8.2 1840s
  • 1.9 Western Australia
    • 1.9.1 1830s
    • 1.9.2 1840s
    • 1.9.3 1860s
  • 1.10 South Australia
  • 1.11 Queensland
    • 1.11.1 1840s
    • 1.11.2 1850s
    • 1.11.3 1860s
    • 1.11.4 1870s
    • 1.11.5 1880s
    • 1.11.6 1890s
  • 1.12 Northern Territory
    • 1.12.1 1870s
    • 1.12.2 1880-90s
• 2 Violence and massacres after federation
  • 2.1 Western Australia
    • 2.1.1 1910s
    • 2.1.2 1920s
  • 2.2 Queensland
    • 2.2.1 1910s
  • 2.3 Nort

• • hern Territory
    • 2.3.1 1920s
• 3 See also
• 4 References
• 5 External links

Some frontier collisions and massacres on record

1780s

• 1789 Epidemics of disease were seen killing fifty percent or more of several tribes neighbouring the Sydney settlement. It has not been determined if the initial infection was biological warfare using smallpox, or if was it a combination of half a dozen common Eurasian diseases that the indigenous population had never been exposed to before and therefore they had no acquired resistance to. A recently published article in "Journal of Australian Studies" theorises that the outbreak of smallpox from the First Fleet was a deliberate act to overcome indigenous resistance to expansion of the early settlement. However if not deliberate it was inevitable as were the other epidemics of Eurasian diseases that cause very high death rates throughout the vulnerable indigenous populations across Australia. A large proportion of local clans were killed. See Warren, C., Smallpox at Sydney Cove - Who, When, Why? (2013).[7] The evidence was summarised by ABC Radio National program Ockham's Razor in 2014. See transcript. However this theory has been questioned by some researchers and Medical Doctors[8] who suggest the cause of the outbreak in question was more likely due to measles or chicken pox, which at the time was often identified as smallpox (see more details re this controversy in the History Wars section under the heading "Controversy over smallpox in Australia").

1790s

• 1790. In December, Governor Arthur Phillip issued an order for "a party...of two captains, two subalterns and forty privates, with a proper number of non-commissioned officers from the garrison...to bring in six of those natives who reside near the head of Botany Bay; or, if that number shall be found impracticable, to put that number to death".[9] This was largely in response to the spearing by Pemulwuy of Governor Phillip's gamekeeper, the convict John McEntire, and his subsequent death. McEntire was suspected of violence towards Aboriginal people and his contemporary Watkin Tench later wrote that he was "the person of whom Abalone had, on former occasions, shown so much dread and hatred".[10] And, "from the aversion uniformly shown by all the to this unhappy man, he had long been suspected by us of having in his excursions shot and injured them". On his deathbed, McEntire "began...to accuse himself of the commission of crimes of the deepest dye", but "declared that he had never fired but once on a native, and then had not killed but severely wounded him in his own defence." Tench wrote of this denial, "Notwithstanding his deathbed confession, most people doubted the truth of the relation, from his general character and other circumstances."[10]

1810s

• 1816. Appin massacre. New South Wales Governor Macquarie sent parties against the Gundungurra and Dharawal people along the Cataract River, a tributary of the Nepean River (south of Sydney), allegedly in reprisal for their violent encroachments against white farms, that included murders, in the Nepean and Cowpastures districts, during a time of drought. The punitive expedition split in two at Bent's Basin, with one group moving south-west against the Gundungurra, and the other moving south-east against the Dharawal. This latter group came upon Cataract Gorge, where the soldiers used their horses to force men, women and children to fall from the cliffs of the gorge, to their deaths below.[11] The occurrence of the Cataract Gorge (or Appin) Massacre is confirmed by Heritage NSW and the University of Western Sydney.[12] On April 17, around 1 am soldiers arrived at a camp of Dharawal people at Appin. Captain Willis from the party of soldiers wrote: "The fires were burning but deserted. A few of my men heard a child cry [...] The dogs gave the alarm and the natives fled over the cliffs. It was moonlight. I regret to say some (were) shot and others met their fate by rushing in despair over the precipice. Fourteen dead bodies were counted in different directions."[13]

1820s

• 1824. Bathurst massacre. Following the killing of seven Europeans by Aboriginal people around Bathurst, New South Wales, and a battle between three stockmen and a warband over stolen cattle which left 16 Aborigines dead, Governor Brisbane declared martial law to restore order and was able to report a cessation of hostilities in which 'not one outrage was committed under it, neither was a life sacrificed or even Blood spilt'. Part of the tribe trekked down to Parramatta to attend the Governor's annual Reconciliation Day.[14][15]

I think there has to be an element of passivity on the part of the victims for genocide to be properly apply in its commonly understood sense.

