Thread: Invasion or what?

Ahh. So that means that the Pilgrim Fathers actually invaded America.

Originally Posted by Twisted Tenon

I spose your relationship with your mate would permit a bit of banter along those lines because of the mutual respect. I doubt you would call him that if he didn't like it.

No not really "permissible banter" TT. It was during our very first conversation, and I asked him if that was an OK term to which he replied "hell yeah, I love being referred to as a Black Fella - because I am!".

Originally Posted by chrisb691

Ahh. So that means that the Pilgrim Fathers actually invaded America.

But they weren't the first.

Actually I think that 'Leif Erikson' a Viking was the first invader of the Americas but was defeated by the environment. Then followed somewhat later by the Spanish (Mid to late 1500s.) through Florida looking for The Fountain of Youth. Then the English in the Virginia area (1609) but I'm not sure why. The Pilgrims in what is now Massachusetts in 1620 to escape religious persecution. The Dutch settled New Amsterdam or what is now New York.

Somewhat similar to the settlement of Australia or so I've been taught.

In all the history classes that I've had, the word invasion was not used. I did not think of it as an invasion until reading this thread, which from the Native American viewpoint I'm sure it was.

What I have noticed with aboriginal cultures, world wide, is that the land was assumed to be owned or controlled by some sort of a supreme being. The concept of an individual actually owning the land did not exist within these cultures. The one that I am most familiar with is how the missionaries became land owners in Hawaii. It is similar to what was done by Europeans to the Americas.

I think of poor old King Canute, Trying to hold back the waves.

There is no way Australian aborigines could have maintained Australia as an island populated by a semi nomadic perhaps happy if now romanticised population.
It may have been the Dutch or the French or the Spanish, but someone was going to come to Australia as European civilizations developed means to travel the globe in search of gold and spices and land.

All continents, all islands, all civilizations suffer from interaction with or domination by more powerful neighbours; settlement of Australia by a more powerful more advanced nation was only a matter of time.

So this discussion is moot.

Settlement may have been brutal, but no more brutal than the Romans occupying much of Europe, Ghengis Khan in Central Asia, Stalin's treatment of his own people or global conquests by various religions

The rightness or wrongness of the past and the wording of historical events are of little consequence, they may be interesting discussion points, that's all. What is important is the future, the past cannot be changed.

However, I think we can all thank our lucky stars that it was the British who made the successful attempt to bring modernity to our nation, with its legal system and rule of law. I hesitate to think what would have happened if the Dutch, French or Spanish decided it a good location for whatever reason, probably to seek gold.....

Greg

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

It may have been the Dutch ..... ......, but someone was going to come to Australia as European civilizations developed means to travel the globe in search of gold and spices and land.

Actually the Dutch came first and saw it was wanting in spices etc, and we did not need a prison island , so we left it alone.

I hesitate to think what would have happened if the Dutch .... ..... decided it a good location for whatever reason

Probably guided the natives toward self government and in due course hand the country back to them like they did with their other colonial territories.

Peter.

I agree that the question is a moot point, any rational person would agree that the English invaded the country, murdered most of the natives and let their sicknesses try to do the rest, all in the name of the English Queen.

And remaining natives were oppressed and not given normal rights until the referendum altered the constitution.

But that is the past and we should now look at the future. Many things ought to be done but I believe that one of the first steps should be to alter Australia day away from the Invasion day.

Peter.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Probably guided the natives toward self government and in due course hand the country back to them like they did with their other colonial territories.

Peter.

This they did, albeit with a little help from the Japanese in 1945

TT

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Many things ought to be done but I believe that one of the first steps should be to alter Australia day away from the Invasion day.

Damned good idea Peter! I was going to suggest the Federation date, but that was 1/1/1 so that won't work with New Year and all.

So, best we become a republic pronto and use that date as Australia Day - much more meaningful anyway.

I think Tim Fisher suggested that Australia Day should be put on the last Friday in January so that people wouldn't be tempted turn it in to a 4 day weekend as readily.

On the subject of "settlement" vs "invasion", I always felt that for something to be called an invasion there should at least be token resistance to the invaders?

Either way, it is all semantics, just another country annexed by the Poms in the name of the reigning monarch and to the greater glory of the British Empire.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

So why pose the question as:The very premise of the question indicates that you feel that it is PC gone silly, given that you offer no alternatives.

Perhaps a less inflammatory question could have been "Do you feel this is accurate or otherwise". Even that indicates that there may be a fundamental position that actually should be debated.

Probably two reasons for that: pro-rata representation on here, and Aboriginal members may be too offended by the premise of the question to feel it worthwhile responding.


Well then surely you (and I mean you) must define it as an invasion if they were civilised, in which case it would not raise your original question.

If you re read my original post you will see that I said "IS it" and it is. And the alternative was "or what" meaning or what is it. And I was genuinely interested in the opinion of of the guys on the ground down there in Australia? I was not trying to be cleaver or offensive as you seem to me to be towards me?

The statement about the descendants was entirely tongue in cheek as indicated by the 'smilie' after it and as far as defining it as an invasion? I never mentioned what I thought either way and up until I read the article I had never even thought about it. It just happened and as was said above it was bound to happen by someone at some time.

Originally Posted by Jonzjob

If you re read my original post you will see that I said "IS it" and it is. And the alternative was "or what" meaning or what is it.
And I was genuinely interested in the opinion of of the guys on the ground down there in Australia? I was not trying to be cleaver or offensive as you seem to me to be towards me?

Hear, hear.

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

I think of poor old King Canute, Trying to hold back the waves.

There is no way Australian aborigines could have maintained Australia as an island populated by a semi nomadic perhaps happy if now romanticised population.
It may have been the Dutch or the French or the Spanish, but someone was going to come to Australia as European civilizations developed means to travel the globe in search of gold and spices and land.

All continents, all islands, all civilizations suffer from interaction with or domination by more powerful neighbours; settlement of Australia by a more powerful more advanced nation was only a matter of time.

So this discussion is moot.

Settlement may have been brutal, but no more brutal than the Romans occupying much of Europe, Ghengis Khan in Central Asia, Stalin's treatment of his own people or global conquests by various religions

The rightness or wrongness of the past and the wording of historical events are of little consequence, they may be interesting discussion points, that's all. What is important is the future, the past cannot be changed.

However, I think we can all thank our lucky stars that it was the British who made the successful attempt to bring modernity to our nation, with its legal system and rule of law. I hesitate to think what would have happened if the Dutch, French or Spanish decided it a good location for whatever reason, probably to seek gold.....

Greg

Greg, the discussion is not moot because Australia was invaded. As to the future, this has always had its foundations firmly in the past. So our future outlook will be shaped by how we descendants heal the pain of the invasion, distribute the resources equitably and move on from here.

TT

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Actually the Dutch came first and saw it was wanting in spices etc, and we did not need a prison island , so we left it alone.



Probably guided the natives toward self government and in due course hand the country back to them like they did with their other colonial territories.

Peter.

Like they did in South Africa? Yeah right and there are fairys at the bottom of my garden.

Originally Posted by Big Shed

I think Tim Fisher suggested that Australia Day should be put on the last Friday in January so that people wouldn't be tempted turn it in to a 4 day weekend as readily.

On the subject of "settlement" vs "invasion", I always felt that for something to be called an invasion there should at least be token resistance to the invaders?

Either way, it is all semantics, just another country annexed by the Poms in the name of the reigning monarch and to the greater glory of the British Empire.

They'd just take the monday off.
Token resistance? There is ample written evidence that those that survived the initial diseases were shot to pieces, burned out and pushed over the Hawkesbury Cliffs. The last recorded massacre was in the NT in 1928. No one was charged. No wonder there is a residual anger.

TT