Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Australia’s aborigines forced off land


Persia

Recommended Posts

That is just wrong. We in the US did it to the "original" Americans. It is wrong. I had no idea that this went on so this extent in Australia.

See my post #45 it is not as clear cut as this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't like them? Why would you be so cold with a statement such as this? I am curious, thats all.

In general the negative view of Indigenous Australians is largely due to the fact that until 230 years ago, they had never experienced alcohol and as such easily consume harmful levels of alcohol. Their bodies do not handle it as well (that could be debated I feel though) as seasoned Europeans and the result in very ugly and rather violent 99.9% of the time creating the stereotype. People do not realise just how rich the culture is because much was buried when Australia was settled and most Indigenous records are oral. Pre-Captain Cook records are fascinating I find. But very rare.

LINK - Ernie Dingo on Alcohol Consumption

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not the case here though, it is a bit from both worlds. The Indigenous want to live traditional, but with housing and modern amenities. From the OP:

The human rights organisation studied small groups in the central desert region and found those choosing to live on their ancestral lands were effectively denied services such as public housing due to a government emphasis on bigger towns.

How is it a "traditional" Lifestyle with Government funded public housing?

Traditional doesn't mean living in caves and painting hands on the walls, it means cultural heritage within their communities and land. As for the two links (the OP and mine) I'm pretty certain the OP's is related to the Stronger Futures Program even though it doesn't mention it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? A little good deed too much to ask? If you can help someone feel better with some simple words, who is it hurting?

Morally, it probably wouldn't hurt anybody but as the other poster said, after over a 100 years, it's become our problem now. In fact, strange enough as it may seem, aborigines are filthier about what happened in recent times with the stolen generation rather than what happened over a 100 years ago.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by little effect. An entire race of people was wiped out. That is genocide. I would not call that little on any scale. Perhaps you might click on the previous links I left to these massacres?

Little effect on Great Britain.

Australia has much space and plenty to offer. And it is much further away. I think that would have a lot to do with it. And that people were starting to realise that America might have gone another way about settlement, which is why Britain came here in the first place.

Not sure how this refers to my point but anyway, in reference to the bold part, the British came here in the first place because they didn't want the French to be the first here.

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traditional doesn't mean living in caves and painting hands on the walls, it means cultural heritage within their communities and land. As for the two links (the OP and mine) I'm pretty certain the OP's is related to the Stronger Futures Program even though it doesn't mention it.

I actually thought it did! How do you practise the cultural aspects of the Indigenous lifestyle without learning the impressive tracking, and building aspects of Indigenous life? Like making Canoes, shelters, surviving etc?

The OP says they are on their land, but for some reason not providing public housing in these remote places is somehow "kicking them" off their lands?

Australia’s Aborigines are being forced off their traditional land because of government policy, despite the fact they would live longer if they stayed put, Amnesty International claimed Tuesday.

The human rights organisation studied small groups in the central desert region and found those choosing to live on their ancestral lands were effectively denied services such as public housing due to a government emphasis on bigger towns.

There does not seem to be much mention of cultural heritage in the OP's link. As you know, Australia is a big place, who is going to pay to place services such as electricity, water and sewage in these remote locations? That would be astoundingly expensive to instigate and it would only be serving a small population. When you look at Australia as a whole, and all it's peoples, it seems a very bad investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morally, it probably wouldn't hurt anybody but as the other poster said, after over a 100 years, it's become our problem now. In fact, strange enough as it may seem, aborigines are filthier about what happened in recent times with the stolen generation rather than what happened over a 100 years ago.

I am sorry, but I do not believe that to be the case. I think there is great confusion about now and then as per the lady I mentioned who fears having her children taken from her by the Government. This is not reflected on Australia day, the invasion day marches are a direct protest to the first settlement, and every indigenous person I have spoken to regards the words "Captain Cook" as dirty words. And the stolen generation years began with, and under, British rule. I think there is plenty of both and all mixed together.

Little effect on Great Britain.

My mistake, thank you for the clarification.

Not sure how this refers to my point but anyway, in reference to the bold part, the British came here in the first place because they didn't want the French to be the first here.

I thought many did not migrate to Britain because Australia is large, has much opportunity and very good weather.

Yes they did wish to beat the French, but for many more reasons than that.

The American War of Independence put a stop to Britain sending excess convicts to America and needed a new land for their penal system

To expand the British Empire

To create a strategic eastern base which would assist with trade with China

For extra Flax and Timber requirement brought on by wars as her Baltic supply was under threat

On top of all this, natural resources would have been quite a benefit to Britain.

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, certainly they reaped the benefits. But there were basically 2 types of colony, the settler ones like Australia, America etc. and the ones that already had a large population that were exploited for trade purposes, like India or Africa.

I don't think you're describing 2 different types of colonies there. They're the same. The size of the population is irrelevant. The fact is that there were indigenous people already already living there (for many millenia, in the case of Australia). It's just a matter of scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they will live longer, more healthy lives on their own lands but if they don't live in larger groups they live in much worse conditions presumably on their own lands? And the cities are not an advantage why? blink.gif It sounds like they want to have the services delivered to them in multiple locations which would be a much greater drain on resources. I wonder what the Aboriginal word for compromise is?

There isn't one
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang on, you are saying the British empire set up in Australia, and are due for accolades with regards to modern lifestyles, byt should be exempt for any wrongdoing they instigated?

Isn't that the same thing as having your cake and eating it too?

It's the Australians that are getting the cake and eating it, rather than the British.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beg to differ. Try visiting the place some time. Catch a cab in Sydney and get back to me on that one!

By 1868, when transportation ended, fewer than 200,000 British convicts has arrived, yet the population was over 1,000,000. I have already posted the immigration records as far as multiculturalism goes.

