Australian researchers lay bare bloody history of colonial massacres

[xylophone]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It is of course easy to point at alcohol and drug abuse as a cause of problems within a cultural group, but it is worth asking the question ‘are these symptoms rather than causes?’

 

Across the globe we see evidence that when the culture and social structures of identifiable ‘cultral groups’ is destroyed or significantly disrupted the ‘group’ will exhibit these same common outcomes of alcoholism, drug abuse and social breakdown.

I have often wondered about this especially as regards the Australian and New Zealand aboriginal peoples and the native Americans as well, and I came to something which seems reasonable...........

 

In those societies, they were pretty well freeroaming (within reason) and hunted or grew or picked enough to feed the families and see them through the hard times and where those resources became scarce, they moved on and did the same again.

 

These societies had no need of industry as we know it, workplaces, strict workplace structures, competition among workmates, salary structures and so on, or even fitting into any other society apart from that which they knew. And even ownership of anything other than just the basics was not practised as such.

 

Then came along the white man (I'm not racist) and started to impose all of the things that we have in our society on those indigenous people who were mostly hunter/gatherers and had no comprehension of all of the things I have mentioned above and therefore didn't fit because they couldn't see how it fitted their culture.

 

So these people were pushed aside in the great "march of progress" and the later "Industrial Revolution" and so on, and basically settled for the handouts which they were given by the governments because it was the easiest thing to do, this apart from some indigenous folk who decided to get an education and learn all of these ways so that they could help their own folk in the future, some of which has become successful, and much of which hasn't.

 

Therefore a culture of living off government welfare has become ingrained in the indigenous people from my country and generations have learnt this and how to milk it is best they can and that's exactly what they do.

 

In all honesty, I cannot see that it is the fault of the now generation, this especially if their counterparts in the aboriginal peoples are not bothered about learning or working, but on just drawing the dole. One glimmer of hope I seem to recall was where welfare payments would be stopped if jobs were offered and not taken.

 

Anyway that's getting onto a whole different subject but in a nutshell, what has happened in the past, is in the past and provided some things have been done to right some of the wrongs and also to bring these peoples up to living in the modern day, then that's about all I believe should be done.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by xylophone

[Odysseus123]

20 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Unfortunately, some don't realise that by not condemning such behaviour, one places one's self in the danger of finding one's self in the other side of the stick should fortunes be reversed.  

Yes,

It is an interesting history.

 

Because Aboriginal septs or tribes were quite small the deaths of the males due to violent  action was disproportionate to  the numbers involved-but totally  catastrophic.

 

My personal belief is that anyone who knowlingly kills a defenseless woman or a child should burn in hell for perpetuity-but that is just me.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_Creek_massacre

Edited July 28, 2018 by Odysseus123

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

My personal believe is that anyone who kills a defenseless woman or a child should burn in hell for perpetuity-but that is just me.

 I couldn't agree more!

but since I don't believe in Heaven or  Hell , I say let's make their lives a living hell now,

I think the concept of heaven and hell  and a later reward or punishment was created by those who desire an ill gotten  reward now but want to defer punishment for later, Much later LOL

[Odysseus123]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 I couldn't agree more!

but since I don't believe in Heaven or  Hell , I say let's make their lives a living hell now,

I think the concept of heaven and hell  and a later reward or punishment was created by those who desire an ill gotten  reward now but want to defer punishment for later, Much later LOL

I dunno....

 

I think Shakespeare was right.

 

I am not being "Christian" here but I am applying the 'Golden rule'

 

If we ever want to rise above the chimpanzee/bonobo level then we must stop killing defenseless women and children.

 

Until that day..may they burn in hell.

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

I dunno....

 

I think Shakespeare was right.

 

I am not being "Christian" here but I am applying the 'Golden rule'

 

If we ever want to rise above the chimpanzee/bonobo level then we must stop killing defenseless women and children.

 

Until that day..may they burn in hell.

 I think that Shakespeare fellow should stop saying crap and raining on my parade?  LOL

 

[Odysseus123]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

 I think that Shakespeare fellow should stop saying crap and raining on my parade?  LOL

 

You and I both know that our parades have been rained upon long ago...(cats 'n dogs)

Refreshing ain't it??