The Nazi gassing of millions of Jews was genocide since they were imprisoned and then systematically put to death with a predetermined end goal of extermination of the civilisation.

I think that is the true meaning of genocide as most people understand it.

I think taking the word and applying it to situations where people are killed in ongoing open conflict between two tribes who are competing for use of territory cheapens the word and does a disservice to true victims of genocide.

^ So you are admitting that you are a racist then?

The language is not really that important unless you want to keep squirming and remain in denial about what actually happened.

Originally Posted by Looper

I think taking the word and applying it to situations where people are killed in ongoing open conflict between two tribes who are competing for use of territory cheapens the word and does a disservice to true victims of genocide.

I can smell a logical fallacy here ^ somewhere....can anyone spot which one ?

Master List of Logical Fallacies

Originally Posted by chassamui

The language is not really that important

I think the language is important.

I do not deny that groups of aboriginals were subject from time to time to acts of violence that seem harsh and disproportionate to the provocation.

The situation was that the land was going to be settled by somebody one way or the other. The best thing they could have done was retreat and hope for the best since they wee hopelessly out-gunned by the disparity in levels of development.

Unfortunately it is not really in human nature to just get out of the way even if it would have been the most pragmatic course. And so there were frequent instances of conflict and violence and the aboriginals would invariably come off worse.

I don't think it was really avoidable in the context of time and given the nature of the conflict (i.e. settlement of lands by a modern people which had up until then been used as hunting grounds by a primitive people).

The conflict and deaths were sad and unfortunate but the best we can do is acknowledge the facts for what they were and make reparations to the remaining indigenous which we are doing.

Originally Posted by Looper

the best we can do is acknowledge the facts for what they were and make reparations to the remaining indigenous which we are

And part of those reparations would be acknowledging what happened and not trying to rewrite and whitewash history, surely.

Originally Posted by Looper

The conflict and deaths were sad and unfortunate but the best we can do is acknowledge the facts for what they were and make reparations to the remaining indigenous which we are doing.

The arguments over the language used indicate that you are not doing that.
Blaming the indigenous people for being poor opponents is not an acknowledgement, it's an excuse and a bloody poor one at that. The current dire state of the aboriginal people can be directly attributed to the view taken by early settlers that they were worthless trash. Some of the opinion expressed on here by yourself and others indicates that view still remains in the mind of many Australians today.

