Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Trying to define “war” for the benefit of “JM”

Trying to define “war” for the benefit of “JM”

In the previous thread JM keeps trying to convince me that the colonial experience in this country was a “war” and I keep resisting that suggestion because I just don’t think that it qualifies as such by any meaningful definition.

War is an organized, armed, and often a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties[1][2] typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence.[1][3] The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war, (and other violence) is usually called peace.

source

By way of contrast just look at the way that the Maori actaully fought for their territory against the British, now that was a real war:

The first British action of the Flagstaff War was the capture and destruction of Pomare’s Pa near Kororareka. This was a substantial Māori settlement, so to the British it was a victory, but the Māori warriors escaped with their arms, so they did not see it as defeat.

The British then set out to do the same to Kawiti’s Pa at Puketapu. But this was a purpose-built strong point with only one objective; to invite attack by the British. It was several kilometres inland, across very difficult country—steep gullies, dense, bush-clad hills and thick, sticky mud. The British troops were already exhausted when they arrived in front of the pa. The next day, they made a frontal attack and discovered that the bush and gullies they were advancing through were full of warriors. Some British troops reached the palisade and discovered that attacking thick wooden walls with muskets was not effective. After several hours of costly but indecisive skirmishing, the British withdrew. Their Māori kupapa allies were able to feed them and they were not attacked by their Māori enemies on the retreat back to the coast.

The attack on Puketapu Pa was typical of Māori-British warfare. Māori would build a fortified pa, sometimes provocatively close to a British fort or redoubt, and the British would attack it. Their aim was always to bring Māori to battle to inflict a decisive defeat. In European warfare, besieging an enemy fortress usually provoked a battle. However, Māori also knew that they would probably lose heavily in open conflict; this had been the result on the few times that it happened. Generally, they were successful in avoiding it.
source

Notice the difference between the New Zealand experience and that in this country? There the Maori actively made efforts to resist with a clear leadership structure, and the built and used the techniques of war, had a warrior culture and the social disciple to use it. Is it any wonder that even though they did not succeed in excluding the British form their territory they did end up with far more favourable terms for peace and reconciliation because they actually fought for it?

Cheers Comrades

Photobucket

Advertisements

132 Comments

  1. JM says:

    Iain: There the Maori actively made efforts to resist with a clear leadership structure, and the built and used the techniques of war, had a warrior culture and the social disciple to use it.

    What is the difference between this argument and too primitive?

    None. You are talking absolute shite.

  2. JM says:

    And in fact, even on your own words you are wrong.

    Active resistance did occur.

    Clear leadership structure did exist, appropriate for the tribal structures they lived under.

    Techniques of war did exist. As you said yourself there were conflicts and wars between aboriginal societies.

    A warrior culture did exist, as it does in all societies. How did those inter-tribal wars happen without it?

    And social discipline existed as well. What do you think customary law is? What do you think a tribe is?

    You’re an idiot. (And actually something far worse but I’m not going to use the word)

  3. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    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.

    How the indigenous people reacted to colonisation has absolutely nothing to do with their humanity and I have never thought more or less of them because the could not meaningfully resist colonisation, it says a great deal about your mind and the way that you think that you can not conceive of indigenous people losing dominion over this land without it being all about racism

    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.

    A spear you get to use once and then its gone, and while I agree that most rifles may have began as single shot weapons however I would still back a man with a gun over one with a spear in a fight.

    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.

    Where precisely was our equivalent to that Zulu king who could command thousands of warriors to charge to their deaths at Rorkes drift ( a battle which the British won even though they were vastly outnumbered)

    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?

    Stealing the odd sheep does not make indigenous people terrorists or even warriors.

    (But I have to say this thread has really flushed out some pretty disgusting attitudes)

    I agree that you have exposed some rather bad attitudes on this subject but its not to late for you to:
    Photobucket Pictures, Images and Photos

    Iain: There the Maori actively made efforts to resist with a clear leadership structure, and the built and used the techniques of war, had a warrior culture and the social disciple to use it.
    What is the difference between this argument and too primitive?

    None. You are talking absolute shite.

    I could tell you if you actaully put your argument in a cogent form rather than some sort of weird short hand that only you understand.

    And in fact, even on your own words you are wrong.

    Active resistance did occur.

    Well how about you give me chapter and verse of precisely when and where such resistance occurred

    Clear leadership structure did exist, appropriate for the tribal structures they lived under.

    What the fuck does that mean?

    Techniques of war did exist. As you said yourself there were conflicts and wars between aboriginal societies.

    Well tell us what those techniques were then (apart from sheep stealing which odes not count in may book)

    A warrior culture did exist, as it does in all societies. How did those inter-tribal wars happen without it?

    prove this claim please because I have seen no evidence of this in indigenous culture

    And social discipline existed as well. What do you think customary law is? What do you think a tribe is?

    Having a harshly enforced etiquette about interpersonal relationships does not prove the existence of social discipline.

    You’re an idiot. (And actually something far worse but I’m not going to use the word)

    And you prove yet again how you are no great shakes at debate by stooping to abuse but even if you try to make it into a:
    Photobucket
    you can find redemption…

  4. GD says:

    Arguing with JM is like……

  5. JM says:

    Iain: without it being all about racism

    The cat bells itself.

    Look Iain you are an idiot. You raise factually and historically incorrect arguments and when they don’t work you duck for some sort of cover.

    You are arguing with a person who is the descendent (and scion) of a very old settler family. We know what happened. You don’t.

    And all historians agree with us. What is confusing you is that you, as a recent immigrant, can’t understand how someone like me can hold the views that I do.

    Well get this. You think you’re trying to tell me “the truth”? Sorry, I know it better than you do.

    And so do people like Malcolm Fraser and Tim Fischer, as well as Paul Keating, Bob Hawke, Harold Holt, John Gorton, Clyde Holding, Peter Costello (ffs) and any number of other senior political leaders over Australia’s history.

    You don’t know s***.

    I hold my views because of the history of my family and I was brought up with two truths:

    * we really worked really hard to build this country and it wasn’t easy

    * part of the trouble we had was the resistance from the native people and they were a threat, really they were

    Now when you say that it wasn’t a war you diminish people.

    You diminish the aborigines because you claim they weren’t fully human and just put up their feet and said “put away your spears boys, if we tolerate this for the next 200 years our kids will have a great future as indolent mendicants”

    BS. They fought and they fought well.

    And you diminish me. Because you say my family’s achievements are valueless.

    Now my last words to you are these.

    You’ll note that John Howard is missing from my list above. There’s a reason for that. However, I do agree with him on one thing. In the – and I emphasise this – normal immigration process we do decide who comes here and under what circumstances.

    Now if you have a problem with the law of this land – which does not recognise Terra Nullius – then you are very welcome to go down to Brisbane, buy a plane ticket and go right back where you came from.

    We don’t want your kind here.

    And lastly, if you do love this country and don’t want to leave it – build it. Build it. Just like my family have done. You’ve done three fifths of f**** all so far so you’ve got a lot of time to make up for.

    Clear?

  6. GD says:

    And you diminish me. Because you say my family’s achievements are valueless.

    Your family?? A great, great, great uncle married an aboriginal woman, so now that aboriginal family is your family?

  7. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iain: without it being all about racism

    The cat bells itself.

    Look Iain you are an idiot. You raise factually and historically incorrect arguments and when they don’t work you duck for some sort of cover.

    You are arguing with a person who is the descendent (and scion) of a very old settler family. We know what happened. You don’t

    .

    Now if your claim above were true then you would be prepared to back it up with something that is actually verifiable, given your history here I’m sure that you should appreciate my reluctance to accept such claims at face value. Proof, or it did not happen and its not true.

    And all historians agree with us. What is confusing you is that you, as a recent immigrant, can’t understand how someone like me can hold the views that I do.

    How old are you JM? Just a ball park figure will do.
    And if “all historians agree with us” then you won’t mind proving that claim as well because I can think of at least one off the top of may head who would not be agreeing with you.

    Well get this. You think you’re trying to tell me “the truth”? Sorry, I know it better than you do.

    Arrogance and Pride JM :roll:especially in the way that you keep insisting on appealing to your own anonymous authority.

    And so do people like Malcolm Fraser and Tim Fischer, as well as Paul Keating, Bob Hawke, Harold Holt, John Gorton, Clyde Holding, Peter Costello (ffs) and any number of other senior political leaders over Australia’s history.

    Gee I didn’t know that ex and dead pollies are automatically qualified historians, wonders will never cease!

    You don’t know s***.

    As I’m working on a blocked toilet here at present sadly I do.

    I hold my views because of the history of my family and I was brought up with two truths:

    * we really worked really hard to build this country and it wasn’t easy

    * part of the trouble we had was the resistance from the native people and they were a threat, really they were

    Did you read the wiki definition I opened the post with? how does that fit with the events in this country that you want to call a war, come on you are really big on such thing so please explain just how events fit that succinct definition.

    Now when you say that it wasn’t a war you diminish people.

    If it suits your personal well being to call it a war then you go right a head and do so, I think that you are totally wrong to do so but its a country that values free speech so you go and shout it form the roof tops if you want, that will not however make you correct or any more credible

    You diminish the aborigines because you claim they weren’t fully human and just put up their feet and said “put away your spears boys, if we tolerate this for the next 200 years our kids will have a great future as indolent mendicants”

    I absolutely do not claim that they “weren’t fully human” on the contrary I have repeatedly said the exact opposite, namely that I think that all people are EQUAL in their humanity I defy you to find an example to the contrary.

    BS. They fought and they fought well.

    Really? where and when? Data and facts JM not empty assertion and myth-making is what you need, I won’t hold may breath waiting for you though.

    And you diminish me. Because you say my family’s achievements are valueless.

    No given you history here I am not prepared to just take your word for it and no matter how passionate you are about the topic unverifiable claims such as yours here carry as much weight as the ether they are written upon.

    Now my last words to you are these.

    You’ll note that John Howard is missing from my list above. There’s a reason for that. However, I do agree with him on one thing. In the – and I emphasise this – normal immigration process we do decide who comes here and under what circumstances.

    Hmm I think that you need to work harder on making statements like this mean something in the context of the argument.I have however had a rather amusing thought about thsi particular bit of your comment. Ironic that you agree with Howard on that when the whole basis of your argument about indigenous sovereignty is that they were unable to do as he did and say who could come to this country and the circumstance under which they came and as a result they lost the whole content may be there is a message there for the future eh????

    Now if you have a problem with the law of this land – which does not recognise Terra Nullius – then you are very welcome to go down to Brisbane, buy a plane ticket and go right back where you came from.

    We don’t want your kind here.

    Sadly its not up to you who gets to stay in this country so I’m here for the duration 😆

    And lastly, if you do love this country and don’t want to leave it – build it. Build it. Just like my family have done. You’ve done three fifths of f**** all so far so you’ve got a lot of time to make up for.

    Clear?

    And you know this how precisely?
    Hmm I guess that you have been reading and believing some unreliable propaganda…

  8. JM says:

    Iain, I’ve had it with you. Just go and do something constructive for once in your life, preferably something that benefits society and the country.

    (And for the sake of the people around you – get help. You need it.)

