At what point does settlement become invasion?

Seanr says:

02:32pm | 28/06/11

I’ve always thought that everyone has at least one insightful comment in them, even literary frauds.

dd says:

03:14pm | 28/06/11

JUST when you think people couldn’t possibly get any sillier, they do! For anyone’s information, I refuse to accept any liability because my Irish ancestor was transported here for life. He did whatever he did but it is not my fault so do not even think of sueing me for compensation…...it was not my fault….I am not guilty….I didn’t do it ‘cos I wasn’t here when I didn’t done it! Help!

Thomas Anderson says:

03:30pm | 28/06/11

Yet more time and money being spent on something which does not do anything. Who cares what it was, invasion, settlement, whatever it was? Does it really affect us today?

Why don’t you recognise that USSR defeated Nazi Germany, with the Allies helping out a little here and there, distracting little parts of Hitler’s army? 3/4 of Hitler’s forces were defeated by the USSR, fact. The Soviet flag proudly flew over the tumbled Reichstag when Soviet forces took Berlin, fact. The USSR was the main target for Hitler, that’s why Soviet casualties (most of them civilian) greatly outnumber all others.

Lear the history that happened 60 years ago before worrying about what happened 300 years ago when Australia was discovered and civilised.

Mark says:

04:25pm | 28/06/11

What about our defence of Australia against the Japanese? Did that not happen? Oh, that doesn’t apparently count?

Tator says:

05:04pm | 28/06/11

Thomas Anderson,
how would the USSR have fared if the Allies hadn’t done the heavy lifting in destroying the German Industrial base through their bombing campaign, thus restricting the Germans ability to mass produce advanced tanks and aircraft and by destroying sites such as Peenemunde which restricted their ability to produce the V2 missile enmasse which may have effected the eastern front.

acotrel says:

07:46am | 29/06/11

So it wasn’t an ‘invasion’?  We just quietly landed, the fought 50 years of war against the aborigines.  The British don’t own Australia. ‘Right of conquest’ was removed from international law at Nuremberg!  I wonder when the aborigines will claim the right to collect rent from the rest of us?

TimB says:

08:18am | 29/06/11

No Acotrel, I told you before. Did you bother listening? Apparently not. Perhaps you’re just thick.

If the arrival of the First Fleet was an “invasion”, and the British claimed Australia under “Right of Conquest”, then according to the UN itself, the Aboriginals have *no redress*

Again from Wikipedia:

“Simultaneously, the UN Charter’s guarantee of the “territorial integrity” of member states effectively froze out claims against prior conquests from this process.”

Aboriginals can’t claim back Australia if it was a “conquest”. They can’t claim it all back under the current prevailing doctrine of Native Title either. They can’t legally claim it back, period

What’s it going to take for you to understand that and stop spouting your incredibly flawed understanding of the legal situation?

scotty says:

10:42am | 29/06/11

And don’t forget the Mungo man - the race that the Aborigines wiped out when they arrived 40,000 years ago.

Don’t hear any bleeding hearts for them do we?????

My conscience is clear - I haven’t dispossessed anyone, and I was born here - making me just as indigenous as anyone else born here.

Bobster says:

01:50pm | 28/06/11

I’d agree but those shock jocks like to pretend this sort of thing has an impact in order to drum up some more fear and loathing.

They are no doubt making this sound a lot more important than it is.

It’s just posturing. Show me where in the NSW Local Government Act it says a decision like this has any standing.

It’s not like a work crew from Sydney council is about to kick down the doors of the state library and start updating the books.

AdamC says:

04:00pm | 28/06/11

Bobster, sure, but triviality is a reason not to do something as much as it for not making a fuss about it.

andy says:

04:23pm | 28/06/11

“political correctness gone mad”? Yet isnt it the shock-jocks who are being intolerant of someones perspective on history because it doesnt fit with their particular side? Apparently using the word “invaded” is an incorrect view of history and needs to be challenged!

Bobster says:

05:47pm | 28/06/11

Very true but then you can’t go expected councillors to have brains.

When a councillor with a brain is discovered then that would really be headline news.

Gig says:

09:10pm | 28/06/11

Bobster:  ‘It’s not like a work crew from Sydney council is about to kick down the doors of the state library and start updating the books.’

Not yet, anyway…

fairsfair says:

01:35pm | 28/06/11

This is my biggest issue with the likes of this and the whole Israel thing - the freying of juristiction is getting a bit much. I thought I paid council rates to ensure my bin was collected and the gardens got weeded? Now I am paying increased rates so local infrustructure can continue to degrade while council tackles issues that the State and Feds should really be looking at? Its a joke alright Gav.

I have no issue with these topics being discussed, I would just like to see it being done in the apropriate arena.

Macca says:

03:09pm | 28/06/11

@Gav, full marks mate. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Kate says:

03:48pm | 28/06/11

Spot on Gav!

Ken says:

05:11pm | 28/06/11

Well said Gav, though they would probably stuff that up too.

The Galah from Hervey Bay says:

06:28pm | 28/06/11

Gav ....well said . Maybe they could use their bovine defecation from the Council Chamber as road base - there seems to be sufficient quantities.

acotrel says:

08:33am | 29/06/11

@fairsfair I agree.  Local councils shouldn’t get involved in spurious political issues, they should be apolitical!  And the pigs are on the runway all gassed up and ready to go! Anyway when they get to saying things like the British ‘invaded’ Australia, the aborigines might start to think about mounting a class action in the International Court of Justice, to reclaim their property, which they might win!

Dieter Moeckel says:

09:53am | 29/06/11

Where does the “Israel thing” fit in?
As for superiority (yesterday) I’m an egalitarian.

Tiger says:

02:50pm | 29/06/11

Trouble is Gav ... they’re incapable of simply filling a pothole. We have patchwork roads so lovely my nanna would be proud of the craftsmanship! Some councillors are even incapable of recognising a “conflict of interest” and are subsequently banned from office for 7 years. If this is indicative of the quality of councillor we attract, is it any wonder we have the current sorry lot deciding our nation’s course at the magic roundabout?

iansand says:

02:03pm | 28/06/11

Mabo overturned the doctrine of terra nullius.

St. Michael says:

02:07pm | 28/06/11

...thus replacing one legal fiction with another legal fiction?

Kika says:

02:09pm | 28/06/11

in 1992 - obviously after you were at high school Bobster!

Bobster says:

02:12pm | 28/06/11

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But wouldn’t invasion make that irrelevant? As someone said above, to the victors go the spoils. If it’s an invasion, no native title, yeah?

TimB says:

02:50pm | 28/06/11

Yes iansand, but what Bobster means is that Terra Nullius only ever applied in the first place when the initial arrival of the First Fleet was deemed a “settlement”.

If it was an invasion as Sydney City council believes, then Terra Nullius doesn’t apply. It becomes a conquest. And I’m sure you remember some time ago when Acotrel erroneously tried to claim that Britain aquired Australia under “right of conquest.

