Abbott under fire for unsettled call


PRIME Minister Tony Abbott has come under fire for saying Australia was unsettled before British colonisation.
MR Abbott made the comments while addressing the Melbourne Institute, saying Australia was unimaginable without foreign investment.
"I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land," he said on Friday.
Labor's only indigenous parliamentarian, Senator Nova Peris, said the comments hindered efforts to have her people recognised in the constitution.
The comments were hurtful, dismissive of indigenous Australians and incorrect, she said.
Labor leader Bill Shorten said the comment was offensive, especially from a prime minister who claimed to be dedicated to indigenous affairs.
Mr Abbott's key indigenous adviser, Warren Mundine, labelled the comments silly and bizarre.


www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/abbott-under-fire-for-unsettled-call/story-e6frfku9-1229678015022

Mr Abbott's chief Indigenous adviser Warren Mundine, who was in the audience for Mr Abbott's speech, has also described the comments as "silly".

www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-04/pms-british-settlement-comments-highly-offensive-peris/5572718/?site=indigenous&topic=latest

Dear Tony,


We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation.

Yours faithfully,

Aussie.

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:09pm:

Dear Tony, We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation. Yours faithfully, Aussie.

Gee! Just like the colonisation of Europe, the Americas, England before it became Britain or the UK, Spain, Germany, China - etc.

Pesky, them invaders, ain't they.

Was that wall in China erected to keep the rabbits out?

And that old muck-heap of Hadrian's in 'ol Merry England?

Our fence, our oceans, have only recently come under siege.

The problem is still the same, only nowadays the answers appear to be quite different.

Should we follow the example of the current American Messiah? Or that of English politicians in times past? The Conquistadors? The Romans?

Methinks not.

'Tis not better to learn from other's mistakes?

Yours in satire,

Lionel.

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:09pm:

Dear Tony, We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation. Yours faithfully, Aussie.

One of the silliest things said today...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGkI8/S0iXdwgPDLI/AAAAAAAAFdw/CYJYbsVycq4/s400/head_up_your_ass2.jpg

It was obviously a bit of a brain fart that he immediately attempted to correct, but geez... when it comes to interviews and public speaking, he makes George W Bush seem articulate and a great orator.

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:09pm:

Dear Tony, We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation. Yours faithfully, Aussie.

Eff off Aussie. For someone who choose 'Aussie' as a tag you know very little about Australian colonial history. ::) :-[

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:03pm:

Abbott under fire for unsettled call PRIME Minister Tony Abbott has come under fire for saying Australia was unsettled before British colonisation. MR Abbott made the comments while addressing the Melbourne Institute, saying Australia was unimaginable without foreign investment. "I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land," he said on Friday. Labor's only indigenous parliamentarian, Senator Nova Peris, said the comments hindered efforts to have her people recognised in the constitution. The comments were hurtful, dismissive of indigenous Australians and incorrect, she said. Labor leader Bill Shorten said the comment was offensive, especially from a prime minister who claimed to be dedicated to indigenous affairs. Mr Abbott's key indigenous adviser, Warren Mundine, labelled the comments silly and bizarre. www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/abbott-under-fire-for-unsettled-call/story-e6frfku9-1229678015022

That's the problem when you are the Liar King - when you tell the truth people won't listen.

For your own credibility LNP, get rid of him. ;) :-[

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:30pm:

Gee! Just like the colonisation of Europe, the Americas, England before it became Britain or the UK, Spain, Germany, China - etc.

Key difference, the indigenous population in those other countries are not still suffering as a result of the invasions.

Remedying the suffering of the Aborigines is directly related to acknowledging and addressing the enormous destruction wrought by the invasion and occupation of their land.

In short, Tony's comments just perpetuates the problem.

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:52pm:

[quote author=Tony_Abbott link=1404457421/0#0 date=1404457421]Abbott under fire for unsettled call PRIME Minister Tony Abbott has come under fire for saying Australia was unsettled before British colonisation. MR Abbott made the comments while addressing the Melbourne Institute, saying Australia was unimaginable without foreign investment. "I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land," he said on Friday. Labor's only indigenous parliamentarian, Senator Nova Peris, said the comments hindered efforts to have her people recognised in the constitution. The comments were hurtful, dismissive of indigenous Australians and incorrect, she said. Labor leader Bill Shorten said the comment was offensive, especially from a prime minister who claimed to be dedicated to indigenous affairs. Mr Abbott's key indigenous adviser, Warren Mundine, labelled the comments silly and bizarre. www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/abbott-under-fire-for-unsettled-call/story-e6frfku9-1229678015022

That's the problem when you are the Liar King - when you tell the truth people won't listen.

For your own credibility LNP, get rid of him. ;) :-[/quote]


Removing abbott would result in the same argument used against labor when they dumped PMs on whims.

Libs must take abbott to the next election and be kicked out by the people.

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:46pm:

[quote author=Aussie link=1404457421/2#2 date=1404457795]Dear Tony, We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation. Yours faithfully, Aussie.

Eff off Aussie. For someone who choose 'Aussie' as a tag you know very little about Australian colonial history. ::) :-[/quote]

Really?  Feel free to enlighten me.

So.... where exactly was Abbott factually wrong again?

Grendel wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:57pm:

So.... where exactly was Abbott factually wrong again?

I reckon somehow, Grendel, you'll find the answer in this sentence.


Quote:

"I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land,."

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:59pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:57pm: So.... where exactly was Abbott factually wrong again? I reckon somehow, Grendel, you'll find the answer in this sentence. Quote: "I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land,."

Well since I know who he was addressing i understand completely the point he was making.

Want me to ask you again? ::)

Grendel wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:01pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:59pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:57pm: So.... where exactly was Abbott factually wrong again? I reckon somehow, Grendel, you'll find the answer in this sentence. Quote: "I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land,." Well since I know who he was addressing i understand completely the point he was making. Want me to ask you again? ::)

What does it matter who he was addressing.  He ought be accurate no matter who is listening.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:52pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:30pm: Gee! Just like the colonisation of Europe, the Americas, England before it became Britain or the UK, Spain, Germany, China - etc. Key difference, the indigenous population in those other countries are not still suffering as a result of the invasions. Remedying the suffering of the Aborigines is directly related to acknowledging and addressing the enormous destruction wrought by the invasion and occupation of their land. In short, Tony's comments just perpetuates the problem.

BULLSHOT.

The biggest problem aboriginal have are themselves. It is time to move on and adapt - some have, others are in Dream Time with a 'Air Plane Cult' mentality.

There is not a culture on Earth that hasn't changed significantly in the last 200 years - but no one can go back in time no matter how idealistic it might appeal. 

If you or any Aboriginal have THE solution please submit it to the Minister pronto. We have been looking for a solution and throwing money and misguided policy at the problem for 220 years.

In between times, muddying the waters of public debate with the irrelevant and the distorted ain't helpful.

I hardly think tribal wars or starvation and other such problems lead to an idyllic lifestyle.

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:03pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:01pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:59pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:57pm: So.... where exactly was Abbott factually wrong again? I reckon somehow, Grendel, you'll find the answer in this sentence. Quote: "I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land,." Well since I know who he was addressing i understand completely the point he was making. Want me to ask you again? ::) What does it matter who he was addressing.  He ought be accurate no matter who is listening.

For the 3rd time...  where was he wrong?

Grendel wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:01pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:59pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:57pm: So.... where exactly was Abbott factually wrong again? I reckon somehow, Grendel, you'll find the answer in this sentence. Quote: "I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land,." Well since I know who he was addressing i understand completely the point he was making. Want me to ask you again? ::)

Maybe Abbott was dared by his local KKK chapter.

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:52pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:30pm: Gee! Just like the colonisation of Europe, the Americas, England before it became Britain or the UK, Spain, Germany, China - etc. Key difference, the indigenous population in those other countries are not still suffering as a result of the invasions. Remedying the suffering of the Aborigines is directly related to acknowledging and addressing the enormous destruction wrought by the invasion and occupation of their land. In short, Tony's comments just perpetuates the problem. BULLSHOT. The biggest problem aboriginal have are themselves. It is time to move on and adapt - some have, others are in Dream Time with a 'Air Plane Cult' mentality. There is not a culture on Earth that hasn't changed significantly in the last 200 years - but no one can go back in time no matter how idealistic it might appeal.  If you or any Aboriginal have THE solution please submit it to the Minister pronto. We have been looking for a solution and throwing money and misguided policy at the problem for 220 years. In between times, muddying the waters of public debate with the irrelevant and the distorted ain't helpful.

Turn it up Mr Crusty.  That is not what this Thread is about.  It is about Abbott putting his foot in his mouth whenever he strays from the Credlin script.

You do intend to enlighten me about history, yes?

Abbott was wrong about Australia not being settled before European occupation.....It would be the same as claiming Britain was not settled before the Romans conquered their land.....Linking early European settlement to foreign infrastructure investment is the argument of a simpleton who has no understanding of how insulting this is to indigenous people whom he claims to represent.....Most of the early infrastructure such as prisons where built by convicts and forced labour of indigenous people!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:52pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:30pm: Gee! Just like the colonisation of Europe, the Americas, England before it became Britain or the UK, Spain, Germany, China - etc. Key difference, the indigenous population in those other countries are not still suffering as a result of the invasions. Remedying the suffering of the Aborigines is directly related to acknowledging and addressing the enormous destruction wrought by the invasion and occupation of their land. In short, Tony's comments just perpetuates the problem.

What has Australia NOT done to 'remedy the suffering"?
What would you do to 'remedy the suffering"?
What have Aborigines NOT done to remedy their own suffering?


The Brits/Europeans brought the idea of 'work'. Aborigines who have adjusted to that idea are not suffering.

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:13pm:

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:03pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:52pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:30pm: Gee! Just like the colonisation of Europe, the Americas, England before it became Britain or the UK, Spain, Germany, China - etc. Key difference, the indigenous population in those other countries are not still suffering as a result of the invasions. Remedying the suffering of the Aborigines is directly related to acknowledging and addressing the enormous destruction wrought by the invasion and occupation of their land. In short, Tony's comments just perpetuates the problem. BULLSHOT. The biggest problem aboriginal have are themselves. It is time to move on and adapt - some have, others are in Dream Time with a 'Air Plane Cult' mentality. There is not a culture on Earth that hasn't changed significantly in the last 200 years - but no one can go back in time no matter how idealistic it might appeal.  If you or any Aboriginal have THE solution please submit it to the Minister pronto. We have been looking for a solution and throwing money and misguided policy at the problem for 220 years. In between times, muddying the waters of public debate with the irrelevant and the distorted ain't helpful. Turn it up Mr Crusty.  That is not what this Thread is about.  It is about Abbott putting his foot in his mouth whenever he strays from the Credlin script. You do intend to enlighten me about history, yes?

Surely it should be you first Aussie, i'm sure we are waiting for YOU or someone to tell the rest of us just what he said that was wrong.
I know I am.

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:15pm:

and forced labour of indigenous people!!!

::) Pray tell.

For the second time.....for the Abbott rusted on.....in this sentence:


Quote:

"I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land."

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:15pm:

Abbott was wrong about Australia not being settled before European occupation.....It would be the same as claiming Britain was not settled before the Romans conquered their land.....Linking early European settlement to foreign infrastructure investment is the argument of a simpleton who has no understanding of how insulting this is to indigenous people whom he claims to represent.....Most of the early infrastructure such as prisons where built by convicts and forced labour of indigenous people!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Yet he didn't say that he corrected himself to the completely correct if clumsy term "scarcely settled". Even if considering humpies and temporary camps a real form of settlement may be debatable too.

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:18pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:15pm: and forced labour of indigenous people!!! ::) Pray tell.

There are a zillion links.  And here is one:

Link.

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:19pm:

For the second time.....for the Abbott rusted on.....in this sentence: Quote: "I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land."

SO.....
You've got nothin' then.
I suggest you take the rest of the night off and stop wasting your time and mine.

Grendel wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:23pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:15pm: Abbott was wrong about Australia not being settled before European occupation.....It would be the same as claiming Britain was not settled before the Romans conquered their land.....Linking early European settlement to foreign infrastructure investment is the argument of a simpleton who has no understanding of how insulting this is to indigenous people whom he claims to represent.....Most of the early infrastructure such as prisons where built by convicts and forced labour of indigenous people!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] Yet he didn't say that he corrected himself to the completely correct if clumsy term "scarcely settled". Even if considering humpies and temporary camps a real form of settlement may be debatable too.

