Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » World Events » Africa » Yep it Mo’s way or its the fast lane on the highway to hell

Yep it Mo’s way or its the fast lane on the highway to hell

click for source

Well here we have another fine example of the “religion of peace” living up to its reputation as the most loving and caring of the three great faiths which claim Abraham as a foundational author. They are clearly showing  the world just how they  can being the peace of the grave to unbelievers with their particular brand of spiritual soap powder.

Isn’t that just the most inspiring example of the ecumenical spirit?

Yep it Mo’s way or its the fast lane on the highway to hell:

Oh my bad That “religion of peace”don’t do music or fun either its all about supplication to their vision of the deity. I have but one simple question though, why on earth would any deity want or need the supplication of the faithful? Surely a supreme and perfect deity would not need such an ego boost or the power trip, HMM maybe its just another example of the face of the deity being created in the image of its prophet.

Cheers Comrades

Photobucket

Advertisements

324 Comments

  1. Craigy says:

    Interesting how the free elections in Egypt have elected a large Islamist party, the ‘Muslim Brothers’ or something. From reading the wingnut view, I thought the downtrodden Egyptians would have asked George Bush to form the Government? What goes there Iain?

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy
    I will have look into the Egypt issue over the next week or so and offer an opinion but just off the top of may head I think that the lack of a democratic culture and voluntary voting have something to do with the result. The real concern is that if they manage to get into government that they will follow the usual Muslim template and repress (further)those who don’t follow their faith.

  3. GD says:

    Don’t sound so pleased about it, Craigy.

  4. GD says:

    Once again, an atrocity occurs in the Middle East, caused by Islamists, and our Australian lefties, like Craigy, turn the other cheek, and drag the Bush administration into the picture.

    No Craigy, they voted for the Muslim brethren or whatever they are called, because they’re sh*theads, and they deserve the country they’ve got.

    Bleeding hearts like yourself refuse to see that, and insist on bringing as many of these people to Australia as is possible. What use these people, who vote for a continuation of Islamic rule, are to Australia I don’t know.

  5. Craigy says:

    Nice comment GD …really nice…..

    Spoken like a true armchair warrior. Cowards like you are always good for calling the entire population of a country sh*theads (or worse) from the safety of your keyboard. I know you would never have the guts to say that in the company of a citizen of Egypt… This is so typical of gutless anonymous wingnuts. Any opportunity to show how proudly (self snipped) you are.

    Do you enjoy publishing these kinds of comments from GD Iain?

    BTW, I take being called a ‘bleeding heart’ as a complement.

    I gather you think your cold, hard, (snipped) heart is an asset to your personality, like most extreme wingnuts do? Good luck with that.

  6. damage says:

    “I take being called a ‘bleeding heart’ as a complement.”
    No more to be said.

  7. Ray Dixon says:

    Do you enjoy publishing these kinds of comments from GD Iain?

    I’ve seen some fairly racist comments published elsewhere too, Craigy. At blogs that you endorse, or at least ones where you generally support both the politics and principles of the blog author(s). You know where I mean. GD’s language and clearly prejudiced views re Egyptians and “Islamists” may not be very pallatable but what are you suggesting, that Iain censors his comments and disallows anything that is offensive and/or that displeases your particular view of the world? Do you/have you/would you put those blog authors on the spot like the way you’ve just complained to Iain? I don’t think so.

    That said, I disagree entirely with our resident redneck GD on his “shithead” views of Egypt, although I do agree that Egypt is one hopeless country that has failed over thousands of years to work out how to govern itself and that, therefore, Egyptians do indeed get the rotten governments they deserve.

  8. Ray Dixon says:

    Bleeding hearts like yourself refuse to see that, and insist on bringing as many of these people to Australia as is possible. What use these people, who vote for a continuation of Islamic rule, are to Australia I don’t know.

    Gee, GD, what use to Australia were the Greeks who voted for a continuation of Socialist rule? Or the Italians who voted for a continuation of the most unstable form of Government in the Western world. The Vietnamese, some of them were Commos! And a lot of Pommie immigrants also voted for Harold Bloody Wilson when he was PM, so what good were they to Australia too?

    What do you reckon these “Islamists” will do if we let them in, GD, form an Islamist Party and put them in power in Oz? Because, you know, “these people”, these “islamists”, these “burqa clad bludging muslims” just won’t assimilate and become decent, upstanding and tolerant citizens like … like you! And they’ll never work, will they?

    You really are a worry wort, GD. Do you hide under your bed at night?

  9. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy I don’t endorse GD’s intemperate language however this blog is not into censoring comments so its over to Stephen Fry:
    Photobucket

  10. GD says:

    sheesh, so replace ‘sh*theads’ with ‘hotheads’….how’s that? btw I live and work alongside two Egyptian businessmen, Christian, not Muslim, and they agree about the situation in Egypt.

  11. Ray Dixon says:

    Too little, too late, GD.

  12. GD says:

    I’m not changing any other part of my comment Ray. I’d say it again. You actually agreed with most of it, using more reserved language.

  13. Ray Dixon says:

    I didn’t agree with any of it, GD. I was only being kind to you when I said “I agree” that Egypt is a hopeless nation etc, but that wasn’t the guts of what you were really saying. The thrust of your comment was aimed at denigrating Islamic immigrants. Like it always is. You know what? I reckon you could say the same thing (ie. “what good are these people to Australia”) about a good percentage of Aussie born citizens too. What good is: Pauline Hanson, Kate McCullough, Fred Nile, Sophie Mirabella (and she’s of Greek ancestry) too? Let’s deport them to … New Zealand. You should go with them, seeing as though you hate the way our country is evolving. Happy Kiwi talking. Learn to say “six” for “sex” and “fush” for “fish”. Great music scene in NZ, I hear.

  14. T.O.I. says:

    So according to GD, Egypt is a “failed nation” and its people are “sh*theads” who get the government they deserve. Nice, really nice.

    By that criteria, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan are all “sh**heads” too because they ended up with dictators. Makes you wonder why the US and Deputies Tony and John bothered helping them.

    What about Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Syria, Jordan, etc. All “failed nations” full of “sh**heads” too?

    GD speaks like a man who has never been anywhere in his life and never walked in anyone else’s shoes. But he lives in a Muslim-infested part of Sydney and he’s got gay Egyptian friends who keep him informed.

  15. Sax says:

    Speaking of people who are talking about places they have never been to.
    C’mon you lot. In a vain effort to appear to be “politically correct”, you have ignored the obvious.

    For proof of the damage of radical religion (not necessarily Islam either, all religions are just as guilty), one only has to look at the current situation in Iraq, as well as Lebanon and all the other trouble hot spots. Bombs, murders, beheadings, blood feuds/family retaliations and so on. That is the damage, religious infighting is doing to this planet. Hell, again, look at the b/s in western Sydney ffs. Funny, how in their embarrassment, regrouping their numbers, they have managed to silence that nutter leader of theirs, out of reach of news cameras lately ?

    As for your universal benevolence Ray, western Sydney is exactly the reason as to why we should be more prudent, to whom we allow into this country. Do they want to live in Australia, or a cloned “mini – Beirut” ?

    I am not talking about religious discrimination, rather just a straight criminal check, may do for starters. What happened to that little practice ? Again, funny how their papers always get lost ? There have been many hundreds of thousands, of all religious immigrants, into this country for decades. None before have resorted to burning their digs, or rioting ? That is not being discriminatory, just history !

    You guys want to talk about failed nations, check all those middle eastern coutries, drunk with petro dollars, spending it all on palaces, weapons, as well as invasions of their neighbours. What are they fighting over ? A bloody sand and oil cocktail ? Seriously, what has it done for the prosperity of the respective countries, and their long suffering poor as a whole ?
    Bloody nothing, but make the situation there worse.

    BTW TOI, those countries you mentioned all share the same thing.
    1% are rich beyond their wildest dreams, whilst the remainder 99% live in poverty and squalor. Yep, wonderful religion that one, what a success story !

  16. T.O.I. says:

    BTW TOI, those countries you mentioned all share the same thing.
    1% are rich beyond their wildest dreams, whilst the remainder 99% live in poverty and squalor. Yep, wonderful religion that one, what a success story !

    As opposed to the USA and Europe, where wealth is evenly shared, there is no poverty and there was absolutely definitely no financial collapse (and if there was, the bankers and moguls had nothing to do with it.) Wonderful system that capitalism!
    Most social inequality comes from the political and economic systems in place. All religions do is support those systems. So while I personally think Islam is a load of swingers, it’s the dictators, royal families, oil sheiks and oligarchs in those places who have contributed most to their ruin.

  17. Ray Dixon says:

    By that criteria, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan are all “sh**heads” too because they ended up with dictators

    TOI, I don’t think (like GD does) that the people of those nations are all “shitheads”. GD just thinks that anyone from a muslim country is a “shithead”, even though I doubt he’s all that pretty himself! But …. they certainly do get the governments they deserve. In any country it is ultimately the will of the people that prevails. Sure, you can have oppressive regimes, dictators and the like but they will eventually be overthrown if the people desire that to be so. I would suggest that every country in the world is exactly where it wants to be at this very moment in time. Take the Middle East (Israel & Palestine), they are fighting & killing each other … because that’s what they want to do. Look at Afghanistan, a country that has never known peace and one that doesn’t seem to want it either. They are idiot nations, TOI, and pouring sympathy and assistance on them only feeds the problem and doesn’t help them. What should we do? I suggest ignoring them – politically & economically. Let them come to their senses and realise that if they want to be part of the real world they need to start behaving themselves. Otherwise they are nothing more than badly behaved children … and pandering to them only makes it worse.

    As for your universal benevolence Ray, western Sydney is exactly the reason as to why we should be more prudent, to whom we allow into this country. Do they want to live in Australia, or a cloned “mini – Beirut” ?

    Geezus you’re an idiot, Sax. Your whole comment is insane – as you are.

  18. Sax says:

    And who holds the power in those countries TOI ?
    Would it be the wealthy 1% perhaps ? Geez, only have to look at the Saudi royal family to see that.
    Hmm, well that makes your entire argument moot.

    As for you Ray, another restrained, sensible, well researched line and a half of bloody dribble !
    Not that we expect too much more from you these days.

  19. T.O.I. says:

    Ray, I suspect the problem is that a lot of these countries aren’t actually meant to be countries. They are just shapes on a map drawn by the UN or some departing colonial power. There are often so many competing tribes, lanuage groups, religions and families that often the only type of ruler who can rule effectively is a dictator. Saddam was a case in point, he had to govern Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and others and relied on force to hold Iraq together. If not for Saddam’s admittedly brutal rule, Iraq would have been ripped apart by in fighting, civil war, competition for land and resources, etc.
    People like GD who think they export these hatreds and tribal divisions here ignore the fact that Muslim immigrants are a distinct minority. They lack the numbers to change the country and the country ends up changing them. Sure, some take a long time to assimilate, and many of them never end up drinking VB, eating 4n20 pies or going to the footy. But so what, so long as they are contributing something to Australia.

  20. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, it requires ZERO research to rebutt your ranting & rambling comments. You are so far out of touch that I wonder if you’ve ever been in the real world. Look at your comment about Western Sydney – mate, you are exprsressing sheer bigotry much like GD, the difference being that, unlike GD, you have no first hand knowledge of the situation in that area. At least GD speaks from his experiences, albeit a slanted view. You, on the other hand, speak out your ar*e.

  21. T.O.I. says:

    And who holds the power in those countries TOI ? Would it be the wealthy 1% perhaps ?

    Who holds the power in the US, “Sax”? The Republican and Democratic parties. And who gets selected by those parties to run for president / Congress? The people who can spend millions of $$$ on campaigns, primary elections, corporate support, etc.

  22. GD says:

    Ray, excellent comment. I agree, why send aid to countries* like you mentioned in the hope they will pull themselves out of the mire. They haven’t, they won’t until, as you say, the people themselves decide. That is the basis of my original statement about Egypt. Faced with a ‘free’ election, they elect an Islamist government. Immediately after all the hoo-har about the ‘Arab Spring’. Go figure!

    You can lead a horse….

    (*Rudd’s still doing it)

    Then, however, you dispute my and Sax’s suggestion that we vet our immigrants more rigidly. As Sax so pertinently points out, Western Sydney has had a plethora of drive-by shootings recently, all being investigated by the Middle Eastern Crime Squad. This squad are being thwarted in their investigations because even the victims won’t co-operate with police.

    Premier Barry O’Farrell was on radio today. He acknowledged that the shootings weren’t a case of bikie gangs, but were due to Middle Eastern tribal conflicts.

    ‘Middle Eastern tribal conflicts’?? These people have been here for three generations. 😦

    I suggest your premise of all immigrants eventually fitting in is a bit Pollyanna.

    At least Barry O’Farrell has the guts to call it what it is, unlike the Left who cover their ears and eyes when any criticism of Islam is mentioned.

    http://www.2gb.com/?option=com_content&task=view&id=8237&Itemid=90

  23. Sax says:

    Again, more feel good lefty logic from Bright.
    Nothing to back it up with, but a good attempt none the less.
    Speaking of being out of touch with the real world.
    Just how far, have rulers in the middle east gone, to ensure that they not only retain power, but enhance it ? Do we really need to embarrass you even more by pointing out those facts for you ? Use a bit of that superior intellect you supposedly have ffs.

    Drive by shootings are the least of the problems GD.
    What about the way/methods branches of Islam use, to ensure that their population stay in line ? Western Sydney is just a very small part of the puzzle. But, to the rest of us, that rarely see, or have to endure the intimidation tactics, is a pretty scary situation. All fine for those, who live in the mountains, far away from such problems, with their heads in the sand, (or up their ar*e), stating that there isn’t a problem ?

    You don’t have to be branded a racist, to stand up, and say, hey, we have a problem ? Instead of being seen as racist, why not just deal with the problem in the first place ?

  24. Sax says:

    BTW TOI ?
    the money used to fund campaigns comes from their own personal wealth, as WELL AS monies raised through the thousands of suburban campaign fund raisers. Ever heard that term before perhaps ? Not unlike perhaps, the way they do it here in Australia ?

  25. GD says:

    people like GD who think they export these hatreds and tribal divisions here ignore the fact that Muslim immigrants are a distinct minority

    That’s correct TOI. I.7% if my figures are up to date. Isn’t it funny how such a distinct minority has managed to have halal food introduced into school tuckshops, and the mention of Jesus and Christmas removed from our usual December celebrations. The Buddhists and Hindus are quite happy to live in our society without agitating for change, yet if you had visited any government department in December, it was ‘Happy Holidays’. I did, and what a lot of codswallop. Greeting other Caucasians, and other Christians, I was restrained from saying ‘Merry Christmas’.

    Also TOI, see my previous comment links to the NSW Premier saying that the drive by shootings in Sydney recently are ‘due to Middle Eastern tribal conflicts’. It’s already happening TOI. It’s happened in Europe.

    While Ray reckons we have a different situation here in Australia, it’s worrying to think that in diverse societies such as liberal Norway and Sweden, and traditionally conservative Britain, there is a pattern of Muslim agitation and interference. The rampant cries for Sharia in Europe are more than a few hotheads, or radicals. There is clearly a movement intent on achieving this.

    While I am labelled a bigot and racist for pointing this out, you choose to ignore it is at your own peril. And that of your children.

  26. GD says:

    Sax said:

    And who holds the power in those countries TOI ? Would it be the wealthy 1% perhaps?

    And TOI said:

    Who holds the power in the US, “Sax”? The Republican and Democratic parties.

    Which country would you rather live in TOI?

  27. GD says:

    Once again, TOI, you and your lefty mates are revealed as hypocrites.

  28. Ray Dixon says:

    you dispute my and Sax’s suggestion that we vet our immigrants more rigidly

    We probably have the most thorough screening process in the world, GD. On what basis do you say it’s not good enough? On the drive-by shootings? As you said, they had been here 3 generations, meaning (um) they were born here. They weren’t bloody immigrants, GD.

    And where is your proof that those of Middle Eastern descent commit more crimes than Aussie born caucasians? There are a lot of “shitheads” in Australia too, GD, and they’re not the imported ones. Your prejudice against certain races is a shining light, mate. Tell me, do you go into the streets of western Sydney and preach this crap? Give it a try.

    Sax,
    … oh, never mind. I think I’ll take Denis Pagan’s advice and not argue with idiots … in case I become one.

  29. Iain Hall says:

    TOI
    There may indeed be a big difference in who is wealthy in the west but it is nothing in comparison to those Islamic states that you are so sympathetic to.
    Further in the west at the very least we value and respect our women rather than wanting to keep them subjugated to the patriarchy as is the case in every Islamic country on the Planet.
    Photobucket

  30. Sax says:

    … oh, never mind. I think I’ll take Denis Pagan’s advice and not argue with idiots … in case I become one.

    Oops ! Ossie Ostrich Too late !

    Thats the reason as to why a non Muslum cannot go to Western Sydney, and preach bloody anything Ray. Man, wake up and smell what you’re shovelling. Remember back to the “non-assimilation” arguments of the seventies regarding the Vietnamese refugees ? At least now, some forty years later, the next generation is trying. These latest arrivals, have no intention of assimilating. They want us to assimilate to their lifestyle and religion. It is a real shame, (and pretty obvious by the tone of your uneducated rhetoric), that you haven’t seen some of the documentaries on the subject. But, you have a closed mind when it comes to most things, including immigration. You seem to subscribe to the old sixties adage of the populate or perish principle, no matter the cost to our culture, present and future.

    You really need to grow up, and open your eyes to what is really going on out there.
    Your apathy, and feel good vibrations are about 50 years behind the times.

  31. Sax says:

    They are idiot nations, TOI, and pouring sympathy and assistance on them only feeds the problem and doesn’t help them. What should we do? I suggest ignoring them – politically & economically. Let them come to their senses and realise that if they want to be part of the real world they need to start behaving themselves. Otherwise they are nothing more than badly behaved children … and pandering to them only makes it worse.

    Pandering to them, is exactly what you are advocating Ray, and what you have attempted to do, by shovelling inflamed rhetoric on me, or anyone else here, that has suggested a stricter immigration policy to stop it.

    But no, Ray says let em in. She’ll be right mate. Better to have a few riots, a new mafia style suburban lifestyle, and all the rest of the wonderful traits come into our society, than to have some undeducated knucklehead call us racists ?

    History has always shown, that tribal or civil strife has always accompanied new arrivals when they settle here. They ALWAYS bring their bloody wars with them.

    A shame you can’t, or perhaps more importantly, you WON’T see it ?

  32. Ray Dixon says:

    Pandering to them, is exactly what you are advocating Ray and what you have attempted to do, by shovelling inflamed rhetoric on me, or anyone else here, that has suggested a stricter immigration policy to stop it.

    No, Sax, I said we should NOT pander to those nations who can’t control themselves. I wasn’t talking about immigration, which is an entirely different issue. As for a “stricter immigration policy”, well, do go on Mr Expert. Enlighten us with your vision for Australia’s future. What are these “stricter controls” you think we should have? You do realise that our immigration controls today are far more strict than in the 50s & 60s when we let any ‘Ten Pound Pom’ into the country provided they were under 45 years of age and … white! Oh, that’s right, you lost that argument and you were absolutely proven wrong – by FACTS – but still, you somehow claimed you had won it! You are amazing, Sax, and I’m starting to believe you are actually a parody character, just making shit up for the sake of it. I mean, no one could be so pig-headed stupid as you come across.

    Good day – I’ve made a mistake (again) in arguing with the village idiot. I think I’ll go outside and get some fresh air. You’re nuts!

  33. Sax says:

    Careful about who you are calling pig headed Socky. Man, that’s rich !

    My future for Australia ?
    A Balanced society.
    One that invites peoples from ALL over the planet, if they want to come.
    All on the priviso, that this is Australia. A different country from which they came.
    If they can accept that proviso, without attempting to change it to a clone of their homeland, the second they get off the plane, then forget it, STAY AT HOME.

  34. Sax says:

    Sorry, don’t know what happened there.
    to continue.

    I have always advocated a balance in our immigration. Also, a stricter adherence to our laws, when they arrive and settle, wherever the bloody hell they come from. If they decide to intimidate us, by burning down their digs, send them home. If their youth begin to form gangs, and run amok without parental supervision, send the whole family home.

    Whatever happened to the contract, that used to have to be signed by ALL new arrivals, to obey our laws, or be deported ?

    You really getting emotional again Ray, a sure sign again, that you have lost the argument, and personal insults are all you have left. That is always what you resort to. You’re an uneducated fool, incapable of intelligent banter.

    Go outside in the garden, and next hole you dig, stick your bloody head down deep into it.
    That should feel like home for you ?
    😉

  35. Craigy says:

    Iain, I wasn’t calling for censorship, I just asked you what you thought about his comment and if you are happy with it.

    I can just see GD at work with his Egyptian workmates…..GD – “Hey, you – Egyptian sh*theads, get over here now!”

    Man he must be fun to be around.

    Ray – I think TOI makes the most sense when he talks about the way Egypt is governed. I don’t think you can say they get the Government they deserve, as the average Egyptian has had very little say in the way the country has been ruled, until now.

    The fact that they have elected Islamists, in large numbers, in free elections, is probably due to the fact that they think they will do a better job of representing the people who voted for them.

    In other words they don’t see Islam and the Islamists as being as repressive as we are constantly told they are, by the paranoid wingnuts and the wingnut controlled media.

    Clearly the Egyptians see Islamist rule as being quite positive.

    GD, Iain and others, why don’t you accept the freedom of these people to elect those they trust?

    Why can’t you accept that some people have very good reasons for not trusting capitalists?

  36. Ray Dixon says:

    Craigy, that all sounds good in theory. How much credibility do you give the Egyptian election results though? Not that I have any information to suggest they weren’t run properly but …. have a look at what goes on in so many other Islamic countries such as: Pakistan, Indonesia & Malaysia. Do you seriously trust their election results as being the end result of the majority exercising free will?