And as I proved then, if that was the case, then Aboriginals had no redress to said Right of Conquest as per the UN ruling. Which would mean that, under the invasion version of history which Sydney council are keen to push, the doctrine of Native Title would be rendered effectively null and void, overturned by the “Right of Conquest” which the term “invasion” implies.

dovif says:

03:59pm | 28/06/11

wow TimB

does that means the Greenies finally did some good, maybe the Federal Greens should adopt it as Government policies

I throught the Green’s motive in life is to make the rest of us misserable, how wrong was I?

dovif says:

04:23pm | 28/06/11

If we invaded the Aborigines and we were at war, was an armistice signed? Or are we still at war with the Aborigines.

If we are still at war with the Aborigines, does that means any Aborigines who shoots a non-aborigines and vice-versa, was only carrying out an act of war and therefore not murder

Is that what the greens are after? Or did they just not through it through again!!!

Wayne Kerr says:

01:36pm | 28/06/11

Yep.  If it was an invasion, then to the victor goes the spoils.  As you say no more native title, no more sorry, no more free university, no more handouts and we’ll call it Ayres Rock again.  You can’t have it both ways.

The Romans, Saxons, Normans etc went in and ruled the lands they invaded and if the local populace didn’t like it that was there problem.

Bobster says:

01:57pm | 28/06/11

That was my first thought.

Although, I’d have to think a little bit before I considered it good news.

It is kind of funny to think that that could be the unintended outcome though.

Pity it’s meaningless - could have been funny watching Bob Brown trying to convince Lee Rhiannon, Sarah Hanson-Young and Christine Milne to shut up before they shot their feet off again though.

Oh well, god bless ignorant councillors and the entertainment they provide.

Seanr says:

02:11pm | 28/06/11

Very interesting point there John. Somehow I don’t think you’ll find too much ‘to the victor go the spoils’ agreement from Sydney Council and its ilk.

Seanr says:

02:28pm | 28/06/11

Feeds into the victim mentality as well, which is promoted by certain groups. Unfortunately this continual ‘poor me’ fixation, is the exact wrong thing for Indigenous people as a whole and the rest of the Australian community.

Deeman says:

04:40pm | 28/06/11

Septimus who is after compensation? The Koori people? Sydney City Council is not Koori. You should join the KKK

Septimus says:

08:32pm | 28/06/11

Maybe you should begin to understand the issues before you regale us with your impressive knowledge.

‘You should join the KKK’ - is that really the best you could come up with?

s'truth says:

02:58pm | 29/06/11

If aboriginals are given compensation, will it only apply to full bloods? How could a mixed blood aboriginal claim from his aboriginal half-or quarter-to pay the rest of him? This really needs untangling.

Briton says:

07:17am | 29/06/11

Tony Bee, the true Englishman lives in Wales?  Never!  By derivation alone the term ‘English’ comes from Angles - invading Germanic tribes e.g East Anglia.  The original British people were small, dark peoples, like the Picts or the Scots, later invaded by the Celtic nations (Breton-Briton who originated in or near Tibet) and further ‘invaded’ genetically by the survivors of the Armada who washed up on the Welsh Coast (hence the Spanish origin of many Welsh names like Iago).  Angles were predominantly flaxen haired and blue eyed, as were many of the Celts.  If anyone calls me an Anglo-Saxon they get a history lesson.  All large population movements over time involve some group with superior force taking over another place for material gain.  Their culture then, over a period of some 300 years, becomes integrated with the original group. After millennia of cultural invasions, it is difficult to find an ‘Englishman’ because most with social pretensions ally themselves to the Norman Invaders, just as Australians like to claim convict ancestry.  Even our Queen is not ‘English’.  Civilisation is a melting pot, always has bee: always will be.
p.s.  When I lived in Wales I suffered terrible racist villification because I was not ‘Welsh’.  They have never forgiven the Black Prince, you see.  I am Romano-Celt from the SW England heartland (Arthur;s Kingdom) and my family spoke the old language akin to Welsh until the 1950s.

Bobster says:

01:35pm | 28/06/11

So, you have enough of a brain to wrap your head around the word “nomenclature” but you somehow manage to equate the arrival of the greatest empire the world has ever seen to the arrival of starving refugees?

Very well done. That’s stunning.

You still haven’t answer my previous question though, Ez. Why is it that your passions are only inflamed over issues of women and brown-skinned people?

Fred says:

03:12pm | 28/06/11

@Bobster - your comment actually made me laugh out loud, thank you!

dovif says:

04:05pm | 28/06/11

Erick

you weren’t first? what happened?

Geoff - Brisbane says:

04:21pm | 28/06/11

@ Bobster -

You know they could use the $10,000 they pay to get on the boat to buy a hell of a lot of food in 3rd world countries….....

Erick says:

04:41pm | 28/06/11

@dovif - It’s the curse of the afternoon! My secret weakness.

Steve Putnam says:

05:36pm | 28/06/11

Try not to be an idiot all your life Erick. Who favours open borders?

Bobster says:

08:21pm | 28/06/11

@Geoff

No doubt that would be of great comfort while someone tries to kill you.

Erick says:

06:15am | 29/06/11

Everyone who wants unrestricted admission of boat people who claim to be refugees is in practice an advocate of open borders. This is the inevitable outcome of such a policy.

Bobster says:

02:06pm | 29/06/11

Except you’re the only one who seems to believe an open border policy is on the table.

It’s that hysterical fear of women, gays and brown people again, Erick, it’s clouding your view.

null says:

08:58am | 30/06/11

Its a little known fact that Benelong had originally negotiated with Malaysia to take the first fleet, but because he announced it before it was signed they backed out to save face and the rest, as they say is history!

Tubesteak says:

02:17pm | 28/06/11

You’re about 5 years too late. Clover Moore and the rest of her basket-weaving granola-munching sandal-wearing feckless hippies should have been taken out and shot years ago.

Jade (the other one) says:

01:27pm | 28/06/11

Similarly, the intent of the conquistadors was not to invade, but to rape the land of the riches of the cultures who lived there and create a new land for the Spanish Empire.

jf says:

05:58pm | 28/06/11

“I wouldn’t agree with Anthony who reckons the Indigenous didn’t ‘control’ Australia (as the concept would be completely foreign to their culture which didn’t believe you could own land, the land owns you) “

So you do agree with him then?

Septimus says:

01:35pm | 28/06/11

Who did the Aboriginals kill to take the land?

Jerry says:

01:58pm | 28/06/11

Some wombats.

iansand says:

02:13pm | 28/06/11

Diprotodons.  Marsupial lions.  A few other bits of megafauna (depending on your views on the cause of their extinction)

Kika says:

02:13pm | 28/06/11

Good point. Whilst I think we were originally colonised, I do agree that as the colony spread there was an intent to invade. Particularly in Tasmania. That was fully intentional and sanctioned by Gov. Phillip.

MarK says:

02:52pm | 28/06/11

What were the wombats names?

Erick says:

03:07pm | 28/06/11

@Septimus - The previous bunch of Aboriginals.

Surely you don’t think that in 40,000 years only one group managed to make it here?

