Rudd Government wants to erect a "aboringal wars" memorial

[Mr Q]

There were plenty of parts of Australia that are great for farming and agriculture.. that is just a fact.

Absolutely. Now, take only Australian native animals and vegetation. What are you going to farm?

I'm not even sure what this has to do with this bullshit thing about "aboriginal wars". having a bit of a skirmish with the locals is hardly a "war" and you are in lala-land if you think this kind of idea isn't laced with more politics and white man's guilt than you can poke a stick at.

Oh, it's OK to displace entire people if you can claim it was "only a few skirmishes". Riiiight. It doesn't take a specific declaration of war to make something a war. The fact the British used "terra nullius" as a justification for taking the land - a virtual declaration that the Aboriginal people weren't actually there - doesn't mean they weren't and that they weren't driven off the land they had used for millennia.

We came here, the natives were primitives who we barely interested in us initially and they want to call it an invasion, and now we have a couple of disputes and they want to call it a war. give me a break.

Of course it's an invasion. There were a group of people living here, then another group came and took over the land, displacing the original inhabitants. I'd like to know how it *isn't* an invasion. Just because there wasn't an easily recognisable system of government in place doesn't mean the people living here weren't here.

The fact it was so one-sided that there wasn't any need for pitched battles doesn't mean it wasn't pretty bad, and that it can't be described as a war. The reality is that the British colonists used armed force to displace the native population.

 

[Mr Q]

There were plenty of parts of Australia that are great for farming and agriculture.. that is just a fact.

Absolutely. Now, take only Australian native animals and vegetation. What are you going to farm?

I'm not even sure what this has to do with this bullshit thing about "aboriginal wars". having a bit of a skirmish with the locals is hardly a "war" and you are in lala-land if you think this kind of idea isn't laced with more politics and white man's guilt than you can poke a stick at.

Oh, it's OK to displace entire people if you can claim it was "only a few skirmishes". Riiiight. It doesn't take a specific declaration of war to make something a war. The fact the British used "terra nullius" as a justification for taking the land - a virtual declaration that the Aboriginal people weren't actually there - doesn't mean they weren't and that they weren't driven off the land they had used for millennia.

You don't have to feel guilt about it - but to completely fail to acknowledge that it happened is sticking your head in the sand. I recall my grandfather telling me that his father was a violent drunk - now I don't feel guilt for that, as I'm not a drunk of any sort, but not acknowledging that my ancestor was a pretty s**t person doesn't change the fact he was.

We came here, the natives were primitives who we barely interested in us initially and they want to call it an invasion, and now we have a couple of disputes and they want to call it a war. give me a break.

Of course it's an invasion. There were a group of people living here, then another group came and took over the land, displacing the original inhabitants. I'd like to know how it *isn't* an invasion. Just because there wasn't an easily recognisable system of government in place doesn't mean the people living here weren't here.

The fact it was so one-sided that there wasn't any need for pitched battles doesn't mean it wasn't pretty bad, and that it can't be described as a war. The reality is that the British colonists used armed force to displace the native population.

The one thing I find really interesting is that it's the same people that trumpet that we should all feel pride in Australia because of what's happened in the past don't want to even acknowledge the other bits of the past that don't reflect so well....

 

[TheBloods]

The fact the British used "terra nullius" as a justification for taking the land - a virtual declaration that the Aboriginal people weren't actually there - doesn't mean they weren't and that they weren't driven off the land they had used for millennia.

Of course it's an invasion.

You can't have both. The British claimed Australia by terra nullius not right of conquest, and this is critical in the Mabo claim. As a result it's hard to argue invasion and conquest given the law says it isn't.

 

[Mr Q]

You can't have both. The British claimed Australia by terra nullius not right of conquest, and this is critical in the Mabo claim. As a result it's hard to argue invasion and conquest given the law says it isn't.

Oh? It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but it's actually a goose?

 

[Belnakor]

Absolutely. Now, take only Australian native animals and vegetation. What are you going to farm?



Oh, it's OK to displace entire people if you can claim it was "only a few skirmishes". Riiiight. It doesn't take a specific declaration of war to make something a war.

Nonsense. 1) it wasn't the "entire people" and even if it was, an invasion is not the correct discription. more like colonized.
2) I think it takes more than just saying its a war to make it a war too mate. What part of the settlement do you think gives people the right to call it a "war"?

