University tells students Britain 'invaded' Australia

[KarenBravo]

Depends on your perspective.

To the native Australians, it was an invasion.

To the settlers it was Terra Nullus, empty land as they didn't consider the natives to be human.

Another ridiculous and unintelligent response. It has nothing to do with your perspective. The land was not Terra Nullius. It was occupied by 500,000 to 750,000 people who, in the ensuing years, were enslaved, murdered, dispossessed of their land, raped and in Tasmania's case, almost exterminated, in other words - genocide.

That's from YOUR perspective. At the time, the Europeans didn't consider the aboriginals as human, which was why they hunted them down and killed them.

A common failing today is looking at history through the lens of our present morals, attitudes and standards, all of which are fluid and change over time.

No need to be insulting. If you can't defend your argument politely, better you just shut the FK up.

[NumbNut]

Depends on your perspective.

To the native Australians, it was an invasion.

To the settlers it was Terra Nullus, empty land as they didn't consider the natives to be human.

Another ridiculous and unintelligent response. It has nothing to do with your perspective. The land was not Terra Nullius. It was occupied by 500,000 to 750,000 people who, in the ensuing years, were enslaved, murdered, dispossessed of their land, raped and in Tasmania's case, almost exterminated, in other words - genocide.

That's from YOUR perspective. At the time, the Europeans didn't consider the aboriginals as human, which was why they hunted them down and killed them.

A common failing today is looking at history through the lens of our present morals, attitudes and standards, all of which are fluid and change over time.

No need to be insulting. If you can't defend your argument politely, better you just shut the FK up.

Can't back you on this one KB. Our perspective, modern or otherwise, is what we arrive at when we look at history from all angles, not just the winners. How else can we attempt to understand how we have developed over time as a nation?

What happened to the original inhabitants of Australia is an abomination, and further is indefensible if you are aware of and acknowledge even just a portion of the facts regarding this that are available to us now.

From the Myall Creek Massacre and the Genocide of Tasmanian aboriginals (and genocide is the only word you can use to describe what Tasmanian aboriginals experienced in the 18th century) through to the shootings at Wyndham, North Western Australia in the early 20th century, to name just a few; the number of atrocities perpetrated against the original inhabitants of Australia is numbing. You are being dishonest with yourself to describe them in any other way.

Read 'Blood on the Wattle' by Bruce Elder. Every Australian should read Blood on the Wattle:-

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1401798.Blood_on_the_Wattle

Not in my name

Edited April 1, 2016 by NumbNut

[KarenBravo]

I agree with you. You say "is what we arrive at when we look at history from all angles". You have the benefit of not only our more civilized attitude, but, also the benefit of hind-sight.

At the time, attitudes were different (watch the movie Quigley down under) and if the perpetrators used hind-sight, there was nothing to deter them. That aboriginals were regarded as sub-human at best and as animals at worst, meant that killing them wasn't regarded as murder.

OK, here's a simple example.

Five hundred years ago, slavery was accepted all over the world. Nobody saw anything wrong with it as an institution, it was just the way things were done. Losers suffered in wars. Usually, men of military age were slaughtered and women and children were enslaved.

I am not defending any of these atrocities, but, it is a mistake to try and see history using the present's morals and attitudes which is what the overly PC people do.

[NumbNut]

I understand where you're coming from KB, I just don't think it's a mistake to learn from our history and our ancestors actions, and to acknowledge it as such.

I'm not about apportioning blame, nothing I say or do will correct what has happened in the past, of Australia or any other nation. I tell you what though, I do want to be on the right side of history. As in, what really happened. Not some concocted mythological Terra Nullius BS, for example.

The two extreme historical opinions in Australian politics and academia became known during the Howard Prime Ministerial years as the 'Black Armband' and 'White Blindfold' views. I think a position somewhere in the middle is more appropriate now.

Can't we acknowledge what happened during the European settling of Australia, and more importantly, teach that to our kids so they know the true facts of how they, and by extension our ancestors, came to be in Australia?

