Thread: Sadly our history has some very dark parts

"UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 recognize all territories acquired through invasion by force, prior to World War II, as lawful conquests. Provided that all citizens of a such territory are granted equal rights by the local law.

If Australia was invaded, then aboriginals are conquered people and thus have no special rights, given the law does not discriminate them."

The law was absolutely discrimatory towards Aboriginal people when the English invaded the continent.

Originally Posted by Zeros

British law was absolutely discrimatory towards Aboriginal people when the English invaded the continent.

They did not "invade",...of course you are very much entitled to say that, but you would no doubt be aware that you are amongst a small minority of activists, who, desperate as they are, make a lot of noise, at every opportunity, to make the most of this myth. I've spoken to Indigenous people who are simply not interested, & as I said recently, a respected Indigenous personality wrote as much in the press recently. I quoted the article.
Pickles.

Originally Posted by Pickles2

They did not invade.
Pickles.

Yes they did.

Discovery, settlement or invasion? The power of language in Australia's historical narrative

"No treaty was established (hence the move to establish one now), and the force of violence of Cook’s encounters were repeated in generations of frontier wars, dispossession and murder. Historians might argue over the details and the extent of such force and violence (witness the so-called “history wars”), but there is ample evidence to attest to it. On that basis, “invasion” has a very different meaning to the much more benign sounding “settlement”."

What's with all the large bold fonts? Shouting the loudest doesn't win a debate
BS doesn't go too far either.

Originally Posted by Pickles2

They did not "invade",...of course you are very much entitled to say that, but you would no doubt be aware that you are amongst a small minority of activists..."
Pickles.

Acknowledging the truth is not activism.

Originally Posted by Ean Austral

I wasn't trying to put any blame onto any 1 particular person or event. It has been a long time since I read about Cpt Cook and then the first fleet , but iirc when cook arrived in botany bay , he seen 2 French flagged ships, I think were in the charge of Cpt La Perouse , and it would be very easy to assume they had been ashore as they would have been in search of fresh water. I think 1 ship was lost on the journey home but the British were worried that the French having already been here would try and settle first, so in sorts it was a race.

When the first fleet arrived , they encountered 2 French ships within weeks of having raised the colours in Sydney Cove , again these were in the command of La Perouse.

My point is , no matter where the ships came from , they would have been in search of fresh water , so its easy to assume they would have landed ashore. If they had any contact whatsoever with the Aboriginals, which would be pretty certain they would have , then chances are any disease could have been spread, and most likely was. Scurvy was rampant amoungst sailing ships in those days , any other type of disease would most likely have been as well. I have not read of actual accounts of disease infected blankets being given to Aboriginals in this country as suggested earlier.

As I say , am happy (or sadly) to be proven wrong

Cheers Ean

Yes, what you say is correct I believe. However they were only ashore for a short time but the British invasion was permanent so diseases spread rapidly. I seem to recall reports of natives going down rapidly to imported diseases in the early days, can't remember where I read it. Later, of course, there were multiple reports of deliberate poisonings, but that's a different issue.

Originally Posted by Pickles2

They did not "invade",...of course you are very much entitled to say that, but you would no doubt be aware that you are amongst a small minority of activists, who, desperate as they are, make a lot of noise, at every opportunity, to make the most of this myth. I've spoken to Indigenous people who are simply not interested, & as I said recently, a respected Indigenous personality wrote as much in the press recently. I quoted the article.
Pickles.

No, I think invasion is the generally accepted description now, except for the minority who want to deny history and pretend it was a peaceful settlement, which is just a silly argument.

Originally Posted by incisor

an interesting fact

in modern history, prior to 1928, every generation could expect to be vanquished at least once, "on average".

after 1928 that blew out to one in every three generations as the end of world war one, saw conquest rates collapse as the international legal footprint changed.

sadly china and russia are now attempting to break the shakles of that legal footprnt

interesting times ahead maybe.

Interesting fact
China never invaded any country

Btw Tibet ruled China long time ago. in year 763, when the Chinese emperor did not pay tribute to tibetans, tibetans destroyed the Chinese capital at that time.