    Sax, your thoughts and ideas on our immigration policy are just terrific. Your grasp of reality astounds me. I’m going to Christen you “Einstein”. You’re a bloody genius, mate!

  37. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy

    I wasn’t calling for censorship, I just asked you what you thought about his comment and if you are happy with it.

    Hmm well I would not have expressed an onion in those terms but then its not for me to get too precious about such things

  38. T.O.I. says:

    GD, Iain and others, why don’t you accept the freedom of these people to elect those they trust?

    Like the US, they are great fans of self-determination and the people’s right to choose their leaders… until they choose leaders who are communist, Islamic or won’t sell them oil. Then all hell breaks loose. To my mind, self determination has to apply to everyone equally or it is a waste of breath even mentioning it.

    Whatever happened to the contract, that used to have to be signed by ALL new arrivals, to obey our laws, or be deported ?

    Yes whatever did happen to that, “Sax”? Because I have never heard of it. Immigrants have been required to respect our government and abide by our laws, but never under threat of deportation. That is just your imagination at work.

    Remember back to the “non-assimilation” arguments of the seventies regarding the Vietnamese refugees ? At least now, some forty years later, the next generation is trying.

    You have no idea “Sax”. Not only are you suggesting that Vietnamese who came here 40 years ago are just starting to integrate (which is bollocks), you are arguing against your own premise. Most people who come to Australia and settle here, whether English, Asian, Arabic or other, eventually become Australian. It takes some a few months, others a few years, others longer. But it happens. If you are arguing that Muslims who arrive will never, ever, ever become Australian, then you are living in a dream world.

  39. Iain Hall says:

    TOI

    Like the US, they are great fans of self-determination and the people’s right to choose their leaders… until they choose leaders who are communist, Islamic or won’t sell them oil. Then all hell breaks loose. To my mind, self determination has to apply to everyone equally or it is a waste of breath even mentioning it.

    No I don’t care who they elect as leaders or what sort of government that they have however if it is a “bad” governemnt then I have the right to express an opinion to that effect, They can choose what they please but neither I no the rest of the world are obliged to just say “ah well they chose their government and now they are beyond criticism”.

    Whatever happened to the contract, that used to have to be signed by ALL new arrivals, to obey our laws, or be deported ?

    Yes whatever did happen to that, “Sax”? Because I have never heard of it. Immigrants have been required to respect our government and abide by our laws, but never under threat of deportation. That is just your imagination at work.

    Hmm I don’t think that you are quite right there TOI but then Sax is also exaggerating a bit here as well, Non citizens can be deported if the break our laws but the bar for that happening is rather high and the usually have to have spent substantial periods of time in Jail before they are given the boot, once they are citizens then its impossible to deport criminals even if they hold the citizenship of another country.

    You have no idea “Sax”. Not only are you suggesting that Vietnamese who came here 40 years ago are just starting to integrate (which is bollocks), you are arguing against your own premise. Most people who come to Australia and settle here, whether English, Asian, Arabic or other, eventually become Australian. It takes some a few months, others a few years, others longer. But it happens. If you are arguing that Muslims who arrive will never, ever, ever become Australian, then you are living in a dream world.

    Sax does have a point about the followers of Islam TOI and that is the simple fact that the ideology is profoundly antithetical to our modern secular society and the experience in places like Europe suggests that once the Muslim population reaches a certain critical mass then you start having them agitating to shape the host society into an Islamic one. Its the old problem of what do you do when confronted by their intolerance of say homosexuality or their anti-Semitism? Do we just look the other way hold our fingers in our ears and sing la la la?

  40. Ray Dixon says:

    the experience in places like Europe suggests that once the Muslim population reaches a certain critical mass then you start having them agitating to shape the host society into an Islamic one.

    Europe is not Australia, Iain. It’s not an island. It’s not a “secular society” and consists of multiple nations, all of different cultures. It has a long history of violence, wars, revolutions and general argy bargy between different nations and within nations. It has a population of what, about 300 million? I’m guessing on that but the point is compared to Australia – a similar sized land mass – Europe is already overcrowded. Australia is a young society with a small population and has a history of being the most stable country in the world. We don’t have race wars, civil wars and the infighting that Europe has and will always have. We are laid back and more accepting. Well, most of us are. There is nothing to fear from muslims in this country and if you think there is even the seed of any agitation to convert Australia into an Islamic society then let’s have your examples, please.

  41. T.O.I. says:

    No I don’t care who they elect as leaders or what sort of government that they have however if it is a “bad” governemnt then I have the right to express an opinion to that effect

    Of course you do. But their right trumps yours, because it’s their country and they get to decide the government they please, whether you think it is good or bad. And for the record, I think there are a lot of “bad” governments around the world, Islamic and otherwise. I don’t think there were too many Muslims in the Greek, Italian or Spanish governments, which ran their countries into the ground. I don’t think Putin and Medvedev are Muslims.

    Hmm I don’t think that you are quite right there TOI

    No I am right. There has never been a formal ‘contract’ between the Aust government and immigrants that specifies the latter must follow laws or be deported. Although of course many of them have been (and most of the deportations of criminals I can remember of late have been Britons…)

    Sax does have a point about the followers of Islam TOI and that is the simple fact that the ideology is profoundly antithetical to our modern secular society and the experience in places like Europe suggests that once the Muslim population reaches a certain critical mass then you start having them agitating to shape the host society into an Islamic one.

    I agree that Islam is full of nonsense medieval bulldust and has no place in modern society, but to suggest that 1.7% of Australians is trying to create a Muslim theocracy is just ridiculous. Even if they were, do you think the rest of us are going to let it happen? I know that the tabloid beat ups about schools selling halal snags and not celebrating Christmas (which IMO they shouldn’t be doing in the first place anyway) is cannon fodder for Islamophobe reactionaries like you and GD. But out on the ground, most Australian Muslims are living productive and unintrusive lives in the community.

  42. T.O.I. says:

    If you had visited any government department in December, it was ‘Happy Holidays’. I did, and what a lot of codswallop. Greeting other Caucasians, and other Christians, I was restrained from saying ‘Merry Christmas’.

    Were you really restrained? Did some one hold you down and punch you in the mouth if the words “Merry Christmas” started to form on your lips?
    I was in the Department of Sustainability and Environment in December and I didn’t notice this, in fact they had a large MERRY CHRISTMAS banner in the reception. Maybe the Muslim hit squads haven’t got round to them yet GD.

  43. JM says:

    Sax: Whatever happened to the contract, that used to have to be signed by ALL new arrivals, to obey our laws, or be deported ?

    You’re full of it. Really you are.

    As pointed out above, violation of our laws usually entails a.) punishment and b.) deportation. Sometimes the deportation part has been conducted in very cruel circumstances particularly since the mid ’90’s

    Secondly, I recall the that the Howard government introduced an “Australian Values” requirement for all long term visa applicants. If you wish to confirm this you can visit the DIAC website and download application forms for long term and permanent visas and you’ll find all of them include a section for it for the applicant to complete.

    That is a contract. You don’t get or keep the visa without it.

    Sax, it is very tough to get a visa in this country and much tougher than it used to be even 10 years ago.

    Don’t pretend otherwise.

  44. Ray Dixon says:

    ‘Sax” is just checking his “facts” and “research” before he comes back with yet another scrambled eggs rant on immigrants, JM. He’s a ‘Ten Pound Pom’ you know? Well, sort of – he’s not real sure on that.

  45. Iain Hall says:

    TOI

    Of course you do. But their right trumps yours, because it’s their country and they get to decide the government they please, whether you think it is good or bad. And for the record, I think there are a lot of “bad” governments around the world, Islamic and otherwise. I don’t think there were too many Muslims in the Greek, Italian or Spanish governments, which ran their countries into the ground. I don’t think Putin and Medvedev are Muslims.

    I think That you are mistaken here, while the residents of a badly governed country do have a stake in the issue that has no bearing at all upon may ability to offer a critique. Further you are wrong to imply that I see Islam as the epitome of all that is wrong with the world. I don’t.

    I agree that Islam is full of nonsense medieval bulldust and has no place in modern society, but to suggest that 1.7% of Australians is trying to create a Muslim theocracy is just ridiculous. Even if they were, do you think the rest of us are going to let it happen? I know that the tabloid beat ups about schools selling halal snags and not celebrating Christmas (which IMO they shouldn’t be doing in the first place anyway) is cannon fodder for Islamophobe reactionaries like you and GD. But out on the ground, most Australian Muslims are living productive and unintrusive lives in the community.

    Thank you for acknowledging that Islam has some very dodgy ideas in its ideology but then you fall into the very common and rather sad leftist error of thinking that there is something wrong with the likes Of GD or myself saying clearly and concisely what is wrong with that religion and how it is practised both here and overseas.Why are you so afraid to do any thing more than pay lip service to the vices of this faith?

  46. Ray Dixon says:

    Why are you so afraid to do any thing more than pay lip service to the vices of this faith?

    TOI can speak for himself on that, Iain, but the way I see it, the so-called “vices” of Islam are mainly overseas (well, almost exclusively) and just because some maniacs blow up some Aussie tourists in Bali in the name of Islam is no reason to restrict other, law abiding muslims from emmigrating to Australia. That’s tarring everyone with the same brush.

  47. Sax says:

    How would you guys know how hard it is to get a visa to get in this country ?

    None have you, in your abuse, and ego driven dribble, have come forth with one of the first pre requisites of filling out the visa application. It is pretty standard for all countries these days.
    do you have a criminal record ?
    sound familiar ?

    With allowing refugees into the country, without these valid checks, what happens to the entire immigration policy ? Right out the window. All you lefties are the same. I notice none of you live in western Sydney ? Pretty easy to judge from a thousand miles away isn’t it kids ?

    Again, you drones have got it backwards.
    It is not the Islamic religion that is the problem, it the power hungry freaks, that are trying to control it, to their own benefit. We never let any other religion in history, to manipulate and control the way radical islam has tried to. Why should they be any different ?
    Political correctness ?

    When it does hit the fan, you feel good lefties, cry religious discrimination towards anyone willing to stand up and say, no, this behaviour is not acceptable in this country.
    How do the problems get solved ?
    Using the force ?

  48. Richard Ryan says:

    Gee Golly! A racist is “anyone winning an argument with a leftist”. Shalom, Richard Ryan.

  49. JM says:

    Sax: With allowing refugees into the country, without these valid checks [police checks]

    Can I particularly refer you to this page on the DIAC website

    And specifically to this section:


    In order for the Australian Government to determine whether you are of good character, you may be asked to provide a penal clearance certificate. These certificates are also known as a police certificate in some countries.

    ie. No criminals get into this country. None. Period.

    And further there are other aspects of the character check that are wider than criminal records.

    Sax. You are flat out wrong.

  50. Sax says:

    Your kidding JM ?

    So, every so called refugee, calls their government, the day before they hit the boats, and ask for a penal clearance certificate ? Your reference refers to normal immigrants, not refugees. Talking about another dry reach.

    These people are supposedly frightened of state driven discrimination, and supposedly in very fear of their lives. So, they call their immigration/police department, and ask for their records ? 😆 It’s not a funny matter, but your explanation of it is.

    Remember back to the Vietnam mass exodus. How many had to take up surnames that were not there own ? I could quote a few, but that would be unfair to them.

    Most don’t even arrive with a passport. Their governments won’t issue them with one, or they are too frightened to even apply for one. Also, it helps those that don’t WANT to get one, to more successfully hide within the ranks of the legitimate refugees.

    C’mon JM, surely you can do better than that ?

  51. GD says:

    It’s not a funny matter, but your explanation of it is.

    Good one, Sax! 🙂

  52. T.O.I. says:

    None have you, in your abuse, and ego driven dribble, have come forth with one of the first pre requisites of filling out the visa application. It is pretty standard for all countries these days.
    do you have a criminal record ?

    Yes, that is standard procedure, “Sax”. But it’s not what you said. You said that immigrants are/were required to enter into a contract with the government, and that they would be deported if they breached our laws. No such contract exists or has ever existed, and we’re still waiting for you to provide evidence that it does or ever did.

    All you lefties are the same. I notice none of you live in western Sydney ? Pretty easy to judge from a thousand miles away isn’t it kids ?

    Sure, and I guess that magical mystical island where you claim to live is in western Sydney. How many out of control Muslims are there on your magical mystical island, “Sax”?

    When it does hit the fan, you feel good lefties, cry religious discrimination towards anyone willing to stand up and say, no, this behaviour is not acceptable in this country.

    As yet there has been no hard evidence here that the behaviour of Muslims is worse than any other group. Apart from GD not wanting to each halal sausages and not being able to say ‘Merry Christmas’. I don’t think Ray, Craigy, JM or myself are apologists for Islam, but I think we expect to see more evidence than you and your guitar playing friend saying the end of the world is nigh.

  53. T.O.I. says:

    I think That you are mistaken here, while the residents of a badly governed country do have a stake in the issue that has no bearing at all upon may ability to offer a critique.

    No but your criticism is largely irrelevant. It’s their country and they get to decide the government, and live with the consequences if they get it wrong, and change it if they feel inclined.

    Thank you for acknowledging that Islam has some very dodgy ideas in its ideology but then you fall into the very common and rather sad leftist error of thinking that there is something wrong with the likes Of GD or myself saying clearly and concisely what is wrong with that religion and how it is practised both here and overseas

    Because Iain I don’t think that people’s behaviour is determined entirely or even mostly by their religion. Sure, radical Islam does breed a few extremist nutters who crave the company of 72 virgins, etc. But most Muslims in Australia are just like you and me, they want to work, raise a family, buy a house, play sport and live a good peaceful life. Like you I think their backward religion stinks but I am able to differentiate between the person and his/her beliefs. When you start hating someone on the basis of their religion, well you know what that is.

  54. Sax says:

    What about the declaration of no serious criminal record TOI ?
    You have to sign the declaration. Sure seems like a contract to me ?
    Again you are talking about permanent immigrants. We are talking about refugees here, where it appears, no such checks and balances are available, or adhered to.

    Also :

    Unauthorised arrivals, regardless of whether they arrive on the mainland or at an excised offshore place, undergo a comprehensive and thorough assessment process, including security checking, to establish if they have a legitimate reason for staying in Australia. This process includes assessing identities, as many people dispose of all personal papers en route to Australia; assessing whether the person is raising claims which may engage Australia’s protection obligations; and obtaining formal police clearances from countries of first asylum in which they have resided for at least 12 months, to confirm they are of good character…
    http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BN/sp/Asylumfacts.htm#_Toc299011019

  55. Ray Dixon says:

    We are talking about refugees here, where it appears, no such checks and balances are available, or adhered to.

    Sax, you idiot, the link you provided totally contradicts your claim that there are “no checks & balances” on refugees. It’s in the first sentence, you dill:

    “Unauthorised arrivals, regardless of whether they arrive on the mainland or at an excised offshore place, undergo a comprehensive and thorough assessment process, including security checking, to establish if they have a legitimate reason for staying in Australia.”

    You have a serious problem with comprehension, don’t you?

  56. GD says:

    “Unauthorised arrivals, regardless of whether they arrive on the mainland or at an excised offshore place, undergo a comprehensive and thorough assessment process, including security checking, to establish if they have a legitimate reason for staying in Australia.”

    How comprehensive and thorough can the process be when most refugees arrive without papers or ID?

    I’d suggest Ray you’re looking on the bright side of things here. Unintentional, though appropriate, pun there.

  57. GD says:

    This bloke didn’t get a thorough and comprehensive assessment. He was a musician who wrote propaganda songs, and performed for Suddam Hussein.

    The man, who performed at the tyrant’s drunken parties, won his case before the Refugees Review Tribunal.

    Sadly, once he was accepted under the ‘very careful’ screening of the Refugees Review Tribunal, he abused the hospitality of Australia and cowardly attacked two elderly women. He has been jailed for three years. Which is another win for Australia, costing us $100,000 a year to keep the scumbag.

    Great screening process. You can say, well, that’s only one, but if the Refugees Review Tribunal are that lax at evaluating cases, how many other miscreants are being accepted into Australia under this leftist fawning to faux refugees from the Middle East? While the left are busy satisfying their misguided ‘warm and fuzzy’ ideals, they are setting Australia up for grief in future years unless some common sense controls are put into place.

    An open door policy will not, and can not work, despite what Ray and the Greens reckon.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-20/hussein-music-teacher-jailed/3785166/?site=melbourne

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/asylum-flagged-for-saddams-stooge/story-e6frf7jo-1226083766727

  58. JM says:

    Sax (version 1): Whatever happened to the contract ….?

    Sax (version 2): Sure seems like a contract to me ?

    Just go away. You contribute nothing.

  59. JM says:

    GD: cowardly attacked two elderly women. He has been jailed for three years

    Yeah fine (well not fine). He’s a criminal and has been jailed. For a crime he committed after his application was considered. Had he committed it earlier he would have got nowhere.

    But I tell you two things

    1. The Migration Review Tribunal (which you misname) is not an oracle and cannot predict the future. Should the Member who heard this man’s case share his sentence? Perhaps you would like that? Would you like to explain how we could have a functioning judicial system once such a step were implemented.

    2. The MRT are unbelievably tough. Have you ever appeared before that tribunal and argued a case GD? I doubt it. Because I have (as an amateur) and they aren’t a pushover.

    So can I ask you something. A baby was born today in your suburb. That baby will probably go on to commit a crime at some time in his or her life, even if it as minor as running a stop sign, and gain a criminal conviction.

    Should that child be aborted?

  60. T.O.I. says:

    Great screening process. You can say, well, that’s only one.

    OK then, I will say it – that’s only one.
    You argue with anecdotes and individual examples, GD. You can find stories and examples like that to prove just about anything. Chuck Berry was once convicted of inappropriate dealings with an underage girl. Does that mean guitarists are all pedos? Of course it bloody doesn’t.

    There is a system that works to prevent dubious characters settling in Australia. Like all systems, sometimes it gets it wrong. That doesn’t mean the whole system is defunct or not working. Your arguments are baloney, are not backed by evidence and sound hysterical.

  61. GD says:

    JM, perhaps you need to be more thorough in your googling. There are both an MRT and a RRT, so perhaps your experience with the MRT was treated a lot differently than this Iraqi’s claim to the RRT. That is my point. The leftist hold on these government departments ensures they bend over backwards to help people from so-called refugee situations, regardless of their suitability for citizenship in Australia. This bloke is a ridiculous example.

    http://www.mrt-rrt.gov.au/

    If you read the links I provided, you’ll see he returned to Iraq eight times since 2008, and that the tribunal started to have doubts (??) that his life was in danger, as he claimed. Nonetheless, they granted him residency.

    Does that sound like a ‘thorough and comprehensive’ investigation? It sounds like a leftist fawning to let in anybody who even raises their hand, and says, ‘I’m a refugee’.

  62. JM says:

    GD, The leftist hold on these government departments ensures they bend over backwards to help people from so-called refugee situations

    ROTFLMFAO

    Really.

    You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

    Try ’em on sometime. Go on. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

  63. GD says:

    So why did this guy get in? JM, if going to be so aggressive.

  64. GD says:

    oh, and as I pointed out, MRT and RRT, a big difference in policies….you didn’t answer that did you, bully boy….

  65. GD says:

    You argue with anecdotes and individual examples

    Yes, TOI, because if you followed my argument you’d understand what I was saying. Instead, you reply with a limp analogy about a 1950s R&B musician in America, who has no relevance to the discussion.

    Once again, you missed the point, or rather, chose not to see it. And you also failed to address my original claim that ‘an open door policy will not, and can not work’, despite what leftists argue.

    Europe, with a much larger population hasn’t been able to absorb Islamic immigration without damage, yet yourself, and Ray, reckon, we’ll be quite OK here, because it’s only 1.7% of the population.

    Isn’t is odd, that with Islamists being only 1.7% of the population, we have had halal food introduced into many mainstream schools? Isn’t is odd, that with Islamists being only 1.7% of the population, we have had all references to Christmas scrubbed from some government departments and some public schools?

    References to these trends are readily available online. I can provide them.

    Isn’t is odd, that with Islamists being only 1.7% of the population, we’ve already had suggestion of Sharia Law being implemented, admittedly at first for Islamist marriages. Only a fool would not recognise this for what it is, an incursion into our society.

    The Jewish community make no such demands on Australian society. Kosher food is available only in Jewish schools. The Buddhist community make no such demands on Australian society, yet the Muslims, in recent years have already made serious in-roads into our egalitarian society, by insisting on special needs and preferences, and demanding the rest of the population change to accommodate them.

    Couple this with the call for another race to be similarly ‘protected’ or ‘privileged’, and you have the Lefts’ bizarre outlook on a society they grew up in, were educated by, and have prospered in, but are seemingly now intent on trashing.

  66. Richard Ryan says:

    I will be wearing my T-shirt with the logo—Pommy Bastards, for Aussie Day on Thursday. Shalom.

  67. Richard Ryan says:

    National Anthem: ” For those who’ve come across the seas we’ve boundless plains to share, with courage let us all combine to advance Australia Fair”. Hello-Hello! Not if Abbott becomes leader of this society—-his mantra! “Turn Back The Boats”

  68. Ray Dixon says:

    GD,
    1. We don’t have an ‘open door’ policy on refugees.
    2. Refugees are thoroughly screened and a very large number are rejected. It doesn’t matter if they have papers or not. If they have none it (a) makes the investigators more suspicious (b) takes longer. In fact the screening process is so thorough that ASIO goes to the extent of noting those refugees it believes to be potential security threats even though they haven’t committed a crime. That’s ‘profiling’ and predicting, which is about as thorough as you can get. That one you mention obviously got through the system – a bad apple. I don’t know the facts on this (and neither do you) but I’d venture to suggest that the crime rate among refugees admitted to Australia is actually lower than normal rates, given how appreciative most are just to be admitted.
    3. Decisions made by the assessors and review boards are independent. They are not “leftist” controlled. It’s apolitical. Refugees were admitted under Howard too, or didn’t you know? The percentage accepted was about the same (or even higher), it just took longer and cost more.

