Invasion or Immigration?

[facthunter]

I think it's the GENEVA convention. (could be wrong). Nev

[facthunter]

Forgot to post that one earlier. Also after the referendum things changed a lot. Harold Holt had a bit to do with that. Apparently he was very non racist and a person person.Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

Well I'm mixed race for sure, from europe about five generations ago.

I grew up with half the class varying shades of black, and we never noticed racism. It must have been there though.

It was the russian attack on hungary that started the abos on the pathway to being recognised as citizens. Mind you, they were always "subjects of the king" and protected by laws. ( look up the proclamation of South Australia )

These days, people who can, choose to be counted as aboriginal because there is so much reverse racism that it pays to be considered aboriginal. (eg a bank teller in Alice Springs said how they typically got about 5,000 per fortnight for the family. You get this by adding welfare money, kid money, going to school money, royalties from mining and the fact that the family is a loose concept.

If your kid wants to be a medical doctor, gosh the pathway is easy if you are black.

I really dislike this " first nations" wording. They were mutually hostile tribes.

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I really dislike this " first nations" wording. They were mutually hostile tribes.

I find that a more suitable term because it clarifies the issue of the pre-European inhabitants being a singular group. "First Nations" accurately describes the fact that the pre-European inhabitants had defined territories and cultures fairly unique to those territories. That's a simple definition of "nation". That these "nations" existed before 1901 is inarguable, because the next nation to exist on the continent was the nation we call the Commonwealth of Australia, and it came into existence on 1 January 1901. The nation called "Commonwealth ..." never really extinguished the pre-European nations. It merely encompassed them. One could be pedantic and say that the arrival of Europeans in 1788 added another nation to the continent.

 

Now apply that reasoning to the many nations on the continent of Europe, including the British Isles, Ireland and Greenland. Do you baulk at lumping the people from those individual nations into one group and calling them Europeans?

 

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

Spoken by Juliet, Act 2 Scene 2 lines 43-44

 

And yes, they were and still are hostile one to the other at a certain level. On higher levels they can unite for a common goal.

[Yenn]

Anyone would think Australia was unique because the locals were overrun by the white invaders. Look at just about anywhere in the world and you will see that this has happened. South Africa was over run by whites and blacks a few hundred years ago. Both the Americas were also overrun and Europe has been a moving mass for centuries. I thought I was English, but I descend from the Italians who moved to England, but not in big enough numbers to take over the country.

 

[spacesailor]

Poor England  !  .

Invaded , overrun & enslaved , by blooody, half of Europe .

Thankfully the ABXXXX 'Australian Natives' didn,t go sailing before the Vikings ,Normans ,

And the rest of those invaders .

Even my Grandchildren ( a few ) have, somewere down the line  ' Native Australian ' blood .

Should they be ostricized like the rest of us ' whities ' ? .

We all seem to have PINK tongues .

AND

If talking about classes of people.  Lots & lots are in trouble after losing everything by the floods ! Without a cent from the government,  

Class of ' state housos ' ! . In western Sydney 

I'll stop !.

spacesailor

 

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, Yenn said:

South Africa was over run by whites and blacks a few hundred years ago.

Which brings to memory the fact that the Arab slave trade. The Arab Muslim slave trade, also known as the trans-Saharan trade or Eastern slave trade, is noted as the longest slave trade, having occurred for more than 1,300 years while taking millions of Africans away from their continent to work in foreign lands in the most inhumane conditions. The trade has however remained largely ignored, and at times has even been treated as a taboo subject, despite being a key component of African history owing to the devastating impact it has had on the continent, its generations and its people’s way of life.

[Old Koreelah]

18 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Which brings to memory the fact that the Arab slave trade. The Arab Muslim slave trade, also known as the trans-Saharan trade or Eastern slave trade, is noted as the longest slave trade, having occurred for more than 1,300 years while taking millions of Africans away from their continent to work in foreign lands in the most inhumane conditions...

Well said, OME! I’m tired of the world diplomatically ignoring the long-term, ingrained, ongoing abuses of basic human rights across the Islamic world.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I have seen the oppression in Abu Dhabi back in the very late 90s and determined I would never go to the Middle East again (unless I was broke). I know a bloke who has made a fortune doing what I do in Saudi, and I was recently approached to see if I would be also interested - and the tax free salary that was on offer certainly made me think twice...  but I can live with working for a few extra years for my principles.  @OME - as our resident etymologist, maybe you can verify, but I am told that slace derives from the first known (presumably modern) slaves - the Slavoincs.

 

I, too get very angry and frustrated when people ignore transgressions because it suits them or because it wouldn't be politically correct.  Dubai and Abu Dhabi are popular tourists destinations here because it isn't too far away and offers cheap luxurious holidays. Many people stay within the  confines of their hotel complexes and take cabs to areas - they don't wander the streets and see the oppression that affords them their cheap luxury - but the stench is everywhere. It may have improved since I was there, but I doubt it. 

 

But.. just because some get away with it, or because countries/civilisations are always being taken over by others doesn't necessarily make that, nor sustained poor treatment of the people taken over, right.. Nor does it say we shouldn't improve things on our own turf. In First Nations' peoples case, the land was proclaimed under international (European) law, as terra nullius. Compare this to NZ, where it was declared a conquest. Under "international" (European) law of the time, an invader who carried out a conquest was required to enter into a treaty after the fact. It was a tacit recognition that the land was stolen and there had to be reparations as a result. In Terra Nullius, no one owns the land and so it is proclaimed (in this case) as owned by the UK. There was no need to enter into a treat, no need for any reparations/recognition of rights, and anyone trying to take that land would be considered invaders and could be dispensed with accordingly. More or less. Making them citizens did nothing with respect to their land rights, as the land was owned by the crown (or privately held as the case may be). There is the story of Batman buying Melbourne for some trinkets, but there is dispute in law that thjs meant at the time; "Batman's Treaty was an agreement between John Batman, an Australian grazier, businessman and coloniser, and a group of Wurundjeri elders, for the purchase of land around Port Phillip, near the present site of Melbourne. The document came to be known as Batman's Treaty and is considered significant as it was the first and only documented time when Europeans negotiated their presence and occupation of Aboriginal lands directly with the traditional owners.[1] The treaty was implicitly declared void on 26 August 1835 by the Governor of New South Wales, Richard Bourke.[2]".

 

This was a historical wrong, and in my opinion, it does not matter whether other countries at the time, before, or since have suffered similarly. The fact is our country has perpetrated a wrong, and sustained it, to the point where it has destroyed a culture, denied people of their land and if not caused, was a significant factor First Nations' peoples' sociological ills. As such, it would be hard to argue that reparations are not due and we should not be making an effort to improve their lot in a way that is sympathetic to their historical culture. Yes, it opens the door to abuse by those with at best tenuous claims to First Nations ancestry, but that is nothing new - we have dole bludgers, welfare cheats, and most politicians and lawyers. We may not be unique, but we can be in the way we work to fix it.

 

 

 

[nomadpete]

Well said Jerry, especially about the world generally ignoring opression and corruption when it suits (lines our pockets).

However, I have a problem accepting the "terra nullius" argument.  Whilst true that "whiter" occupation of Aust was initially based upon an archaic "international" law of conquest, that was a (convenient) technical mistake made over 200 years ago. And further to that, since at that time this land was occupied by disparate tribes, each now called nations (plural), how could any newly arrived migrant representative possibly be expected to negotiate an agreement to stay? There was no "boss of the mob" to make such agreement.

 

Overall, our present society has gone to great lengths to offer pathways for people to take advantage of the better lifestyles available in modern society. But it seems that certain groups prefer to live in squalor, abandon their true ancient values, and only pick and choose little bits of the easy life, adopting neither their ancient cultural values nor the culture of the newer migrant life. I refuse to accept unearned guilt for historic events that I am not personally responsible for.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2022 by nomadpete

[nomadpete]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Batman's Treaty was an agreement between John Batman, an Australian grazier, businessman and coloniser, and a group of Wurundjeri elders, for the purchase of land around Port Phillip

This bloke probably made a valid (at the time) agreement with one nation of the indigenous tribes. He may not have known the boundary of that "nation". Or that there were hundreds of "nations".  But wouldn't that agreement still hold, over that "nation" territory?