James1 says:

03:12pm | 28/06/11

“Invasion is about right, perhaps even coin the term “occupation” to describe what is today.”

Really?  In that case, the Aborigines would be entirely justified in taking up arms against the government.  Then the Australian Defence Forces would be justified in putting down the insurrection.  Furthermore, we would have to refer ourselves to the Non-Self Governing Territories people at the UN, and enter into supervised negotiations with the representatives of the Aborigines.  That would mean we would have to suspend export and exploitation of natural resources, as their possession and ownership would be subject to international arbitration pending a peace agreement or negotiated partition between Aboriginal Australians and all those who came subsequent to 1788.

This is what happens when laypersons - like city councils - try to get involved in matters which have a strong bearing on foreign policy.  Their lack of basic understanding causes problems they didn’t foresee.

“Colonisation” is the only accurate word here.  Anything else just doesn’t cut it in the accuracy stakes.

Jay Santos says:

03:27pm | 28/06/11

“...Who did the Aboriginals kill to take the land?...”

The residents of Kow Swamp.

But the cousins don’t like talking about that too much.

iansand says:

03:46pm | 28/06/11

Erick - Who were these earlier arrivals?  As there has always been open water along the Wallace Line, whoever came here had to have some seagoing ability.  That pretty much rules out homo erectus as they did not develop watercraft.  No homo erectus remains have been found in Australia. 

Conventional, Eurocentric, wisdom is that homo sapiens did not develop boats as early as 40,000 years ago anyway (they tend to ignore that inconvenient gap between Bali and Lombok.)  Homo sapiens left Africa maybe 60,000, maybe 80,000 years ago.  They reached Australia between 40,000 and 60,000 years ago.  That gives them a max of 40,000 years to get to Australia, and a minimum of not many years ago.  That is plenty of time to wander along the coast to Australia, but we still have the problem of the boats.  When were they developed?  Sure, we have some gracile remains which are different to modern Aboriginal remains, and we have puzzling stuff like the Wandjina figures in the Kimberley, but their significance is hotly debated.

On these bases any predecessors of modern Aboriginals were not here long and, if there are different races present, the most likely explanation is almost simultaneous arrivals.

However I would be fascinated if you can point me to some reliable sources establishing that there were predecessors to Aborigines in Australia who were wiped out by subsequent arrivals.  I have looked for them in the past and have not found anything particularly convincing.

Jay Santos says:

04:07pm | 28/06/11

“...No homo erectus remains have been found in Australia…”

Wrong.  Ibid.

Erick says:

04:11pm | 28/06/11

@iansand - Try Mungo Man for a start.

Then there are the Tasmanian Aborigines, who some sources claim were the remnants of an earlier population that was wiped out on the mainland.

Finally, consider the violent history of the past 40,000 years, where hundreds of different tribes fought and displaced each other across the continent.

So, it is only reasonable to conclude that pretty much every bit of human territory on this continent was at some point taken from other humans. Just like every other habitable continent.

iansand says:

04:22pm | 28/06/11

Oh Erick.  Really. You must do better.  Mungo Man would be the gracile remains to which I referred.

Jay Santos - Can you give me a single reference that says that the skull found at Kow Swamp is homo erectus.

Seanr says:

04:28pm | 28/06/11

40,000 years ago I believe that would make it during the Hyborian Age so I’m thinking they killed the Atlanteans..just my personal theory

BK says:

05:12pm | 28/06/11

The earlier Aborigines were called Murrayians and Negritoes and the theory is called the trihybrid theory.

Jay Santos says:

08:17pm | 28/06/11

“...Can you give me a single reference that says that the skull found at Kow Swamp is homo erectus….”

You can’t deny that two types of hominid remains are present, one more robust than the other and both living contemporaneously.

Wait I’ll just ask Alan Thorne.

He says to say can you give me a single reference that says that the skull found at Kow Swamp is NOT homo erectus?

Quid Pro Quo…

MK says:

03:29am | 29/06/11

@MarK
“What were the wombats name”
you have never heard of ‘Fatso the Great’ ?
wise and benevolant emporer of the greatest wombat dynsasty,
Famed for defeating all the Evil Koala Kings,
It was chronicled in Great library he built,
which was burnt down by the human first immigrants
All physical evidence of his great empire was convientley destroyed

iansand says:

09:10am | 29/06/11

Jay Santos - The problem is twofold.  One problem is that you have provided no references.  The second is that, apart from some obviously mad websites, my own attempts to find some information about what seems to be a very interesting assertion brought up nothing but refutations.

CJ Morgan says:

04:26pm | 28/06/11

As a member of the Greens, I can assure the appropriately named John that Greens party members come in all colours.  However, I imagine that almost everyone who has posted in this thread so far would consider themselves ‘white’.

From an Indigenous point of view, of course it was an invasion.  What else do you call it when a colonial power sends an armed expeditionary force to your country with the express intention of dispossessing you?

Of course, it’s all done and dusted so it’s really only of symbolic value now - but isn’t it time that Australians stopped whitewashing their history?

Hitler's Greens says:

04:48pm | 28/06/11

So were Hitler’s Germany, your point?

MC says:

01:06pm | 29/06/11

@CJ Morgan

But the armed expeditionary force was not sent to this country with the express intention of dispossessing the aboriginals…

Helen says:

01:31pm | 29/06/11

Godwin’s!!!

VVS says:

02:54pm | 28/06/11

If you leave your doors unlocked its only a matter of time before someone walks into your house and takes your sh!t… or sits down and says “this is my house get the hell out!”...

Which makes me think of the movie Red Dawn… Wolverines!!!!

Erick says:

03:12pm | 28/06/11

And then there are the tens of thousands of years of inter-tribal warfare that saw many areas changing hands. Bear in mind that there was no unified group called “Aborigines”, just hundreds of tribes with their own languages and territories.

Richie says:

01:46pm | 28/06/11

Maybe you should do a little more reading Anubis. Clover Moore actually opposed the changing to invasion. Hence your rant is a waste of space.

Rocksteady says:

02:07pm | 28/06/11

Richie, i am shocked that any rant on the punch could be a waste of space, ok ...I’m not.

Tim says:

02:11pm | 28/06/11

Richie,
If Clover was so opposed to changing it to invasion then why did she vote for it?

Anubis says:

02:17pm | 28/06/11

@ Richie - although Moore did vote against it Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, said Aborigines were the original custodians of the land and that the term was important to them (this certainly sounds like an endorsement of the motion, whether she voted nay or yay). Morris and Hoff were the proponents of the move. Maybe you could read a bit more too Richie.

.But either way it does not invalidate what you refer to as “my Rant”

ZSRenn says:

06:03pm | 28/06/11

I knew there was something I liked about you Anubis.

I too am a ninth generation Australian, a descendant of the first Anglo child on the North Shore of Sydney but more importantly a descendant of convicts. I am appalled that the Sydney City council could treat my ancestors with such little memory.

My ancestors were not invaders. They came here in chains buried beneath the hull of a ship on a journey from London to Sydney to arrive in the heat of summer. They came in conditions described as worse than of the slave ships from Africa to the Americas. On the Second fleet over 200 men woman and children died in transport.

These convicts then went to work under whips and chains to build the original Sydney town. They for all intents and purpose built Sydney. Many died doing so. Most were never to return to England. Their seven year custodial sentence became a life term. Still today when you drive around the streets and the outer roads of Sydney you can still see their work.

For the Sydney City Council to change the wording of arrival of these convicts to an invasion is to me a massive rewrite of history by what has become the latte sipping wanker capital of the world. It shows just how far the PC mob will go! They will even rewrite its history and in doing so forget the suffering on which Sydney and ultimately Australia was built. 

Wake up Sydney and show some respect for your roots. If you truly want to help the Aboriginal people move to Doomadgee and start doing some decent community work not just wave stupid platitudes at them like this.

I noticed later today NSW Aboriginal Affairs Minister Victor Dominello stated that he felt the move was divisive and it is.

Steve Putnam says:

09:00am | 29/06/11

@Anubis Nobody is denying the courage and tenacity of our forbears, in the founding of white Australia, but it was done at the expense of the indigenous races. Up until the second world war, Australia well and truely rode on the sheeps back. Pastoral industries required more and more land; it is fair to say that the consolidation and enrichment of the Australian colonies was in inverse proportion to the degradation and disposession of the indigenes.
Furthermore any free range herding of sheep and cattle in a country such as Australia would have been impossible without the blackfellers bush skills and incredible visual acuity. The cattle barons, many of whom were on “peppercorn rents” chose to repay their indispensible services with flour and sugar and the like, reducing a proud and independent race to mere supplicants.
Put yourself in their position. Wouldn’t you feel your country had been
invaded and that which was once yours taken from you?

Richard says:

01:50pm | 28/06/11

What do you mean?

fairsfair says:

01:51pm | 28/06/11

Do you mean in places where the Government offers and supports the choice of joining society (in terms of settling in a town containing federal infrastructure and services) or the creation of “tradition society” (in terms of leading a traditional nomadic or settled lifestyle)?

Sorry, I’m not quite following where you are headed with your comment.

James1 says:

03:18pm | 28/06/11

Ah you mean effects like close to doubling life expectancy in as little as 200 years?  Took Europe nearly 1000 years to do the same - not bad for a bunch of invaders if you ask me.  Or the effect whereby Aboriginal educational opportunities have gone from non-existent to universal access to primary, secondary and tertiary education in as little as 200 years?  Or was there some other effect you were thinking of…

Seanr says:

03:54pm | 28/06/11

‘remote NT’ - there’s most of your problem right there Jason. If it was any other ‘race of people’ these remote settlements wouldn’t exist. Plenty of examples of ghost towns where people were forced to move once the work dried up.
Instead we spend time and resources on communities where there are little or no work prospects, perpetuating a cycle of Centrelink dependence and other social issues like alcoholism.

Dave-o says:

04:13pm | 28/06/11

@James1

“But what about all the good things Hitler did”

The pome’s used the same argument against Gandhi, but funnily enough some people still would rather die on their feet than live on their knee’s.

James1 says:

04:44pm | 28/06/11

So the Australian government is equivalent to Hitler now?

Nice invoking of Godwin there Dave-o - took longer than usual today.

In any case, if we are to take your trolling at face value, perhaps the Australian government should let people die on their feet.  At the age of 31.  I bet, if we were to pull out of NT altogether, you would cheer and be happy that the Aboriginal tribes left there could go back to the pre-1788 utopia, where internecine warfare was unheard of, where women and children were never kidnapped by neighbouring tribes, where people didn’t live short lives full of struggle and suffering, and were happy because they had hugs and fluffy nice things.

Dave-o says:

08:49am | 29/06/11

Goodwin’s law is a rather famous internet meme just as the “But what about all the good things Hitler did” is simply the retort for those who invoke Goodwins law. Obviously the irony was lost you.

As someone who has actually lived in dry camps and seen the social degradation that is present I don’t think I’ll be “cheering” when intervention ends. I will however be happy when in the spirit of our current constitution neo-con revisionists can get over their high and mighty “we know best” attitude. Has the intervention policy worked, no. Back to the drawing board. 

How come you couldn’t make the quantum mental leap and address the second part of argument?

Bobster says:

01:40pm | 28/06/11

Adelaide is the capital of the only state in Australia settled by property developers. (Also one of the only states without ICAC - go figure that one.)

Give me the convicts any day, at least they were an honest crowd.

C1 says:

02:09pm | 28/06/11

Bobster,

I am from Adelaide and I never saw it that way - brilliant!!!

You can still see the remnants of our ancestors in the white shoes and gold worn by the good ladies of Burnside.

Kika says:

02:18pm | 28/06/11

And most of them were for petty crimes like taking a loaf of bread - not murdering people and stuffing them in bank vaults!!

Gladys says:

03:06pm | 28/06/11

Kika: that’s right! No one had a relative who had been a murderer or fraud.

And what was that mini series they made us watch at school? Sara Dane? Charged with theft of a few coins and a hankie which had been a gift to her anyway.

Paul says:

08:58pm | 28/06/11

As an Adelaidean I am constantly amused by the propensity of out-of-towners to lampoon our bizarre murder habit apparently without a thought as to what they are doing and to who. Don’t poke the bear.  Well, so to speak.

Jade says:

02:25pm | 28/06/11

These are my thoughts exactly Richard.

Mitchell says:

02:54pm | 28/06/11

Richard , by your logic, today we are well within our rights to colonise any country deemed less sophisticated than our own. I see more than a few flaws in your argument.
For one, Aborigines ought to be glad it wasn’t as bad as the Belgians? How is that any justification? It’s like me killing someone then saying “at least you weren’t killed by the manson family, it would have been much worse”
You are literally implying that today Australia is well within it’s rights to go colonise the remote tribes of the Amazon / Andaman islands / West Papua,  take all their land, indoctrinate their people, just because they have not progressed to our so called “level of civilisation”?
(I don’t know if you have ever been out late night in Sydney but we are not a civilised society, in fact I actually think we are much less civilised than most cultures, past and present, wearing a suit and tie in 38°C heat seems to make us feel better about that though )
You are saying we (Australia) are entitled to force our entire way of life on tribal cultures, just because we are apparently better? Personally, i think you are utterly insane.
I don’t at all agree with the whole invasion wording, yet I live in the LGA of Sydney, unlike most people who feel they can comment on the issue, and I also don’t like most things CoS does. (Clover Moore is a public purse addict!), at least I can deal with it and get on with life, if people have a problem with the wording, then move to the City of Sydney and cast your democratic pathetic single vote in local elections just like everyone else.

Tim says:

03:16pm | 28/06/11

Mitchell,
that’s not what Richard is saying at all.
“because in the historical context of the time, there could have been no other outcome. “
Maybe you should read this part again?

Steven says:

03:21pm | 28/06/11

Richard,
you are so amazed and shocked because what you are saying is not true. Please take at least five minutes to go beyond your own theories to understand they are not natural laws set in stone, just uninformed rants…plenty of trade with indonesians…back burning and herding of animals with kylies and boomerangs were there versions of agrarian culture, they didnt actually need your version…quite complicated systems of law based around the shame placed on your family… this place was not a unified country but a series of smaller nations interacting with each other, either violently or in gratuity…seriously why comment when you obviously haven’t bothered to investigate, these are not secrets you know, simply open your eyes to the possibility that other cultures do things differently.

@Anthony your description of the conquistadors matches the description of colonisation, so in answer to your question i would say invasion..

Jay Santos says:

04:03pm | 28/06/11

“...quite complicated systems of law based around the shame placed on your family…”

That included patricide and infanticide.

It’s interesting that you chose to confer a Melanesian agricultural architecture upon a nomadic hunter-gatherer society.

They did not herd animals.
They did not develop crop subsistence strategies to sustain a sedentary population.
They did not develop any sophisticated trade networks with “Indonesians”.

Instead they ate out, moving on after the proximal food supply was depleted.  Sometimes they ‘cleansed’ the land through fire

I would suggest putting your school book version to one side and researching the limited prehistory of Aboriginal culture before defaulting to a noble savage mythology.

When you consider that at the same time Australian Aborigines were knapping stone tools and filling shell middens around Botany Bay, Europe had moved beyond the Stone Age into a well-developed, pluralistic and sometimes democratic agrarian society.

Such black arm-banding of your version of history is trite and disingenuous.

But, sadly, you are not alone in your thinking; in fact a whole industry exists in this country on a foundation of untruths, historical distortion and mining white guilt.

And the real losers are the Aborigines.

Bill says:

05:58pm | 28/06/11

don’t get so defensive, no-one is trying to blame you Richard.

Sylvie says:

06:05pm | 28/06/11

@Richard and Jay Santos are correct.  No question.
Hunters and gatherers -  where is the shame in that?  Why pretend otherwise?

Harquebus says:

11:03am | 29/06/11

40,000 odd sustainable years versus 200 odd of technological expansionism. Pop!

Dazeddazza says:

11:42am | 29/06/11

Richard@  Well said.  I do not feel any guilt at all.  Some compassion for our fellow Australians and how they find, and in some cases view themselves.  They do not have too many options, other than educate themselves, get rid of the “poor oppressed me” syndrome, and contribute to Australia in a modern sense.  They have no other choice, and despite the rhetoric, the choice is theirs and theirs alone.

Lesley B says:

11:44am | 29/06/11

Richard, I know you want to try to sound intelligent but get out of your 1970’s, primary school improperly informed education.

Nomadic implies that there were no boundaries and people just wandered.  I would have thought the Australian public were educated enough to know that Australian Aborigines were not nomadic.

They travelled seaonally to specific locations within defined boundaries of their respectives nations.

In a modern context, and by your understanding, an upper class member of society who has more than one home and who might spend three months of a year in another country is nomadic.  I think even you would agree that this is an incorrect application of the term.

As to your claim Aborigines did not have a modern civilised Government.  Aborigines within each of their respective nations have systems of governance, lores, social norms and religious beliefs which were far more ‘civilised’ than you western governance models.

I think you need to consider the saying “It’s somtimnes best to be silent and considered intelligent, then to speak and remove all doubts.”

Mark Riddley says:

02:05pm | 28/06/11

She chose more moderate language, that was all Richie

Tim says:

02:12pm | 28/06/11

Richie,
Clover Moore voted FOR the change.
What are you on about?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/28/3255549.htm?site=sydney

Bobster says:

02:17pm | 28/06/11

It’s not genocide. It’s attempted genocide. No one has every successfully committed genocide - even the Conquistadors left a few breathing.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

04:36pm | 28/06/11

Actually Bob, the Tasmanian Aboriginals have something to say about your comment. Well, they would, however the genocide in Tasmania was successfully completed.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

04:37pm | 28/06/11

Sorry i mean committed. Was trying to use bob’s words and believe i made a typo. Any mods can fix please?

Richie says:

07:21pm | 28/06/11

@ Tim- She voted against it.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8266154/council-declares-settlement-an-invasion
All it was saying was that she put it to the floor and let the majority win the decision.
@Bobster- Attempted genocide is still genocide.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with INTENT to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  (a) Killing members of the group;
  (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Bobster says:

09:32pm | 28/06/11

I know, just being pedantic.

Bev says:

03:51pm | 28/06/11

Who’s history?  Renolds and the black arm band mob or Winshuttle who debunked the majority of their idea of history.  South America is a totally different story there is just no comparison.
Yes there were battles.  My own family history attests to that.  My great grandfather was an accountant who cooked the books of the firm he worked for. Found guilty of embezelment he was shipped to Fremantle as a convict. Since his skills were considered valuable he was released almost immediately and went on to become the first school master in Mandurah.  My grandmother told me of an incident where she, her brothers and sisters and mother fled out the back door while my great grandfather (and presumably some friends) held off a party of spear throwing aboriginals at the front of the house.  This incident is not in the history books but the subsequent battle of Pinjarra between Troops and the Pinjarra tribe is. This incident any many others came about because of aboriginals spearing and stealing cattle.

James1 says:

03:27pm | 28/06/11

No, in the US the correct word would be “colonized”.  In this country it would be “colonised”.

Richard says:

02:23pm | 28/06/11

Its more than just “they had guns and the Aboriginals didn’t”.

They also had blankets, the Aborigines didn’t.
They also had clothes, the Aborigines didn’t.
They also had agriculture, the Aborigines didn’t.
They also had livestock, the Aborigines didn’t
They also had common law, the Aborigines din’t
They also had a Monarch, the Aborigines didn’t
They also had a fleet, the Aborigines didn’t
They also had books, the Aborigines didn’t
They also had a system of writing, the Aborigines didn’t.
They also had Melody and Harmony, the Aborigines didn’t.

I could go on, but suffice to say that there could have been no other conceivable outcome of an encounter between the most primitive and backward society in the world and the most advanced and expansionist society in the world.

They were what they were, neither was “right” and neither was “wrong”, it just was. Don’t feel guilty about it, it was inevitable.

Zaf says:

03:44pm | 28/06/11

I don’t think the City of Sydney is insisting that *you* feel anything about it.  It’s just referring to the event as an invasion, which is what it looks like it was.  That is history.  That is fact. 

As you say, I don’t see the need to whitewash history.

Ando says:

03:48pm | 28/06/11

Great response Richard

Mouse says:

04:31pm | 28/06/11

They also didn’t take over towns, homes or settlements because the aborigine did not have any permenancy in respect to living areas as they were nomadic. So, as far as the British colonising here, there was no displacement as such. If Australia had been colonised by the Indonesians, or Japanese say, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation because the chances of there being any aborigines today would probably be slim.

Deeman says:

04:38pm | 28/06/11

Ricahrd the KKK is waiting for your signature. the most primitive and backward society in the world and the most advanced and expansionist society in the world. Let me see you a white male.

Migration says:

06:26pm | 28/06/11

It was a migration, you know what people have been doing for 70,000 years since people first left Africa and just as the Aboriginal people migrated to Australia in many different migrations and with each wave bringing a different culture and ethnicity.  It wasn’t a invasion, it was a migration that the Aboriginal people could not stop.  We should change Australia day the 26th of Jan to MIGRATION DAY to remind us that migration should be done on our terms that we agree to, that migration does inevitably lead to some displacement of the existing people and provided it is done properly the benefits will out weigh the negatives.

Jekub says:

07:14pm | 28/06/11

You forgot

They had a Flag, the Aboriginies didn’t

Zaf says:

09:19pm | 28/06/11

I don’t expect anybody to feel guilty, it was another generation, another time.  Yet clearly some people do, enough to be defensive.  I don’t get it, but there you go.

Richard says:

02:26pm | 28/06/11

No. Your house has been “infested” with ants. Queensland has been “plagued” with cane toad, Darwin gets “overrun” with tourist.

And “conquered” is not an accurate term at all. The Aborigines were not an empire, they had not government, they therefore couldn’t have been “conquered”.

Kevin says:

03:36pm | 28/06/11

@Richard
Those are synonyms.  The examples I cite are perfectly understandable to everyday users of english.
International law recognises 3 basic ways of acquiring sovereignty - conquest, cession and occupation of territory that is terra nullius.  Mabo threw out the applicability of terra nullius, which leaves conquest (unless you believe the Aborigines ceded the land to the British).

Bobster says:

02:15pm | 28/06/11

I think, and I could be wrong, that the only affect this will have will be in reports submitted to the Sydney council by its staff and in communications by the Sydney council.

So, in the (what is probably) 0.0006% of council documents that refer to settlement, they will now refer to invasion.

Correct me if I’m wrong (Ant or anyone else) but that’s what my gut feeling is on this one.

James1 says:

03:29pm | 28/06/11

My understanding is the same as Bobster’s.  Unless the City of Sydney secedes from Australia, in which case it will affect their international relations in such a way as to make their position as a nation-state untenable.

Markus says:

11:10pm | 28/06/11

Cheers.
My first thought was ‘surely they are not just going to trawl through 200 years of bureaucratic crap purely to change all references to a single word, for no conceivable outcome?’
Then I realised we are talking about a government body…

Bobster says:

02:09pm | 29/06/11

They won’t do that. It will apply hitherto.

It’s feel good nonsense for a few of them. Nothing to be worried about - pointless, yes, but not the end of the world.

Bobster says:

02:09pm | 29/06/11

They won’t do that. It will apply hitherto.

It’s feel good nonsense for a few of them. Nothing to be worried about - pointless, yes, but not the end of the world.

Bobster says:

02:09pm | 29/06/11

They won’t do that. It will apply hitherto.

It’s feel good nonsense for a few of them. Nothing to be worried about - pointless, yes, but not the end of the world.

Bobster says:

09:48pm | 29/06/11

Don’t know why that went up first and not hitherto, hereafter.

Erick says:

03:16pm | 28/06/11

You didn’t read the article, did you?

iansand says:

03:50pm | 28/06/11

Then enlighten me, Erick.  What do you think his definition of invasion is?  There are a lot of things that are not invasions, nbut not one that is an invasion.

Erick says:

04:17pm | 28/06/11

Read the article, iansand.

iansand says:

04:25pm | 28/06/11

It looks like Erick shares my difficulties.

Jekub says:

07:24pm | 28/06/11

I think Eric just couldn’t be bothered explaining the concept of water to someone who is wet. And neither can I.

MarK says:

09:25pm | 28/06/11

Come on sanderson you can do better than this. You are getting so verbose.

Keep it coming sanderson. Eventually you will make a point banal though it may be.

Bobster says:

07:35pm | 29/06/11

This is off topic, but I love this place.

Never change, Punch

Undeadly Anna says:

03:00pm | 28/06/11

The joke’s on you lovey. You need to stop living in the past and generalising. It’s not cool to be an airhead anymore

Anna C says:

03:34pm | 28/06/11

“The joke’s on you lovey. You need to stop living in the past and generalising. It’s not cool to be an airhead anymore”.  Undeadly Anna, I think it is you who is living in the past not me. I’m pretty happy with the way our country has turned out thanks to many waves of immigration thank you very much; and there is nothing you or a bunch of disgruntled Aborigines can do to change that.  Don’t you have a latte or some chardonney to go and sip?

Anna C says:

03:35pm | 28/06/11

“The joke’s on you lovey. You need to stop living in the past and generalising. It’s not cool to be an airhead anymore”.  Undeadly Anna, I think it is you who is living in the past not me. I’m pretty happy with the way our country has turned out thanks to many waves of immigration thank you very much; and there is nothing you or a bunch of disgruntled Aborigines can do to change that.  Don’t you have a latte or some chardonney to go and sip?

Nick42 says:

03:05pm | 28/06/11

Liam, two things how do you describe what the ancestors of mainland aborigines did to the two waves of aborigines before them e.g. wiping out the ancestors of the Tasmanian aborigines on the mainland.

Also can you clarify the comments of ‘experts living with the land” as my understanding is that they deliberately lit bush fires to hunt something I do not associate with good use of the land and also their contribution to wiping out some of the larger species within Australia for food.

Erick says:

03:18pm | 28/06/11

Actually, I rather like living in Australia. What were those “terrible errors of our ways”? The results look fine to me.

Anna C says:

03:19pm | 28/06/11

Aborigines migrated here just like everyone else. They did not rise up out of the primordial soup. So what if they have been here for 49,777 more years than the rest of us. They sure didn’t do much with it in that time. Let’s face it we migrants have done more with it in 223 years then they managed to do in 50,000 years.

James1 says:

03:20pm | 28/06/11

You have described a colonisation, not an invasion.

steven says:

03:28pm | 28/06/11

NIck,
Without fire a lot of native plants would not be able to proliferate… again for those who want to take a stab at demeaning traditional aboriginal practices please learn a bit more about it.

Tim says:

04:17pm | 28/06/11

Steven,
and how do you think those “native” plants acquired the ability to regenerate and proliferate through fire?

Anubis says:

04:17pm | 28/06/11

@ Steven - there are many biologists that feel that the adaptation of native plants to require fire to regenerate is an adaptation as a result of fire stick farming. The fossil record shows that the Australian flora was much more diverse prior to aboriginal invasion of the continent, as was the fauna. The Aboriginal invasion has been attributed as the main cause of the extinction of the mega-fauna that used to roam the continent. Rather than saviours of natures diversity they actually contributed to the decline of diversity. If the same attitude had been adapted by the native populations of Africa we would not be able to see elephants in the wild.

Liam says:

04:37pm | 28/06/11

Erick - You don’t see anything wrong with colonialism? Do you think white European peoples were right to invade other lands in the name of imperialism and ‘empire building’? Whether it was seeing other races as genetically inferior, stripping them of their culture, forcing christianity down their throats or murdering them, there were errors in those ways. And they left a legacy. As for living in Australia - i love it to mate! I trust you misread

James1 - I don’t think we should get too hung up on the past, but when there were already people who called home the land to be “colonised,” i think it’s more fair to call it an invasion.

Liam says:

04:53pm | 28/06/11

Anubis that is one of the most stupid, incorrect posts i’ve ever read. Congratulations

Sylvie says:

07:18pm | 28/06/11

There was nothing happening here at the time of colonisation.
There was nothing happening but hunting and gathering.
Today we’re told that the Aborigines were eel farmers.
What is wrong with the simple truth?
Hunting and gathering.

Barry says:

07:59pm | 28/06/11

@Liam
Actually, Liam Anubis’ comment is in line with mainstream historic and scientific opinion on the interaction of Aborigines with the Australian biota.  I would disagree with the statement about adaptation to native plants though as fire is believed to be a part of Australia’s history over millions of years, and Eucalyptus’ trees developed adaptive fire-resistant traits such as epicormic buds and lignotubers way before Aborigines came to Australia.  You should probably become familiar with some educated opinions though rather than listening to noble savage myths and fallacies.  Anyone who has studied accurate scientific and indigenous history would know that Aboriginals also were also guilty of causing environmental change, often diverting and damming rivers, and are believed to have caused the extinction of much of Australia’s megafauna.  It’s evident that you are not exactly up to the times with current scientific knowledge, but atleast don’t go around telling people they are writing incorrect, stupid posts unless you actually know what you are talking about.

Barry says:

04:06pm | 28/06/11

Actually Anne, they die much much older, and they rot in jail of their own accord these days.

Not long now says:

04:46pm | 28/06/11

Barry, the sooner the better chief. And i’m not talking about indigenous Australians

Barry says:

08:07pm | 28/06/11

@Not long now
*Sigh* How mature of you.

TimB says:

03:31pm | 28/06/11

Well, History *is* written by the victors…

Deeman says:

04:47pm | 28/06/11

RyaN arent you from Africa or somwhere like that.

RyaN says:

03:49pm | 28/06/11

@Gladys: only because you are white and its OK to racially vilify whites.

Bobster says:

04:12pm | 28/06/11

No one wants you to feel guilty. That’s missing the point.

I’m not sure of Clover et al’s motivations nor am I inclined to research them (busy), but the general theory on this isn’t to make you feel guilty, it’s about reinforcing to the Aboriginal people that their culture is significant and legitimate.

Whether it works or not, I don’t know, but that’s the general (very, very, very general) theory. 

Perhaps someone else could explain it better than I have but I don’t think it’s correct to look at it in terms of guilt or any kind of us and them scenario - that’s what got us in trouble to begin with.

Liam says:

04:42pm | 28/06/11

Bobster there are still people with superiority complexes. In some cases it’s just ignorance and not hateful racism. You’re spot on in your thinking and you can influence others to see that truth. That’s the way forward

Steven says:

04:53pm | 28/06/11

why assume people want you to feel guilty. Ever thought that these issues are brought up not to decide a winner, or directed at you personally so as to make you feel regret, but to create awareness of the imbalance for the various citizens of Australia.
The lack of practical opportunties for indigenous people in the workforce because either a boss will not employ them or for some reason they feel the rest of society percieves them as inadequate (ever tried to talk to kids about something they think you don’t understand…).
The cynical approach some parents take to their childrens friends because they are white or black.
The dismissal of a culture that is still relevant to a section of the community.
The dependence on a culture that has stubbornly resisted and refused to integrate new voices despite the obvious impracticalities and restrictions that prevent sections of our community from moving on and integrating into the real world.
The ignorance of those who do not come into contact with aboriginal people and so claim i didn’t do it, or it’s not my fault rather than acknowledge that there may be issues outside of their realm of understanding that just might be valid even though their own precious selves haven’t experienced them.

Liam says:

07:39pm | 28/06/11

Agreed Steven

RyaN says:

09:11pm | 28/06/11

@Bobster, Liam and Steven: absolute horse shit, this has one purpose and one purpose only, that is to induce further racism and hatred towards whites and force shame by rewriting history on those people who had no choice or have come here subsequently. I am sick to the back teeth of you stealthy anti-white racists thinking you spew forth your anti-white hate and dress it up as some sort of kubaya around the camp fire.
You are what you are, racist white haters just like the scumbags that have tried to rewrite history here. I wouldn’t spit on you filth if you were on fire.

Bobster says:

09:31am | 29/06/11

Let’s assume for the sake of argument this decision has any affect on anything, how do you then figure that it only applies to whites?

It would apply to any non-Aboriginal meaning there is no reference to skin-colour at all. It would apply equally to Europeans, Asians, Africans, South Americans, Eskimos and Pygmes and everyone in between.

Enough with the hysterical nonsense.

RyaN says:

12:28pm | 29/06/11

@Bobster: “how do you then figure that it only applies to whites?”

And I quote: “Paul Morris, head of the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, declared Sydney’s decision to describe the arrival of WHITE settlers an “invasion”..”

The intent is clear, blatant racism.

RyaN says:

12:32pm | 29/06/11

@Bobster: oh and nice try to water down this vile racism when it was declared that it only applies to whites.

Turn it around and apply anything solely based on the colour of their skins that happen to be non-white and see the outcry. Hypocritical vile racists!

MarK says:

04:55pm | 28/06/11

Don’t care.

Here is my counter offer.

I will honestly say the Aboriginal people are welcome in MY country as long as the obey OUR laws and use the facilities with respect.

That’s all the point you need.

See I am a nice guy. I will even waive a welcome to country ceremony for my ancestors. They don’t have to sit there while I sing and dance. How about that.

Sylvie says:

09:17pm | 28/06/11

@David
That’s a very weird question

IRE says:

04:40pm | 28/06/11

@GB None of these will be done till you pay your Carbon tax of $6000 pa,and dont use your heater or fireplace it creates carbon and Bobby doesnt like that

Vale Avalon says:

04:56pm | 28/06/11

your not an invader if you were born Australian. The people who invaded are long gone and the Aboriginals are the losers who get granted concessions such as native title, free citizenship in Australia, including the right to work and social security. They have just as much rights as everyone else and they have the rights on top of that relative to native title.

Life is a big competition and it makes sense that they are going to go out there and try to get more for what ever reason. Especially since they have relatively crappy standards of living in comparison to the norm, of course they are going to do what they can to be empowered.

averill says:

05:16pm | 28/06/11

Exactly Tim !  You can’t have your cake and eat it! The British came to colonise not invade. They have made an empty dry barren land into a beautiful prosperous country. Perhaps we should ask for a thank you form all indigenous people for the generous provision we have given them !
Remember without the colonists there would be no jobs, housing, or Centerlink payments for those in need!!

native says:

07:35pm | 28/06/11

or flagons of port!!

NightRider says:

05:25pm | 28/06/11

Not only that, they got huge tracts of land which they passed down through the generations
Their legacy is still with us - The landed gentry is alive and well in OZ.

Liam says:

07:33pm | 28/06/11

Indeed Hugh. But it would have been even more interesting if the British had only the same weapons as the Aboriginals. Back to smelly Britain with their tails between their legs anyone?

Harquebus says:

11:08am | 29/06/11

The American Indians had tobacco, killed millions.

dementer says:

07:49am | 29/06/11

Well they have every right to wipe out the English every man women and child as they are the one who invaded.

Glen says:

11:56am | 29/06/11

Are no takers of the bait… proof of The Left’s HYPOCRISY!

Chris says:

06:46am | 29/06/11

Three problems with this rant:
1. Aborigines did not know—could not possibly have known—that they were living in a huge continent with untold resources and that there were highly developed societies just beyond the horizon who would come and take those resources;
2. Who is Aboriginal? My great-grandfather was. Does that mean I get to stay? What about the millions of other people of mixed breeding? Please state your critiera for deciding Aboriginality;
3. Your plan involves “the invaders” taking everything back with them. No computer for you to type your racist rants; no knives or forks; no shirts or buttons; no cars, roads or airplanes; no steel or glass. Get the picture? If you want the bliss of pre-1788, it means going back to the Dreamtime, the dirt, the hunting grounds and the Stone Age.

Janey says:

08:28am | 29/06/11

I see what your problem is now.

RyaN says:

09:20pm | 28/06/11

Racist comment!

Brian says:

03:48pm | 29/06/11

What year did your tribe or people MIGRATE to this land Lesley?, or have you forgotten that Aborigines are not Really native to this land….it may have been thousands of years ago but you migrated here too.

RyaN says:

09:22pm | 28/06/11

Yet another racist comment! Surprise!

Harquebus says:

11:17am | 29/06/11

When Roman soldiers didn’t fight hard enough, one in ten was selected and the other nine would beat them to death. This incentive was called decimation.

Mark says:

11:02am | 29/06/11

Michael Connors is wrong. Otherwise I agree with you

Dieter Moeckel says:

11:05am | 29/06/11

I’m niot quite sure of the point you are making - Ownership of Land under common law principles came from the grant of the land by the King. No government, no grant of title. no ownership.
This implies to me that you believe that British law, common or otherwise applies to the whole world even pre-settlement.
Just because British law or government didi not apply to Australia pre-settlement doe not mean that the Brits can enter, invade or settle and impose their law then making it legal in retrospect denying the Aboriginal occupation or indeed ownership of that land.
The issue at point is who owned the land prior to Cook raising and claiming it for Britain. The ludicrousness of that proposal was clearly pointed out by Burrum Burrum raising the Aboriginal flag claiming England under some other law and government.
Aboriginal land ownership of Australia pre Cook did not have to have the British king’s approval.

Lesley B says:

11:34am | 29/06/11

Noting your comment on “British laws”.  Captain Cook was mandated by the Queen and ritish legislation to acknowledge and develop a treaty with peoples of any land that was newly discovered. 

Captain Cook disregarded this mandate when he came across Aboriginal Australians.  However, to cover their tracks and reinforce their illegal occupation/ownership, the original Australian Governments decided Aboriginals were part of the flora and fauna.  That we were just animals, not an established culture with it’s own social, legal and community systems.  Cos’ if we were just animals then you didn’t need a treaty.

It never fails to surprise me the level of ignorance held by the dominant European culture regarding the real history of Australia.  However, I guess this is reinforce by a national education system, who finds ‘difficult knowledge’ hard to teach and transfer.

They would rather paint a pretty picture of peaceful arrival rather than address the real examples of warfare, massacres, genocide, mass poisoning, human-hunting, rapes, kidnapping and abduction.

OMG!! Does that mean the so-called civilised (supposedly superior) culture was actually a racist, genocidal destructive force?  I guess it is so much easier to live in ignorance than accept that your ancestors were rapists, murderers and thieves.

You’re failure to even acknowledge the nature of the true arrival of Europeans, inlcuding Captain Cooks failure to comply with his original mandate regarding his arrival to Australia is a safe option.

Instead, it is so much easier to challenge the origins of Aboriginal Australians, and to lower this debate to issues of immigration and refer to irrelevant international examples.

Mark says:

03:53pm | 29/06/11

I will not bother with the troll but as for Dieter. No I do not believe that British law, common or otherwise applied to the entire world. But it applies to decisions made by the High Court of Australia. The issue at point is as you say who owned the land, but as the High Court is bound to apply the common law then it applies in Australia now.

You may of couse wish to argue about the legal basis in international law of the British occupation of Australia, but that is an entire different ball game.

Rebecca says:

12:13am | 30/06/11

Hmm.. will have to look around for a reference, but I’m sure I read somewhere that in some of the initial communications with the indigenous population that the British were told that ‘they don’t own the land - the land owned them’.
Could this be more of a sociolinguistics issue?  Two cultures not getting the meaning of the other?
In saying that, I think Mabo was ‘more correct’ - and should stand.

Harquebus says:

10:52am | 29/06/11

We have been killing each other since before we came down out of the trees and it doesn’t look like we’ll be stopping anytime soon.

David V. says:

12:37pm | 29/06/11

Modern medicine is to blame for overpopulation, we’ve been too generous to Third World countries for allowing them to breed beyond sustainability.

John says:

07:38pm | 29/06/11

The reason why Australia is great country is because of honorable traits of founders of this nation. Because of this, there is less corruption compared to other third world country’s. The South American continent is riddled with corruption, Portugal defaulted and is corrupt, Brazil is the crime nation of the earth, Spain isn’t going too well.  The English have created great nations, great foundations, Australia, and America are their legacy’s. I guess now that america was invaded by a corrosive force, it’s just a matter of the time, the english base of honor is destroyed in america. Today england, america, and Australia are on the decline for embracing multiculturalism, mass immigration also because they are in bed with corrupt bankers, corrupt media barons that will send their nations into decay. The honorable character is falling into the abyss. Civilization is on the decline .

David V. says:

07:39pm | 29/06/11

No it’s because British people built it. The Brits build whereas others only know how to destroy countries. British people have far better work ethic than many, even in Europe.

David V. says:

08:25pm | 29/06/11

John speaks the truth.

I’ve driven a whole host of cars- BMW, Lexus, Nissan, Mercedes, etc and they too are expressions of uniquely great nations, whose creative capacities are unrivalled. Can our “indigenous” culture claim that?

thechojin says:

12:11pm | 04/07/11

Well said Mr. Historian ! Bravo! Sadly I’ve noticed the word for invasion has now been replaced with settlement. ‘Go Back to where you came from’ anyone ?

Aryan Pillai says:

12:53pm | 06/07/11

Perhaps it’s time for the Native Australians, or the original Australians, so to speak, to start chanting

“Stop the Boat People from 1788!!”

thechojin says:

03:10pm | 06/07/11

Touche. Dependant is a good way to describe it ,- while farmers threaten to shoot cattle that are hauled up at the ports that are apparently being treated badly in Indonesia.