Yep and if you think the arrival of the Europeans, that resulted in a severe loss of life ( indigenous population reduced by 90% in just over 100 years) wasn't an invasion, then a bit more research wouldn't hurt. Loss of land, health, language, culture, lifestyle..... much of which continues today, 200 years later, they still suffer from the ramifications of that 'invasion.'No need to misrepresent to take a stance. Too much of that going on in this thread. I've been amply clear that colonisation was a brutal and at times violent, process of dispossession, displacement and subjugation of indigenous populations. Not sure why so many Goodes advocates have been so willing misrepresent and/or label posters they don't agree with.
The idea of an invasion is a back engineered concept based not on what happened in 1788, but on the result of what proceeded to occur gradually (comparative to an actual invasion) over the next generation or two. If you actually think 700 convicts and their overseers, their wives and children, setting up camp and trading with the locals was an invasion, there's not much I can say.
So it wasn't even colonisation at all now? Wow. Getting weirder by the second.