MedVision ad

Invasion Day. (2 Viewers)

BlackDragon

Active Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
1,534
Location
Under The Tree
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Just because your culture is different to theirs, doesn't mean it's right, muff butt.
Yeah, the idea that because they weren't some western developed type people they were a lesser people is not true. These are the sorts of ideas that lead to the things that happened to them in the first place.
 

redmayne

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
212
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Got my aboriginal flag ready for the burning, solid day
Yet another stupid post from a fucked up individual.

Dont be ridiculous Will, it was in no way an invasion. Nomadic tribes with no concept of property can't be invaded.
My god some of you are in denial. Just because there wasn't a war and houses being taken . It was an invasion you fools. It was land occupied by the Aborigines. The English came in and took it. Dispossessed the land they used and did actually "own" in their way.

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!"
lol of course

but they still had laws against killing them etc etc
Sure there were "rules", but no one paid attention to them, not even the king. If they did, hundreds of thousands of Aborigines wouldn't have been killed.

They took over, okay. And condemned a thriving culture and society to the fate we see today.

But in no way should it be ever called anything close to "invasion day" or "colonisation/civilisation day". Just leave it the way it is and try to diminish its role as a rallying day for bogans and rednecks from the Sutherland Shire and beyond. Only a couple of years ago it was a fine day, now it's gone to shit.
 
Last edited:

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
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?
I'm not trying to glorify aboriginal culture. It was pretty awful. Whatever flaws there were in indigenous culture, it doesn't justify european actions.
 

Riet

Tomcat Pilot
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
3,622
Location
Miramar, CA
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
No I'm sorry, it was not an invasion.

Edit: I am not saying the way the aboriginal people have been treated since then was acceptable or trying to justify it. The landing of the first fleet was not an invasion and were it not for the british colonising here it would have been the dutch, french, spanish, portugese, etc. That's why it is known as the colonial period. Now, we can choose to celebrate Australia day as being a day about all of our immigrant cultures living together or the aboriginals can ostracise themselves with this archaic notion.
 
Last edited:

redmayne

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
212
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
No I'm sorry, it was not an invasion.

Edit: I am not saying the way the aboriginal people have been treated since then was acceptable or trying to justify it. The landing of the first fleet was not an invasion and were it not for the british colonising here it would have been the dutch, french, spanish, portugese, etc. That's why it is known as the colonial period. Now, we can choose to celebrate Australia day as being a day about all of our immigrant cultures living together or the aboriginals can ostracise themselves with this archaic notion.
You can't just say it's not and expect your word to be gospel.

What is colonising but a form of invasion?

Please explain your argument that it wasn't an invasion.
 

Riet

Tomcat Pilot
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
3,622
Location
Miramar, CA
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
I would define invasion as a hostile action, and although the actions of many individual settlers were perhaps less than noble, I believe that the intentions of the British rulers were more benevolent.
 

redmayne

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
212
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
I would define invasion as a hostile action, and although the actions of many individual settlers were perhaps less than noble, I believe that the intentions of the British rulers were more benevolent.
Within 12 years of the first hostile and one-sided interactions between Europeans and Indigenous peoples, due to a combination of introduced disease, dispossession of land, and direct violence, 80% of the Indigenous population surrounding Sydney was wiped out.

They came, they saw, they conquered.
 

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
I would define invasion as a hostile action, and although the actions of many individual settlers were perhaps less than noble, I believe that the intentions of the British rulers were more benevolent.
Land was commonly forcibly seized from people, often under armed contest, it's as benevolent as any annexation of inhabited land. It's the hostile state endorsed action to occupy territory recognized as occupied, and resources identified as controlled by a particular group of people.

Australian frontier wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Planck

Banned
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
741
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
We were cunts in the past. Was I a cunt in the past? Nope. I wasn't alive.
 

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
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.
lolwut?
Fail comparison.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top