Invasion or what?

[Jonzjob]

I don't know if any of you guys down there have seen this?

University tells students Britain 'invaded' Australia - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35922858)

What do you think anyway? Is it PC gone silly or what?

[Arron]

No, sounds pretty accurate.

Bunch of people living in a place, bunch of others come along and take over. That's an invasion isn't it?

[FenceFurniture]

I agree Arron.

If the former inhabitants had been white it would always have been called an invasion. The fact that they were black meant the land was declared Terra Nullius, which is a whitewash. Black people were not regarded as human then.

[Bushmiller]

Arron

Thoroughly agree. Settlement was a euphemism for conquest. How else do you describe a bunch of tough critters with better weaponry beating up a basically peaceful group of people?

Did the French, Vikings, Danes etc settle England or did they take it by force? Did Europeans invade America and take it by extreme force?

Did the Spanish conquistadors (they even called themselves conquerors) take South American countries by force? Powerful nations have been doing this for thousands of years and the British were no different. In fact they were arguably the worst offender of all.

I have not read or heard that article, but I believe it also points out that Cook was not the first person to discover Australia. He was not even the the first European to discover Australia. He was the first person to stick his flag in ground and declare in the name of His Majesty, the King of England, that this bit of dirt now belonged to the United Kingdom.

The British did the same thing they and others had been doing for thousands of years. Invading other countries.

Regards
Paul

[Twisted Tenon]

There's an interesting article in the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/postcolonial-blog/2016/mar/30/its-not-politically-correct-to-say-australia-was-invaded-its-history) today about it. In all honesty there was an invasion.

TT

[FenceFurniture]

He was the first person to stick his flag in ground and declare in the name of His Majesty, the King of England, that this bit of dirt now belonged to the United Kingdom.Yep, I'm coming up to your place next week to put a stick in it. Doesn't sound too hard. Or if you'd prefer I can give you some of Lola's trinkets and we can call it square.

Honestly Jonzjob, I think you're on a loser here. That's four responses agin, and none for....and to the best of my knowledge all four are white fellas. I'd be surprised if the ratio goes down.....

Oh yeah, and it's not about political correctness - it's about reality and facing up to what happened - what the white fella did to wipe out the black fella physically, and when that was outlawed, they tried - and succeeded admirably - to do it psychologically (Stolen Generations, getting them hooked on religion, booze, cigarettes, and other white fella magic).

Current white fella isn't to blame directly, but it is up to us to recognise what our forebears did, and try to get some balance back into the equation.

A good start would be Aboriginal Studies in all primary schools. We have so much we can learn from them - even understanding bushfires.

[Twisted Tenon]

Current white fella isn't to blame directly, but it is up to us to recognise what our forebears did, and try to get some balance back into the equation.

A good start would be Aboriginal Studies in all primary schools. We have so much we can learn from them - even understanding bushfires.

Yes real Aboriginal studies would be helpful if it includes a bunch of accurate history. There's also the fact that there is a serious amount of casual racism underpinning the current cultural dialogue.

TT

[Chris Parks]

How could it be called anything else? You only have to look at what was done to the Aborigines in Tasmania to be appalled by the history of this country.

[FenceFurniture]

Yes real Aboriginal studies would be helpful if it includes a bunch of accurate history.Yes, no BS or patronising in it please.


There's also the fact that there is a serious amount of casual racism underpinning the current cultural dialogue.What, you mean like describing the change from "discovery" to "invasion" as "political correctness gone mad"?

I had the good fortune to befriend a local elder a year or so ago, through woodworking. He had succumbed to some of the white man's vices, like gambling, but is a thoroughly decent well balanced chap, who really likes being described as a "Black Fella". Fortunately, we met through vise.

I doubt he would object to the change of definition......

[FenceFurniture]

How could it be called anything else? You only have to look at what was done to the Aborigines in Tasmania to be appalled by the history of this country.That's 5 zip.

[Twisted Tenon]

Yes, no BS or patronising in it please.

What, you mean like describing the change from "discovery" to "invasion" as "political correctness gone mad"?

I had the good fortune to befriend a local elder a year or so ago, through woodworking. He had succumbed to some of the white man's vices, like gambling, but is a thoroughly decent well balanced chap, who really likes being described as a "Black Fella". Fortunately, we met through vise.

I doubt he would object to the change of definition......

I was thinking more along the Adam Goodes stuff of last year FF. You raise a good point. I spose your relationship with your mate would permit a bit of banter along those lines because of the mutual respect. I doubt you would call him that if he didn't like it.

