About time someone had balls...

Been discussing this with mates on Facebook.

I think it's a terrible idea. We are applying today's views to a historical event.

The 'invasion' language is also divisive and will only negatively affect the already terrible relations us white devils have with the indigenous population.

1 boat is hardly an invasion also :lol:

Typical right wing denial by whitewashing - can't handle potential feelings of guilt - confirms the neuroscience

I wasn't born here so have absolutely no guilt.

Also how can I change things that happened 200+ years ago?

What makes you think I'm right wing? I'm more centralist in every test I've ever taken.

Sorry I don't fit your narrative Ricey MKIII

Right wing?


Right wingers very often misrepresent the issue/argument, because they have poorer debating & critical thinking capabilities, like quoted. It's stands out like an oil slick, Wolowitz

Lol didn't even need to look at who started this thread.

This shit got all along time ago. Knock it off

You've improved from just 'LOL'. Baby steps, baby steps....

Once again ignoring everything posted to focus on ones own lack of an argument, typical left wing debating tactics.

In your own opinion (if that's even possible), how is it even remotely sensible to apply today's views on invasion/colonialism to those of 200+ years ago? When talking about that time period, historically we've only ever talked in terms of 'settling' and 'colonizing'. I see absolutely no valid reason to change this.

It's inherently similar to assessing the Romans. Imagine if Italy just started attacking and subduing cultures like the did 2000 years ago? Yet when we view it today, we view it completely differently because the times were different.

That's why I think this UNSW thing is absolute tripe which will only hurt relations between aboriginal and non aboriginals.

Edited by bethfc: 31/3/2016 12:13:33 PM

This, this and double this.

Why can't you acknowledge it was an invasion AND state that the times were different 200 years ago? It doesn't have to be about guilt, it's about acknowledging the facts.

Edited by mcjules: 31/3/2016 12:19:30 PM

Can't we just ban this idiot? Contributes almost zero to the football majority of this forum and uses this site to simply push agendas.

Forgive my ignorance here Jules, but isn't that kind of what Beth is getting at?

Sure if it happened now using todays standards yep 100% invasion but the standards of 200 years ago is a different story. Applying todays standards to an event that happened 200 years ago is a little dangerous isn't it?

It makes it sound like it was on par with the German invasion of Poland or D-Day in WWII.

For me it's about the divisive nature of the word invasion. Also, where do you draw the line? Do we get rid of the word colonization and instead just use invasion? The British invaded America. Conquistadors from Spain now must be referred to as invaders?

We've had high profile issues with indigenous/anglo relations in the past year. How is this going to help?

If you want to be factual (to today's standards only) it's an invasion. However are we only meant to judge history on today's standards? That gives a completely distorted view of the times in which significant historical events took place.

I didn't interpret it that way but if that's what he's saying then I agree. The daily telegraph's uproar is over the use of the word invasion though so my point still stands.

In general though, what happened 200 years ago is only the beginning. Horrible things have happened to aboriginal peoples in some of our lifetimes so I don't really like this "it's in the past" argument. You don't have to take personal blame for things the government did (or even your parents/grandparents) but I don't see the issue with holding them to account for those atrocities and to ensure we do the right thing from now on.

Of course but where is the line drawn? You either get rid of the word colonization entirely which distorts history or you don't. Like I said, the word invasion makes it sound far more serious than it was (for the time it happened in). That's my opposition to the word.

What's happened since Cook is irrelevant to the situation. The same could be said for colonized populations the world over. Holding them to account for their atrocities I feel has absolutely nothing to do with the treatment of aboriginals since the landings.

Owning an 'invasion' like we're expected to do (not personally) shows a lack of understanding of what happened. It's not like Cook shot the first Aboriginal person he saw. It's not like his ship of men killed everything they saw.

D-Day maybe not but objectively why wouldn't it be on par with the German invasion of Poland?


I see denying that these incidents were invasions is divisive. You're not going to convince indigenous peoples that had been treated like shit for over hundred years officially in law that they weren't invaded and subjugated.


I don't see an issue with explaining the grounds that the British used to start establishing colonies, in fact I think it should be mandatory. That doesn't mean we shouldn't also explain things with the context we understand now, especially in regards to indigenous culture and laws.

Cook didn't go in all guns blazing. When you were at school did they ever talk about his captains journals and the favourable relationships he had at first with the indigenous people?

Technically they were an expeditionary force not an invasion force if you really want to be factual.



But see that's the problem. We're talking about 1778, not the following few hundred years. How they were treated from 1779 to 2016 has no bearing on how we term the landing of the first fleet.

The expeditionary force also didn't even know the island was inhabited before they arrived.

Like you said, make governments accountable for the atrocities they committed.

All this will do is give 'Half Grass' (city aboriginals) another excuse to play victims and extort the rest of the population.



Well context is important. They were an expeditionary force in military terms if facts and evidence is what we're going for.

You can't change the role of the naval force that arrived here first to suit the next 200+ years of history.

Followed this section of the forum for about a month without posting but I'll have a crack now.

STOP REPLYING TO THIS MORON.

You all keep replying to this absolute rubbish he posts incessantly.

You (and by you I mean everyone that replies to this arse) are all to blame. Not him.

How long do you think he'd stay around if no one bit?

I'll bet you a $2 waffle cone that if you blokes just didn't reply to him for a month he'd head off to another forum to annoy some other stupid pricks.

Honestly, have a good look at yourselves before having a go at him.

Same goes for the ardtho bloke in Australian Football.

Why anyone engages either of these 2 is beyond me.


Edit: Grammar/spelling.


Edited by outonthefull: 31/3/2016 01:21:31 PM

Incorrect, He is the type that if nobody replied to him he would flood the place with his crap until someone did.

Only rubbish unless its right wing

As a lefty, please fuck off. All you do is post left wing articles in ET without ever venturing into the rest of FourFourTwo.

Yes they did.


Are you trying to argue Cook arriving has no connection to what happened afterwards? I can't get on board with that at all.


Palaszczuk isn't the first politician (or leader) to have called it an invasion, it really hasn't changed any of that. Those people will do that regardless.


I think there is too much focus on Captain Cook and the Endeavour. It's significant because it initiated the subsequent events but it's not the whole history.

They take no action (ricey included) against other dickheads using terms like "the left" or "cultural marxist" either.

You lack of understanding of both the topic and why a kid like ricey has been banned is telling.

People call for Mrags to be banned not for his use of terms such a "right wingers" but the fact he contributes zero to the football majority of the forum and simply sets out to cause conflict between the two main political leanings.

No I'm just using Cook to suggest that the intention was never to invade but to colonize the Island. The fact that people were here only because apparent after landing which is why the word invasion troubles me because I think it's too strong.

For lack of a better example it would be like calling Australia's border policy genocide.



They're just searching for popularity. Palaszcuzuk is a hypocrite and a disaster of a leader.



True, but there's also way too much focus on the following 200 years as justification for re-branding the settlement of Australia by the British.

If we didn't have half the events (such as assimilation), I doubt there would even be a discussion about invasion/settlement.

I agree with this. I actually never respond to Mrags because I know he's a troll. 11.mvfc.11 is suggesting that there's some sort of left wing bias and that RC was banned because he had unpopular views and that is clearly false.

Do we view it that differently or are the times that different? Take away the aesthetic side of things and technology etc

Don't really want to get involved in the main topic/mud slinging but just quickly, I'm pretty sure plenty of people were against what the Romans were doing back then too.

Namely everyone but the Romans ;)

Also, cultural relativism is used way too frequently as a defence for things. I used to think of it in those terms a lot too.
What is "immoral" may well vary to some degree across the ages BUT i am sure that 2,000 years ago people did not just think "Oh well, here come the Romans doing what they do" because times were different.

I understand your argument, I just don't agree that it's too strong. Their intentions shouldn't be "whitewashed" but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call it what it actually was.


Can't be any worse than Campbell Newman :lol: . I doubt it's a populist move by her, no doubt this was asked to her because of that disgraceful telegraph article and she responded with what she believes.


Maybe a little, I think there would still be a desire to label it correctly.

Well things were completely different back then from culture to perception. When the Brits went for Terra Nullius they didn't have the knowledge of inhabitancy. It would be like us going to Jupiter. We wouldn't know if there are swamp people or not :lol:



Of course they were, I would have been too if they sent their Legions against me.



No but our historical attitudes towards the Romans are much softer than those towards say the Serbs in Former Yugoslavia or the Chinese in Tibet. We see the Vikings as intriguing rather than negatively.

An interesting question: can we call the muslim migration from the middle east to Europe an invasion? If not why?