  9. JM says:

    And GD STFU. You aren”t paying attention. I have quite clearly stated that I come from a settler family with no aboriginal lineage but a side branch that is aboriginal. The family I was referring to is the settler side. Ok? You too are an idiot.

    Or are self-performed prefrontal lobotomies a requirement of commenting on this blog? Gee, didn’t realise that. And sorry I’m not up for it.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iain, I’ve had it with you. Just go and do something constructive for once in your life, preferably something that benefits society and the country.

    (And for the sake of the people around you – get help. You need it.)

    I do need help actaully, with that blocked toilet and as you are such an expert of speaking excremenatally I figure that you are just the person to call….

    Look you endlessly abuse and insult me and yet you think that I should respond positively to what you say? Mate that is delusional thinking. And by the way I don’t know if you have noticed how big the Internet is, literally millions of websites that you can play at go elsewhere if you please but don’t come here thinking that you can lord it over me with your mythical scientific qualification and your mythical membership of the Squatocracy It just won’t work.

  11. JM says:

    Iain (and GD) I will not be lectured about the history of my own country by a couple of “10 pound poms” who refuse to recognise the citizenship and humanity of my fellow Australians, and who are part of a community who for the most part fail to take up citizenship and spend a lot of their time looking down on the rest of us.

    Is that clear?

    Goodbye.

  12. Iain Hall says:

    This is just in from the web cam on JM”s computer:
    Photobucket

  13. GD says:

    LMAO good one Iain 🙂

  14. GD says:

    Does JM work here?

  15. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    Now I love it when someone like you loses it:

    Iain (and GD) I will not be lectured about the history of my own country by a couple of “10 pound poms” who refuse to recognise the citizenship and humanity of my fellow Australians, and who are part of a community who for the most part fail to take up citizenship and spend a lot of their time looking down on the rest of us.

    Is that clear?

    Goodbye.

    Well now the prejudice comes out doesn’t it JM? As it happens I am quite proud of my English heritage just as I am totally committed to this country’s future. The simple fact is that any numpty can be be born here but my family and I chose to make this country our home. That said you are as usual wrong to suggest that I would consider any human being lesser in their humanity than any other person. I don’t and no matter how often I say it you keep thinking the exact opposite is true you seem thick that way.

    GD
    He is no John Cleese or Michael Palin that’s for sure!

  16. mumbles says:

    Iain I think GD has nailed it. Brilliant!

  17. JM says:

    Iain, you’re proud of your English heritage? Good. I’m proud of my heritage. Very proud actually.

    Which is Australian, numbnuts. You want to call me a ‘numpty’?

    I think that’s more applicable to you actually.

    Don’t come here and do nothing and then tell me how to run the place.

    Ok? Clear?

    Anybody who comes here and does something is quite welcome to, but you don’t fall into that category. Do you Iain?

  18. Simon says:

    This discussion has inspired me to read a bit more on this era of Australian history. I’m struck by how many of the conflict’s titles end with “massacre”, and from their brief descriptions I can’t see how they can be cobbled together to be called a war. Genocide carried out by local settlers as there seems to be very few where the British Colonial Army was actually involved.

  19. JM says:

    Simon: where the British Colonial Army was actually involved

    WTF are you talking about? What is the “British Colonial Army”? It’s not any organisation I ever heard about.

  20. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iain, you’re proud of your English heritage? Good. I’m proud of my heritage. Very proud actually.

    Which is Australian, numbnuts.

    Some people are born into Australianness, some have it thrust upon then and some of us choose it, it makes no difference to me I respect and appreciate all of those Aussies who share this land with me even fools like you.

    You want to call me a ‘numpty’?

    I think that’s more applicable to you actually.

    Don’t come here and do nothing and then tell me how to run the place.

    Ok? Clear?

    You see one of the virtues of this wonderful country is that we can all freely discuss anything we please, sadly that means that as someone like yourself who has a bad temper, a totalitarian heart and a love hate relationship with the concept of free speech is seriously letting the side down. Lift your game mate, for the sake of the country.

    Anybody who comes here and does something is quite welcome to, but you don’t fall into that category. Do you Iain?

    At the very least, apart from running this humble blog I do what so many women do for their family, raise the next generation of Aussies who will be the best people that they can be so that this country will have a brighter future.

  21. Simon says:

    JM: My bad. “British Colonial Army” I made up the term to encompass those localised conflicts where an organised military force was involved. My preconception had been that they were more involved in anti-aboriginal actions, as opposed to the actions of the local populous.

  22. JM says:

    Simon

    I don’t think we need to postulate or insist on “armies” to have a war. All we need is armed conflict. And it doesn’t need to be continuous, many of the wars in history consisted of sporadic battles in differing locations. In fact most of them did. It’s really only because of WWI and WWII that we think of war in continuous terms these days.

    Secondly I don’t think we need coherent political structures either. The 30 years war consisted largely of armed bands wandering backwards and forwards over Germany raiding and looting. Very much like the “marauding bands” of Aboriginals that attacked a very small number of settlers and were then pretty much wiped out over the succeeding 2 months by armed bands of settlers in the Conniston Massacre.

    Now the other thing about this is the following question. If it was not a war, what were the settlers reacting to? If anything at all? Did they just get up one day and say “Hey, how about we go and kill us some blacks today?”

    I don’t think so. That would make them monsters. And please understand me here, I’m not excusing atrocities and massacres. I’m just saying they couldn’t possibly have occurred without there being a war going on. People just don’t do that sort of thing. Not without cause and anger.

    All I’m saying is that Iain’s portrayal of history requires that:-

    a.) the natives be peaceable ciphers who just got out of the way in anticipation of their glorious future 200 years down the road as indolent mendicants [sarcasm off]

    b.) the settlers were inhuman monsters who went on occasional killing sprees for no good reason.

    That is wrong. That is absolute nonsense. The only word that properly explains the events is “war”

    And these events are widely known amongst historians as “The Frontier Wars”

    But for some reason Iain can’t accept that.

  23. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    I don’t think we need to postulate or insist on “armies” to have a war. All we need is armed conflict. And it doesn’t need to be continuous, many of the wars in history consisted of sporadic battles in differing locations. In fact most of them did. It’s really only because of WWI and WWII that we think of war in continuous terms these days.

    So you are now claiming that the Wiki definition in this post is wrong?, Usually you LOVE wiki as it must be the source that you cite the most often.

    Secondly I don’t think we need coherent political structures either. The 30 years war consisted largely of armed bands wandering backwards and forwards over Germany raiding and looting. Very much like the “marauding bands” of Aboriginals that attacked a very small number of settlers and were then pretty much wiped out over the succeeding 2 months by armed bands of settlers in the Conniston Massacre.

    Now you are stretching the definition of war beyond all recognition, in fact You stretch it so much that it becomes all encompassing and by your definition all of those domestic quarrels between neighbours should be classed as “war” Fuck me if that does not mean that we need the UN peace keepers in our suburbs! Look I know why you want to see these conflicts as war, if you see it that way they you can see some nobility in the indigenous people’s loss of sovereignty over this land, you can tickle your guilt chip and insist that “we” are going to be eternally responsible the dissolute lives lived by far too many indigenous people. The thing is I’ve watched the results of “poor bugga me” politics for more than forty years,Watched the way that they keep saying “If only the government or the whitefellas in general would do this or that then we would be saved” (paraphrase)yet no matter what is done the problem remains. Thus I think that Noel Pearson has to be on the right track by encouraging indigenous people to get a proper education and to move to places where there are better economic prospects if that is what it takes.

    Now the other thing about this is the following question. If it was not a war, what were the settlers reacting to? If anything at all? Did they just get up one day and say “Hey, how about we go and kill us some blacks today?”

    The settlers were seeking to inflict a very crude form of vigilante justice in retaliation to what they saw as a lack of response from both government and the police. Their actions were not endorsed or authorised by the government,and as such can’t be seen as an act of war, they were acting in a criminal manner in response to what they though were criminal acts committed by the aborigines.

    I don’t think so. That would make them monsters. And please understand me here, I’m not excusing atrocities and massacres. I’m just saying they couldn’t possibly have occurred without there being a war going on. People just don’t do that sort of thing. Not without cause and anger.

    Not monsters just human beings who thought that “right was on their side” and that they would take the “justice” that they believed the government was slack delivering to address their grievances with the local blacks .

    All I’m saying is that Iain’s portrayal of history requires that:-

    a.) the natives be peaceable ciphers who just got out of the way in anticipation of their glorious future 200 years down the road as indolent mendicants [sarcasm off]

    Nup Nothing like the way that I see it.

    b.) the settlers were inhuman monsters who went on occasional killing sprees for no good reason.

    The thing that I have discovered in my long life is that even the most ordinary men and women are capable of great cruelty and dare I say it, evil. but this seldom comes out of no where with out some sort of trigger. I won’t in any sense condone those “killing sprees” but the way that you couch point suggest that the indigenous people were entirely blameless. Is that how you see them?

    That is wrong. That is absolute nonsense. The only word that properly explains the events is “war”

    And these events are widely known amongst historians as “The Frontier Wars”

    But for some reason Iain can’t accept that.

    Too right I can’t for the reasons that I have repeatedly explained.

  24. JM says:

    Iain I am absolutely convinced that you have no comprehension skills whatsoever.

    This is what Wiki says (you quoted it yourself)


    War is an organized, armed, and often a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties[1][2] typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities

    Firstly

    * organised – yep both sides were organised, both black and white
    * armed – yep both sides were armed, unequally but armed
    * prolonged – yep, very prolonged, over decades in fact
    * conflict – yep, there was undoubtably conflict, no-one argues otherwise

    Secondly: between states, nations or other parties

    Other parties Iain. Like tribes.

    * extreme agression – check, people trying to kill each other and often succeeding. That counts I think
    * social disruption – check, lots of that
    * usually high mortality – hmmm not so much on the settler side, but the Aboriginal population did suffer very badly

    Then we get to the second sentence:

    * actual – yep it actually occurred
    * intentional – yep, we intended to occupy the place and they intended to stop us
    * widespread – yep, across the whole continent
    * armed – yep, lots of arms to go round
    * conflict – check
    * political communities – let’s see, Aboriginal tribes vs the British Empire. We have political communities, so check again.

    I think it fully meets the Wiki definition actually.

    And I seriously doubt your reading skills.

    Now Iain if you can refute the above – without coming up with racist qualifiers – I might take you seriously

    But otherwise consider whether you support and abide by the values and law of this land.

    And if you don’t think you can do that, please take your own frequently expressed advice in respect of refugees and immigrants – and leave.

  25. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    Why are you so desperate to prove it was War?
    Did you read what I said about what I think motivates you on this topic? Isn’t it strange that you stay silent on that? Maybe you just realise that I’m right and you have no valid response. (cue more abuse from JM)
    OK lets look at your dot points and see if I can refute enough of them to undermine your argument shall we?

    * organised – yep both sides were organised, both black and white

    Well I definitely agree that the whites were organised to the extent that there was a very clear social organisation and political hierarchy that encompassed the white community as a whole. Can the same be said about the indigenous society? Hmm I think that is at the very least quite questionable. did the elders of the tribes actaully have the authority to command their fellows in battle?

    * armed – yep both sides were armed, unequally but armed

    One side carried their hunting tools and the other carried tools that were originally designed as weapons of war… Hmm you are almost there but not quite.

    * prolonged – yep, very prolonged, over decades in fact

    Well now I would say that there were a number of quite separate and discrete incidents that each had their individual triggers so frankly that does not mean that you could claim the incidents were related enough to unify them into a larger whole, something rather necessary to sustain your prolonged conflict claim.

    * conflict – yep, there was undoubtedly conflict, no-one argues otherwise

    See my response above.

    Secondly: between states, nations or other parties

    Other parties Iain. Like tribes.

    How many form a tribe JM? Is it one family group or two or three?

    * extreme aggression – check, people trying to kill each other and often succeeding. That counts I think

    Mostly not though and you can’t demonstrate that such aggression was at more than the level of family feuds in most cases.

    * social disruption – check, lots of that

    Hmm maybe

    * usually high mortality – hmmm not so much on the settler side, but the Aboriginal population did suffer very badly

    And your data for this claim is what precisely? Oh that’s right from “oral history” that most beloved resource of the ideologically pure from the “poor bugga me ” tradition.

    Then we get to the second sentence:

    * actual – yep it actually occurred

    The real question is how well can rely upon the accuracy of the details about just precisely what happened and to what extent the events are being spun to suit a political narrative.

    * intentional – yep, we intended to occupy the place and they intended to stop us

    The former part for that I have no problem with but the latter is actaully the bone of contention here and I am unconvinced.

    * widespread – yep, across the whole continent

    In a sense no it wasn’t because the process of colonisation was far too gradual and different in each of individual colonies as was the way that colonists got on (or not) with the indigenous people that. they encountered

    * armed – yep, lots of arms to go round

    Really? I still think that you stretch things to describe hunting tools as weapons of war.

    * conflict – check

    I have conflict with may kids about when they should go to bed or have a bath which suggests to me that you need more that conflict per se you need conflict above a certain threshold to qualify as a “war”. I don’t think that you have demonstrated that threshold being breached.

    * political communities – let’s see, Aboriginal tribes vs the British Empire. We have political communities, so check again.

    I would dispute that unless you can demonstrate that it was government policy to attack the indigenous people and that they used either the army or the police to do it, settlers going rogue and playing vigilante does not qualify as them being agents of the British empire.

    I think it fully meets the Wiki definition actually.

    No it doesn’t for the reasons I have stated above.

    And I seriously doubt your reading skills.

    Coming from such a serial selective quoter as yourself JM that is just a laughable claim.

    Now Iain if you can refute the above – without coming up with racist qualifiers – I might take you seriously

    But otherwise consider whether you support and abide by the values and law of this land.

    Well I believe that I have refuted your argument and that I have done so without any racism, so now your offer that you will take me seriously will be graciously accepted.

    And if you don’t think you can do that, please take your own frequently expressed advice in respect of refugees and immigrants – and leave

    What advice? Ah that’s right you are believing the propaganda again, even though it is not actaully true.

  26. JM says:

    Iain, if I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that I am the descendent of murderers?

    People who just wantonly went out killing other people. Correct?

  27. GD says:

    JM, a self-appointed doyen of politics, music, military strategy, climate science and now history, has added another portfolio to his already pompous, though unproven, qualifications.

    Now it seems JM is an expert on immigration, or rather emigration. Commenting on Iain’s blog, he has decided that as Iain’s opinions don’t agree with his own blinkered, bizarre views, Iain should leave the country.

    See, Iain’s family arrived here some forty years ago, and as JM is descended from the Macarthurs, the Wentworths and Hume and Hovell and anyone else he can remember from high school history, JM reckons his opinions take precedence.

    Coupled with the ‘fact’ that one old bloke in his ‘family’ married an aboriginal woman back some hundred years ago, and JM has got it covered both ways. He’s an expert on aboriginal lore, it’s part of his ‘family’, and also on the experiences of the whites who settled Australia.

    You can’t argue with such authority can you? Sadly, JM’s extensive knowledge leads him to the conclusion that Iain should pack his family up and go back to whence he came.

    He doesn’t suggest the same for immigrants from the Middle East caught in terrorist plots or drive-by shootings. He’s happy for aborigines to burn the flag, and would never suggest they shouldn’t be collecting welfare.

    But one guy, on a blog, dares suggest that Australians don’t owe the indigenous a living, even after they received the ‘Apology’, and have always received welfare, and JM becomes apoplectic.

    JM, the population aren’t with you on this. There will be an election, and views like yours will disappear down plughole of the leftist drain.

  28. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iain, if I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that I am the descendent of murderers?

    I have no idea of your linage mate but I very much doubt that any of us have no killers in the line somewhere, what makes you think otherwise?

    People who just wantonly went out killing other people. Correct?

    I expect that they thought that they had good reason for doing what they did, at this remove why does it matter to you now?

  29. JM says:

    Iain you insult me.

    GD STFU, I have no relationship to the families you mention but my lineage is clear. And I don’t feel the need to explain it to you.

  30. Simon says:

    History is replete with violence between groups where expunging may not have been the objective, but was seen at the time as an acceptable means to an end. It’s not necessary that we need to find a reason to call them a war, but we do need to defy our nature to stop labeling others as to why one peoples is inferior to another.

  31. GD says:

    Once again, my job is done. Arrogant buffoons make easy targets.

    oh, btw, what happened to that reply about the blacks burning the flag on Australia Day? You were livid when Australians brandished it, but you’re happy that 21st Century part-abos burn it.

    JM, may I suggest, you are are both a hypocrite and buffoon.

  32. GD says:

    Simon, we also need to stop flagellating ourselves over the behaviour of earlier generations. We are not responsible for the actions of our forebears.

  33. JM says:

    Me: Iain you insult me

    And I mean that. You have accused me of being the descendent of murderers. I want an explanation or an apology.

    Your choice.

  34. GD says:

    JM, you still haven’t answered the question: were you incensed by the aborigines burning the flag? Or is your apoplexy only reserved for whiteys?

  35. JM says:

    No GD I was not upset. Because I don’t give a s****. But these d****h***ds do care, supposedly, so I was simply pointing out that they don’t understand that their own actions regarding the flag are extremely disrespectful. And then they stalk the streets terrorising anyone they don’t like the look of and ask them to kiss it “or else”. These are not people who I want in my country. I don’t care how long they’ve been here.

    And BTW I don’t like the Union Jack being in the top left corner. Just a personal opinion. Might be my family’s Irish background, but is more likely due to my Australian heritage. Ok?

  36. Angel says:

    The Tasmanian Aborigines attacked and killed more new settlers than the whites had killed them. So which decendancy line is JM following?

  37. Simon says:

    GD: I agree totally. Nothing worse than black-armband revisionist history,

  38. GD says:

    JM is playing both sides, but prefers the view that the abos were noble warriors, while the whites were conquerors, so therefore we, today, should forever pay penance for the horrible things ‘we’ did back two centuries ago.

    Of course, anyone who identifies as ‘indigenous’, even if they are only one sixteenth aboriginal, deserve welfare and government assistance for the rest of their lives, unlike the other myriad mixed races we have here in Australia.

    It is an absurd proposition, but one that the current loony Labor and Green government seems to agree with. As I already said, there will be an election, and this nonsense will no longer be tolerated.

  39. JM says:

    Angel: The Tasmanian Aborigines attacked and killed more new settlers than the whites had killed them

    Words fail me. First time around there is no meaningful resistance. Second time around it’s “oh but they were much worse than us”

    Make up your mind.

  40. GD says:

    Thanks, Simon.

  41. JM says:

    GD anyone who identifies as ‘indigenous’, even if they are only one sixteenth aboriginal, deserve welfare and government assistance for the rest of their lives, unlike the other myriad mixed races we have here in Australia

    I need a shower, I can’t respond to this sort of filth.

  42. GD says:

    Ah, JM, even Pat Dodson, that rabid activist for aboriginal lack of responsibility, could identify as an Irishman. His grandfather was Irish. Not abo, not black, not even in cooee of being indigenous, but instead he chooses the heritage that suits his purpose.

    How vested is that interest? Which one pays him more?

  43. JM says:

    You know what GD? Get f***** As I said earlier I sometimes “self identify” as Irish. But if I “self-identiftied” as Aboriginal (which I can’t really do, but you morons seem to think I can) what would happen then?

    Stupid m****f*****R.

  44. JM says:

    Me: Iain you insult me

    And I’m still waiting – are my ancestors murderers or not?

    Apology or explanation please.

  45. Iain Hall says:

    Here is my morning catch up 😉

    JM

    Iain you insult me.

    Mate, if I wanted to insult you then I would do so in a far more colourful manner than my very calm and considered response to your questions.
    But to clarify my point, none of us truly know the details about the lives lived by our ancestors and given that fact we can just never know if any of them were “killers”. My quite reasonable suggestion is that if we go back far enough in anyone’s linage we will find a soldier or a police man or, gasp, maybe even a criminal who deliberately ended the life of another human being. Its also pretty likely that somewhere in your DNA there are the genes of a rapist as well. You just can’t contend, as you do, that yours is a line of pure virtue unsullied by acts that we now find abhorrent.

    my lineage is clear.

    Really? No one can be that certain of their linage mate you will never know if one of your great great(ad infinitum) grandmothers was unfaithful to her husband or even had her children to different fathers, the odds are that at least one of them had children out of wedlock, heck one of them could have even been a whore, who knows? You certainly don’t.

    Well said Simon!!

    JM again

    How can “expunging” not be an objective but an “acceptable means to an end”? What end? Extermination?

    NO its common to think of such things as “teaching them a lesson” and to think no more of any consequences. Like a lot of lefties you tend to project your own ideological reasoning upon to others who don’t analyse what they do anywhere near as much as you think that would have.


    GD

    JM is playing both sides, but prefers the view that the abos were noble warriors, while the whites were conquerors, so therefore we, today, should forever pay penance for the horrible things ‘we’ did back two centuries ago.

    I think that you have his number mate, and then some 😉

  46. Angel says:

    JM, I think you may of meant to refer to someone else.”no meaningful resistance”, I don’t recall that sorry.

  47. Iain Hall says:

    Angel
    its me who has suggested that there was no meaningful resistance, it seems that JM is confused about many things, including precisely who he is responding to.

  48. JM says:

    Iain, it is you who are lecturing me on my own family’s history. Something I know fairly well, and you know absolutely nothing of. And you are using circumlocutions and evasions to do it.

    You are wrong. And are arrogant to do it.

    It was a war. Get used to that word.

  49. Iain Hall says:

    No JM I’m not “lecturing”n you I’m pointing out the weaknesses in your argument as for my “arrogance” you could not be more wrong because I am by nature a rather humble man. but it is easy to point out that even in the most pristine looking flock there is bound to be a black sheep or two. Can’t you handle that simple truth?
    You are the one claiming to be a member of the squatorcacy and by extension “better” that the rest of your fellow Aussies.

    It was a war. Get used to that word.

    Oh I am very used to the word JM what you have to get used to is that you are using it in the wrong context here.

    But what I would like is the respect that you promised me for refuting your argument without racism. Sadly I’m not surprised that you can’t “man up” and acknowledge me for doing it.