TT

[Jonzjob]

I have to admit that I hadn't posted this to push the PC idea. I have a lot of time for the Aboriginals and am often shocked by their treatment. They had a civilisation long before we did and I love the way they live with the land.

So, the answers so far are from the descendants of the invaders then :rolleyes:

Sorry, but I haven't managed to explain what I want to say very well, but I'm not on a loser because I am not trying to win owt really. Just to find out how the ordinary Aussies feel?

[Chris Parks]

I worked for many years with two aboriginals and both were just part of the group which is more than can be said about some of the white fellas at the same workplace.

[woodPixel]

We learned the local aboriginal language at high school here (this was '85-86). There was considerable course material on local custom, but it also included studies of other cultures too. Sioux, Latin, ancient Greek. This was a public school.

People see and know what happened when England invaded. Calling it anything but is simply a euphemism. The locals rebelled, were shot, enslaved and consistently persecuted. They were driven from their land and were not compensated in any meaningful or materially important way.

[Twisted Tenon]

Stan Grant has an adult view of it here (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/31/i-dont-believe-captain-cook-discovered-australia-either-but-unis-cant-tell-students-what-to-think)

TT

[FenceFurniture]

I have to admit that I hadn't posted this to push the PC idea.So why pose the question as:
Is it PC gone silly or what?The very premise of the question indicates that you feel that it is PC gone silly, given that you offer no alternatives.

Perhaps a less inflammatory question could have been "Do you feel this is accurate or otherwise". Even that indicates that there may be a fundamental position that actually should be debated.


So, the answers so far are from the descendants of the invaders then http://d1r5wj36adg1sk.cloudfront.net/images/smilies/standard/rolleyes.gifProbably two reasons for that: pro-rata representation on here, and Aboriginal members may be too offended by the premise of the question to feel it worthwhile responding.



They had a civilisation long before we did.Well then surely you (and I mean you) must define it as an invasion if they were civilised, in which case it would not raise your original question.

[chrisb691]

Ahh. So that means that the Pilgrim Fathers actually invaded America.

[FenceFurniture]

I spose your relationship with your mate would permit a bit of banter along those lines because of the mutual respect. I doubt you would call him that if he didn't like it.No not really "permissible banter" TT. It was during our very first conversation, and I asked him if that was an OK term to which he replied "hell yeah, I love being referred to as a Black Fella - because I am!".

[rrich]

Ahh. So that means that the Pilgrim Fathers actually invaded America.

But they weren't the first.

Actually I think that 'Leif Erikson' a Viking was the first invader of the Americas but was defeated by the environment. Then followed somewhat later by the Spanish (Mid to late 1500s.) through Florida looking for The Fountain of Youth. Then the English in the Virginia area (1609) but I'm not sure why. The Pilgrims in what is now Massachusetts in 1620 to escape religious persecution. The Dutch settled New Amsterdam or what is now New York.

Somewhat similar to the settlement of Australia or so I've been taught.

In all the history classes that I've had, the word invasion was not used. I did not think of it as an invasion until reading this thread, which from the Native American viewpoint I'm sure it was.

What I have noticed with aboriginal cultures, world wide, is that the land was assumed to be owned or controlled by some sort of a supreme being. The concept of an individual actually owning the land did not exist within these cultures. The one that I am most familiar with is how the missionaries became land owners in Hawaii. It is similar to what was done by Europeans to the Americas.

[Greg Ward]

I think of poor old King Canute, Trying to hold back the waves.

There is no way Australian aborigines could have maintained Australia as an island populated by a semi nomadic perhaps happy if now romanticised population.
It may have been the Dutch or the French or the Spanish, but someone was going to come to Australia as European civilizations developed means to travel the globe in search of gold and spices and land.

All continents, all islands, all civilizations suffer from interaction with or domination by more powerful neighbours; settlement of Australia by a more powerful more advanced nation was only a matter of time.

So this discussion is moot.

Settlement may have been brutal, but no more brutal than the Romans occupying much of Europe, Ghengis Khan in Central Asia, Stalin's treatment of his own people or global conquests by various religions

The rightness or wrongness of the past and the wording of historical events are of little consequence, they may be interesting discussion points, that's all. What is important is the future, the past cannot be changed.

However, I think we can all thank our lucky stars that it was the British who made the successful attempt to bring modernity to our nation, with its legal system and rule of law. I hesitate to think what would have happened if the Dutch, French or Spanish decided it a good location for whatever reason, probably to seek gold.....