When the Martians arrive, Grendel, and claim Earth is 'scarely settled' you'll agree with them.  I get it now.

I wonder if Abbott's Token 'Uncle Warren' Mundine is going to have more gonads that this wimper:


Quote:

Mr Abbott's key indigenous adviser, Warren Mundine, labelled the comments silly and bizarre.

There was no fully functioning country before we arrived and settled the land.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:29pm:

There was no fully functioning country before we arrived and settled the land.

No doubt, you along with Grendel, will tell that to the Martians when they arrive on Earth.  Jolly good.  Do carry on.

The Dutch were here before the English and the French met the Fleet at the east coast.

Now tell me, would anyone have preferred Dutch or French colonisation of this continent over that of the English, primitive as it was in those days?

Can anyone here tell me about shovel-head spears? Can anyone here relate the early massacres of remote pioneer men and women?

I possess an American dime (5c) minted in 1775.

Compare the difference - compare the countries.

The Aboriginal, outside metropolitan areas, faces the same problems he did before we arrived - bar one.

The inability, refusal, to adapt.

Is the American Indian to be considered a 'primitive'?

Consider the treatment.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:29pm:

There was no fully functioning country before we arrived and settled the land.

Thousands of years of settlement including trade across the country.
There again this is more about racism than logic to some.

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:25pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:23pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:15pm: Abbott was wrong about Australia not being settled before European occupation.....It would be the same as claiming Britain was not settled before the Romans conquered their land.....Linking early European settlement to foreign infrastructure investment is the argument of a simpleton who has no understanding of how insulting this is to indigenous people whom he claims to represent.....Most of the early infrastructure such as prisons where built by convicts and forced labour of indigenous people!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] Yet he didn't say that he corrected himself to the completely correct if clumsy term "scarcely settled". Even if considering humpies and temporary camps a real form of settlement may be debatable too. When the Martians arrive, Grendel, and claim Earth is 'scarely settled' you'll agree with them.  I get it now.

Maybe I will, after all it is a relative term isn't it.
We have a population of 23 million approx now... yet a quick look at the map would show we are very light on population wise...  I'm betting China is thinking we are very underpopulated.  Even the Indians may share that opinion.
Do you suppose there were 23 million Aboriginals here over 200 years ago?
11 million perhaps?
5 million maybe?
Their major population centres were where?
Their cities where?
Their major contributions to the world of knowledge were?
They had an army, navy?
They had a cohesive society and central government?

Or were they a small group of tribal even nomadic natives occupying a very large continent, which they had scarcely settled?

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:36pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:29pm: There was no fully functioning country before we arrived and settled the land. Thousands of years of settlement including trade across the country. There again this is more about racism than logic to some.

And then there is the patently stupid...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGkI8/S0iXdwgPDLI/AAAAAAAAFdw/CYJYbsVycq4/s400/head_up_your_ass2.jpg

Grendel wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:37pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:25pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:23pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:15pm: Abbott was wrong about Australia not being settled before European occupation.....It would be the same as claiming Britain was not settled before the Romans conquered their land.....Linking early European settlement to foreign infrastructure investment is the argument of a simpleton who has no understanding of how insulting this is to indigenous people whom he claims to represent.....Most of the early infrastructure such as prisons where built by convicts and forced labour of indigenous people!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] Yet he didn't say that he corrected himself to the completely correct if clumsy term "scarcely settled". Even if considering humpies and temporary camps a real form of settlement may be debatable too. When the Martians arrive, Grendel, and claim Earth is 'scarely settled' you'll agree with them.  I get it now. Maybe I will, after all it is a relative term isn't it. We have a population of 23 million approx now... yet a quick look at the map would show we are very light on population wise...  I'm betting China is thinking we are very underpopulated.  Even the Indians may share that opinion. Do you suppose there were 23 million Aboriginals here over 200 years ago? 11 million perhaps? 5 million maybe? Their major population centres were where? Their cities where? Their major contributions to the world of knowledge were? They had an army, navy? They had a cohesive society and central government? Or were they a small group of tribal even nomadic natives occupying a very large continent, which they had scarcely settled?

You along with Abbott are classifying unsettled in very narrow westernised terms.
Aboriginals were prior invasion, more evolved than current Australians.

Grendel wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:40pm:

____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:29pm: There was no fully functioning country before we arrived and settled the land. Thousands of years of settlement including trade across the country. There again this is more about racism than logic to some. And then there is the patently stupid... http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGkI8/S0iXdwgPDLI/AAAAAAAAFdw/CYJYbsVycq4/s400/head_up_your_ass2.jpg

The only issue I have, and it's obvious to those that don't post the same picture in every thread they feel out of depth in, is pointless posts.

Quote:

You along with Abbott are classifying unsettled in very narrow westernised terms.

Exactly.  When the Martians turn up, they will apply their concept of 'settlement' to what we have achieved, even though we would say we're pretty clevah and happy chaps thank you Mr Martian Abbott.

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:09pm:

Dear Tony, We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation. Yours faithfully, Aussie.

No, actually we DON'T...

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:13pm:

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:03pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:52pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:30pm: Gee! Just like the colonisation of Europe, the Americas, England before it became Britain or the UK, Spain, Germany, China - etc. Key difference, the indigenous population in those other countries are not still suffering as a result of the invasions. Remedying the suffering of the Aborigines is directly related to acknowledging and addressing the enormous destruction wrought by the invasion and occupation of their land. In short, Tony's comments just perpetuates the problem. BULLSHOT. The biggest problem aboriginal have are themselves. It is time to move on and adapt - some have, others are in Dream Time with a 'Air Plane Cult' mentality. There is not a culture on Earth that hasn't changed significantly in the last 200 years - but no one can go back in time no matter how idealistic it might appeal.  If you or any Aboriginal have THE solution please submit it to the Minister pronto. We have been looking for a solution and throwing money and misguided policy at the problem for 220 years. In between times, muddying the waters of public debate with the irrelevant and the distorted ain't helpful. Turn it up Mr Crusty.  That is not what this Thread is about.  It is about Abbott putting his foot in his mouth whenever he strays from the Credlin script. You do intend to enlighten me about history, yes?

I was responding to the Grand Duke  ;).

If you want to know about early Australian Colonial History it will require more reading than allowed per post on this forum.

Go a couple of google searchs for First Fleet, Capt Phillip, Capt Tench etc and you'll get a good feel for things.

Be careful of the History Wars. Much contradictory and self serving Histories have been written - and some writers and academics will pointedly contradict and rubbish other's work. As with most things the truth is probably in between. As an example Hill said something along the lines that the aboriginal were so primitive and disunited that the the Sydney Harbour natives had a different language  to the Parramatta natives.

Which is true, but when you read Tench's first hand report of Bennelong, who was taken against his will on Tench's western expedition, conversing with the Inland natives (at about present day Castle Hills), Tench reports that they could converse with each other but used widely different descriptive words (which he lists). 

It is an interesting History and if you read with an open mind can get a lot of insight into the first inter reactions between colonialists and the aboriginals. It is a classic human story of curiosity and respect, and misunderstanding  and tragedy.

Aborigines are a nomadic race, so technically Abbott is right.

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:46pm:

[quote author=Aussie link=1404457421/2#2 date=1404457795]Dear Tony, We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation. Yours faithfully, Aussie.

Eff off Aussie. For someone who choose 'Aussie' as a tag you know very little about Australian colonial history. ::) :-[/quote]

I theenk you were addressing me there Mr Crusty Elde Fruit.  I am hoping you can explain which part of my short letter to Abbott is incorrect.

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:30pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:29pm: There was no fully functioning country before we arrived and settled the land. No doubt, you along with Grendel, will tell that to the Martians when they arrive on Earth.  Jolly good.  Do carry on.

I'm very proud of my country's colonisation of the world and how we brought civilisation to far flung lands.
Britain has a very proud Imperial history of which Australia is a part.

Good with me thanks.

I agree.

Hard to believe what a mere 100 years can do to the world's greatest empire.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:06pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:30pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:29pm: There was no fully functioning country before we arrived and settled the land. No doubt, you along with Grendel, will tell that to the Martians when they arrive on Earth.  Jolly good.  Do carry on. I'm very proud of my country's colonisation of the world and how we brought civilisation to far flung lands. Britain has a very proud Imperial history of which Australia is a part. Good with me thanks.

When asked, Ghandi reckoned British civilisation was a great idea.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:06pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:30pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:29pm: There was no fully functioning country before we arrived and settled the land. No doubt, you along with Grendel, will tell that to the Martians when they arrive on Earth.  Jolly good.  Do carry on. I'm very proud of my country's colonisation of the world and how we brought civilisation to far flung lands. Britain has a very proud Imperial history of which Australia is a part. Good with me thanks.

Your queen apologies for the atrocities committed against my people. Seems she isn't as proud as you are.

How long before Aboriginals receive a similar apology.

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:36pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:29pm: There was no fully functioning country before we arrived and settled the land. Thousands of years of settlement including trade across the country. There again this is more about racism than logic to some.

Come Greenie, lets have a sense of proportion here. Calling a handful of gizmos taking 12 months to go through four set of owners to go 200 klms 'trade' is but of a stretch. Maybe anthropologist talking amongst themselves but in this context????

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

You along with Abbott are classifying unsettled in very narrow westernised terms. Aboriginals were prior invasion, more evolved than current Australians.

of course they were, marrying 8 year old girls, killing infants as a method of population control, circumcision practises which agonisingly killed 1 in 10. Mass extermination of species due to hunting practises which basically involved starting bushfires to catch their prey. No written language, no wheel, never invented any musical instrument because they couldnt work out to put holes in a hollowed out tree limb. At least housing was cheap.

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:14pm:

____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:29pm: There was no fully functioning country before we arrived and settled the land. Thousands of years of settlement including trade across the country. There again this is more about racism than logic to some. Come Greenie, lets have a sense of proportion here. Calling a handful of gizmos taking 12 months to go through four set of owners to go 200 klms 'trade' is but of a stretch. Maybe anthropologist talking amongst themselves but in this context????

It's still trade and where Aboriginals have it over current Australia, trade was sustainable.

Come back in 40,000 years of flat tack destruction of the support bases of our civilisation and let's see if we survive the test of time.

Only a very primitive culture would act as we are currently acting.

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:14pm:

____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:29pm: There was no fully functioning country before we arrived and settled the land. Thousands of years of settlement including trade across the country. There again this is more about racism than logic to some. Come Greenie, lets have a sense of proportion here. Calling a handful of gizmos taking 12 months to go through four set of owners to go 200 klms 'trade' is but of a stretch. Maybe anthropologist talking amongst themselves but in this context????

That's exactly the point Mr Elde Crusty One.  Context.  When  the Martians arrive and beat the crap out of us, and later tell us all how they did us some big favour......I want you there yelling out while beating your chest ~ context!

ian wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:17pm:

____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:42pm: You along with Abbott are classifying unsettled in very narrow westernised terms. Aboriginals were prior invasion, more evolved than current Australians. of course they were, marrying 8 year old girls, killing infants as a method of population control, circumcision practises which agonisingly killed 1 in 10. Mass extermination of species due to hunting practises which basically involved starting bushfires to catch their prey. No written language, no wheel, never invented any musical instrument because they couldnt work out to put holes in a hollowed out tree limb. At least housing was cheap.

40,000 plus years on a functioning society on the board compared to 200 years and a major extinction occurring around us, a spiritually vacant and divided society to boot.