Genocide debate

See also: Genocide definitions
The case for using the term "Australian genocide" rests on evidence from various sources that people argue proves some form of genocide. People cite the list of massacres of indigenous Australians by white settlers, mainly in the 19th century (cf. Blood on the Wattle by Bruce Elder or Frontier History Revisited by Robert Orsted-Jensen); only a few massacres were documented, and the evidence is strong that evidence of massacres was generally covered by secrecy and there are powerful signs that documents had been destroyed. Evidence is solid that Queensland's Native Police produced diaries, collision reports and monthly and quarterly enumerations of 'patrols' and 'collisions' with indigenous people, and that all of this material was stored in the Queensland police department. Yet not one single sheet of information of this kind which is today available at the Queensland State archive originate from files delivered by the police department, the material left comes solely from other government offices. Only human interference can produce a total loss of the vast Native Police Force records once stored in the Queensland Police Department.[41]
Others have pointed to the dramatic reduction in the Tasmanian Aboriginal population in the 19th century and the forced removal of generations of Aboriginal children from their parents during the 20th century as evidence of genocide. The evidence includes documentation of the wish sometimes intention of a significant proportion of late 19th-century and early 20th-century white Australians to see the Aboriginal "race" eliminated. Documents include published letters to the editors of high-circulation newspapers. Certainly this was the case in Queensland, in terms of indigenous people the most populated section of Australia and certainly the colony with the most violent frontier. In June 1866 Sir Robert Herbert summing up his experience after little more than five years as the first Premier of this colony wrote:
“ Every method of dealing with these very dangerous savages has been tried, and I believe no more satisfactory system can be devised than that under which the people of Queensland endeavour to deal with a difficulty which it is feared can never terminate except with the gradual disappearance of the unimprovable race.[42] ” The mentioned "system", for which Herbert was among the people personal responsible, was the so-called "Native Police system" which typically went about "dispersing" any sign of indigenous resistance at the frontier by use of deadly early morning attacks on Aboriginal camps. This semi-military force was allowed to go about its business, typically instigating large scale deadly retaliation without prior investigating of alleged crime. They generally took no prisoners at the frontier and there are no signs that they ever enforced any other "law" than "might is right". It was a force designed more in the manner of the recent times phenomenon known as the "death-squad" and the secrecy of its operations was ensured by the remoteness of its operations, added a system that denied the evidence from "blacks" while the force itself was instructed to ensure that there would always be only one white witness, the officer in charge of each detachment. Recently the first ever attempt to scientifically calculate the amount of Aborigines killed in encounters with the Native Police indicates that numbers may exceed 45,000.[43]
The phrase "useless race" was commonly expressed in Queensland such as in 1877 when an editorial in the leading journal noted that,
“ The desire for progressive advancement and substantial prosperity is, after all, stronger than sentimental dislike to the extinction of a savage and useless race.[44] ” Classifying Aboriginal people as a useless or improvable race was common. Comprehensively debating the native police ad the frontier in public in 1880 in the columns of the Queenslander (the weekly edition of the colony's leading journal), one could read the following statements from yet another prominent settler,
“ And being a useless race, what does it matter what they suffer any more than the distinguished philanthropist who writes in this behalf cares for the wounded half dead pigeon he tortures at his shooting matches.[45] ” Remarks which was followed up in October of that years by Boyd Dunlop Morehead, one of the leading landholders, manager of the Scottish Australian Investment Co.'s Bowen Downs in 1866-81 and a future Premier, could be heard making the following acknowledgement in a parliamentary speech, saying, yes settlers in the past did go
“ …out, and in their pioneering had, of necessity, to use extreme measures to the inhabitants of the soil. The aboriginal, no doubt, had been shot down; no one denied it…this race was being worked off the face of the earth. That that was so everyone knew, and that it must be so, none would deny…For his own part he did not believe that the aboriginal race was worth preserving. If there were no aboriginals it would be a very good thing…[46] ” After the introduction of the word genocide in the 1940s by Raphael Lemkin, Lemkin himself and most comparative scholars of genocide and many general historians, such as Robert Hughes, Ward Churchill, Leo Kuper and Jared Diamond, basing their analysis on previously published histories, present the extinction of the Tasmanian Aborigines as a text book example of a genocide.[47] The Australian historian of genocide, Ben Kiernan, in his recent history of the concept and practice, Blood and soil: a world history of genocide and extermination from Sparta to Darfur, (2007) treats the Australian evidence over the first century of colonization as an example of genocide.[48]
Among scholars specializing in Australian history much recent debate has focused on whether indeed what happened to groups of Aborigines, and especially the Tasmanian Aborigines during the European colonisation of Australia can be classified as genocide. According to Mark Levene, most Australian experts are now "considerably more circumspect".[49] In the specific instance of the Tasmanian Aborigines Henry Reynolds, who takes events in other regions of colonial Australia as marked by "genocidal moments",[50] argues that the records show that British administrative policy in Tasmania was explicitly concerned to avoid extermination, however practices the events on the ground that lead to the virtual extinction worked out.[51] Tony Barta, John Docker and Anne Curthoys however emphasize Lemkin's linkage between colonization and genocide.[52] Barta, an Australian expert in German history, argued from Lemkin that, "there is no dispute that the basic fact of Australian history is the appropriation of the continent by an invading people and the dispossession, with ruthless destructiveness, of another".[53] Docker argues that, "(w)e ignore Lemkin's wide-ranging definition of genocide, inherently linked with colonialism, at our peril".[54] Curthoys argues that the separation between international and local Australian approaches has been deleterious. While calling for "a more robust exchange between genocide and Tasmanian historical scholarship",[55] her own view is that the Tasmanian instance constitutes a "case for genocide, though not of state planning, mass killing, or extinction".[56]
Much of the debate on whether European colonisation of Australia resulted in genocide, centres on whether "the term 'genocide' only applies to cases of deliberate mass killings of Aborigines by European settlers, or ... might also apply to instances in which many Aboriginal people were killed by the reckless or unintended actions and omissions of settlers".[57] Historians such as Tony Barta argue that for the victim group it matters little if they were wiped out as part of a planned attack. If a group is decimated as a result of smallpox introduced to Australia by British settlers, or introduced European farming methods causing a group of Aborigines to starve to death, the result is, in his opinion, genocide.[58]
Henry Reynolds points out that European colonists and their descendants frequently use expressions that included "extermination", "extinction", and "extirpation" when discussing the treatment of Aborigines during the colonial period, and as in his opinion genocide "can take many forms, not all of them violent"[59] this is an indicator of genocide. Janine Roberts has argued that genocide was Australian policy, even if only by omission. She notes that despite contemporary newspapers regularly decrying, "the barbarous crop of exterminators," and, "a system of native slaughter... merciless and complete", the government contended that "no illegal acts were occurring", with the worst incidents being described as merely "indiscretions".[60]
The political scientist Kenneth Minogue and other historians such as Keith Windschuttle disagree and think that no genocide took place.[61][62] Minogue does not try to define genocide but argues that its use is an extreme manifestation of the guilt felt by modern Australian society about the past misconduct of their society to Aborigines. In his opinion its use reflects the process by which Australian society is trying to come to terms with its past wrongs and in doing this Australians are stretching the meaning of genocide to fit within this internal debate.[63]
In the April 2008 edition of The Monthly, David Day wrote further on the topic of genocide. He wrote that Lemkin considered genocide to encompass more than mass killings but also acts like "driv[ing] the original inhabitants off the land... confin[ing] them in reserves, where policies of deliberate neglect may be used to reduce their numbers... Tak[ing] indigenous children to absorb them within their own midst... assimilation to detach the people from their culture, language and religion, and often their names."[64]