Greg

[Sturdee]

It may have been the Dutch ..... ......, but someone was going to come to Australia as European civilizations developed means to travel the globe in search of gold and spices and land.


Actually the Dutch came first and saw it was wanting in spices etc, and we did not need a prison island :U , so we left it alone.



I hesitate to think what would have happened if the Dutch .... ..... decided it a good location for whatever reason


Probably guided the natives toward self government and in due course hand the country back to them like they did with their other colonial territories.

Peter.

[Sturdee]

I agree that the question is a moot point, any rational person would agree that the English invaded the country, murdered most of the natives and let their sicknesses try to do the rest, all in the name of the English Queen.

And remaining natives were oppressed and not given normal rights until the referendum altered the constitution.

But that is the past and we should now look at the future. Many things ought to be done but I believe that one of the first steps should be to alter Australia day away from the Invasion day.

Peter.

[Twisted Tenon]

Probably guided the natives toward self government and in due course hand the country back to them like they did with their other colonial territories.

Peter.

This they did, albeit with a little help from the Japanese (http://www.indonesia-investments.com/culture/politics/colonial-history/item178) in 1945

TT

[FenceFurniture]

Many things ought to be done but I believe that one of the first steps should be to alter Australia day away from the Invasion day.Damned good idea Peter! I was going to suggest the Federation date, but that was 1/1/1 so that won't work with New Year and all.

So, best we become a republic pronto and use that date as Australia Day - much more meaningful anyway.

[Big Shed]

I think Tim Fisher suggested that Australia Day should be put on the last Friday in January so that people wouldn't be tempted turn it in to a 4 day weekend as readily.

On the subject of "settlement" vs "invasion", I always felt that for something to be called an invasion there should at least be token resistance to the invaders?

Either way, it is all semantics, just another country annexed by the Poms in the name of the reigning monarch and to the greater glory of the British Empire.

[Jonzjob]

So why pose the question as:The very premise of the question indicates that you feel that it is PC gone silly, given that you offer no alternatives.

Perhaps a less inflammatory question could have been "Do you feel this is accurate or otherwise". Even that indicates that there may be a fundamental position that actually should be debated.

Probably two reasons for that: pro-rata representation on here, and Aboriginal members may be too offended by the premise of the question to feel it worthwhile responding.


Well then surely you (and I mean you) must define it as an invasion if they were civilised, in which case it would not raise your original question.

If you re read my original post you will see that I said "IS it" and it is. And the alternative was "or what" meaning or what is it. And I was genuinely interested in the opinion of of the guys on the ground down there in Australia? I was not trying to be cleaver or offensive as you seem to me to be towards me?

The statement about the descendants was entirely tongue in cheek as indicated by the 'smilie' after it and as far as defining it as an invasion? I never mentioned what I thought either way and up until I read the article I had never even thought about it. It just happened and as was said above it was bound to happen by someone at some time.

[Big Shed]

If you re read my original post you will see that I said "IS it" and it is. And the alternative was "or what" meaning or what is it.
And I was genuinely interested in the opinion of of the guys on the ground down there in Australia? I was not trying to be cleaver or offensive as you seem to me to be towards me?


Hear, hear.:2tsup:

[Twisted Tenon]

I think of poor old King Canute, Trying to hold back the waves.

There is no way Australian aborigines could have maintained Australia as an island populated by a semi nomadic perhaps happy if now romanticised population.
It may have been the Dutch or the French or the Spanish, but someone was going to come to Australia as European civilizations developed means to travel the globe in search of gold and spices and land.

All continents, all islands, all civilizations suffer from interaction with or domination by more powerful neighbours; settlement of Australia by a more powerful more advanced nation was only a matter of time.

So this discussion is moot.

Settlement may have been brutal, but no more brutal than the Romans occupying much of Europe, Ghengis Khan in Central Asia, Stalin's treatment of his own people or global conquests by various religions

The rightness or wrongness of the past and the wording of historical events are of little consequence, they may be interesting discussion points, that's all. What is important is the future, the past cannot be changed.

However, I think we can all thank our lucky stars that it was the British who made the successful attempt to bring modernity to our nation, with its legal system and rule of law. I hesitate to think what would have happened if the Dutch, French or Spanish decided it a good location for whatever reason, probably to seek gold.....

Greg

Greg, the discussion is not moot because Australia was invaded. As to the future, this has always had its foundations firmly in the past. So our future outlook will be shaped by how we descendants heal the pain of the invasion, distribute the resources equitably and move on from here.

TT

[rustynail]

Actually the Dutch came first and saw it was wanting in spices etc, and we did not need a prison island :U , so we left it alone.



Probably guided the natives toward self government and in due course hand the country back to them like they did with their other colonial territories.

Peter.
Like they did in South Africa? Yeah right and there are fairys at the bottom of my garden.

[Twisted Tenon]

I think Tim Fisher suggested that Australia Day should be put on the last Friday in January so that people wouldn't be tempted turn it in to a 4 day weekend as readily.

On the subject of "settlement" vs "invasion", I always felt that for something to be called an invasion there should at least be token resistance to the invaders?

Either way, it is all semantics, just another country annexed by the Poms in the name of the reigning monarch and to the greater glory of the British Empire.

They'd just take the monday off.
Token resistance? There is ample written (http://www.australianstogether.org.au/stories/detail/colonisation) evidence that those that survived the initial diseases were shot to pieces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians), burned out and pushed over the Hawkesbury Cliffs. The last recorded massacre was in the NT in 1928. No one was charged. No wonder there is a residual anger.

TT

[Twisted Tenon]

No not really "permissible banter" TT. It was during our very first conversation, and I asked him if that was an OK term to which he replied "hell yeah, I love being referred to as a Black Fella - because I am!".

So you asked and he approved? Sounds like you were both ok with it. :D

TT

[Sturdee]

Like they did in South Africa? Yeah right and there are fairys at the bottom of my garden.

The dutch settlements in South Africa were to provide fresh food and victuals to the ships on the way to the Dutch East Indies and India and the Chinese trade and the settlers lived peacefully with the local natives.

But when the diamonds were discovered all the territories were conquered by the English. Remember the Boer wars where the English, and regrettably Australians as well as part of the British empire, annexed the country by defeating the settlers through the first use of concentration camps.

Don't blame the Dutch for what happened after that.

Peter.

[FenceFurniture]

So you asked and he approved? Sounds like you were both ok with it. :DYes, he was quite black and white about it.

[Big Shed]

They'd just take the monday off.
Token resistance? There is ample written (http://www.australianstogether.org.au/stories/detail/colonisation) evidence that those that survived the initial diseases were shot to pieces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians), burned out and pushed over the Hawkesbury Cliffs. The last recorded massacre was in the NT in 1928. No one was charged. No wonder there is a residual anger.

TT

Not quite sure how your points relate to resistance at the time of invasion, but yes I fully agree that the our British forefathers treated the existing notice population beyond the pale and yes I get that even after 230 years there is a lot of anger still.

Having said that the British behaved no different here in Australia than they did elsewhere, as in Peter's South African example. History is full of European nations, particularly the British, trampling over other peoples and pillaging their countries.

We only have to look at North Africa and the Middle to see that the world is still paying the price for the sins of their forefathers, as are the people living in those countries.

Some academics coming up with pretty words won't change history, calling sh*t excrement won't make t smell any better.

[Twisted Tenon]

Not quite sure how your points relate to resistance at the time of invasion, but yes I fully agree that the our British forefathers treated the existing notice population beyond the pale and yes I get that even after 230 years there is a lot of anger still.

Having said that the British behaved no different here in Australia than they did elsewhere, as in Peter's South African example. History is full of European nations, particularly the British, trampling over other peoples and pillaging their countries.

We only have to look at North Africa and the Middle to see that the world is still paying the price for the sins of their forefathers, as are the people living in those countries.

Some academics coming up with pretty words won't change history, calling sh*t excrement won't make t smell any better.

I guess I should have clarified what your definition of "token resistance" is.

The last recorded massacre occurred in 1928. My parents were alive then. It's no wonder there is still palpable anger in the descendants out there.

What "pretty" words did you have in mind?

TT

[chemfish]

Semantics and time really, you never hear about the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain but I'm pretty sure the native Celts were not happy. Romans invaded.... but then they didn't manage to keep the place. Norwegians invaded, but never managed to stay long. Normans conquered, but they kept the land and made the rules…. How about a compromise and we call it the English conquest of Australia?

In all seriousness though it matters not what you call it and you can blame the English for creating the nation of Australian but we can only blame ourselves for the wrongs that happened after that. The stolen generation and white Australia policy both being famous post federation events.