You don't have to feel guilt about it - but to completely fail to acknowledge that it happened is sticking your head in the sand. I recall my grandfather telling me that his father was a violent drunk - now I don't feel guilt for that, as I'm not a drunk of any sort, but not acknowledging that my ancestor was a pretty s**t person doesn't change the fact he was.

Maybe you shoudl go around and also apologise to everyone your grandfather hurt too. Thats what we're expected to do with the aboriginals. whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Of course it's an invasion. There were a group of people living here, then another group came and took over the land, displacing the original inhabitants. I'd like to know how it *isn't* an invasion. Just because there wasn't an easily recognisable system of government in place doesn't mean the people living here weren't here.

We didn't go in to australia to inslave and take over the aboriginal "government" did we? We showed up, and settled an area. A best you could say we stole the land, but we didn't go around and try to enslave the aboriginals.

 

[TheBloods]

Oh? It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but it's actually a goose?

You are arguing the law and hence the Mabo case are wrong?

 

[Mr Q]

Nonsense. 1) it wasn't the "entire people" and even if it was, an invasion is not the correct discription. more like colonized.
2) I think it takes more than just saying its a war to make it a war too mate. What part of the settlement do you think gives people the right to call it a "war"?

A rose by any other name's a fish? That seems to be your argument.

Of course it was an invasion. Let me run through it in simple terms for you:

1. Aborginies occupied the entire land
2. British people arrived
3. British used force to evict Aborigines from the land
4. Aborigines were displaced.

I guess the Normans never "invaded" England either, they just colonised it. Or the British in Northern Ireland. Or the whites of South Africa etc...

As for why they get to call it a war: Both sides fought and died - though the vast majority of the dying was done on one side. The British colonists used deadly force, both as civilians and by military to evict the Aborigines from the land they previously occupied. It's a war, plain and simple. There were battles (one sided as they were), massacres and guerrilla tactics (on both sides).

All you want to do is deny that the Aborigines had a prior claim to the land based on being their before the British colonists.

We didn't go in to australia to inslave and take over the aboriginal "government" did we? We showed up, and settled an area. A best you could say we stole the land, but we didn't go around and try to enslave the aboriginals.

Of course not. "We" had no part in it personally. Our ancestors though also had no intention of enslaving or taking over the aboriginal people. Mostly because they tried hard to make a legal case that they weren't even there.

Terra nullius was a clearly flawed principle for taking the land, as it clearly wasn't unoccupied at the time. However since you can't go back and undo two centuries of change (and anyway, had the British not invaded, the French would have), you have to live with the changes. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't have recognition that wrongs were done, and memorials so that those wrongs aren't forgotten.


(incidentally, the point about my great-grandfather is that I can admit that my ancestors aren't all wonderful people without feeling guilty personally about it. Had he been a murdering cnut for instance, I'd certainly be embarrassed about it, and be sorry it happened, but I'd still not have a problem recognising there were less than savoury characters among my ancestors. "Sorry" doesn't have to imply personal guilt, just a recognition that things that were wrong happened, and that we don't want them happening again)

 

[medusala]

1. Aborginies occupied the entire land

Given the population estimates by various people is that correct? There werent large swathes of unoccupied land?

I guess the Normans never "invaded" England either, they just colonised it. Or the British in Northern Ireland. Or the whites of South Africa etc...

Thats a tricky one. Should the anglo saxons claim land rights against the Normans and then the Welsh claim land rights against the Anglo Saxons?

Should I claim back ancestral land in France?

All you want to do is deny that the Aborigines had a prior claim to the land based on being their before the British colonists.

What prior claim? As per Welsh/Briton land rights claim its not a runner.

"Sorry" doesn't have to imply personal guilt, just a recognition that things that were wrong happened, and that we don't want them happening again)

Why doesnt this apply to white people as above? Why such selectivity?

Aboriginal tribes were often at war with each other. That however would seeem to be irrelevant. As would whites taking each others land in other countries.

 

[little graham]

Should it only commemorate the aboriginal people killed though?

I think its a great idea to reflect on the violence that marred (some) of our colonisation, but its a bit patronising to aboriginal people to suggest that it was all one-way. There was some fairly fierce resistance (Pemulway, Yagan et al). Why not commemorate the dead on both sides in the conflict?

Should we have memorials for the camp guards at Auschwitz who died there? Why not commemorate the dead on both sides?

Hey guys,

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23826276-2,00.html

has anyone cast their eye over this? This is an absolute disgrace and is just indictive of the kind of PC stance that the Rudd government is going to take on everything.

First Rudd wants to rewrite the "stolen" generation, and now he is up to more mischief - next he'll want to rename australia day "invasion day"

Tell us about the stolen generation, what you think happened

Tell us why is there memorials in RSL to whites who died in these wars, why is there memorials in RSL's for whites who left here and fought in the maori wars. Don't say you didn't know. ignorance is no excuse when you're inappropriate and racist.

Europe's population was a little different to a bunch of hunter gatherers wondering around the desert and not being able to converse with other tribes.

In alot of the communities when there a wedding, all the neighboring tribes would turn up.They had areas near their borders used for such purposes. The kaurna , permangk and nadjeri would hold wedding on the banks of what now is the little para river in Gawler, a river that bordered by these three tribes. There's a nice park there now, post office across the road. People even get wedding photos there, there's still red gums older than white man society.

The permangk used to take part of the umbilical cord of a new born and give it to someone thousands of k's away. generally in what now is victoria or NSW somewhere. That person would eat it, forever be connected to the that new born. blood brothers.

Slate from the Nukunu lands , now know as Telowie gorge was used as tools to clean wallaby and roo skins. They used to trade them with other tribes. The slate has been found in Queensland. There's a bloke used to own amine at what now is mount William. the rock he mined made the best dam weights for killing spears in the whole continent. If you want some for your killing spears, you had to trade with him.

There is so much of this out there for anyone wishing to learn. a good privately owned bookshop is the first place to look.

You are an ignorant racist piece of s**t.

if you mean "getting the flu and dying" ?

Theres nothing moving there - the Aboriginals were a bunch of primitive cave men who were several stages of evolution behind us.

The terrible white man has lifted their average age of death from 25 to 45, and they no longer are forced to live off the land in the manner of animals.

How many 22 year olds can you see here?

There is nothing "technical' about telling the truth - its either true, or false. Truth is the best defense against libel as they say!

There were plenty of parts of Australia that are great for farming and agriculture.. that is just a fact.

I'm not even sure what this has to do with this bullshit thing about "aboriginal wars". having a bit of a skirmish with the locals is hardly a "war" and you are in lala-land if you think this kind of idea isn't laced with more politics and white man's guilt than you can poke a stick at.

We came here, the natives were primitives who we barely interested in us initially and they want to call it an invasion, and now we have a couple of disputes and they want to call it a war. give me a break.

Nonsense. 1) it wasn't the "entire people" and even if it was, an invasion is not the correct discription. more like colonized.
2) I think it takes more than just saying its a war to make it a war too mate. What part of the settlement do you think gives people the right to call it a "war"?


Maybe you shoudl go around and also apologise to everyone your grandfather hurt too. Thats what we're expected to do with the aboriginals. whats good for the goose is good for the gander.



We didn't go in to australia to inslave and take over the aboriginal "government" did we? We showed up, and settled an area. A best you could say we stole the land, but we didn't go around and try to enslave the aboriginals.

You made your point, but its uneducated rubbish.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

Yeesh, this blast from the past makes for some sad, grim reading. The posts of Belnakor are creepy. That is a one seriously racist unit!

 

[Maggie5]

Looking at the photos on this page reminded me of a project my grand-daughter (10) was working on at her school. Looking at food gathering, types of food and housing of early Aborigines etc. I asked her if she enjoyed working on the project.
She said, no, as looking through the internet and the photos, it made her sad.
About sums up the views of some people here.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Should we have memorials for the camp guards at Auschwitz who died there? Why not commemorate the dead on both sides?

Poor analogy mate.

An ancestor (great granddad's would be uncle in law) of mine was speared to death at 13 years of age.

What crime did he commit?


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Gus Poyet]

Must be the most piss weak invasion in history though. Couple of ships turn up and bam. Conquered.

 

[Grin]

Must be the most piss weak invasion in history though. Couple of ships turn up and bam. Conquered.

This is a good example of why we need a memorial.
Ignorant views like this are probably still common amongst the stupid and intellectually lazy.