 

Furthermore, regardless of the initial british bureaucratic view of the arrival, it would not have changed the pathway to today, if they had put different wording on the page.

 

Our responsibility rests in adressing the problems of today. And the biggest problem I see today, is that our wealthier end of Aust society has been offering financial support to the empoverished ends of society, but most of that is being skimmed off by the higher members of their own groups.

That extra financial support is resented by the whiter groups, who do not qualify for it, and who see it as divisive.

We collectively have been unable to help groups that reject their own responsibility to their own wellbeing. I do not have an answer.

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

maybe you can verify,

It seems that "slave" does come from a reference to the Slavonic people. But not from Roman times. It looks like the word developed in the Middle Ages. The Slav was the most prized of human goods. With increased strength outside his marshy land of origin, hardened to the utmost against all privation, industrious, content with little, good-humoured, and cheerful, he filled the slave markets of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The Magyars in the Pontus steppe dominated all the Slavs dwelling near them. The Magyars made raids upon the Slavs and took their prisoners along the coast to Kerkh where the Byzantines came to buy them. As in all these slave trading activities, only about 10% survived to the end of the journey. The Slavic word for "slave" (Russian rab, Serbo-Croatian rob) is also the source of robot. The word 'robot' was first used to denote a fictional humanoid in a 1920 Czech-language play R.U.R. (Rossumovi Univerzální Roboti – Rossum's Universal Robots) by Karel Čapek. The word 'robot' itself was not new, having been in the Slavic language as robota (forced labor), a term applied to peasants obligated to compulsory service under the feudal system.

 

To get back to words for the pre-European occupants of the continent, "aborigine" was originally the word the Latini, who we now call the Romans,  used to describe themselves. On the Seven Hills of Rome they were there from the beginning - ab origine. 

[Bruce Tuncks]

One of the best videos around was a group of Australian Aborigines who paddled up the thames and discovered England. They soon found that the current inhabitants were too backward to be counted, so they declared england as "Terra nullius"

Edited October 5, 2022 by Bruce Tuncks

[Bruce Tuncks]

I don't think that the main problem is lack of money. Aborigines health problems are caused by their culture, which does not include basic hygene. They suffer too from " affluent malnutrition".

I reckon that their claims of dispossession need to be looked at in conjunction with their ownership of lots of land and stuff these days. In Alice Springs, for example, they are by far the biggest owner of businesses. Kittle Bros and the Yeperenye shopping center are just the beginning.

Years ago, when Whitlam transferred title of Wave Hill cattle station to the aborigines, people like me applauded. They had a better claim than the pommy octogenarian lady who " owned" the place despite never having left England in her life. I applaud less now that the place is a ruin.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Gosh Jerry, we have read different accounts of Batman and Victoria. My understanding was that when Batman arrived , the locals fled. But a lame old woman couldn't keep up with the tribe, and it was with her that Batman did his "purchase" of Victoria. He was mighty upset when the colonial government ( in Sydney ) did not honour his purchase, and I suspect that you have read some of his side of the litigation which ensued.

[old man emu]

Governor Bourke would have seen Batman's purchase of the land as illegal under the British law that prevailed. The land, after Cook's claim in 1770 belonged to the Crown. The Crown still owns all the land. Think about that, Republicans. Batman did not have the right to sell what was not his to own.

 

That which we think of as "ownership" really only means that you have the rights to use that property, but the dirt under your feet still belongs to the Crown. That's how Governments can resume parts or all of the land described in the title. When you sell land, all you do is sell the right to use the described area of the King's domain.

[red750]

Interesting that today is Indigeous Peoples Day in the US, the second Monday in October (it's still Monday in the US). On Facebook, there are a lot of comments stating that Colombus did not discover America, in fact some say he never set foot in America. He landed in the Bahamas. Joe Biden signed the holiday proclamation in 2021.

[facthunter]

At least the Bahama's wasn't as bad as going over the edge and falling off. Nev

[Yenn]

I read the log of one of the early discoverers of Australia. Somewhere in the Torres Straight,they crept ashore from their boat and raised the flag, claiming that island for the British.