[KarenBravo]

I really don't know how we got here.

My original post said that it depended on the perspective.

From the aboriginal's point of view, it was an invasion. From the European's view, it wasn't.

I was talking about the past.

From today's perspective, yes, it was an invasion; regrettable, but, you can't undo it.

All of Mankind's history is about the movement of people and most of that movement has been caused by invasions.

The Vandals that finally settled in North Africa were chased out of Central Asia by the Huns.

The tribe Scotii were originally Irish, but, invaded Scotland and forced the native tribes, the Picts into the Highlands.

The Celts were driven to the periphery of their lands by the Romans.

There are hundreds and hundreds of examples.

The taking of Australia from the natives was inevitable. If it wasn't the British, it would have been someone else. The Aboriginals just didn't have the numbers, or the technology to stop it.

19th century Japan knew this, which was why they send hundreds of students to Europe to learn the technology of the Gaijin. Eventually, they went from a feudal society to Asia's first industrial society and even beat the Russians in a war in 1905.

If they hadn't of done this, they would have either been colonized by the European powers, or, made into a puppet, like China was.

[geriatrickid]

White people. Go digger. The English and their education, court systems, judiciary, integrity must be evil. We would be better off still eating each other, wearing animal skins , raping kids, torturing, engaging in violence 24/7 and dying before the age of 40.

[simple1]

As Aboriginals and Torre Straight Islanders are not recognised by the Constitution and in fact there are also a number of references to race in the document that allow governments to discriminate against Indigenous Australians, you have to wonder when government will get it's act together to arrange a referendum to update the Constitution.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-03/referendum-explainer-how-indigenous-people-could-be-recognised/6593502

[NumbNut]

Just teach the kids the truth KB. Teach them what really happened.

Give the kids a chance to arrive at their own understanding of how we came to be a nation, the good, the bad, warts and all.

[KarenBravo]

Just teach the kids the truth KB. Teach them what really happened.

Give the kids a chance to arrive at their own understanding of how we came to be a nation, the good, the bad, warts and all.

I don't think it's quite as simple as that. Look at all the crap going on with Cecil Rhodes, all initiated by the students.

I'm sure there are things we do, or think today that is totally normal that will be looked back in abhorrence in the future.

[Credo]

White people. Go digger. The English and their education, court systems, judiciary, integrity must be evil. We would be better off still eating each other, wearing animal skins , raping kids, torturing, engaging in violence 24/7 and dying before the age of 40.

To reach that level, we would all have to move to certain parts of the ME.

[NumbNut]

Just teach the kids the truth KB. Teach them what really happened.

Give the kids a chance to arrive at their own understanding of how we came to be a nation, the good, the bad, warts and all.

I don't think it's quite as simple as that. Look at all the crap going on with Cecil Rhodes, all initiated by the students.

I'm sure there are things we do, or think today that is totally normal that will be looked back in abhorrence in the future.

I think it is that simple. The truth is the truth. Facts are facts. What's happened in the past during the colonial period of Australia has been swept under the carpet for too long, and our kids are the poorer for it.

We can't let how things may have been perceived in the past to influence our understanding of these events in the here and now. How else can we appraise any historical period, and make sense of it?

What may very well be looked back at in abhorrence in the future could be our inability to be honest with ourselves now, to admit and accept our history. Warts and all!

[Grouse]

Different times different mores.

As you know Aus was "discovered" about 100 years before Cooke.

I reckon they genuinely believed the country to be more or less empty. 250 tribes with 250 languages is how many per square mile?

There are all sorts of historical issues in our collective pasts. Get over it!

The U.K. Brought you into being. Now stop behaving like spoilt brats otherwise it'll be bed time for all of you!

Invasion my arse

Edited April 1, 2016 by Grouse

[stillbornagain]

White people. Go digger. The English and their education, court systems, judiciary, integrity must be evil. We would be better off still eating each other, wearing animal skins , raping kids, torturing, engaging in violence 24/7 and dying before the age of 40.

So civilization began with the English? As I recall, when the Romans invaded Britain, it was the natives who were wearing animal skins. If they were wearing anything at all.

[Kiwiken]

White people. Go digger. The English and their education, court systems, judiciary, integrity must be evil. We would be better off still eating each other, wearing animal skins , raping kids, torturing, engaging in violence 24/7 and dying before the age of 40.

So civilization began with the English? As I recall, when the Romans invaded Britain, it was the natives who were wearing animal skins. If they were wearing anything at all.

Sadly I believe you recall wrong. The Romans did not bring enlightened civilisation to England but destroyed a Civilisation. unlike the Australian Aboriginal the Celts were not nomadic hunters but had a structured ordered Society and faith system. Much of what was taught of ancient England has been revealed to be misinformation . No matter where in the world you are from We are all products of migration,invasion , occupation and assimilation. Claim to be a purebred anything and I almost guarantee DNA testing will prove you wrong.

[ilostmypassword]

White people. Go digger. The English and their education, court systems, judiciary, integrity must be evil. We would be better off still eating each other, wearing animal skins , raping kids, torturing, engaging in violence 24/7 and dying before the age of 40.

So civilization began with the English? As I recall, when the Romans invaded Britain, it was the natives who were wearing animal skins. If they were wearing anything at all.

Sadly I believe you recall wrong. The Romans did not bring enlightened civilisation to England but destroyed a Civilisation. unlike the Australian Aboriginal the Celts were not nomadic hunters but had a structured ordered Society and faith system. Much of what was taught of ancient England has been revealed to be misinformatio.n . No matter

Edited April 1, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[Alan Deer]

UK - invaded Australia - period. In was an inhabited country and they declared it empty and occupied it - that is an invasion

That they committed genocide  is indisputable - this was mostly by the settlers and state appointed "native police" used with full knowledge of state governments to "clear" the land of those who already lived there. The Federal government and UK governments appear to have either turned a blind eye or been totally ineffective at controlling this.

 

when it became the Aussies and not the Brits is highly debatable - as although post federation it was in theory "independent" the psyche was very pro Brit and colonial still seeing UK as the "motherland" - this dominated Aussie politics and society until the late 20th century.

 

The fact that Australia had a "whites only" policy until the 1970s also indicates the attitude to the indigenous population.

[ilostmypassword]

On 3/30/2016 at 11:33 AM, SgtRock said:

I do not think that those that were forced there on prison ships would agree with your terminology.

conscripts

[Basil B]

I suppose you could not class the the first settlers/invaders as "Quality Tourists" 

[Chicog]

The last time I was there, Immigration asked me if I had a criminal record. I said "I didn't think you still needed one".

 

rat-a-tat-*ching*

[Dagnabbit]

This is simply evolution. The strong survive and become dominant. This is why liberals will one day become extinct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[docshock13]

Well let's face it, from a biological perspective humans are the most insidious invasive species ever known. Just giant-brained parasites. It's what we do. 

Not saying it is a good thing. Just a fact. 

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, Alan Deer said:

UK - invaded Australia - period. In was an inhabited country and they declared it empty and occupied it - that is an invasion

That they committed genocide  is indisputable - this was mostly by the settlers and state appointed "native police" used with full knowledge of state governments to "clear" the land of those who already lived there. The Federal government and UK governments appear to have either turned a blind eye or been totally ineffective at controlling this.

 

when it became the Aussies and not the Brits is highly debatable - as although post federation it was in theory "independent" the psyche was very pro Brit and colonial still seeing UK as the "motherland" - this dominated Aussie politics and society until the late 20th century.

 

The fact that Australia had a "whites only" policy until the 1970s also indicates the attitude to the indigenous population.

 Deer me!

 

you wish to apply 21st century mores to a period 500 years ago? All I can say is Ug ug

[overherebc]

On 30/03/2016 at 0:41 PM, transam said:

But then you must look at the USA, or even the South America's with their Spanish stuff. England had 500 years of Italians, thankfully they left...So where do we start or Stop...?

 

Can we go for Brits and not just English.?

If you don't agree I'll play bagpipes outside your house every morning for a month.

[overherebc]

50 minutes ago, docshock13 said:

Well let's face it, from a biological perspective humans are the most insidious invasive species ever known. Just giant-brained parasites. It's what we do. 

Not saying it is a good thing. Just a fact. 

 

Can't remember who said it but I liked his quote,  As soon as you start to think you are superior to all else just remember you are one small part of the most successful breed of parasite that has infected the most pristine plant.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

 Deer me!

 

you wish to apply 21st century mores to a period 500 years ago? All I can say is Ug ug

 

233 years, actually.

 

The first  European colony, the First Fleet,  arrived in Australia in 1783.

 

Whilst I agree that times change and one should not necessarily judge the past by the morals of the present, one should explain it in the context of the times rather than simply excuse it with the mantra that things were different then.

[Alan Deer]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

 Deer me!

 

you wish to apply 21st century mores to a period 500 years ago? All I can say is Ug ug

You're completely misinformed.

firstly the European invasion started just over 200 years ago and your ideas of "mores" are way off the mark. Most of what Britain did in Australia was in contravention of the European international law of Terra Nullius of the time but also subsequent actions were against British law that regulated relations and treatment of countries they "took over" at that time.

Terra Nullius in Australia was not overturned until 1992

As for "mores" - 

The use of Terra Nullius had ceased in other British colonies by then (e.g. in North America).

The early nineteenth century in fact saw the rise of an active British humanitarian movement seeking to improve the conditions of indigenous people throughout the empire. The movement achieved many successes, such as the abolition of slavery in the colonies. In Britain and Australia there were vocal, powerful people, both inside and outside the government, who urged that terra nullius had been a terrible injustice to the Aborigines.

 

Like so many people on this topic, it seems you are prepared to post based purely on assumptions rather than historical evidence.

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Alan Deer

[billd766]

8 minutes ago, Alan Deer said:

You're completely misinformed.

firstly the European invasion started just over 200 years ago and your ideas of "mores" are way off the mark. Most of what Britain did in Australia was in contravention of th European international law of Terra Nullius but also subsequent actions were against British law that regulated relations and treatment of countries they "took over".

\

\like so many people on this topic, it seems you are prepared to post based purely on assumptions rather than historical evidence.

 

 

What European international law would that be then.

 

Over 200 years ago there WAS no Europe, just a collection of countries fighting each other.

 

In any case Europe and international are not the same thing either.

 

There were NO international laws either back then, unless you know differently and can back up your case with facts and links.

[Grouse]

54 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

233 years, actually.

 

The first  European colony, the First Fleet,  arrived in Australia in 1783.

 

Whilst I agree that times change and one should not necessarily judge the past by the morals of the present, one should explain it in the context of the times rather than simply excuse it with the mantra that things were different then.

 

Dont tell me they were drinking! ?

[Alan Deer]

6 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

What European international law would that be then.

 

Over 200 years ago there WAS no Europe, just a collection of countries fighting each other.

 

In any case Europe and international are not the same thing either.

 

There were NO international laws either back then, unless you know differently and can back up your case with facts and links.

Now you are just showing your ignorance - if you don't know look it up don't just make baseless assumptions.

By the 18th Century there was a huge and sophisticated network of treaties and trade deals through out Europe that covered not only alliances but trade and carving up of the rest of the world in regards to colonies - Terra Nullius was one of the bases for this.

 

who do you think invented international law?????

[billd766]

22 minutes ago, Alan Deer said:

Now you are just showing your ignorance - if you don't know look it up don't just make baseless assumptions.

By the 18th Century there was a huge and sophisticated network of treaties and trade deals through out Europe that covered not only alliances but trade and carving up of the rest of the world in regards to colonies - Terra Nullius was one of the bases for this.

 

who do you think invented international law?????

 

Can you not reply with a simple answer?

 

You claim all of this but cannot back it up.

 

YOU made the claim, YOU back it up.