Also blaming Europeans in specidfically for expanding their territories through less than sporting methods is narrow minded, China wasn't "unified" through a giant love in. The Arabs didn’t settle most of their nations with smiles and handshakes. We can’t forget the Japanese attempted expansion during the second world war. Then there is the whole history behind the Israel / Palestine #%$^ throwing contest. People from everywhere are unified by one thing, a bloody history modified only by how long ago it happened and who was left standing to take notes.

In the end of the day though the terms settled and invaded are not mutually exclusive. Teach the facts, move on and make things better, improve health care, improve education, stop the us and them culture. And don't forget, try not to judge generations long dead too harshly and pretend that you are perfect because people 300 years from now are going to be calling us neolithic apes for our actions and opinions as well.

[A Duke]

The dutch settlements in South Africa were to provide fresh food and victuals to the ships on the way to the Dutch East Indies and India and the Chinese trade and the settlers lived peacefully with the local natives.

But when the diamonds were discovered all the territories were conquered by the English. Remember the Boer wars where the English, and regrettably Australians as well as part of the British empire, annexed the country by defeating the settlers through the first use of concentration camps.

Don't blame the Dutch for what happened after that.

Peter.

The Dutch were out of South Africa after the American war of Independence, the Boer war was with the Boer settlers who had set up republics in the Transvaal an Orange Free State to get away from British rule. Afrikaans is 16th century Dutch, that is how long the Dutch were out of it.

On a side too many people have swallowed the Anti Apartheid proper gander hook line and sinker to even try to have a discussion on S. A.
Regards

[rwbuild]

Playing with words won't change history and only serves to make some feel good, some feel bad and gives credence to disadents and opportunist's to get what ever they can out of it.
What is said or written in what ever terms or context will not change history.
The roll of humanity is to treat everyone with respect,honesty and compassion.
Those who don't need to be treated accordingly but we should strive to leave this world a better place for future generations. Rewriting past events will not achieve this.

[bsrlee]

Small historical point - James Cook did NOT settle/invade Australia, that occurred some time later with Arthur Phillip and the First Fleet. James Cook was just the first European to survive and publish a description of the Eastern Parts of Australia. A short camping trip/ beach party does not constitute a real invasion.

The First Fleet only succeeded because they arrived a generation or so after a major smallpox epidemic had (more than) decimated Aboriginal populations across Australia, unintentionally spread by Malay traders - we call them Indonesians these days. Happened every century or so, trackable through South East Asia from the mainland down the island chains. This is also not politically popular. Now Influenza is another thing, along with Scarlet Fever and a host of other 'minor' diseases that killed plenty of Europeans as well, and there is no need to borrow North American revisionism ascribing every disaster to European malice.

[Twisted Tenon]

As usual Waleed Aly has a thoughtful balanced comment in the Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-australia-lies-to-itself-about-its-indigenous-history-20160330-gnuo4t.html).

TT

[Twisted Tenon]

Small historical point - James Cook did NOT settle/invade Australia, that occurred some time later with Arthur Phillip and the First Fleet. James Cook was just the first European to survive and publish a description of the Eastern Parts of Australia. A short camping trip/ beach party does not constitute a real invasion.

The First Fleet only succeeded because they arrived a generation or so after a major smallpox epidemic had (more than) decimated Aboriginal populations across Australia, unintentionally spread by Malay traders - we call them Indonesians these days. Happened every century or so, trackable through South East Asia from the mainland down the island chains. This is also not politically popular. Now Influenza is another thing, along with Scarlet Fever and a host of other 'minor' diseases that killed plenty of Europeans as well, and there is no need to borrow North American revisionism ascribing every disaster to European malice.

bsrlee, The Captian Cook link was a beat up by The Tele. I fell for it too. Are you saying that the eventual colonists walked into an empty continent? Here's an article that challenges the Malay traders (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/was-sydney's-smallpox-outbreak-an-act-of-biological-warfare/5395050) theory.

TT

[Bendigo Bob]

So much hand wringing going on in the press these days. Waleed seems to hate the country that has given him so much.

Not me, all that we should be worrying about is how to get on with each other NOW! Not one of us can change the past. (Hmm, maybe I should send him the little poem my dad used to share while we worked away in his workshop back in the 60's, it was by a Persian/Muslim scholar a thousand years ago too (Omar Khayyam)

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

May my beloved Australia learn to 'move on' from all this hand wringing.

[Greg Ward]

So much hand wringing going on in the press these days. Waleed seems to hate the country that has given him so much.

Not me, all that we should be worrying about is how to get on with each other NOW! Not one of us can change the past. (Hmm, maybe I should send him the little poem my dad used to share while we worked away in his workshop back in the 60's, it was by a Persian/Muslim scholar a thousand years ago too (Omar Khayyam)

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

May my beloved Australia learn to 'move on' from all this hand wringing.



BOB.
A great response and apt.

The Roman empire is much lauded these days by Historians. Always on the History channel and SBS. A much loved period of history

Now let's discuss conquest and slavery and see where that takes us.....

Greg

[Bushmiller]

To my mind we are getting things a little confused. There are a number of issues that have raised their head as a result of the OP. Also it is quite clear that most of us, and I include myself in this, are very poor historians. We either remember incorrectly or have been taught incorrectly: Probably both.

We quite rightly allude to other historical disgraces that occurred throughout history to either support of deny out standpoint. Sometimes they are valid and sometimes not.

I believe we are offended, as a nation, at the suggestion we used any force back in the latter part of the eighteenth century to annex Australia to what was then the British Empire.

However, it seems undeniable that force occurred. If you doubt that, ask the Tasmanian aborigines: Oh, sorry, that won't be possible. I think you know why. Instances of supreme force were not limited to that island, but of course occurred on the mainland too.

Yes, the similar outrageous atrocities were happening all over the world. But we are not children and should be big enough to acknowledge exactly what happened.

I recall a friend at school announcing that he couldn't come to terms with history any more because he discovered Henry VIII had died not of "excesses," but syphilis. Actually the real reason in his case was that he wasn't very interested in history. We are not children. We can be told and can acknowledge the truth however painful it might be.

We were quick to pick up that Captain Cook probably did not "invade" Australia. He visited and caused little harm. We were just as quick to ignore that his countrymen who arrived later, were not nearly as polite. They came and then they took over and used extreme force as required.

Why do we have so much trouble acknowledging what happened? It is there for all to read in black and white. Sure, today we need to move on, but that is not facilitated by historical denial any more than if the USA denied that the slave trade never occurred or their civil war was merely an intellectual disagreement.

If a person or group of people rock up to your doorstep, they are a visitor, if they stay in your home they are a visitor, if it is with your permission, but the moment they intimidate you or even force you out, they have invaded (in fact the term "home invasion" is now commonplace).

I believe we need to get over our self righteous indignation and embarrassment.

No, I was not born in Australia (Australian now), but I am descended from the pommie bastards that committed such atrocities all over the world including Australia.

Regards
Paul

[Christos]

......The rightness or wrongness of the past and the wording of historical events are of little consequence, they may be interesting discussion points, that's all. What is important is the future, the past cannot be changed........

The past cannot be changed, just a small sentence but a very powerful one. Even if I had a way of going back in time, I would not change the past. This may seem very harsh and cold and I make no excuse for this. I accept that I cannot control what has happened in the past.

I may not like it but I accept it.


....... Teach the facts, move on and make things better, improve health care, improve education, stop the us and them culture. ......

Know what has happened in the past. TRY not to allow this happen in the future and come together as a community. This last sentence might seem a little out of place considering that I live in Australia. There is no open conflict between groups of citizens in this country.

There are a fair amount of improvements that are needed in this country. We all have a small part to play in this world try not to let it go to waste.

[rustynail]

The dutch settlements in South Africa were to provide fresh food and victuals to the ships on the way to the Dutch East Indies and India and the Chinese trade and the settlers lived peacefully with the local natives.

But when the diamonds were discovered all the territories were conquered by the English. Remember the Boer wars where the English, and regrettably Australians as well as part of the British empire, annexed the country by defeating the settlers through the first use of concentration camps.

Don't blame the Dutch for what happened after that.

Peter.
Well, that's one version.

[kiwigeo]

I don't know if any of you guys down there have seen this?

University tells students Britain 'invaded' Australia - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35922858)

What do you think anyway? Is it PC gone silly or what?

Not politically correct...just correct.

[Pusser]

I agree Arron.

The fact that they were black meant the land was declared Terra Nullius, which is a whitewash. Black people were not regarded as human then.

Terra Nulis does not mean no humans lived here. It means there was no recognisable state or government exercising legal authority. In South Australia the Colonial Office directed the settlers to negotiate for the land which they ignored.

Not arguing the invasion interpretation just the common misinterpretation of Terra Nullis.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD