Australian Politics Forum - Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British

hermoine

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 364

Re: Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British
Reply #255 - Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:45pm

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:39pm:

hermoine wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:27pm:

Quote:

Or, far more likely, they simply looked around, they weren't exactly inexperienced at finding water in new territories were they? It ain't rocket science, follow the birds and wildlife in the morn or evening usually does that trick!

Or, more logically, just ask the locals, or observe where they get their water. And how on earth did some concept of 'noble savage' get relevantly introduced into this?

Further, exactly how many among the first Fleet were experienced hands at settlement of a potentially hostile land? Not too many, if any, I reckon. Just from reading the stuff I googled this afternoon for the purpose of this discussion, it seems they pretty much failed and were sending ships to China for food supplies.

If the settlers were so bad at bush skills then why do we now have modern Australia?

Better and more skilled people kept turning up, that's how.

They were forced to learn and adapt or perish. By 1860 they had railways, cities, business, commerce, industry etc etc. In a mere 78 years. The British are a bunch of ass kickers when it comes to building civilisation. Even in one of the most unhospitable countries in the world. The reason is intelligence and hard work. The aborigines got conquered because they never built anything. If you have an empty house somebody is eventually going to move in. It's the way of nature.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 39959 Gender:	Re: Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British Reply #256 - Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:56pm Quote: The aborigines got conquered because they never built anything. Yeas, indeed. Rifles and gunpowder had nothing to do with it.
Back to top	IP Logged

hermoine Senior Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 364	Re: Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British Reply #257 - Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:58pm Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:56pm: Quote: The aborigines got conquered because they never built anything. Yeas, indeed. Rifles and gunpowder had nothing to do with it. Maybe if the aborigines built an army they could of fought them off.
Back to top	IP Logged

Enquiring mind

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 104737

Re: Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British
Reply #258 - Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:59pm

Actually, to be fair, the early settlers did tend to turn their noses up at the local cuisine. They couldn’t believe the sight of swarms of Aboriginals carving up flyblown, dead whales in Sydney harbour.

Mind you, the natives didn’t mind putting their hands out to whitey where they could. Aboriginal children used to beg for scraps around the Governor’s house - mind you, many were orphans after the first smallpox epidemic.

Some Aboriginal men were famous around Sydney for being quite partial to a drop of the King’s wine, or "grog". Sailors and convicts loved watching them get tanked.

Whites got a lot of local knowledge from the natives, and surviving Sydney Aboriginals adapted to the local white culture. Some lived between the two cultures, on the fringes of each. Some used whitey to play off other Aboriginals in feuds and wars.

Native and European lifestyles were an enigma to each other, but they were not totally at odds until later on, when the "settler wars" started around the Hawkesbury River.

Before I’m accused of plagurism, my reference is Karskens, G (2009). The Colony: a History of Early Sydney.. Allen & Unwin: Australia.

Back to top

IP Logged

Enquiring mind

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 104737

Re: Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British
Reply #259 - Jul 5^th, 2014 at 9:03pm

austranger wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:20pm:

Quote:

You stated that aboriginal people showed the first fleeters where to find water ,which is not true. At least have the dignity to admit when you are wrong.

I've seen nothing yet which establishes whether they did or did not.

Obviously the inhabitants would be very well aware of where the water was, and the white blokes would have had no idea. Logic suggests the white blokes would have either sought direct advice or looked to see where the inhabitants were hanging out, given they would be living near to a water source.

Or, far more likely, they simply looked around, they weren't exactly inexperienced at finding water in new territories were they? It ain't rocket science, follow the birds and wildlife in the morn or evening usually does that trick!
I figure that because the Pilgrim experience in America has been so widely publicised people are making the mistake of assuming that that happened here too, which it simply did NOT. The First Settlement was a British Army/ Navy affair, and they had been setting up and finding water etc all across the world for centuries, one would suspect that they had some idea what they were doing perchance? Grin

You’re right, they did.

The one thing they weren’t experienced at doing was moving in with a mob of potentially inhospitable people and taking over their water sources, hunting grounds and sacred sites.

To do this, you need acute skills in native diplomacy, and very big balls.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 5^th, 2014 at 9:11pm by Enquiring mind »

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British
Reply #260 - Jul 5^th, 2014 at 9:27pm

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 6:23pm:

And yet, they have southern states dominated by Hispanics, eastenr states dominated by the descendents of slaves, and a Bible-belt in the middle full of happy-clapping KKKers.

Americans do NOT see themselves as a "British" culture - far from it. Like it or loathe it, America is fiercely multicultural.

Burn Baby Burn.

Not really, none of these groups "dominate" parts of america. There are huge enclaves of hispanics and blacks, no go areas for whites but whites still dominate the country both politically and economically. The KKK is largely dysfunctional these days and has little organised support. regardless of whether the Yanks see themselves as a british culture this is their cultural heritage and it shows in every way, it is also evident to other ethnic groups, one reason why the hispanics call white americans "anglos". The US economy is largely built on the backs of the modern descendants of slaves and Hispanics, this cant last much longer, I predict huge social unrest if the pie doesnt start getting spread around a bit more.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Racist Filth Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 90901 Proud Old White Australian Man Gender:	Re: Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British Reply #261 - Jul 5^th, 2014 at 9:28pm I know England was very unsettled before Oz settlement... all those criminals in need of exporting to the colonies etc... bad joss there...
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

Enquiring mind

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 104737

Re: Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British
Reply #262 - Jul 5^th, 2014 at 9:53pm

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 9:27pm:

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 6:23pm:

And yet, they have southern states dominated by Hispanics, eastenr states dominated by the descendents of slaves, and a Bible-belt in the middle full of happy-clapping KKKers.

Americans do NOT see themselves as a "British" culture - far from it. Like it or loathe it, America is fiercely multicultural.

Burn Baby Burn.

Not really, none of these groups "dominate" parts of america. There are huge enclaves of hispanics and blacks, no go areas for whites but whites still dominate the country both politically and economically. The KKK is largely dysfunctional these days and has little organised support. regardless of whether the Yanks see themselves as a british culture this is their cultural heritage and it shows in every way, it is also evident to other ethnic groups, one reason why the hispanics call white americans "anglos". The US economy is largely built on the backs of the modern descendants of slaves and Hispanics, this cant last much longer, I predict huge social unrest if the pie doesnt start getting spread around a bit more.

Very true. But the political system in the US owes much more to France than Mother.

The US already has huge social unrest. And they’ve already had a revolution and a civil war.

It’s a testament to collective self interest that all those different groups manage to share the streets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British
Reply #263 - Jul 5^th, 2014 at 10:16pm

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 6:23pm:

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 5:50pm:

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 3:34pm:

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:

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.

The US opened its doors up to hundreds of thousands of African slaves.

And somehow, a few generations on, it managed to become the dominant superpower in the world.

How do you account for such "incompatible cultures" and the US’s economic supremacy?

The US has enormous social issues and the blacks were not encouraged to and did not keep their African cultures, being the dominant superpower means little in this context, Indian is a superpower with nuclear missiles while their people sh!t and starve in the streets.

True, but most would cite the US as the most "superior" country in the world. Americans certainly do.

And yet, they have southern states dominated by Hispanics, eastenr states dominated by the descendents of slaves, and a Bible-belt in the middle full of happy-clapping KKKers.

Americans do NOT see themselves as a "British" culture - far from it. Like it or loathe it, America is fiercely multicultural.

Burn Baby Burn.

Quote:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_assimilation

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/8/us-faces-need-assimilate-immigran...

Quote:

Even as Congress prepares to debate whether to legalize 11 million illegal immigrants and give them a path to citizenship, analysts are cautioning lawmakers to focus on the other part of immigration: assimilating them fully into America.
All sides in the debateagree that assimilation is critical, but in a report being released Monday, the Hudson Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, says the country has failed on that account in recent years.

Quote:

“The fault is not the immigrants’ — the fault is the elites who are running down patriotic assimilation for the last 40 years,” he said. “They receive the wrong message from us. The fault is ours, not theirs.”

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Racist Filth

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 90901
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British
Reply #264 - Jul 5^th, 2014 at 10:16pm

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:59pm:

Actually, to be fair, the early settlers did tend to turn their noses up at the local cuisine. They couldn’t believe the sight of swarms of Aboriginals carving up flyblown, dead whales in Sydney harbour.