    You’re talking hysterical crap.

  69. Sax says:

    Oh Ray, nearly wetting himself, over thinking he finally nearly won one.

    Um, ever heard of detention centres Ray ?
    May that be the reason why they are there ?
    You have been advocating, naw, let them straight out into the community.
    Geez you’re easily conned.
    All good and well, but what happens when they conveniently forget their own names ? That is one of the reasons, as to why they stay in detention for so long, as they should. What sort of citizens are they going to make, if they begin their relationship with this country based on lies ?
    There goes your of good character clause right out the window ?
    You have a serious problem with FACTS
    You just keep making it up, as you go along, thinking everyone else in the world is as dumb as you are.

    And JM
    just go away, you contribute nothing and I double dog dare you oh, ffs, no wonder you have no credibility.
    😆

    BTW, your incredibly “tough” tribunal, just how many have been sent home ?
    Another one that can’t see the forest for the trees.

  70. Ray Dixon says:

    You just keep making it up, as you go along, thinking everyone else in the world is as dumb as you are.

    That’s a self-description by you Sax, our resident idiot. Case in point, you just claimed this: “You have been advocating, naw, let them straight out into the community”. I have never said that, Sax, and I’m well aware of detention centres and the need for them. You just keep making it up as you go along, thinking everyone else in the world is as dumb as you are, don’t you?

    Good start to the day, Sax. Good to see you’re consitent in your nuttery, if nothing else.

  71. Sax says:

    Again, nothing other than emotive claptrap from Mr Dixon. He couldn’t even think up anything new, but pinch my line, and throw it back it me ? I am so wounded, I may never recover. sic

    Nothing to substantiate his b/s, or even to rebut GD’s or my arguments.

    Well, then, to give you a fair hearing, which btw is far more generous than you have ever given ANYONE else here, what the f is your solution to the problem then ?

    How do you ! advocate dealing with people that purposefully arrive, with no documentation, from a country that couldn’t care less if their people survive or not, or worse still, use the attitude of how dare you leave this country. Return and see what happens , or people so desperate for a new way of life, but chance have it, don’t or can’t appear on the “wanted immigration lists” that will do, say, and try anything to get here ?

    How do YOU differentiate between the two groups ?

  72. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, you are not only an idiot you are an ungracious one. You falsely claimed that I advocated direct entry for refugees with no processing – a lie – and then you had the gall to say that I made it up as I went along. Then, when you’re pulled up on that, you ignore the fact you were caught out lying and “making it up” and off you go on the idiotic attacks again

    To answer your ridiculous question, “what the f is your solution to the problem then?”, I don’t have a solution. Nor do you. I don’t need one (nor do you) because the government officials already have one. They investigate ALL arrivals, papers or none. And it’s working. Of course “Sax” the expert thinks it’s not working and he has heaps of specific examples of how they’re letting bad people into Australia. Why don’t you apply for a job with immigration, “Sax”? You and GD. Seeing that you’re both such great judges of character.

    Now go away – don’t bother me.

  73. Sax says:

    Don’t bother you ? 😆
    You are already way too bothered, for me to have any effect.
    Sh*t what an ego.

    So, folks, asked for his opinion, or attempt to access his massive intellect, he again resorts to uneducated sarcasm, and rhetoric.
    I didn’t make up anything, it is all there. You haven’t come up with anything to rebut it yet, other than insults and cheap shots, which is your usual intelligent banter.

    Don’t you just love it when someone comes up with an opinion here, that differs from his, without any substantiation, he goes off half cocked, and begins spitting at all and sundry.

    I asked for an opinion too much of an ask perhaps ?

    Wake up and smell what you’re shovelling Ray.

  74. Ray Dixon says:

    So, GD, your evidence of the “Islamification” and subsequent “damage” to our Australian society and way of life extends to:

    *Halal food in some schools.
    *References to Christmas being scrubbed from *some* (as yet un-named) govt departments & schools. Seriously?
    *Suggestions of Sharia law being implemented for Islamist marriages

    Wow, we’re in real trouble, aren’t we? Can’t you see what a foolish scaremongerer you are being with these incidental and minor “incursions” you refer to? Who gives a shit if the muslims are a bit precious about their traditions? Contrary to your hysterical claims, we are not “bending over” to accommodate them and we are simply being tolerant of their practices, which I suggest will eventually fade out after a generation or two. You do realise that many other immigrants also sought to impose their ways, practices and values on us in previous eras, don’t you? Look at the Italians, shoved bloody Pizza & Pasta in our faces on every street corner. And those Greeks, their fish & chips were disgusting! The Vietnamese turned Victoria Street in Melbourne into ‘Little Saigon” – how very dare they. Gee, we are so much worse off for those “incursions” into our society – we’ve lost our Aussieness!

    Btw, the only immigrants who didn’t add much in the way of culture were the Poms. They saved us a lot of water & soap though.

  75. Sax says:

    At least they got off their a*ses and got jobs Ray ?
    Created businesses, and employed our young to work in them ?
    Did the jobs that Aussies refused to do ?
    They didn’t burn down their digs ?

    Again, your sarcasm falls way short.

  76. Ray Dixon says:

    I didn’t make up anything, it is all there

    You made up the claim that I have advocated direct entry for refugees with no processing, Sax. Are you so thick that you can’t understand plain English? Yes, it’s “all there” and here are your false, “made up” words again:

    Um, ever heard of detention centres Ray ?
    May that be the reason why they are there ?
    You have been advocating, naw, let them straight out into the community.
    Geez you’re easily conned.

    Now, when you can have the common sense (and courtesy) to admit that was “made up” then I’ll consider re-engaging with the village idiot.

    Otherwise, kindly f …. off.

  77. Ray Dixon says:

    Btw, the ‘Ten Pound Poms’ weren’t held in Villawood type detention centres, Sax. They were admitted straight in. The migrant hostels were not “jails” or detention centres but, if they were, then the Poms would have most likely revolted too. Those refugees who burnt down Villawood are probably not likely to be admitted, as a result of those actions. Your comparisons are meaningless.

  78. Sax says:

    BTW, what would be the origin of the “Dixon” name you have ?
    Would it be Scottish/English perhaps ?
    😆

  79. Sax says:

    Facts are still facts sunshine.
    The poms were not allowed out into the community until the paperwork was done, and if they did, they were escorted.

    Again, you are confused. They were legit immigrants, nor refugees.
    You obviously cannot differentiate between the two.
    About time you realised the difference ?

  80. Sax says:

    man, talking about village idiots ?
    Take a bow
    😆

  81. Ray Dixon says:

    My ancestry is none of your business, “Sax”, and is of no relevance. For the record though, there is a very mixed ancestry on both my mother’s and father’s side that includes English, Scottish, Irish and yes, …. Asian.

    And I did not claim that the English were refugees and I certainly know the difference. The point is that today’s refugees are subject to far greater scrutiny than the ‘Ten Pound Poms’ were. And that is a FACT – one you’ve ridiculously denied.

    Btw, I realise you are just trying to wind me up with all your idiotic hysteria and baiting. I also realise that “Len Saxby” is a parody character created in your lack-of-self-esteem mind. You (whoever you are, and I don’t give a shit) create multiple aliases and they are usually parodies. “Sax” has to be a parody of a loony right-wing racist because, let’s face it, no one could be as stupid as you deliberately try to come across.

    Now, I am done with you and your baiting games – for good. Go and invent a new character, please. One that makes a bit more sense and isn’t such an arsehole would be welcome. Give it a try “…. (name self-edited) ….”, you can do it.

  82. Sax says:

    There we go ladies and gentlmen.
    Loss of argument, dummy spit, then the inevitable challenge of identities.
    Geez man, I really do wish you would grow a pair, and come join us in the real world for a while ?
    😆

  83. Ray Dixon says:

    come join us in the real world

    “Sax”, you don’t live in the real world and I haven’t lost any argument with you. You live in your own imagination. You’re a sad character, really. Totally obsessed. And I haven’t “challenged your identity”, I’ve only pointed out the obvious – that you are a parody character. Now, I am truly done with you. Please find another target for your amusement – I have work to do.

  84. T.O.I. says:

    Yes, TOI, because if you followed my argument you’d understand what I was saying. Instead, you reply with a limp analogy about a 1950s R&B musician in America, who has no relevance to the discussion.

    Oh I follow your argument, it’s your evidence (or lack thereof) that I dispute. As Ray correctly says, all you have produced to show the decline of Australian society at the hands of the rampaging Muslim hordes is the following:

    * Some unnamed schools are serving halal food
    * Some unnamed government departments are saying ‘Happy holidays’ instead of ‘Merry Christmas’
    * Muslims are allowed to marry according to Sharia law
    * There is Muslim gang violence
    * You live in western Sydney and are therefore an expert on the subject

    Even if I accept the truth of all these points (and I don’t) they still do not amount to very much at all. Our society and values have always bent slightly to accommodate new immigrants. Federal and State governments have had translation services for decades. Why do we do this? Because we know that migrants will eventually learn English, and even if they don’t, their children will. They can and do and will assimilate. It just takes time.

    Since the 1960s, Jews testifying in court can swear on the Torah rather than the Bible. Does this mean they are taking over? In the last 30 years our police have done battle with the Italian mafia, the Asian triad, Nick the Russian’s eastern European gangs and African street crime. Does that mean all those ethnic groups are taking over and ruining society?

    The problem is not what they are doing, the problem is your perception of what they are doing.

  85. T.O.I. says:

    Hey “Sax”, I’ll ask you again…. how many Muslims are there on this magical island you live on and fly Lear Jets in and out of?

  86. Richard Ryan says:

    IS it not strange, South Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, were all invaded. Australia was invaded by the British Empire, with the excuse it was unoccupied. Aborigines were pushed out of the way, like a tree in a farmer’s field. The Irish and the Aborigines intermarried, hence so many Irish names among the original inhabitants. The Aborigines and the Irish were looked upon as a lower class of people by the the English, who would having nothing to do with either race. This was the start of racism on this continent, with the blessing of the British Empire. Shalom.

  87. JM says:

    Richard: The Irish and the Aborigines intermarried,

    You really know how to touch the third rail of Australian politics don’t you?

  88. Richard Ryan says:

    YES the Irish and the Aborigines intermarried—-as was told to me by an original inhabitant of this country, many years ago, due to the English not having anything to do with both races. Both races were frowned upon, as losers. History shows the British Empire, had a racist culture. Nobody can deny that historical fact. Shalom. Richard Ryan

  89. Iain Hall says:

    Richard
    The history of humanity has been one of constant struggle to control resources and there is no doubt that Aboriginals were just as keen to displace each other in the quest for the best places to extract a living on this continent, Or do you think that theirs was a history of peace and good will to all of their fellows?

  90. JM says:

    Richard, I do not need to be lectured on the relationship between the English and Irish in this country. Please.

    It is nothing like the caricature you paint. In fact, I don’t think any of them gave a stuff about it (well not much anyway).

    However I was struck by your comment regarding intermarriage, which occurred more widely than just “the Irish”.

    That was what I meant by “the third rail”. And there are a whole lot of other issues associated with this. Tim Fischer had a go at it a few years back, very bravely (but I think he took the wrong slant) and only made a little progress. Malcolm Fraser had a shot a few years before then and deserves a lot of kudos for his efforts.

    Whitlam, Hawke, Clyde Holding and famously Keating took huge swipes at it. It’s time we recognised their efforts and tried to expand them.

  91. JM says:

    Iain: there is no doubt that Aboriginals were just as keen to displace each other

    Iain you’re just like a pinata. You’re so easy to hit.

    This is absolute nonsense. There is evidence of trade between aboriginal tribes of artefacts from the north to the south of the entire continent. The various tribes cohabited and traded without much conflict for centuries on end.

    This social darwinism of yours is completely without foundation. Take Europe. In the Napoleonic era (because I’m currently reading a recent and extremely good book on the subject that my daughter bought me for xmas).

    Did France under Napoleon seek to exterminate, hmmmmm the Belgians?. No. The only thing France looked to do was “seek tribute” (but not too much or they would have killed the golden goose)

    And so for the aboriginal tribes. They lived next to each other, often with overlapping territories and got along with each other mostly and resolved their differences.

    Exactly the same as modern states do.

  92. JM says:

    Me: I do not need to be lectured

    Sorry Richard, I was a bit rough on you there. However you’re right about the intermarriage thing. It was prominent and occurred frequently. Unfortunately we now have a society where it is much less prominent and that is because of the systemic disadvantage inflicted on the indigenous population which makes them much less “marriageable” due to their deliberately created impoverished backgrounds. I agree that you are right to blame the “English push” for that outcome.

    Intermarriage between a “settler” with reasonable prospects and an indigenous person is much less likely these days. That is a tragedy for the country.

  93. GD says:

    That’s strange JM. I just heard historian Geoffrey Blainey on radio talking about the wars between various aboriginal tribes.

  94. Iain Hall says:

    Yes JM just what do you base your claim about the “long and peaceful
    history” of our indigenous people? Frankly given their harsh and brutal system of customary law I find it impossible to believe that they would not be just as likely as every other culture on the planet to fight over issues big and small. from favoured hunting places to other desirable commodities.

  95. JM says:

    GD, Blainey is a nut. Read “Triumph of the Nomads”

    Contemplate its central thesis – that the natives did not see things in territorial terms.

    Consider then the encounter between the settlers and the natives where they both fought a war for control of territory – a war that I can tell you was still going on as late as the first decade of the 20th century (don’t bother arguing with me on this point, ok?)

    (And also consider that Iain’s thesis is that such territorial struggles are central to history – I agree with him on that and only disagree with his simplistic notion that they are “fights to the death”. They are not. Or at least outside the realm of Australia and the European invasion they aren’t).

    Blainey contends that the “nomads” did not notice the territorial incursions of the settlers and had some strange mindset that didn’t let them recognise that these strange new people were not some sort of threat to their wellbeing.

    BS. They did. And they fought back.

    And my family when attacked, which we were, also fought. We shot ’em. Blainey denies this, but I’m telling you that’s exactly what we did.

  96. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    (And also consider that Iain’s thesis is that such territorial struggles are central to history – I agree with him on that and only disagree with his simplistic notion that they are “fights to the death”. They are not. Or at least outside the realm of Australia and the European invasion they aren’t).

    Where did I say that they were “fights to the death”? Often ist just the same as territorial conflict between other animals, the fight is as often about Bluff and trying to Psych out your enemy so that they will concede than it is about actaully killing them.

    And my family when attacked, which we were, also fought. We shot ‘em. Blainey denies this, but I’m telling you that’s exactly what we did.

    Why should we accept this appeal to your own authority>? (again, sigh )

  97. JM says:

    Iain: Why should we accept this appeal to your own authority

    Because you should. It’s true. Ok?

  98. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Because you should. It’s true. Ok?

    The point is of course that we have no way of verifying your claim now do we? thus its about as useful as titties on a bull(shitter)

  99. JM says:

    Ummmmm Iain, family and oral histories are not often documented. (It happens that mine is but the book has been out of print for over 30 years)

    So you have to rely on my say so don’t you?

  100. Ray Dixon says:

    Is it “I the aboriginal”, JM? I had to read that one in secondary school. A good book.

  101. JM says:

    No Ray it’s not. I have seen it referenced in other books as “primary” source material though.

    I think Iain’s objection is a bit pointless because the author spoke to and interviewed the same people – elderly members of my family – that I heard the stories from. And I heard them from when I was very young.

  102. Iain Hall says:

    So what is the tittle of the book then JM?

  103. Ray Dixon says:

    I think it’s titled “Red Herring”, Iain. Sorry, JM, but anyone posting anonymously can make up any story about their background, expertise etc to suit their arguments. Look at “Sax””!!! You might well be genuine but, given your stated position of wanting to fiercely protect your real identity (which is fine), what’s the point in advancing arguments based on your so-called family history when it simply cannot be substantiated?

  104. Sax says:

    What is it with your paranoia about identities Reg ?
    Ffs, did you get left on the doorstep of an orphanage as a baby ?

    Most people here are willing to accept JM, as well as most others here, on face value, what tf is your bloody problem with identities ffs ?

    Is it, that perhaps, there are brighter, more successful people on this planet, other than you perhaps ?

    Get over it !

    I’d be interested in the book as well JM
    Looks like it could be worthy of a good read, not that we have much time for that around here most times.
    All we had growing up were the supposed classics, such as Coopers Creek and so on. Hardly definitive texts ?

  105. Ray Dixon says:

    Oh no, the village idiot is back. I don’t have a problem with JM’s identity “Sax”, I simply said it’s pointless him using his unsubstantiated family history to support his arguments. That’d be like you saying you know all about flying because you were in the RAAF and you fly lear jets for a living.

    Now, for the last time, let’s make a deal- I don’t respond to you and you don’t respond to me. Okay? Btw, I have nominated you for Oz of the year. You’re such a gem!

  106. Sax says:

    And you are so precious.
    Be the same as you saying you are a successful hotel/motel mogul ?
    😆
    No deals with you, you couldn’t keep a promise if your life depended on it.
    You sling it, you’ll get it right back.

  107. JM says:

    Fair point Ray. However the existence of a long out of print book is beside the point.

    Oral history is undocumented usually.

    The fact is I made an obvious critique of Blainey’s most famous work and I’ve seen other people make the same critique on the same grounds.

    Blainey’s argument rests on the bizarre notion that Aboriginal people did not care about the arrival of settlers and did not see settlers as threats. To make this claim stick he virtually has to turn them into some sort of alien species who think entirely differently from us. This is rubbish.

    Further, the frontier wars were well documented by the settlers themselves at the time. There’s really no argument about this stuff these days – apart from lunatics like Windshuttle.

  108. Ray Dixon says:

    Okay Sax, your personal insult is about to be has been deleted. Go back to your hole.

  109. JM says:

    Sax: saying you are a successful hotel/motel mogul

    You’re really out to lunch. I don’t think anyone, even his detractors, argue that Ray doesn’t run a business in Bright. Since it seems to have been going for at least the past 5 years that I know of I think we can assume that it’s successful.

    Unsuccessful businesses close down.

  110. Ray Dixon says:

    I changed my mind and reinstated your comment, Sax. As JM points out, your comparisons to my actual life are absurd and further evidence of your own personal issues – i.e. lack of self esteem, lack of courage, a nasty streak, ignorance, and possible mental deficiency.

  111. Ray Dixon says:

    We’ve been in it for 10 years, actually JM. Not blowing my own trumpet but our customers sure let us know how good it is. Maybe “Sax” would like to buy in – we’re selling off individual apartments at the moment. If he could sell one of his lear jets he might be able to afford a deposit.

  112. Sax says:

    I only buy into successful investments, with a proven history of success.
    That should answer your question.

  113. Ray Dixon says:

    You “buy into” people’s personal & business lives too, Sax. Butt out.

  114. Sax says:

    Wow, another piece of self analysis there Reg.
    You criticise, in an open forum ones character, and business, don’t expect any quarter to be given. You’ll get it straight back, in your ugly face, with interest.
    Have a happy day now

  115. Ray Dixon says:

    Okay Sax, here’s the differece: You and your so-called business are unidentifiable. Ergo, criticising you or your busines (which I haven’t done anyway) is of no personal or business impact on you. Surely you know this but you’re just out to hang shit on other’s real lives? Either that or you are indeed the most stupid person ever to foul the Internet. Now piss off.

  116. Ray Dixon says:

    Btw, my name is Ray, not “Reg”. Go back to SW, “Sax” – join your anonymous, slimebag mates.

    Note: Any future personal attacks by you WILL BE DELETED.

  117. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    Just tell us the name of the book because out of print or not such things can be found and your claims verified or dismissed, after all aren’t you usually so hot to trot for references?
    Would it be this one by any chance?
    Story of the Dandenongs, 1838-1958 / Helen Coulson.

  118. JM says:

    Well Iain, there’s a couple of reasons. Firstly I don’t exactly remember the title although I do have a copy in storage.

    Secondly it was self-published by the author (it is oral history after all) so it’s unlikely you’ll be able to even check if it was published in the first place. The counter to this is that I have seen references to it in other published works as it captured the oral history of my family (and others) at a time when the old people were dying out. It seems subsequent historians trust it somewhat as a source since few other first hand accounts exist.

    Thirdly, identifying it would very likely identify me – or come pretty close anyway.

    Fourthly, and interestingly the aboriginal people have similar accounts in their oral history of the same events.

    Lastly the existence and nature of the frontier wars is very well known There is no need for me to provide any further evidence.

  119. Iain Hall says:

    Ah so its more paranoia and bullshit from you then JM, just as I suspected.

  120. Ray Dixon says:

    Off topic, Iain, but how is the rain situation up there? Any floods in your area and … any photos? Beautiful Queensland, eh?

  121. JM says:

    Did you read the link Iain?

  122. Iain Hall says:

    Yes JM but I give wikipedia about the same level of credibility as I ascribe to anything you say so can you do better than such a dodgy source?
    Ray we have not had any flooding near my place but at 460m above sea level everyone should be worried if it floods here 🙂 That said we have had a lot of rain up here!

  123. JM says:

    The Coniston Massacre which took place in the NT in August 1928 is very well known and documented in John Cribbin’s book “The Killing Times”. There was an inquiry at the time and it is believed by most people that somewhere between 30 and 100 aboriginals were killed. Some estimates go as high as 200

    Even Windschuttle agrees that this happened and that the actions of the settlers were savage and disproportionate.

    1928 Iain. As recently as that.

  124. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    The trouble with any sort of oral history is that they are all subject to the same problem as is evident in the Game of “Chinese whispers” what goes in at one end of the chain is never the same as what comes out at the other so it is incredibly unreliable at best, so show me the evidence.
    In any event that was then and this is now how long are we supposed to carry on with the sack cloth and ashes? The indigenous people were out competed for the territory and there is no point whining about it now, its done and can’t be undone.