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:37pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:25pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:23pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:15pm: Abbott was wrong about Australia not being settled before European occupation.....It would be the same as claiming Britain was not settled before the Romans conquered their land.....Linking early European settlement to foreign infrastructure investment is the argument of a simpleton who has no understanding of how insulting this is to indigenous people whom he claims to represent.....Most of the early infrastructure such as prisons where built by convicts and forced labour of indigenous people!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] Yet he didn't say that he corrected himself to the completely correct if clumsy term "scarcely settled". Even if considering humpies and temporary camps a real form of settlement may be debatable too. When the Martians arrive, Grendel, and claim Earth is 'scarely settled' you'll agree with them.  I get it now. Maybe I will, after all it is a relative term isn't it. We have a population of 23 million approx now... yet a quick look at the map would show we are very light on population wise...  I'm betting China is thinking we are very underpopulated.  Even the Indians may share that opinion. Do you suppose there were 23 million Aboriginals here over 200 years ago? 11 million perhaps? 5 million maybe? Their major population centres were where? Their cities where? Their major contributions to the world of knowledge were? They had an army, navy? They had a cohesive society and central government? Or were they a small group of tribal even nomadic natives occupying a very large continent, which they had scarcely settled? You along with Abbott are classifying unsettled in very narrow westernised terms. Aboriginals were prior invasion, more evolved than current Australians.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGkI8/S0iXdwgPDLI/AAAAAAAAFdw/CYJYbsVycq4/s400/head_up_your_ass2.jpg
If you have nothing Greenswine, best you say nothing...  as Twain once said...
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Grendel wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:37pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:25pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:23pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:15pm: Abbott was wrong about Australia not being settled before European occupation.....It would be the same as claiming Britain was not settled before the Romans conquered their land.....Linking early European settlement to foreign infrastructure investment is the argument of a simpleton who has no understanding of how insulting this is to indigenous people whom he claims to represent.....Most of the early infrastructure such as prisons where built by convicts and forced labour of indigenous people!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] Yet he didn't say that he corrected himself to the completely correct if clumsy term "scarcely settled". Even if considering humpies and temporary camps a real form of settlement may be debatable too. When the Martians arrive, Grendel, and claim Earth is 'scarely settled' you'll agree with them.  I get it now. Maybe I will, after all it is a relative term isn't it. We have a population of 23 million approx now... yet a quick look at the map would show we are very light on population wise...  I'm betting China is thinking we are very underpopulated.  Even the Indians may share that opinion. Do you suppose there were 23 million Aboriginals here over 200 years ago? 11 million perhaps? 5 million maybe? Their major population centres were where? Their cities where? Their major contributions to the world of knowledge were? They had an army, navy? They had a cohesive society and central government? Or were they a small group of tribal even nomadic natives occupying a very large continent, which they had scarcely settled?

Got nothin' eh Aussie....  how unusual for you.
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D
There's some hints for you maybe you could address them eh Aussie? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:14pm:

Your queen apologies for the atrocities committed against my people. Seems she isn't as proud as you are. How long before Aboriginals receive a similar apology.

You can give the aboriginals as many specific and heartfelt apologies as you like and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now.

You can give the aboriginals a $1mil each and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now.

I want all Australians to be happy and successful. This current Us and Them history, the Racist whites versus the Good Peaceful Bush Custodian Aboriginal diatribe is not helpful. The truth of the matter it is just part of the human story with all its human failing. Build a bridge and get over it; address  the current issues, fix the current issues and move on.

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:19pm:

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:14pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:29pm: There was no fully functioning country before we arrived and settled the land. Thousands of years of settlement including trade across the country. There again this is more about racism than logic to some. Come Greenie, lets have a sense of proportion here. Calling a handful of gizmos taking 12 months to go through four set of owners to go 200 klms 'trade' is but of a stretch. Maybe anthropologist talking amongst themselves but in this context???? It's still trade and where Aboriginals have it over current Australia, trade was sustainable. Come back in 40,000 years of flat tack destruction of the support bases of our civilisation and let's see if we survive the test of time. Only a very primitive culture would act as we are currently acting.

Sustainable for who; about 250,000? a 1,000,000?

You're a dope Greenie, and that's fair dinkum  ;) ;D

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:32pm:

____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:14pm: Your queen apologies for the atrocities committed against my people. Seems she isn't as proud as you are. How long before Aboriginals receive a similar apology. You can give the aboriginals as many specific and heartfelt apologies as you like and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. You can give the aboriginals a $1mil each and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. I want all Australians to be happy and successful. This current Us and Them history, the Racist whites versus the Good Peaceful Bush Custodian Aboriginal diatribe is not helpful. The truth of the matter it is just part of the human story with all its human failing. Build a bridge and get over it; address  the current issues, fix the current issues and move on.

Ignoring the core issues doesn't serve any purpose besides showing the naivety of the party.

-How about guaranteeing Aboriginals a couple of seats in the senate, Senators voted in by Aboriginals.
-All parties designing a treaty
etc etc.

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:32pm:

____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:14pm: Your queen apologies for the atrocities committed against my people. Seems she isn't as proud as you are. How long before Aboriginals receive a similar apology. You can give the aboriginals as many specific and heartfelt apologies as you like and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. You can give the aboriginals a $1mil each and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. I want all Australians to be happy and successful. This current Us and Them history, the Racist whites versus the Good Peaceful Bush Custodian Aboriginal diatribe is not helpful. The truth of the matter it is just part of the human story with all its human failing. Build a bridge and get over it; address  the current issues, fix the current issues and move on.

I'm not going to enter that debate because I have no solution, but ~ that post demonstrates how utterly retrograde and destructive were Abbott's comments of today.


Quote:

"I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land.

In a single sentence, he has put whatever the process is into reverse and turfed it all back prior to when Rudd made that appropriate apology speech.  Next I expect he, like Howard, will make some stupid comment denying there was ever a 'stolen generation.'

Heck, maybe he'll even legislate to overturn the Mabo decision.  Who knows what this extremist is capable of?

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:35pm:

____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:19pm: OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:14pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:29pm: There was no fully functioning country before we arrived and settled the land. Thousands of years of settlement including trade across the country. There again this is more about racism than logic to some. Come Greenie, lets have a sense of proportion here. Calling a handful of gizmos taking 12 months to go through four set of owners to go 200 klms 'trade' is but of a stretch. Maybe anthropologist talking amongst themselves but in this context???? It's still trade and where Aboriginals have it over current Australia, trade was sustainable. Come back in 40,000 years of flat tack destruction of the support bases of our civilisation and let's see if we survive the test of time. Only a very primitive culture would act as we are currently acting. Sustainable for who; about 250,000? a 1,000,000? You're a dope Greenie, and that's fair dinkum  ;) ;D

Sustainable to the pillars that support the society.
What we are doing today is not sustainable and reflects on how disconnected and primitive our culture is.

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:09pm:

Dear Tony, We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation. Yours faithfully, Aussie.

Feel free to hand over your house and land and disposable income every week to some Abo's.

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:24pm:

ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:17pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:42pm: You along with Abbott are classifying unsettled in very narrow westernised terms. Aboriginals were prior invasion, more evolved than current Australians. of course they were, marrying 8 year old girls, killing infants as a method of population control, circumcision practises which agonisingly killed 1 in 10. Mass extermination of species due to hunting practises which basically involved starting bushfires to catch their prey. No written language, no wheel, never invented any musical instrument because they couldnt work out to put holes in a hollowed out tree limb. At least housing was cheap. 40,000 plus years on a functioning society on the board compared to 200 years and a major extinction occurring around us, a spiritually vacant and divided society to boot.

40,000 plus years on a barely functioning society compared to 200 years to establish one of the best democracy, richest equitable economies, healthiest longest living, happiest most egalitarian society on Earth.

(There has been a few failures where some individuals despite an abundance of riches who became manic depressive pessimists  ::))

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:52pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:30pm: Gee! Just like the colonisation of Europe, the Americas, England before it became Britain or the UK, Spain, Germany, China - etc. Key difference, the indigenous population in those other countries are not still suffering as a result of the invasions. Remedying the suffering of the Aborigines is directly related to acknowledging and addressing the enormous destruction wrought by the invasion and occupation of their land. In short, Tony's comments just perpetuates the problem.

Oh, so it was all roses before whitey turned up? Romantic fantasy. Theır life was barbaric and violent.

Wow...Abbott is a racist git...really..whose surprised?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:43pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:09pm: Dear Tony, We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation. Yours faithfully, Aussie. Feel free to hand over your house and land and disposable income every week to some Abo's.

Being honest about a situation is not hoisting the white flag and surrendering ... it's a step in the right direction if finding a solution with the highest intent for all is centre of the agenda.

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:39pm:

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:32pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:14pm: Your queen apologies for the atrocities committed against my people. Seems she isn't as proud as you are. How long before Aboriginals receive a similar apology. You can give the aboriginals as many specific and heartfelt apologies as you like and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. You can give the aboriginals a $1mil each and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. I want all Australians to be happy and successful. This current Us and Them history, the Racist whites versus the Good Peaceful Bush Custodian Aboriginal diatribe is not helpful. The truth of the matter it is just part of the human story with all its human failing. Build a bridge and get over it; address  the current issues, fix the current issues and move on. Ignoring the core issues doesn't serve any purpose besides showing the naivety of the party. -How about guaranteeing Aboriginals a couple of seats in the senate, Senators voted in by Aboriginals. -All parties designing a treaty etc etc.

What core issue? The issue you want? The issue the Aboriginals define? And I suppose you are going to tell me if we rewrite history so the aboriginals are the good guys and the White guy are evil racist bastards then the aboriginal will live happily ever after.

"-How about guaranteeing Aboriginals a couple of seats in the senate, Senators voted in by Aboriginals."
Because they are just Australians like every one else. Or do you think I've got a great claim over Australia's wealth and the govt's attention than the last refugee off a boat.

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:49pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:43pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:09pm: Dear Tony, We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation. Yours faithfully, Aussie. Feel free to hand over your house and land and disposable income every week to some Abo's. Being honest about a situation is not hoisting the white flag and surrendering ... it's a step in the right direction if finding a solution with the highest intent for all is centre of the agenda.

Just as I thought, you'll do anything to avoid handing over your "stolen" items. But, that's not what this is about, is it. It's about some perceived moral suporiority. Some how, trendies have convinced themselves that feeling guilt over some past "injustice" makes them better human beings while doing nothing about ammending that guilt. Somehow, you can feel really, really good about feeling really, really bad.  :D

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:39pm:

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:32pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:14pm: Your queen apologies for the atrocities committed against my people. Seems she isn't as proud as you are. How long before Aboriginals receive a similar apology. You can give the aboriginals as many specific and heartfelt apologies as you like and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. You can give the aboriginals a $1mil each and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. I want all Australians to be happy and successful. This current Us and Them history, the Racist whites versus the Good Peaceful Bush Custodian Aboriginal diatribe is not helpful. The truth of the matter it is just part of the human story with all its human failing. Build a bridge and get over it; address  the current issues, fix the current issues and move on. Ignoring the core issues doesn't serve any purpose besides showing the naivety of the party. -How about guaranteeing Aboriginals a couple of seats in the senate, Senators voted in by Aboriginals. -All parties designing a treaty etc etc.

Sorry Greeny, that's RACIST!

History simply is, you can't rewrite it. Our ancestors did what was common at the time, the Indig' did what they did at the time, and the result is the Australia we have today.
I see no logical reason why Indig' should be put above the rest of us, what next, recognition in the Constitution for each culture and race that helped form Oz?
Most of their problems today have been and are self inflicted, we've thrown literally $BILLIONS$ at them to no avail. Until such time as the Indig take control for and of themselves then there is no way anyone can force them to grow up and come into the 21st century with the rest of us.
Unlike the majority here I've been there and done that, I've seen their lives close up and personal, and I've talked at length to their Elders and losers, their city ones and country mobs. There's a good wave of progress starting out there, very slowly, hard to see, two steps forward and one back all the time, but it does exist. It's being resisted by the losers and no-hopers of course, and hijacked left right and centre by all the power hungry or blind and stupid, but it's a beginning that will in time succeed, I hope.
The most common wish amongst those starters is that all the do-gooders and idealists and apologists would just shut the f**k up and get out of their way!
I wish them luck!

Jesus, what's so hard about it!

We won, they lost, so drink a big cup of cement, harden the f-up and get on with it!

We've already said sorry, there's no work in the bush (whether you're black OR white) and school doesn't prepare you for the real world.

Let's face it, if you live in Kikatinalong, you'll never get a job irrespective of colour. If you're over 50, it's unlikely you'll get another job - irrespective of colour.

Welcome to the real world.

Sheesh!

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:45pm:

____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:24pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:17pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:42pm: You along with Abbott are classifying unsettled in very narrow westernised terms. Aboriginals were prior invasion, more evolved than current Australians. of course they were, marrying 8 year old girls, killing infants as a method of population control, circumcision practises which agonisingly killed 1 in 10. Mass extermination of species due to hunting practises which basically involved starting bushfires to catch their prey. No written language, no wheel, never invented any musical instrument because they couldnt work out to put holes in a hollowed out tree limb. At least housing was cheap. 40,000 plus years on a functioning society on the board compared to 200 years and a major extinction occurring around us, a spiritually vacant and divided society to boot. 40,000 plus years on a barely functioning society compared to 200 years to establish one of the best democracy, richest equitable economies, healthiest longest living, happiest most egalitarian society on Earth. (There has been a few failures where some individuals despite an abundance of riches who became manic depressive pessimists  ::))

We are far from rich since the current wealth is illusionary and temporary. It's like pinching someone else's credit card and using it to promote a false lifestyle.

Best democratic ... it's rife with financial crime.

Long living, how is that a measure of quality of society when we shove aged people into homes and starve them of food and love. Some, their only treat are kerosine baths.

Happiest ... bull. We have a society who have their heads down on phones so to avoid conversation.

Egalitarian ... we are funding concentration camps, and sending refugees back to be killed. We demonise minority groups ... we have a government attempting to divide this society and turn it on itself.

Sorry I don't have a pair of rose coloured glasses.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:58pm:

Jesus, what's so hard about it! We won, they lost, so drink a big cup of cement, harden the f-up and get on with it! We've already said sorry, there's no work in the bush (whether you're black OR white) and school doesn't prepare you for the real world. Let's face it, if you live in Kikatinalong, you'll never get a job irrespective of colour. If you're over 50, it's unlikely you'll get another job - irrespective of colour. Welcome to the real world. Sheesh!

Yeas, all of that is true Mr Lionel, but what Abbott said (which is what this Thread is about) is not.


Quote:

"I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land."

That is crap, and takes us back to pre Mabo and into the Howard era of denial.

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:54pm:

____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:39pm: OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:32pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:14pm: Your queen apologies for the atrocities committed against my people. Seems she isn't as proud as you are. How long before Aboriginals receive a similar apology. You can give the aboriginals as many specific and heartfelt apologies as you like and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. You can give the aboriginals a $1mil each and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. I want all Australians to be happy and successful. This current Us and Them history, the Racist whites versus the Good Peaceful Bush Custodian Aboriginal diatribe is not helpful. The truth of the matter it is just part of the human story with all its human failing. Build a bridge and get over it; address  the current issues, fix the current issues and move on. Ignoring the core issues doesn't serve any purpose besides showing the naivety of the party. -How about guaranteeing Aboriginals a couple of seats in the senate, Senators voted in by Aboriginals. -All parties designing a treaty etc etc. What core issue? The issue you want? The issue the Aboriginals define? And I suppose you are going to tell me if we rewrite history so the aboriginals are the good guys and the White guy are evil racist bastards then the aboriginal will live happily ever after. "-How about guaranteeing Aboriginals a couple of seats in the senate, Senators voted in by Aboriginals." Because they are just Australians like every one else. Or do you think I've got a great claim over Australia's wealth and the govt's attention than the last refugee off a boat.

Core issues I suspect what they are yet Aboriginals are probably better to speak for themselves.

As for Aboriginals electing their own senators, Where is your flexibility. Does everything have to be to your rules?

Morrison needs to run a resettlement program for non patriots

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:57pm:

____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:49pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:43pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:09pm: Dear Tony, We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation. Yours faithfully, Aussie. Feel free to hand over your house and land and disposable income every week to some Abo's. Being honest about a situation is not hoisting the white flag and surrendering ... it's a step in the right direction if finding a solution with the highest intent for all is centre of the agenda. Just as I thought, you'll do anything to avoid handing over your "stolen" items. But, that's not what this is about, is it. It's about some perceived moral suporiority. Some how, trendies have convinced themselves that feeling guilt over some past "injustice" makes them better human beings while doing nothing about ammending that guilt. Somehow, you can feel really, really good about feeling really, really bad.  :D

I'm a tree hugging socialist ... happy for everything to be owned by the society if that is a step in our evolution. Handing over my current trinkets is not a prerequisite in having a position within this thread. How about debating the topic rather than debating who should debate the topic.

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:13pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:57pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:49pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:43pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:09pm: Dear Tony, We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation. Yours faithfully, Aussie. Feel free to hand over your house and land and disposable income every week to some Abo's. Being honest about a situation is not hoisting the white flag and surrendering ... it's a step in the right direction if finding a solution with the highest intent for all is centre of the agenda. Just as I thought, you'll do anything to avoid handing over your "stolen" items. But, that's not what this is about, is it. It's about some perceived moral suporiority. Some how, trendies have convinced themselves that feeling guilt over some past "injustice" makes them better human beings while doing nothing about ammending that guilt. Somehow, you can feel really, really good about feeling really, really bad.  :D I'm a tree hugging socialist ... happy for everything to be owned by the society if that is a step in our evolution. Handing over my current trinkets is not a prerequisite in having a position within this thread. How about debating the topic rather than debating who should debate the topic.

I am debating the topic. Trendies need to lead by example. It's the next logical step. If what you own is not really yours, then give it back.

austranger wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:57pm:

____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:39pm: OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:32pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:14pm: Your queen apologies for the atrocities committed against my people. Seems she isn't as proud as you are. How long before Aboriginals receive a similar apology. You can give the aboriginals as many specific and heartfelt apologies as you like and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. You can give the aboriginals a $1mil each and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. I want all Australians to be happy and successful. This current Us and Them history, the Racist whites versus the Good Peaceful Bush Custodian Aboriginal diatribe is not helpful. The truth of the matter it is just part of the human story with all its human failing. Build a bridge and get over it; address  the current issues, fix the current issues and move on. Ignoring the core issues doesn't serve any purpose besides showing the naivety of the party. -How about guaranteeing Aboriginals a couple of seats in the senate, Senators voted in by Aboriginals. -All parties designing a treaty etc etc. Sorry Greeny, that's RACIST! History simply is, you can't rewrite it. Our ancestors did what was common at the time, the Indig' did what they did at the time, and the result is the Australia we have today. I see no logical reason why Indig' should be put above the rest of us, what next, recognition in the Constitution for each culture and race that helped form Oz? Most of their problems today have been and are self inflicted, we've thrown literally $BILLIONS$ at them to no avail. Until such time as the Indig take control for and of themselves then there is no way anyone can force them to grow up and come into the 21st century with the rest of us. Unlike the majority here I've been there and done that, I've seen their lives close up and personal, and I've talked at length to their Elders and losers, their city ones and country mobs. There's a good wave of progress starting out there, very slowly, hard to see, two steps forward and one back all the time, but it does exist. It's being resisted by the losers and no-hopers of course, and hijacked left right and centre by all the power hungry or blind and stupid, but it's a beginning that will in time succeed, I hope. The most common wish amongst those starters is that all the do-gooders and idealists and apologists would just shut the f**k up and get out of their way! I wish them luck!

History is always written by the victors and so are not a true reflection of what actually occurred.
Part of the issue is Aboriginals are voiceless and by cementing one or two senator seats would be a step in the direction of setting up a situation where we all can be working to a common aim rather than working against each other.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:58pm:

Jesus, what's so hard about it! We won, they lost, so drink a big cup of cement, harden the f-up and get on with it! We've already said sorry, there's no work in the bush (whether you're black OR white) and school doesn't prepare you for the real world. Let's face it, if you live in Kikatinalong, you'll never get a job irrespective of colour. If you're over 50, it's unlikely you'll get another job - irrespective of colour. Welcome to the real world. Sheesh!

In a nutshell ~ us and them rather than a united culture.
We are a divided country and until we take steps to repair this, no solution will ever be found.

Abbott has been searching for his children overboard knife ... refugees, unemployed, muslims, and now Aboriginals. Thats because Abbott will never be a great leader, he it only a great opposition PM.

With Abbott as Prime Minister, Australia is unsettled. Very unsettled.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:47pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:52pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:30pm: Gee! Just like the colonisation of Europe, the Americas, England before it became Britain or the UK, Spain, Germany, China - etc. Key difference, the indigenous population in those other countries are not still suffering as a result of the invasions. Remedying the suffering of the Aborigines is directly related to acknowledging and addressing the enormous destruction wrought by the invasion and occupation of their land. In short, Tony's comments just perpetuates the problem. Oh, so it was all roses before whitey turned up? Romantic fantasy. Theır life was barbaric and violent.

and now it's not?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:43pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:09pm: Dear Tony, We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation. Yours faithfully, Aussie. Feel free to hand over your house and land and disposable income every week to some Abo's.

Good point, Mistie. The trendies should hand it all over to the Abos.

The Abos can then hand it all over to the mining companies.

And the mining companies can sell it all to the Chinese.

I agree. We’re patriots, no?

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:24pm:

ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:17pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:42pm: You along with Abbott are classifying unsettled in very narrow westernised terms. Aboriginals were prior invasion, more evolved than current Australians. of course they were, marrying 8 year old girls, killing infants as a method of population control, circumcision practises which agonisingly killed 1 in 10. Mass extermination of species due to hunting practises which basically involved starting bushfires to catch their prey. No written language, no wheel, never invented any musical instrument because they couldnt work out to put holes in a hollowed out tree limb. At least housing was cheap. 40,000 plus years on a functioning society on the board compared to 200 years and a major extinction occurring around us, a spiritually vacant and divided society to boot.

40,000 years of stagnation and zero progress. If this is so noble why dont you go and live that lifestyle. I hope you arent over the age of 26 because that was the average life expectancy before colonisation. Oh yes, and expect to die with various horrible illnesses including parasitinal infestation, veneral disease, etc. etc. bad luck if you have any children born when the population was a bit too high for their limited resources because they would have been killed. what a noble lifestyle they were living for 40,000 years.

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 9:15pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:47pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:52pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:30pm: Gee! Just like the colonisation of Europe, the Americas, England before it became Britain or the UK, Spain, Germany, China - etc. Key difference, the indigenous population in those other countries are not still suffering as a result of the invasions. Remedying the suffering of the Aborigines is directly related to acknowledging and addressing the enormous destruction wrought by the invasion and occupation of their land. In short, Tony's comments just perpetuates the problem. Oh, so it was all roses before whitey turned up? Romantic fantasy. Theır life was barbaric and violent. and now it's not?

Now they have a choice, guess which one they choose.

ian wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:15pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:47pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:52pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:30pm: Gee! Just like the colonisation of Europe, the Americas, England before it became Britain or the UK, Spain, Germany, China - etc. Key difference, the indigenous population in those other countries are not still suffering as a result of the invasions. Remedying the suffering of the Aborigines is directly related to acknowledging and addressing the enormous destruction wrought by the invasion and occupation of their land. In short, Tony's comments just perpetuates the problem. Oh, so it was all roses before whitey turned up? Romantic fantasy. Theır life was barbaric and violent. and now it's not? Now they have a choice, guess which one they choose.

Irrelevant to the Thread.    It is about Abbott's grasp of history, not the Aboriginals.

The average age of British subjects in the 18th century was 32, Ian.

Venereal.disease? The asylums were packed. They treated them with injections of mercury.

Bad luck if you had any sons - most were sent off to war. If you were poor, you got sent down here.

Thank heavens for small mercies, eh?

ian wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:00pm:

____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:24pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:17pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:42pm: You along with Abbott are classifying unsettled in very narrow westernised terms. Aboriginals were prior invasion, more evolved than current Australians. of course they were, marrying 8 year old girls, killing infants as a method of population control, circumcision practises which agonisingly killed 1 in 10. Mass extermination of species due to hunting practises which basically involved starting bushfires to catch their prey. No written language, no wheel, never invented any musical instrument because they couldnt work out to put holes in a hollowed out tree limb. At least housing was cheap. 40,000 plus years on a functioning society on the board compared to 200 years and a major extinction occurring around us, a spiritually vacant and divided society to boot. 40,000 years of stagnation and zero progress. If this is so noble why dont you go and live that lifestyle. I hope you arent over the age of 26 because that was the average life expectancy before colonisation. Oh yes, and expect to die with various horrible illnesses including parasitinal infestation, veneral disease, etc. etc. bad luck if you have any children born when the population was a bit too high for their limited resources because they would have been killed. what a noble lifestyle they were living for 40,000 years.

Wouldn't get too high and might yet considering we are rushing headfirst into antibiotic resistances.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:06pm:

I'm very proud of my country's colonisation of the world and how we brought civilisation to far flung lands. Britain has a very proud Imperial history of which Australia is a part. Good with me thanks.

So you are saying now that you are not Australian?

If you are a Australian what part of the world did we colonize?

So why do you keep lying and say you were born in Melbourne?

40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin?

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:08pm:

[

Wouldn't get too high and might yet considering we are rushing headfirst into antibiotic resistances.
[/quote]
still increasing, looking at history and the tendency for our culture to invent new techology I am not particularly worried about antibiotic resistance. Within 10 years we will be using completly different methods based on nano technology.

ian wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:13pm:

40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin?

Life expectancy has risen in every country in the world since 1788.

Penicillin was cultivated by American scientists in the 1940s. Antibiotics are now in every country.

Do you think Aborigines would not have modernised along with every other population in the Asia-Pacific region?