The reason for the night trip was that it was too dangerous to land in daylight.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Cook landed in Hawaii and ( surrepticiously ) claimed the land for the crown. He did not tell the chief any of this,the chief had a thousand warriors and could easily have dispatched cook.... but the chief agreed to fly the union jack. Flags meant nothing to him. 

Then one day a US sealing ship told the king that he was flying the enemy's flag. The king, who still didn't care about flags, agreed to accommodate his wishes.

To this day, the state flag of Hawaii contains both the union jack and the stripes from the stars n stripes.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Nev, it was Erastothenes, the librarian of Alexandria, who first calculated the of the ( round ) earth.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Sorry, I dunno what happened to that posting. I was trying to say how Columbus thought the earth was a lot smaller than it really was. The problem was not with Erastothenes's calculation, it was with the measured distance from Alexandria to Syrena. This was a lot more than the 300 stadia that was used.

Mind you, the underestimate played into Columbus's hand when he was trying to get the king of Spain to finance his weird idea.

 

[red750]

The comments below are taken from a recent Daily Mail article.

A former indigenous politician who received a prestigious award from Barack Obama has described Aboriginal 'welcome to country' ceremonies as 'bullshit'.

Quote from former indigenous NT minister Bess Price (mother of Jacinta Price). 'All the "Welcome to Country", all the "Smoking Ceremonies" and all the made up bullshit rituals about "pay our respects to elders past and present" is just one big lie.

The 'welcome to country' was adopted into Australia's parliamentary protocols in 2008, after the then prime minister Kevin Rudd delivered his apology to the stolen generation.

However, two years after that decision Aboriginal entertainer Ernie Dingo claimed that he invented the concept in 1976 when Pacific Island dancers demanded they receive a traditional welcome.

The Aboriginals have supposedly been here for at least 30,000 years (some say more like 60,000 years). That’s about 29,750 years before the British arrived.

Since the arrival of the English, only about 250 years ago, Australia has prospered and developed into a modern first world country, along with all other Western democracies.

Yet for at least 30,000 years (prior to the arrival of the British) the Aboriginals seemed to have not progressed one step.

To put this into perspective, the Egyptian empire came and went between around 1570 BC and 1070 BC. Aboriginals had inhabited our great land for at least 27,000 years prior to the Egyptian empire.

The Greek empire was at its peak in the period 500 BC to 300 BC and the Roman empire was at its peak around 117 BC. Each of those empires were highly advanced and contributed enormously to the advancement of the modern world. 

It therefore beats me why the Aboriginals are now so revered. I could understand it if during their 30,000 years of occupation they had built massive pyramids or miles of high rise aqueducts or invented steam engines etc.

JUST A LITTLE SOMETHING TO CONTEMPLATE ON BEFORE SIGNING UP “ON THE VOICE” – 
TAKE CARE -  WE ALREADY HAVE A PARLIAMENT WHO REPRESENTS “ALL” AUSTRALIANS.
 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yep, having grown up in Alice Springs with lots of aboriginals, I have to agree with the idea that the "welcome to country" stuff was NOT part of the culture, well not until very recently.

The depth of their hatred of the whites is profound, and they never would have welcomed anybody especially members of other tribes. Their hatred of whites was actually exceeded by their hatred of each other.

If a party from one tribe met a group from another tribe, it was kill or be killed, although sometimes the weaker lot would sent their women over. If they were just raped, all was well.

It was this mechanism that stopped them becoming too inbred in their tribes. They also did a small amount of trading between tribes, and ideas did indeed flow. but very slowly.

When Stuart met some wild blacks, way up near Katherine, they referred to his rifle as a " musquat " which is what the first fleet soldiers had.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I could only find reference to the labelling of welcome to country as BS in the Daily Mail online.. So, while I don't doubt something was said, would like to wait a couple of days before drawing any  judgement to see if there are any clarifying reports such as context., etc. She is entitled to her opinion, but they have to be backed up by fact.. and while I don't recall welcome to country etc when I was a kid, I also don't recall many things about Aboriginals/First Nations people, as they weren't taught to us. It could be one of many now defunct rituals that are being re-established. Also, she's an ex-pollie and a minister at that.. wouldn't be the first time one of those has sold out.

 

It may be an accurate report, but the Daily Wail is not my go to for impartial jounralism.