  125. JM says:

    Iain: how long are we supposed to carry on with the sack cloth and ashes?

    We’re not. Don sackcloth and ashes that is. We’re supposed to fix the resulting disadvantage. These are fellow Australians who live alongside us* We are supposed to recognise their prior ownership of the land however. The Mabo and Wik decisions made that point with absolute crystal clarity.

    But it appears that even years later some people can’t recognise that. (Even some people who really are “Johnny come lately’s”, not looking at anyone here specifically)

    The indigenous people were out competed for the territory

    No Iain. They were not “out competed”. It was not sport. It was a war.

    any sort of oral history

    This is not oral history. The Conniston Massacre was documented at the time by the findings of an official Board of Inquiry. You could probably visit the appropriate library and read a copy yourself if you wish.

    * And some of us are related to them. Intermarriage did occur, and from quite early times. I myself have (distant) aboriginal cousins. Several of them attended my fathers funeral.

  126. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    We’re supposed to fix the resulting disadvantage. These are fellow Australians who live alongside us* We are supposed to recognise their prior ownership of the land however. The Mabo and Wik decisions made that point with absolute crystal clarity.

    Why is it eternally our responsibility JM? at what point should we say “just get over the past” and make the most of the opportunities that this country offers now? and Mabo and Wik actaully make it clear that once extinguished by legal instruments the indigenous people have no further recourse,

    * And some of us are related to them. Intermarriage did occur, and from quite early times. I myself have (distant) aboriginal cousins. Several of them attended my fathers funeral.

    So what? Are you going to claim to be a blackfella now as well as a scientist, expert historian and the top agent for a secret squirrel employer? Give us a break please.

    It was not sport. It was a war.

    It was a competition for control of the territory of this continent JM and the indigenous people lost

  127. GD says:

    Are you going to claim to be a blackfella now as well as a scientist, expert historian and the top agent for a secret squirrel employer?

    and a musician, and a military strategist….

  128. JM says:

    Iain: Are you going to claim to be a blackfella

    No. There is no aboriginal ancestry in my lineage.

    However you’re missing the key word:- “intermarriage”

    Back in the mid 19th Century a great-great grand uncle of mine* married an aboriginal woman and established a branch of the family that exists to this day that is “black”

    The descendants of that marriage are my cousins.

    This is a well known and acknowledged fact in the district in which I was born in. I don’t have a lot of contact with those people, virtually none in fact, but none of us deny our joint ancestry. It is also very well known in the local area. My family were the original settlers and the “black” side of the family aren’t shy of claiming that heritage.

    As I said this is a difficult and emotional area for many people and you should not simplify it. After all you’re a recent immigrant yourself.

    Now this brings up an interesting point:- Andrew Bolt’s “passing for black” argument that he lost his recent court case over.

    Up until the “rightists” started up with the “professional abo” or “political correctness” line about 20 years ago, to have the slightest hint of black ancestry was to be touched with the tar brush

    That led to enormous disadvantage for many people. One of the persons I was introduced to at said funeral – who I may have met when I was a very small child, but I’m not sure – started life in virtually the same circumstances as myself. In fact his mother was in the same hospital as my mother when she was giving birth to me.

    Our life outcomes have been very different however and that can be squarely placed on one factor:

    Possession of land

    My father had it, his father didn’t. And the reason is that my great-great-great-great grandfather** shot his great-great-great-great grandfather and seized the land.

    Do you understand?

    Now Bolt and Co. have come up with a new one. To be touched with the white brush negates all your rights and claims.

    That’s an interesting reversal. And a really noxious one. Because it says that unless you are completely and absolutely black in the color of your skin you’re not a real “black”

    BS. You are raised in disadvantage or you’re not. You have equal opportunities at birth or you don’t.

    He didn’t have my opportunities and he didn’t come even close to what I’ve achieved. It doesn’t matter how smart or dumb he is, he started behind the 8-ball.

    * I think I got the number of ‘greats’ there right

    ** Again I’m trying to get the number of ‘greats’ right

  129. JM says:

    Iain: It was a competition for control of the territory

    How was that competition conducted? Who was the umpire? It was a war Iain, don’t sugarcoat it.

  130. Richard Ryan says:

    IS it not strange that the leaders of our society can spend billions of dollars on defence, to fight America’s wars, another billion dollars running ASIO, and yet cannot solve the problem of our water needs. Nobody can deny that water shortage is going to cause problems for all in the near future.

  131. Richard Ryan says:

    It is time to bring the Aborigines to the rescue, the original inhabitants have been here for over 40,000 years. They have special powers and can perform rain dances to please the Rain Gods, throughout this dry continent. This makes more sense than spending a $BILLION Dollars on “get smart” type spooks. Shalom, Richard Ryan.

  132. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    for someone who claims scientific credentials you can be really thick sometimes because quite clearly I was using the word in its biological sense:

    In biology, competition is one of the many symbiotic relationships occurring in nature. Same or different members of species compete for resources, especially for limited natural resources.

    Different types of completions are as follows:

    intraspecific competition
    interspecific competition

    Competitions may also be categorized based on the mechanism used:

    interference competition
    exploitation competition
    apparent competition
    source

  133. JM says:

    Iain.

    That is an utterly disgraceful comparison. You ought to be completely f***** ashamed of yourself.

    It was a war.

    Why don’t you like that word Iain? Is it too much for you or something?

  134. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    Are not all human beings animals?
    Why on earth would you think that stating this obvious and uncontentious scientific fact “is an utterly disgraceful comparison” are you ashamed of being an animal like any other on the planet? Or do you think that humanity is in superior to all other entities in the biosphere?

    That said War is just another form of competition for resources or dominance.

  135. JM says:

    Iain, trying to win debates by extending your argument into ludicrous, abstract considerations is probably the most ridiculous tactic I can think of.

    Yes humans are animals. Social animals. Who have highly complex interactions with each other.

    Who have highly developed languages. Which include incorporate plain words for plain concepts to enable discussion of those interactions.

    War.

    Take it or prove yourself forever a nutter.

  136. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iain, trying to win debates by extending your argument into ludicrous, abstract considerations is probably the most ridiculous tactic I can think of.

    There is absolutely nothing that “ludicrous” or particularity “abstract” about my argument that humanity is just another animal.

    Yes humans are animals. Social animals. Who have highly complex interactions with each other.

    Here is more of your arrogance, studies of all other social animals show that they too have highly complex interactions with each other, there is absolutely nothing exceptional about that at all

    Who have highly developed languages. Which include incorporate plain words for plain concepts to enable discussion of those interactions.

    The need to communicate within the group for social animals is not something that is unique to human beings You seem terribly focused upon your own visceral need to believe the human species is fundamentally exceptional, frankly I think that this is a sign of your arrogance and your weak atheism that eschews the concept of a deity yet requires you to think that humanity is special and separate from the rest of living things.

    War.

    Take it or prove yourself forever a nutter.

    You are the one who is being proved a nutter here by being offended by me taking a simple biological approach to history.

  137. JM says:

    Iain: terribly focused upon your own visceral need to believe the human species is fundamentally exceptional

    You’re playing “Iain Ball” again. We are human. We have simple words for simple concepts.

    Why do you refuse to use this one?

    Try it Iain, “war” – one syllable, roll it round your tongue, savour it, it’s a deep resonant sound.

    Try it, you’ll come to like it.

  138. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    I use the word all of the time is this blog and many’s the time when it has been the subject of posts that have written to this blog so don’t come the raw prawn with me because I don’t share your view of Australian history that would characterise the conflict between indigenous people and the settlers as a “war”. By any meaningful definition it was not such a thing at all. Certainly there was some fighting at a relatively low intensity and certainly there were some atrocities but to call that a “war” is just stretch the definition just a bit too far in my opinion.
    The indigenous people lacked both the technology and the social organisation to meaningfully resist colonisation and as such they lost dominion over this land, that is the lesson of history so perhaps you had better just learn to deal with it rather than putting your own guilt chip into overdrive and eulogising the indigenous people as some sort of noble savages.

  139. T.O.I. says:

    The indigenous people lacked both the technology and the social organisation to meaningfully resist colonisation

    Do you think colonialism was a good thing then?

  140. Iain Hall says:

    TOI

    Do you think colonialism was a good thing then?

    Essentially I think that British colonialism here was because the result in this country is a damn good (not perfect mind you ) society that is by many measures the best in the world exceeding even that of its creators. So if the end result is good then how can anyone think that the first efforts to create such a colony was a bad thing?

  141. JM says:

    Iain: how can anyone think that the first efforts to create such a colony was a bad thing

    That viewpoint might have some validity if your forebears had anything to do with it. But they didn’t. You’re a recent immigrant.

    Mine however did have a lot to do with it. Direct involvement. I’m pulling rank on you Iain. What have you done for the country since getting off the boat?

    Not much it appears.

    You are welcome as a citizen to contribute to this debate. But this country cannot be whole. And cannot be a nation at all.

    Until it recognises the contributions of all of its citizens. New and old.

    My cousins and you included.

    You can be part of the problem or part of the solution Iain. At the moment you’re part of the problem.

  142. T.O.I. says:

    Unlike you Iain, I am not an abject social Darwinist and I don’t think that the ends justifies the historical means. Just because we are the beneficiaries of conquest and colonialism doesn’t mean it was right in the first place. World War One gave us rapid advances in aircraft technology, mechanised vehicles, medical and surgical practices, prosthetic limbs and the use of guide dogs. That doesn’t mean people who benefit from those things today should thank heavens for WW1.

  143. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    That viewpoint might have some validity if your forebears had anything to do with it. But they didn’t. You’re a recent immigrant.

    How old are you JM? I don’t want to know your date of birth or anything that precise, but unless you are exceptionally old, like more than 230 odd you have no more first hand experience than I do so don’t try this sort of crap.

    Mine however did have a lot to do with it. Direct involvement. I’m pulling rank on you Iain. What have you done for the country since getting off the boat?

    So how precisely do you deserve any kudos as a result of your genealogy?

    Not much it appears.

    Yawn!

    You are welcome as a citizen to contribute to this debate. But this country cannot be whole. And cannot be a nation at all.

    Until it recognises the contributions of all of its citizens. New and old.

    Sadly you don’t practice what you preach.

    My cousins and you included.

    You can be part of the problem or part of the solution Iain. At the moment you’re part of the problem.

    You really could not find a single person with a greater belief in equality that moi, which is why I reject any move to enshrine any type of indigenous exceptionalism in our constitution.

  144. Iain Hall says:

    Unlike you Iain, I am not an abject social Darwinist and I don’t think that the ends justifies the historical means.

    There is nothing abject about using Darwin’s theories about the natural world to describe the behaviour of our own species it is entirely legitimate, unless you , like JM, happens to think that there is something about humanity that requires it to be considered differently to every other species in the biosphere

    Just because we are the beneficiaries of conquest and colonialism doesn’t mean it was right in the first place.

    I’m making no judgements about the “rightness or wrongness” of the events of our history they just “are” as far as I’m concerned and there is no point it either getting angry or guilt riven about what has happened in the past pnce its done you can’t undo the events of history.

    World War One gave us rapid advances in aircraft technology, mechanised vehicles, medical and surgical practices, prosthetic limbs and the use of guide dogs. That doesn’t mean people who benefit from those things today should thank heavens for WW1.

    Actually I would say that they should be grateful for the war and as horrid as the death toll was were there no advances in technology and its benefits then would that be more tragic than if there were nothing good to come of all of the pain and destrution?

  145. T.O.I. says:

    unless you , like JM, happens to think that there is something about humanity that requires it to be considered differently to every other species in the biosphere

    I do actually. Human beings are rational beings who are capable of thought and complex communication. Unlike animals, we are able to resolve conflicts through other means than just killing each other. To explain away wars with the argument “oh we are just animals, and animals fight” shows you hold humanity in very low regard. I personally hold more hope for humanity, even if some of its elements do tend to behave like animals.

    there is no point it either getting angry or guilt riven about what has happened in the past pnce its done you can’t undo the events of history.

    There is certainly a point to it. If you’re going to learn from the past, you need to study it and form conclusions about what you and others have done right and done wrong. Otherwise you end up with no moral direction.

    I would say that they should be grateful for the war and as horrid as the death toll was were there no advances in technology and its benefits then would that be more tragic than if there were nothing good to come of all of the pain and destrution?

    The question is whether the pain and destruction was worth it in the first place. In the case of World War One, you wouldn’t find many who would argue that it was.

  146. JM says:

    Iain: Sadly you don’t practice what you preach

    Bollocks. Point to a specific example. Please.

  147. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    You said this:

    You are welcome as a citizen to contribute to this debate. But this country cannot be whole. And cannot be a nation at all.Until it recognises the contributions of all of its citizens. New and old.

    And I responded with “Sadly you don’t practice what you preach” because it is clear that your condescending sneering attitude to the ordinary people and your repeated dismissal of anyone who either disagrees with your politics or who does not have a string of letters after their name shows that you think that only those who agree with you should contribute to that debate.

  148. Iain Hall says:

    Well TOI let me explain why I think that you are wrong here:

    I do actually. Human beings are rational beings who are capable of thought and complex communication.

    Hmm we are certainly not the only species of animal who does this>

    Unlike animals, we are able to resolve conflicts through other means than just killing each other.

    Biology and animal behaviour are not subject that you know much about are they? In many species when it comes to intra-species conflicts fights to the death are actaully rather rare, there are sound biological reasons for this, but mainly because it does nothing for a species to kill each other very often it comes down to bluff and shows of force.

    To explain away wars with the argument “oh we are just animals, and animals fight” shows you hold humanity in very low regard. I personally hold more hope for humanity, even if some of its elements do tend to behave like animals.

    No I don’t hold humanity in “very low regard” at all its just that I don’t think that animals are “lesser creatures” to me they are just “different creatures” and we all have our place on the planet, or is that too subtle for you?

  149. JM says:

    Can you say it Iain? “War”

    It’s quite simple really.

  150. Iain Hall says:

    Of course I can JM when the context suggests that it is appropriate but in the context of this discussion I don’t think that it is. typically when you have no response to what I said in the last posting to the thread you try to labour a point that I have already addressed.

  151. JM says:

    Ok now we’re getting somewhere.

    So if not war, what? There were undoubtably killings on the frontier. You can’t deny that.

    Why? What do they mean?

  152. T.O.I. says:

    Biology and animal behaviour are not subject that you know much about are they?

    Right, and you studied animal behaviour, anthropology and zoology in your drama degree, did you? Cut the condescending I-know-more-than-you crap, Iain. You are no expert on this subject.

    it does nothing for a species to kill each other very often it comes down to bluff and shows of force.

    Yes, and so do most wars.

    I don’t think that animals are “lesser creatures” to me they are just “different creatures” and we all have our place on the planet, or is that too subtle for you?

    We are not talking about rights or status, we are discussing functioning and higher-order thinking. Humans have it, most animals don’t. That is unless you can you name me an animal species which, when confronted with a threat, responds not with either fight or flight, but sits down, negotiates and problem-solves. Which animal species do that Iain? Answer: none of them.

    It’s interesting that you feebly try to explain away war as part of human nature, yet you condemn terrorism as the act of barbarous and irrational madmen. There is a huge dichotomy in your thinking.

  153. Richard Ryan says:

    I the art of killing you can’t beat the Americans——and after killing you, they will piss on you——maybe it comes from their forefathers——-it all started there, the injuns, the American Aborigines—–you clayton Americans want to look at that history, Maybe getting pissed on when you are dead, is like a wet dream to some here—–I bet some of these American Marines had sex with dead bodies also. God Bless America—Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

  154. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    So if not war, what? There were undoubtedly killings on the frontier. You can’t deny that.

    If you scan back up the thread you will see that I have indeed already acknowledged that there were killings.

    Why? What do they mean?

    They mean very little if the truth be known, they were not instigated or authorised in any meaningful way by the government of the day as sad, nasty and reprehensible as they were you just can’t define the separate instances of violence as war. If you want to see a historical instance of war then you need to look to the United States where you had a proper example of a war for territory between an indigenous people and a colonising culture. As I see it for there to be a war you would have needed a much higher level of culture that was evident in our aboriginals. When you have lots of small tribes and family groups living as hunter gathers where is the warrior culture or tradition that you need to fight a war? Its entirely absent. So there certainly were killings and massacres but there were no pitched battles (another requirement for the conflict to be characterised as a war) All that you had was some stealing of stock and the occasional killing of a few individual settlers by the blacks, no organised large scare resistance. That is NOT war. Its competition (in the biological sense) for territory between people who’s highest level of technology was the woomera(which is very clever) against people with the most advanced technology of their age and the social organisation to use it, that totally out classed (in military terms)the indigenous people.

    TOI

    Right, and you studied animal behaviour, anthropology and zoology in your drama degree, did you? Cut the condescending I-know-more-than-you crap, Iain. You are no expert on this subject.

    No I didn’t study those subjects for my degree but I am largely an autodidact and as such I have studied many subjects including animal behaviour, while I concede that I am not by any stretch of the imagination an “expert” its clear that I know more about the subject than you do.

    I don’t think that animals are “lesser creatures” to me they are just “different creatures” and we all have our place on the planet, or is that too subtle for you?

    We are not talking about rights or status, we are discussing functioning and higher-order thinking. Humans have it, most animals don’t. That is unless you can you name me an animal species which, when confronted with a threat, responds not with either fight or flight, but sits down, negotiates and problem-solves. Which animal species do that Iain? Answer: none of them.

    Other social primates actaully but I think that you make the mistake of conflating the response to threats from out side the species which are immune to “negotiation and problem solving” and intra species conflicts over status, territory or resources.More importantly I think that your response shows just how desperate you are to believe that humanity is in some sense superior to all other animals.We are certainly a clever animal which currently dominates the planet but that does not make us in any sense morally superior to any other species as you want to believe, we just happen to be on the top of the heap at present and the fossil record shows that the mighty can fall at any time if circumstances change.
    Perhaps you need to develop a bit of humility Mate.

    It’s interesting that you feebly try to explain away war as part of human nature, yet you condemn terrorism as the act of barbarous and irrational madmen. There is a huge dichotomy in your thinking.

    There is nothing feeble about seeing war as part of our nature, the lesson of history proves that it certainly is that but we have evolved our thinking to the point where we think about not only the existence of war but what is a legitimate way to fight one and I think that the use of terror which attacks non combatants as a method of war is not as legitimate,and ultimately it fails to win on every level that matters.

  155. Iain Hall says:

    Richard

    You never fail to deliver a silly comment now do you? I wonder if your lovely girlfriend/partner shares your passion of necrophilia? but really its a bit of a dead end mate.

  156. JM says:

    Iain: Its competition (in the biological sense) for territory between people who’s highest level of technology was the woomera(which is very clever) against people with the most advanced technology of their age and the social organisation to use it, that totally out classed (in military terms)the indigenous people.

    I thought you might say something like that. But it isn’t competition in the biological sense at all is it Iain?

    Competition in the biological sense means getting my genes into the next generation. Can we agree on that?

    It does not mean armed conflict between two groups of people. That’s called war. That’s our word for it.

    You are right, the Europeans won because of superior technology and organization. But those are the attributes of a social entity not a biological one. And they are attributes that entity needs in order to win a war.

    And you know what, we also have a word for people who excuse wars, particularly deaths in wars, with nonsense like “biological competition”

    Can you guess what it is?

  157. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    I thought you might say something like that. But it isn’t competition in the biological sense at all is it Iain?

    Competition in the biological sense means getting my genes into the next generation. Can we agree on that?

    Hmm I disagree with your claim that its not competition in the biological sense and if you take your own criteria about the DNA then the indigenous people have clearly been and they continue to be out competed by non-indigenous DNA as the ever increasing number of “indigenous” people with a predominance of European features, and the instance that being indigenous is a cultural rather than genetic thing testifies

    It does not mean armed conflict between two groups of people. That’s called war. That’s our word for it.

    You are very silly JM maybe the air-conditioning in that office in Swanston street is rotting your brain; man is by his very nature a tool using primate and so it is no surprise that when it comes to the competition for resources that tools should be used or that the quality of the tools has a big influence on the result.

    You are right, the Europeans won because of superior technology and organization. But those are the attributes of a social entity not a biological one. And they are attributes that entity needs in order to win a war.

    No JM you draw a false distinction between “a social entity (and) a biological one”

    And you know what, we also have a word for people who excuse wars, particularly deaths in wars, with nonsense like “biological competition”

    Can you guess what it is?

    I am not excusing anything here. I am looking at the history without any moral judgements and taking note of why one group of people succeeded and why their rivals for the resources failed to exclude the newcomers. I think that you are suffering a profound guilt over your antecedents success on this continent and as such you want to eulogise the people who were displaced and falsely praise then with a savage nobility to assuage your own feelings. Personally I was not here then and I don’t have a Tartdis so I reject any need to feel bad about the past. Its done and dusted so lets work on the country we have now rather than drowning in angst and self-loathing as you are so keen to do about the history of this country.

  158. JM says:

    Iain: if you take your own criteria about the DNA then the indigenous people have clearly been and they continue to be out competed by non-indigenous DNA

    So you’re saying that Europeans are biologically superior to Aboriginals?

  159. Ray Dixon says:

    I think Aussies are biologically superior to Poms.

  160. Richard Ryan says:

    ” I think Aussies are biologically superior to Poms” Ray the Aussies have not got a fear of soap. I asked a Pom once about hygiene, he thought I was speaking about a tall Aussie girl called Jean.

  161. Ray Dixon says:

    Richard, I’ll have to put your other comment in moderation – comments like that (on child sex) attract, um, outside attention, you know?

  162. Ray Dixon says:

    Not only that, Richard, look at England’s sporting ‘prowess’. It doesn’t exist. They must have sent all the athletic types out here on the convict boats, and it shows.

  163. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    So you’re saying that Europeans are biologically superior to Aboriginals?

    You are the one who wants to suggest this:

    Competition in the biological sense means getting my genes into the next generation.

    And I’m just pointing out that by that if you look at all of those people who identify as indigenous then you would find that there is a great deal of non indigenous DNA evident in their profiles, thus by your own measure indigenous DNA is losing.
    That has absolutely nothing to do with relative virtue of any ethnicity and in any event I don’t judge anyone by the colour of their skin , rather I judge them by the virtue in their hearts.

  164. Iain Hall says:

    And i have put it in the trash Ray 😉

  165. Ray Dixon says:

    I would like to get my ‘genes’ into the next generation too. Provided they’re over legal age.

  166. Iain Hall says:

    And female I hope Ray 😆

  167. T.O.I. says:

    I concede that I am not by any stretch of the imagination an “expert” its clear that I know more about the subject than you do.

    And you have the nerve to complain about JM appealing to his own authority? I am not going to bother discussing the issue further when you start behaving like a posturing, self-important wanker Iain. Get over yourself.

  168. JM says:

    Iain: And I’m just pointing out that by that if you look at all of those people who identify as indigenous then you would find that there is a great deal of non indigenous DNA evident in their profiles, thus by your own measure indigenous DNA is losing

    Wherein Iain Hall denies a conclusion that he believes certain human races are “biologically superior” to others by explaining ……

    ….. how Europeans are biologically superior to Aboriginals (in his opinion)

    Nice one Iain.

  169. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Wherein Iain Hall denies a conclusion that he believes certain human races are “biologically superior” to others by explaining ……

    ….. how Europeans are biologically superior to Aboriginals (in his opinion)

    Nice one Iain.

    Let me try to explain this clearly because you seem so intent upon seeing something in my argument that is not there. I do not believe nor is it my argument that there is any fundamental difference in the humanity between indigenous people and any other “race” of people.they are neither superior or inferior to you or I JM, however when you want to argue biological success is determined by the preponderance of your (and by extension your progenitors )DNA then it requires no value judgement AT ALL to point out that the number indigenous people with non-indigenous features makes it clear that non indigenous DNA is “winning” not because Europeans are in any way “biologically superior” but because of the accidents of history and the very intermarriage that you yourself were citing earlier in this thread.


    TOI

    I am not appealing to may own authority mate I’m just suggesting that from your own confused argument that you don’t know much about the subject yourself.

  170. T.O.I. says:

    Yes Iain, you know more than me. I know this because you say so.
    If only your intelligence was as boundless as your ego.

  171. Iain Hall says:

    Do you know anything about animal behaviour TOI?

  172. T.O.I. says:

    I never interfere in relationships Iain, and I’m not going to interfere in the one you seem to be having with yourself.

  173. JM says:

    Iain, your numerical argument is rubbish. It’s close but there’s no substance to it. If it was you’d be saying the Chinese and the Indians are overwhelming the rest of us (oh wait, they are aren’t they? I’m not sure. Perhaps you could fill us in Iain?)

    It is the gene that is the unit of selection, not the society.

    Societies compete via social things, economic systems, quality of education systems, infrastructure. And war.

    You know you could dig yourself out of the massive hole you’ve dug yourself into just by using that word.

    “War”

    But then you’d find that after wars there are other processes that kick in – “reconciliation” for example, and what’s the other one? Oh yeah. Treaties.

    Can’t have that though can we? Those blackfellas might actually get something. So you persist in this social darwinist claptrap – that was quite popular before WWII – just so you can avoid those words and their consequences.

    And you know what Iain, that social darwinist claptrap has a name. Perhaps you could remind me of it, because I seem to have forgotten. It’s so hard to remember since John Howard outlawed it.

  174. GD says:

    JM, for a so-called qualified scientist, you certainly have a funny way of expressing yourself. I’d have hated to be in your class at uni if you ever lectured. Frankly, JM, you don’t make any sense.

    And frankly, JM, why would a qualified scientist spend so much time arguing with a bloke who lives in the mountains above Brisbane, restoring cars, and running a household?

    What is your pathetic beef with Iain?

    JM, you aren’t a scientist, you aren’t an historian, you aren’t a musician, you are a blow-hard!

  175. GD says:

    a bloke who lives in the mountains above Brisbane, restoring cars, and running a household?

    Take me to task here Iain, if I’m wrong. Oh yeah, and running the best blog in Australia 🙂

  176. JM says:

    GD, these are issues for another day.

    I’ve got Iain cornered and I’m just waiting for his response.

  177. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    I’ve got Iain cornered and I’m just waiting for his response.

    You are arguing with yourself here and desperate because I just don’t use or accept the fundamental assumption that different human beings have any ranking of superiority or inferiority. We live in a world where there is free intermarriage between groups of people who were once quite distinct and the more they intermarry the more that they all begin to share from the whole, thus in my own family my children have a mixed heritage and the longer that we have a multicultural society the more mixed the heritage becomes for every subsequent generation. Any unique qualities that one group of people may have now will be diluted over time by the very intermarriage that you yourself talked about this is just the way of the world.

    This old song might explain it and why it is in fact a good thing that we are all losing some of the distinctiveness that has been used as an excuse to hate each other:


    We have such a melting pot in this country and frankly I think its a good thing.

  178. Iain Hall says:

    GD

    a bloke who lives in the mountains above Brisbane, restoring cars, and running a household?

    Take me to task here Iain, if I’m wrong. Oh yeah, and running the best blog in Australia 🙂

    Modesty prevents me from doing more than taking a small bow at such praise mate!

  179. Iain Hall says:

    TOI

    I never interfere in relationships Iain, and I’m not going to interfere in the one you seem to be having with yourself.

    I’ll take that as a no then, because if you know anything about animal behaviour then you would say so rather than offer this sort of response.

  180. Ray Dixon says:

    I’m not going to interfere in the (relationship) you seem to be having with yourself

    It’s very kind of TOI to let you be yourself, Iain. Maybe TOI needs to work on his own relationship with himself, as he does seem to have some self esteem issues. Self loathing is not good for one’s soul and well-being.

  181. T.O.I. says:

    Iain, when you start making ridiculous comments like “Based on your three posts on this matter here, it is obvious that you know nothing about this subject”, I am just not interested in continuing the discussion, or jumping because you say I should jump, or getting into an “I know ‘x’ and ‘y'” dick waving contest. That’s yours and JM’s method, not mine.
    And I’m not sure what it’s got to do with Ray, other than he feels the need to chime in and run interference for you.

  182. Ray Dixon says:

    I’m not sure what it’s got to do with Ray, other than he feels the need to chime in and run interference for you.

    Okay, TOI, I’ll give you a hint or two what it’s got to do with me:

    1. This is an open blog and there are no debating rules beyond anything that Iain sets in his ‘play nice’ commenting policy. That means anyone can “chime in” at any point and have his or her say on a debate going between two commenters. Think of it as not like an organised and formal debate, but more like a rowdy public meeting where it’s open slather and anyone can have their two bob’s worth.

    2. Refer the bolded part of your comment above. THAT’s what it’s got to do with me (*).

    (* Although I doubt you’re clever enough to understand what I’m getting at by highlighting your “run interference” phrase)

  183. T.O.I. says:

    I didn’t say you weren’t allowed to join in, I just find it interesting how and when you chose to do so. That says more about you than about me, whatever oblique point you are trying to make.

  184. Ray Dixon says:

    whatever oblique point you are trying to make

    I knew you weren’t smart enough to get it. Here’s another hint – you’ve used that same phrase before.

  185. T.O.I. says:

    Anyway, if you two want to spend the afternoon huddled over the computer arguing about who knows what and how much more clever you are than me, fill your boots. The sun is out and I’m going to hit the surf.

  186. T.O.I. says:

    Whatever Ray. Not interested.

  187. Ray Dixon says:

    It looks like only you and I are “huddled over the computer”, TOI – Iain appears to be not around. But I’ve got an excuse, it’s about 37 degrees outside here in Bright and real heat stroke weather. I’m staying inside until it clouds over. What’s your excuse for being indoors in the mild & windy Surf Coast?

    Whatever Ray. Not interested.

    You might soon be very interested in what I’m getting at. And very, um … frustrated & disappointed? Have a lovely stalking day.

  188. Richard Ryan says:

    Is it not strange, or it my warp sense of humor, you never hear that song now,’ thank heavens for little girls’ from the musical Gigi.

  189. GD says:

    Good one, Richard! 🙂

  190. JM says:

    Iain: because I just don’t use or accept the fundamental assumption that different human beings have any ranking of superiority or inferiority

    Iain I’m sorry but that is exactly what you have argued. You have said that certain social groups triumphed over others because of their genetic superiority. And that they have (or would) die out or “lose” as a result.

    Now that argument, linking social structures etc directly to genetics, is called “the ladder of humanity” and is a very old argument that has caused a lot of problems.

    Now so long as you argue for “biological superiority” or whatever you are simply continuing it.

    As soon as you use the word “war” however you will be

    a.) admitting the aboriginals humanity

    b.) be able to treat them as a defeated enemy rather than charity cases.

    Get it?

  191. Iain Hall says:

    TOI
    As Ray Says I have a very laid back attitude to comments here beyond wishing them to remain civil and the reason that I have been absent is that I have been watching a DVD of “The number one ladies detective agency” with my daughter and what a great show it is! absolutely love it! \
    JM

    Iain I’m sorry but that is exactly what you have argued. You have said that certain social groups triumphed over others because of their genetic superiority. And that they have (or would) die out or “lose” as a result.

    Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am arguing about

    TECHNOLOGY

    not GENETICS being the deciding factor. Now there can only be two reasons that you refuse to see that:
    1/ your comprehension skills are really bad
    2/ you don’t understand that technology is not DNA
    3/ all of the above

    Now that argument, linking social structures etc directly to genetics, is called “the ladder of humanity” and is a very old argument that has caused a lot of problems.

    That is the father of all straw-man arguments so just in case you missed it I’ll repeat what I said earlier:

    I just don’t use or accept the fundamental assumption that different human beings have any ranking of superiority or inferiority.


    I’ve made it big in the hope that you will actaully notice precisely what I am saying here and understand that what I am stating is absolutely at odds with your misrepresentation.

    Now so long as you argue for “biological superiority” or whatever you are simply continuing it.

    Well thankfully I’m making no such argument.

    As soon as you use the word “war” however you will be

    a.) admitting the aboriginals humanity

    b.) be able to treat them as a defeated enemy rather than charity cases.
    Get it?

    I have repeatedly said that I hold ALL human beings as being equal in their humanity, so you straw-man argument falls down right there doesn’t it? As for your desire to characterise the conflicts between the indigenous people and settlers as a “war” give me a definition of “war” that makes your argument viable and we can take it from there. But as it stands you have failed miserably to actaully address what I have been saying and instead keep doing battles with your own men of straw.
    That is really sad from someone who claims a science gong.

  192. JM says:

    Iain. You’ve argued for “biological superiority” (and also in terms of the prevalence of “European” genes to boot), not technology (which is the real cause).

    You’re just running away from your own argument. Look, you have fallen for a very common fallacy here, and you continue to fall for it.

    But however, I’ll take you at your word. Technology, ok so now we’re talking about warfare. That’s progress.

    A definition of war. Armed conflict between different social groups over resources.

    Occupation of Australia by Europeans involving armed conflict with the previous occupants and their forcible expulsion and/or exclusion from land they previously owned without interference?

    I think that suits the definition quite admirably. Don’t you?

  193. T.O.I. says:

    As Ray Says I have a very laid back attitude to comments here beyond wishing them to remain civil and the reason that I have been absent is that I have been watching a DVD of “The number one ladies detective agency” with my daughter and what a great show it is! absolutely love it!

    I wasn’t bemoaning your absence Iain. Family time is time well spent. And yes, that is a good show. But where did you get the DVD?

    I’ve got an excuse, it’s about 37 degrees outside here in Bright and real heat stroke weather.

    Well that goes some way to explaining your temper today, Ray.

    What’s your excuse for being indoors in the mild & windy Surf Coast?

    You seemed to have missed the part where I said I was about to hit the surf. And it was great.

    You might soon be very interested in what I’m getting at. And very, um … frustrated & disappointed? Have a lovely st**king day.

    You can’t help yourself, can you Ray? It always comes back to this. Allegations and conspiracy theories rattling around in your head.
    Sorry mate but I’m not s***king you. You’re just not that interesting. Yes, I do visit and read “the other side” to see what they’re saying, and I have commented there a few times. That is about the extent of my involvement. I don’t condone some of the stuff they say, then again I don’t condone some of the stuff said here either. I am not Bickle, Bill, Sear, Surname, Gread, Bridges, Husky, Lee Rosser or any of your other obsessions. So build a bridge and get over it.

  194. Ray Dixon says:

    I do visit and read “the other side” to see what they’re saying, and I have commented there a few times.

    Just that admission justifies my needling of you, TOI (Tip: it wasn’t “temper” I was using, just brains). So, what name(s) did/do you comment under over there? Come on, you stuck your stupid foot in your stupid mouth, cough up.

  195. GD says:

    Sounds like TOI’s defecting from the dark side….. 🙂

  196. JM says:

    Oh another thing Iain

    I have repeatedly said that I hold ALL human beings as being equal in their humanity

    I know you have. And I don’t believe that you hold the sort of hate for black people that some of the white trash of South Africa do (or did) for example.

    However, I do think that you were running a very prejudiced argument that has some very nasty implications. That’s what got me going on this thread. Maybe you weren’t thinking very clearly.

    I’m glad you’ve backed away from it though (or appear to have).

  197. Ray Dixon says:

    No, GD, he plays both sides of the fence, as he’s clearly admitted. He is one of the nastier characters on the Internet and delights in anonymous stalking.

  198. Iain Hall says:

    TOI

    Family time is time well spent. And yes, that is a good show. But where did you get the DVD?

    From my public library who are a very good source of such things , its a free service and you get to have them for a month but if you want to buy it I’m sure the usual suspects will have it.
    JM

    Iain. You’ve argued for “biological superiority” (and also in terms of the prevalence of “European” genes to boot), not technology (which is the real cause).

    OK Let me say this slowly because you seem to be incapable of understanding an argument made at normal speed, I am saying that because of long-standing intermarriage that there will be a loss of some distinctiveness from formally discrete groups of human beings, that observation neither makes nor requires ANY value judgement about the place of any group of people in any sort of hierarchy because I don’t believe that such a hierarchy is in any sense correct or appropriate. I make no such value judgements, now and none of my comments previously do so either. YOU are projecting upon me some sort of caricature that is entirely wrong.Here is a hint for you, try reading what I say rather than what you imagine that caricature is arguing.

    You’re just running away from your own argument. Look, you have fallen for a very common fallacy here, and you continue to fall for it.

    Bollocks how can I run away from an argument that I have not been making in the first place?

    But however, I’ll take you at your word. Technology, ok so now we’re talking about warfare. That’s progress.

    Not necessarily.

    A definition of war. Armed conflict between different social groups over resources.

    So do both sides have to be armed? and what constitutes “arms” in your definition?

    Occupation of Australia by Europeans involving armed conflict with the previous occupants and their forcible expulsion and/or exclusion from land they previously owned without interference?

    Where precisely was this “war” of yours fought? Who led the indigenous army?

    I think that suits the definition quite admirably. Don’t you?

    Not even close mate.

  199. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    However, I do think that you were running a very prejudiced argument that has some very nasty implications. That’s what got me going on this thread. Maybe you weren’t thinking very clearly.

    I’m glad you’ve backed away from it though (or appear to have).

    My position has not changed JM, not by the tiniest bit, YOU have been fighting your own straw-man, but I am rather curious as to why you think my argument is “prejudiced”,and as for “nasty implications” they exist only in your foetid imaginings of that caricature rather than what I have been arguing.

  200. JM says:

    Iain you’re being ridiculous. Scroll back. You claim that the occupation of Australia was some form of “biological competition” and not war.

    You’re still claiming that, even though for a second there you admitted that technology was the prime factor. Technology in the 19th Century did not involve biology at all.

    Now to the definition of war. There is no need for there to be an “indigenous army”. Have you heard of guerilla warfare?

    So let me ask you to return the favour. Define “biological competition” in a way that excludes social structures. Please.

  201. T.O.I. says:

    So, what name(s) did/do you comment under over there?

    The same one I am using here.

    Come on, you stuck your stupid foot in your stupid mouth, cough up.

    I already have. Unlike some of my present company, I am quite happy to admit to a bit of sock puppeting. A shame that others are so dishonest about it.

    No, GD, he plays both sides of the fence, as he’s clearly admitted

    No, I admitted that I read it. So do you, I bet. I am not playing anything.
    Why can’t you go a week without starting some kind of idiotic fight or reigniting a fizzling blog war? Is your life so dull that you constantly feel the need to niggle and argue? Seriously mate, just get over it.

  202. JM says:

    And another thing, just on the definition of “war”. Are you trying to tell me that anything less than the total involvement of all adults of a nation – on both sides – is not a war? ie. anything less than “total war” is not war?

    ie. that gangland wars are not wars?. That the tribal wars that still occur in many parts of the word, often involving only a few 10’s of participants are not wars?

    Or that perhaps the wars of the musket and pike era (approx 16th Century) were not wars because only a fraction of the men of each nation were involved?

    Or is it the definition of ‘nation’ that is causing you problems? Are you trying to say that because the natives did not have a coast-to-coast political organisation (like we do) capable of raising an army, that any efforts they made to use violence to defend their interests did not constitute a war?

    If you want to adopt that definition, what then is a civil war? Or a war like that in Iraq over the last 8 years or so? There’s barely a national organisation there at all, but there’s still a war.

    Iain you are talking nonsense.

  203. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    By your definition it was war well I would say otherwise quite simply because there was such a huge technological difference between the indigenous people and the settlers,
    There was no resistance worthy of even being called a guerrilla war, and while the indigenous activists talk about massacres and atrocities (that I don’t deny happened)being victims of such nastiness does not constitute fighting a “war” to do that you need to actaully fight, to resist . Spearing the occasional settler over a personal beef does not count as war either. It was the indigenous disunity and lack of any sense of social cohesiveness that contributed to their failure to resist as much as it was their lack of the technology to effectively do so.

    Define “biological competition” in a way that excludes social structures. Please.

    Settlers came here and they exploited the land in a way unimagined by the people who were already here they were able to do better from the country than those original inhabitants not because they were in ANY SENSE superior creatures but because they had technology and literacy on their side.

  204. Ray Dixon says:

    No one has commented there as “TOI”.

    I am quite happy to admit to a bit of sock puppeting

    So, I repeat the question: Under what name(s) do/did you comment at SW?

    My life is far from “dull”, TOI. And, unlike you, I don’t slink around at sleazy, anonymously authored hate blogs and make disparaging and untrue comments about others. Are you so stupid that you don’t understand you have just admitted to stalking?

    Anyway, answer the question. What name(s) do you use over there?

  205. GD says:

    TOI has, on occasion, used his real name, as I know it to be, over at SW

  206. T.O.I. says:

    Actually, GD, I haven’t. That was someone else pretending to be me. Lord knows why. However I have definitely commented there as ‘The Other Iain’.

    Ray, for the last week you have shown grit and stood up to the wingnuts here on behalf of refugees, migrants and the indigenous. But then the hot weather comes, you go off your meds and start ranting and raving with this “Everyone’s s***king me” routine.

    Lucky “Sax” isn’t here for that extra dollop of paranoia.

  207. GD says:

    Sorry, TOI, yes, that’s the name I saw, ‘The Other Iain’.

  208. JM says:

    Iain: There was no resistance worthy of even being called a guerrilla war

    This is utterly lunatic. Iain they resisted, ok? The events in my own family that I spoke of earlier related to attacks on us by local aboriginals who were resisting. Ok? (We retaliated). There are records of long term efforts to drive the settlers off by killing their livestock. You’ve only got to knock off a few animals a night to do serious damage to the economics of a farm.

    The Conniston Massacre which I referred to earlier was occasioned by native attacks on the settlers by organised “marauding bands” (according to the official report).

    What the hell are you saying? That you have to have equal technology on both sides before it’s a war? Equal numbers perhaps?

    What rubbish.

    It is doubtful that the majority of wars in history would meet that criteria.

  209. GD says:

    The events in my own family that I spoke of earlier related to attacks on us by local aboriginals who were resisting. Ok? (We retaliated)

    No JM, they weren’t your family. A distant ancestor of yours married an aborigine and started another branch of the human tree. Nothing to do with you or your family.

    ‘We retaliated’…oh FFS

  210. JM says:

    Iain: Spearing the occasional settler over a personal beef does not count as war either

    Yeah? So I suppose the retaliation doesn’t count as war either? And what’s the personal beef Iain?

    Oh that’s right:- “You’re on my land, fencing it in, and taking away my access to the river so I can’t fish”. And Iain, in case you haven’t noticed a spear is a weapon, deadly in the right circumstances.

    Armed conflict over resources. ie. war.

  211. JM says:

    GD, try and read what I wrote carefully. The intermarriage created a separate branch of the family, but the conflict occurred much earlier at the time of original settlement (although there were other incidents that occurred up until the start of the 20th century)

    We occupied the land and were the original settlers. The local aboriginals tried to drive us off by various means. Is that too hard for you?

  212. GD says:

    Ah, so your family were white settlers…ok, and one married an aborigine….

    It’s hard to follow your narrative, JM, because one minute you’re talking from the black perspective and now you’re supposedly arguing from the white perspective.

    It’s all very interesting anyway, so please continue.

  213. JM says:

    Iain: but because they had technology and literacy on their side

    Yes, I agree, I think that’s obvious.

    But that is not biological superiority is it? Which was your original case. Are you going to back away from that argument and withdraw it?

    Because if you are, then you are going to need a word for what happened. War seems like a good one.

    Or are you going to be Shakespearean and coin a new one?

  214. JM says:

    GD: re. black/white perspectives.

    Because they aren’t separate GD. And they are not opposed. They are the one and the same.

    War followed by reconciliation. Not too hard. Now all we need is for that reconciliation to be

    a.) more widespread within the nation

    b.) followed by a treaty or other clear recognition of the original inhabitants.

    I told you this was complex, but the solution is not. It’s simple.

  215. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    This is utterly lunatic. Iain they resisted, ok? The events in my own family that I spoke of earlier related to attacks on us by local aboriginals who were resisting. Ok? (We retaliated). There are records of long term efforts to drive the settlers off by killing their livestock. You’ve only got to knock off a few animals a night to do serious damage to the economics of a farm.

    Let me put this to you JM imagine for a minute that you are a hunter gatherer and the main game that you hunt is the Kangaroo, which are both quick and very wary and all of a sudden this other mob bring into the landscape some different game that are domesticated enough that they are easier to kill, now if you go and spear some sheep on a regular basis are you “resisting” or are you just after an easy feed? You have to have the goal of driving off the newcomers for it to be “resistance” and I’ve never seen any evidence that any of the incidents that you allude to had any purpose other than payback for local beefs, the idea that such arguments constituted some sort of war suggests that there was some sort of organisation or even an ideology that only exits in the imagination of those in the present imagining the past in their own image.

    The Conniston Massacre which I referred to earlier was occasioned by native attacks on the settlers by organised “marauding bands” (according to the official report.

    Define native “attacks” because I reckon that most would comedown to rather mundane stuff.

    What the hell are you saying? That you have to have equal technology on both sides before it’s a war? Equal numbers perhaps?What rubbish.It is doubtful that the majority of wars in history would meet that criteria

    Not of necessity equal but much closer than stone age vs industrial technology certainly is necessary for it to qualify as a “war”.

    1. That “feral rabble” have been there for around 40 years and there has been little or no progress since. In fact in terms of life expectancy things have actually gone backwards.

    Ah there speaks the voice of mad lefties who want to dismiss the frankly very large improvements in both the respect and social standing of indigenous people in this country over the last forty years. Of course there is still lots to do but to say that there has been “little or no progress” is just bullshit.

    2. I presume that the author (and you) were fully in favour of constitution change until those n****** got a bit too “uppitty” and ruined everything by shouting loudly

    You are projecting again JM I have always though that making any change to to constitution to recognise people of any ethnicity as “special” is a bad idea. Our constitution should and does at present, enshrine the notion that ALL Australians are absolutely equal before and under our law no matter what their ethnicity is. To create exceptions (even good exceptions) for those who claim a particular genealogy is divisive and it will entrench inequality.

    3. “self identify”. Disadvantage goes a bit deeper than self identification mate. On occasion I “self identify” as Irish as my ancestors were Irish. But being raised “touched with the tar brush” has a more serious effect on your prospects than occasionally being called an “Irish git”.

    Prejudice is prejudice no matter what and the sooner we stop focusing on our differences and concentrate instead upon our shared humanity the the sooner that we will have a better society so lets keep our constitution blind to ethnicity for a better future.

  216. Richard Ryan says:

    IT’S the old saying—–birds of a feather flock together. I find it strange how some comments stick in your mind, I remember working in South Africa over forty years ago, when this Boer asked an Aussie, did they have any trouble with the blacks, in Australia, no he replied, we shot most of them. Another comment, that sticks out in my mind, this Yankee dude, on a ship cruise, telling me he don’t like blacks—- and then on reflection, saying they come in handy for fighting our wars.

  217. Ray Dixon says:

    for the last week you have shown grit and stood up to the wingnuts here on behalf of refugees, migrants and the indigenous. But then the hot weather comes, you go off your meds and start ranting and raving with this “Everyone’s s***king me” routine. Lucky “Sax” isn’t here for that extra dollop of paranoia.

    TOI, as I have explained to you before, I do not deal in conspiracy theories or paranoid delusions about people stalking me. And I do not sling wild accusations – I only talk about the FACTS. I realise you have an extra thick skull so I will list those facts very carefully so you can understand them:

    1. SW is an anonymously authored hate blog.
    2. Its primary targets are Iain Hall and myself – ie real identities.
    3. Its primary purpose is to denigrate our reputations and incite hatred against us. i.e. to damage us
    4. No one comments there under their real name.
    5. The sheer volume and ongoing derogatory and hateful comments amount to stalking as defined by The Act.
    5. Those who do comment there and participate in that primary purpose are, therefore, stalking as defined by The Act.
    6. You comment there and participate in its primary purpose – ie bagging Iain and/or myself.
    7. You have admitted to (6) above.
    8. You are a stalker.

    There are a few other facts I could throw at you but I’ll save them for another day.

  218. T.O.I. says:

    [img src=”http://www.jacksonvillebankruptcylawyerblog.com/rsz_zero-interest-business-concept_5829309-515×643.jpg” /]

  219. T.O.I. says:

    Damn, a fail on my part. Iain will have to give me lessons on posting silly pics.
    Ray, not interested. Go to the cops if you think it’s illegal. And I don’t care what opinion you have formed, I am not st**king you. To st**k someone you need to have at least some interest in them.

  220. Ray Dixon says:

    I am not st**king you. To st**k someone you need to have at least some interest in them.

    Your definition of stalking is naive, TOI. You participated in SW. You stalked.

  221. T.O.I. says:

    You have commented there too. So by your hair-splitting definition, you have st**ked yourself.
    Other than making a few comments there, I do not have a dog in this race. So go to the cops Ray. Or stop bothering me with it.

  222. Ray Dixon says:

    I posted a rebutall against the stalking behaviour there. That is not participating in the purpose of the blog, like you do. Christ you’re thick. And desperate.

  223. Ray Dixon says:

    Btw, I’ll decide when and if I ever lodge a complaint with the police over your behaviour, TOI. In the meantime I’ll keep bothering you about it every time you start slinging off at others here on this blog. Got it?

  224. T.O.I. says:

    I commented there because I was banned here. For no apparent reason other than giving as good as I got. I no longer comment there.
    Go to the cops Ray. I am not interested in your hot air.

  225. T.O.I. says:

    You are a real winner Ray. No wonder the constituents of Dognackers Shire or wherever you are think you’re unelectable.
    You piss and moan about how SW is illegal, citing legislation and what not. You accuse me of s***ing you because I have made some posts there. And now you say “It’s up to me when I go to the police” and “I’m going to target you on this blog”. In other words, you won’t do anything about it, you just like whinging and picking fights. Whinge whinge whinge. That’s all you seem to do here.
    Grow a pair or grow up, you jerk.

  226. Ray Dixon says:

    You were banned here because of your personal abuse, TOI. And you commented there before that anyway under other names – you have admitted that. The problem with lying, like you do, is you keep forgetting what you have previously said.

  227. T.O.I. says:

    And if anyone knows about posting under other names and lying about it, it’s you.

  228. Ray Dixon says:

    I posted under SockPuppet. Here and only here. As an invited parody author. Harmless fun. That matter has been done to death and it amounts to nothing other than a bloke writing on a fully identified blog with full recourse back to the identified owner, being Iain Hall. That is nowhere near the equivalent of what you and the other scumbags do at SW. As for “lying”, I have also explained that to you countless times – I only “lied” about it to the anonymous, stalking scumbags at SW. Big deal. Now stop the crap with your finger pointing at others and your ridiculous claims that I am somehow as bad and guilty as you are. No way Jose.

  229. JM says:

    Iain I’ll address the first of your points about sheep.

    The killing of sheep was not “an easy feed”. It was what we would now call “economic terrrorism”. They didn’t have much choice. You are just regurgitating Blainey’s “Truimph of the Nomads” argument.

    And it is wrong.

    In other parts of the country personal attacks were common, that’s what sparked the Conniston Massacre. Further there are records from the earliest days of the Port Jackson settlement (Sydney to you) of personal attacks.

    And the attacks on my family were personal attacks.

    They resisted Iain. There is no doubt about that. Absolutely none.

    Now Blainey to make this nonsensical argument that they did not actually resist stick has to postulate that the didn’t notice the threat to their livelihood. That they were “nomads” who were somehow different from us. ie. he sneaks up on saying “less than human” or “inferior” but never quite comes out baldly and says what he actually means.

    (But Blainey is a bit schizoid on this topic as he has supported calls for the Frontier Wars to incorporated into the Australian War Memorial. If Blainey can use the word “war” why can’t you?)

  230. Ray Dixon says:

    Grow a pair or grow up, you jerk.

    Oh, I missed that one, TOI. Posting in rapid succession, I see? Losing your temper, I see? And using “Saxisms”, I see? It’s not hard to wind you up and get you to say things that give you away. You’re as guilty as all hell, mate.

  231. Ray Dixon says:

    Anyway, TOI, I’ve had my fun with you for today (and got you to humiliate and incriminate yourself! – Christ you’re easy) and, as the last of our Xmas holiday guests have now left after 5 long weeks being flat out and 100% occupied (what was that about not being a “winner”?), I’ve got a lot of work to do. You can carry on under your various guises. About time you vented your spleen at SW again isn’t it? Cheerio for now, tosser.

  232. JM says:

    Iain: very large improvements in both the respect and social standing of indigenous people in this country over the last forty years

    Yeah the platitudes have gone up. But life expectancy is down.

    Our constitution should and does at present, enshrine the notion that ALL Australians are absolutely equal before and under our law no matter what their ethnicity is

    Not quite. That’s why we want to change it.

    lets keep our constitution blind to ethnicity

    Good idea. Maybe some people could also stop with the nonsense that certain Australians are not fully cognisant of and willing to defend their interests.

    War. It’s an easy word Iain.

    Makes it a lot easier to think about these issues too.

  233. T.O.I. says:

    I posted under SockPuppet. Here and only here. As an invited parody author. Harmless fun.

    So harmless you repeatedly lied about it. Here and there.

    Posting in rapid succession, I see? Losing your temper, I see?

    You’re the one who just made three posts in a row, you dill. Were your hands shaking as you typed them?

    As the last of our Xmas holiday guests have now left after 5 long weeks being flat out and 100% occupied (what was that about not being a “winner”?

    Are you trying to convince me or convince yourself? You going to tell me your bank balance next?

    About time you vented your spleen at SW again isn’t it?

    Why would I bother posting over there to say you’re an irrational nutjob? Anyone who reads this thread will work it out easily enough.

  234. Ray Dixon says:

    you repeatedly lied about it. Here and there.

    No I didn’t, TOI. This has been done to death. I did not “repeatedly lie” about the ownership of the SockPuppet character. This was also explained in the post ‘The SockPuppet files’ quite clearly, and you have not been able to refute that despite your best (pathetic) efforts:

    https://iainhall.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/the-sockpuppet-files/

    “Oh, one of those queries might be why did I “lie” about being SockPuppet? I “lied” about it at that other anonymous blog I referred to earlier because, well let’s face it, no one owes them the truth. I also denied the ownership just once on this blog in a comment I made in response to Iain (who knew the identity anyway). The purpose of those denials was (a) to keep the character going (b) not to give the aforementioned scumbags any sense of triumph. The simple reality is that I, at no stage, had any obligation whatsoever to admit the ownership.”

    But still you persist with your ‘liar, liar pants on fire’ accusations. Because you want to deflect from your own lying and shitful behaviour, no doubt.

    You’re the one who just made three posts in a row

    The difference being, lamebrain, is that I did not make them in anger, spitting out bile & invective like you did. Like you always do when you are wound up and you lose it.

    Are you trying to convince me or convince yourself? You going to tell me your bank balance next?

    I’m not trying to convince anyone on that score. It was a response to your inference that I am a loser. Geezus, you are dumb.

    Why would I bother posting over there to say you’re an irrational nutjob? Anyone who reads this thread will work it out easily enough.

    Yeah, well you’re the only one saying so. I think most others can see quite clearly how irrational , hot-headed and scared Mr L— is coming across.

  235. T.O.I. says:

    Seriously Ray, I just don’t have the time or interest to respond to your claptrap today. Maybe I should go into the motel business, then I’d more time on my hands.
    Have a good day and see if you can locate that prescription of yours – I think it needs filling.

  236. Ray Dixon says:

    Then why have you bothered? Btw, it’s not a “motel” and I’m not on “meds” unless you’re referring to asthma medication. You just can’t help it with the backhanders, can you? You really are a piece of work. Yeah, please piss off. Go join your other identities, Mr L—: So many names, so few brains.

  237. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    The killing of sheep was not “an easy feed”. It was what we would now call “economic terrrorism”. They didn’t have much choice. You are just regurgitating Blainey’s “Truimph of the Nomads” argument.

    Compared to a roo it would have been an easy feed which was my point, as for Blainy I can’t regurgitate that which I have not read.

    And it is wrong.

    In other parts of the country personal attacks were common, that’s what sparked the Conniston Massacre. Further there are records from the earliest days of the Port Jackson settlement (Sydney to you) of personal attacks.

    There was undoubtedly “friction” but that is unremarkable, however to call it “War” is just your way to try to elevate a bit of sheep stealing in to something more noble than it was.

    And the attacks on my family were personal attacks.

    They resisted Iain. There is no doubt about that. Absolutely none.

    Hang on a minute, when you say “my family” who precisely are you referring to here?
    Is it the “touched by the tar brush” branch or the “I’m no blackfella” linage which has given you to us?

    Now Blainey to make this nonsensical argument that they did not actually resist stick has to postulate that the didn’t notice the threat to their livelihood. That they were “nomads” who were somehow different from us. ie. he sneaks up on saying “less than human” or “inferior” but never quite comes out baldly and says what he actually means.

    Oh I see now that I am not the only author that you project your prejudices upon why can’t you take people at their word rather than seeing some dark unspoken purpose and a subtext of racism? If you did it would save you from so many of your futile straw man arguments.

  238. JM says:

    Iain my criticism of Blainey is one that other people have made, I am not the originator of it.

    And secondly “attacks on my family” refers to the direct lineage, ie. the ‘whitefella’ line.

    And those attacks were not sheep stealing. They were direct “let’s kill ’em” type attacks. They were trying to drive us off. We were the first (and only) family in the area and they knew that if they couldn’t get rid of us that there would be others. So they tried. But they failed and there were others and they kept trying for quite a long time.

    Now let me say something about this sheep stealing thing. It’s bogus and if you think about it for a second you’d realise why.

    Sheep are heavy. A basic requirement in a spot of sheep steeling is dragging the carcass away, which for a bunch of people living in the stone age is a bit of an issue – no Holden utes for them.

    This is important if you backtrack a bit. What happens to a flock of sheep when one of their number gets killed? They get a little bit upset and start making some noise. Doesn’t matter how the animal was killed, fox, dog, poacher, native, whatever – they get restless.

    And farmers hearing this and thinking of their own welfare, reach for their gun.

    So there you are with your “free feed” dragging it across 50-100 meters of open ground and now you’ve got the farmer taking pot shots at you. Pretty risky “free feed”.

    No Iain, it was economic warfare, strategic warfare if you like (much like Britain’s bombing of Germany’s economic resources during WWII hey?) Because it’s much easier just to kill a few sheep and run, leaving the farmer to deal with the loss, than risk your neck for a bit of mutton.

  239. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    And secondly “attacks on my family” refers to the direct lineage, ie. the ‘whitefella’ line.

    And those attacks were not sheep stealing. They were direct “let’s kill ‘em” type attacks. They were trying to drive us off. We were the first (and only) family in the area and they knew that if they couldn’t get rid of us that there would be others. So they tried. But they failed and there were others and they kept trying for quite a long time.

    I bet that they started out as something like sheep stealing or similar “friction”
    and escalated over time, just like any feud on the frontier.

    Now let me say something about this sheep stealing thing. It’s bogus and if you think about it for a second you’d realise why.

    Sheep are heavy. A basic requirement in a spot of sheep steeling is dragging the carcass away, which for a bunch of people living in the stone age is a bit of an issue – no Holden utes for them.

    This is important if you backtrack a bit. What happens to a flock of sheep when one of their number gets killed? They get a little bit upset and start making some noise. Doesn’t matter how the animal was killed, fox, dog, poacher, native, whatever – they get restless.

    Your scenario has a number of holes in it, firstly not every sheep is impossible to carry especially when they are young and juicy, secondly are you telling me that sheep would have always been with in cooee of teh farmer every night? I don’t think so! Secondly sheep who are habituated to humans don’t make that much fuss about people being among them. Thirdly the fact that mutton is high in fat makes them very attractive to a culture that values the rare types of game that have it in abundance, so much so that they may well have considered the prize worth the risk.

    And farmers hearing this and thinking of their own welfare, reach for their gun.

    Yeah maybe but what chance do you they had of doing more than firing warning shots?

    So there you are with your “free feed” dragging it across 50-100 meters of open ground and now you’ve got the farmer taking pot shots at you. Pretty risky “free feed”.

    Gee anyone would think that there was only ever sheep in one location or that there must have been a state approved design for every farm with the mandated open ground as you describe.

    No Iain, it was economic warfare, strategic warfare if you like (much like Britain’s bombing of Germany’s economic resources during WWII hey?) Because it’s much easier just to kill a few sheep and run, leaving the farmer to deal with the loss, than risk your neck for a bit of mutton.

    I really don’t think that there was anywhere near the level of thought or planing involved and that this claim like many of yours on thsi topic are projections and justification of your beliefs about this subject rather than being based upon much by way of facts.

  240. damage says:

    T.0.I’s too busy to reply Ray. He’s been off making hindreds against the bottom teams while avoiding playing at all against the top teams. Till this week when he scored 4 and was out to the oldest player in the comp. Still if you avoid the top bowlers you can average 57 too Ray. That may be what he’s avoiding this week Ray. I think you have him covered and he knows it. So he won’t play. It improves his average.

  241. T.O.I. says:

    Oh look, Ray’s got a new friend.
    A hundred is a hundred regardless of the opposition, Dumbage. Not that you’d know what it feels like.

  242. JM says:

    Iain, what rot.

    What does a farmer do if he finds dead sheep and suspects a fox is about? He goes looking for the fox or he lies in wait for it.

    End result: dead fox.

    Same with “sheep steeling”. Result: Dead native. And how do the Aboriginal’s react? Yeah with violence to extract revenge.

    So you end up with a war anyway. Because both sides can see their vital interests are at stake.

    Blainey’s scenario however requires that

    a.) the Aboriginals pay no attention to the fact that there are encroachments on their land

    b.) the settlers turn around and say “hey no biggie” and ignore livestock losses

    ie. that neither side sees their vital interests being affected. Rubbish.

    The whole argument is a crock from start to finish

    BTW – lambs are not that light – I think they’re about 40-50 kg at slaughter. Yes you can carry them up to a certain age but it’s not the easiest thing in the world

  243. JM says:

    Iain: as for Blainy I can’t regurgitate that which I have not read

    You can actually, you just may not realize it.

    Blainey’s book was required reading in Australian schools for many years and so his view is quite common. It’s probably where you picked it up from.

    And it’s where I first heard it. In high school. I went home and related it to my father, an ex-sheep farmer, who immediately became quite stern with me, sat me down and told me the truth.

  244. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    What does a farmer do if he finds dead sheep and suspects a fox is about? He goes looking for the fox or he lies in wait for it.

    End result: dead fox.

    It would have to be a very big fox to take a sheep mate.

    Same with “sheep steeling”. Result: Dead native. And how do the Aboriginal’s react? Yeah with violence to extract revenge.

    The farmer would have to have noticed the loss in the first place which would not be certain

    So you end up with a war anyway. Because both sides can see their vital interests are at stake.

    You may certainly end up with conflict but that still leave the sticking point of what actaully constitutes a war.

    Blainey’s scenario however requires that

    a.) the Aboriginals pay no attention to the fact that there are encroachments on their land

    b.) the settlers turn around and say “hey no biggie” and ignore livestock losses

    ie. that neither side sees their vital interests being affected. Rubbish.

    The whole argument is a crock from start to finish

    Not having read Blainey I have no idea how accurate you parapharse is but given your track record for misunderstanding even the most clear and cogent arguments I am willing to bet that Blainey’s argument was far from being as simplistic as you claim here.

    BTW – lambs are not that light – I think they’re about 40-50 kg at slaughter. Yes you can carry them up to a certain age but it’s not the easiest thing in the world

    I had a pet sheep JM so I know just how big they are and I have no doubt that they are able to be carried easily by a fit man, especial when they are not overfed like the one that I had.

  245. JM says:

    Iain: had a pet sheep JM so I know just how big they are and I have no doubt that they are able to be carried easily by a fit man,

    A fully grown sheep weighs about 80 kg. I don’t know about the people you mix with but I know very few “fit men” who can carry 80 kg over distances of around 100m*, especially at running pace and under fire, let alone lift it easily.

    Look Iain, the argument about “sheep stealing” is a house of cards. It falls apart at the slightest touch no matter how you look at it.

    * which is about the size of a paddock.

  246. damage says:

    Well you stay away from the top teams then T.0.l and make your hundreds. 57 is a cracking average and you can stand proudly on that. Especially if you can avoid a few single figure scores at the hands of the better attacks. Just like here. Ray’s not exactly an A Grade attack, but you’re still not taking block against him. Keeping your average alive. Maybe you can debate Ray in March when you have more time.

  247. Ray Dixon says:

    Ray’s not exactly an A Grade attack but you’re still not taking block against him.

    Why should I go flat out when he can be bowled with slow underarms?

  248. GD says:

    while you’re here, Ray, have I a comment in moderation?

  249. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    A fully grown sheep weighs about 80 kg. I don’t know about the people you mix with but I know very few “fit men” who can carry 80 kg over distances of around 100m*, especially at running pace and under fire, let alone lift it easily.

    You make a number of false assumptions here:

    1/that every sheep weighed that much at the time in question especially after sheering.
    2/ that every flock was within easy distance of the farmhouse
    3/ that each time a sheep was stolen it was done noisily
    4/ that the thief would have been under fire as he took his prize away for consumption.
    5/ that there was any kind of standard paddock size

    Any one of them is enough to make your argument wrong and you have given us all five.

  250. JM says:

    It’s time to bell this cat.

    Iain, you are grasping at straws. You have run through just about every terra nullius argument in existence:

    * genetically inferior or “biologically” inferior occupants
    * no meaningful use of the land
    * no meaningful political organisation
    * no meaningful resistance

    I’ve refuted every one of them

    Now these were all (excepting the first which is unacceptable these days) presented during the Mabo case.

    The High Court rejected them. All of them. In detail.

    For the same reasons I have. They deny both the facts and the full humanity of the Aboriginal people.

    You’re good at the platitudes Iain, but you persist in repeating the BS.

  251. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iain, you are grasping at straws. You have run through just about every terra nullius argument in existence:

    Really? Is that what you think that I have been arguing here?

    * genetically inferior or “biologically” inferior occupants

    Nup as I pointed out I see no difference in the humanity in the players of this drama.

    * no meaningful use of the land

    Never said that and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

    * no meaningful political organisation

    Are you saying that there was any meaningful Indigenous leadership Much above “clan” level? Even with modern technology they could not run ATSIC with out massive corruption and constant internal squabbles.

    * no meaningful resistance

    Well it all depends on how its defined now doesn’t it?

    I’ve refuted every one of them

    No, you have tried and generally failed. However Now that you are trying to change the focus of the debate from sheep stealing to this attempt to spin the narrative in your favour I think that it must mean that you are conceding the ground on the sheep issue,

    Now these were all (excepting the first which is unacceptable these days) presented during the Mabo case.

    The High Court rejected them. All of them. In detail.

    For the same reasons I have. They deny both the facts and the full humanity of the Aboriginal people.

    Well That may be so but I have not read the Mabo Judgement nor do I care to

    You’re good at the platitudes Iain, but you persist in repeating the BS.

    You are an expert at self delusion and refusing to argue against what your interlocutors actaully say, instead you attack the men of straw from your own imaginings.
    Sorry JM but this cat is doing fine and still punching
    Photobucket Pictures, Images and Photos

    And not a bell in sight

  252. Richard Ryan says:

    Were cats also not imported feral, along with the convicts?. Gee these cats do some damage to our wildlife, meowwwwwwwwwwww But we will have to wait and see what damage the American Marines do when they enter the Northern Part Of Australia——I can see lots of Marine Babies on the way—–as we have in Vietnam——HA-HA, daddy comes from Australia, daddy no good, he back in Australia with his wife, says the mother of the Vietnamese child.

  253. JM says:

    Iain I despair of you, I really do.

    Re-read your last comment. Every one of your “retorts” does nothing more than confirm my point. Then scroll back through this thread. You’ll find that you actually have made the arguments I accuse you of.

    In the immortal words of Sir Peter Medawar*


    [You] have been educated far beyond your capacity for rational thought**

    Now given the apparently rather subdued nature of your education, I’d have to say that it’s not saying much for your capacities or your rationality.

    And can I refer you to the Monty Python “Argument” sketch. You don’t have skills in argument or debate Iain. All you indulge in is pointless contradiction.

    So you had a pet sheep? And that makes you an authority on Australian history? To overrule the conclusions of every Australian historian (excluding Windschuttle who is actually an ex-Marxist economist)?

    Good luck with that mate.

    * Nobel Prize winner, along with Australian MacFarlane Burnett

    ** Speaking in respect of an idiotic English Lit graduate who reviewed and critiqued Richard Dawkins “The Selfish Gene” on the grounds that genes were not conscious thereby totally mistaking the metaphor.

  254. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Your capacity for arrogance makes you a legend in your own lunchtime.

    Re-read your last comment. Every one of your “retorts” does nothing more than confirm my point. Then scroll back through this thread. You’ll find that you actually have made the arguments I accuse you of.

    Oh really? then you will have no trouble putting together a cogent argument with citations to the comemnts which you think make that arguments you claim But I expect that you will make some bullshit excuse to cover the fact that I am not making the argument that you think is there.

    In the immortal words of Sir Peter Medawar*

    [You] have been educated far beyond your capacity for rational thought**

    Well at the very least I am upfront and honest about which gongs that I actaully have. Unlike you who claims some mysterious science qualification that you won’t even name.

    Now given the apparently rather subdued nature of your education, I’d have to say that it’s not saying much for your capacities or your rationality.

    I am not the one thinking on more than one occasion on this thread that you have had me cornered, or that you have “belled the cat”

    And can I refer you to the Monty Python “Argument” sketch. You don’t have skills in argument or debate Iain. All you indulge in is pointless contradiction.

    Yet you continue to come back for more don’t you JM? Given the number of blogs to choose from you come here, Hmm I wonder why?

    So you had a pet sheep? And that makes you an authority on Australian history? To overrule the conclusions of every Australian historian (excluding Windschuttle who is actually an ex-Marxist economist)?

    No, having a pet sheep means that I got up close and personal with the species and I appreciate the size and weight of them something that has obviously eluded you in your life even though you claim a family connection with the land.

  255. JM says:

    Iain I think you’ll find that, in general usage, “up close and personal” has a rather different meaning than the one I think you intended.

    I am not making the argument that you think is there.

    Well what argument are you making Iain?

  256. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iain I think you’ll find that, in general usage, “up close and personal” has a rather different meaning than the one I think you intended.

    Take note of this because it does not happen often, yes you are right I had not thought of that meaning when I used the phrase but I am glad that you have not decided to run with it.

    Well what argument are you making Iain?

    Well certainly not any reiteration of the “Terra Nullious” line, that’s for sure.

  257. JM says:

    Iain: Well certainly not any reiteration of the “Terra Nullious” line, that’s for sure

    What then?

  258. Iain Hall says:

    Read back over what I have actaully said on this topic here and then you should be able to work it out.

  259. JM says:

    Why don’t you just tell me? I have read back over this thread and maybe I’m a bit slow but I can’t work it out.

  260. JM says:

    Iain: [crickets]

    Looks like the kitty’s not punching anymore*

    Ok, it was a war Iain. And you and I are sitting on the fruits of victory.

    Now victors feel any guilt? Not usually. And I don’t, nor do any of my family.

    But what do they end up holding apart from the fruits of victory?

    Responsibility.

    For reconciliation, resolution and rebuilding.

    And Australia has been absolutely terrible at fulfilling it’s responsibilities.

    Reconciliation is only very partial. Resolution is nil, although a treaty or constitutional change would go a long way.

    And rebuilding is absolutely nowhere. Aboriginals have a life expectancy around 20 years less than “white” people. 20 years. The aboriginal boy born next to me in the same week, in the same ward of the same hospital has 20 years less life than I do (statistically speaking).

    That is an utter disgrace. And you and I sitting here victorious have no business refusing to fix that.

    * you mistook the metaphor. It’s not related to boxing. It’s about putting a collar-n-bell on a cat. ie. recogising a problem, that your cat is taking too many birds from the garden, and trading off the survival of the birds against the fact that your cat is no longer going to be a mouser.

  261. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iain: [crickets]

    Looks like the kitty’s not punching anymore*
    * you mistook the metaphor. It’s not related to boxing. It’s about putting a collar-n-bell on a cat. ie. recognising a problem, that your cat is taking too many birds from the garden, and trading off the survival
    of the birds against the fact that your cat is no longer going to be a mouser.

    No I am well aware of the allusions of the metaphor its just that I don’t hear any ringing because you failed to make your case.

    Ok, it was a war Iain. And you and I are sitting on the fruits of victory.

    Nah, I still don’t see it that way it seems to me far more like a case of the indigenous people making very little effort to try to exclude the settlers from the land and either moving on, becoming mendicants to the newcomers (accepting rations or other largess. but for there to have been war there had to be more than a bit of interpersonal conflict at a micro level. Essentially there can not have been war with out battles and you have not established that any battles took place.

    Now victors feel any guilt? Not usually. And I don’t, nor do any of my family.

    But what do they end up holding apart from the fruits of victory?

    Responsibility.For reconciliation, resolution and rebuilding.

    You say that you feel no guilt yet you say this? Ok I’ll run with your argument (even though I don’t buy your eternal responsibility thing) and ask you this how long does it remain your responsibility? How long do you feel that there is an obligation for “reconciliation, resolution and rebuilding”? The thing is all this sort of thinking does is keep the intended beneficiaries in a state of impotence.especially if they are encouraged by an accompanying “poor bugga me” ideology.

    And Australia has been absolutely terrible at fulfilling it’s responsibilities.

    Reconciliation is only very partial. Resolution is nil, although a treaty or constitutional change would go a long way.

    No changing the constitution in the ways recently suggested would not bring about any beneficial change

    And rebuilding is absolutely nowhere. Aboriginals have a life expectancy around 20 years less than “white” people. 20 years. The aboriginal boy born next to me in the same week, in the same ward of the same hospital has 20 years less life than I do (statistically speaking).

    While I have no trouble admitting that those born in remote communities don’t have great prospects but if the aboriginal boy born next to you in Melbourne has just as good a prospect of a good long life as you do.

    That is an utter disgrace. And you and I sitting here victorious have no business refusing to fix that.

    Well if you feel that way they you go right ahead and try to “fix it” but don’t expect the rest of us to feel the same way because after seeing the efforts made during my lifetime largely failing I can’t help thinking that unless there is some attitudinal change from indigenous people* that lets them reject the “poor bugga me” mindset and accept that if they want the benefits of modern society and its economy then they may just have to stop expecting it to be brought to their beautiful but economically useless remote communities and move to where they can build a future just as the rest of us have to.

    *see anything written by Noel Pearson on the subject.

  262. JM says:

    Iain: far more like a case of the indigenous people making very little effort to try to exclude the settlers from the land and either moving on, becoming mendicants to the newcomers (accepting rations or other largess.

    I cannot believe that any sentient being could say something like this. Tell you what Iain, I’ll fly up to Brissie with my mates, we’ll move out to your place and plant ourselves in your lounge room. That’s ok with you?

    Don’t worry, you can come to us and beg for tea bags and if our team’s winning while we’re watching your telly we’ll give you a couple.

    Deal?

    (And quite frankly I think self appointed “spokespeople” like Noel Pearson need to taken out and shot. They are just appeasers who make people like you feel better. Pearson has been carrying on about responsibility for around 20 years, but the he sheets the responsibility to the victims not the real carriers of it. His ideas have also been tried in northern Queensland and more generally in the “intervention”. And they have failed.)

  263. JM says:

    Oh and you can nick the odd tinny from the beer fridge if you like and we won’t mind (much).

    Ok? Is that on?

  264. JM says:

    And a couple of other things:

    * I’m bringing the kids who are going to be playing in your back yard

    * We got assault rifles and all you have is a few sticks, a baseball bat and an arc welder.

    Whadda ya gonna do?

  265. JM says:

    Iain: aboriginal boy born next to you in Melbourne has just as good a prospect of a good long life as you do

    You wanna be more careful about your BS.

    a.) I was not born in Melbourne. Same week, same ward, same hospital but not in Melbourne.

    b.) the statistics speak. Life expectancy for an aboriginal child is 20 years less than that of a “white” child

    That’s 20 years Iain. That’s what you and we need to focus on. You can duck and weave as much as you want but will never walk away from that fact.

    So what are you going to do? Can me and me mates move in next week?

  266. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    You wanna be more careful about your BS.

    You are the one sprouting Bullshit JM

    a.) I was not born in Melbourne. Same week, same ward, same hospital but not in Melbourne.

    It does not negate may point that
    if an indigenous person is born in one of the Major cities they have just good a prospect of a good life as you do.

    b.) the statistics speak. Life expectancy for an aboriginal child is 20 years less than that of a “white” child

    Yes, so what? the indigenous demographic includes a lot of very heavy drinkers, petrol sniffers, individuals who don’t eat good food,lots of obesity sourced disease, in fact so much of the problem comes down to lifestyle choices that you would have to begin to wonder who has agency in their fate and who ultimately will have to take responsibility for the problems now wouldn’t you?

    That’s 20 years Iain. That’s what you and we need to focus on. You can duck and weave as much as you want but will never walk away from that fact.

    Why do you think I so object the the “poor bugga me” politics that you and your ilk keep supporting? I care about the fate of all of my fellow Aussies but when so many of the problems of our indigenous people seem to be lifestyle related I can’t help thinking that the most important need for action is not with our government or the majority but with the indigenous people themselves and guilt riven lefties like You JM are actaully more part of the problem rather than the solution.

    So what are you going to do? Can me and me mates move in next week?

    I have no idea what that is supposed to mean

    Ok I’ve just found your earlier comment:

    I cannot believe that any sentient being could say something like this. Tell you what Iain, I’ll fly up to Brissie with my mates, we’ll move out to your place and plant ourselves in your lounge room. That’s ok with you?

    Don’t worry, you can come to us and beg for tea bags and if our team’s winning while we’re watching your telly we’ll give you a couple.
    Deal?

    No it would not be OK with ME and you know what I would actaully resist you doing that with more than just a sharp stick, sadly for your argument the indigenous people did not do that in any meaningful way.

    (And quite frankly I think self appointed “spokespeople” like Noel Pearson need to taken out and shot. They are just appeasers who make people like you feel better. Pearson has been carrying on about responsibility for around 20 years, but the he sheets the responsibility to the victims not the real carriers of it. His ideas have also been tried in northern Queensland and more generally in the “intervention”. And they have failed.)

    Noel Pearson is both well educated, forward thinking and most importantly a practical man, everything that you guilt chip in overdrive “activists” loathe. Frankly I don’t know how you can say that you want reconciliation and then expect nothing from indigenous people towards making it so. I seems to me that the whitefellas have made very big strides towards reconciliation but I don’t see very many of the “Poor bugga me ” crew letting go of their resentment and culture of complaint, letting bygones be bygones and working towards a better future rather than whining on about the immutable past.

  267. JM says:

    Iain: sadly for your argument the indigenous people did not [resist] in any meaningful way

    Terra nullius Iain. You’ve previously denied making this argument and here you are repeating it.

    Iain, you are now a belled cat. We all know what you are as you have confirmed it repeatedly in this thread.

  268. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Photobucket Pictures, Images and Photos
    British colonisation policies and subsequent land laws were framed in the belief that the colony was being acquired by occupation (or settlement) of a terra nullius (land without owners). The colonisers acknowledged the presence of Indigenous people but justified their land acquisition policies by saying the Aborigines were too primitive to be actual owners and sovereigns and that they had no readily identifiable hierarchy or political order which the British Government could recognise or negotiate with.

    The High Court’s Mabo judgment in 1992 overturned the terra nullius fiction. In the same judgment, however, the High Court accepted the British assertion of sovereignty in 1788, and held that from that time there was only one sovereign power and one system of law in Australia.

    That is how the concept of “terra nullius” is defined here and its obvious to anyone with a working brain that I have not been arguing that the land was “without owners” rather that those owners were incapable of retaining “ownership” in the face of superior technology, communications and social organisation. I’m a pragmatic man who thinks that ownership of country is entirely dependant upon the ability to exclude other claimants from the ground in question.the indigenous people failed to exclude the colonists so they lost sovereignty. Simple isn’t it?
    Photobucket

  269. JM says:

    Iain, your comprehension skills are minimal.

    Quote: justified their land acquisition policies by saying the Aborigines were too primitive to be actual owners

    Isn’t that what you have been saying?

    Iain: rather that those owners were incapable of retaining “ownership”

    Then we have:

    Quote:
    The High Court’s Mabo judgment in 1992 overturned the terra nullius fiction.

    Are you incapable of reading or something? Oh yeah, educated in Britain with it’s poor school system – that would explain it. Along with the sense of “natural” superiority that many Britons feel towards us “colonials”.

    I’d lay odds on you coming out with the convict slur next.

  270. JM says:

    And just on another thing:

    ownership of country is entirely dependant upon the ability to exclude other claimants from the ground in question.

    How does that differ from losing a war or suffering an invasion? I’ve asked you this question before but you didn’t answer it.

  271. JM says:

    Sorry, maybe I wasn’t as clear as I should have been, I didn’t use your full quote

    Iain: rather that those owners were incapable of retaining “ownership” in the face of superior technology, communications and social organisation

    How does this differ from “too primitive”?

    You’re making a terra nullius argument Iain.

  272. damage says:

    I’m happy to take that one up JM.
    The simple answer is that it doesn’t.
    There are a number of names for that, competitive advantage, gunboat diplomacy and Darwin called it natural selection. In essence it is all the same thing and it has been going on since before the first ape dropped to the ground to pick up a fallen apple. In fact – surprise surprise – it’s not just a human trait. Many animals will adopt, gain or simply occupy a territory and then in many cases they will risk – and even sacrifice – their lives to defend it. Or – they won’t. The simply see that the other bull has too big horns or that there are too many of them or that the territory actually isn’t that valuable to them to fight for – and they leave
    Happens all the time. Ants do it, cats do it, chimps do it and – and this will astound you I bet – Australian Aboriginal People almost certainly fought over territory. Pre 1788.
    My guess is that at the time they were pretty pissed at losing their good hunting grounds, but they would have been pragmatic enough to understand that this was the way of nature – and they had the next beach along too, except they didn’t realise that whitey would come there too, but I think that down deep in the soul of even a rabid lefty there’s an acknowledgement that there is nothing at all except a bigger stick that will prevent a group with big sticks from taking your territory if they have a mind to take it.
    None of the great philosophies would differ either. There’s no inalienable right to life, liberty and happiness – oh and that’s right – LAND too. Is there?
    Primitive man knew that – pity you’re not catching on.

  273. Iain Hall says:

    I am unsurprised that you don’t get the subtle distinction I am drawing here between the land being unowned (a prerequisite for “terra nullius”)and those who owned it being entirely incapable of excluding other claimants and therefore losing their ownership.
    Even the Mabo decision recognises the fact that with the coming of colonial government that indigenous sovereignty was extinguished in most cases and that it can not be resurrected.

  274. JM says:

    damage: Darwin called it natural selection

    He most certainly did not. The gene is the unit of selection, not the society. “Social Darwinism” which is what you described is a – I hate to use this word because I haven’t up until now – a racist philosophy.

    pragmatic enough to understand that this was the way of nature

    And what? Give up? Straight away? They didn’t damage. My family settled in Australia in the early 19th Century and were subject to (increasingly sporadic) attacks up until the start of the 20th

    There’s no inalienable right to life, liberty and happiness

    I think you’ll find there’s a certain document known in the US as the “Declaration of Independence” that says precisely the opposite. Second paragraph. I recommend it to you.

  275. JM says:

    Iain: indigenous sovereignty was extinguished in most cases

    Yeah. Through war. And seizure. Go and read that decision Iain, you are in need of an education.

    And once you have, come back and use the word: “war”.

  276. JM says:

    And just so we don’t have any bloody arguments about Darwin can I refer you to Darwin’s Sacred Cause – How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin’s Views on Human Evolution

    It’s a great book (I read it last year) and makes it absolutely clear what motivated him and how neither he nor Huxley held any truck with Social Darwinism.

    The settlement of Australia was an invasion followed by a long extended (but low key) war.

    We fought it. They lost. Now we are responsible.

    Is that clear enough for you troglodytes?

  277. damage says:

    JM JM JM
    That old chestnut Racism. The one that’s either deliberately trotted out as a smoke screen or accidentally fired off by the ignorant.
    And the deliberate misquote show that it’d be the former we’re dealing with here.
    Let me walk you through it shall I?

    Firstly if you don’t think that aboriginal people all over the world fought against people of their own race for the control of land or as I used the word – “territory” – then you’re really not capable of having this discussion with the grown ups.
    To suggest that one group of – lets say Celts – never took land from another group of – Celts – simply by the use of superior weaponry, tactics or social organisation, is to ignore history at its most fundamental level. Are you aware that Germans and English are by and large racially the same. Ergo it is not racist to suggest that Germans attempted to gain territory from English in the 20th Century – twice – without success. Ever yeard of the wars of the roses? Oh why am I trying to explain simple stuff to you?
    Superior society, military knowledge, medical capability or just sheer force of numbers has seen the tooing and froing of land, resources, women, stock, business etc etc for ever. Monkeys fight over trees and the strongest will always win – or the fittest survive (hence the Darwin reference). It’s no more a racist notion than the VHS v BetaMax, PC V Mac battles for market share.

    Nobody suggested that there was no resistance, but in the beginning there was almost none. Until the aborigines realised that there was no hope of the whites leaving or there was no “next beach” to move to. Of course then there were resistances, but as suggested, the superior numbers, weapons and tactics won out.

    And the deliberate misquote?
    I said “There’s no inalienable right to life, liberty and happiness – oh and that’s right – LAND too. ” And your declaration of independence does not mention LAND.
    Sorry will do JM.
    Cheers

  278. damage says:

    PS JM
    The declaration of independance says life liberty and the “persuit of” happiness. Precicely!

  279. GD says:

    A man who can argue successfully, or fairly, doesn’t need to resort to name calling. He is validated by his ideals or his behaviour.

  280. GD says:

    Damage, great comment earlier, well said!

  281. GD says:

    I don’t know how you can say that you want reconciliation and then expect nothing from indigenous people towards making it so. I seems to me that the whitefellas have made very big strides towards reconciliation but I don’t see very many of the “Poor bugga me ” crew letting go of their resentment and culture of complaint, letting bygones be bygones and working towards a better future rather than whining on about the immutable past.

    That is an excellent and highly relevant comment, Iain.

    This recent debacle on Australia Day showed just that. The protesters were screaming ‘poor bugger me’ while living on generous welfare entitlements, so generous that they weren’t required to be reporting for work, instead they were decked out in the latest ‘koori’ fashions, while their kids burnt the Australian flag.