  50. JM says:

    Iain, I have repeatedly challenged you to explain the events that occurred during the settlement of Australia without using rascist arguments such as Terra Nullius, or the supposed biological inferiority of the aborigines.

    You have failed to do so. You’ve barely even tried, all you’ve done is engage in misdirection. “War” is the only available word, and is the one used by all serious historians.

    I am using it in precisely the correct context.

    The fact that you resist using it says a lot about you and not in a good way.

  51. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    I just love it when you are having a tantee 😆

    Iain, I have repeatedly challenged you to explain the events that occurred during the settlement of Australia without using racistto be honest I can’t see how the idea of terra nullius is actaully racist arguments such as Terra Nullius, or the supposed biological inferiority of the aborigines.

    But I have explained why I have done neither. Now to be honest I can’t see how the idea of terra nullius is actaully racist, it was a rather naive view of the hunter gatherer culture that existed here prior to white settlement but it is not of necessity “racist” I would love you to explain how precisely it is a racist concept though.As for “the supposed biological inferiority of the aborigines” haven’t I been saying repeatedly that I think that such a supposition is a total nonsense?

    You have failed to do so. You’ve barely even tried, all you’ve done is engage in misdirection. “War” is the only available word, and is the one used by all serious historians.

    Name them then JM, just ten will do 😉

    I am using it in precisely the correct context.

    No I think not, and Ill ask you again to explain just why its so important to you that these events should be seen as “war”.

    The fact that you resist using it says a lot about you and not in a good way.

    Oh dear you are desperate aren’t you?

  52. JM says:

    Iain: though.As for “the supposed biological inferiority of the aborigines” haven’t I been saying repeatedly that I think that such a supposition is a total nonsense

    Horseshit. You argued for “biological competition” (And ‘damage’ argued for “natures way”)

    The shoe fits, you wear it.

  53. JM says:

    Oh and you also argued, as I recall, for the superiority of British culture and a supposed “subtle distinction” between your argument and outright racism.

    BS. There is no distinction and there is nothing “subtle” about it. Iain, you don’t have to be malicious to be a racist, you only have to believe that the different cultures amongst humanity have a scale of “superiority” and – this is the key point, so listen carefully – that superiority is related to genetic factors rather than accidents of history.

    You don’t need to show malice to believe this fallacious nonsense. You can believe it while being the nicest guy in the world. (eg. “Some of my best friends are Jews/N******/Abos/[Insert whatever ethnic group you want here]).

    And while you have not been malicious you have certainly run every one of those arguments.

    Is it or is it not true that as far as you’re concerned the Aboriginal people are responsible for their own plight and that you had nothing to do with it and wash your hands of it despite sitting on the fruits of victory?

    That’s your argument isn’t it? True or false?

  54. GD says:

    Is it or is it not true that as far as you’re concerned the Aboriginal people are responsible for their own plight

    Well, yes, JM…it’s just common sense. Time stands still for no man. It wasn’t pretty, but neither was the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic battles against the Romans, who in their turn battled other invaders and conquerers.

    Get over it JM, and perhaps the protesters at the tent embassy should also get over it and build a bridge, or rather perhaps they should get a job, given that they have been born and bred in 20th Century Australia and not in some imagined Dreamtime.

    Enough is enough.

  55. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    Most notably you once again refuse to explain why calling the events in question a “war” is so important to you and I can only conclude that my suppositions about the reasons for you being so hot to trot for that word are on the money.

    Horseshit. You argued for “biological competition” (And ‘damage’ argued for “natures way”)

    The shoe fits, you wear it.

    You are wrong for the simple reason that you conflate two rather different concepts as if there is no distinction between them which is an entirely fallacious way of seeing the history. Racism requires one to consider that there is a difference in the humanity of individuals or groups of people, in essence you have to believe that some groups are say “barely human” or that they are “less human” My argument is that in the biological and ethical sense the indigenous people are no different in their humanity to any other ethnicity nor are they any less intelligent or worthy of respect.
    Now no matter how much I argue about their identical humanity to the colonialists you continue to misunderstand criticisms of their social structures or their culture and traditions as some sort of disdain for their humanity. It is not racist to argue that the colonists culture, technology and society gave them a distinct advantage when it came to competing for the territory that they both coveted and claimed.

    Oh and you also argued, as I recall, for the superiority of British culture and a supposed “subtle distinction” between your argument and outright racism.

    As I said culture is not race and to suggest that there is difference between cultures is not racist.

    BS. There is no distinction and there is nothing “subtle” about it. Iain, you don’t have to be malicious to be a racist, you only have to believe that the different cultures amongst humanity have a scale of “superiority” and – this is the key point, so listen carefully – that superiority is related to genetic factors rather than accidents of history.
    You don’t need to show malice to believe this fallacious nonsense. You can believe it while being the nicest guy in the world. (eg. “Some of my best friends are Jews/N******/Abos/[Insert whatever ethnic group you want here]).

    You obviously use a computer and I guess that you are using the latest operating system aren’t you? Well just imagine an identical computer that is still using say “Windows the original version” just how well do you think that it would compete with your own machine to perform the tasks that you demand of it. Culture is the software of the human being and as such you cant pretend that all operating systems are as good or efficient. We humans are all essentially identical in our humanity (IE we are are all the same sort of computer) but we should not make the mistake of confusing hardware with the software that is installed upon it as you do here.

    Racism is not about culture, or society, its about the humanity of individuals, I say that every member of our species from all over the planet are equally human. However the “software” of their cultures differ greatly and that is not of necessity a bad thing. Look at it this way when the indigenous people had dominion over this land their societies worked well enough to remain essentially unchanged for thousands of years but the coming of the British with their different technology and way of exploiting the land was a challenge that the long standing indigenous culture just had no answer for, it was entirely beyond their experience. There was a paradigm shift and their cultural software is still struggling.

    And while you have not been malicious you have certainly run every one of those arguments.

    Only in your foetid imagination

    Is it or is it not true that as far as you’re concerned the Aboriginal people are responsible for their own plight and that you had nothing to do with it and wash your hands of it despite sitting on the fruits of victory?

    That’s your argument isn’t it? True or false?

    Its not about blame or responsibility JM. In fact at this time focusing on who is “responsible” is rather pointless, a bit like obsessing about who is responsible for the nail on the road that gives you a flat tyre the fact that you have to change the tyre won’t be altered by knowing who left it there in the first place. That said we are all the beneficiaries of the history of human culture and there is nothing to be gained by trying to change that. I am not responsible for events that happened before I was born in a country that is half a world away from my birthplace. On the other hand you boast about the way that you and your family are directly responsible for the dispossession of the indigenous people. So maybe all of the piss and vinegar from you about this topic is really all about your own guilt chip software and a belief that if you convince others, such as myself, that “we” are responsible as well then your burden of guilt will be reduced as a consequence.
    Nah! not going to play that game. You can feel as guilty as you please but I am not going to join you in your orgy of self flagellation.

  56. JM says:

    Iain your case is that you bear no responsibility for the outcome of events that happened before I was born in a country that is half a world away from my birthplace

    Correct?

    Well why should I have any responsibility for you then? Huh? And why are my taxes going to support you? And build the roads to your house? And the schools your children attend? And the hospitals and free medical system you use?

    Same logic right?

  57. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Well why should I have any responsibility for you then? Huh? And why are my taxes going to support you? And build the roads to your house? And the schools your children attend? And the hospitals and free medical system you use?

    You have no responsibility for me full stop JM

    Same logic right?

    It isn’t actaully.

  58. GD says:

    Really, Iain, you should be more agreeable, after all, as we now know, JM’s taxes are paying for the roads to your house, your children’s education and your family’s ‘free’ medical services. He is indeed a benevolent totalitarian. Where can I sign up for the same largesse?

  59. GD says:

    and if you don’t agree with JM, well you can always leave the country….

  60. Iain Hall says:

    Certainly GD I realise that I should be grovelling to our very own scion of the squatoracy, after all if HIS ancestors had not gone out massacring the Blackfellas where would we be in this country?
    You know we might even have a better inter ethnic relationships where the original Australians and the newer arrivals get on better. Further if JM’s ancestors had not supplied grog to the indigenous people then maybe they would have less problems with intoxicants now days. Its frankly ridiculous that he insists upon blaming the government for all of the inter-ethnic tensions when the government was form the very first intent on treating blacks and whites fairly under the law:
    Photobucket Pictures, Images and Photos
    It was unruly settlers, especially the squatters, who were the problem when they broke the law for their own selfish reasons…

    stand by for this GD
    Photobucket Pictures, Images and Photos

  61. GD says:

    Yes, fireworks, I expect so, or a coronary. Good point about the squatters. So JM’s high and noble forebears weren’t exactly high and noble. But I thought JM said he knew them all…It must have been some other family that gave the abos the grog.

    According to JM, his forebears weren’t at fault, and neither were the aborigines. So where was this ‘war’?

    Logic isn’t a strong point with leftards.

  62. JM says:

    So who was “at fault” GD? Explain the circumstances and events.

    And if it wasn’t a war, what a we left with? A serious of killings on both sides, with occasional atrocities. And land seizures.

    Followed up by a bunch of free loaders – that would be you and Iain – who are quite happy to take up the benefits of the result, but not the consequences. No, can’t have that, that’s you too much for you boys.

    And I mean boys in the full sense of the word:- juvenile and irresponsible

    It can only be understood as a war.

  63. GD says:

    JM, I was born here, as were my parents, and their parents. Whether they fought aborigines I can’t say. As for whose fault it was, well, JM, it’s just the vibe, you know, history. 🙂

    What do you reckon would have/should have happened had not the British landed here in 1788?

    What are you complaining about? History, for everybody, is brutal. The Anglo-Saxons experienced that back when the Romans were taking over their piece of land. But the Romans left some great roads. Each culture that takes over another adds to the total sum.

    Or are you suggesting that Australian aborigines would rather be returned to the stone-age state that the Europeans found them in?

    I bet Pat Dodson wouldn’t agree with that.

    Whose fault is it? JM it’s no-one’s fault, it’s the progress of time. To apply today’s rules to the actions of people hundreds of years ago is ridiculous.

    Get over it, build a bridge and realise that we can’t go back in time.

  64. JM says:

    Build a f***** bridge and realize that we all, collectively, have responsibility GD. All of us. And you don’t get excused from it just because your family came here later than mine any more than Iain thinks he can excuse himself because he was “born half a world away”

    Sorry things aren’t that simple.

  65. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    And if it wasn’t a war, what a we left with? A serious of killings on both sides, with occasional atrocities. And land seizures.

    That is pretty much it actually JM and as tough as it is for you, as scion of the squatocracy, you have to accept that it was your ancestors who were the players in that drama and stop blaming the rest of the Australians for their actions.

    Followed up by a bunch of free loaders – that would be you and Iain – who are quite happy to take up the benefits of the result, but not the consequences. No, can’t have that, that’s you too much for you boys.

    And I mean boys in the full sense of the word:- juvenile and irresponsible

    This is just you trying to blame share for the actions of your forebears JM. My family comes from both a long line of tenant farmers in Kent and the working class in London they were no where near wealth or power and as such they had no responsibility for the actions of either the aristocracy and government in the UK and certainly no responsibility for the actions of the squatocracy here.

    It can only be understood as a war.

