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?

So basically you're saying the Aboriginal peoples lack intelligence? I know a word for people that have these sorts of views. There's plenty that you need to understand, I know you won't but I suggest you try and educate yourself just a little bit on aboriginal history. Ignorance is not something I have time for and is a perfectly acceptable thing to complain about when you post absolute reprehensible shit.

Believe it or not, you can actually be proud of some things that have been built and established here and also ashamed of other aspects. It doesn't make you less of an Australian.

I think that's the argument he's making. That we don't "feel guilty" for the cultures that the Romans conquered and subjugated because we know it was a different time.

I don't think people today should feel guilty for what happened 200 years ago either but it should be called what it was and that's an invasion.

Took the words right out of my mouth!

I really do not want to weigh in on this in fear of being labelled racist but out of curiosity isn't it common knowledge and scientifically backed that the aboriginal people are in fact less intelligent than anglo-saxons?

I don't actually know the details. It may be a wives tale.

I don't think you're racist but measuring intelligence is pretty subjective and in my opinion impossible to measure without introducing a heap of biases.

I agree. Measuring intelligence based on 'selected' characteristics is a dangerous game.

Just mentioning the rumour.

- Cathy Freeman
- Adam Goodes
- Eddie Marbo
- Douglas Nicholls
- Marcia Langton
- Mick Dodson

Everyone is just an average person until they do something above average.

I have a horrible feeling phrenology is about to be discussed by some people aha

No - its common MYTHOLOGY. Completely unbacked by any science. If you are really interested in why some cultures were able to evolve technology and others weren't able to, I highly recommend a book by anthropologist Jarrad Diamond called "Guns, Germs and Steel".

Essentially the short answer is that societies who had the following things were able to evolve technology:

- Arable crops
- Domesticable animals
- Can't remember the other one!!!

Without these things, it is essentially impossible to move beyond subsistence hunter gatherer societies.

It has nothing to do with intelligence.

The idea behind the first settlers was to establish a colony. In effect the settlers displaced the native people of the land (and most the time it was through force especially as they expanded and encroached on different indigenous tribes). In effect this was an invasion of indigenous lands, as there was very little mutual agreement between indigenous populations and settlers. So what started as a colonisation of a new "world", turned into a "invasion" as the colonies grew / expanded.

The ruling of terra nullius in Australia by the Crown (in other words the Crown owned all the land in Australia at settlement) does support the notion that they invaded and claimed all the land for themselves, rather than any treaties or mutual agreements reached with the indigenous people.

Edited by sokorny: 31/3/2016 02:52:32 PM

Actually, what i took from the reply (apart from wishing i didn't smile at the swamp people line) is that the notion of "we" does not seem as fixed as perhaps it once did.

I understand that it's being used in the context of "our" education system etc but I do think that is changing with more access to more information and points of view rather than one text book. Whether that leads to more or less prejudice only time will tell but I could hazard a guess...

I agree and understood that "we" view roman conquests in a softer light than say, German conquests in the 20th century. I realised instantly I was unable to express my point about cultural relativism properly but being at work makes it hard to spend too long on any one post or even thought.

I know I have an excellent point in my pea brain somewhere it's just yet to be fully formulated. I'll get back to ya ;)

I have been meaning to get a copy of that book for a while now!!!

I imagine it also must have, in part, something to do with necessity. In a land as large as Australia with such small, spread out populations there was no need to compete for resources

You made some good points already :lol:

White man is just better at that kinda stuff.

-PB

How can you invade a place that has no concept of a nation-state?

Terra Nullius.

And the previous inhabitants had 50,000 years to come up with some sort of civilisation yet failed miserably.

Colonisation & civilisation FTW.

Thelma Plum is certainly pushing forward with reconciliation:



I'm sorry I forget that only non-white people are allowed to decide what is and isn't racist :lol:

Edited by bethfc: 31/3/2016 04:28:21 PM

This is a summation of Diamond's argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

Diamond argues that Eurasian civilization is not so much a product of ingenuity, but of opportunity and necessity. That is, civilization is not created out of superior intelligence, but is the result of a chain of developments, each made possible by certain preconditions.

The first step towards civilization is the move from nomadic hunter-gatherer to rooted agrarian society. Several conditions are necessary for this transition to occur:
- access to high-protein vegetation that endures storage;
- a climate dry enough to allow storage;
- and access to animals docile enough for domestication and versatile enough to survive captivity.

Control of crops and livestock leads to food surpluses. Surpluses free people to specialize in activities other than sustenance and support population growth. The combination of specialization and population growth leads to the accumulation of social and technologic innovations which build on each other. Large societies develop ruling classes and supporting bureaucracies, which in turn lead to the organization of nation-states and empires.

Although agriculture arose in several parts of the world, Eurasia gained an early advantage due to the greater availability of suitable plant and animal species for domestication. In particular, Eurasia has barley, two varieties of wheat, and three protein-rich pulses for food; flax for textiles; and goats, sheep, and cattle. Eurasian grains were richer in protein, easier to sow, and easier to store than American maize or tropical bananas.

As early Western Asian civilizations began to trade, they found additional useful animals in adjacent territories, most notably horses and donkeys for use in transport. Diamond identifies 13 species of large animals over 100 pounds (45 kg) domesticated in Eurasia, compared with just one in South America (counting the llama and alpaca as breeds within the same species) and none at all in the rest of the world. Australia and North America suffered from a lack of useful animals due to extinction, probably by human hunting, shortly after the end of the Pleistocene, whilst the only domesticated animals in New Guinea came from the East Asian mainland during the Austronesian settlement some 4,000–5,000 years ago. Sub-Saharan biological relatives of the horse including zebras and onagers proved untameable; and although African elephants can be tamed, it is very difficult to breed them in captivity;[2][3] Diamond describes the small number of domesticated species (14 out of 148 "candidates") as an instance of the Anna Karenina principle: many promising species have just one of several significant difficulties that prevent domestication.

Eurasians domesticated goats and sheep for hides, clothing, and cheese; cows for milk; bullocks for tillage of fields and transport; and benign animals such as pigs and chickens. Large domestic animals such as horses and camels offered the considerable military and economic advantages of mobile transport.

A crucial and unintended product of animal domestication was the transmutation of viruses from livestock to humans. Smallpox, measles, and influenza were the result of close proximity between dense populations of animals and humans. Through chronic exposure and centuries of intermittent, but nondecimating, epidemics, Eurasians developed significant resistance to these viruses. Although malaria is often considered the most dangerous micro-organism to humans, it is geographically limited. Smallpox is geographically unlimited, and Eurasians took it with them wherever they went.

Eurasia's large landmass and long east-west distance increased these advantages. Its large area provided it with more plant and animal species suitable for domestication, and allowed its people to exchange both innovations and diseases. Its east-west orientation allowed breeds domesticated in one part of the continent to be used elsewhere through similarities in climate and the cycle of seasons. The Americas had difficulty adapting crops domesticated at one latitude for use at other latitudes (and, in North America, adapting crops from one side of the Rocky Mountains to the other). Similarly, Africa was fragmented by its extreme variations in climate from north to south: crops and animals that flourished in one area never reached other areas where they could have flourished, because they could not survive the intervening environment. Europe was the ultimate beneficiary of Eurasia's east-west orientation: in the first millennium BCE, the Mediterranean areas of Europe adopted Southwestern Asia's animals, plants, and agricultural techniques; in the first millennium CE, the rest of Europe followed suit.

The plentiful supply of food and the dense populations that it supported made division of labor possible. The rise of nonfarming specialists such as craftsmen and scribes accelerated economic growth and technological progress. These economic and technological advantages eventually enabled Europeans to conquer the peoples of the other continents in recent centuries by using the guns and steel of the book's title.

Eurasia's dense populations, high levels of trade, and living in close proximity to livestock resulted in widespread transmission of diseases, including from animals to humans. Natural selection forced Eurasians to develop immunity to a wide range of pathogens. When Europeans made contact with the Americas, European diseases (to which Americans had no immunity) ravaged the indigenous American population, rather than the other way around (the "trade" in diseases was a little more balanced in Africa and southern Asia: endemic malaria and yellow fever made these regions notorious as the "white man's grave"; and syphilis may have originated in the Americas). The European diseases – the germs of the book's title – decimated indigenous populations so that relatively small numbers of Europeans could maintain their dominance.

