moneypenny20

ozzieeagle

I blame the Romans .....

scrubbedexpat094

I blame the primordial soup. That's were all this invasion/colonisation business began.
What did primordial soup ever do for us ?????

bourbon-biscuit

I think students should make up their own minds about how to view the world too. I also think that those that actually really take the time to objectively look at Australia's history will come to see Australia as both invaded AND settled.

Being interested in looking at history not as a string of "facts" but as stories told and stories omitted and being interested in how the world looks when the omitted stories are told is one of the reasons I love the left; thinking is good

Beoz

But that's the point, if the left actually "thought" about what the term "invaded" means to division and destruction, they may not use it so loosely. Is division and destruction really what the left are all about? ..... not a very bright thing to do.

bourbon-biscuit

You think they use it loosely without thought .... !!!
There are Australians who do feel their country was invaded; that's not a perspective recently cooked up by some leftie academics to piss off the right. Does silencing that perspective result in or equate with unity? Does the discomfort that comes from thinking about something uncomfortable mean it's not worth thinking about the issue?

I'm not going to discredit your opinion by questioning your intellect so why not stick to the issue instead of trying to undermine the intellect of those who see the issue differently.

Anyways, you're entitled to your opinion about the issue; whatever.

BritInParis

There's a valid academic argument to be made for both points of view but rather than encouraging students to effectively argue for either side the university would rather dictate what is considered the 'acceptable' viewpoint. This is rife throughout higher education at the moment with 'safe spaces' and the Rhodes Must Fall brigade. Far too much emphasis currently being placed about what to think rather than how to think.

Amazulu

Australia was not invaded - it was claimed, settled and colonised

Anything else is revisionist mumbo jumbo

Gordon Barlow

I don't think it's a left-versus-right issue at all. Of course the British invaded Australia, as they did North America and every other foreign place where they established dominance. That's just plain English. Calling invaders "settlers" is misleading. The Israelis call what they're doing in Palestine "settling", but settlers can only do their thing if they've shoved the inhabitants out of the way first. When people charge through somebody's front door intent on taking over his house, we call it a "home invasion"; we don't call the newcomers "settlers". Sheesh!

Amazulu

Australia was not invaded - it was claimed and settled

Anything else is leftie, anti-west, revisionist mumbo jumbo

Palestine has nothing to do with what happened in Australia. Palestine belongs to Israel and the Palestinians will just have to accept this. Israel will never give their land up and will never be defeated - no matter how much the leftist anti-Semites want this to happen. End of

TGA

Great idea for a thread

scot47

Amazulu you are telling is that God gave Theodor Herzl, Cham Weizman and David Ben Gurion the title deeds for Israel ? Who is talking mumbo-jumbo now ?

Gordon Barlow

I suspect that the Zulu is being sarcastic. I haven't been following his comments on the various threads, but it's unlikely that anybody with an ounce of sense believes that Israel and its "settlers" didn't invade Palestine. They have deliberately modelled their takeover on the British actions in North America. Here's a recent report of the invasion of Europe by dispossessed migrants from the Middle East and North Africa; one or two of the natives are fighting back. A sign of the times.
https://www.rt.com/news/338155-greek...m_campaign=RSS

nw250134

Amazulu said, "Personally, I prefer the term colonisation - as it reflects both the political ideology of Empire and the actual activity of the time."

Australia was colonized by various waves of migrants from the North, some as far back as 60,000 years, more recent waves of unrelated migrants whose remains are shown to have different DNA, settled at least 40,000 years ago and in several different parts of the north of the country. More recent migrants from Europe were technologically advantaged and developed the land more than the simple fish traps and eel breeding areas in Victoria which had been achieved by the previous tenants.

Similarly, The Celtic Britons migrated from Western Europe then Britain was invaded/settled/developed by Romans, with superior technology, then Vikings, then Jutes, then Angles, and Saxons, and Scandinavians etc.

Settled? Colonized? Developed? The difference seems to be Point of View. The previous occupiers were previous tenants, not owners as their ancestors had settled or colonized some of the land.

Beoz

I am entitled to my opinion, and I will give it to you. Try discredit it all you want. Its been tried before and the left always fall. You will follow suit.

Call it whatever you like. Settled, invaded, who cares. You can't change history.

Australia has had migration, settling, invasions, etc, for millions of years. The arrival of Captain Cook and the fleets that followed is just another chapter. There will be more.

So has every place on earth.

What's the point in placing an aggressive word in place just so the lefties and minority groups can create a fight?

Of course the lefties will jump up and down about the cultural divide it as left and the monetary have's have nots it created, but let me ask you this, where do you think the pre Cook settlers would be today had British settlers not arrived?

And I call them pre Cook settlers because they were once settlers themselves. Calling them invaders would be inappropriate and may upset the left.