An extract from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_wars#Genocide_debate

I am not disputing the facts of the historical accounts of events involving the deaths of aborigines at the hands of white settlers.

I dispute that it is reasonable to apply the terms 'invasion' and 'genocide' to those events.

Originally Posted by Looper

I dispute that it is reasonable to apply the terms 'invasion' and 'genocide' to those events.

You did not read my last post then.

1828-1832 The Black War in Van Diemen's Land (now Tasmania) refers to a period of intermittent conflict between the British colonists, whalers and sealers (including those of the American sealing fleet) and Aborigines in the early years of the 19th century.

The conflict has been described as a genocide resulting in the elimination of the full-blood Tasmanian Aboriginal population.[50]

There are currently some 20,000 individuals who have Tasmanian Aboriginal descent.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

There are currently some 20,000 individuals who have Tasmanian Aboriginal descent.

All pure bloods too, eh?

If any of them had 1/64th Tasman Aboriginal blood in them it'd be a wonder.

That's my point...

Maybe they should take a leaf out of the USA's book, and get them to run the casinos...

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

And part of those reparations would be acknowledging what happened and not trying to rewrite and whitewash history, surely.

I thought Kevin Rudd done that ?

Oh yes he did, but fuk all happened.

Originally Posted by chassamui

The current dire state of the aboriginal people can be directly attributed to the view taken by early settlers that they were worthless trash.

Some of the opinion expressed on here by yourself and others indicates that view still remains in the mind of many Australians today.

Hows that work Chas. ?

The Abo's have been duly compensated, land has been returned to them and the welfare benefits they gain are far in excess of whats given to a White man.

Instead of running forward with what they are given they run backwards at Warp speed.

When we say disparaging remarks regards the Abo's it's directed at the filth amougnst them, the drunken, violent, thieving scum one's.

Nothing to do with them being Black but everything to do with the way they act in our society.

Not to worry though, Whites that act in this fashion are called exactly the same.

Fuk all to do with Racism.