You missed a bit :



So what you said is not what she is saying because the issue she is commenting on (rather childishly I'll grant you that) is specific to Aboriginal people and a specific thing said relating to them and their history therefore she is saying they should have a voice heard in the debate.

Don't play games with cliches like your last sentence it only discredits your point

Given that the "nation-state" as a concept is generally thought to be a 19th century phenomenon, the British Empire had no conception of the nation-state until after they invaded and colonised Australia.

I'm sure if you asked a Gaul or a Briton in the early ADs, they would be able to explain that Julius Caesar was invading their territory, without needing to understand the concept of the nation-state.

The intention was not to make a serious point. I can't take people like this seriously. Racist is such an overused term it's not funny.

Her outburst is a joke. I strongly dislike the insinuation that only certain opinions matter. Also, she's pretty racist herself, eluding to the skin colour of the guests on sunrise. But hey, can't say that can we?

All we need is someone like her playing the victim on national tv to stir up the bleeding hearts of society :roll:

She thought someone of Aboriginal heritage should have been involved in the discussion. Now she may have expressed that opinion in a way some may not agree with, but it's hard to argue her main point is wrong.

She also gets credit for using this :lol:

:lol: I saw that. It's pretty good.

I have no idea who she is and the way she expresses herself means she is not someone whose opinion I put much stock in anyway to be honest. She does nothing to help her own side with outbursts alike this

Having only 2 (nominally conservative) commentators talking on a national tv program insinuates that only their opinions matter.

Basically what I was trying to say but put more succinctly

:lol: Sorry I forget we need to have a hipster on the program as well for diversity.

Hope Sunrise are taking notes :p

I think it says everything about the mainstream Australian mentality that a TV show decides to debate this topic without even involving an indigenous person in the discussion.

They were all probably afraid of being hammered by Alan Jones :lol:

Great comeback :roll:

I think it's a regular segment on the show (haven't watched sunrise in years, if the tvs on in the morning it's ABC4Kids these days :lol:). I'm pretty sure Pauline Hanson and Derryn Hinch have a similar thing. I think that says even more.

I don't know how you came to your conclusion. Would a liberal opinion make a difference? I think there would be issues with whoever Sunrise had talking about the issue (unless they were all indigenous).

I bet you cannot stomach Sky News? Richo and Jones would definitely wind you up sir.

How about at least 1 indigenous person? That would make a nice change.

No offence intended but I can see why they didn't. Every time an issue like this comes up the issue gets hijacked and the discussion becomes fractured and nasty.

I remember some of the debates over the 'national apology' to indigenous people. Nonsense on both sides.

Some things to think about on the broader issue:

http://theconversation.com/of-course-australia-was-invaded-massacres-happened-here-less-than-90-years-ago-55377

"The UNSW guidelines are not “rewriting” history – they are simply highlighting a history that has never been adequately told in the first place.

Detailed historical research on the colonial frontier unequivocally supports the idea that Aboriginal people were subject to attack, assault, incursion, conquest and subjugation: all synonyms for the term “invasion”.

This was particularly the case in Queensland, where the actions of the Native Mounted Police were designed to subjugate Aboriginal resistance to European “settlers” on their traditional lands, and to protect pastoralists, miners and others from Aboriginal aggression.

It is telling that when it is suggested people “get over it – it’s 200 years ago”, we so revere the notion of Lest We Forget when remembering our role in a foreign war (WW1) 100 years ago.

It is also worth remembering in this context that large scale massacres of Aboriginal people were still being carried out through the 1920s and early 1930s in some parts of Australia.

For many Indigenous communities, the physical evidence of frontier conflict in Queensland in the form of Native Mounted Police camps and locations where people were killed are — just like Gallipoli — important places of remembrance that should never be forgotten". Hopefully one day non-Indigenous people will be able to visit these sites and reflect on our collective history, rather than being threatened by it".

Edited by AzzaMarch: 31/3/2016 05:15:33 PM

Can you not see the simple fact that you think it is ok to not include the indigenous perspective on a topic that directly impacts their identity and history, just for the fact that it makes the non-indigenous people uncomfortable and defensive, indicates something about the problems of the mainstream view of things?

I love the fact that you even use the term "hijacked" like "we can't let the indigenous person talk, they might make us feel bad".

Yeah, that's where I decided to opt out of the discussion

Interesting. The whole 'get over it' attitude is somewhat misrepresented. History, including history we cannot control is used to paint the Anglo-Saxon portion of Australia as racist, evil etc. There are hundreds of videos on facebook on any day of National significance, look them up. These videos make all sorts of demands and call white people all sorts of names. It's equally as offensive and inappropriate as suggesting that aboriginal people belong in chains because their forefathers were confined.

The term 'get over it' to me in many respects points out that we cannot change the past and that no matter how much we apologise nothing can change it. It's a reaction the victim mentality that attempts to link our current generations to the crimes of the past which we cannot be anything but sorry and empathetic about.

Am I disgusted that aboriginal people were literally (and legally) treated like domestic animals until the 60's? Bloody oath. But as someone born 30 years after this was (thankfully) abolished, what can I do other than be empathetic?

Too much writing calls for us to feel guilt for things we could not and cannot control.

It's like making German teenagers feel responsible for the holocaust.

That's not to say that we shouldn't be helping the indigenous as best we can. However, we need to be asking them how we can help rather than telling them how we're going to help but hey, not relevant to the topic.

I can see it, I'm just pointing out the fucking obvious. You can't put a conservative and an aboriginal on tv together they'll shred each other.

Of course there should be representation but like I said, I can see why they didn't.

Don't read too much into hijacked, it was not a deliberate use of the word.

So what? Why do you care what videos people post on FB. You can just as easily find 10x more videos stating the most disgusting racist rubbish against indigenous people. It's not about painting anyone today as "evil". Its about acknowledging the basic facts about our history.

If you asked 10 people on the street if they knew there were documented massacres of indigenous people into the 1920s and 1930s, how many do you think would say yes?

How many people don't realise that far from the british just "settling", there were ongoing frontier wars for decades, and decades of resistance by indigenous populations?



That may be how you view it. But my impression based on what people say is that they really don't care, and just don't want to hear about it because they have no interaction with indigenous people or culture, so they just don't care.



Rubbish - that is your impression. But to me, just accurately acknowledging historical facts has nothing to do with any "victim mentality". It's not being a victim to want history acknowledged, not at all.



Acknowledge that it occurred, that it is a historical reality, instead of brushing it aside and acting like nothing happened.



Good example - did you know that it is compulsory for all german schoolchildren to visit concentration camps so that they have a full understanding of their country's history from a young age?

Imagine if we forced all schoolchildren here to visit locations of massacres of the indigenous population? Or visit the reservations they were forced to live as slaves on?


Edited by AzzaMarch: 31/3/2016 05:37:12 PM

I don't think people have a problem with that at all and that's not what I'm getting at. You have to admit that many people today are influenced by the half grass indigenous people who burn flags and protest everywhere.

People can't acknowledge history if they're not taught it.



None. I didn't even know that. I'd say 1 in 100.



It's not taught at schools so I'd say it's far from the forefront of common knowledge.



Can you blame people? Honestly, what do you expect people to do? Seems like the issue is education, not people themselves.



I agree.

I'd love to see the reaction to you asking an aboriginal burning a flag on Australia day what they want.



That's essentially what I meant by empathetic in less words. Accept, understand and be empathetic to those who suffered and those who suffer now. Can't do much more than that.

You can't blame every day people for not being informed. The extent of the abuse is not taught. It's like blaming your neighbour for not understanding your religion. The reality is they have more pressing things to do.

Your issue should be with the curriculum taught at school, not with people who are just simply ignorant (myself included here).



Yes. I did exchange to Goppingen near Stuttgart. My host was forced to visit Dachau. She told me that they were basically told 'look at what your country did' as in to feel guilt for what happened. I strongly disagree with the mentality that today's generations are even remotely responsible for past indiscretions. Respect, empathy and understanding needs to be as far as it goes.

