92 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

Arbenol68, on 24 April 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

I don't think it's about contemporary guilt for what happened, but an acknowledgement that those who live there today are standing on the shoulders of those Europeans that originally settled the land. This is why that the collective responsibility could be acknowledged by all Australians, not just the Europeans. Asian, Indian, people from all over the world reap the benefits.

Nicely said.

Ahh, I see, now put like that it seems quite a reasonable thing to do. I guess one does not take that into account, one just thinks, hey, I just got here! What's going on?

Arbenol68, on 24 April 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

And the point you made earlier about Britain's apology (or lack of) is a very valid one.

I do believe it is the prime reasons for most of the confusion, If the Government put the apology the way you did above, I think many more people would be happier about it. But all in all, I think the Aussies who have read the history are all wondering why Britain is exempt from that which they are responsible for.

Arbenol68, on 24 April 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

Maori had an uncanny knack for taking certain European institutions and 'ways of thinking' and adapting them to suit their own needs. The Treaty, though, was a sneaky ploy by the British to get land without having to fight for it - lets face it, who'd want to go to war with fierce warrior tribes who invented trench warfare. I think they didn't have the stomach for it.

I always thought the sneakiness was the Maori side of the deal. Instead of signing over the land as opposed to fighting for it, they leased it for like 200 years, now they are gradually collecting it all back. Such foresight! I believe the French were also in line to step up and try to claim the land weren't they?
I did know they invented trench warfare, amazing people that they are.

[Flibbertigibbet]

psyche101, on 24 April 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

I do believe it is the prime reasons for most of the confusion, If the Government put the apology the way you did above, I think many more people would be happier about it. But all in all, I think the Aussies who have read the history are all wondering why Britain is exempt from that which they are responsible for.

Who is currently benefiting from the land taken from the Aborigines, the British or the Australians?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Will the Saxons be apologising for their invasion of Angleland?
There has to be a point where we say "lets looks to tomorrow". KRudd's speech was that moment, it put a line under the past and said It happened and it was terrible now, what's will we do tomorrow to make sure everyone gets the most out of living in this great nation?"

[Arbenol68]

psyche101, on 24 April 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

I always thought the sneakiness was the Maori side of the deal. Instead of signing over the land as opposed to fighting for it, they leased it for like 200 years, now they are gradually collecting it all back. Such foresight! I believe the French were also in line to step up and try to claim the land weren't they?

That's an interesting and, probably, more accurate take on it. I'm not that familiar with a lot of the history but I'm sure you're right that the french also had the scent. There are still quite a few places that retain a more french than british flavour.

[Arbenol68]

Flibbertigibbet, on 24 April 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

Who is currently benefiting from the land taken from the Aborigines, the British or the Australians?

All due respect, but I think this misses the mark. The British (and I'm one) cannot hide behind a comment like that to shy away from the atrocities that were committed in the spirit of imperialism.

[Flibbertigibbet]

Arbenol68, on 25 April 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

All due respect, but I think this misses the mark. The British (and I'm one) cannot hide behind a comment like that to shy away from the atrocities that were committed in the spirit of imperialism.

Whenever they mention atrocities it's always the British who committed them. But whenever they talk about the rugged pioneer spirit it's always the Australians who had it (or whatever colony we happen to be talking about). Yet they were the same people.

[Arbenol68]

Flibbertigibbet, on 25 April 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

Whenever they mention atrocities it's always the British who committed them. But whenever they talk about the rugged pioneer spirit it's always the Australians who had it (or whatever colony we happen to be talking about). Yet they were the same people.

There's some truth to that. Undoubtedly there is a bit of a romantic notion about that sort of thing. But if you look back at this thread there's lots of talk about what happened to the Aborigines, right up to the 1970s so I don't think anyone here is overlooking it.

Edited by Arbenol68, 26 April 2012 - 01:08 AM.

[psyche101]

Flibbertigibbet, on 24 April 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

Who is currently benefiting from the land taken from the Aborigines, the British or the Australians?

Well, I do not know that benefit is the right word, it's trade. The land was "taken" in the first instance, and perhaps still is, why people get confused is that some like my parents only moved here in the 50's and due to history being largely written by the victors, that most immigrants never heard about any part of it. It is not taught in schools, my education came from Indigenous people, I then looked up official sources and was sickened by how much in the dark I really was. What is called racism in Australia is largely ignorance, and not by the fault of the people IMHO.

And as far as I know, we are still commonwealth, so Britain is indeed still benefiting to a certain extent.

[psyche101]

Wearer of Hats, on 24 April 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

Will the Saxons be apologising for their invasion of Angleland?
There has to be a point where we say "lets looks to tomorrow". KRudd's speech was that moment, it put a line under the past and said It happened and it was terrible now, what's will we do tomorrow to make sure everyone gets the most out of living in this great nation?"

I think Mr Rudd could have been a little clearer in that if that was his message. I think his real message was "Look at me!" After all, this was 200 years ago, a decent time frame I will grant, but not all that long at all in the scheme of discovery and mans historical record. I still think it would have been prudent to have a member of British Parliament in on the deal.

[xCrimsonx]

Compromise means money!  
Can't help them if they refuse to help themselves, I can't get dental subsidies and I was born here!
They get alcohol from living in the townships, in turn, the crime rate is shot, health system failing, legal system at an all time financial splatter and the children.,. Neglect is more important that, "a new car brother, with my big money royalties".  I'll drive it into the ground then I'll  dump it on the road side for someone else to clean up, if they didnt overly intoxicate themselves with the white man lifestyle they wouldn't have kidney heart and liver failure. The government pays them to live on"their" land. Save the culture properly I say".
I've lived right in the heart of this BS it truly is disgraceful!
"Money for nothing and ya cheques for free".
White man ball and chain.,. No one said sorry to me, when my cousin was raped, no one said sorry when my house was destroyed no one said sorry to me when I was called a white so and so! I didn't steal no babies yet the new generation of tax payer pays.

[psyche101]

Flibbertigibbet, on 25 April 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

Whenever they mention atrocities it's always the British who committed them. But whenever they talk about the rugged pioneer spirit it's always the Australians who had it (or whatever colony we happen to be talking about). Yet they were the same people.

The original settlements were penal colonies. Land was pretty much given away to those that followed and they became the people I feel you are referring to as pioneers, and they came from all over the globe, not just Britain.

[Flibbertigibbet]

psyche101, on 26 April 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

The original settlements were penal colonies. Land was pretty much given away to those that followed and they became the people I feel you are referring to as pioneers, and they came from all over the globe, not just Britain.

Mostly Britain, though.

[psyche101]

Flibbertigibbet, on 26 April 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Mostly Britain, though.

In the penal colonies, 1350 people arrived in the first settlement. American had gained it's freedom, and Britain needed new jails. Australia was it. This was increased I admit by the advent of the bounty scheme contrived to attract certain personalities in Australia, amongst the first British colonies were many Irish as well. The free who also came all those years ago included the Chinese, largely chasing Gold, and were the largest non-British group of people. Also there were the Afghan people who played a large part in opening the countries interior and the Japanese founded a healthy pearling industry.

These people contain a substantial contingent of the pioneers that you mention. John Mackay was a Scot, James Rutherford an American. Australia has been very multicultural for a very long time. Does my view that Britain should not have been exempt from the apology bother you?

Edited by psyche101, 27 April 2012 - 07:50 AM.

[Flibbertigibbet]

psyche101, on 27 April 2012 - 07:09 AM, said:

In the penal colonies, 1350 people arrived in the first settlement. American had gained it's freedom, and Britain needed new jails. Australia was it. This was increased I admit by the advent of the bounty scheme contrived to attract certain personalities in Australia, amongst the first British colonies were many Irish as well. The free who also came all those years ago included the Chinese, largely chasing Gold, and were the largest non-British group of people. Also there were the Afghan people who played a large part in opening the countries interior and the Japanese founded a healthy pearling industry.

These people contain a substantial contingent of the pioneers that you mention. John Mackay was a Scot, James Rutherford an American. Australia has been very multicultural for a very long time. Does my view that Britain should not have been exempt from the apology bother you?

Apologise for what? Have the Italians ever apologised to the rest of Europe for the Roman Empire? Should they? No.

[psyche101]

Flibbertigibbet, on 27 April 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

Apologise for what? Have the Italians ever apologised to the rest of Europe for the Roman Empire? Should they? No.

For the invasion and subsequent slaughter of course, what do you think we are discussing here?

Does that condone slaughter though? Someone else did it, why can't I?

I mean the entire Tasmanian indigenous contingent was s wiped from the face of the earth, that's genocide,

Myall Creek Massacre

The Oaks

Western Sydney Thematic History

Black War

Stolen Generations

I cannot agree with your view that Britain should be exempt, this all happened only 200 years ago! Why do you feel it is up to those that followed the carnage to apologise for these instances? Captain Cook is regarded as the very devil by Australia's indigenous. Australia day here is celebrated as invasion day amongst the indigenous. Does that not indicate who they are angry at?