Invaded or settled?
#46
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,576
Re: Invaded or settled?
I must admit I don't see that it matter because Oz benefited from the event.
England was invaded in 1066 by the Normans ( but you don't here them whinging about it all the time), it introduced diversity and made it a better place in the long run.
You cannot apply standards that apply today to what happened hundreds of years ago because you have to apply standard that apply at the time the event occurs.
It would be different if it happened today but we are talking about history.
England was invaded in 1066 by the Normans ( but you don't here them whinging about it all the time), it introduced diversity and made it a better place in the long run.
You cannot apply standards that apply today to what happened hundreds of years ago because you have to apply standard that apply at the time the event occurs.
It would be different if it happened today but we are talking about history.
#48
Re: Invaded or settled?
Same rule applies ?
We are actually being colonised right now.... Check out London and the white flight..... and then the centers of Melbourne and Sydney..... the politics here will come later. It's natural attrition.
Last edited by ozzieeagle; Apr 7th 2016 at 4:04 am.
#49
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: Invaded or settled?
Yep. That's what happens over time. It certainly could be the case.
#50
Re: Invaded or settled?
Blimey for once I kind of agree ....
We are actually being colonised right now.... Check out London and the white flight..... and then the centers of Melbourne and Sydney..... the politics here will come later. It's natural attrition...
#51
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: Invaded or settled?
Its the way it goes. People move, breed and colonise.
#52
Re: Invaded or settled?
Thing is the host populations of the west, silenced up until now by the left, are starting to take notice and push back - you see this with the rise of Pegida, Trump, Wilders, UKIP etc. And the difference to days gone past is that the host populations have the means and intelligence to resist........
The left and their 3rd world/islamic masters have made their move too early
It's not going to be pretty
#53
Re: Invaded or settled?
I guess it does
Thing is the host populations of the west, silenced up until now by the left, are starting to take notice and push back - you see this with the rise of Pegida, Trump, Wilders, UKIP etc. And the difference to days gone past is that the host populations have the means and intelligence to resist........
The left and their 3rd world/islamic masters have made their move too early
It's not going to be pretty
Thing is the host populations of the west, silenced up until now by the left, are starting to take notice and push back - you see this with the rise of Pegida, Trump, Wilders, UKIP etc. And the difference to days gone past is that the host populations have the means and intelligence to resist........
The left and their 3rd world/islamic masters have made their move too early
It's not going to be pretty
Islam and the Middle east are it's own worst enemy when it comes to power, it is destined to implode... yet again.
We are being blindsided by India of all countries.... not seeing them coming up the political, social and geo power ladder.... probably could be a lot worse masters out there.
#54
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: Invaded or settled?
I've had a few Indian bosses in my time. I can tell you its not good. Would take a Chinese one any day of the week.
#55
Re: Invaded or settled?
If you dont recognise that China and India will be the worlds major players in the next century then you've got the foresight of King Canute. I think I read somewhere that the largest group of Migrants in Aus... overtaking all other migrant numbers combined will be Indians within the next 10 years.
Islam and the Middle east are it's own worst enemy when it comes to power, it is destined to implode... yet again.
We are being blindsided by India of all countries.... not seeing them coming up the political, social and geo power ladder.... probably could be a lot worse masters out there.
Islam and the Middle east are it's own worst enemy when it comes to power, it is destined to implode... yet again.
We are being blindsided by India of all countries.... not seeing them coming up the political, social and geo power ladder.... probably could be a lot worse masters out there.
Where immigrants integrate and assimilate, it will be a success. Most Chinese and Indians do. Most muslims do not
Where multiculturalism has been the policy, failure has been the general outcome - you see this with islamic communities in Europe
The Chinese and Indians like what they see in Australia - an open free market economy with rule of law, low corruption and a clean environment. Many muslims do not and in fact detest democracy and equal rights for all
China and India will of course continue to grow. Australia will remain a western nation in Asia - changing of course but getting wealthier and still basically the same as today
Hope this helps
#57
Re: Invaded or settled?
I'm missing something, why would Zulu be kicked out? As far as I'm aware he didn't colonise anywhere.
#59
Re: Invaded or settled?
Total and utter crap ! I cant believe that you believe that
.
This ISIS mob and the western medias reaction has got you totally freaked out hasn't it.
So Curry, Pizza, Souvlaki and Yum Cha are ok and Kebabs and Falfels are not.... Because at the end of the day, when all is said and done, that's what it comes down to..... thats integration on the high street.
Or put another way... Hindi Temples, Othodox Church and Bhuddist Shrines are fine, but Mosques are evil ..... Your kidding aren't you. Sari's are in and Muslim headdress is out.... What a weird way of thinking.
#60
Re: Invaded or settled?
Interesting to see the usual entrenched views on this issue i.e. invaded or settled (although it's moved to it's usual anti-all Islam).
As one of the few posters born in Australia and who studied Australian history at school and university (2 years taught by Prof Geoffrey Blainey, one of Australia's most eminent historians and authors) I would make the following points:
1 Why did Captain James Cook not follow customary and maritime law at the time and instructions from his masters to negotiate a treaty with any indigenous people he encountered? (I'll answer my own question - Cook said he encountered savages and they were not entitled to a treaty).
2 Why did they resort to the legal lie and patently untrue idea that the land was 'terra nullius' (belonging to nobody)?
3 Invasion deniers are looking for an army and battles (such as Hastings) which didn't happen. The 'invasion' was at the micro level and widespread, both geographically and over time. The 'settlers' who took up land given to them by the British crown killed off any resistance they encountered and completed the job with their diseases such as smallpox which the indigenous people had no immunity to. If you really believe that the aboriginals weren't slaughtered in their tens of thousands in Tasmania and NSW in particular then you either have your head in the sand or haven't read enough on it.
I know it can't be changed and things were different then and all that but it happened and there's no denying it.
(anticipates usual lefty etc comments)
As one of the few posters born in Australia and who studied Australian history at school and university (2 years taught by Prof Geoffrey Blainey, one of Australia's most eminent historians and authors) I would make the following points:
1 Why did Captain James Cook not follow customary and maritime law at the time and instructions from his masters to negotiate a treaty with any indigenous people he encountered? (I'll answer my own question - Cook said he encountered savages and they were not entitled to a treaty).
2 Why did they resort to the legal lie and patently untrue idea that the land was 'terra nullius' (belonging to nobody)?
3 Invasion deniers are looking for an army and battles (such as Hastings) which didn't happen. The 'invasion' was at the micro level and widespread, both geographically and over time. The 'settlers' who took up land given to them by the British crown killed off any resistance they encountered and completed the job with their diseases such as smallpox which the indigenous people had no immunity to. If you really believe that the aboriginals weren't slaughtered in their tens of thousands in Tasmania and NSW in particular then you either have your head in the sand or haven't read enough on it.
I know it can't be changed and things were different then and all that but it happened and there's no denying it.
(anticipates usual lefty etc comments)