I'm all for going to the sites of massacres and sending kids there. Out of curiosity, are any of them controlled by the government and protected to your knowledge?

Whatever you want to call what happened in 1788 with the landing of the first fleet and the people on starting to live in Australia it certainly was not carried out by Captain Cook. The first fleet was lead by Arthur Phillip so it is his name not Cook's that should be being used in this thread.

Very true.

But the Gauls/Britons had cities and tangible things to actually take possession of instead of just the land itself.

According to the twisted logic in this thread (to 'suit one's narrative' as BETHFC would put it), China is welcome to launch a nuclear strike & subsequently take over Australia, because we weren't smart enough to have a missile defence system. Just don't call it an invasion......

You've always got 3AW talk back tomorrow morning to vent your confected outrage......

Australia was never invaded, the many aboriginal clans, peoples and "nations" were. Australia only came about afterwards.

An argument thats irrelevant. It has no baring on the countries future tbh. Move on.

They did have tangible "things". The main item of value WAS the land. I don't see why you think hunter-gatherer populations have less rights of ownership over the land they occupied than agricultural settlements did?

Its not the indigenous population's fault that they had no arable crops, or domesticable animals, in order to make farming viable.

Don't name drop because I called you out on your right wing BS you still refuse to substantiate.

Nice logical fallacy btw :lol:

What does "half grass indigenous people" mean?

Well yes they can. Thanks to the internet we all have a world of information at our fingertips. But I agree our education system is severely lacking.



I blame people to the extent that they don't put their hands up and say "I don't really know much on this topic, lets ask an indigenous person". No - people often have very strong opinions about what they think is wrong with indigenous people not "moving on", but are themselves incredibly ignorant of history.



I don't think this equates to being a 'victim'. It's a political statement made to upset the mainstream. Not very effective in my view. But I also don't think most indigenous Australians would be doing that.



Its not so much criticising because people are uninformed. It is the combination of being uninformed and having strident opinions. Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand.



I have no idea about this myself. My knowledge is that these places exist, but there is barely any commemoration or even markers at many sites. Mainly because the massacres were often carried out on behalf of the govt, so they obviously didn't want to mark out what they did!

Agree with your general criticism of Murdoch Rags. But his point on this topic is well made.

A lot of people seem to be saying "bad luck natives, you were outgunned by a superior force".

Take that logic to its reasonable conclusion and that is exactly what Rags is pointing out.

Once you agree with the concept of "Might Makes Right", you can't complain when you get outgunned yourself.

"Live by the sword, die by the sword".

Edited by AzzaMarch: 1/4/2016 09:16:10 AM

Essentially a common term for a city aboriginal. From experience, particularly at work (I've been to a couple of remote areas in western QLD - not aboriginal communities but towns with high aboriginal populations) aboriginals that don't live in big cities are far more open and easier to talk to than those who live the city life. Just my experience but it's a pretty stark contrast.

One of my colleagues from our Brisbane office is aboriginal and he acts as a director for a drilling contractor. As he is an aboriginal director of a company he gets a lot of work within these remote areas from the government, they encourage businesses with aboriginal directors. Hence why I spend time out there with his drill rigs as the supervising engineer.

You don't see many aboriginal people from small communities burning flags and being racist.



Who goes home to look that up though? I can't even be bothered doing my chartered engineering units let alone researching aboriginal history.

Thanks to the internet information which shows that mining isn't actually completely fucking the earth is available. However that doesn't stop even major political parties from opposing it :lol:



Irrespective of history it's still reasonable to want people to move on, especially if 'reconciliation' is what we're pushing these days.

I'd wager most people are sick to death of controversy regarding history we can't change irrespective of how informed they are. We have enough controvery in the media without trawling up history.



It's attention seeking. It is playing the victim at the same time. It's pretty much saying 'fuck you look what your people did' as in we as white people are responsible. To me that's playing the victim. It's looking for a reaction and sympathy for people who have done nothing wrong.