 

[Gus Poyet]

This is a good example of why we need a memorial.
Ignorant views like this are probably still common amongst the stupid and intellectually lazy.

It's not ignorant. Incredibly factual.

Idiots who use the term "invasion" to appease their moronic views need to go back to history class and study up on legitimate invasions throughout history.

Australia was never invaded. People simply arrived and took possession of it with minimal resistance bar a few small skirmishes along the way.

 

[Grin]

It's not ignorant. Incredibly factual.

Incredibly ignorant and not factual at all

Idiots who use the term "invasion" to appease their moronic views need to go back to history class and study up on legitimate invasions throughout history.

Australia was never invaded. People simply arrived and took possession of it with minimal resistance bar a few small skirmishes along the way.

This is a another good example of why we need a memorial.
Again, Ignorant views like this are probably still common amongst the stupid and intellectually lazy.

 

[Gus Poyet]

Incredibly ignorant and not factual at all


This is a another good example of why we need a memorial.
Again, Ignorant views like this are probably still common amongst the stupid and intellectually lazy.

Incredibly factual.

The Spanish Armada of 1588 was an invasion force.
The arrival of the first fleet was not.

Only morons will compare the two and state they were designed for the same purpose.

In fact if the first fleet had arrived equipped as they were and met an organised well prepared resistance force they would most likely have been wiped out. Just as happened to a similar party who first arrived in America.

They were not equipped for an invasion, they were equipped for colonisation. Thus they arrived with transportation and store ships, not war ships. I'll say that again just so it sinks into your brain... Thus they arrived with transportation and store ships, not war ships.

You get that yes?

Maybe not, you seem to have missed the whole convicts, women and children fact.

 

[Belnakor]

There's a bloke used to own amine at what now is mount William. the rock he mined made the best dam weights for killing spears in the whole continent. If you want some for your killing spears, you had to trade with him.

Rock/Stone was really important to aborigines because you know, they were in the stone age when the Europeans arrived.

 

[telsor]

Fair enough then. It was an invasion.

If it was an invasion, then clearly the land belongs to the Brits and their descendants by right of conquest.

That solves all issues with 'land rights'. There are none.

I suppose we could erect monuments to the aboriginal wars, although like most such things, they'd be dedicated to the victors.

 

[Maggie5]

No sure that Human Rights would agree with your assessment or are you saying it is okay to plunder/encroach on other people/countries?
Not sure that invasion is the right word, I prefer massacre.

 

[telsor]

No sure that Human Rights would agree with your assessment or are you saying it is okay to plunder/encroach on other people/countries?
Not sure that invasion is the right word, I prefer massacre.

Would we agree to it now, no.

But history is filled with invasions/conquests, some more recent than this, and there is simply no way we can roll them back.

When do we stop wringing hands and accept the fact that it happened and move on?

I don't see a big move by the French (Franks) to hand their country back to the Celts.

 

[Maggie5]

When do we stop wringing hands and accept the fact that it happened and move on?

Nothing wrong in trying to right some wrongs if we can though.

 

[telsor]

Nothing wrong in trying to right some wrongs if we can though.

It can be.

2 problems this creates.
1. The angst and self loathing for the 'crimes of our forefathers' (even if they weren't here, we're still responsible it seems) doesn't exactly make for a happy an positive society.
2 A lot of it seems to hurt the Aboriginal people more than it ever seems to help, in no small part to creating a victim/handout mentality and a desperate need to hang onto their roots in order to receive those handouts rather than accept that like most cultures as time moves on, some aspects need to be discarded in order to accept and be a part of the world as it is.

 

[Maggie5]

It can be.

2 problems this creates.
1. The angst and self loathing for the 'crimes of our forefathers' (even if they weren't here, we're still responsible it seems) doesn't exactly make for a happy an positive society.
2 A lot of it seems to hurt the Aboriginal people more than it ever seems to help, in no small part to creating a victim/handout mentality and a desperate need to hang onto their roots in order to receive those handouts rather than accept that like most cultures as time moves on, some aspects need to be discarded in order to accept and be a part of the world as it is.

Slight over complicating of things I think.

 

[telsor]

Slight over complicating of things I think.

The point is that if attempting to fix a problem creates more (bigger) problems, then trying to fix the problem is wrong.