I agree. Perhaps rather than calling them invaders, they should rather call them conquerers. But I suppose that would be provocative and patronisers , so let's just call them invaders instead.

Yeah it doesn't exist, pal. It's illegal, as per the Nuremberg Principles and United Nations resolution 3314.

That doesn't mean non-Indigenous Australians should be kicked out of their homes. What it does mean is that British settlement of this country amounted to invasion from the perspective of Indigenous Australians.

What about from the non indigenous perspective? Why not teach in textbooks that Australia was conquered by the British? Isnt that as historically factual as invaded?

We're talking semantics. Either way, it involved going around and shooting a loads of natives (or giving them poisoned flour, when in the right mood) and taking their land.

One man's conqueror is another man's invader and slaughterer.

I said in another post that HMG should be apologising too (and not just to Indigenous Australians, also to Indians, Pakistanis, Irish, Kenyans, etc.).

The difference is that HMG and the British people aren't profiting today from the misappropriation of land belonging to Indigenous Australians.

By the way, things like massacres and flour-poisoning were carried out into the 20th century, by which time Australia had federated. Suspicious deaths in custody still happen.

A family friend who is a judge carried out inspections of this kind of thing in remote Aboriginal communities and was absolutely disgusted.

Finally, I don't think that either HMG nor the Australian Government should be prosecuted or anything like that. But it wouldn't be the first time people have been prosecuted for crimes against which there were no laws when those crimes were committed. Nuremberg saw to that (albeit the justice there was rather hypocritical, imo).

Acknowledging that this amounted to invasion is one thing that the Australian Government and HMG can do.

No alive today took the land, we were born here like them so we all have an equal right?

To make 'white fella' apologise or the term 'white guilt/privilege' is a ridiculous notion. Those two things are pretty much racial profiling themselves.

Time to move forward.

Edit: horrible wording but you get the point ;)

Edited by Slygoat36: 5/4/2016 04:28:43 AM

I'm not talking about aus. I'm 50/50 on that. More the Middle East, Asian and South American invasions we've been allies to over the last 50 years.

the law 200 years work like this...if you was weak you lost, if you was strong you won

and lets look what Russia did in Crimea, and with what they are doing today to the Crimean Tatar

or China doing in the south seas

Haha sorry you missed the joke :cry:

-PB

Story of my life :cry:

A lot of the long diatribes from the right wingers in this thread is all just a smoke screen for the fact that they are racist people. Plain & simple (oops, I'll take that pun as intended :cool: )

Exactly what laws were broken 200 years ago that made it illegal? I'm pretty sure it was perfectly legal according to all the governments of the world that mattered

If you were sincere you would acknowledge your illegal invader status, get off the land you dispossessed from the indigenous and move to another country. But rather than taking any serious action it's much easier to take the moral high ground.

non-sequitur

No no, don’t cop out. You’re illegally occupying foreign land that was forcefully stolen from the indigenous, what have you done, other than taking the moral high ground, paying cheap lip service, and issuing the racism card to right wingers, to address this gross injustice? Have you spoken to the local indigenous to seek permission to live on the land you stole from them and have you considered them paying back rent and reparations for participating in their cultural desecration? You need to confront your direct involvement in the continued oppression of aboriginal Australians, by trying to shame right wingers doesn’t suddenly give you clean hands, your still an illegal occupier, invader and oppressor. If you don’t take direct action against the status quo then it can only be inferred that you passively support the illegal occupation of Australia.

Lmao, Rusty =d>

More arm waving to justify inaction. Like you righties do with global warming by going to the extreme and suggest we go back to living in caves (not surprising, considering the dichotomous brain). People of more critical thinking can see through it.
The topic of discussion is a label of 'invasion'.

So i'll take that as you've done sweet fuck all aside from taking the moral high ground and spout bullshit. Thanks for clearing that up

Why would returning the land to Aboriginals , which was originally stolen from them, be deemed an extreme? Is it legally their land correct? Surely returning it to them would simply be an active of restorative justice, giving them back what is theirs, what is extreme about that? And as owners of the land it's really up to them to decide if we can continue to inhabit it , and what punishments and reparations should be made following the centuries of genocide, subjugation and destruction we have caused to their people and culture.

Surely people of critical thinking would see past their privilege and acknowledge their own guilt and responsibility in condoning the status quo and inaction, and take immediate steps to rectify it rather than seemingly washing their hands by appropriating blame to right wingers.

But then again, maybe you're not a person who thinks critically.

That's not fair man, He probably sat in the middle of Flinders street for an hour on a random Friday morning!!!!!!!

Legally the land belongs to the name that is on the certificate of title. So legally most of the land in Australia does not belong to the indigenous populations. No one is suggesting that land should be returned to it's "ownership" pre 1788 (considering mapping of indigenous tribal areas is so subjective and divisive, without even considering legal ownership, I would imagine it would be near on impossible to do ascertain "ownership" boundaries anyway).

To do what you are suggesting rusty the government would have to compensate every landowner in Australia (at market value) and then hand over the title to indigenous people (let's say they form a national / state body to act on the behalf of their people) for free. I don't think the government could pay the compensation (especially as it will have to displace 98% of the population of Australia who pay taxes to finance government).

Edited by sokorny: 5/4/2016 01:40:22 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5OlBT2OcGg

Love Murdoch douche getting savagely roasted. Its beautiful.

I'm no Murdoch Rags fan but you all look as foolish as him tbh.

Once again, the issue is about attributing the label of invasion
Pretty basic concept. No critical thinking required, supposedly.
If you truly believe certain land should be repatriated, feel free to start a thread for discussion.

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 5/4/2016 02:11:34 PM

How foolish of me to raise this topic.....

When it couldve peen put in the politics thread.

Yes.

The topic is fine, and to be honest your last page of responses have been reasonable. That doesn't excuse you for your 1 dimensional arguments that you use 90% of the time.

So that's what people's issue is? It was raised in the wrong thread & shouldn't be stand alone?
If moderators deemed it so, are they unable to shift it?

Pure cop out. The issue of aboriginal land rights is obviously a natural extension of the invasion debate. If you don't feel comfortable confronting your white male privilege and current illegal alien status there are plenty of neo nazi fascist forums where I think you will feel more at home.