    No it was as you described so mockingly in the opening of the comment as I cited before:

    And if it wasn’t a war, what a we left with? A serious of killings on both sides, with occasional atrocities. And land seizures.

    But add to that successful lobbying to the government by the squatoracy to legitimise their land seizures because it would be too difficult politically and economically to dislodge them.

    Finally this PDF is very interesting in relation to this topic so please read it and then get back to us JM

  66. JM says:

    Iain I am not talking about guilt or responsibility for past actions but rather responsibility in the here and now.

    You and GD are both trying to evade it.

    That is juvenile and irresponsible.

  67. JM says:

    And also Iain you’re giving yourself away a little bit here. If it is only my ancestors who are responsible, why do you care so much about the word “war”? It shouldn’t make any difference to you right?

    Could it be that you recognize, somehow deep down, that the way we got here is important to what we do now?

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s it. Because otherwise you wouldn’t be able to claim pride for anything – the British Empire as a result of the defeat of Napoleonic France, the defeat of Germany in 2 wars, the Industrial Revolution. The valour of soldiers at Gallipoli, the driving back of Japan at Kokoda. Not a single jot of it.

    It cuts both ways Iain. The rough with the smooth.

  68. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iain I am not talking about guilt or responsibility for past actions but rather responsibility in the here and now.

    That is utter bollocks JM Your argument has been that the coming of the white man and the subsequent loss of indigenous sovereignty imposes an unending obligation upon “white” Australians to “look after” the needs of the indigenous people and to solve all of their subsequent problems. You do this out of some feelings of guilt about the actions of your forebears.

    You and GD are both trying to evade it.

    That is juvenile and irresponsible.

    Its neither because both GD and myself do not accept your underlying premise and feelings of responsibility. But as a scion of the squatoracy you can exercise your noblesse oblige while us poor peasants get on with the here and now entirely free of the over active guilt chip that you are so clearly suffering from.
    Photobucket<a

  69. JM says:

    Looks like I’ll have to repeat myself

    Iain I am not talking about guilt or responsibility for past actions but rather responsibility in the here and now. I feel no guilt whatsoever.

    Otherwise I wash my hands of any responsibility for you.

    I presume you’ll be going down to Centerlink shortly and signing off. And repaying your cost of passage at compound interest?

    And then start sending cheques off to pay for your road services as well as bearing the full cost of your medical services as well as the full and complete cost of your children’s education?

    Somehow I doubt it.

  70. Damage says:

    If the aboriginal society is/was so sophisticated and proud and its people faught so bravely and long to protect it, then wouldn’t it be a little paternalistic for we whites to seek to support it in perpetuity?
    Wouldn’t its proud and majestic decendants find it beneath them to accept that paternalism and charity?

    JM’s salute is rather like the one used in europe in the 1930s except he has his palm facing upwards.

  71. GD says:

    Love your work, Mr D

  72. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iain I am not talking about guilt or responsibility for past actions but rather responsibility in the here and now. I feel no guilt whatsoever.

    They are one and the same JM because you use the former to establish the latter, otherwise you would have to find another reason why “we” have any more responsibility for those who poor and struggling with modernity while black as opposed to those struggling with modernity full stop.

    I have never once advocated that there should not be assistance for those in need, only that such assistance should not have any racial qualification. Please explain why there should be any special considerations to any Australian based upon their ethnicity.
    Did you read that PDF I linked to?
    You really should do so
    As for the other nonsense in your comment maybe I should start charging you for the use of my comment threads if you are so keen on “user pays”.

  73. GD says:

    “user pays”….clever…and sneaky…. 🙂

  74. Iain Hall says:

    Yep GD I’ll set a “pay pal” button especially for JM what do you reckon would be a fair charge?
    Keep in mind that as a “scion of the Squatoracy” he can’t be that short of a quid so what about I charge him say $10 per comment he posts here?
    That way I can afford to live in a manner to which I will cheerfully become accustomed to…

  75. GD says:

    🙂 or perhaps a manor you will cheerfully become accustomed to…

  76. GD says:

    Even more cruel would be to charge word by word…

  77. Iain Hall says:

    Oh I’m quite happy in my humble home GD but a 100inch flat screen would be very nice 😉

  78. GD says:

    Me too! Maybe we should vote for Rudd…he was good at giving those out….. 😦

  79. GD says:

    I can’t recall the lifestyle my grandfather, or even my father had, because, I didn’t experience it. I grew up in 1960s Australia. That makes me an old bloke. I also grew up with Torres Strait Islanders and Aborigines. We went to the same school. We played the same games, and we taunted each other, along with every other kid in the class. Dutch, Italian, or Chinese, everybody learnt to stand up for themselves.

    And everybody respected that. Or so it seemed until now when we have these ridiculous laws about racial discrimination.

    Just as I don’t remember my father’s growing up in the war years, and my grandfather’s enlisting to fight in WW!, neither do these people have any recall on their so-called ‘Dreamtime’ memory as a reason for continued guilt and welfare by the government and people of Australia.

    How many generations does it take for the indigenous to assimilate into 21st Century society? Remember it started in the 18th Century. How long do we have to keep saying ‘Sorry’?

    Unfortunately ‘Sorry’ achieves nothing. Self determination does, a desire to get ahead, to make one’s way in the world does, but as long as successive governments pour largesse into aboriginal communities, nothing will change.

    The ‘Sorry’ mentality will ensure disadvantaged aborigines stay right where they are, bemoaning the loss of some rock or site that is supposedly sacred to them.

    Bollocks.

  80. JM says:

    GD: I also grew up with Torres Strait Islanders and Aborigines. We went to the same school.

    Both? Really? What geographical location is that GD? I rather doubt that there is one historically. Perhaps you grew up with fish in the middle of the Torres Strait.

    Please allow me to doubt your story.

  81. GD says:

    FFS JM, Townsville, circa 1963-1968, Central State School. Would you like a couple of school photos?

    Build a bridge and get over it, buffoon….

  82. JM says:

    And another thing.

    Dutch, Italian, or Chinese, everybody learnt to stand up for themselves

    BS, utter BS. My best friend at school during the 1960’s was Italian and it was made very, very clear to him what he was – a “wog”. His father didn’t speak any English, although his father did introduce me to figs (he had a tree in the back garden) and did once, with his son’s help, show me the similarities between French and Italian. He was a pretty smart guy.

    Secondly, one of my oldest friends from university (who I still meet occasionally because we have similar recreational interests) is an ABC – Australian Born Chinese to you – who once went ballistic at me when I, playfully I thought, called him a ‘chink’.

    Racism was rife during the 60’s and 70’s. Don’t kid yourself.

    The only people who say it wasn’t are people who weren’t here. Like the 10 pound poms.

    Are you really who you say you are GD?

  83. GD says:

    Obviously, JM, your ‘expert’ knowledge doesn’t extend to knowing that Abos and Islanders lived in Townsville in the 60s, and on Palm Island.

  84. JM says:

    No GD, it doesn’t extend that far. Please tell me about it. Your claim just struck me as rather implausible.

    And please don’t use ‘Abos’. Such terms are disrespectful.

  85. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    You have the most bizarre concept of respect which sees you saying this“And please don’t use ‘Abos’. Such terms are disrespectful.” while showing no respect for either GD or myself.

    Still waiting for you to respond to my comment posted at 7.07pm yesterday BTW

  86. JM says:

    Iain it is quite clear you are avoiding the word “war” because you want to avoid the word “guilt” and having it applied to yourself.

    Now if it’s a war then my forebears don’t bear guilt*, they are simply invaders and combatants – irregulars, but combatants – and the Aboriginal people are simply combatants acting in their own defence.

    But that means there has to be reconciliation, resolution and rebuilding.

    You apparently don’t like any of those words so you’d prefer not to use the word that invokes them. You’d prefer to see my forebears as murderers. And similarly, the forebears of the current aboriginal population as “savages” who are now “indolent mendicants” underserving of help or assistance or actually any form of consideration at all.

    All so you can put your feet up and feel nice and comfy in your wonderful new homeland where you have social support and don’t have to bother working for a living or even contributing to the future.

    I’m sure it must be lovely for you. But most of us don’t agree.

    * Any atrocities aside.

  87. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iain it is quite clear you are avoiding the word “war” because you want to avoid the word “guilt” and having it applied to yourself.

    You are still wrong actaully, I don’t want to use the word war in the Australian context because it is a very poor fit for the historical situation in this country. A better man than you would just accept my opinion on that even if its only on the basis good manners in debate. You however are not the better man so you keep trying to labour the point and to try to badger me in to accepting your argument. In any event I would not feel any “guilt” about past events even if I thought that It was a war.

    Now if it’s a war then my forebears don’t bear guilt*, they are simply invaders and combatants – irregulars, but combatants – and the Aboriginal people are simply combatants acting in their own defence.

    Oh dear talk about you seeking to be absolved of your family’s sins!!! You are now trying to stretch and reinterpret acts that were both morally and legally “wrong” (by your own standards)and clothe them in the vestments of a “just” war, in essence you seek to legitimise the murder and other atrocities by those you claim to be a scion to

    But that means there has to be reconciliation, resolution and rebuilding.

    There does? Why? the fundamental question here is how long can the “poor bugga me” argument be sustained?

    You apparently don’t like any of those words so you’d prefer not to use the word that invokes them.

    WTF??? I use the words that suit my argument

    You’d prefer to see my forebears as murderers.

    Well if they took part in the killings of “troublesome Blacks” with premeditation then by any definition there were in fact murderers by any reasonable definition. You can’t change that simple fact by pretending that they were some sort for “warriors for the white race”> As I said to you earlier I bet everyone on the planet has killers in their linage, frankly its nothing to get het up about.

    And similarly, the forebears of the current aboriginal population as “savages” who are now “indolent mendicants” undeserving of help or assistance or actually any form of consideration at all.

    I’ve NEVER refereed to indigenous people that way JM but for the record I sincerely believe that there is merit in helping the downtrodden out of their misery no matter what race of people they come from but there is also merit in the downtrodden having to pull themselves up to some extent as well.

    All so you can put your feet up and feel nice and comfy in your wonderful new homeland where you have social support and don’t have to bother working for a living or even contributing to the future.
    I’m sure it must be lovely for you. But most of us don’t agree.

    Oh dear do I really have to explain that I do a role swap with may wife? (a teacher by profession)and rather than putting my feet up all day I run the house, cook the meals,deliver and collect the children form the bus to school after getting them ready in the morning, supervise homework and household chores, do the repairs, Mow the grass, make various improvements to the place , service our cars, the list goes on and on. I get up before the sun in the morning and I’m still going when it sets. so cut the crap about me living a life of leisure.

    * Any atrocities aside.

    Oh dear how can you so blithely dismiss the atrocities committed by your ancestors like this?

  88. JM says:

    Iain: A better man than you would just accept my opinion on that even if its only on the basis good manners in debate.

    So if I just “accept your opinion” where’s the debate? There isn’t one.

    Look Iain, we’re all very well aware of where you are on this by now. You are selfish in that you refuse any largess from the community to anyone but yourself, and you wash your hands of any responsibility for anyone other than yourself or perhaps your family members.

    And you completely refuse to recognise that the nation, of which you are a part, may have larger responsibilities than either of us can handle on our own.

