http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/children-to-learn-about-invasion/story-e6freuy9-1226252969564

AUSTRALIA Day - and why some call it "Invasion Day" - will become compulsory topics for all primary and secondary school students.

Education Minister Peter Garrett will announce today that "the significance of January 26" will become a non-negotiable part of history classes under the new national curriculum.

The lessons will cover "what (Australia Day) means to different groups of Australians, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders".

Some indigenous groups consider Australia Day, which marks the anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet, to be "Invasion Day".

Mr Garrett said the full story of Australia's official national day should not be an "optional extra".

"Australia Day is central to our history and our sense of self," he said.

"It's a day where we celebrate everything that makes this country great and acknowledge the importance of the original inhabitants.

"But until now our learning about our national day hasn't been compulsory in all our schools."

A spokeswoman for Mr Garrett said individual schools would decide the exact content of lessons, but that it would be compulsory to "look at the different perspectives that indigenous Australians would have about Australia Day".

Theres no point teaching something if your not going to teach the facts.

It WASN'T an invasion.

Why do these gay-snakes keep trying to re-write history?

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

... The lessons will cover "what (Australia Day) means to different groups of Australians, ...

Excellent idea.

Not pushing one particular point of view but, instead, teaching kids the importance of accepting that different viewpoints actually exist, and then letting them make up their own minds on the subject.

I can't see how any reasonable person could object to this.

Kat wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

It WASN'T an invasion.

They're not saying it is.

They're merely letting the kids know that different opinions exist.

It will be up to the kids to make up their own minds.

While we are at it - Garrett might as well rename "Australian Gold Rush" to "Chinese Genocide Rush"

Kat wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

It WASN'T an invasion. Why do these gay-snakes keep trying to re-write history?

How was it not an invasion and if it wasn’t an invasion what was it?

in·va·sion  (n-vzhn)
n.
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.
3. An intrusion or encroachment.

Kat wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

It WASN'T an invasion. Why do these gay-snakes keep trying to re-write history?

it's how self-apologetic leftards are

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:23pm:

While we are at it - Garrett might as well rename "Australian Gold Rush" to "Chinese Genocide Rush"

He's not renaming Australia Day: he's merely pointing out that different points of view exist.  The alternative is ignorance, which is never helpful.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:16pm: It WASN'T an invasion. They're not saying it is. They're merely letting the kids know that different opinions exist. It will be up to the kids to make up their own minds.

Then why pick only the Aboriginal opinion?

Where are over 50 different nationalities in Australia - lets make it compulsory to teach them all the views.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:27pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:23pm: While we are at it - Garrett might as well rename "Australian Gold Rush" to "Chinese Genocide Rush" He's not renaming Australia Day: he's merely pointing out that different points of view exist.  The alternative is ignorance, which is never helpful.

Its also Welfare Day, but I bet they wont incldue THAT in the national curriculum.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:25pm:

Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:16pm: It WASN'T an invasion. Why do these gay-snakes keep trying to re-write history? How was it not an invasion and if it wasn’t an invasion what was it? in·va·sion  (n-vzhn) n. 1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. 2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease. 3. An intrusion or encroachment.

I am sure Capt Cook had these thoughts when he got off the boat

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:28pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:22pm: Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:16pm: It WASN'T an invasion. They're not saying it is. They're merely letting the kids know that different opinions exist. It will be up to the kids to make up their own minds. Then why pick only the Aboriginal opinion?

They're not.

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:30pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:25pm: Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:16pm: It WASN'T an invasion. Why do these gay-snakes keep trying to re-write history? How was it not an invasion and if it wasn’t an invasion what was it? in·va·sion  (n-vzhn) n. 1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. 2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease. 3. An intrusion or encroachment. I am sure Capt Cook had these thoughts when he got off the boat

Actually you mean Arthur Phillip not Capt. Cook.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:29pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:27pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:23pm: While we are at it - Garrett might as well rename "Australian Gold Rush" to "Chinese Genocide Rush" He's not renaming Australia Day: he's merely pointing out that different points of view exist.  The alternative is ignorance, which is never helpful. Its also Welfare Day, but I bet they wont incldue THAT in the national curriculum.

The day has nothing to do with welfare, therefore there's no need to include anything so ridiculous in the curriculum.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:31pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:28pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:22pm: Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:16pm: It WASN'T an invasion. They're not saying it is. They're merely letting the kids know that different opinions exist. It will be up to the kids to make up their own minds. Then why pick only the Aboriginal opinion? They're not.

If we are then to strictly adhere to to "opinions" and not Aborigines

Then if in my humble opinion Australia Day is "Oh Capt Cook got lost Day" then that should be compulsorily taught in school?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:33pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:30pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:25pm: Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:16pm: It WASN'T an invasion. Why do these gay-snakes keep trying to re-write history? How was it not an invasion and if it wasn’t an invasion what was it? in·va·sion  (n-vzhn) n. 1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. 2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease. 3. An intrusion or encroachment. I am sure Capt Cook had these thoughts when he got off the boat Actually you mean Arthur Phillip not Capt. Cook.

Phillip was part of the settlement fleet

My reference to Cook was more directed at the "invasion" reference

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:35pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:31pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:28pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:22pm: Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:16pm: It WASN'T an invasion. They're not saying it is. They're merely letting the kids know that different opinions exist. It will be up to the kids to make up their own minds. Then why pick only the Aboriginal opinion? They're not. If we are then to strictly adhere to to "opinions" and not Aborigines Then if in my humble opinion Australia Day is "Oh Capt Cook got lost Day" then that should be compulsorily taught in school?

Captain Cook has nothing to do with Australia Day.

He died in 1779.

The First Fleet arrived on January 26, 1788: Australia Day.

The Fleet was under the command of Captain Arthur Phillip.

You didn't study history in school, did you?

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:44pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:33pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:30pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:25pm: Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:16pm: It WASN'T an invasion. Why do these gay-snakes keep trying to re-write history? How was it not an invasion and if it wasn’t an invasion what was it? in·va·sion  (n-vzhn) n. 1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. 2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease. 3. An intrusion or encroachment. I am sure Capt Cook had these thoughts when he got off the boat Actually you mean Arthur Phillip not Capt. Cook. Phillip was part of the settlement fleet My reference to Cook was more directed at the "invasion" reference

The first fleets arrival is what we are celebrating on Australia day, well what its ment to be about.
Phillip was the one who lead the invasion.

If it wasnt an invasion, what was it?

Perhaps they could just teach Australian history?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:47pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:44pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:33pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:30pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:25pm: Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:16pm: It WASN'T an invasion. Why do these gay-snakes keep trying to re-write history? How was it not an invasion and if it wasn’t an invasion what was it? in·va·sion  (n-vzhn) n. 1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. 2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease. 3. An intrusion or encroachment. I am sure Capt Cook had these thoughts when he got off the boat Actually you mean Arthur Phillip not Capt. Cook. Phillip was part of the settlement fleet My reference to Cook was more directed at the "invasion" reference The first fleets arrival is what we are celebrating on Australia day, well what its ment to be about. Phillip was the one who lead the invasion. If it wasnt an invasion, what was it?

That's why I referenced it to Cook.

It was Cook that claimed the land on behalf of Britain.

We can argue the claim and say it's technically incorrect because the Aborigines had first claims on Australia. But then again - did they really claim Australia?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:49pm:

Perhaps they could just teach Australian history?

Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:35pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:31pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:28pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:22pm: Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:16pm: It WASN'T an invasion. They're not saying it is. They're merely letting the kids know that different opinions exist. It will be up to the kids to make up their own minds. Then why pick only the Aboriginal opinion? They're not. If we are then to strictly adhere to to "opinions" and not Aborigines Then if in my humble opinion Australia Day is "Oh Capt Cook got lost Day" then that should be compulsorily taught in school?

---------

I've got a good idea :

Why not gather the displeased Aborigines, give them an option, cut out Welfare payment and in its stead, give 'em a good slice of Australia to hunt and gather as they had done in the past!

Do you think that, cheering, they'd accept the latter deal?

LOL

olde.sault wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:53pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:35pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:31pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:28pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:22pm: Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:16pm: It WASN'T an invasion. They're not saying it is. They're merely letting the kids know that different opinions exist. It will be up to the kids to make up their own minds. Then why pick only the Aboriginal opinion? They're not. If we are then to strictly adhere to to "opinions" and not Aborigines Then if in my humble opinion Australia Day is "Oh Capt Cook got lost Day" then that should be compulsorily taught in school? --------- I've got a good idea : Why not gather the displeased Aborigines, give them an option, cut out Welfare payment and in its stead, give 'em a good slice of Australia to hunt and gather as they had done in the past! Do you think that, cheering, they'd accept the latter deal? LOL

ouch!

I am sure BHP won't do it - but if they stopped mining I wonder what the Aborigines will do without the Royalties

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:50pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible

Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement?

Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:35pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:31pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:28pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:22pm: Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:16pm: It WASN'T an invasion. They're not saying it is. They're merely letting the kids know that different opinions exist. It will be up to the kids to make up their own minds. Then why pick only the Aboriginal opinion? They're not. If we are then to strictly adhere to to "opinions" and not Aborigines Then if in my humble opinion Australia Day is "Oh Capt Cook got lost Day" then that should be compulsorily taught in school? Captain Cook has nothing to do with Australia Day. He died in 1779. The First Fleet arrived on January 26, 1788: Australia Day. The Fleet was under the command of Captain Arthur Phillip. You didn't study history in school, did you?

"Captain Cook 'died' "  you say?

I seem to remember that he was cooked by some "unmentionables",  of the colour that we are supposed to love and respect and never, never criticise as that is nasty racism!

OS

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:12pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement?

Thats a dishonest question from a racist who calls modern day refugees and boat people illegals... http://phumphries.com/forums/images/smilies/pimp.gif

corporate_whitey wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:23pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:12pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement? Thats a dishonest question from a racist who calls modern day refugees and boat people illegals... http://phumphries.com/forums/images/smilies/pimp.gif

wrong fat boy,I'm one of the ones who argue that to seek asylum is not illegal.
Have another doughnut

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:12pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement?

Interesting question - I like it!

Do you need permission for settlement?

As I understand it - the Aborigines are nomadic. There about 200+ groups.

Do you have to "own" or to have "claimed" the land before you can give permission?

It's a similar situation to the Americans - Chris Columbus would have claimed the land just like Jim Cook

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:35pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:31pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:28pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:22pm: Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:16pm: It WASN'T an invasion. They're not saying it is. They're merely letting the kids know that different opinions exist. It will be up to the kids to make up their own minds. Then why pick only the Aboriginal opinion? They're not. If we are then to strictly adhere to to "opinions" and not Aborigines Then if in my humble opinion Australia Day is "Oh Capt Cook got lost Day" then that should be compulsorily taught in school?

Compulsarily taught in schools? You give a lot of power to the FEDERAL education minister.

School curriculums are vague lists of learning outcomes. They do not specify what should be taught, how it is taught, or the words used to teach them. There is no way a PM or minister could decree that something gets taught in a school. Howard knew this all too well, which is why his own history teaching ideas were pure wedge politics.

And why this story is doing exactly the same thing. Garrett would never talk about teaching something in a school beyond his own personal opinion, and I doubt he'd even give you that - not since he's been in the Labor Party.

A pure dog whistle debate that means nothing.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:12pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement?

Because to settle they needed to invade first, or atleast they chose to invade first

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:12pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement? Because to settle they needed to invade first, or atleast they chose to invade first

Was there an organised resistance?
Invade is a very emotive word and suits the activists agenda, but is an accurate one?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:12pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement? Because to settle they needed to invade first, or atleast they chose to invade first

MORE LIKE GATE CRASHING A POORLY RUN PARTY    ;) ;) AND IMPROVING IT   ;)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:29pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:12pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement? Because to settle they needed to invade first, or atleast they chose to invade first Was there an organised resistance? Invade is a very emotive word and suits the activists agenda, but is an accurate one?

Sorry I will use the correct term: Genocide.

FRED. wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:29pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:12pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement? Because to settle they needed to invade first, or atleast they chose to invade first MORE LIKE GATE CRASHING A POORLY RUN PARTY    ;) ;) AND IMPROVING IT   ;)

Improving it in your opinion

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:33pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:29pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:12pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement? Because to settle they needed to invade first, or atleast they chose to invade first Was there an organised resistance? Invade is a very emotive word and suits the activists agenda, but is an accurate one? Sorry I will use the correct term: Genocide.

So there are no aborigines left?
Well WTF are those squatters in Canberra.
I asked before
What will it take in your opinion for the activists to be happy and say thanks we now feel included in the Australian community?
What in your opinion is required?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

FRED. wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:35pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:29pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:12pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement? Because to settle they needed to invade first, or atleast they chose to invade first MORE LIKE GATE CRASHING A POORLY RUN PARTY    ;) ;) AND IMPROVING IT   ;) Improving it in your opinion

YEP  THE ROADS WERE SHYTE    ;)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:38pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:35pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:33pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:29pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:12pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement? Because to settle they needed to invade first, or atleast they chose to invade first Was there an organised resistance? Invade is a very emotive word and suits the activists agenda, but is an accurate one? Sorry I will use the correct term: Genocide. So there are no aborigines left? Well WTF are those squatters in Canberra. I asked before What will it take in your opinion for the activists to be happy and say thanks we now feel included in the Australian community? What in your opinion is required?

What the hell are you trying to defend here? Invasion/genocide/murder whatever you wana call it they killed hundreds of thousands of people and pissed on their culture and people for centuries.
Stop defending it.

They will probably be happy when ignorant people like you get a clue

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:49pm:

Perhaps they could just teach Australian history?

^^^

Yep, exactly what i was thinking.

FriYAY wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:43pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? ^^^ Yep, exactly what i was thinking.

From different perspectives, yes.

I am not sure about this.

I probably have no issue with the facts being presented that the Aboriginals believe that it was an invasion.

If we recall that the settlement was dependant at the time on the decision that Australia was terra nullius

i.e. nobody home at the time.

This was obviously a false claim at best but no worse than say the USA etc either.

I would say teach the history straight - give all the facts in an honest manner.

What we were originally taught was not the truth.

I am not sure sensationalising invasion day as being correct either.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:42pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:38pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:35pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:33pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:29pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:12pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement? Because to settle they needed to invade first, or atleast they chose to invade first Was there an organised resistance? Invade is a very emotive word and suits the activists agenda, but is an accurate one? Sorry I will use the correct term: Genocide. So there are no aborigines left? Well WTF are those squatters in Canberra. I asked before What will it take in your opinion for the activists to be happy and say thanks we now feel included in the Australian community? What in your opinion is required? What the hell are you trying to defend here? Invasion/genocide/murder whatever you wana call it they killed hundreds of thousands of people and pissed on their culture and people for centuries. Stop defending it. They will probably be happy when ignorant people like you get a clue

So nothing again :(
Do you even know what your defending?
As for the rest, have you ever looked into history, read anything at all about it?
What you speak of is the way of the world, whole races have been destroyed or assimilated into others since the year dot.
You got on with it or died.
That is of course until the late 20th century when our WESTERN SOCIETY(which you seem to dislike) became rich enough to pay for people to sit around and navel gaze over the cause de jour whilst living off the generousity of the very society they seek to....... i don't know destroy seems to strong a word but.

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

olde.sault wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:53pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:35pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:31pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:28pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:22pm: Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:16pm: It WASN'T an invasion. They're not saying it is. They're merely letting the kids know that different opinions exist. It will be up to the kids to make up their own minds. Then why pick only the Aboriginal opinion? They're not. If we are then to strictly adhere to to "opinions" and not Aborigines Then if in my humble opinion Australia Day is "Oh Capt Cook got lost Day" then that should be compulsorily taught in school? --------- I've got a good idea : Why not gather the displeased Aborigines, give them an option, cut out Welfare payment and in its stead, give 'em a good slice of Australia to hunt and gather as they had done in the past! Do you think that, cheering, they'd accept the latter deal? LOL ouch! I am sure BHP won't do it - but if they stopped mining I wonder what the Aborigines will do without the Royalties

--------

In addition to my idea of cutting out welfare and giving Abor. a slice of the country:

Let them take Bob Brown with them so that he can get closer to nature - gather and hunt!

OS

olde.sault wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

In addition to my idea of cutting out welfare and giving Abor. a slice of the country: Let them take Bob Brown with them so that he can get closer to nature - gather and hunt! OS

Isn't Bob from Tasmania - Isn't that the area where the Aboriginals inhabitants no longer exist?

Some clain sickness got them others genocide the UN definition says that , sufficient evidence exists to designate the Tasmanian catastrophe genocide.

There were over 3,000 of them and all perished before 1900.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:

So nothing again :( Do you even know what your defending? As for the rest, have you ever looked into history, read anything at all about it? What you speak of is the way of the world, whole races have been destroyed or assimilated into others since the year dot. You got on with it or died. That is of course until the late 20th century when our WESTERN SOCIETY(which you seem to dislike) became rich enough to pay for people to sit around and navel gaze over the cause de jour whilst living off the generousity of the very society they seek to....... i don't know destroy seems to strong a word but.

Wow, that's a little harsh smithy. Why should the indigenous peoples of Australia be forced to assimilate?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:12pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement? Because to settle they needed to invade first, or atleast they chose to invade first

Not invade - merely "land"

As for the Aborigines of those times, they were dumber than some of the trained dogs today.

Do they really want to go back to old times, gather and hunt, kill each other at will, beat their women, sodomise their children without some authority to put order into their lives?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 5:09pm:

Isn't Bob from Tasmania - Isn't that the area where the Aboriginals inhabitants no longer exist? Some clain sickness got them others genocide the UN definition says that , sufficient evidence exists to designate the Tasmanian catastrophe genocide. There were over 3,000 of them and all perished before 1900.

3.4% of Tasmania's population is Aboriginal.

i.e. approximately 17,000 Aborigines live in Tasmania.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:25pm:

Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:16pm: It WASN'T an invasion. Why do these gay-snakes keep trying to re-write history? How was it not an invasion and if it wasn’t an invasion what was it? in·va·sion  (n-vzhn) n. 1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. 2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease. 3. An intrusion or encroachment.

And it wasn't any of those things...
They didn't come to 'conquer', they came to colonise.....
Under the opinion of the British, at the time, there wasn't anyone here to conquer.....

Gist wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 5:15pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:52pm: So nothing again :( Do you even know what your defending? As for the rest, have you ever looked into history, read anything at all about it? What you speak of is the way of the world, whole races have been destroyed or assimilated into others since the year dot. You got on with it or died. That is of course until the late 20th century when our WESTERN SOCIETY(which you seem to dislike) became rich enough to pay for people to sit around and navel gaze over the cause de jour whilst living off the generousity of the very society they seek to....... i don't know destroy seems to strong a word but. Wow, that's a little harsh smithy. Why should the indigenous peoples of Australia be forced to assimilate?

I have no problem if aboriginals wish to walk the desert throwing sticks as the did.
But they don't do they, they want..........
I don't know thats what I've asked several times today and am yet to recieve anything close to an answer.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 5:36pm:

Gist wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 5:15pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:52pm: So nothing again :( Do you even know what your defending? As for the rest, have you ever looked into history, read anything at all about it? What you speak of is the way of the world, whole races have been destroyed or assimilated into others since the year dot. You got on with it or died. That is of course until the late 20th century when our WESTERN SOCIETY(which you seem to dislike) became rich enough to pay for people to sit around and navel gaze over the cause de jour whilst living off the generousity of the very society they seek to....... i don't know destroy seems to strong a word but. Wow, that's a little harsh smithy. Why should the indigenous peoples of Australia be forced to assimilate? I have no problem if aboriginals wish to walk the desert throwing sticks as the did. But they don't do they, they want.......... I don't know thats what I've asked several times today and am yet to recieve anything close to an answer.

I agree with Smithy on his points on this thread.
Pretty much what I believe.

They seem to want to be able to eat the cake, and have the biggest part, yet play no role in baking it.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 5:36pm:

I have no problem if aboriginals wish to walk the desert throwing sticks as the did. But they don't do they, they want.......... I don't know thats what I've asked several times today and am yet to recieve anything close to an answer.

And I'm not the one to answer it but I can probably hazard a guess...

it may go a long way to quietening the activists when aboriginal life expectancy, job prospects, education outcomes, etc, etc, are all similar to that of the rest of the population. From what I see in the media it seem that a lot of them seem to be doomed to some pretty crappy lives compared to the rest of us.

I think around about 40 something years ago we stopped classing them as animals. Do we treat them as humans though? They do often seem to cop second class treatment.

FRED. wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:29pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:12pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement? Because to settle they needed to invade first, or atleast they chose to invade first MORE LIKE GATE CRASHING A POORLY RUN PARTY    ;) ;) AND IMPROVING IT   ;)

crass... yet there is a strong element of truth to it!

I think around about 40 something years ago we stopped classing them as animals.


1971?? Best get back to your history book idiot.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:42pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:38pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:35pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:33pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:29pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:12pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement? Because to settle they needed to invade first, or atleast they chose to invade first Was there an organised resistance? Invade is a very emotive word and suits the activists agenda, but is an accurate one? Sorry I will use the correct term: Genocide. So there are no aborigines left? Well WTF are those squatters in Canberra. I asked before What will it take in your opinion for the activists to be happy and say thanks we now feel included in the Australian community? What in your opinion is required? What the hell are you trying to defend here? Invasion/genocide/murder whatever you wana call it they killed hundreds of thousands of people and pissed on their culture and people for centuries. Stop defending it. They will probably be happy when ignorant people like you get a clue

their culture disappeared 150 years ago. what they 'celebrate' now is a fabrication and a con. Like so many other primitive races they choose to remain ignorant and poor. I have NO SYMPATHY for people who are offered full integration into a society that will provide them with housing, welfre, health and education plus equal rights and then reject it. Eventually they are going to actually have to do something. Some of us call it work. Im pretty sure their language doesnt even have a word for it.  This might explain that after 40,000 years they invented a stick and nothing else.

The true Aborigines are no longer with us.

We now have 'activists' like Geoff Clark.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 5:09pm:

olde.sault wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:58pm: In addition to my idea of cutting out welfare and giving Abor. a slice of the country: Let them take Bob Brown with them so that he can get closer to nature - gather and hunt! OS Isn't Bob from Tasmania - Isn't that the area where the Aboriginals inhabitants no longer exist? Some clain sickness got them others genocide the UN definition says that , sufficient evidence exists to designate the Tasmanian catastrophe genocide. There were over 3,000 of them and all perished before 1900.

3000...

Gist wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 5:15pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:52pm: So nothing again :( Do you even know what your defending? As for the rest, have you ever looked into history, read anything at all about it? What you speak of is the way of the world, whole races have been destroyed or assimilated into others since the year dot. You got on with it or died. That is of course until the late 20th century when our WESTERN SOCIETY(which you seem to dislike) became rich enough to pay for people to sit around and navel gaze over the cause de jour whilst living off the generousity of the very society they seek to....... i don't know destroy seems to strong a word but. Wow, that's a little harsh smithy. Why should the indigenous peoples of Australia be forced to assimilate?

because they have NO OTHER CHOICE. and remember that not one single aborigine currently living was invaded. those that live in poverty now do so by their own choice.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 6:05pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:42pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:38pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:35pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:33pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:29pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:12pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Perhaps they could just teach Australian history? Which would include the invasion that made the other history possible Why do you consider it an invasion and not a settlement? Because to settle they needed to invade first, or atleast they chose to invade first Was there an organised resistance? Invade is a very emotive word and suits the activists agenda, but is an accurate one? Sorry I will use the correct term: Genocide. So there are no aborigines left? Well WTF are those squatters in Canberra. I asked before What will it take in your opinion for the activists to be happy and say thanks we now feel included in the Australian community? What in your opinion is required? What the hell are you trying to defend here? Invasion/genocide/murder whatever you wana call it they killed hundreds of thousands of people and pissed on their culture and people for centuries. Stop defending it. They will probably be happy when ignorant people like you get a clue their culture disappeared 150 years ago. what they 'celebrate' now is a fabrication and a con. Like so many other primitive races they choose to remain ignorant and poor. I have NO SYMPATHY for people who are offered full integration into a society that will provide them with housing, welfre, health and education plus equal rights and then reject it. Eventually they are going to actually have to do something. Some of us call it work. Im pretty sure their language doesnt even have a word for it.  This might explain that after 40,000 years they invented a stick and nothing else.

Couldn't agree more, Longie.

Except they did invent more than a returnable stick....

They invented (ok, re-discovered) a sense of entitlement
and 'something for nothing' that puts the WORST of the
white 'dole-bludgers' to shame.

How do you spell 'Victim Mentality'?

A-B-O-R-I-G-I-N-E.

Gist wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 5:52pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 5:36pm: I have no problem if aboriginals wish to walk the desert throwing sticks as the did. But they don't do they, they want.......... I don't know thats what I've asked several times today and am yet to recieve anything close to an answer. And I'm not the one to answer it but I can probably hazard a guess... it may go a long way to quietening the activists when aboriginal life expectancy, job prospects, education outcomes, etc, etc, are all similar to that of the rest of the population. From what I see in the media it seem that a lot of them seem to be doomed to some pretty crappy lives compared to the rest of us. I think around about 40 something years ago we stopped classing them as animals. Do we treat them as humans though? They do often seem to cop second class treatment.

mainly as a result of their own choices and non-efforts. And if a lot consider them second-class citizens that is because so many of them act like it.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 5:19pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 5:09pm: Isn't Bob from Tasmania - Isn't that the area where the Aboriginals inhabitants no longer exist? Some clain sickness got them others genocide the UN definition says that , sufficient evidence exists to designate the Tasmanian catastrophe genocide. There were over 3,000 of them and all perished before 1900. 3.4% of Tasmania's population is Aboriginal. i.e. approximately 17,000 Aborigines live in Tasmania.

So....SIX times what they had then...


Genocide? Extermination?

They don't look extinct to me.

And the UN wouldn't know if a train was up them unless the whistle blew.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 6:06pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 5:09pm: olde.sault wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:58pm: In addition to my idea of cutting out welfare and giving Abor. a slice of the country: Let them take Bob Brown with them so that he can get closer to nature - gather and hunt! OS Isn't Bob from Tasmania - Isn't that the area where the Aboriginals inhabitants no longer exist? Some clain sickness got them others genocide the UN definition says that , sufficient evidence exists to designate the Tasmanian catastrophe genocide. There were over 3,000 of them and all perished before 1900. 3000...

Before British colonisation in 1803, there were an estimated 3,000–15,000 Parlevar.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 6:10pm:

Gist wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 5:52pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 5:36pm: I have no problem if aboriginals wish to walk the desert throwing sticks as the did. But they don't do they, they want.......... I don't know thats what I've asked several times today and am yet to recieve anything close to an answer. And I'm not the one to answer it but I can probably hazard a guess... it may go a long way to quietening the activists when aboriginal life expectancy, job prospects, education outcomes, etc, etc, are all similar to that of the rest of the population. From what I see in the media it seem that a lot of them seem to be doomed to some pretty crappy lives compared to the rest of us. I think around about 40 something years ago we stopped classing them as animals. Do we treat them as humans though? They do often seem to cop second class treatment. mainly as a result of their own choices and non-efforts. And if a lot consider them second-class citizens that is because so many of them act like it.

I expected I'd get an answer along these lines from one of the usual moral retards and sure enough...

There ya go smithy, another part of your puzzle. Having their problems just simply acknowledged is probably in that list I started.

Gist wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 5:52pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 5:36pm: I have no problem if aboriginals wish to walk the desert throwing sticks as the did. But they don't do they, they want.......... I don't know thats what I've asked several times today and am yet to recieve anything close to an answer. And I'm not the one to answer it but I can probably hazard a guess... it may go a long way to quietening the activists when aboriginal life expectancy, job prospects, education outcomes, etc, etc, are all similar to that of the rest of the population. From what I see in the media it seem that a lot of them seem to be doomed to some pretty crappy lives compared to the rest of us. I think around about 40 something years ago we stopped classing them as animals. Do we treat them as humans though? They do often seem to cop second class treatment.

Yes the do have all the problems you describe and I'm all for solving those problems.
In other threads on this subject it has come to light that the wording of the native title act is a cause of some of these problems, i.e they are stuck in these hell holes in the middle of nowhere because if they leave they will lose their land.
Lets start by changing this, once that is done perhaps they will help themselves by gaining education and jobs.

It still doesn't excuse the squallor they choose to live in though.

blackadder wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 6:02pm:

I think around about 40 something years ago we stopped classing them as animals. 1971?? Best get back to your history book idiot.

Well 1967 is 45 years this year - which is around about 40 years as far as I'm concerned little bitch.

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/children-to-learn-about-invasion/story-e6freuy9-1226252969564 AUSTRALIA Day - and why some call it "Invasion Day" - will become compulsory topics for all primary and secondary school students. Education Minister Peter Garrett will announce today that "the significance of January 26" will become a non-negotiable part of history classes under the new national curriculum. The lessons will cover "what (Australia Day) means to different groups of Australians, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders". Some indigenous groups consider Australia Day, which marks the anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet, to be "Invasion Day". Mr Garrett said the full story of Australia's official national day should not be an "optional extra". "Australia Day is central to our history and our sense of self," he said. "It's a day where we celebrate everything that makes this country great and acknowledge the importance of the original inhabitants. "But until now our learning about our national day hasn't been compulsory in all our schools." A spokeswoman for Mr Garrett said individual schools would decide the exact content of lessons, but that it would be compulsory to "look at the different perspectives that indigenous Australians would have about Australia Day".

Well back in the 1970s and 1980s when our schooling was right, this was taught , and we were told that as the white men came into australia, the aborininal native had to except this or move on.

[quote author=46485255210 link=1327814089/63#63 date=1327826500][quote author=2D232E2C242E2B2B2A3D4F0 link=1327814089/52#52 date=1327824151]I think around about 40 something years ago we stopped classing them as animals.

No it was along time before that 1800s

Warrigal,

I was going on this which I came across just the other day. There are also other similar pages.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/when-i-was-fauna-citizens-rallying-call/2007/05/22/1179601412706.html

Until the 1967 referendum, aboriginals were listed under the Flora and Fauna act. Which effectively means they were classed as a type of native animal.

Gist wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 7:10pm:

Warrigal, I was going on this which I came across just the other day. There are also other similar pages. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/when-i-was-fauna-citizens-rallying-call/2007/05/22/1179601412706.html Until the 1967 referendum, aboriginals were listed under the Flora and Fauna act. Which effectively means they were classed as a type of native animal.

Which, essentially, is exactly what they are. AS ARE WE!

I can't STAND people who think that we are NOT animals.

What the smack ARE we, then?

Vegetables?

Minerals?

I give up on this country. Like most, it's been overwhelmed
by bloody Golgafrinchans.

(Look it up).

Kat wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 7:18pm:

Gist wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 7:10pm: Warrigal, I was going on this which I came across just the other day. There are also other similar pages. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/when-i-was-fauna-citizens-rallying-call/2007/05/22/1179601412706.html Until the 1967 referendum, aboriginals were listed under the Flora and Fauna act. Which effectively means they were classed as a type of native animal. Which, essentially, is exactly what they are. AS ARE WE! I can't STAND people who think that we are NOT animals. What the smack ARE we, then? Vegetables? Minerals? I give up on this country. Like most, it's been overwhelmed by bloody Golgafrinchans. (Look it up).

Sure, cats are animals. You don't get a right to vote though. Or even a right to be treated in a humane way.

January 26 should be a Thanksgiving  Day for Aborigines.

Gist wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 8:02pm:

Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 7:18pm: Gist wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 7:10pm: Warrigal, I was going on this which I came across just the other day. There are also other similar pages. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/when-i-was-fauna-citizens-rallying-call/2007/05/22/1179601412706.html Until the 1967 referendum, aboriginals were listed under the Flora and Fauna act. Which effectively means they were classed as a type of native animal. Which, essentially, is exactly what they are. AS ARE WE! I can't STAND people who think that we are NOT animals. What the smack ARE we, then? Vegetables? Minerals? I give up on this country. Like most, it's been overwhelmed by bloody Golgafrinchans. (Look it up). Sure, cats are animals. You don't get a right to vote though. Or even a right to be treated in a humane way.

Not to mention the strict laws regarding where cats can and cannot go.

Soren wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 8:03pm:

January 26 should be a Thanksgiving  Day for Aborigines.

You want to give thanks for aborigines Soren? Well, today I am dumfounded. I really don't know what to say to that except that I never thought I'd see it.

Gist wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 8:07pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 8:03pm: January 26 should be a Thanksgiving  Day for Aborigines. You want to give thanks for aborigines Soren? Well, today I am dumfounded. I really don't know what to say to that except that I never thought I'd see it.

No. Aborigines should give thanks for finally being taken out of their misery by the best guys going at the time.

Kat wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 7:18pm:

Gist wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 7:10pm: Warrigal, I was going on this which I came across just the other day. There are also other similar pages. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/when-i-was-fauna-citizens-rallying-call/2007/05/22/1179601412706.html Until the 1967 referendum, aboriginals were listed under the Flora and Fauna act. Which effectively means they were classed as a type of native animal. Which, essentially, is exactly what they are. AS ARE WE! I can't STAND people who think that we are NOT animals. What the smack ARE we, then? Vegetables? Minerals? I give up on this country. Like most, it's been overwhelmed by bloody Golgafrinchans. (Look it up).

I would say we are closer to a virus, neither prokaryotic or eukaryotic..

Soren wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 8:13pm:

No. Aborigines should give thanks for finally being taken out of their misery by the best guys going at the time.

Somehow I figured you really meant that.  ::)  But as you can see I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Now... how about you stop sucking your dick and go learn to write proper English, wog.

Gist wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 8:29pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 8:13pm: No. Aborigines should give thanks for finally being taken out of their misery by the best guys going at the time. Somehow I figured you really meant that.  ::)  But as you can see I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Now... how about you stop sucking your dick and go learn to write proper English, wog.

Yeah, please correct my English if you can.

glee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 8:04pm:

Gist wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 8:02pm: Kat wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 7:18pm: Gist wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 7:10pm: Warrigal, I was going on this which I came across just the other day. There are also other similar pages. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/when-i-was-fauna-citizens-rallying-call/2007/05/22/1179601412706.html Until the 1967 referendum, aboriginals were listed under the Flora and Fauna act. Which effectively means they were classed as a type of native animal. Which, essentially, is exactly what they are. AS ARE WE! I can't STAND people who think that we are NOT animals. What the smack ARE we, then? Vegetables? Minerals? I give up on this country. Like most, it's been overwhelmed by bloody Golgafrinchans. (Look it up). Sure, cats are animals. You don't get a right to vote though. Or even a right to be treated in a humane way. Not to mention the strict laws regarding where cats can and cannot go.

THIS Kat goes where and when he bloody pleases.

Laws notwithstanding......

Miaow!!

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/children-to-learn-about-invasion/story-e6freuy9-1226252969564 AUSTRALIA Day - and why some call it "Invasion Day" - will become compulsory topics for all primary and secondary school students. Education Minister Peter Garrett will announce today that "the significance of January 26" will become a non-negotiable part of history classes under the new national curriculum. The lessons will cover "what (Australia Day) means to different groups of Australians, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders". Some indigenous groups consider Australia Day, which marks the anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet, to be "Invasion Day". Mr Garrett said the full story of Australia's official national day should not be an "optional extra". "Australia Day is central to our history and our sense of self," he said. "It's a day where we celebrate everything that makes this country great and acknowledge the importance of the original inhabitants. "But until now our learning about our national day hasn't been compulsory in all our schools." A spokeswoman for Mr Garrett said individual schools would decide the exact content of lessons, but that it would be compulsory to "look at the different perspectives that indigenous Australians would have about Australia Day".

Sounds good to me. Too often Australia has given the rose tinted view, or completely covered up the darker parts of our history. Time to call a spade a spade.

They should also cover the stolen generations and stolen wages. It is absurd that we are having a national debate about these issues and most people have no clue what went on so recently.

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 10:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:14pm: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/children-to-learn-about-invasion/story-e6freuy9-1226252969564 AUSTRALIA Day - and why some call it "Invasion Day" - will become compulsory topics for all primary and secondary school students. Education Minister Peter Garrett will announce today that "the significance of January 26" will become a non-negotiable part of history classes under the new national curriculum. The lessons will cover "what (Australia Day) means to different groups of Australians, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders". Some indigenous groups consider Australia Day, which marks the anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet, to be "Invasion Day". Mr Garrett said the full story of Australia's official national day should not be an "optional extra". "Australia Day is central to our history and our sense of self," he said. "It's a day where we celebrate everything that makes this country great and acknowledge the importance of the original inhabitants. "But until now our learning about our national day hasn't been compulsory in all our schools." A spokeswoman for Mr Garrett said individual schools would decide the exact content of lessons, but that it would be compulsory to "look at the different perspectives that indigenous Australians would have about Australia Day". Sounds good to me. Too often Australia has given the rose tinted view, or completely covered up the darker parts of our history. Time to call a spade a spade. They should also cover the stolen generations and stolen wages. It is absurd that we are having a national debate about these issues and most people have no clue what went on so recently.

What they SHOULD be teaching is 'Don't listen to your rock-stars, cos
they'll sel you out in an instant as soon as they sight the 'trough'.

Good one, Garrett.

NOT.

Asshole!

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 10:01pm:

Sounds good to me. Too often Australia has given the rose tinted view, or completely covered up the darker parts of our history. Time to call a spade a spade. They should also cover the stolen generations and stolen wages. It is absurd that we are having a national debate about these issues and most people have no clue what went on so recently.

True.

Australia has always (conveniently) suffered a national cultural dementia with regard to our history... Including the truth of the transportation of convicts... Which was nothing more than an extension of the British slave trade on the eve of black slavery's demise in Britain.

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 10:01pm:

Sounds good to me. Too often Australia has given the rose tinted view, or completely covered up the darker parts of our history. Time to call a spade a spade. They should also cover the stolen generations and stolen wages. It is absurd that we are having a national debate about these issues and most people have no clue what went on so recently.

There are plenty of other issues and "national debate" equally worthy of discussion and taught in schools so why not do it all?

All these "dark" things of the past are already taught at a university level.

Social scientists (I use that term loosely) have been reinterpreting the past at least since the 1960s. The trend is to view history through the lens of race, gender, class, and imperialism. Researchers establish who was in power, then add a moral dimension to the argument by lambasting those in power for past 'evils,' then take the moral high ground and claim there ought to have been "equality." With this formula you get this basic paradigm:

British = evil
Non-British = good
Men (whites ones only) = evil
Women = good

This paradigm is used unquestionably to then judge all Australian history.
What I learned in undertaking these revisionist courses was not so much a history lesson, but rather a course in proclaiming moral judgments on past events based on the above used paradigm. It's purpose to me was not so much about learning the past, but to impose guilt on the ruling groups of the time.

Now, I am no Einstein, but history should be about understanding events; any moral judgment on whether an event was right or wrong is another issue and not for historians to pursue.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30^th, 2012 at 9:13am:

All these "dark" things of the past are already taught at a university level.

There's the problem - not many lefties even finish Primary School let alone Secondary

Australian's have always had a problem accepting they have ever done anything wrong.....Our treatment of minorities has always been less than honourable and is always tainted with racial overtones.....I see no problem with telling the truth about how Indigenous Australian's have been treated and accepting the truth!!!

Maqqa wrote on Jan 30^th, 2012 at 9:14am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30th, 2012 at 9:13am: All these "dark" things of the past are already taught at a university level. There's the problem - not many lefties even finish Primary School let alone Secondary

But... ahh... You're not a leftie... And yet...  ;)

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30^th, 2012 at 9:13am:

British = evil Non-British = good

No need to panic... Australia is not the only country that suffers cultural dementia...

Take the Turks and the Armenian genocide for example... When it comes to that historical chapter, the Turks not only suffer a cultural dementia, they become psychopathic at the mention of it...

Here, we tend to get uppity as opposed to psychopathic, which the more dim-witted among us tend to think has its genesis in political affiliation... Cultural dementia, I'm guessing (under that logic) is solely a poltically conservative phenomenon, would they argue?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 30^th, 2012 at 10:33am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 30th, 2012 at 9:14am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30th, 2012 at 9:13am: All these "dark" things of the past are already taught at a university level. There's the problem - not many lefties even finish Primary School let alone Secondary But... ahh... You're not a leftie... And yet...  ;)

Smarter than they

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 30^th, 2012 at 10:55am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30th, 2012 at 9:13am: British = evil Non-British = good No need to panic... Australia is not the only country that suffers cultural dementia... Take the Turks and the Armenian genocide for example... When it comes to that historical chapter, the Turks not only suffer a cultural dementia, they become psychopathic at the mention of it... Here, we tend to get uppity as opposed to psychopathic, which the more dim-witted among us tend to think has its genesis in political affiliation... Cultural dementia, I'm guessing (under that logic) is solely a poltically conservative phenomenon, would they argue?

The Armenians started the war against Turks. They then got their arses kicked. Some of the main reasons why Turks get "psychopathic" is because they dispute the number of deaths and also the way they were killed. They are also a country that doesn't deal very well with Leftist-style impositions of guilt. Hating one's past and hating one's past victories is uniquely a Western Leftist phenomenon. It is basically not heard of in any culture outside of the West. But Lefties are trying to export their guilt as much as possible. Turk's are proud of their past and republic and are therefore new to this Lefty style of thinking. How do you turn hundreds of years of pride into self-hate in 1 generation?

This then leads us onto the current reinterpretation of Australia's past by Leftist "scholars." Hating the 1788 landing only became fashionable from around the 1960s. This coincides with the postmodern deconstructionists monopolizing the Academy and then reinterpreting the past through the new lens of race, gender, and imperialism. These trendy scholars aren't interested in understanding what the morals of that particular Zeitgeist were, they're only after the imposition of guilt. Because they feel like sh*t, everyone ought to feel like sh*t.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30^th, 2012 at 4:09pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 30th, 2012 at 10:55am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30th, 2012 at 9:13am: British = evil Non-British = good No need to panic... Australia is not the only country that suffers cultural dementia... Take the Turks and the Armenian genocide for example... When it comes to that historical chapter, the Turks not only suffer a cultural dementia, they become psychopathic at the mention of it... Here, we tend to get uppity as opposed to psychopathic, which the more dim-witted among us tend to think has its genesis in political affiliation... Cultural dementia, I'm guessing (under that logic) is solely a poltically conservative phenomenon, would they argue? The Armenians started the war against Turks. They then got their arses kicked. Some of the main reasons why Turks get "psychopathic" is because they dispute the number of deaths and also the way they were killed. They are also a country that doesn't deal very well with Leftist-style impositions of guilt. Hating one's past and hating one's past victories is uniquely a Western Leftist phenomenon. It is basically not heard of in any culture outside of the West. But Lefties are trying to export their guilt as much as possible. Turk's are proud of their past and republic and are therefore new to this Lefty style of thinking. How do you turn hundreds of years of pride into self-hate in 1 generation? This then leads us onto the current reinterpretation of Australia's past by Leftist "scholars." Hating the 1788 landing only became fashionable from around the 1960s. This coincides with the postmodern deconstructionists monopolizing the Academy and then reinterpreting the past through the new lens of race, gender, and imperialism. These trendy scholars aren't interested in understanding what the morals of that particular Zeitgeist were, they're only after the imposition of guilt. Because they feel like sh*t, everyone ought to feel like sh*t.

I think you overstate the sentiment with regard to hating the 1788 landing. Certainly colonisation in some form was inevitable (notably the competing interests of the French at that time assured that outcome).

But to imagine that the landing was based on the purest of intentions and without significant negative consequences, when any group is left largely to their own devices, is naive.

In the American context, land grabs and slavery guaranteed that atrocities against peoples would be and were committed. In the case of American slavery (a blight on the ideals of the new republic that even the founding fathers recognised), a further 100+ years after emancipation were to pass before equality was recognised in the US.

I'm sure all nations and peoples suffer from a cultural dementia to some degree or other. In the Australian context, the question should not be 'did atrocities occur?' (as they certainly did), but 'are we, as a nation, mature enough to accept our history "warts and all", or do we maintain the delusion that all intentions from 1788 by the new colonists were pure?' (which they certainly were not).

It's interesting to note that Phillip rejected the offer of black slaves to accompany him to Australia, accepting instead a more palatable form of slavery. A shrewd move given that the abolitionist movement in Britain had by 1788 reached a critical mass in terms of popular support.

By 1807 (still more than 20 years after Phillip set sail for the new colony), slavery (i.e. race-based slavery) was abolished in Britain.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 4:28pm:

School curriculums are vague lists of learning outcomes. They do not specify what should be taught, how it is taught, or the words used to teach them. There is no way a PM or minister could decree that something gets taught in a school. Howard knew this all too well, which is why his own history teaching ideas were pure wedge politics. And why this story is doing exactly the same thing. Garrett would never talk about teaching something in a school beyond his own personal opinion, and I doubt he'd even give you that - not since he's been in the Labor Party. A pure dog whistle debate that means nothing.

You talk as if curricula were natural phenomena, completely beyond human control.

Maqqa wrote on Jan 30^th, 2012 at 8:52am:

freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 10:01pm: Sounds good to me. Too often Australia has given the rose tinted view, or completely covered up the darker parts of our history. Time to call a spade a spade. They should also cover the stolen generations and stolen wages. It is absurd that we are having a national debate about these issues and most people have no clue what went on so recently. There are plenty of other issues and "national debate" equally worthy of discussion and taught in schools so why not do it all?

I am not suggesting the current national debate take place in the classroom. I am suggesting that these very significant episodes in our history are taught as part of Australian history.

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/children-to-learn-about-invasion/story-e6freuy9-1226252969564 AUSTRALIA Day - and why some call it "Invasion Day" - will become compulsory topics for all primary and secondary school students. Education Minister Peter Garrett will announce today that "the significance of January 26" will become a non-negotiable part of history classes under the new national curriculum. The lessons will cover "what (Australia Day) means to different groups of Australians, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders". Some indigenous groups consider Australia Day, which marks the anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet, to be "Invasion Day". Mr Garrett said the full story of Australia's official national day should not be an "optional extra". "Australia Day is central to our history and our sense of self," he said. "It's a day where we celebrate everything that makes this country great and acknowledge the importance of the original inhabitants. "But until now our learning about our national day hasn't been compulsory in all our schools." A spokeswoman for Mr Garrett said individual schools would decide the exact content of lessons, but that it would be compulsory to "look at the different perspectives that indigenous Australians would have about Australia Day".

Garrett will take the guilt of his nations founding to his grave.
Someone pass the flogger a hanky.

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/children-to-learn-about-invasion/story-e6freuy9-1226252969564 AUSTRALIA Day - and why some call it "Invasion Day" - will become compulsory topics for all primary and secondary school students. Education Minister Peter Garrett will announce today that "the significance of January 26" will become a non-negotiable part of history classes under the new national curriculum. The lessons will cover "what (Australia Day) means to different groups of Australians, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders". Some indigenous groups consider Australia Day, which marks the anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet, to be "Invasion Day". Mr Garrett said the full story of Australia's official national day should not be an "optional extra". "Australia Day is central to our history and our sense of self," he said. "It's a day where we celebrate everything that makes this country great and acknowledge the importance of the original inhabitants. "But until now our learning about our national day hasn't been compulsory in all our schools." A spokeswoman for Mr Garrett said individual schools would decide the exact content of lessons, but that it would be compulsory to "look at the different perspectives that indigenous Australians would have about Australia Day".

--------

That is a safer untruth to stuff into kids' heads than that carbon dioxide is warming the globe.

"In these parts, we've had only two hot days this summer", says I, pulling on my winter dressing gown.. . .

Brrrrr. . .

olde.sault wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 4:45pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 3:14pm: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/children-to-learn-about-invasion/story-e6freuy9-1226252969564 AUSTRALIA Day - and why some call it "Invasion Day" - will become compulsory topics for all primary and secondary school students. Education Minister Peter Garrett will announce today that "the significance of January 26" will become a non-negotiable part of history classes under the new national curriculum. The lessons will cover "what (Australia Day) means to different groups of Australians, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders". Some indigenous groups consider Australia Day, which marks the anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet, to be "Invasion Day". Mr Garrett said the full story of Australia's official national day should not be an "optional extra". "Australia Day is central to our history and our sense of self," he said. "It's a day where we celebrate everything that makes this country great and acknowledge the importance of the original inhabitants. "But until now our learning about our national day hasn't been compulsory in all our schools." A spokeswoman for Mr Garrett said individual schools would decide the exact content of lessons, but that it would be compulsory to "look at the different perspectives that indigenous Australians would have about Australia Day". -------- That is a safer untruth to stuff into kids' heads than that carbon dioxide is warming the globe. "In these parts, we've had only two hot days this summer", says I, pulling on my winter dressing gown.. . . Brrrrr. . .

temperature hasn't got above 25 degrees here in SA either for the last week or so

Maqqa wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 4:59pm:

temperature hasn't got above 25 degrees here in SA either for the last week or so

Hottest summer in 34 years, here in Perth.

"Last week saw the WA capital record five consecutive days above 37 degrees, marking the hottest January since 1978, according to The Weather Channel, which sources its information from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

"The hottest temperature for the month was Saturday, January 28, when the mercury rose to 42.1C."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/perths-hottest-january-in-34-years/story-e6frf7jx-1226259616016

However, I don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis.

Uncle Meat wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 5:09pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 4:59pm: temperature hasn't got above 25 degrees here in SA either for the last week or so Hottest summer in 34 years, here in Perth. "Last week saw the WA capital record five consecutive days above 37 degrees, marking the hottest January since 1978, according to The Weather Channel, which sources its information from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. "The hottest temperature for the month was Saturday, January 28, when the mercury rose to 42.1C." http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/perths-hottest-january-in-34-years/story-e6frf7jx-1226259616016 However, I don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis.

and hottest summer in 34 years on a planet that's 4,600,000,000 years old - it must be global warming  ;)

I know you don't subscribe to AGW

Maqqa wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 5:15pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 5:09pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 4:59pm: temperature hasn't got above 25 degrees here in SA either for the last week or so Hottest summer in 34 years, here in Perth. "Last week saw the WA capital record five consecutive days above 37 degrees, marking the hottest January since 1978, according to The Weather Channel, which sources its information from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. "The hottest temperature for the month was Saturday, January 28, when the mercury rose to 42.1C." http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/perths-hottest-january-in-34-years/story-e6frf7jx-1226259616016 However, I don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis. and hottest summer in 34 years on a planet that's 4,600,000,000 years old - it must be global warming  ;)

LOL    Exactly!

It's summer, it gets hot.  Some are hotter than others.

Next summer will probably be cooler.

All normal; been going on for a loooooooooooooooooong time.

Drop kicks the lot of you.....Weather is local Climate is Global!!!

What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?

The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather. Today, children always hear stories from their parents and grandparents about how snow was always piled up to their waists as they trudged off to school. Children today in most areas of the country haven't experienced those kinds of dreadful snow-packed winters, except for the Northeastern U.S. in January 2005. The change in recent winter snows indicate that the climate has changed since their parents were young.

If summers seem hotter lately, then the recent climate may have changed. In various parts of the world, some people have even noticed that springtime comes earlier now than it did 30 years ago. An earlier springtime is indicative of a possible change in the climate.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)

Quote:

The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

Long periods of time? pfffft.. for most on here things aren't real if they can't touch it, taste it, f-ck it or be told by their favourite pollie that they are real.

Although exceptions are made for god, the little baby jesus and those scary things that lurk under the bed.