LINK

So, what percentage of Australians are not descended from British settlers, then? Not all the British who went there were convicts.

Edited by Flibbertigibbet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you're describing 2 different types of colonies there. They're the same. The size of the population is irrelevant. The fact is that there were indigenous people already already living there (for many millenia, in the case of Australia). It's just a matter of scale.

The difference is that the native population was small enough to have its lands appropriated and British settlers move in and replace them. That never happened in, say, India.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the Australians that are getting the cake and eating it, rather than the British.

Not according to you, you say the the British came here and set up the place, killed of a very, very large number of the inhabitants, expanded their empire, reaped the profits for over 100 years, and then when Australia achieved independence, it inherited the responsibility for those horrendous acts? What sort of benefit is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what percentage of Australians are not descended from British settlers, then? Not all the British who went there were convicts.

Today? The estimate of todays Australian population that has descended from the first settlements is about 6% I believe, so that would be around 94% of todays Aussies to answer your question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is that the native population was small enough to have its lands appropriated and British settlers move in and replace them. That never happened in, say, India.

I beg your pardon?

I find that a deplorable attitude! Even one person is enough in my opinion. Nobody has the right to acquire another's place! In any case, the estimate reached as high as 750,000 indigenous at the time of settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beg your pardon?

I find that a deplorable attitude! Even one person is enough in my opinion. Nobody has the right to acquire another's place! In any case, the estimate reached as high as 750,000 indigenous at the time of settlement.

Thanks. Saved me the trouble of replying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. Saved me the trouble of replying.

You are most welcome, I am still rather stunned at the aloof claim that such appropriation is justified in any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are most welcome, I am still rather stunned at the aloof claim that such appropriation is justified in any sense.

I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt (cos she's from my neck of the woods) and maybe it didn't come across quite as intended. I'm getting on a bit now, and I'd have to admit that it's only recently that I've become aware of quite how much damage European imperialism has done. There are the well known stories, but so much more is buried. It was only after reading "With Intent To Destroy" by Colin Tatz, that I realised what was done in australia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not according to you, you say the the British came here and set up the place, killed of a very, very large number of the inhabitants, expanded their empire, reaped the profits for over 100 years, and then when Australia achieved independence, it inherited the responsibility for those horrendous acts? What sort of benefit is that?

You are speaking as if the British and Australians are different people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today? The estimate of todays Australian population that has descended from the first settlements is about 6% I believe, so that would be around 94% of todays Aussies to answer your question.

So 94% of Australians are not descended from the British? I don't believe you. I didn't say anything about a "first settlement" btw, but the British settlers in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beg your pardon?

I find that a deplorable attitude! Even one person is enough in my opinion. Nobody has the right to acquire another's place! In any case, the estimate reached as high as 750,000 indigenous at the time of settlement.

I never said it was right, just pointing out the difference. Will you be leaving Australia then?

Edited by Flibbertigibbet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morally, it probably wouldn't hurt anybody but as the other poster said, after over a 100 years, it's become our problem now. In fact, strange enough as it may seem, aborigines are filthier about what happened in recent times with the stolen generation rather than what happened over a 100 years ago.

Little effect on Great Britain.

Not sure how this refers to my point but anyway, in reference to the bold part, the British came here in the first place because they didn't want the French to be the first here.

What was Australia's name before the Brits arrived ? ..What is done cannot be undone,so lets face it,we are still trying and failing how to teach you cricket,although your rugby isnt bad,but you have definitely failed on the game /religion of football,no offence meant..Lets be friends eh as we both have common enemies,reference "illegals".
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are speaking as if the British and Australians are different people.

Semantically, culturally or linguistically?

Semantically, Australia is part of the Commonwealth of Britain, so technically British.

Culturally, we are about as British as the Irish.

Linguistically, based on verb form, spelling and general pronunciation then yes, but based on accent and word useage then no.

However, a good clue as to whether you're British or not is thus: Do you live on a small island where it rains a lot and you drink your beer at room temperature? If yes then you're British. If you live on a large island, where the native flora and fauna are actively trying to brutally murder you and the weather is intemperate at best, then you're Australian.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semantically, culturally or linguistically?

Semantically, Australia is part of the Commonwealth of Britain, so technically British.

Culturally, we are about as British as the Irish.

Linguistically, based on verb form, spelling and general pronunciation then yes, but based on accent and word useage then no.

However, a good clue as to whether you're British or not is thus: Do you live on a small island where it rains a lot and you drink your beer at room temperature? If yes then you're British. If you live on a large island, where the native flora and fauna are actively trying to brutally murder you and the weather is intemperate at best, then you're Australian.

What I meant was that the Australians are the British who settled in Australia and did all those horrendous things to the native population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant was that the Australians are the British who settled in Australia and did all those horrendous things to the native population.

And all of this happened over 200 years ago.,. Australians! Btw it was the German Missionaries that stole the babies from their mothers and tradition. The British got away with what history has shown, the same happened with African Americans, Native Indians, Jewish others will take and destroy what is untouched.

I'm a new generation of Australian and don't feel a need to say sorry for what happened in the past. I feel strongly for them.,. But it's not my call. Australia is a multi-cultural country and we've come a long way. Now I'm waiting or the rest of the inhuman unevolved countries to wake up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant was that the Australians are the British who settled in Australia and did all those horrendous things to the native population.

I don't know how old Psyche or Karlis or any of the other Aussies here are, but I'm not one of the British who settled here and did those horrible things. I am, on the other hand, someone who was born here about 30 years ago. I've inherited the legacy of blood, but then if we're talking the sins of our fathers have you apolligsed to the Welsh or the Irish? The Empire was built upon the things done in India, so you're benefitting from the crimes in the sub-continent you're living in a nation built upon the sins of others. Shame shame shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.