Mind you, the natives didn’t mind putting their hands out to whitey where they could. Aboriginal children used to beg for scraps around the Governor’s house - mind you, many were orphans after the first smallpox epidemic.

Some Aboriginal men were famous around Sydney for being quite partial to a drop of the King’s wine, or "grog". Sailors and convicts loved watching them get tanked.

Whites got a lot of local knowledge from the natives, and surviving Sydney Aboriginals adapted to the local white culture. Some lived between the two cultures, on the fringes of each. Some used whitey to play off other Aboriginals in feuds and wars.

Native and European lifestyles were an enigma to each other, but they were not totally at odds until later on, when the "settler wars" started around the Hawkesbury River.

Before I’m accused of plagurism, my reference is Karskens, G (2009). The Colony: a History of Early Sydney.. Allen & Unwin: Australia.

Yeah - but they never let go of Redfun!

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British
Reply #265 - Jul 5^th, 2014 at 10:17pm

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 6:32pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 6:05pm:

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

DaS Energy wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

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.

Abbott entered parliament around 1996 - He had a plethora of dishonesty and failure behind him, including his slush fund to put Hanson away, his religious based decision on RU486 the list is endless - Tony was the least honest opposition leader we ever had and has smooth transitioned into government without missing a beat, barley missing the opportunity to break a promise.

You know there is only a lick of truth in that statement. Why do you do it, surely you don't actually believe it as stated?
If you do there is lots of information on those things you need to get educated.

Do you read all those daily newspapers you buy, Grendel, or do you just check the cricket scores?

I’m curious.

Obviously I listen watch read and learn a great deal more than you judging by that fatuous response. Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Racist Filth Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 90901 Proud Old White Australian Man Gender:	Re: Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British Reply #266 - Jul 5^th, 2014 at 10:18pm I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America Australia against all enemies, foreign and domestic - the domestic is what we're doing taking down ToJo and the Krew, and we're trying to get rid of Andrei.....
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British
Reply #267 - Jul 5^th, 2014 at 10:27pm

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:34pm:

hermoine wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:24pm:

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. Karnal......... Wrong.

I was kinda hoping you'd do better than just telling me that Karnal is wrong. I'd be obliged if you told me why he is wrong.

Still incapable of using google I see...

Quote:

History
Excavations around Tank Stream have uncovered aboriginal flake stone artifacts made from water-worn pebbles. The stream gave the aborigines fresh water, fish and other resources. The area was chosen by First Fleet Captain Captain Arthur Phillip in 1788 as the location for the New South Wales colony for similar reasons.

The colony had originally been planned for Botany Bay, on the recommendation of Sir Joseph Banks who had visited the area with Captain James Cook 17 years earlier, but when no fresh water was found there, Phillip sought a better site, and found it in the previously unvisited Port Jackson. Sydney Cove was chosen for settlement as it "was at the head of the cove, near the run of fresh water which stole silently along through a very thick wood". On 26 January 1788 the new colony was inaugurated.

During a drought in 1790 three storage tanks were constructed in the sandstone beside the Tank Stream and it is from these that the stream gets its name.

The Tank Stream could not meet the needs of the growing colony. It was abandoned in 1826, though it had been little more than an open sewer for the preceding two decades. Sydney's next supply of water was Busby's Bore, in 1830.

In 1850 the swamp feeding the Tank Stream was drained. Starting in 1860, the Tank Stream was progressively covered and is now a storm water channel which is controlled by Sydney Water. Recently there have been calls from some to see it run above ground again to create a central feature in the city.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British
Reply #268 - Jul 5^th, 2014 at 10:28pm

austranger wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:20pm:

Quote:

You stated that aboriginal people showed the first fleeters where to find water ,which is not true. At least have the dignity to admit when you are wrong.

I've seen nothing yet which establishes whether they did or did not.

Obviously the inhabitants would be very well aware of where the water was, and the white blokes would have had no idea. Logic suggests the white blokes would have either sought direct advice or looked to see where the inhabitants were hanging out, given they would be living near to a water source.

Or, far more likely, they simply looked around, they weren't exactly inexperienced at finding water in new territories were they? It ain't rocket science, follow the birds and wildlife in the morn or evening usually does that trick!
I figure that because the Pilgrim experience in America has been so widely publicised people are making the mistake of assuming that that happened here too, which it simply did NOT. The First Settlement was a British Army/ Navy affair, and they had been setting up and finding water etc all across the world for centuries, one would suspect that they had some idea what they were doing perchance? Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

OldnCrusty

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 855
Gender: male

Re: Abbott Claims Oz Unsettled B4 British
Reply #269 - Jul 6^th, 2014 at 7:01pm

austranger wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:20pm:

Quote:

You stated that aboriginal people showed the first fleeters where to find water ,which is not true. At least have the dignity to admit when you are wrong.

I've seen nothing yet which establishes whether they did or did not.

Obviously the inhabitants would be very well aware of where the water was, and the white blokes would have had no idea. Logic suggests the white blokes would have either sought direct advice or looked to see where the inhabitants were hanging out, given they would be living near to a water source.

Or, far more likely, they simply looked around, they weren't exactly inexperienced at finding water in new territories were they? It ain't rocket science, follow the birds and wildlife in the morn or evening usually does that trick!
I figure that because the Pilgrim experience in America has been so widely publicised people are making the mistake of assuming that that happened here too, which it simply did NOT. The First Settlement was a British Army/ Navy affair, and they had been setting up and finding water etc all across the world for centuries, one would suspect that they had some idea what they were doing perchance? Grin

The First Fleet and the founding of the penal colony of New South Wales was an all Royal Navy affair. Capt Phillip RN was governor, all his admin were RN and the Red Coats/'soldiers' were Royal Marines under command of Major Ross.

The water requirements of the NSW Penal Colony went far beyond the general experience of the RN or the British army. There general experience would have been in siting a military camp, bivouacking over night or a week, or re-supply of a ship's water supply, and they were good and experienced at this.

The First Fleet arrived in Australia with 1300 souls to feed and maintain. The water requirements for such a large contingent were obvious and the requirements went far beyond a hidden brook or a secret spring known only to the locals. But it was not just the 1300 of the first fleet Phillip also knew another 1000 or so would arrive in about 12 months and there would be ongoing arrivals.

The colony was also expected to be self sufficient in food and therefore required arable land and water for agriculture and stock. The search wasn't for water but a search for a suitable settlement site, far beyond the experience of most military officers.

Which is the probable reason why Capt Phillip had been chosen. Surprisingly not much is known about Phillip or his career or indeed why he was chosen as the First Governor. It is known that Phillip had been seconded to the Portuguese Navy for 15 years as a naval captain. His exact service is not know but it is suspected that his service and experience with the Portuguese colonies of South America is one of the reasons he was chosen.

Within two days of the First Fleet arrival at Botany Bay (the intended settlement site) it was determined that Botany Bay was unsuitable.

Closer inspection of Botany Bay the lush-looking grass was long and course. The big trees Banks had praised were hollow and twisted and only suitable for firewood. The so-called “rich soil” that Banks described was nothing more than black sand. Even the sheltered harbour they had expected could only be reached by passing over a dangerous sandbar. But there was no turning back.

The new colony needed fresh water, good soil and a safe place for the ships. So on the morning of 21st January Phillip, Captain Hunter and others went in three boats to examine a bay to the northward a few leagues. They intended to sail to Broken Bay, but there was another bay which was sighted, but not entered by Captain Cook, which he named Port Jackson, after George Jackson, Judge-Advocate of the Fleet.

Late in the afternoon of the 21st Phillip and his small party sailed into Port Jackson (instead of Broken Bay) and went ashore at present day Camp Cove where they set up camp for the night.

Phillip spent the 22nd exploring Port Jackson eventually choosing Sydney Cove as the place of settlement as it had a good spring of water (this was later called the Tank Stream because a number of storage tanks were cut into the sandstone of the creek).

It was some time later that the swamps around the now suburb of Botany were found and firmly secured Sydney's permanent settlement.

Back to top

IP Logged