Invasion Day. (1 Viewer)

[bio_nut]

Dont be ridiculous Will, it was in no way an invasion. Nomadic tribes with no concept of property can't be invaded.

Was about to say this.

 

[SylviaB]

So what if it makes you uncomfortable? It was an invasion, stop sugar coating it.

"Hitler's settlement of Poland in 1939..."

Hitler: "Fuck you polish cunts this shits ours now you're gonna die faggots"

English settlers: "Well I do say what a most curious place this is. Oh look over there chaps, it's a coloured fellow! Everybody wave!"

 

[BlackDragon]

Hitler: "Fuck you polish cunts this shits ours now you're gonna die faggots"

English settlers: "Well I do say what a most curious place this is. Oh look over there chaps, it's a coloured fellow! Everybody wave!"

Well that's kind of true. Except they would have called the coloured fellow a savage and thought them inferior. But yeah, it wasn't at all an invasion.

 

[SylviaB]

Well that's kind of true. Except they would have called the coloured fellow a savage and thought them inferior.

lol of course

but they still had laws against killing them etc etc

 

[Riet]

Tbh in most regards they'd be justified in thinking that.

 

[mitchy_boy]

How about Under New Management Day.
Or lets get fucked up on VB day.

 

[dog on heat]

abo day

 

[moll.]

I don't get it. Since when are unarmed, shackled convicts used as frontline troops in an invasion?


Also:
Beat-Up-Ethnics-At-Cronulla-Day

 

[zaxmacks]

The day isn't celebrating an invasion, so why do people get so cranky?

 

[Fish Tank]

No British settlement? We'd be French colony. No French settlement? We'd be eating gumleaves.

 

[BlackDragon]

No British settlement? We'd be French colony. No French settlement? We'd be eating gumleaves.

We wouldn't be alive.

 

[Graney]

Dont be ridiculous Will, it was in no way an invasion. Nomadic tribes with no concept of property can't be invaded.

Even if it weren't an invasion, specific instances where indigenous people were violently forced off land they were presently occupying, is morally equivalent to invasion in any case.

The definition of ownership and property are defined by western norms, while they didn't stake a legal claim or form contracts specifying this ownership, and they may be nomadic to an extent, tribes operated in a specific area which was mutually recognized by other tribes, and depending on the people and area, there were forms and locations where they would be prepared to violently resist occupation. What better proof of ownership for a people without a written history can be offered than the preparation to die in response to the attempted occupation of land?

In what sense to you suggest there was no sense of property? Isn't the violent repulsion of intrusion into territory suggestive of acknowledgement the land is under the control of a certain people?

Women were certainly seen as property at least, and the killing and rape of these people by colonialists, as the theft of property, is an invasion of the tribes that suffered this persecution.

It's also misleading to say they were all nomadic. Some people occupied a given area for life, or at least as long as was ecologically viable.

Aboriginal people in some areas also built housing and raised crops, so y'know.

 

[Fish Tank]

We wouldn't be alive.

Or we'd be on some other colonised land, maybe eating monkeys and getting AIDZ.

 

[Fish Tank]

I don't get it. Since when are unarmed, shackled convicts used as frontline troops in an invasion?

A time where convicts were used in an invasion? Gallipoli. Yeh ANZACs were armed, but so were guards on First Fleet. They were shackled in Gallipoli, I think they called it 'under British command'. And ANZACs were used as a distraction so that British troops landed relatively safely.

So yes, the British would do something like that.

 

[NewiJapper]

No British settlement? We'd be French colony. No French settlement? We'd be eating gumleaves.

Actually if there was no british settlement we could have been german, but a couple of decades earlier they arrived on WA side and saw how much of a dump it was. LOL so they left

 

[zaxmacks]

Actually if there was no british settlement we could have been german, but a couple of decades earlier they arrived on WA side and saw how much of a dump it was. LOL so they left

Wasn't that the Dutch, not the Germans?

 

[Fish Tank]

Wasn't that the Dutch, not the Germans?

Probably both. Australia was colonised only because Captain Cook saw the east coast that was more to their liking in terms of vegetation and access to freshwater. Something like that.

I'm not too sure on First Fleet landing, because that was drummed out thanks to the bs yr 10 history syllabus.

 

[bio_nut]

Even if it weren't an invasion, specific instances where indigenous people were violently forced off land they were presently occupying, is morally equivalent to invasion in any case.

The definition of ownership and property are defined by western norms, while they didn't stake a legal claim or form contracts specifying this ownership, and they may be nomadic to an extent, tribes operated in a specific area which was mutually recognized by other tribes, and depending on the people and area, there were forms and locations where they would be prepared to violently resist occupation. What better proof of ownership for a people without a written history can be offered than the preparation to die in response to the attempted occupation of land?

In what sense to you suggest there was no sense of property? Isn't the violent repulsion of intrusion into territory suggestive of acknowledgement the land is under the control of a certain people?

Women were certainly seen as property at least, and the killing and rape of these people by colonialists, as the theft of property, is an invasion of the tribes that suffered this persecution.

It's also misleading to say they were all nomadic. Some people occupied a given area for life, or at least as long as was ecologically viable.

Aboriginal people in some areas also built housing and raised crops, so y'know.

I stopped caring when you mentioned women were just property. Sure, the English were still pretty darn sexist, but at least they weren't dirty tribesman. Being more concerned as to the loss of women as property rather than fellow members of the tribe means they deserved to get wiped off the planet anyway.

Or did you just word it poorly?

 

[bio_nut]

Probably both. Australia was colonised only because Captain Cook saw the east coast that was more to their liking in terms of vegetation and access to freshwater. Something like that.

I'm not too sure on First Fleet landing, because that was drummed out thanks to the bs yr 10 history syllabus.

It was the Dutch.

 

[zaxmacks]

I stopped caring when you mentioned women were just property. Sure, the English were still pretty darn sexist, but at least they weren't dirty tribesman. Being more concerned as to the loss of women as property rather than fellow members of the tribe means they deserved to get wiped off the planet anyway.

Or did you just word it poorly?

Just because your culture is different to theirs, doesn't mean it's right, muff butt.