[tropo]

2 hours ago, Thaidream said:

 As an American I do not feel personally responsible for  destruction of the Indian Nations or slavery; but as a human being- I can only wonder what went through a person's mind and what was their moral compass to have assumed that the Native Americans needed to be destroyed and their land stolen and that it was all right to bring slaves from Africa to America; subjugate them as cheap labor and deny them human rights. How does one human being do that to another human being?

 

You say this now, centuries later, with the benefit of history. Don't confuse that with enlightenment. I'm pretty sure you and most others would be doing exactly the same if we were born in that geographical location, in that time period. It's luck of the draw - where and when you were born. 

 

3 hours ago, Thaidream said:

I would put  all of it whether in America or Australia or any other country to a feeling of superiority and arrogance as well as intolerance and downright racism. As a people, we owe it to the descendants of  these agrieved peoples to somehow right the wrong. 

 

All of our countries share a certain amount of guilt by destroying  the culture of the original inhabitants ; relegating them to reservations or in some cases concentration camps and forcing a new culture on them that they never wanted or possibly needed.  No amount of money can ever make it right but treating these people with respect and equal rights might make it better.

You talk of arrogance and superiority, yet you come off as feeling arrogant and superior to the "bad" people who perpetrated these atrocities centuries back. We're all the same - just a product of time and place. You can't judge people centuries back for what they did as they all had their own personal hells to live through. We are unaware of the daily stresses that these people had to cope with. Most of their actions would have been out of fear. For example, across the sea in NZ, the Maoris were fearless warriors. If you didn't kill them, for sure they would kill you. It was survival.

[sirineou]

6 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

You and I both know that our parades have been rained upon long ago...(cats 'n dogs)

Refreshing ain't it??

 I also  love a parade, rain or not.

You my friend have a very positive attitude. As Leonidas said when the Persians threaten to block the sun with their arrows, " then we will fight in the shade"

[Morch]

53 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 Indeed you have not and I did not mean to imply that you have , that is why I asked the question  that just though some might exploit history for their own political goals (an assertion I agree with and said so)   " do you mean we should not examine  history?  a question you did not answer.   So IMO it is you who is setting up strowman arguments deflecting from answering  the above question.

 

I am not dogging, it in fact I answered it in post # 30 where I said "The facts as supported by documentation  will determine the honesty of the report.   " which is ofcourse what the academics in the OP are trying to document, I am sure if someone disagrees with the findings , someone can debunk such findings with opposing documentation. 

So it is not a "who" that decides but rather a what.

 

Again, there was nothing in my posts which supports your interpretation. As for the question you claim I did not answer, that's incorrect. Try reading again. My comments were more along the lines of not accepting your assertions "as is", but bearing  in mind what I consider to be important caveats.

 

Your answer is no  answer. If you've ever done any research in related fields, you'll be aware that this isn't quite hard science. Facts are not as solid, and their interpretation tends to change over time. Being an academic does not imply one is necessarily objective or able to disassociate academic work from political views. The way you put it somehow treats academics, facts and research as neutral - I know reality is often very different. 

 

It is both who and what. That you insist otherwise is truly bizarre.

[Odysseus123]

Just now, sirineou said:

 I also  love a parade, rain or not.

You my friend have a very positive attitude. As Leonidas said when the Persians threaten to block the sun with their arrows, " then we will fight in the shade"

Well..there were only 299 Spartans at the pass.

 

One of history's little squiggles..

 

The interesting fact was that  the Australian Aborigines were,in their social construct,too fragile-unlike the Maori- to withstand the catastrophe which was to overwhelm them..

 

It was,indeed,the last frontier.

[sirineou]

7 minutes ago, tropo said:

You say this now, centuries later, with the benefit of history. Don't confuse that with enlightenment. I'm pretty sure you and most others would be doing exactly the same if we were born in that geographical location, in that time period. It's luck of the draw - where and when you were born. 

 I agree that hindsight is 20/20 , and proper historical perspective is appropriate. But (LOL there is always a but) Firstly I would like to think that some of us would have raised above contemporary norms, and indeed some have. Also I don't see why we keep on bringing the " historical concept argument" no one is making value judgement in the OP . 

[sirineou]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

Try reading again. My comments were more along the lines of not accepting your assertions "as is", but bearing  in mind what I consider to be important caveats.

 as I said the caveats are obvious and not in disagreement. You don't see to want to take Yes as an answer.

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

Your answer is no  answer. If you've ever done any research in related fields, you'll be aware that this isn't quite hard science. Facts are not as solid, and their interpretation tends to change over time

Since you insist on caveats I believe the  IMO caveat is applicable in the above.

 Quote from the OP: "Historians from the University of Newcastle said they had drawn on settler diaries, contemporary newspaper reports, evidence from indigenous groups and state and federal archives to attempt to catalogue the violence for the first time.  " 

I would assert that "contemporary newspaper reports, and and state and federal archives"   are hard evidence.

[tropo]

17 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 I agree that hindsight is 20/20 , and proper historical perspective is appropriate. But (LOL there is always a but) Firstly I would like to think that some of us would have raised above contemporary norms, and indeed some have. Also I don't see why we keep on bringing the " historical concept argument" no one is making value judgement in the OP . 

Not everyone who posts in a thread is responding directly to the OP,  but other members posts. That's just the way forum threads develop.

 

You'd like to think that you would have been special and above contemporary norms. It is possible, but pioneers in human rights were a rare breed, so the chances are slim that you or any of us would have been special. Most human rights champions were Christians, yet these days, Christians are generally mocked. The idea that all humans were created equal is a Christian concept. As far as evolutionists are concerned, we're all just meat, trying to get ahead and survive.

Edited July 28, 2018 by tropo

[Odysseus123]

9 minutes ago, tropo said:

Not everyone who posts in a thread is responding directly to the OP,  but other members posts. That's just the way forum threads develope.

 

You'd like to think that you would have been special and above contemporary norms. It is possible, but pioneers in human rights were a rare breed, so the chances are slim that you or any of us would have been special. Most human rights champions were Christians, yet these days, Christians are generally mocked. The idea that all humans were created equal is a Christian concept. As far as evolutionists are concerned, we're all just meat, trying to get ahead and survive.

Yes,

But the curious thing is that there are often people above contemporary norms..

 

There were people who certainly protested about the treatment of the Khoori people but often it is  a case of what to do..the past is never static.

 

A proud day  for Australia..

 

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by Odysseus123

[sirineou]

9 minutes ago, tropo said:

Not everyone who posts in a thread is responding directly to the OP,  but other members posts. That's just the way forum threads develop.

 

You'd like to think that you would have been special and above contemporary norms. It is possible, but pioneers in human rights were a rare breed, so the chances are slim that you or any of us would have been special. Most human rights champions were Christians, yet these days, Christians are generally mocked. The idea that all humans were created equal is a Christian concept. As far as evolutionists are concerned, we're all just meat, trying to get ahead and survive.

 I know I am "special" my Mom told Me so 

[overherebc]

1 hour ago, Odysseus123 said:

I dunno....

 

I think Shakespeare was right.

 

I am not being "Christian" here but I am applying the 'Golden rule'

 

If we ever want to rise above the chimpanzee/bonobo level then we must stop killing defenseless women and children.

 

Until that day..may they burn in hell.

I reckon if we manage to rise up to the level of so called primates we might do better.

How many chimps buy a bigger car than their neighbour to impress them?

[Odysseus123]

10 minutes ago, overherebc said:

I reckon if we manage to rise up to the level of so called primates we might do better.

How many chimps buy a bigger car than their neighbour to impress them?

I dunno..

 

But something has to stop before we destroy ourselves...

 

Very close to where I lived was the Dharrug national park but,of course,the indigenous people were all gone..a beautiful but an eerie place.

 

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=dharug+national+park&rlz=1C1RUCY_enTH706TH706&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw3

Edited July 28, 2018 by Odysseus123

[ELVIS123456]

1 hour ago, tropo said:

You say this now, centuries later, with the benefit of history. Don't confuse that with enlightenment. I'm pretty sure you and most others would be doing exactly the same if we were born in that geographical location, in that time period. It's luck of the draw - where and when you were born. 

 

You talk of arrogance and superiority, yet you come off as feeling arrogant and superior to the "bad" people who perpetrated these atrocities centuries back. We're all the same - just a product of time and place. You can't judge people centuries back for what they did as they all had their own personal hells to live through. We are unaware of the daily stresses that these people had to cope with. Most of their actions would have been out of fear. For example, across the sea in NZ, the Maoris were fearless warriors. If you didn't kill them, for sure they would kill you. It was survival.

Your are so right - equating the past with the values of today is something only SJW apologists do when virtue signalling to their academic liberal allies.

 

And when will the Romans apologise for driving my remote ancestors out of now England into now Wales.  Give me $1million and I will forgive and forget ?

 

In Roman times it was an honour to be the first killed in a battle. Before any engagement it was common for a selected single soldier to charge into the opponent's army by themselves.  This brought great honour and full citizenship to their family and it was highly sought - a man had to earn the privelege.  Anyone seen the movie '47 Ronin' - the world was a very different place and that is a movie that tries to convey the realities of the past.

 

Far too many immature and foolish SJW type people think that the 'history' they see in many movies and TV shows set in the past is real - when the reality is that they are completely false. It is people like that who think past people were 'evil' and we should apologise and pay for their awful deeds. Things were very different back in time, and using today's values to interpret the actions of the past is just immature and stupid.  Take a look at the strict Sharia Laws that some parts of Islamic countries embrace - there were common values in the past - but societies  change and so do people's values (some quicker than others - some for the best - some for the worst). 

 

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 as I said the caveats are obvious and not in disagreement. You don't see to want to take Yes as an answer.

Since you insist on caveats I believe the  IMO caveat is applicable in the above.

 Quote from the OP: "Historians from the University of Newcastle said they had drawn on settler diaries, contemporary newspaper reports, evidence from indigenous groups and state and federal archives to attempt to catalogue the violence for the first time.  " 

I would assert that "contemporary newspaper reports, and and state and federal archives"   are hard evidence.

 

Your second comment indicates that the caveats aren't really all that obvious to you.

 

Historical research is not hard science. There a a whole lot of room for interpretation, context and views of academics involved to insinuate into reports. And once more - deciding which sources are used and which aren't, how much weight is given to each and how they are utilized - these are not necessarily purely objective (or definitive) calls.

 

Take it a step further - are "newspaper reports" free of ideology? Political stances? Always accurate? Not a product of the times? As for government archives - always amusing how some have absolute trust in these, while generally not trusting governments.

[Odysseus123]

21 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Your are so right - equating the past with the values of today is something only SJW apologists do when virtue signalling to their academic liberal allies.

 

And when will the Romans apologise for driving my remote ancestors out of now England into now Wales.  Give me $1million and I will forgive and forget ?

 

In Roman times it was an honour to be the first killed in a battle. Before any engagement it was common for a selected single soldier to charge into the opponent's army by themselves.  This brought great honour and full citizenship to their family and it was highly sought - a man had to earn the privelege.  Anyone seen the movie '47 Ronin' - the world was a very different place and that is a movie that tries to convey the realities of the past.

 

Far too many immature and foolish SJW type people think that the 'history' they see in many movies and TV shows set in the past is real - when the reality is that they are completely false. It is people like that who think past people were 'evil' and we should apologise and pay for their awful deeds. Things were very different back in time, and using today's values to interpret the actions of the past is just immature and stupid.  Take a look at the strict Sharia Laws that some parts of Islamic countries embrace - there were common values in the past - but societies  change and so do people's values (some quicker than others - some for the best - some for the worst). 

 

It is a question of relativism and law.

 

There were plenty of people in the 19th century who questioned what was happening to the indigenous people..

 

And..curiously enough..given the the doctine of 'Terra Nullius' they  were all under British Law.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myall_Creek_massacre

Edited July 28, 2018 by Odysseus123

[The Deerhunter]

6 hours ago, car720 said:

Much the same as Norman Lindsay I guess.

Not very similar styles or period I think.

[overherebc]

10 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Your are so right - equating the past with the values of today is something only SJW apologists do when virtue signalling to their academic liberal allies.

 

And when will the Romans apologise for driving my remote ancestors out of now England into now Wales.  Give me $1million and I will forgive and forget ?

 

In Roman times it was an honour to be the first killed in a battle. Before any engagement it was common for a selected single soldier to charge into the opponent's army by themselves.  This brought great honour and full citizenship to their family and it was highly sought - a man had to earn the privelege.  Anyone seen the movie '47 Ronin' - the world was a very different place and that is a movie that tries to convey the realities of the past.

 

Far too many immature and foolish SJW type people think that the 'history' they see in many movies and TV shows set in the past is real - when the reality is that they are completely false. It is people like that who think past people were 'evil' and we should apologise and pay for their awful deeds. Things were very different back in time, and using today's values to interpret the actions of the past is just immature and stupid.  Take a look at the strict Sharia Laws that some parts of Islamic countries embrace - there were common values in the past - but societies  change and so do people's values (some quicker than others - some for the best - some for the worst). 

 

Agree. Everytime I meet someone from Germany should I start thinking about my uncles who killed Germans in WW2 and ask them if they feel it's terrible and how can I make the world better because I know my uncles' history. Forgot, they both fought in Italy as well, must give my Italian friend an extra plate of spag' bol' to make everything better.

[Thaidream]

I am not  familiar enough with Australian history to really comment on the aborigines and their treatment but the fate of the Native American (American Indians)is well documented-

 

- They were the original owners of the land we call the United States

- They were driven off their own land because of greed and money - called Westward Expansion

- The United States Government signed various treaties with the Indians and broke every one

-The United States Government ordered Indians into reservations and took away their land rights

- The United States Government Agents (Bureau of Indian Affairs) were corrupt, supplied alcohol to Native Americans in an attempt to destroy them and their culture

- The United States military  had a mandate to exterminate Native Americans when they left the reservations.

 

One poster indicated that had we lived in those times- we would  have fought against the Indians- maybe- but that still does not answer the question of why the Government of the United States waged war against a native people who was willing to live in peace and signed treaties that were broken by the Government.   

 

If someone came on your land, tried to drive to you from it- intern you- then agree to a peace treaty- break it and rry to drive you again from your agreed upon land- you might fight back.

 

Greed, arrogance and a superior mindset- is what  caused the demise of the American Indian. He was willing to live in peace- the 'white man' was not.

 

Don't get me started on slavery!!

[The Deerhunter]

6 hours ago, car720 said:

I was thinking more of Witchetty's Tribe.

They all died in a massacre 100 years ago.  No 555 allowed!!!  Where is Peter Garrett these days? Still.burning the "Green" Midnight Oil?

Edited July 28, 2018 by The Deerhunter

[ELVIS123456]

27 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

I am not  familiar enough with Australian history to really comment on the aborigines and their treatment but the fate of the Native American (American Indians)is well documented-

 

- They were the original owners of the land we call the United States

- They were driven off their own land because of greed and money - called Westward Expansion

- The United States Government signed various treaties with the Indians and broke every one

-The United States Government ordered Indians into reservations and took away their land rights

- The United States Government Agents (Bureau of Indian Affairs) were corrupt, supplied alcohol to Native Americans in an attempt to destroy them and their culture

- The United States military  had a mandate to exterminate Native Americans when they left the reservations.

 

One poster indicated that had we lived in those times- we would  have fought against the Indians- maybe- but that still does not answer the question of why the Government of the United States waged war against a native people who was willing to live in peace and signed treaties that were broken by the Government.   

 

If someone came on your land, tried to drive to you from it- intern you- then agree to a peace treaty- break it and rry to drive you again from your agreed upon land- you might fight back.

 

Greed, arrogance and a superior mindset- is what  caused the demise of the American Indian. He was willing to live in peace- the 'white man' was not.

 

Don't get me started on slavery!!

I have a unicorn - hardly used - wanna buy it?  Transfer $100K to my bank and it is yours.

 

[The Deerhunter]

34 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

I am not  familiar enough with Australian history to really comment on the aborigines and their treatment but the fate of the Native American (American Indians)is well documented-

 

- They were the original owners of the land we call the United States

- They were driven off their own land because of greed and money - called Westward Expansion

- The United States Government signed various treaties with the Indians and broke every one

-The United States Government ordered Indians into reservations and took away their land rights

- The United States Government Agents (Bureau of Indian Affairs) were corrupt, supplied alcohol to Native Americans in an attempt to destroy them and their culture

- The United States military  had a mandate to exterminate Native Americans when they left the reservations.

 

One poster indicated that had we lived in those times- we would  have fought against the Indians- maybe- but that still does not answer the question of why the Government of the United States waged war against a native people who was willing to live in peace and signed treaties that were broken by the Government.   

 

If someone came on your land, tried to drive to you from it- intern you- then agree to a peace treaty- break it and rry to drive you again from your agreed upon land- you might fight back.

 

Greed, arrogance and a superior mindset- is what  caused the demise of the American Indian. He was willing to live in peace- the 'white man' was not.

 

Don't get me started on slavery!!

The Australian aboriginals were not confined to reservations.  They were hunted, shot and killed; simply exterminated really, over a large percentage of the country.  Disgraceful and still shameful.

[overherebc]

33 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

I am not  familiar enough with Australian history to really comment on the aborigines and their treatment but the fate of the Native American (American Indians)is well documented-

 

- They were the original owners of the land we call the United States

- They were driven off their own land because of greed and money - called Westward Expansion

- The United States Government signed various treaties with the Indians and broke every one

-The United States Government ordered Indians into reservations and took away their land rights

- The United States Government Agents (Bureau of Indian Affairs) were corrupt, supplied alcohol to Native Americans in an attempt to destroy them and their culture

- The United States military  had a mandate to exterminate Native Americans when they left the reservations.

 

One poster indicated that had we lived in those times- we would  have fought against the Indians- maybe- but that still does not answer the question of why the Government of the United States waged war against a native people who was willing to live in peace and signed treaties that were broken by the Government.   

 

If someone came on your land, tried to drive to you from it- intern you- then agree to a peace treaty- break it and rry to drive you again from your agreed upon land- you might fight back.

 

Greed, arrogance and a superior mindset- is what  caused the demise of the American Indian. He was willing to live in peace- the 'white man' was not.

 

Don't get me started on slavery!!

I reckon you need a time machine to go back and put things right.

Oh wait, if you time travel the first law is ' you cannot do anything to change history.'

Hold on, if you go back in history the fact that you are there at that time means you become part of that history and you only exist now because 'now'  you decided to go back to ensure that because you went back you would be here to complain or feel bad about that history that you went back to.

I think. !!!!

[The Deerhunter]

44 minutes ago, overherebc said:

Agree. Everytime I meet someone from Germany should I start thinking about my uncles who killed Germans in WW2 and ask them if they feel it's terrible and how can I make the world better because I know my uncles' history. Forgot, they both fought in Italy as well, must give my Italian friend an extra plate of spag' bol' to make everything better.

The Germans, Japanese and Italians were the original agressors in that war, as were the settlers in Aussie.

[Thaidream]

I am not advocating money; guilt; or going back in time to change things.

 

However, a country has to look at its own History- whether it's Australia or the United States and learn from that History and admit when it is wrong.  Basic morality does not change-  murder is always murder and wrong;  raping and pillaging is always wrong and so on.  The facts are quite clear. 

All mankind should look at examples in their History and vow not to repeat them. Unfortunately, History is replete with examples and often does repeat itself because people of good conscience do not speak up,,,,

[overherebc]

16 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

The Germans, Japanese and Italians were the original agressors in that war, as were the settlers in Aussie.

Agreed, but we are all here because of the actions of the past and our parents, grandparents and so on.

If my grandfather had been a murderer why should I feel any guilt. Why should I feel any need to express an apology to his victims grand children?

Edited July 28, 2018 by overherebc