Thread: Australia's shameful past

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by chassamui

As I said, accidental conservation probably saved them.

Chas, there is no such thing as 'accidental' conservation. Conservation is a deliberate approach carried out by environmentally aware peoples who have an elevated enough vision of how the world works to be able to understand that their actions have an impact on the environment and who can then formulate conservation methods as a choice of strategic solution.

There are no environmentally aware cavemen. They may be more benign by default since they are not tooled up enough to do as much damage as an industrialised society but true environmental awareness only comes about through civilisation and the environmental science that is part of civilisation.

Let's not forget that the reason that Looper is posting all this 19th Century waffle is to justify the white's genocide of the Australian aborigines.

Such an extended civilised nature.
White Man's Burden.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Let's not forget that the reason that Looper is posting all this 19th Century waffle is to justify the white's genocide of the Australian aborigines.

The problem with the term genocide is that it came into popular use to describe the Nazi concentration camps which means it is infused with a chilling sense of horror. It invokes the idea of a cowed civilian population being led away to their organised mass execution at the hands of a well oiled military death squad.

Nowadays it is used cheaply as a throwaway phrase to score political points in any conflict. Some spear chuckers meet their Waterloo at the wrong end of a musket. Oh nooooees.... Genocide!!

Kind of a shame for the real victims of true genocide.

If the term is to be diluted and abused for cheap political bickering then we need a new term to describe atrocities like the Nazi death camps.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Let's not forget that the reason that Looper is posting all this 19th Century waffle is to justify the white's genocide of the Australian aborigines.

The problem with the term genocide is that it came into popular use to describe the Nazi concentration camps which means it is infused with a chilling sense of horror.

As it should. Do you think it should give people a warm, cuddly feeling?

Well obviously not but i think the Nazi genocide and the 'genocide' of Australian aboriginals are substantially different things.

The premeditated herding into camps and mass assassination of races with a predetermined documented goal to eradicate them based on a doctrine of racial hatred and using efficient industrial gas chambers and incinerators is substantially different from colonial expeditions having a few handbags with some natives while trying to colonise some land.

We should have different terms for these things.

Yes, I am aware of the International Definition but I think the term is associated with the Nazi atrocity in most peoples minds and that this association is used to try and tar less shocking issues with the same brush for dramatic effect.

Originally Posted by Looper

Yes, I am aware of the International Definition

Good. Now please carry on without your usual manufacturing of false definitions to suit your argument.

^^I would humbly submit that the International Definition is vague muddled cobblers.

Exactly what percentage of the group needs to be subjected to any one of these mistreatments for 'genocide' to have occurred.

If I cause any form of 'serious physical harm' or 'intend to prevent births' or 'transfer children' to at least 2 members of a population of any size then I have committed 'genocide'..... oh noooooeees!!!!

Tar me and cover me in Nazi SS skull and cross bones badges!

Originally Posted by Looper

I would humbly submit that the International Definition is vague muddled cobblers.

Submit what you like, Uriah Heep. That definition matters. Yours doesn't.

Bit late into the debate but remembering the current discussion about moving 'Australia Day' away from January 26 as 2 Melbourne Councils have voted for ...

Originally Posted by Looper

'transfer children' to at least 2 members of a population of any size then I have committed 'genocide'..... oh noooooeees!!!!

Hmm..., I think there were more than 2 kids transfered to institutions & foster homes?

Ah..., but only as a preventative measure to save them from domestic abuse at the hands of their chimpanzee-like parents, right?

Originally Posted by stroller

Hmm..., I think there were more than 2 kids transfered to institutions & foster homes?

Myself and B0b1 were discussing the 'international definition' of genocide. It is a pretty flaky definition. practically any minor offence could pass for genocide under that cobblers.

Originally Posted by stroller

at the hands of their chimpanzee-like

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by stroller

Hmm..., I think there were more than 2 kids transfered to institutions & foster homes?

Myself and B0b1 were discussing the 'international definition' of genocide. It is a pretty flaky definition. practically any minor offence could pass for genocide under that cobblers.

As I pointed out already it's the only definition that matters. The only definition of genocide that matters does, in fact, specifically mention the crime of

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Everything is up for discussion when the great revolution comes.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

I wouldn't have got where I am today if I hadn't been standing on the shoulders of the noble blackfella!

If there is one 'civilisation' upon whose shoulders no-one is standing it is the Australian aboriginal.

They were the most primitive and least inventive race of homo sapiens on the planet.

The Australian aboriginal is 'Australia's shameful past'

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by DrB0b

I wouldn't have got where I am today if I hadn't been standing on the shoulders of the noble blackfella!

If there is one 'civilisation' upon whose shoulders no-one is standing it is the Australian aboriginal.

They were the most primitive and least inventive race of homo sapiens on the planet.

The Australian aboriginal is 'Australia's shameful past'

Nope. Shot your bolt, I'm afraid. As usual you got over-excited and fell prey to premature expostulation.

I think Chas could be on the money with his micro-thesis about the Aboriginal being almost a breed apart.

If the DNA could be analysed of all the extant pure-bred diaspora of homo sapiens I am betting that the Aboriginal would be the most distal strain wandered furthest from the average sequence.

Originally Posted by Looper

I think Chas could be on the money with his micro-thesis about the Aboriginal being almost a breed apart.

No 'almost' about it old boy. Unless you know of any other sub group that did something so remarkable, survived and sustained an almost dormant culture over centuries, and were almost wiped out upon facing the white mans disease for the first time.
They were, are, unique by any stretch of your imagination. The problem was, we didn't recognize it sooner.

Political correctness will never allow any discussion on how countries that were once British or French colonies are now better off for it.

Disparaging a country's very founding and history as is being done now in the US too is just another way for liberal turds to destroy that country from within.

Originally Posted by BobR

just another way for liberal turds to destroy that country from within

You're an outright racist and bigot, Bob.

Your hate and ignorance, attitudes and views - and those of people like you - are more damaging to your country than anything you imagine your liberal boogeymen doing.

Originally Posted by BobR

Disparaging a country's very founding and history as is being done now in the US too is just another way for liberal turds to destroy that country from within.

It's not about the founding of the country, because that happened about 60,000 years ago.

It's about how the British, through the colonists, subjugated a race of people that are not properly understood, even today. Most of those failings can be placed in the context of the times. It does not mean they were correct, just because they didn't understand the gravity of what they were doing.

The same applies to native Americans.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by BobR

just another way for liberal turds to destroy that country from within

You're an outright racist and bigot, Bob.

Your hate and ignorance, attitudes and views - and those of people like you - are more damaging to your country than anything you imagine your liberal boogeymen doing.

drop dead

No Bob, I shan't.

I don't take direction from cowardly, hateful and ignorant, racists.