    The rest of your comment isn’t worth responding to. It’s trash.

  89. JM says:

    And further just on this point about debate. The purpose of debate is – more or less – to decide a course of action within a group of people, or a society, ie. one person doesn’t get to decide above all others, and a collective decision is arrived at that is hopefully better than a single person can achieve by themselves.

    You appear to believe however that it is only Iain Hall who can decide these things, regardless of actual knowledge, requirements, interests, motivations, expertise or anything else that might be brought to bear on the outcome.

    You’re now claiming to be the oracle of all action and the decider of fact.

    I think that’s really what offends me so much about you Iain. You are neither. No-one can be, especially someone who has achieved so little in their lives either in terms of acquisition of real knowledge or actual accomplishment.

    Your posturing is an offence to anyone with a real life.

  90. JM says:

    Iain: I don’t want to use the word war in the Australian context because it is a very poor fit for the historical situation in this country

    Historians disagree with you, they call them the Frontier Wars


    The Australian frontier wars were a series of conflicts fought between Indigenous Australians and European settlers. The first fighting took place in May 1788 and the last clashes occurred as late as 1939. Most scholars of note accept Reynolds’ overall minimum of 20,000 for all the colonies[3], yet a recent study calculate indigenous fatalities caused by the Queensland Native Police Force alone to no less than 24.000.[4]

    Follow the references on that page Iain. You are absolutely full of it.

  91. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    As usual you miss my point

    Iain: A better man than you would just accept my opinion on that even if its only on the basis good manners in debate.

    So if I just “accept your opinion” where’s the debate? There isn’t one.

    In a good natured debate when you reach an impasse on a semantic point then it it entirely reasonable for each party to the discussion to just accept that there can be no agreement on a particular point and then they “agree to disagree” clearly you are incapable of such good natured debate.

    Look Iain, we’re all very well aware of where you are on this by now. You are selfish in that you refuse any largess from the community to anyone but yourself, and you wash your hands of any responsibility for anyone other than yourself or perhaps your family members.

    Did you not read this part of my last comment?

    I sincerely believe that there is merit in helping the downtrodden out of their misery no matter what race of people they come from but there is also merit in the downtrodden having to pull themselves up to some extent as well.

    Does that not say that I am anything but selfish on this matter?

    And you completely refuse to recognise that the nation, of which you are a part, may have larger responsibilities than either of us can handle on our own.

    Well that is news to me me (sarcasm)Perhaps you should read my archive on say the intervention, or similar issues where I have actaully said (more than once) that I endorse the government doing something to help our most downtrodden out of their misery.

    The rest of your comment isn’t worth responding to. It’s trash.

    No you are just incapable of coping with the actual blood on the hands of your forebears so in typical style you just cop out with the cheap dismissal. you have no valid rebuttal to my points so you just try to ignore them. Its just your cowardice coming to the fore once again, sigh.

    And further just on this point about debate. The purpose of debate is – more or less – to decide a course of action within a group of people, or a society, ie. one person doesn’t get to decide above all others, and a collective decision is arrived at that is hopefully better than a single person can achieve by themselves.

    No the purpose of debate within the context of a blog like this one is, well debate. Its an entertainment of sorts that exists only to amuse its participants, in the real world it probably changes nothing. Now as much as I would love to think that this humble blog could change anything of substance in the world I realise that its just a bit of fun, rather like sitting down and trying to fix the world in the bar of your local. I don’t drink so the Sandpit is my local.

    You appear to believe however that it is only Iain Hall who can decide these things, regardless of actual knowledge, requirements, interests, motivations, expertise or anything else that might be brought to bear on the outcome.

    Nothing I do or say in this blog is going to change the world JM and you as a paranoid anonymous commentator are going to have even less influence through its pages than yours truly. The wonder of the internet age is that anyone, yes even me, can sprout their onions to the universe no matter how good or bad those opinions are. If you think that your opinions are so bloody wonderful then why are you not out their writing your own blog? Oh that’s right you must realise that it takes time to get people to actaully read what you write so you come here where you can ride on the coat tails of my persistence in the blogging craft.

    You’re now claiming to be the oracle of all action and the decider of fact.

    No I am, as I have always said, an opinionated old codger who loves a good argument, so I write to provoke to make my readers think and hopefully disagree with me enough to respond.

    I think that’s really what offends me so much about you Iain. You are neither. No-one can be, especially someone who has achieved so little in their lives either in terms of acquisition of real knowledge or actual accomplishment.

    How can we judge what YOU have achieved in your life JM? What precisely have you done that is worthy of note? You lack even the courage to put your real name to your opinions yet you dare to suggest that I am “offensive” because I do for my family what millions of women have done for generations?

    Your posturing is an offence to anyone with a real life.

    And precisely what sort of “real life” do you have JM?

    Historians disagree with you, they call them the Frontier Wars

    {..}

    Follow the references on that page Iain. You are absolutely full of it.

    When I asked you to name those historians (just ten)you fell silent and now you cite wiki as if it is in some sense definitive? Grow some and find some real citations JM because we all know that wiki can be written and edited by anyone who cares to take the time to do so. Even I have done it.

  92. JM says:

    Iain you disagree with historians as to whether the term war should be used.

    I look forward to your forthcoming treatise on the subject “I am Right – Iain Hall’s History of Australia”

    Should be good reading (not)

  93. damage says:

    I heard Wiki refered to as the new toilet wall the other day.
    Anyone who would reference the toilet wall as the SOLE definitive basis of their argument is stupid.

    Wiki has its place – no doubt – but if there really are serious historians who call the colanisation of Australia a WAR then you should seriously cite them JM then – like others here – you cam claime the win and punch the air. Till then you’re not able to be thought of as reasonable nor your arguments as intelligent.

    On the other hand I can quote an unimpeachable historical volume or two to counter your argument.
    Both good reads and both will “assist” you in correcting your error of thought.

    The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Volume One, Van Diemen’s Land 1803-1847 (Macleay Press, 2002) now in its third printing; and The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Volume Three, The Stolen Generations 1881-2008, Macleay Press, 2009).

  94. JM says:

    damage

    I have cited them. Geoffrey Blainey and Henry Reynolds for two. Also others:


    The frontier wars are not commemorated at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. The Memorial argues that the Australian frontier fighting is outside its charter as it did not involve Australian military forces. This position is supported by the Returned and Services League of Australia but is opposed by many historians, including Geoffrey Blainey, Gordon Briscoe, John Coates, John Connor, Ken Inglis, Michael McKernan and Peter Stanley. These historians argue that the fighting should be commemorated at the Memorial as it involved large numbers of Indigenous Australians and paramilitary Australian units.

    Windschuttle is not a serious historian. He is a self-serving opportunist who was once a Maxist economist.

    And even he admits they happened, he just argues that they were not as widespread as others say. Besides he focuses mostly on atrocities and tries to downplay them.

  95. GD says:

    JM, so you’re quoting Geoffrey Blainey. A while back you had a different opinion of him.

    JM on January 25, 2012 at 7:33 pm said:
    GD, Blainey is a nut.

  96. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iain you disagree with historians as to whether the term war should be used.

    I look forward to your forthcoming treatise on the subject “I am Right – Iain Hall’s History of Australia”

    You favour the opinions of a particular cadre of historians, the fact that this small group of academics believe that their interpretation of events is correct does not make it so. Sadly your grasp of the scope for interpretation of historical events is rather poor and I suspect that you do the same as you do for “climate science” namely you put too much faith in the cult of the expert and the value of “consensus”.

    Windschuttle is not a serious historian. He is a self-serving opportunist who was once a Maxist economist.

    And even he admits they happened, he just argues that they were not as widespread as others say. Besides he focuses mostly on atrocities and tries to downplay them.

    Ah so anyone who does not follow what you consider to be a historical “orthodoxy” should be denied the title of historian? Is that what you are arguing? All historians look at the evidence and then try to create a cogent narrative from that evidence and as such ALL history is essentially opinion and open to a great deal of interpretation.

    GD
    JM’s desperation is palpable, he seems really hooked on the notion that it was a war but when pressed on why that is o important he just blathers on with some shallow platitudes about reconciliation. The fact remains that all of this obsession with wanting the past events (for which he admits his ancestors were perpetrators) to be called a war will have absolutely nothing to do with creating a better future for the indigenous people of this land.

  97. JM says:

    GD, I specifically explained back on that thread what my complaint about Blainey was, it is his thesis in “Truimph of the Nomads” that implies the Aboriginals were not fully human.

    However, I did also point out that even he recognises that these events were a war.

    I think I also described Windschuttle as a lunatic. Yet even he agrees it was a war, he just argues for it being smaller scale.

    Now when I can summon the opinions of even people I disagree with, then you guys are in a bad place.

    Can you name one historian – apart from Hall, Iain Esq BA(Drama) – who thinks they weren’t a war?

    No.

  98. damage says:

    Ok so I’ll humour you JM.

    If it was a war then, like the Zulu wars that you used as an example earlier, there will be leaders, units and actions to name. So name me one regiment from either side, an action that that or any other unit from either side unit was involved in and the leader of any unit of fighters – to section level – that faught in that war.

    Otherwise you might as well say that Eureka, Redfern, or Cronulla were evidence of war.

    Nobody here – and you agree that even Windshuttle says there were fights – is suggesting that there wasn’t a struggle and that there was no resistance, but it is a long bow indeed to discribe that resistance as a war.

  99. damage says:

    First mention of Windschuttle was by me, and I never named him – only his books.
    JM you didn’t say he was a lunatic here.

    So there’s proof that history is about opinions and since you can’t have accurate opinions about things that happened today then how would you know what happened before you were born?

  100. JM says:

    damage I refer to my comment at February 4, 2012 at 5:17 pm where I quite clearly outline how the events fit Iain’s nominated definition.

    And I’m still waiting for that name.

  101. JM says:

    damage: Nobody here … is suggesting that there wasn’t a struggle and that there was no resistance

    Iain has. Several times. And so have you when you suggested that the natives “pragmatically” recognised the “way of nature” and got out of the way.

  102. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iain has. Several times. And so have you when you suggested that the natives “pragmatically” recognised the “way of nature” and got out of the way.

    You love fighting with your straw men don’t you JM?

    That is not my argument and you know it.

    I specifically explained back on that thread what my complaint about Blainey was, it is his thesis in “Truimph of the Nomads” that implies the Aboriginals were not fully human.

    How so? and please provide a citation that proves this claim or withdraw it.

  103. GD says:

    Did Blainey really write that Aboriginals were not fully human? No, he didn’t, it’s just JM reckoning he ‘implied’ it.

  104. GD says:

    So by imagined ‘implication’, Blainey is guilty, or in error. Such is the lunatic logic of the left.

  105. JM says:

    Iain: please provide a citation that proves this claim or withdraw it.

    Here’s at least one place where I: outlined it – there are other comments from me in the same thread that elaborate.

    And in the same thread you claim several times that the Aboriginals did not resist.

    You don’t remember what you’ve said from one minute to the next do you?

    That thread also contains damage’s claim about “pragmatism” and “the way of nature”

  106. GD says:

    You call that ‘outlining’….oh dear…there is no way you are a ‘physical scientist’. I’d wonder if you even finished high school. At least you keep Iain amused, I suppose that’s something…

  107. damage says:

    There are always people who’ll fight even for a lost battle. I didn’t say that they were pragmatic about the European takeover, I said that they were pragmatic about all takeovers, because they were used to one peple with superior ability taking over.

    Am I to understand that you don’t believe that the Australian indininous people faught over territory before 1788 JM?

  108. GD says:

    JM reckons they were all happy little chappies, who also had a few head honchos to organise them into a warlike status, whenever their ‘continent’ was threatened. Which only happened once. So JM reckons we should pay, and give, and pay, forever to those who ‘identify’ as ‘aborigines’.

    It’s a joke JM. And may I suggest, so are you.

  109. GD says:

    JM could also do to read the published article by Paul G E Albrecht AM that Iain offered earlier. Or perhaps JM isn’t interested in discussion or discourse, but merely derision.

    The Albrecht document is an account of a European man who was brought up alongside an Aboriginal tribe, and subsequently grew up speaking ‘Arrarnta Altorlinya’ as his first language. It is an amazing story of cultures working alongside each other, and also the problems they experienced.

    Try reading the pdf Iain provided, JM. It may provide you with a realistic telling of aboriginal history, rather than your glossy leftist, apologist version.

  110. JM says:

    GD and damage.

    That’s not the question I asked. I asked to be told of an historian (apart from Hall, Iain: MA(Drama)) who does not refer to these events as a war (or wars, your choice, I don’t care about the plural)

    You haven’t done so, therefore I assume you can’t find one.

  111. JM says:

    GD, re Albrecht’s article.

    Yeah, I’ve scanned it and I think it’s crap. Firstly it comes from Quadrant which is not noticeably well disposed towards the Aboriginal people

    Secondly, it’s focussed on the issue of a Christian response to their plight. I don’t give a flying one for theological discussions about this.

    Thirdly, I’m pulling rank again. You know that ancestor of mine who married an Aboriginal woman (not the only ancestor btw)? You know what he did? In the 19th Century? He established a mission that exists to this day and has some centrality to Aboriginal society even now.

    So basically, go f*** yourself.

    And then I note this:


    That some Aborigines were shot, that some were poisoned, that some were forcibly deprived of their land, and that others died simply as a result of the massive social and economic dislocation caused by European settlement, are irrefutable facts of history

    ie. complete confirmation of my entire argument.

  112. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    Thank you very much for proving once and for all what a fraud you are and how right we are for not giving and substantive credence to your claims of scientific qualification. The way you argue is just so profoundly at odds with anyone so trained that no further proof. should be necessary.

    Here’s at least one place where I: outlined it – there are other comments from me in the same thread that elaborate.

    And in the same thread you claim several times that the Aboriginals did not resist.

    You don’t remember what you’ve said from one minute to the next do you?

    That thread also contains damage’s claim about “pragmatism” and “the way of nature”

    Citing yourself with some vague interpretation of what you imagine was Blainey’s argument
    is strike one, failing to provide a proper quote as requested is strike two, Misquoting what I said about resistance by leaving out the qualifying term “meaningful” is strike three.
    That makes you out by my reckoning…

    You should hang your head in shame for your abuse of the English language. You see I do remember what I say from one minute to the next, the problem here is that you wilfully fail to properly comprehend it in the first instance and cherry pick just the words that fit your own imaginings of my argument rather than addressing what I actaully said. Further its clear that you do precisely the same thing with other authors like Blainey. I’m willing to bet that if you did read the book any further than a quick flick trough at a bookshop you used the same ideological blinkers to see only what you wanted to see.

    Now I’ll try the JM style of rebuttal, just for fun.

    Thirdly, I’m pulling rank again. You know that ancestor of mine who married an Aboriginal woman (not the only ancestor btw)? You know what he did? In the 19th Century? He established a mission that exists to this day and has some centrality to Aboriginal society even now.

    Add this to the mix :

    an·ces·tor/ˈanˌsestər/
    Noun:

    A person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended.
    An early type of animal or plant from which others have evolved.

    Which means that we have JM once again claiming to be a blackfella and a scion of the squatocracy, which means its obvious that the reason that he is so keen on that particular word is because he is at war with the truth of his own history.

    Back to reality,

    JM until you put your name to your comments then you have no rank to pull, just as you have no rank when it comes to arguments about science without at the very least specifically naming your qualification. Until then your arguments stand or fall on your skill at finding checkable sources and most importantly on your ability to provide cogent responses to what your interlocutors have actaully said. You are not doing so well on either of those prerequisites at present, which is why you provide me with so much amusement.

  113. JM says:

    Iain this is completely off topic. The paper is not about whitefellas and blackfellas living in harmony. Not at all.

    To paraphrase it, it basically says My father and I spent about 50 years as missionaries trying to Christianise these heathens by destroying their cultural practices (of which we don’t know much because we refused to attend their ceremonies) but we failed. Here’s a few pointers on what future missionaries could do if they want to have another shot at it

    Now the point of this thread is the application of the word “war” to these events. You have not made any sort of case that the word is inappropriate, and we’ve boiled it down to you guys coming up with the name of an historian who doesn’t use the word war.

    You’ve failed to come up with one.

    My win I think.

  114. Iain Hall says:

    Will the amusement that you give me ever end JM???

    You say this :

    Iain this is completely off topic. The paper is not about whitefellas and blackfellas living in harmony. Not at all.

    Maybe you are right about that BUT and its a big but here, that is not what I claimed about the document. In fact what I said about the document when I linked to it was simply this:

    Finally this PDF is very interesting in relation to this topic so please read it and then get back to us JM

    Call me blind if you like but I can’t see anything at all about “whitefellas and blackfellas living in harmony’ in my sentence offering the link to the PDF.

    An own goal from you again JM!

    Now the point of this thread is the application of the word “war” to these events. You have not made any sort of case that the word is inappropriate, and we’ve boiled it down to you guys coming up with the name of an historian who doesn’t use the word war.

    The point of this thread is whatever I choose it to be and unlike some other site owners I am pretty laid back about the way that discussion and debate travel on a thread. Nonetheless to your point in particular I say that I have made my case in the body of the post and I have provided a simple and succinct and valid definition of “war” and sadly for you it does not allow the events in this countries history to be thus defined. Now you have named a few historians and asserted that they endorse your opinion that it was a war, well bully for you, but there is a big gap between assertion and proof and to fill that gap may I suggest that you find actual quotes from their writings where they say (without qualification or caveat) that it was a war. Until you do that I will remain unconvinced.

  115. JM says:

    Iain: sadly for you it does not allow the events in this countries history to be thus defined.

    BS, I’ve shown how they can be (and should be and are) so defined. You have said nothing that contradicts that conclusion. You didn’t even try

  116. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    BS, I’ve shown how they can be (and should be and are) so defined. You have said nothing that contradicts that conclusion. You didn’t even try

    I wrote you a long and detailed rebuttal that you just ignored so don’t claim that I have not even tried. read back through my earlier comments.

    Clearly you don’t appreciate that once its in the past its history, and then its all debatable.

    Now for you its obviously imperative for that those events should be called a war, can’t you even envisage that its possible that there is no malice involved in disagreeing with that proposition?

  117. JM says:

    Well Iain, if you don’t like the word why don’t I give you an alternative term.

    Peace.

    Please show, with details, how the settlement of Australia was peaceful.

    You won’t be able to. No-one is able to. Windschuttle has given up, he has put off Vol. 2 of his meisterwerk indefinitely.

    That’s your choice:- war or peace.

    See if you can do better than the failed attempts of your favorite historian.

  118. JM says:

    And when I say “with details” I’d like you to specifically address 3 events (you can find them on Wikipedia if you need to brief yourself, you’ll also find citations to necessary source material).

    1. The orders issued by Governer Phillip in 1788 shortly after Aboriginal attacks on the settlement detailing the New South Wales Corps to go out and hunt down the native perpetrators

    2. The Black Wars (and Black Drive) in Van Diemens Land in the early 19th Century which led to the banishment of aborigines to the islands.

    3. The Conniston Massacre that I previously mentioned.

    And there’s a couple of questions that you – as a fledgling historian struggling against the conclusions of all other historians – should consider:-

    a. Why did the settlers do these violent things in the absence of a threat (peaceful remember)?

    b. If you answer to (a) is that they responded to native threats, then:- why did the natives attack the settters in the absence of threats to their livelihood? (peaceful ok?)

    I’ll mark you out of 10. But if you pull it off, who knows, you’ll have a new career as an academic of note.

    In which case, congratulations.

  119. GD says:

    I’ll mark you out of 10. But if you pull it off, who knows, you’ll have a new career as an academic of note.

    What the hell gives you the right to ‘mark’ Iain out of ten and decide if he’s an ‘academic’. I’d suggest most readers here have already marked you zero on the credibility scale. Hinting at ‘scientific qualifications’ doesn’t mean a damn thing, JM.

    On the other hand, blithering and blathering about semantic issues clearly shows you aren’t an academic.

  120. damage says:

    JM
    Windshuttle.

  121. JM says:

    And so the Greek chorus arrives to protect Hall, Iain BA(Drama)

    GD, I’m being sarcastic, damage thank you, that’s a mistake I keep making.

    Iain?

  122. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    Why is it that your poor brain can only comprehend the history of this country in terms of a dichotomy between “war” and “peace”. That seems to me to a rather narrow and self defeating way of seeing the history. Frankly you display the sort of thinking that would be more suited to a creationist than the man of science that you claim to be. Is it any wonder that I find your efforts so amusing?

    And so the Greek chorus arrives to protect Hall, Iain BA(Drama)

    As modest as my degree is JM I at least have one and I am willing to name it. However the correct description of my degree is Bachelor of Arts (Language in the media and Drama), Now how about you try doing the same thing and name your qualification?

  123. JM says:

    I’ll take that as a concession.

    Iain, I don’t see the history of Australia as a “dichotomy” between war and peace, not by a long shot. But take a look at the title of this post of yours. You set the terms of the debate and you picked the fight very specifically with me. You lost. You made the bed so you lie in it.

    Now within the terms of that debate I don’t think anyone has any problem with the distinction between war and peace. There is no word in the English language (or I would guess any other language) to describe a state in between.

    Now as regards relationships between the settlers and the natives, particularly during the 19th Century, I think “war of occupation” is an excellent way of describing it. A low intensity war, but a war nonetheless, and prolonged.

    Regarding my qualifications, they’re in physics. I also have a couple of minor things on the side in statistics, quantatative finance and IT but they only exist because I wanted to formalize knowledge and experience I already had. There’s also a whole raft of short courses.

    You see Iain, not all of us just get an undergraduate degree and put up our feet for the rest of our lives, some of us keep going.

  124. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    I’ll take that as a concession.

    You may take anything that I say anyway you please but you would be wrong to suggest that I am conceding here.

    Iain, I don’t see the history of Australia as a “dichotomy” between war and peace, not by a long shot. But take a look at the title of this post of yours. You set the terms of the debate and you picked the fight very specifically with me. You lost. You made the bed so you lie in it.

    No Yo are still missing the point, that every aspect of history is eternally debatable and that you can not, as you keep insisting, ever have only one right way of seeing events.