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:32pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:14pm: Your queen apologies for the atrocities committed against my people. Seems she isn't as proud as you are. How long before Aboriginals receive a similar apology. You can give the aboriginals as many specific and heartfelt apologies as you like and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. You can give the aboriginals a $1mil each and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. I want all Australians to be happy and successful. This current Us and Them history, the Racist whites versus the Good Peaceful Bush Custodian Aboriginal diatribe is not helpful. The truth of the matter it is just part of the human story with all its human failing. Build a bridge and get over it; address  the current issues, fix the current issues and move on. I'm not going to enter that debate because I have no solution, but ~ that post demonstrates how utterly retrograde and destructive were Abbott's comments of today. Quote: "I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land. In a single sentence, he has put whatever the process is into reverse and turfed it all back prior to when Rudd made that appropriate apology speech.  Next I expect he, like Howard, will make some stupid comment denying there was ever a 'stolen generation.' Heck, maybe he'll even legislate to overturn the Mabo decision.  Who knows what this extremist is capable of?

Well now you really are talking out your arse... how about after admitting you are clueless just shutting up.
As for reversing Mabo that also may be a good idea but not on Abbott's personal agenda as he wants Aborigines included in the Constitution.
1/ The Mabo decision was flawed due to the idiot historian Reynold's views being accepted as true.
2/ If Abbott has a referendum on Constitutional change to include aborigines as a separate people in it...  I'll be voting NO.  As far as I'm concerned we are all AUSTRALIANS...  we are already all included in the Constitution.

John S wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:11pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:06pm: I'm very proud of my country's colonisation of the world and how we brought civilisation to far flung lands. Britain has a very proud Imperial history of which Australia is a part. Good with me thanks. So you are saying now that you are not Australian? If you are a Australian what part of the world did we colonize? So why do you keep lying and say you were born in Melbourne?

It’s uncanny. He has Afrikaans stamped on his profile.

Maybe he was denied a visa.

Bam wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 9:15pm:

With Abbott as Prime Minister, Australia is unsettled. Very unsettled.

Really?  ::) ::) ::)
No one I know is.  :)

ian wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:13pm:

40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin?

'Stagnant progress' is a judgement call. Aboriginals appear to have a grip on death superior to most westerners. A better grip due to their more worldly evolved view.

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:23pm:

John S wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:11pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:06pm: I'm very proud of my country's colonisation of the world and how we brought civilisation to far flung lands. Britain has a very proud Imperial history of which Australia is a part. Good with me thanks. So you are saying now that you are not Australian? If you are a Australian what part of the world did we colonize? So why do you keep lying and say you were born in Melbourne? It’s uncanny. He has Afrikaans stamped on his profile. Maybe he was denied a visa.

Andrei was born in South Africa after his father knocked up one of his coloured worker.
Hicks can fill in the details.
I thought everyone new and that's why he has such a chip on his shoulder.

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:02pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:58pm: Jesus, what's so hard about it! We won, they lost, so drink a big cup of cement, harden the f-up and get on with it! We've already said sorry, there's no work in the bush (whether you're black OR white) and school doesn't prepare you for the real world. Let's face it, if you live in Kikatinalong, you'll never get a job irrespective of colour. If you're over 50, it's unlikely you'll get another job - irrespective of colour. Welcome to the real world. Sheesh! Yeas, all of that is true Mr Lionel, but what Abbott said (which is what this Thread is about) is not. Quote: "I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land." That is crap, and takes us back to pre Mabo and into the Howard era of denial.

So...
Are you finally going to get around to telling us why you think it's crap?
I have been asking...  you've been running away.  :D :D :D
And still no answer.  ::)

Grendel wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:25pm:

Bam wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:15pm: With Abbott as Prime Minister, Australia is unsettled. Very unsettled. Really?  ::) ::) ::) No one I know is.  :)

Yes, but you don’t read any of the posts here.

Lucky. They’re all biased.

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:06pm:

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:54pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:39pm: OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:32pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:14pm: Your queen apologies for the atrocities committed against my people. Seems she isn't as proud as you are. How long before Aboriginals receive a similar apology. You can give the aboriginals as many specific and heartfelt apologies as you like and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. You can give the aboriginals a $1mil each and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. I want all Australians to be happy and successful. This current Us and Them history, the Racist whites versus the Good Peaceful Bush Custodian Aboriginal diatribe is not helpful. The truth of the matter it is just part of the human story with all its human failing. Build a bridge and get over it; address  the current issues, fix the current issues and move on. Ignoring the core issues doesn't serve any purpose besides showing the naivety of the party. -How about guaranteeing Aboriginals a couple of seats in the senate, Senators voted in by Aboriginals. -All parties designing a treaty etc etc. What core issue? The issue you want? The issue the Aboriginals define? And I suppose you are going to tell me if we rewrite history so the aboriginals are the good guys and the White guy are evil racist bastards then the aboriginal will live happily ever after. "-How about guaranteeing Aboriginals a couple of seats in the senate, Senators voted in by Aboriginals." Because they are just Australians like every one else. Or do you think I've got a great claim over Australia's wealth and the govt's attention than the last refugee off a boat. Core issues I suspect what they are yet Aboriginals are probably better to speak for themselves. As for Aboriginals electing their own senators, Where is your flexibility. Does everything have to be to your rules?

Poor deluded little Greenswine has never heard of; ATSIC or Senator Neville Bonner, Aden Ridgeway, Ken Wyatt, Nova Peris or Ernie Bridge, John Ah Kit, Neville Perkins and many others besides.
Even One Nation had an aboriginal candidate in WA...  how many have The Greens had?

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:04pm:

ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:01pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:15pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:47pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:52pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:30pm: Gee! Just like the colonisation of Europe, the Americas, England before it became Britain or the UK, Spain, Germany, China - etc. Key difference, the indigenous population in those other countries are not still suffering as a result of the invasions. Remedying the suffering of the Aborigines is directly related to acknowledging and addressing the enormous destruction wrought by the invasion and occupation of their land. In short, Tony's comments just perpetuates the problem. Oh, so it was all roses before whitey turned up? Romantic fantasy. Theır life was barbaric and violent. and now it's not? Now they have a choice, guess which one they choose. Irrelevant to the Thread.    It is about Abbott's grasp of history, not the Aboriginals.

Which is so far proving to be much better than yours... or are you finally going to address the question?  ::)

Grendel wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:41pm:

____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:06pm: OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:54pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:39pm: OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:32pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:14pm: Your queen apologies for the atrocities committed against my people. Seems she isn't as proud as you are. How long before Aboriginals receive a similar apology. You can give the aboriginals as many specific and heartfelt apologies as you like and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. You can give the aboriginals a $1mil each and they'll have five minutes with a warm inner glow and wake to the same problems they have now. I want all Australians to be happy and successful. This current Us and Them history, the Racist whites versus the Good Peaceful Bush Custodian Aboriginal diatribe is not helpful. The truth of the matter it is just part of the human story with all its human failing. Build a bridge and get over it; address  the current issues, fix the current issues and move on. Ignoring the core issues doesn't serve any purpose besides showing the naivety of the party. -How about guaranteeing Aboriginals a couple of seats in the senate, Senators voted in by Aboriginals. -All parties designing a treaty etc etc. What core issue? The issue you want? The issue the Aboriginals define? And I suppose you are going to tell me if we rewrite history so the aboriginals are the good guys and the White guy are evil racist bastards then the aboriginal will live happily ever after. "-How about guaranteeing Aboriginals a couple of seats in the senate, Senators voted in by Aboriginals." Because they are just Australians like every one else. Or do you think I've got a great claim over Australia's wealth and the govt's attention than the last refugee off a boat. Core issues I suspect what they are yet Aboriginals are probably better to speak for themselves. As for Aboriginals electing their own senators, Where is your flexibility. Does everything have to be to your rules? Poor deluded little Greenswine has never heard of; ATSIC or Senator Neville Bonner, Aden Ridgeway, Ken Wyatt, Nova Peris or Ernie Bridge, John Ah Kit, Neville Perkins and many others besides. Even One Nation had an aboriginal candidate in WA...  how many have The Greens had?

Greens' lead NT Senate candidate : Warren H. Williams

http://youtu.be/pf-YYwKpmak

Unsettled by the British. You lefties cant be helped. You are nothing but fwits.

ian wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:13pm:

40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin?

Most of the Eora Sydney Aboriginal population died from smallpox.

Penicillin didn’t do them much good.

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:21pm:

ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? Life expectancy has risen in every country in the world since 1788. Penicillin was cultivated by American scientists in the 1940s. Antibiotics are now in every country. Do you think Aborigines would not have modernised along with every other population in the Asia-Pacific region?

No, I dont think 40,200 years would have seen any more progress than 40,000 without western settlement. Their lives were short, harsh and brutal, that wouldnt have changed.

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:27pm:

ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? 'Stagnant progress' is a judgement call. Aboriginals appear to have a grip on death superior to most westerners. A better grip due to their more worldly evolved view.

I know which future I would prefer, what about you? Short harsh brutal life or your current one?

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:51pm:

Unsettled by the British. You lefties cant be helped. You are nothing but fwits.

night on the grog?

ian wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:54pm:

____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:27pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? 'Stagnant progress' is a judgement call. Aboriginals appear to have a grip on death superior to most westerners. A better grip due to their more worldly evolved view. I know which future I would prefer, what about you? Short harsh brutal life or your current one?

I would rather a connected community with strong links to the environment and a deep spirituality. So I would prefer the more evolved one thanks.

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:06pm:

As for Aboriginals electing their own senators, Where is your flexibility. Does everything have to be to your rules?

These matters need rules and the rules need to based on principle. And the principle here is all citizens have the same standing, the same rights and the same vote. Giving aboriginals their own their own senators would obviously give them rights and powers greater than their fellow citizens and I and every other Australian would in principle be opposed to that.

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:52pm:

ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? Most of the Eora Sydney Aboriginal population died from smallpox. Penicillin didn’t do them much good.

and yet their life expectancy is around 65 now. Despite their decisions to make appalling lifestyle choices. Im a realist, cultural collision was inevitable as a result of inevitable colonisation. The stronger culture took over the weaker one, what is strong about the aboriginal culture will survive and will become part of our australian culture. Pretending that aboriginal culture was something that it wasnt doesnt serve their future, the future is assimilation.

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:57pm:

ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:54pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:27pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? 'Stagnant progress' is a judgement call. Aboriginals appear to have a grip on death superior to most westerners. A better grip due to their more worldly evolved view. I know which future I would prefer, what about you? Short harsh brutal life or your current one? I would rather a connected community with strong links to the environment and a deep spirituality. So I would prefer the more evolved one thanks.

I see. you refuse to answer the question.

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:57pm:

____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:06pm: As for Aboriginals electing their own senators, Where is your flexibility. Does everything have to be to your rules? These matters need rules and the rules need to based on principle. And the principle here is all citizens have the same standing, the same rights and the same vote. Giving aboriginals their own their own senators would obviously give them rights and powers greater than their fellow citizens and I and every other Australian would in principle be opposed to that.

*Equality for all


*as long as I have a bigger chuck of it.

Poor deluded little Greenswine has never heard of; ATSIC or Senator Neville Bonner, Aden Ridgeway, Ken Wyatt, Nova Peris or Ernie Bridge, John Ah Kit, Neville Perkins and many others besides.

Anytime you feel like addressing the major points go right ahead Greenswine.

Aboriginals can run for preselection right now... Greenswine.  You should know that even though you seem to not know of Neville Bonner and the rest.

ian wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 11:01pm:

____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:57pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:54pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:27pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? 'Stagnant progress' is a judgement call. Aboriginals appear to have a grip on death superior to most westerners. A better grip due to their more worldly evolved view. I know which future I would prefer, what about you? Short harsh brutal life or your current one? I would rather a connected community with strong links to the environment and a deep spirituality. So I would prefer the more evolved one thanks. I see. you refuse to answer the question.

I reject your perimeters. A short life is of no issue in my reality since I view death as an illusion. Life is always life and so can not be short unless it's under the conditions of an illusion. And B, brutal is a judgement call and the description could be applied to any of the two groups depending on how one want's to manipulate their argument.

Bottom line, I did answer. You just didn't accept my decision.

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:54pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:51pm: Unsettled by the British. You lefties cant be helped. You are nothing but fwits. night on the grog?

im happy for you.... na, whatever.

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 11:01pm:

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:57pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:06pm: As for Aboriginals electing their own senators, Where is your flexibility. Does everything have to be to your rules? These matters need rules and the rules need to based on principle. And the principle here is all citizens have the same standing, the same rights and the same vote. Giving aboriginals their own their own senators would obviously give them rights and powers greater than their fellow citizens and I and every other Australian would in principle be opposed to that. *Equality for all *as long as I have a bigger chuck of it.

aboriginals have greater opportunities than the rest of us.

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 11:08pm:

[ I reject your perimeters. A short life is of no issue in my reality since I view death as an illusion. Life is always life and so can not be short unless it's under the conditions of an illusion. And B, brutal is a judgement call and the description could be applied to any of the two groups depending on how one want's to manipulate their argument. Bottom line, I did answer. You just didn't accept my decision.

I see. You refuse to answer the question.

ian wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:52pm:

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:21pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? Life expectancy has risen in every country in the world since 1788. Penicillin was cultivated by American scientists in the 1940s. Antibiotics are now in every country. Do you think Aborigines would not have modernised along with every other population in the Asia-Pacific region? No, I dont think 40,200 years would have seen any more progress than 40,000 without western settlement. Their lives were short, harsh and brutal, that wouldnt have changed.

So were the Celts. So were the Angles and Saxons. For that matter, so were the Romans.

China has never had Western settlement. How do you explain their rise and fall and rise again?

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 11:01pm:

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:57pm: ____ wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:06pm: As for Aboriginals electing their own senators, Where is your flexibility. Does everything have to be to your rules? These matters need rules and the rules need to based on principle. And the principle here is all citizens have the same standing, the same rights and the same vote. Giving aboriginals their own their own senators would obviously give them rights and powers greater than their fellow citizens and I and every other Australian would in principle be opposed to that. *Equality for all *as long as I have a bigger chuck of it.

:-? Eh? :-?

ian wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 11:00pm:

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:52pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? Most of the Eora Sydney Aboriginal population died from smallpox. Penicillin didn’t do them much good. and yet their life expectancy is around 65 now. Despite their decisions to make appalling lifestyle choices. Im a realist, cultural collision was inevitable as a result of inevitable colonisation. The stronger culture took over the weaker one, what is strong about the aboriginal culture will survive and will become part of our australian culture. Pretending that aboriginal culture was something that it wasnt doesnt serve their future, the future is assimilation.

By this measure, the Indonesians are the stronger culture because they have a bigger army.

Aboriginal culture was a lot of things, as was 18th century British culture. Neither was perfect or evil.

One just happened to borrow gunpowder from the Chinese before the other.

Whether modern Aboriginals are their own worst enemies or not isn't the point..Abbott has lied again.

adelcrow wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 6:31am:

Whether modern Aboriginals are their own worst enemies or not isn't the point..Abbott has lied again.

Gee, if the Mad Monk ever comes within cooee of me I will yelling "Liar Liar" at him but what part of the statement in question is a lie?

Maybe a poor choice of a descriptive, both politically and factually, but it is very close to the facts of history and the gist is absolute correct; Britain made an enormous foreign investment into Australia to get things started.

(Britain's motivation and the connect to the context of modern foreign investment is dubious and doubtful, and the logic of the illustration in the Mad Monk's speech is questionable and bizarre, but a lie?)

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 12:32am:

By this measure, the Indonesians are the stronger culture because they have a bigger army.

:-? Military strength is a very small part of a nation's culture.


Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 12:32am:

Aboriginal culture was a lot of things, as was 18th century British culture. Neither was perfect or evil.

;)


Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 12:32am:

One just happened to borrow gunpowder from the Chinese before the other.

Gunpower had nothing to do with the military victory of western culture over the aboriginals nor any other native population. The military victory was the organisational and logistical ability to raise, maintain, transport and sustain long periods of operations.

The same reason Australia could go toe to toe with Indonesia today and probably prevail. ;) :)

We might hate Abbott, but we hate aboriginals more.

Enough to make excuses for him.

Tony Abbott stated yesterday Australia "unsettled' before Brits. Aborigines were only here 59,946 years before you.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrsG7XSCMAAtRat.jpg

bump......

Life_goes_on wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:00am:

We might hate Abbott, but we hate aboriginals more.

I don't hate Abbott nor aboriginals, but I hate liars and lies in public debate masquerading as truth or logic.  ;) :)

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:14am:

Tony Abbott stated yesterday Australia "unsettled' before Brits. Aborigines were only here 59,946 years before you. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrsG7XSCMAAtRat.jpg

Yep, haven't they done well in all those years, a stick that doesn't come back.  ;D ;D

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:50am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 7:14am: Tony Abbott stated yesterday Australia "unsettled' before Brits. Aborigines were only here 59,946 years before you. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrsG7XSCMAAtRat.jpg Yep, haven't they done well in all those years, a stick that doesn't come back.  ;D ;D

First of all you inherited the combined knowledge and wealth of a civilization that had spent hundreds of years plundering and raping of every corner of the planet, causing untold death and destruction.

Secondly, none of that has led to any real social advances, on the contrary it has led humanity into a cul-de-sac from which we likely will never emerge once the biota collapses and takes us with it.

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 12:32am:

ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:00pm: Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:52pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? Most of the Eora Sydney Aboriginal population died from smallpox. Penicillin didn’t do them much good. and yet their life expectancy is around 65 now. Despite their decisions to make appalling lifestyle choices. Im a realist, cultural collision was inevitable as a result of inevitable colonisation. The stronger culture took over the weaker one, what is strong about the aboriginal culture will survive and will become part of our australian culture. Pretending that aboriginal culture was something that it wasnt doesnt serve their future, the future is assimilation. By this measure, the Indonesians are the stronger culture because they have a bigger army. Aboriginal culture was a lot of things, as was 18th century British culture. Neither was perfect or evil. One just happened to borrow gunpowder from the Chinese before the other.

Our ancestors didnt conquer the abos because they had a bigger army, it was culture and  technology. The sort of culture that made them develop technology to increase the food supply in response to population growth rather than practise infanticide.

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 9:28am:

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 12:32am: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:00pm: Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:52pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? Most of the Eora Sydney Aboriginal population died from smallpox. Penicillin didn’t do them much good. and yet their life expectancy is around 65 now. Despite their decisions to make appalling lifestyle choices. Im a realist, cultural collision was inevitable as a result of inevitable colonisation. The stronger culture took over the weaker one, what is strong about the aboriginal culture will survive and will become part of our australian culture. Pretending that aboriginal culture was something that it wasnt doesnt serve their future, the future is assimilation. By this measure, the Indonesians are the stronger culture because they have a bigger army. Aboriginal culture was a lot of things, as was 18th century British culture. Neither was perfect or evil. One just happened to borrow gunpowder from the Chinese before the other. Our ancestors didnt conquer the abos because they had a bigger army, it was culture and  technology. The sort of culture that made them develop technology to increase the food supply in response to population growth rather than practise infanticide.

Yes ian, the British conquered Australia for humanitarian reasons. ::)

I believe I've made my support for the Indig' amply clear here, and the fact that I'm not racially prejudiced too.
However...
As to whether the Indig would have "progressed" without white colonisation, consider these FACTS:
The Malays and Indonesians were landing in the north of Australia for centuries before Europeans arrived, that is historical fact, and they routinely met and traded with the locals.
Those locals saw ships, musical instruments, bows and arrows, plus all the other accoutrements of those cultures, and copied NONE of them, not a single one!
Also, there's this little thing called a fish-trap, very low-tech', a ring of rocks between the high and low tide levels, and it has appeared on every coast on the planet at one time or another, except Australia's.
There's ONE known example thereof, in Victoria I think, and that's widely believed to have been built by our early settlers or escaped convicts.
For whatever unknown reason the simple truth is that progress and technology just didn't happen here until Europeans arrived.
Aboriginal culture was minimal- survivalist, they did the bare minimum to survive, and not one skerrick more. That "culture" is at the heart of their problems today too.

Winston Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:26am:

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 7:50am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 7:14am: Tony Abbott stated yesterday Australia "unsettled' before Brits. Aborigines were only here 59,946 years before you. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrsG7XSCMAAtRat.jpg Yep, haven't they done well in all those years, a stick that doesn't come back.  ;D ;D First of all you inherited the combined knowledge and wealth of a civilization that had spent hundreds of years plundering and raping of every corner of the planet, causing untold death and destruction. Secondly, none of that has led to any real social advances, on the contrary it has led humanity into a cul-de-sac from which we likely will never emerge once the biota collapses and takes us with it.

Correction, its you and all the other beta males who are in a cul de sac. True Darwinism. lol.

Winston Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 9:36am:

ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 9:28am: Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 12:32am: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:00pm: Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:52pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? Most of the Eora Sydney Aboriginal population died from smallpox. Penicillin didn’t do them much good. and yet their life expectancy is around 65 now. Despite their decisions to make appalling lifestyle choices. Im a realist, cultural collision was inevitable as a result of inevitable colonisation. The stronger culture took over the weaker one, what is strong about the aboriginal culture will survive and will become part of our australian culture. Pretending that aboriginal culture was something that it wasnt doesnt serve their future, the future is assimilation. By this measure, the Indonesians are the stronger culture because they have a bigger army. Aboriginal culture was a lot of things, as was 18th century British culture. Neither was perfect or evil. One just happened to borrow gunpowder from the Chinese before the other. Our ancestors didnt conquer the abos because they had a bigger army, it was culture and  technology. The sort of culture that made them develop technology to increase the food supply in response to population growth rather than practise infanticide. Yes ian, the British conquered Australia for humanitarian reasons. ::)

Sure did but they were humanitarian reasons related to our own culture, not theirs.

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 10:38am:

Winston Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 8:26am: Rhet-Oracle wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 7:50am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 7:14am: Tony Abbott stated yesterday Australia "unsettled' before Brits. Aborigines were only here 59,946 years before you. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrsG7XSCMAAtRat.jpg Yep, haven't they done well in all those years, a stick that doesn't come back.  ;D ;D First of all you inherited the combined knowledge and wealth of a civilization that had spent hundreds of years plundering and raping of every corner of the planet, causing untold death and destruction. Secondly, none of that has led to any real social advances, on the contrary it has led humanity into a cul-de-sac from which we likely will never emerge once the biota collapses and takes us with it. Correction, its you and all the other beta males who are in a cul de sac. True Darwinism. lol.

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 10:40am:

Winston Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 9:36am: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 9:28am: Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 12:32am: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:00pm: Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:52pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? Most of the Eora Sydney Aboriginal population died from smallpox. Penicillin didn’t do them much good. and yet their life expectancy is around 65 now. Despite their decisions to make appalling lifestyle choices. Im a realist, cultural collision was inevitable as a result of inevitable colonisation. The stronger culture took over the weaker one, what is strong about the aboriginal culture will survive and will become part of our australian culture. Pretending that aboriginal culture was something that it wasnt doesnt serve their future, the future is assimilation. By this measure, the Indonesians are the stronger culture because they have a bigger army. Aboriginal culture was a lot of things, as was 18th century British culture. Neither was perfect or evil. One just happened to borrow gunpowder from the Chinese before the other. Our ancestors didnt conquer the abos because they had a bigger army, it was culture and  technology. The sort of culture that made them develop technology to increase the food supply in response to population growth rather than practise infanticide. Yes ian, the British conquered Australia for humanitarian reasons. ::) Sure did but they were humanitarian reasons related to our own culture, not theirs.

Be careful what you post in impotent rage ian, each subsequent post is becoming less and less rational and coherent. ;D

Winston Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 9:36am:

ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 9:28am: Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 12:32am: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:00pm: Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:52pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? Most of the Eora Sydney Aboriginal population died from smallpox. Penicillin didn’t do them much good. and yet their life expectancy is around 65 now. Despite their decisions to make appalling lifestyle choices. Im a realist, cultural collision was inevitable as a result of inevitable colonisation. The stronger culture took over the weaker one, what is strong about the aboriginal culture will survive and will become part of our australian culture. Pretending that aboriginal culture was something that it wasnt doesnt serve their future, the future is assimilation. By this measure, the Indonesians are the stronger culture because they have a bigger army. Aboriginal culture was a lot of things, as was 18th century British culture. Neither was perfect or evil. One just happened to borrow gunpowder from the Chinese before the other. Our ancestors didnt conquer the abos because they had a bigger army, it was culture and  technology. The sort of culture that made them develop technology to increase the food supply in response to population growth rather than practise infanticide. Yes ian, the British conquered Australia for humanitarian reasons. ::)

Britain didnt conquer Australia.
There was nothing there to conquer. There was no relevant civilisation to conquer. It was unsettled land in the eyes of the British Empire.

The Dutch hadnt stayed. Britain simply took possession of it.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 10:43am:

Winston Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 9:36am: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 9:28am: Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 12:32am: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:00pm: Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:52pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? Most of the Eora Sydney Aboriginal population died from smallpox. Penicillin didn’t do them much good. and yet their life expectancy is around 65 now. Despite their decisions to make appalling lifestyle choices. Im a realist, cultural collision was inevitable as a result of inevitable colonisation. The stronger culture took over the weaker one, what is strong about the aboriginal culture will survive and will become part of our australian culture. Pretending that aboriginal culture was something that it wasnt doesnt serve their future, the future is assimilation. By this measure, the Indonesians are the stronger culture because they have a bigger army. Aboriginal culture was a lot of things, as was 18th century British culture. Neither was perfect or evil. One just happened to borrow gunpowder from the Chinese before the other. Our ancestors didnt conquer the abos because they had a bigger army, it was culture and  technology. The sort of culture that made them develop technology to increase the food supply in response to population growth rather than practise infanticide. Yes ian, the British conquered Australia for humanitarian reasons. ::) Britain didnt conquer Australia. There was nothing there to conquer. There was no relevant civilisation to conquer. It was unsettled land in the eyes of the British Empire. The Dutch hadnt stayed. Britain simply took possession of it.

Just like there was nothing in South Africa to conquer right?

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 9:28am:

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 12:32am: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:00pm: Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:52pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? Most of the Eora Sydney Aboriginal population died from smallpox. Penicillin didn’t do them much good. and yet their life expectancy is around 65 now. Despite their decisions to make appalling lifestyle choices. Im a realist, cultural collision was inevitable as a result of inevitable colonisation. The stronger culture took over the weaker one, what is strong about the aboriginal culture will survive and will become part of our australian culture. Pretending that aboriginal culture was something that it wasnt doesnt serve their future, the future is assimilation. By this measure, the Indonesians are the stronger culture because they have a bigger army. Aboriginal culture was a lot of things, as was 18th century British culture. Neither was perfect or evil. One just happened to borrow gunpowder from the Chinese before the other. Our ancestors didnt conquer the abos because they had a bigger army, it was culture and  technology. The sort of culture that made them develop technology to increase the food supply in response to population growth rather than practise infanticide.

The British almost starved in the first two years of the colony. They certainly would have died of thirst if they weren’t shown the waterholes, which they took over.

They did a lot of experimenting with crops and various soils, and they succeeded. 200 years on, however, you’d have to question the introduction of cattle farming, irrigation for cotton and other water-intensive crops, and a whole lot of other ridiculous decisions about land useage. The CSIRO certainly has. The National Farmers Federation has too.

The British in Australia weren’t smart because they overcame Aboriginal settlement, they were stupid for not learning how to adapt more. Watkins Tench and a couple of officers tried, but it was all for nought.

We won’t fix the Murray-Darling or the Barrier Reef. Many farmers won’t get arable land again. Phosphate-heavy farming is not sustainable - we literally won’t survive with the current cash-crop supply chain we have now.

But this is history. We buggered up with slavery and the colonies too. We started again. Our survival depends on our ability to fix our messes, and learn from others. There are no single stream of British or European set of values or technologies. Wheat is Babalonian.Christianity is Palestinian. Gunpowder is Chinese.

And all those place names on the map are Aboriginal.

The British buggered up Australia, eh Karnal? Yeah, I mean, Australia's no Pakistan!
:o :o :o

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 10:43am:

Winston Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 9:36am: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 9:28am: Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 12:32am: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:00pm: Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:52pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? Most of the Eora Sydney Aboriginal population died from smallpox. Penicillin didn’t do them much good. and yet their life expectancy is around 65 now. Despite their decisions to make appalling lifestyle choices. Im a realist, cultural collision was inevitable as a result of inevitable colonisation. The stronger culture took over the weaker one, what is strong about the aboriginal culture will survive and will become part of our australian culture. Pretending that aboriginal culture was something that it wasnt doesnt serve their future, the future is assimilation. By this measure, the Indonesians are the stronger culture because they have a bigger army. Aboriginal culture was a lot of things, as was 18th century British culture. Neither was perfect or evil. One just happened to borrow gunpowder from the Chinese before the other. Our ancestors didnt conquer the abos because they had a bigger army, it was culture and  technology. The sort of culture that made them develop technology to increase the food supply in response to population growth rather than practise infanticide. Yes ian, the British conquered Australia for humanitarian reasons. ::) Britain didnt conquer Australia. There was nothing there to conquer. There was no relevant civilisation to conquer. It was unsettled land in the eyes of the British Empire. The Dutch hadnt stayed. Britain simply took possession of it.

The British were initially obsessed with the Aborigines. A sailor could fetch a year’s pay from.a spear or digging stick. The officer’s accounts of Aboriginals were serialised in the newspapers back home. Sketches and paintings of Aboriginals sold well. Britain in the late 18th century experienced a fad of Aboriginal interest, which culminated in Bennelong meeting King George in 1781.

Not only did the British know from James Cook that Australia was populated, Arthur Phillip had orders from the king to befriend the natives and live in peace with them. He came prepared with axes and blankets and chests of beads. The mission to befriend the natives was a priority for Phillip, after finding food and arable land and managing the convicts and all the rest.It was important for security, but also for finding food and water. The Sydney Aborigines helped the settlers do these things. Some, like Bennelong, learned English and brokered relations.

The British were never under any impression that Australia was unpopulated.

hermoine wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 12:08pm:

The British buggered up Australia, eh Karnal? Yeah, I mean, Australia's no Pakistan! :o :o :o

The British wrote about buggering up Australia in their very first letters back home. The officers knew what was in store for the colony. They saw the "virgin" Sydney heads and lamented the task of turning what they saw as an idyllic native paradise into a penal settlement.

Don’t quote me - quote David Collins.

The first line is wrong Karnal. They got their water from the Tank Stream which is fed by an underground spring.

It is generally accepted that the first white child was born on this continent in 1788.

In 1789 there were almost 4 million Americans and Britain had no compunction about engaging in a war against them - their former colonists. One should also consider the American situation and attitudes towards its indigenous peoples. Who, I might add, had vastly more civilised societies than our own indigenous.

There would appear to be a great disparity between Phillip's actual treatment of the local Aboriginal population at the time and the British Government's general attitude towards troublesome native populations elsewhere.

Certainly there were violent repercussions for those Aboriginals who attacked lonely and isolated colonists in the early days, but Aboriginals understood the notion of 'payback'. After all, they had been at war amongst themselves for time immemorial. And these were violent times anyway, even amongst the 'civilised' societies. It would do well to consider that, at that time, if an Aboriginal were lifted from Newcastle and placed in the Sydney region, not only would he be lost, he would be unlikely to make it back home alive. No love lost between tribes back then.

We should remember that the road between Parramatta and Bathurst was only paved back in the '40's.

There was never an official war declared, never a policy of genocide adopted, on the Aboriginal occupants of this country. If there had been, the current population would be a lot thinner today. One should also consider the Dutch and French treatment of locals wherever they established colonies.

While it's true that Aboriginals have suffered in the past, have limited opportunities in the present, and face an uncertain future, their treatment and position in the modern world is far from unique.

We're doing the best that we can, with the limited knowledge and resources at our disposal.

Is it too much to ask that they themselves adopt a more pro-active approach in a united front, instead of pushing the various agendas of the 500 nations?

Just sayin'.

Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British

When you vote for an idiot you can hardly be surprised when the result is that you get an idiot.

It's not Abbotts fault everyone knew him well and still voted the dope into power.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 12:30pm:

Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British When you vote for an idiot you can hardly be surprised when the result is that you get an idiot. It's not Abbotts fault everyone knew him well and still voted the dope into power.

And the same system was use to get the f/wits Rudd and Gillard

;)

Tony Abbott hates to admit he's British to the boot straps and his forebears were liars also, who told the British Sovereign Australia was uninhabited.

Their deceit is now fully exposed, and us born Australian are paying a price for liars like Abbott.

Tony Abbott hates to admit he's British to the boot straps and his forebears were liars also, who told the British Sovereign Australia was uninhabited.

Their deceit is now fully exposed, and us born Australian are paying a price for liars like Abbott.

Tony Abbott hates to admit he's British to the boot straps and his forebears were liars also, who told the British Sovereign Australia was uninhabited.

Their deceit is now fully exposed, and us born Australian are paying a price for liars like Abbott.

Tony Abbott hates to admit he's British to the boot straps and his forebears were liars also, who told the British Sovereign Australia was uninhabited.

Their deceit is now fully exposed, and us born Australian are paying a price for liars like Abbott.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 12:30pm:

Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British When you vote for an idiot you can hardly be surprised when the result is that you get an idiot. It's not Abbotts fault everyone knew him well and still voted the dope into power.

Correction. Abbott had never been placed in responsibility before. His being habitual liar had not yet then been exposed to the voter.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 12:30pm:

Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British When you vote for an idiot you can hardly be surprised when the result is that you get an idiot. It's not Abbotts fault everyone knew him well and still voted the dope into power.

Correction. Abbott had never been placed in responsibility before. His being habitual liar had not yet then been exposed to the voter.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 12:30pm:

Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British When you vote for an idiot you can hardly be surprised when the result is that you get an idiot. It's not Abbotts fault everyone knew him well and still voted the dope into power.

Correction. Abbott had never been placed in responsibility before. His being habitual liar had not yet then been exposed to the voter.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 12:30pm:

Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British When you vote for an idiot you can hardly be surprised when the result is that you get an idiot. It's not Abbotts fault everyone knew him well and still voted the dope into power.

Correction. Abbott had never been placed in responsibility before. His being habitual liar had not yet then been exposed to the voter.

The British were Imperialists, their Terra Nullius claim was based on their observation that there was no nation, no organised people with a claim in their understanding of such claims.

Terra nullius (/ˈtɛrə nʌˈlaɪ.əs/, plural terrae nullius) is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "land belonging to no one",[1] which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius may be acquired through occupation,[2] though in some cases doing so would violate an international law or treaty.

Within their terms of reference at that time they were quite correct and their colonisation was thus entirely legal and justifiable at law.
You can't simply re-interpret their actions then under our concepts now and say they were thus wrong at that time, sorry.

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 9:28am:

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 12:32am: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:00pm: Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:52pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:13pm: 40,000 years of stagnant progress. Do you think their life expectancy would be any higher if we added another 200 years to the 40,000? You think they would have invented penicillin? Most of the Eora Sydney Aboriginal population died from smallpox. Penicillin didn’t do them much good. and yet their life expectancy is around 65 now. Despite their decisions to make appalling lifestyle choices. Im a realist, cultural collision was inevitable as a result of inevitable colonisation. The stronger culture took over the weaker one, what is strong about the aboriginal culture will survive and will become part of our australian culture. Pretending that aboriginal culture was something that it wasnt doesnt serve their future, the future is assimilation. By this measure, the Indonesians are the stronger culture because they have a bigger army. Aboriginal culture was a lot of things, as was 18th century British culture. Neither was perfect or evil. One just happened to borrow gunpowder from the Chinese before the other. Our ancestors didnt conquer the abos because they had a bigger army, it was culture and  technology. The sort of culture that made them develop technology to increase the food supply in response to population growth rather than practise infanticide.

There is nothing intrinsically superior about "British culture", but Britain did have something colonisers like the Spanish didn’t have: an interest in other cultures and places.

This came down to the influence of groups like the Royal Geographic Society. Where Spain wanted to capture souls for the church and nakedly exploit the resources of their colonies to pay back their loans, the British establishment wanted to map the world.

Britain - like the French - were genuinely curious about local people and their customs. This is displayed all through the letters of the First Fleet. The British officer class placed importance on their role in naming species, mapping terrain, and learning local languages and customs. They were passionate about ethnography. Artefacts from newly discovered (or captured) people sold for a fortune back in London.

This, of course, was the knowledge of empire. The British Empire didn’t succeed because of any intrinsic cultural trait in the British, but through the connections of the empire itself. Britain prevailed by bringing the right people on side. It had to. Half the world was held by a handful of British soldiers. Britain prevailed through treaties and relationships with local leaders, but always with gunships in the harbour, always muskets on display.

This made Britain rich, and the homes of wealthy were filled with Chinese porcelain and silver, Morrocan carvings, Indian tapestries, Venetian glass - loot from all over the world. British manufacturing and craftsmanship did not develop a name for itself until the 18th century, when Britain started copying the designs and production processes of other cultures.

It wasn’t anything intrinsically "British" that drove British Empire to prevail, but the British adaption of other cultural processes, and its ability to bring them into the fold of empire.

Today, the US has prevailed for the very same reason. The US is one of the most multicultural powers in the world today, and along with its military and industrial strength, its success is due to its pluralism, its cultural diversity, and its cultural networks.

As a multicultural nation in Asia, Australia’s success also relies on such adaptation. It’s not the strength or predominance of any one ethnic group that will bring prosperity to Australia, but the willingness to learn and adapt to new ways of living.

Stutter?  :o

____ wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:03pm:

Abbott under fire for unsettled call PRIME Minister Tony Abbott has come under fire for saying Australia was unsettled before British colonisation. MR Abbott made the comments while addressing the Melbourne Institute, saying Australia was unimaginable without foreign investment. "I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land," he said on Friday. Labor's only indigenous parliamentarian, Senator Nova Peris, said the comments hindered efforts to have her people recognised in the constitution. The comments were hurtful, dismissive of indigenous Australians and incorrect, she said. Labor leader Bill Shorten said the comment was offensive, especially from a prime minister who claimed to be dedicated to indigenous affairs. Mr Abbott's key indigenous adviser, Warren Mundine, labelled the comments silly and bizarre. www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/abbott-under-fire-for-unsettled-call/story-e6frfku9-1229678015022

Sparcely settled might have been a better or more correct term rather than 'unsettled' or 'scarcely settled' for Abbott to use given the Aboriginal population at 1770 in Australia is estimated at between 750,000 and 1 million, in a landmass the size of North America.
Still, it doesn't seem to take much for Abbott to set the handwringers and word police off like a frog in a sock.

DaS Energy wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 1:06pm:

Tony Abbott hates to admit he's British to the boot straps and his forebears were liars also, who told the British Sovereign Australia was uninhabited. Their deceit is now fully exposed, and us born Australian are paying a price for liars like Abbott.

Actually, it was just a silly Freudian slip by Abbott, which he struggled to get out of. It wasn’t that bad.

But it does give you a hint of his influences and the people he surrounds himself with - Andrew Bolts, Gerard Hendersons, David Flynts, and the gaggle of fossilized old fruitloops that are being parachuted  into the boards and positions of influence around the country.

Yes, thank heavens the grown-ups are back in charge.

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 11:54am:

The British almost starved in the first two years of the colony. They certainly would have died of thirst if they weren’t shown the waterholes, which they took over. They did a lot of experimenting with crops and various soils, and they succeeded. 200 years on, however, you’d have to question the introduction of cattle farming, irrigation for cotton and other water-intensive crops, and a whole lot of other ridiculous decisions about land useage. The CSIRO certainly has. The National Farmers Federation has too. The British in Australia weren’t smart because they overcame Aboriginal settlement, they were stupid for not learning how to adapt more. Watkins Tench and a couple of officers tried, but it was all for nought. We won’t fix the Murray-Darling or the Barrier Reef. Many farmers won’t get arable land again. Phosphate-heavy farming is not sustainable - we literally won’t survive with the current cash-crop supply chain we have now. But this is history. We buggered up with slavery and the colonies too. We started again. Our survival depends on our ability to fix our messes, and learn from others. There are no single stream of British or European set of values or technologies. Wheat is Babalonian.Christianity is Palestinian. Gunpowder is Chinese. And all those place names on the map are Aboriginal.

This country supports 25 million people with a high standard of living because of western technology, seeing that this continent was inhabited by various groups of tribes with disparate languages, no organised governmental system and the lowest technology on the planet this continent was always going to get colonised by another more technological oriented culture. Im not arguing that western culture is 100 percent perfect but I cant see any other culture which has achieved or is capable of achieving such enormous strides in the standard of living, life expectancy and basic human rights. Im not sure why you are stating the obvious that western culture has borrowed from others, of course we do. Regardless of whether we got gunpowder from the Chinese the elements involved are not unique to China, it would have been invented elsewhere at some time. Nothing in  an y human culture is unique to that particular culture.

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 2:46pm:

DaS Energy wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 1:06pm: Tony Abbott hates to admit he's British to the boot straps and his forebears were liars also, who told the British Sovereign Australia was uninhabited. Their deceit is now fully exposed, and us born Australian are paying a price for liars like Abbott. Actually, it was just a silly Freudian slip by Abbott, which he struggled to get out of. It wasn’t that bad. But it does give you a hint of his influences and the people he surrounds himself with - Andrew Bolts, Gerard Hendersons, David Flynts, and the gaggle of fossilized old fruitloops that are being parachuted  into the boards and positions of influence around the country. Yes, thank heavens the grown-ups are back in charge.

The first 5 years the first fleet stuck to Farm Cove, Parramatta and a few other areas Karnal. I just want to know where you got the opinion that the local aboriginals showed the first fleeters  where to get water. I makes me wonder how much of your posts are actually correct.

austranger wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 2:16pm:

The British were Imperialists, their Terra Nullius claim was based on their observation that there was no nation, no organised people with a claim in their understanding of such claims. Terra nullius (/ˈtɛrə nʌˈlaɪ.əs/, plural terrae nullius) is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "land belonging to no one",[1] which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius may be acquired through occupation,[2] though in some cases doing so would violate an international law or treaty. Within their terms of reference at that time they were quite correct and their colonisation was thus entirely legal and justifiable at law. You can't simply re-interpret their actions then under our concepts now and say they were thus wrong at that time, sorry.

On the 3rd June 1992 Justice Brennan, in considering the rights of the indigenous peoples of the Murray Islands, proclaimed in the High Court of Australia that "the Meriam people are entitled as against the whole world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the lands of the Murray Islands". This decision overturns the concept of terra nullius. The Aboriginal people of the Murray Islands are entitled to be acknowledged as the original owners of the territory in question. With that decision the foundation upon which the Law as practised by Surveyors was severely shaken; now part of Australia at least is recognised as having been inhabited by Aboriginal peoples who have rights above all others to those lands in law.

austranger wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 2:16pm:

The British were Imperialists, their Terra Nullius claim was based on their observation that there was no nation, no organised people with a claim in their understanding of such claims. Terra nullius (/ˈtɛrə nʌˈlaɪ.əs/, plural terrae nullius) is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "land belonging to no one",[1] which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius may be acquired through occupation,[2] though in some cases doing so would violate an international law or treaty. Within their terms of reference at that time they were quite correct and their colonisation was thus entirely legal and justifiable at law. You can't simply re-interpret their actions then under our concepts now and say they were thus wrong at that time, sorry.

On the 3rd June 1992 Justice Brennan, in considering the rights of the indigenous peoples of the Murray Islands, proclaimed in the High Court of Australia that "the Meriam people are entitled as against the whole world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the lands of the Murray Islands". This decision overturns the concept of terra nullius. The Aboriginal people of the Murray Islands are entitled to be acknowledged as the original owners of the territory in question. With that decision the foundation upon which the Law as practised by Surveyors was severely shaken; now part of Australia at least is recognised as having been inhabited by Aboriginal peoples who have rights above all others to those lands in law.

austranger wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 2:16pm:

The British were Imperialists, their Terra Nullius claim was based on their observation that there was no nation, no organised people with a claim in their understanding of such claims. Terra nullius (/ˈtɛrə nʌˈlaɪ.əs/, plural terrae nullius) is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "land belonging to no one",[1] which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius may be acquired through occupation,[2] though in some cases doing so would violate an international law or treaty. Within their terms of reference at that time they were quite correct and their colonisation was thus entirely legal and justifiable at law. You can't simply re-interpret their actions then under our concepts now and say they were thus wrong at that time, sorry.

On the 3rd June 1992 Justice Brennan, in considering the rights of the indigenous peoples of the Murray Islands, proclaimed in the High Court of Australia that "the Meriam people are entitled as against the whole world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the lands of the Murray Islands". This decision overturns the concept of terra nullius. The Aboriginal people of the Murray Islands are entitled to be acknowledged as the original owners of the territory in question. With that decision the foundation upon which the Law as practised by Surveyors was severely shaken; now part of Australia at least is recognised as having been inhabited by Aboriginal peoples who have rights above all others to those lands in law.

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 2:36pm:

[ There is nothing intrinsically superior about "British culture", [/quote[ You better tell the rest of the western world then who seem to disagree with you by their adoption of it. [quote]As a multicultural country in Asia, Australia’s success also relies on such adaptation.

opening the doors to incompatible cultures wont help us adapt.

austranger wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 2:16pm:

The British were Imperialists, their Terra Nullius claim was based on their observation that there was no nation, no organised people with a claim in their understanding of such claims. Terra nullius (/ˈtɛrə nʌˈlaɪ.əs/, plural terrae nullius) is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "land belonging to no one",[1] which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius may be acquired through occupation,[2] though in some cases doing so would violate an international law or treaty. Within their terms of reference at that time they were quite correct and their colonisation was thus entirely legal and justifiable at law. You can't simply re-interpret their actions then under our concepts now and say they were thus wrong at that time, sorry.

On the 3rd June 1992 Justice Brennan, in considering the rights of the indigenous peoples of the Murray Islands, proclaimed in the High Court of Australia that "the Meriam people are entitled as against the whole world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the lands of the Murray Islands". This decision overturns the concept of terra nullius. The Aboriginal people of the Murray Islands are entitled to be acknowledged as the original owners of the territory in question. With that decision the foundation upon which the Law as practised by Surveyors was severely shaken; now part of Australia at least is recognised as having been inhabited by Aboriginal peoples who have rights above all others to those lands in law.

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:09pm:

Dear Tony, We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation. Yours faithfully, Aussie.

Good post.

No reasonable person could argue with that.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:14am:

Tony Abbott stated yesterday Australia "unsettled' before Brits. Aborigines were only here 59,946 years before you. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrsG7XSCMAAtRat.jpg

I love this map... :D :D :D :D :D
Some areas have a whole family in them... :D

You could all easily turn the television off, lock the fridge up and turn your back on the comfortable life this "invasion" has given you all.

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:50am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 7:14am: Tony Abbott stated yesterday Australia "unsettled' before Brits. Aborigines were only here 59,946 years before you. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrsG7XSCMAAtRat.jpg Yep, haven't they done well in all those years, a stick that doesn't come back.  ;D ;D

Well they wiped out the pygmies and Mungo man didn't they?

hermoine wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 3:08pm:

You could all easily turn the television off, lock the fridge up and turn your back on the comfortable life this "invasion" has given you all.

Why?

What purpose would that serve?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 3:03pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:09pm: Dear Tony, We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation. Yours faithfully, Aussie. Good post. No reasonable person could argue with that.

There was no military invasion.  :D :D :D :D :D

Nobody said there was a military invasion, but it was hardly an unarmed one.

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 3:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 3:03pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:09pm: Dear Tony, We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation. Yours faithfully, Aussie. Good post. No reasonable person could argue with that. There was no military invasion.

As I said, no reasonable person could argue with that.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 12:30pm:

Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British When you vote for an idiot you can hardly be surprised when the result is that you get an idiot. It's not Abbotts fault everyone knew him well and still voted the dope into power.

You keep repeating the topic lie DNA...  gee I wonder why? :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 3:10pm:

hermoine wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 3:08pm: You could all easily turn the television off, lock the fridge up and turn your back on the comfortable life this "invasion" has given you all. Why? What purpose would that serve?

It just doesn't seem right taking from something that you all see in a negative light. It's a principle thing. You probably have a life expendency of above 80 years with the best medical system in the world. On that alone I'm glad for the reality I find myself in.

austranger wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 2:16pm:

The British were Imperialists, their Terra Nullius claim was based on their observation that there was no nation, no organised people with a claim in their understanding of such claims. Terra nullius (/ˈtɛrə nʌˈlaɪ.əs/, plural terrae nullius) is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "land belonging to no one",[1] which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius may be acquired through occupation,[2] though in some cases doing so would violate an international law or treaty. Within their terms of reference at that time they were quite correct and their colonisation was thus entirely legal and justifiable at law. You can't simply re-interpret their actions then under our concepts now and say they were thus wrong at that time, sorry.

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/5/b/5/6/1264247144596627768clapping_hands.jpg.svg.med.png

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 3:19pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 3:03pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 5:09pm: Dear Tony, We owe our existence to an invasion of an occupied Land, easy military defeat of the Natives, appalling subsequent treatment of them, and British Colonisation. Yours faithfully, Aussie. Good post. No reasonable person could argue with that. There was no military invasion.  As I said, no reasonable person could argue with that.

Thanks Peccerhead...  saw the opening and bet a mate that'd be what you'd say.  Now $5 richer...  thanks.