Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Invaded or settled?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Invaded or settled?

    Certainly agree with the fact that Captain Cook didn't "discover" Australia... and I'm comfortable to tell my kids about how we have benefited from indigenous Australians disposition.

    In March, commercial radio hosts and the Daily Telegraph criticised new University of New South Wales guidelines that suggested references to Australia being "settled" should instead be "invaded" and noted it was offensive to say Captain Cook "discovered" Australia.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-2...vasion/7431906
    "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
    Ernest Hemingway.

    "The more I learn about people, The more I love my dog".
    Mark Twain.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
    Certainly agree with the fact that Captain Cook didn't "discover" Australia... and I'm comfortable to tell my kids about how we have benefited from indigenous Australians disposition.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-2...vasion/7431906
    Discovered claimed for England might fit better.

    Wasn't it settled by Prisoners of the King and not settlers?

    It really sounds like PC is alive and well Down under.
    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

    Comment


    • #3
      Invaded AND settled.

      Any version of Australian history that fails to acknowledge both is deceptive at best & a lie at worst.

      I went to school when we got the 'white blindfold' version of Australian history. In 2 years of Australian history at High School we got explorers, settlers, soldiers, politicians etc. No Aborigines. Bit of a mention that they were here when we arrived, but no mention of the violent dispossession. In fact, we learned more about Aborigines in primary school, though it was distinctly anthropological.

      That was all the more unforgivable because I lived in an area with a visible Aboriginal population. I went to school with Aboriginal kids, never understanding why their parents were so hostile to people in authority. Later I discovered how widespread the removal of Aboriginal children had been in my area. Too late to help me understand my schoolmates. In fact, it wasn't until recently that the scale, speed & violence of the dispossession and subsequent repression of Aboriginal people & culture was fully clear to me. Australians need to understand this part of our history. It is a fundamental part of our story.

      On the other hand, there is a great story to tell about the creation of a nation that should be told, but told in full. We have achieved remarkable things. The manner of our foundation does not poison all our achievements. Attempts to let it define us are as mistaken as attempts to skate over it.
      Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
        Discovered claimed for England might fit better.

        Wasn't it settled by Prisoners of the King and not settlers?

        It really sounds like PC is alive and well Down under.
        The original meaning of discover was to make known to the rest of the world

        On that basis
        • The aborigines originally settled the place but did not discover it.
        • Old maps suggest that the Portuguese had visited but kept it secret in case a rival European power used it as a base so they didn't discover it
        • The same applies to the Dutch
        • Cook claimed it for Britain (not England) and told the world about it so technically he did discover it
        • It was both invaded and settled by settlers some of whom were tranportees
        Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
        Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MarkV View Post
          The original meaning of discover was to make known to the rest of the world

          On that basis
          • The aborigines originally settled the place but did not discover it.
          • Old maps suggest that the Portuguese had visited but kept it secret in case a rival European power used it as a base so they didn't discover it
          • The same applies to the Dutch
          • Cook claimed it for Britain (not England) and told the world about it so technically he did discover it
          • It was both invaded and settled by settlers some of whom were tranportees
          Mostly agree, but one quibble. Pretty sure the Dutch didn't hide the existence of 'New Holland'. They made maps & visited repeatedly, but considered it unsuitable for settlement. They didn't map the east coast and may not have been aware it was there. Unsure if Cook knew that what he found there was connected to 'New Holland'. Still, I think the Dutch get the chokkies for 'discovery', though Cook found the best bit and Britain grabbed it before the evil French could get their mitts on it.

          The first settlements were convicts (among them an ancestor of mine on the First Fleet), though free settlers rapidly followed. Convict labour was a cheap way to settle the place, and poor buggers had their lives turned upside down to serve the greater glory of Empire. Another one of mine got sent from Ireland in 1840 for theft, despite testimony from the victim that the items in my ancestors possession weren't the ones stolen from him. Left a wife & 2 kids behind never to return. Most prisoners were freed after a time (7 years often) and became free settlers. My bloke ended up marrying a & running a pub.
          Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BF69 View Post
            Mostly agree, but one quibble. Pretty sure the Dutch didn't hide the existence of 'New Holland'. They made maps & visited repeatedly, but considered it unsuitable for settlement. They didn't map the east coast and may not have been aware it was there. Unsure if Cook knew that what he found there was connected to 'New Holland'. Still, I think the Dutch get the chokkies for 'discovery', though Cook found the best bit and Britain grabbed it before the evil French could get their mitts on it.

            The first settlements were convicts (among them an ancestor of mine on the First Fleet), though free settlers rapidly followed. Convict labour was a cheap way to settle the place, and poor buggers had their lives turned upside down to serve the greater glory of Empire. Another one of mine got sent from Ireland in 1840 for theft, despite testimony from the victim that the items in my ancestors possession weren't the ones stolen from him. Left a wife & 2 kids behind never to return. Most prisoners were freed after a time (7 years often) and became free settlers. My bloke ended up marrying a & running a pub.
            I also have a family member who is recorded as being in the first fleet but there were also civilians on board going out to settle - the availability of free convict labour being an incentive (my guy wasn't a free settler having been convicted of robbery on the Kings highway and sentenced to transportation rather than being hanged because of family connections - he was very much the black sheep. What happened to him in later life no one knows - perhaps he went back to his old trade and started the fine old Australian tradition of bushranging).
            Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
            Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
              Certainly agree with the fact that Captain Cook didn't "discover" Australia... and I'm comfortable to tell my kids about how we have benefited from indigenous Australians disposition.

              http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-2...vasion/7431906
              I have just recently wrote a paper on this subject. In terms of the British occupation they claimed the Aboriginals claimed to have no sovereignty, thus Australia was classed as "Terra Nullius" (No ones land). So in terms of colonial and the majority of historical Australian law, the land was colonized by the British or the Crown to be exact and the Aboriginals were seen as a nomadic people resulting to zero rights under colonial and early Australian law which can be noted by Governor Bourke's proclamation of 1835.
              http://g.bf3stats.com/pc/1LP76r6C/melba_101.png

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BF69 View Post
                Invaded AND settled.

                Any version of Australian history that fails to acknowledge both is deceptive at best & a lie at worst.

                I went to school when we got the 'white blindfold' version of Australian history. In 2 years of Australian history at High School we got explorers, settlers, soldiers, politicians etc. No Aborigines. Bit of a mention that they were here when we arrived, but no mention of the violent dispossession. In fact, we learned more about Aborigines in primary school, though it was distinctly anthropological.

                That was all the more unforgivable because I lived in an area with a visible Aboriginal population. I went to school with Aboriginal kids, never understanding why their parents were so hostile to people in authority. Later I discovered how widespread the removal of Aboriginal children had been in my area. Too late to help me understand my schoolmates. In fact, it wasn't until recently that the scale, speed & violence of the dispossession and subsequent repression of Aboriginal people & culture was fully clear to me. Australians need to understand this part of our history. It is a fundamental part of our story.

                On the other hand, there is a great story to tell about the creation of a nation that should be told, but told in full. We have achieved remarkable things. The manner of our foundation does not poison all our achievements. Attempts to let it define us are as mistaken as attempts to skate over it.
                I can't argue with any of that. But we must be careful not to view what happened in the light of modern thinking .

                When Cook & Co.first arrived the philosophy of Terra Nullius held sway. This was based upon the theory that the land did not actually belong
                to anybody unless there was an "admixture" of labour and capital ,improving the place. The Koori peoples were nomads. Therefore when the British arrived they looked around : where the homes,the farms, revealing a permanent occupation ? There were none, hence the land was open and ready for settlement. Dispossession ? Of course ,but that's not how it appeared at the time.

                As for the"stolen generation": the policy seems cruel now but very often it was carried out with the best of intentions, and in many cases, then and now,it was done for the protection of the children themselves.
                "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                Samuel Johnson.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                  I can't argue with any of that. But we must be careful not to view what happened in the light of modern thinking .

                  When Cook & Co.first arrived the philosophy of Terra Nullius held sway. This was based upon the theory that the land did not actually belong
                  to anybody unless there was an "admixture" of labour and capital ,improving the place. The Koori peoples were nomads. Therefore when the British arrived they looked around : where the homes,the farms, revealing a permanent occupation ? There were none, hence the land was open and ready for settlement. Dispossession ? Of course ,but that's not how it appeared at the time.

                  As for the"stolen generation": the policy seems cruel now but very often it was carried out with the best of intentions, and in many cases, then and now,it was done for the protection of the children themselves.

                  Depends if you are referring to the attempt to breed the blackness out of the Aboriginals or are you referring to a DOCS kind of stand point?
                  http://g.bf3stats.com/pc/1LP76r6C/melba_101.png

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 150935 View Post
                    Depends if you are referring to the attempt to breed the blackness out of the Aboriginals or are you referring to a DOCS kind of stand point?
                    Interesting: I'm not into eugenics though. Please elaborate.
                    Last edited by BELGRAVE; 24 May 16, 23:39.
                    "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                    Samuel Johnson.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                      Interesting: I'm not into eugenics though. Please elaborate.
                      it is not a thing I have researched just heard it mentioned a lecture or two about attempts to the breed the Aboriginal gene out of existence like a form of modified selection of plants, but like I said I have not done any research into the matter.
                      http://g.bf3stats.com/pc/1LP76r6C/melba_101.png

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Convict William Buckley lived with Aborigines for 32 years until their incessant warring resulted in all his friends dieing off. Todays black armband view of Aust history has Aborigines as the original greens living in harmony with gaia. Buckley described it differently a very violent stone aged people who loved raiding and warfare, even ritual cannibalism.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 150935 View Post
                          it is not a thing I have researched just heard it mentioned a lecture or two about attempts to the breed the Aboriginal gene out of existence like a form of modified selection of plants, but like I said I have not done any research into the matter.
                          Nasty if true, but then there were many repellent ideas involving eugenics which were fashionable right up to the middle of the 20th C.
                          "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                          Samuel Johnson.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by eddie3rar View Post
                            Convict William Buckley lived with Aborigines for 32 years until their incessant warring resulted in all his friends dieing off. Todays black armband view of Aust history has Aborigines as the original greens living in harmony with gaia. Buckley described it differently a very violent stone aged people who loved raiding and warfare, even ritual cannibalism.
                            Our white ancestors were no saints either but a question does need to be asked why a civilisation like the Aborigines who have lived in a land for 50,000 years, has not advanced beyond a hunter and gatherer based societies?
                            http://g.bf3stats.com/pc/1LP76r6C/melba_101.png

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 150935 View Post
                              Our white ancestors were no saints either but a question does need to be asked why a civilisation like the Aborigines who have lived in a land for 50,000 years, has not advanced beyond a hunter and gatherer based societies?
                              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel#
                              "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X