    Oppression? give us a break, how about get out and help themselves? There are myriad government programs for anyone who ‘identifies’ as ‘indigenous’. Free university for a start. Can’t read? The programs are all there.

  282. JM says:

    GD: living on generous welfare entitlements, so generous that they weren’t required to be reporting for work

    I cannot believe any reasonably intelligent person could make this comment. Particularly one who supports a blogger who is mostly engaged in building kit cars and spiral staircases – the sorts of project that most of us do on the weekend rather than making our life’s work.

  283. JM says:

    damage: Nobody suggested that there was no resistance […. etc ]

    You are talking gibberish. And complete rubbish. Iain is on record, on this thread, as saying that there was “no meaningful resistance”

    Sorry GD, you are just flat out wrong.

  284. JM says:

    GD, let me go slowly here because I have absolutely got you, like a sheep in the killing line.

    You said:

    I said “There’s no inalienable right to life, liberty and happiness – oh and that’s right – LAND too. ” And your declaration of independance does not mention LAND.

    Note the bold. Note the word ‘no’. We are going to focus on that.

    The US Declaration of Independence does not include that word ‘no’. What it actually says is:-


    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

    Ok? Are we clear on that? Self evident. Rights.

    ie. the word you have now used twice, ie:no does not appear in one of the major documents of the Enlightenment – and I am really not going to tolerate any of this “oh you’re just an anti-American leftie” BS this time. I am not. Got it? Is that clear?

    The fact is that there are inalienable rights – do you even f**** understand what that word means? – and that all modern (Western) states support and promote them. Except maybe Australia when ruled by scumbags like John Howard. (Abbott I’ll give a pass on because his political career isn’t finished, but I have to say it ain’t looking too good right now.)

  285. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    Time for me to do my morning catch up on the action here 😉

    The US Declaration of Independence does not include that word ‘no’. What it actually says is:-

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

    Ok? Are we clear on that? Self evident. Rights.

    ie. the word you have now used twice, ie:no does not appear in one of the major documents of the Enlightenment – and I am really not going to tolerate any of this “oh you’re just an anti-American leftie” BS this time. I am not. Got it? Is that clear?

    The fact is that there are inalienable rights – do you even f**** understand what that word means? – and that all modern (Western) states support and promote them. Except maybe Australia when ruled by scumbags like John Howard. (Abbott I’ll give a pass on because his political career isn’t finished, but I have to say it ain’t looking too good right now.)

    I don’t know if you realise but the declaration of independence ONLY applies to the United States jurisdiction. Which means that for the rest of the world it is nothing more than a page of foreign platitudes and it has absolutely zero standing in our, or for that matter international law.

    I cannot believe any reasonably intelligent person could make this comment. Particularly one who supports a blogger who is mostly engaged in building kit cars and spiral staircases – the sorts of project that most of us do on the weekend rather than making our life’s work.

    Actually JM I am mostly engaged in the day to day business of looking after my family (have to get my kids up on on their way to school very soon) and please cut the crap about “Kit cars” I have never built a “kit car” in my life mine is a scratch built car which is something rather different and actaully a rather more challenging task than just assembling a kit. 😉

    Damage,

    That was a good comment mate thanks 😉

  286. Damage says:

    JM
    I wasn’t quoting the declaration of independance I was paraphrasing it and making a point. If the inalianable rights are those then they don’t include land rights

  287. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    You are talking gibberish. And complete rubbish. Iain is on record, on this thread, as saying that There was “no meaningful resistance”

    There is a substantial difference between saying that there was “NO resistance” which means that not one finger or spear was lifted in resistance, and my argument that there was “no meaningful resistance” which means that there was some resistance but it was so weak as to be largely insignificant.
    So I guess that makes you “flat out wrong.”

  288. damage says:

    No hope Iain. It’s not about being right and wrong for JM it’s about his dogma. He’s no able to concede right and wrong because he “believes”. It isn’t a matter of knowledge for him (and I assume he’s a him, but concede she might be a her)but a matter of doctrine. For which he’ll misquote, then misread, then miss use anything he can to stand by that belief. Granted – I admire the loyalty to ideology, but in this case it’s about reading something into the historical truth that simply isn’t there.

  289. Iain Hall says:

    Read my latest post yet Damage? there I point out that even according to wikipedia that JM so often cites its very hard to call what happened in this country a war.

  290. damage says:

    Yes read that Iain. But he either won’t or he just won’t see the point you are making.
    Better off trying to get your appla trees to grow bananas than trying to argue this stuff with the committed.

  291. Iain Hall says:

    But I enjoy trying to get him to understand the truth Damage

  292. damage says:

    You’re clearly a masochist.

  293. JM says:

    Iain: my argument that there was “no meaningful resistance” which means that there was some resistance but it was so weak as to be largely insignificant.

    Terra nullius. You are saying they have no rights because they were either not human through not resisting, or not deserving of humanity because their efforts were ineffective.

    And look, spears were not that ineffective in the 19th Century. The settlers were not armed with modern assault rifles. They were armed with single shot, inaccurate, slow loading weapons.

    And natives up against the British Empire had some successes during that period. Rorkes Drift for example, where the Zulu came very close to knocking of the British by a combination of numbers, pincer attacks and getting the distance right where their spears were effective but the rifles inaccurate. Similar tactics were occasionally used in Australia.

    Now when you combine that with the “terrorist” tactic of attacks on sheep to inflict economic damage – strategic warfare – I think you have meaningful resistance. Wouldn’t you agree?

    (But I have to say this thread has really flushed out some pretty disgusting attitudes)

  294. JM says:

    And I just picked up on this piece of s****

    GD: Free university for a start.

    Abstudy (Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders) and Austudy (everybody else) are very very nearly the same thing. There are some differences but not much.

    In fact I think they’re administered by the same clerks in the same department in the same offices in the same buildings. Abstudy is just window dressing on Austudy.

    GD, you are falling for a long standing slur.

  295. GD says:

    Under Abstudy or Austudy, you only pay back the fees if you earn over a certain income. It is quite high. For all intensive purposes, that is a free education for so-called oppressed, disadvantaged people who now exist on welfare.

  296. damage says:

    “Rorkes Drift (sic) for example, where the Zulu came very close to knocking of the British by a combination of numbers, pincer attacks and getting the distance right where their spears were effective but the rifles inaccurate. Similar tactics were occasionally used in Australia.”

    I once heard a 9 year old boy ask his dad for a reward because he almost took a wicket in a cricket match and there is the old joke about the bloke who won almost on every race for the day. Almost race 1 almost race 2 almost race 3…………

    That single para loses you the whole argument . Rorke’s Drift was a military assault by a well trained, well drilled, well equipped, well lead and bloddy motivated army from a NATION defending themselves against an interloper. An organised, serious and well planned resistance would look exactly like Rorke’s Drift.
    Point taken JM.

  297. JM says:

    GD: For all intensive purposes

    “Intensive” purposes? I think you mean “intents and purposes”

    And you only pay back fees under HECS (which is the alternative funding mechanism) when you earn over a certain income as well. Same deal.

    And you admit that Abstudy and Austudy are virtually identical so when you accuse aborigines of having access to “free education” unavailable to other Australians, you are running a very very ugly argument

    You need to cut that s*** out.

  298. GD says:

    I didn’t say it only applied to aborigines.

  299. damage says:

    From Wikipedia you can get an idea of the level of organisation of the Zulu.
    The uDloko, uThulwana, inDlondo amabutho (regiments) of married men in their 30s and 40s and the inDlu-yengwe ibutho of young unmarried men mustered 3,000 to 4,000 warriors, none of them engaged during the battle at Isandlwana This Zulu force was the ‘loins’ or reserve of the army at Isandlwana and is often referred to as the Undi Corps. It was directed to swing wide of the British left flank and pass west and south of Isandlwana hill itself positioning itself across the line of communication and retreat of the British and their colonial allies in order to prevent their escape back into Natal by way of ford of the Buffalo river leading to Rorke’s Drift.

    JM
    At the battle of Isandlwana the Zulu killed 1300 British and African trops. The British had CANONS and guns. The ZULU had spears and cow hide shields.
    You don’t win a battle like that without serious tactics.
    Now bugger off.

  300. JM says:

    GD, you refute yourself.

    The British had CANONS and guns. The ZULU had spears and cow hide shields.

    So what’s this BS about superior technology and social structure then?

    You don’t win a battle like that without serious tactics*

    I agree. The aborigines lost but they had great tactics given their resources:

    * isolated farmhouses? Sneak up and attack ’em, they did that

    * farmers need to go down to the river to get water? Ambush ’em, they did that

    * farmers are economically reliant on livestock? Kill the livestock, they did that

    They did all of that. They were good at it. They resisted GD.

    In other parts of the country they used tactics we’d more likely recognise as military, and largely identical to that of the Zulu – fix the enemy in place and attack in a horseshoe. (This was most famously used by Hannibal at Cannae – I don’t think you’d be telling me that the Carthaginians were “too primitive” to be accorded status would you GD? Nah thought not.)

    Look if you can’t even express your own argument in a self-consistent manner you’ve got real problems.

    * and what you’re describing is operations not tactics. Tactically at Rorkes Drift – ie. just the battle itself – the Zulu used only spears. The British were fixed in place and had only rifles.

  301. GD says:

    JM why are you talking to me? I didn’t write that comment or a few others you’ve quoted me saying, you oaf 😦

  302. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    The Battle of Rorke’s Drift, also known as the Defence of Rorke’s Drift, was a battle in the Anglo-Zulu War. The defence of the mission station of Rorke’s Drift, under the command of Lieutenant John Chard of the Royal Engineers, immediately followed the British Army’s defeat at the Battle of Isandlwana on 22 January 1879, and continued into the following day, 23 January.

    Just over 150 British and colonial troops successfully defended the garrison against an intense assault by 3,000 to 4,000 Zulu warriors. The massive, but piecemeal,[11] Zulu attacks on Rorke’s Drift came very close to defeating the tiny garrison but were ultimately repelled. Eleven Victoria Crosses were awarded to the defenders, along with a number of other decorations and honours.

    from here
    Now that was a war JM
    and what do you offer in return?

    The British had CANONS and guns. The ZULU had spears and cow hide shields.

    So what’s this BS about superior technology and social structure then?

    You don’t win a battle like that without serious tactics*

    well the Zulus did not win Rorkes drift now did they? They were repulsed and a ting garrison of just 156 men held out against their thousands

    I agree. The aborigines lost but they had great tactics given their resources:

    Just for a moment lets allow your “war theory” to breathe shall we?

    * isolated farmhouses? Sneak up and attack ‘em, they did that

    When and where did this happen? and if it did do you have any evidence that it was other than a local dispute rather than, as you imply part of an organised campaign of resistance?

    * farmers need to go down to the river to get water? Ambush ‘em, they did that

    When and where did this happen? and if it did do you have any evidence that it was other than a local dispute rather than, as you imply part of an organised campaign of resistance?

    * farmers are economically reliant on livestock? Kill the livestock, they did that

    When and where did this happen? and if it did do you have any evidence that it was other than a local dispute rather than, as you imply part of an organised campaign of resistance?

    They did all of that. They were good at it. They resisted GD.

    No assuming your war theory was apt then we would have to think that they were not any good at it because the results certainly suggest that they were little more than a minor inconvenience.

    In other parts of the country they used tactics we’d more likely recognise as military, and largely identical to that of the Zulu – fix the enemy in place and attack in a horseshoe. (This was most famously used by Hannibal at Cannae – I don’t think you’d be telling me that the Carthaginians were “too primitive” to be accorded status would you GD? Nah thought not.)

    Where precisely did aborigines have any pitched battles ???

    Look if you can’t even express your own argument in a self-consistent manner you’ve got real problems.

    The irony of you saying this is not lost on me or I suspect GD either!!!

    * and what you’re describing is operations not tactics. Tactically at Rorkes Drift – ie. just the battle itself – the Zulu used only spears. The British were fixed in place and had only rifles.

    Not true at all actually as the Wiki piece explains the Zulus did have guns and much of the fighting was very tough hand to hand stuff.

  303. JM says:

    So the Zulu’s and the Maori are people Iain? And the Australian aborigines aren’t?

    That’s what you’re saying isn’t it?

    Get the F**** out of my country. Take your “Seven”, drive it down the road to Brisbane Airport (about 50km I believe, not far), buy a plane ticket and go back to where you came from.

    They’ll love you there. I’ve lived there, I know what they’re like.

    Good luck.

  304. damage says:

    JM you are addressing my argument not GD’s. Clearly reacting and not reading.

    Anyhow there is a vast difference between taking on the world’s greatest superpower with the world’s most technologically superior weapons (rifles and canon) and spearing women and children, lone (probably unarmed) farmers and duffing sheep.
    Even so the Zuly still LOST, but – like the Maori – they got at least some respect and showed that, though outgunned, they at least had a go at defending their land. Probably because they actually did have a notion of ownership. It’s not a racist proposition to suggest that a technologically and legally inferior culture was unfortunately overwealmed by a bigger, faster and generally better organised one. As mentioned it has gone on for centuries. Including in pre 1788 Australia.

    More later

  305. JM says:

    And I mean that Iain.

    You ignorant, indolent, mendicant bigot. You have no place in this country – none. Get lost.

  306. GD says:

    Wow, JM, that sounds a whole lot like ‘we grew here, you flew here’. You leftards criticised the Cronulla boys for saying that, now you’re yelling it at Iain.

  307. GD says:

    Perhaps the title of this post should be changed from

    “It’s Mo’s way or the highway’ to

    “it’s JM’s way, or the next flight out”

    I reckon Iain should just say:

  308. JM says:

    GD: You leftards criticised the Cronulla boys for saying that, now you’re yelling it at Iain

    Yep. Because they were disgraceful s***h***ds. Now I’m just turning the tables.

    Don’t like it? Get used to it. You wanna use hateful arguments, you can expect them to come flying right back at you.

    But there’s a difference with my argument. It’s based in the truth and not “rightist” fantasies. Can we get that clear?

    I’ve come up against those s****bags who want me to kiss the Australian flag or they’ll punch me in the head (I live in the CBD so you have to deal with this sort of thing from time to time) and you know what I’ve done? As the descendent of a long lived settler family?

    I’ve told them to go and take a flying one. Which is exactly what I’m saying to Iain here.

    (I’ve also pointed out to them that when they traipse the flag on the ground – which they always do – they are violating the terms of the Australian Flag Act 1956 and should immediately burn it. An Australian flag touches the ground then it is disgraced and should be burnt. They don’t like that bit. They don’t like that at all. They are morons.)

  309. GD says:

    So obviously you are incensed about the protesters from the tent ’embassy’ burning the flag on Australia Day?

  310. JM says:

    Iain: When and where did this happen? and if it did do you have any evidence that it was other than a local dispute rather than, as you imply part of an organised campaign of resistance?

    (I don’t believe I’m having this argument.)

    Nobody disputes local resistance Iain. Not even yourself.

    The only thing in this debate is that you seem to be insisting on “non-local” resistance. ie. something that depends on a broader political or social organisation. Now then you have start arguing for Terra Nullius. That the natives were broadly organised (they weren’t) or otherwise they are somehow “less than human”

    The logic traps itself Iain. And you are caught in it. You are wrong. Clearly.

    And the High Court has ruled on this. If you don’t like the law of this land.

    Leave,

  311. damage says:

    Oh lord http://www.statusquo.org/aru_html/html/flagact.html#Section 7

    it was 1953 and there was nothing about the burning.

    Looks bad.

  312. GD says:

    err, JM you forgot to answer this question…after your rant about the Cronulla boys somehow desecrating the flag in the Melbourne CBD, JM, answer the question…

    So obviously you are incensed about the protesters from the tent ‘embassy’ burning the flag on Australia Day?

    So are you? Or do you hold double standards and hypocritical views?

  313. JM says:

    You know what GD? Go F yourself. You might try joining the “Cronulla boys” as well. But I really wish you wouldn’t.

  314. GD says:

    My job is done! 🙂

  315. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    I am going to miss you when you have that that heart attack which seems to be eminent, chill out and think very carefully about just what you are saying and misrepresenting here. Most especially you are misrepresenting the argument that I am making. That is By the by though because you are providing the perfect online entrainment for this old codger who can’t sleep.

    So the Zulu’s and the Maori are people Iain? And the Australian aborigines aren’t?

    That’s what you’re saying isn’t it?

    NO that is definitely NOT what I am saying.

    There is absolutely no difference in the humanity of any of the people you cite above how much clearer do I have to state that? For a man who claims a scientific qualification in “the physical sciences” you seem intent upon not seeing or understanding that I am absolutely certain that all people on the planet are equally human sharing the all of the same innate virtues and vices of our species. Why are you so incapable of understanding that?

    Get the F**** out of my country. Take your “Seven”, drive it down the road to Brisbane Airport (about 50km I believe, not far), buy a plane ticket and go back to where you came from.

    They’ll love you there. I’ve lived there, I know what they’re like.

    Good luck.

    No you don’t get to make such a demand Matey. You see its my country too and I am not leaving any time soon, so deal.

    And I mean that Iain.

    You ignorant, indolent, mendicant bigot. You have no place in this country – none. Get lost.

    How wrong you are, I do have a place in this country and clearly it is to teach some humility to the puffed up and arrogant like yourself.

    Iain: When and where did this happen? and if it did do you have any evidence that it was other than a local dispute rather than, as you imply part of an organised campaign of resistance?

    (I don’t believe I’m having this argument.)

    Nobody disputes local resistance Iain. Not even yourself.

    The only thing in this debate is that you seem to be insisting on “non-local” resistance. ie. something that depends on a broader political or social organisation. Now then you have start arguing for Terra Nullius. That the natives were broadly organised (they weren’t) or otherwise they are somehow “less than human”

    The logic traps itself Iain. And you are caught in it. You are wrong. Clearly.

    I’m rather sure that you are also misreading the meaning of Terra nullius, a doctrine that mistakenly dismissed and diminished the indigenous people because they lacked a clear and well defined society as that would have been understood in European terms. The court decision that you are so relying on found that they did have quite complex social structures and I don’t for one minute dispute that. However those structures were no match for the far more organised and disciplined social system of the people who came here to make this land theirs. Most tellingly it was the very lack of a meta consciousness or concept of society that existed above the level of the clan or tribe that made the difference, the settlers all spoke the same language and they had writing, where as the indigenous people had many tongues and were illiterate so even if one one of their number had conceived of the idea of uniting to fight the newcomers selling that idea to his fellows would be bloody difficult, nay almost impossible. You see that is where your insistence that it was a “war” falls down,you just can’t demonstrate that enough social cohesion existed for what “resistance” that occurred to qualify for the term.

    And the High Court has ruled on this. If you don’t like the law of this land.

    Leave,

    You need to get over the squatter’s arrogance that so bedevils your thinking mate, you would be a better person for it.

  316. JM says:

    Iain: The court decision that you are so relying on found that they did have quite complex social structures and I don’t for one minute dispute that

    You have disputed it repeatedly.

    You can’t hold an idea in your head for two successive minutes.

  317. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    You just love selective quotation that misrepresents an argument don’t you?
    The full paragraph is this:

    I’m rather sure that you are also misreading the meaning of Terra nullius, a doctrine that mistakenly dismissed and diminished the indigenous people because they lacked a clear and well defined society as that would have been understood in European terms. The court decision that you are so relying on found that they did have quite complex social structures and I don’t for one minute dispute that. However those structures were no match for the far more organised and disciplined social system of the people who came here to make this land theirs. Most tellingly it was the very lack of a meta consciousness or concept of society that existed above the level of the clan or tribe that made the difference, the settlers all spoke the same ,language and they had writing, where as the indigenous people had many tongues and were illiterate so even if one one of their number had conceived of the idea of uniting to fight the newcomers selling that idea to his fellows would be bloody difficult, nay almost impossible. You see that is where your insistence that it was a “war” falls down,you just can’t demonstrate that enough social cohesion existed for what “resistance” that occurred to qualify for the term.

    Deal with what I say and not your wild imaginings generated through your selective quotations and deliberate misrepresentations, if you do that then I might just have a bit more respect for your opinions.

  318. JM says:

    Iain: Deal with what I say ….

    Ok. Deal.

    Most tellingly it was the very lack of a meta consciousness

    What’s a meta consciousness Iain? If you could explain that I might be able to deal with it.

    concept of society that existed above the level of the clan or tribe

    And what the hell does this mean? The Maori were tribes. The Zulu were tribes. You acknowledge the Zulu and Maori Wars, but not the Australian Frontier Wars.

    How does that work?

  319. JM says:

    Hmmmm no explanation I see.

    Perhaps that’s because phrases like “meta conciousness” – which is completely meaningless – are just covers for your true attitudes. Distractions and evasions.

    As is your refusal to recognise that the colonial wars, all of them – in South Africa, New Zealand and Australia – where if fact wars.

  320. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    How on earth can you claim something a stupid as this and hope to be taken seriously?

    As is your refusal to recognise that the colonial wars, all of them – in South Africa, New Zealand and Australia – where if fact wars.

    The facts are that I have specifically recognised “colonial wars” in both New Zealand and South Africa, its events in this country that I don’t think qualify as a war. Once again you don’t read what I have actaully said and ramble on about something that I have not even argued for at all.

    That is a very big Fail for you JM especially when in your own comment above you say this:

    You acknowledge the Zulu and Maori Wars, but not the Australian Frontier Wars.

    Fail and Own goal I think JM

  321. JM says:

    Iain, I’m starting to doubt if you’re even sentient.

    You have completely failed to draw any meaningful or substantive distinction between the colonisation of South Africa and New Zealand on the one hand and Australia on the other.

    You’ve not even tried. Because I suspect you know you will fail.

  322. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    My previous comment was calculated to wind you up and it has worked 😆

    Iain, I’m starting to doubt if you’re even sentient.

    In your usual style when you have no answer to the points that I make you resort to lame insults

    anyway I’m closing this thread and you can respond at the other one.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: