University tells students Britain 'invaded' Australia

[Thakkar]

I see a lot of defensiveness on TV whenever discussions of past atrocities (or "sins of our fathers"—a term the defensive folks seem to prefer) come up. As if they are being asked to be personally responsible for those atrocities. Perhaps because they identify too closely with their "race" in a kind of unwarranted tribalism; always a little too trigger-happy to revert to an "us-and-them" mindset.

 

Accepting the facts without the usual sugar-coating and caveats ("*we* did much good, too" and "those were different times" and "all conquerors throughout history have...") seems to be hard for them.

 

One would hope that the world is different now, that we are more civilized than our forebears, more responsible and more inclusive-minded.

 

"Now" is always a good time to heal past wounds, but first the wounds need to be acknowledged. Doing so, and then following through with the healing, enriches all descendants—those of the victims AND perpetrators. Not doing so, impoverishes all of us, and civilization itself.

 

The arc of history has been thus: ever greater recognition of, and responsibility for righting (where possible), the "sins of our fathers" whether we are personally culpable or not. That is the path to a more peaceful world—and even if it weren't, it is the right thing to do.

 

Reexamination is a constant task. How far back should we go in this task? As far back as we can. What some see as a finger-pointing exercise, others see as simply building understanding, and in the process, building bridges.

 

Often the same anti-PC people who admire the likes who "tell it like it is" are offended when history is told as it was.

[SaintLouisBlues]

11 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

One would hope that the world is different now, that we are more civilized than our forebears, more responsible and more inclusive-minded.

Spoken like a true left wing bleeding heart fantasist

[Alan Deer]

14 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

You, sir, are pompous, bumptious even

 

This is a public forum and it is not the correct forum for academic minutiae 

 

My view, as expressed previously, as a layman (I had better say lay PERSON for you) is that shameful things were done in the past. This is now. Not everything the British did was bad. You personally Have benefited from our shared ancestry.

 

Now thanks for all the interesting history but try and take a balanced view (or a drink)?

 

The OP - is about the UNSW producing a guide for students on how to address indigenous related topics they may study.

I have presented information to show why such words as "invaded, occupied and colonised" are more accurate.

 You have implied that this is in some way not “balanced” - You were invited to explain what you meant by balanced/unbalanced and to cite anything I had posted you disagreed with - you have not done so - but instead you have chosen to employ ad hominem attack - the last resort of someone without an argument?

[Dagnabbit]

15 hours ago, Thakkar said:

I see a lot of defensiveness on TV whenever discussions of past atrocities (or "sins of our fathers"—a term the defensive folks seem to prefer) come up. As if they are being asked to be personally responsible for those atrocities. Perhaps because they identify too closely with their "race" in a kind of unwarranted tribalism; always a little too trigger-happy to revert to an "us-and-them" mindset.

 

Accepting the facts without the usual sugar-coating and caveats ("*we* did much good, too" and "those were different times" and "all conquerors throughout history have...") seems to be hard for them.

 

One would hope that the world is different now, that we are more civilized than our forebears, more responsible and more inclusive-minded.

 

"Now" is always a good time to heal past wounds, but first the wounds need to be acknowledged. Doing so, and then following through with the healing, enriches all descendants—those of the victims AND perpetrators. Not doing so, impoverishes all of us, and civilization itself.

 

The arc of history has been thus: ever greater recognition of, and responsibility for righting (where possible), the "sins of our fathers" whether we are personally culpable or not. That is the path to a more peaceful world—and even if it weren't, it is the right thing to do.

 

Reexamination is a constant task. How far back should we go in this task? As far back as we can. What some see as a finger-pointing exercise, others see as simply building understanding, and in the process, building bridges.

 

Often the same anti-PC people who admire the likes who "tell it like it is" are offended when history is told as it was.

 

The reason people tire of these discussions is because they are usually followed with requests for cash from the 'victims'.

 

Liberals just found themselves another victim-set to rally for.

[Grouse]

33 minutes ago, Alan Deer said:

 

 

The OP - is about the UNSW producing a guide for students on how to address indigenous related topics they may study.

 

I have presented information to show why such words as "invaded, occupied and colonised" are more accurate.

 

 You have implied that this is in some way not “balanced” - You were invited to explain what you meant by balanced/unbalanced and to cite anything I had posted you disagreed with - you have not done so - but instead you have chosen to employ ad hominem attack - the last resort of someone without an argument?

 

 

 

Your input is erudite and interesting and I would not dispute the majority of it

 

My point was that you fail to acknowledge ANY positive points which arose from the colonisation

 

Your failure to even accept that is pompous.

[Bullie]

On 30/03/2016 at 0:23 PM, SgtRock said:

At the time of the prison ships, Australia's population is estimated to have been around 5000. I do not think that there would have been many land grabs or people being dispossessed.

I take it that is what you meant and not people being disposed of.

You are wrong, sir. At the time of the european settlement there lived an estimated 318.000 to 1.000.000 aboriginals, who spoke over 250 different languages and had a rich culture.

They were shot like vermin, disposessed and their land was taken from them. A very great wrong was committed by the english.

Therefore the universiy's position of occupation is the only just interpretation of events.

[Thakkar]

40 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

The reason people tire of these discussions is because they are usually followed with requests for cash from the 'victims'.

 

Liberals just found themselves another victim-set to rally for.

 

As Jesus said to the tooth fairy, "ugh! Righting wrongs is sooo tiring. Now shaddap and get me another beer".

[billd766]

4 hours ago, Alan Deer said:

 

 

The OP - is about the UNSW producing a guide for students on how to address indigenous related topics they may study.

 

I have presented information to show why such words as "invaded, occupied and colonised" are more accurate.

 

 You have implied that this is in some way not “balanced” - You were invited to explain what you meant by balanced/unbalanced and to cite anything I had posted you disagreed with - you have not done so - but instead you have chosen to employ ad hominem attack - the last resort of someone without an argument?

 

 

 

He always insults posters that don't agree with him.

 

The best thing is to put him on your ignore list.

 

After a while he will find somebody else to insult.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

He always insults posters that don't agree with him.

 

The best thing is to put him on your ignore list.

 

After a while he will find somebody else to insult.

I was stumped on "Hominem".........

[SaintLouisBlues]

11 minutes ago, transam said:

I was stumped on "Hominem".........

"terra nullius" must have been a real show stopper

[SaintLouisBlues]

4 hours ago, Bullie said:

Therefore the universiy's position of occupation is the only just interpretation of events.

Are you sure the words in that sentence are in the right order?

[Bullie]

3 hours ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

Are you sure the words in that sentence are in the right order?

Dear me. Typing too quickly, english not being my first language. Boohoo. Scoring a point, are you? Poor,silly  you.

[Bullie]

Just now, Bullie said:

Dear me. Typing too quickly, english not being my first language. Boohoo. Scoring a point, are you? Poor,silly  you.

And yes, it's  the university's position on occupation.

[Alan Deer]

BTW - the guide was issued in 1996

[Alan Deer]

On 1/15/2017 at 3:16 PM, SheungWan said:

 

You mean as opposed to performing an academic show-off routine?

Not an argument

If you would like to discuss any point I've made, why not put forward  your counter argument?

[teatree]

On 15/01/2017 at 5:33 PM, Dipterocarp said:

Almost every country in the world was stolen from the natives at some point or another.

 

Colonialism and genocide is nothing to be proud of but at what point do we decide we are all in the same boat

NOW and stop using race and history as an excuse? As far as I know (except for a couple uncles who were hippie bums) my ancestors came off a boat in NY harbor and worked for living.  You want to live in a hut in the bush fine don't expect me to pay for it.  Wont go away though this apologetic handwringing provides a reason for existence for many of these academic bludgerers.

 

Agreed.  Virtually all countries are built on blood and conquest.  It is human nature to increase power and to kill or subjugate those that stand in their way. 

 

Europeans colonised much of the world because they could.  They had a technological advantage over the indigenous populations and they sought to increase their power.  The Han dominated China because they could, the Thais colonised Thailand because they could, and so on.

 

Wherever a population has reached a certain level, some kind of centralised governance has been formed and the population has sought to expand its power base.

 

I can recommend an excellent book on this subject - 'Guns, Germs and Steel'.  Puts forward the theory that differences in geography is the reason for differences in development throughout history.

[Alan Deer]

5 hours ago, teatree said:

 

Agreed.  Virtually all countries are built on blood and conquest.  It is human nature to increase power and to kill or subjugate those that stand in their way. 

 

Europeans colonised much of the world because they could.  They had a technological advantage over the indigenous populations and they sought to increase their power.  The Han dominated China because they could, the Thais colonised Thailand because they could, and so on.

 

Wherever a population has reached a certain level, some kind of centralised governance has been formed and the population has sought to expand its power base.

 

I can recommend an excellent book on this subject - 'Guns, Germs and Steel'.  Puts forward the theory that differences in geography is the reason for differences in development throughout history.

not actually the same - for instance the UK has been invaded several times but the indigenous population has remained as a majority - whereas the Europeans in Oz decided on genocide.

 

it is never a good idea to use the ills of one to mitigate or justify the ills on another or in this case to justify the mistreatment of a minority in the present which is the direct result of an invasion 200 years ago.