At what point are you allowed to have an opinion? That's like saying you can't have an opinion on mining because you don't know the in's and out's. People have opinions and we can't absorb every piece of information so we generalise.

Look at Murdoch's Rags. Look how strong his views on mining are. He's never spent more than a few hours (if any time) at a mine. Thousands are like him and they all bombard facebook and green websites with their opinions. Yet somehow their ignorant criticism is encouraged. I know it's apples and oranges but the premise is the same.

The sentiment is correct however I'm sick of the smug nonsense from Murdoch's Rags which is why I ignore his main points.

If China wanted to burn us all and salt the earth there's bugger all we can do to stop them. We would resent them and so would generations to come. At some point though you'd have to expect that after those directly affected have passed on, that the sentiment from the Chinese would be that we need to move on. The Chinese 'invaders' would die. Their children and children's children would say to us 'what can we do to change it'. Pretty much exactly what's happening with the indigenous here.

I'll direct this to you because I feel like you'll give a measured response, but I was on Wikipedia yesterday looking up aboriginal history and clicked on a link about colonization. At the bottom of the page, there is a few paragraphs on the colonization of Europe by middle eastern immigrants. The basis of colonization is the 'isolated' nature of many of the communities within countries like Germany and England (seen both first hand) backed up by the size and scale of these communities. Do you agree with this sentiment or is it drawing a long bow?

My opinion is that it's a stretch, these communities are still vastly outnumbered. However, applying the 'characteristics' of colonization is really the only thing that gives this theory any substance.

I know Waleed Aly is the flavour of the moment. But I think this article is actually really well written, and cuts to the chase of the issue:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-australia-lies-to-itself-about-its-indigenous-history-20160330-gnuo4t.html

Why Australia lies to itself about its Indigenous history

Every country has its weirdness, its reflex points that trigger spontaneous, uncontrolled actions that look almost comically irrational to the observer. It's the kind of thing you can only comprehend once you know the anatomy.

Take, for example, the United States' permanent weirdness on guns. Viewed from Australia – a nation that embraced gun control with relative (though not total) ease after a single massacre – it's gobsmacking that repeated mass shootings seem only to entrench positions rather than inspire a solution.

It's only when you grasp how guns have become totems of individual liberty and a principled distrust of government – and that these ideas constitute nothing less than the country's very reason for being – that you can begin to make sense of the madness.

So, beneath every weirdness most likely is a revelation. Not about the substance of whatever issue is in play, but about the essence of the nation grappling with it.

Debate about Indigenous history in Australia always descends into hysteria because it bruises our misplaced national pride.

Every country has its weirdness, its reflex points that trigger spontaneous, uncontrolled actions that look almost comically irrational to the observer. It's the kind of thing you can only comprehend once you know the anatomy.

Take, for example, the United States' permanent weirdness on guns. Viewed from Australia – a nation that embraced gun control with relative (though not total) ease after a single massacre – it's gobsmacking that repeated mass shootings seem only to entrench positions rather than inspire a solution.

It's only when you grasp how guns have become totems of individual liberty and a principled distrust of government – and that these ideas constitute nothing less than the country's very reason for being – that you can begin to make sense of the madness.

So, beneath every weirdness most likely is a revelation. Not about the substance of whatever issue is in play, but about the essence of the nation grappling with it.

For Australia, it's Indigenous history. The US may be caught in a cycle of tragedy and denial, but we simply do away with the cycle. For us it's a founding tragedy, then steadfast denial ever since. The specifics might change – terra nullius, the stolen generations – but the constant is a remarkable jumpiness at the very thought of facing the past. A jumpiness so powerfully reflexive, it doesn't matter how insignificant the stimulus.

This week it's a guide on "Indigenous Terminology" from the University of New South Wales. As documents go, it's resoundingly minor: an advisory list, likely to be read by very few people, that "clarifies appropriate language" on Indigenous history and culture. But that was enough to start the nation's most prolific outrage machines to humming.

"WHITEWASH", boomed The Daily Telegraph, taking particular exception at the guide's suggestion that Australia was not "settled" or "discovered" by the British, but rather "invaded, occupied and colonised". This instantly triggered the talkback reflex, with lines of angry callers – historians all, no doubt – venting with all the gusto Alan Jones or Ray Hadley could inspire in them. For colour, and certainly not content, Sydney radio host Kyle Sandilands joined the party, ensuring the meltdown covered all frequencies.

Where do you start? Perhaps with the Tele's remarkably sloppy allegation that "UNSW rewrites the history books to state Cook 'invaded' Australia". Of course, UNSW did no such thing. The reference to Cook is entirely a Telegraph invention. The guide talks of invasion but doesn't attribute it to James Cook, who had no army with which to invade. It's an extrapolation showing that not only does some editor or other know nothing about the history they're so keen to defend, but that they're also quite keen to rewrite the present.

Or perhaps you might begin with precisely which historical account does the rewriting: the one of "settlement" with its implications of an uninhabited continent, or the one whose language of invasion and colonisation implies the significant resistance of Indigenous people and the slaughter that flowed as a result?

All that history is well trodden. For now, it's the weirdness of this, and what it reveals, that interests me. Specifically: why is this hysterical response so entirely predictable? Why is it that the moment the language of invasion appears, we seem so instinctively threatened by it? This isn't the response of sober historical disagreement. It's more visceral than that. Elemental even. It's like any remotely honest appraisal of our history – even one contained in an obscure university guide – has the power to trigger some kind of existential meltdown. What strange insecurity is this?

An American observing this, perhaps even while carrying a gun, would be entitled to be bewildered. Theirs is a dark history too – one that encompasses indigenous dispossession, slavery and segregation – but it's a history they can hardly be accused of denying in the way we do.

Sure, indigenous American history is frequently ignored, but this is partly because it is buried beneath the sheer tonnage of black history that is so constantly rehearsed. There will be people in the US south who lament losing the Civil War, and who cling to the Confederate flag. But it's hard to imagine a public freak-out because a university wanted to discuss slavery. By now, slavery and its abolition are central parts of the American story. There might be varying degrees of honesty in the way the US tells that story, but it has typically found a way to incorporate its warts.

Why do we struggle so much more? Demography, sure. It's harder to brush aside the claims of 13 per cent of the population than the roughly 2 per cent of ours that is Indigenous. But it's also a function of national mythology.

The US is built on the idea of constant progress through individual liberty. It's a nation that is never finished, never perfect, but always being perfected. Its historical scars are therefore not fatal to its identity. Indeed, they are essential because they allow Americans to tell a story of their own perfectibility. In these hands, slavery is not simply a stain, but a symbol of how far they've come. So, in the process of acknowledging slavery, the US is celebrated, not condemned.

We're not like that. We struggle with our history because once we admit it, we have nowhere to go with it; no way of rehabilitating our pride; no way of understanding ourselves. As a nation, we lack a national mythology that can cope with our shortcomings. That transforms our historical scars into fatal psychological wounds, leaving us with a bizarre need to insist everything was – and is – as good as it gets.

That's the true meaning of the love-it-or-leave-it ethos that so stubbornly persists. We don't want to be improved in any thorough way, because for us that seems to imply thorough imperfections.

Instead, we want to be praised, to be acknowledged as a success. It's a kind of national supplication, a constant search for validation. And history's fine, as long as it serves that purpose. But if it dares step out of line, it can expect to be slapped swiftly with the Sandilands dictum until it changes the subject: "you're full of shit, just get on with life". Then we can be comfortable again.


Edited by AzzaMarch: 1/4/2016 09:57:01 AM

by muslims



Edited by condemned666: 1/4/2016 10:59:36 AM

Very interesting read AzzaMarch ... I wonder if psychologists have studied the Australian mentality / culture to this aspect??

it's not up to white people to decide whether it was an invasion or not.

if it upsets your shitty world view to have the events factually named - then you have some serious personal issues.


the brittish invaded the countries on the island and proceeded with genocide and the systematic annihilation against the first peoples of the island.

we need to acknowledge that we are living a lie. there needs to be a treaty. there is nothing wrong with accepting the past for what is was and taking the right steps that reflect the real lived history.

Edited by inala brah: 1/4/2016 12:04:53 PM