    Now within the terms of that debate I don’t think anyone has any problem with the distinction between war and peace. There is no word in the English language (or I would guess any other language) to describe a state in between.

    Actually I think that you do have a problem with the distinction between war and peace because you see the tipping point as being far to close to the latter rather than the former,or even anywhere in the middle on that spectrum.

    Now as regards relationships between the settlers and the natives, particularly during the 19th Century, I think “war of occupation” is an excellent way of describing it. A low intensity war, but a war nonetheless, and prolonged.

    Looking at precisely the same events I would say that rather than it being any sort of war it was an uneasy peace where there were occasional incidents where the friction between players became great enough to be notable. Now you may well think that a “war of occupation” is an excellent way of describing it but that does not mean that as a consequence that is the opinion that has to be dominant or definitive. In history everything is opinion and subject to different interpretations.

    Regarding my qualifications, they’re in physics. I also have a couple of minor things on the side in statistics, quantatative finance and IT but they only exist because I wanted to formalize knowledge and experience I already had. There’s also a whole raft of short courses.

    Vague as ever eh JM?

    You see Iain, not all of us just get an undergraduate degree and put up our feet for the rest of our lives, some of us keep going.

    Ah the arrogance you display is amazing mate, you clearly think that only formal education matters or that learning is only about the gongs that you get. In the real world some of us don’t think that formalising our knowledge matters that much and it is not worth the time or expense to do so.

  125. JM says:

    Iain : [re war vs. peace] the tipping point as being far to close to the latter rather than the former

    I asked you to make the case Iain, you haven’t done so.

    If you wish to do so, now’s your chance. (But you are up against a very severe metric here – 98% or so of the Aboriginal people lost their lands according to the Mabo extinquinshment criteria)

    it was an uneasy peace where there were occasional incidents where the friction between players became great enough to be notable

    Rot. Utter garbage. Substantiate your claim of “uneasy peace”. (And please distinguish “uneasy peace” from conflict. In a meaningful way – none of your “meta consciousness” BS)

    you clearly think that only formal education matters

    No I don’t actually Iain. But you have spent several years abusing me about my supposed lack of formal qualifications because I’ve previously refused to tell you and I’m not into credentialism – ie. claims to authority based only on formal education

    However in this thread I made the mistake of mocking yours – which I’m sorry for – so I decided to do you a favour and actually tell you what mine are.

    Now having done that – ie. tell you what my credentials actually are – I don’t think you have any business turning around and telling me that the “university of life” is more important. You can’t spend years demanding that I show I have some authority or ability and then as soon as I do so turn around and abuse me for actually having it.

    Now on a “meta” topic let me tell you something. I’m quite familiar with your style of argument. It’s very English (I lived there for several years), it consists of evasion, equivocation and exhaustion.

    If you can keep the first two up for long enough the other person will just tell you to F**** off and go away because they get exhausted and sick of it. You then pretend to claim a victory.

    But that is not debate Iain. Nothing like it. It’s idiocy.

    To conduct it you need to disengage the mind from your mouth and just let the voice go like a free running motor without a transmission.

    Which is pretty much what a lot of your commentary is like. For real. Sorry, but that is the truth.

  126. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iain : [re war vs. peace] the tipping point as being far to close to the latter rather than the former

    I asked you to make the case Iain, you haven’t done so.

    If you wish to do so, now’s your chance. (But you are up against a very severe metric here – 98% or so of the Aboriginal people lost their lands according to the Mabo extinquinshment criteria

    Well I think that I have done so more than adequately, but the fact of the matter is that you are as utterly intransigent in your position as I am on this topic so you make a grave error to suggest that the matter will ever be decided by either of us convincing the other to change our opinion. Further you make the mistake of thinking that your opinion is empirically true when I have pointed out repeatedly that with history there is only opinion and varied interpretations, none of which will ever be definitive.

    it was an uneasy peace where there were occasional incidents where the friction between players became great enough to be notable

    Rot. Utter garbage. Substantiate your claim of “uneasy peace”. (And please distinguish “uneasy peace” from conflict. In a meaningful way – none of your “meta consciousness” BS)

    I have no need to do so JM because History is all about interpretation and opinion and I have already explained that I don’t think that the level of conflict was intense enough for long enough for the colonial experience to qualify as a war, that is my opinion and I have seen no reason to change it in the light of your arguments to the contrary.

    you clearly think that only formal education matters

    No I don’t actually Iain. But you have spent several years abusing me about my supposed lack of formal qualifications because I’ve previously refused to tell you and I’m not into credentialism – ie. claims to authority based only on formal education.

    Dare I say that you are practising the art of self deception here? You have repeatedly insisted that we should accept your arguments because of your science education while refusing to even name your qualification, You have repeatedly proved that you are absolutely devoted to credentialism by the way that you dismiss opinions from people you disagree with, just look at the way you dismissed Keith Windshuttle in this very thread as someone who is “not a historian” You do precisely the same thing when it comes to discussing Climate science, Dismissing any critic of the AGW theory on the basis that they are not qualified in the disciple to your satisfaction.

    However in this thread I made the mistake of mocking yours – which I’m sorry for – so I decided to do you a favour and actually tell you what mine are.

    You have repeatedly mocked my education and skills JM and not just in this thread so don’t expect me to have a respect for you that you are unwilling to offer in return.

    Now having done that – ie. tell you what my credentials actually are – I don’t think you have any business turning around and telling me that the “university of life” is more important. You can’t spend years demanding that I show I have some authority or ability and then as soon as I do so turn around and abuse me for actually having it.

    I mock you because you are not being frank in your response, you are trying instead to give the appearance of disclosure with out really saying anything more than your previous claims to be qualified in “the physical sciences”

    Now on a “meta” topic let me tell you something. I’m quite familiar with your style of argument. It’s very English (I lived there for several years), it consists of evasion, equivocation and exhaustion.

    If you can keep the first two up for long enough the other person will just tell you to F**** off and go away because they get exhausted and sick of it. You then pretend to claim a victory.

    But that is not debate Iain. Nothing like it. It’s idiocy.

    You feel like that JM probably because that is precisely the way that you yourself argue, you have absolutely no generosity in the way you debate and you very quickly descend into abusing, disparaging or condescending to those you debate with and then you get upset when they respond in kind to your abuse and insults. Now I am far from perfect but when it comes to debate I have a very simple strategy I look at the arguments that you put and I respond to them point by point, you on the other hand respond to may arguments by just ignoring the points I raise when you have no answer to them. For me it is the journey rather than the destination that matters. Sadly you are so desperate to “win” that you are often very sloppy (angry) in the way that you travel which makes it very hard for me to respect what you say even on the rare ocassions when you say something I agree with.

    To conduct it you need to disengage the mind from your mouth and just let the voice go like a free running motor without a transmission.

    Which is pretty much what a lot of your commentary is like. For real. Sorry, but that is the truth.

    I write this blog for my own amusement and I have absolutely no pretensions about it at all; it is just a collection of my# opinions and observations about meaning of life (42) and the world around me, yet you go on as if I am trying to write some sort of deep scholarly tome or some sort of manual of political truth. It is what it is and you and any other readers are welcome to comment here about the posts, all that I ask is that you do so with good humour and a willingness to “play nice”. Now is that too much to ask?

    # and those of my fellow authors here

  127. JM says:

    Iain, I don’t “condescend” to you. I have contempt for you. I have never encountered a more stupid, uneducated person in my life.

    And that includes qualified welders – who yes, I have met. Those guys are perfectly willing to have an open discussion and I am perfectly willing to do the same using language and concepts they are familiar with. The exchange of information and opinion between us always helps both sides.

    You on the other hand are a completely contemptible piece of garbage who trades off the back of a very minor education and no doubt a great deal of charm – I’m sure I would enjoy a cup of tea with you – to kid yourself that you are a decent human being.

    You are not.

    You are unwilling to accept any contrary view. Now when it comes to abuse, can I remind you of the things you have hurled at me in this thread and the previous one where the discussion started:-

    * that my family history is “mythical”
    * that my qualifications and education are “mythical”
    * that my work experience is “mythical”
    * that I have “blood on my hands”
    * that my forefathers were murderers
    * that I was spawned by whores
    * that I am a n*******

    and so on.

    You have also spent years on your “man of science” meme where you accuse me of absolutely no qualifications of any sort, and lord it all over me with your microscopic Arts degree. Yet the instant I tell you what I am actually qualified in (which is something that many other people on other blogs have been smart enough to figure out – unlike you) …… well you’re suddenly the expert in the “university of life”

    I’m sorry Iain, but you are a very low form of human life.

    And I’m done with you.

    I told you that this was the last discussion I’d have with you and that is a fact.

    You have been my foil to oppose prevailing opinion on a number of topics – that’s all.

    Now the problem with prevailing opinion – if you oppose it – is that you don’t speak out against it, it doesn’t move. You’ve given me a platform to do that, which is good because I’m banned from a number of other sites (climate denialist sites in all cases*). So I thank you.

    But it’s over.

    You are an idiot. But you have been a very useful idiot

    * oh and the Australian and Andrew Bolt, but I guess we should take that for granted.

  128. Ray Dixon says:

    I’m banned from a number of other sites

    And you boast about that, JM? It’s no wonder you’re banned if you abuse your host as much as you do Iain. And don’t come the raw prawn with the “look at what Iain said about me” bit. You’re anonymous for Christ’s sake. Honestly, JM, you’re obviously an interesting person too, but your obsession with Iain is freakin’ unbelievable.

  129. GD says:

    not all of us just get an undergraduate degree and put up our feet for the rest of our lives, some of us keep going

    …and going…and going…..

  130. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    so this is to be your swan song here eh?? Now to be honest I’ll believe it when I see it but experience has taught me that those who make such grand statements can never keep away forever. I shall be on the lookout for the new identity that I expect you to invent so that you can do a Johnny Farnam and make innumerable farewell and comeback tours.

    That said lets look at what you have to say in your err “last” comment. In my usual style I will look at your argument line by line and see if what you are saying makes any sense.

    Iain, I don’t “condescend” to you. I have contempt for you. I have never encountered a more stupid, uneducated person in my life.

    Well you should get out more matey and if you want to find the truly stupid then you need go no further than any inner city coffee shop say around Swantson street or maybe even suburban Brighton.

    And that includes qualified welders – who yes, I have met. Those guys are perfectly willing to have an open discussion and I am perfectly willing to do the same using language and concepts they are familiar with. The exchange of information and opinion between us always helps both sides.

    Ah here you show your true colours, your arrogance and contempt for the men and women who work with their hands, really you need to learn a little humility.

    You on the other hand are a completely contemptible piece of garbage who trades off the back of a very minor education and no doubt a great deal of charm – I’m sure I would enjoy a cup of tea with you – to kid yourself that you are a decent human being. You are not.

    I don’t “trade off the back of anything” in fact I have never said “I have a degree so my opinion means more than yours does” as you have done innumerable times. that said what precisely do you think makes someone a ‘decent human being? Is it being honest in your business dealings with others? Is it being kind and helpful to those in need? Is it being a gracious host and sharing? I am all of these things mate yet you are prepared to condemn me because I won’t see the colonial history as a “war” or because I am unconvinced by the AGW scare mongers.

    You are unwilling to accept any contrary view.

    Maybe that is generally the case, but what of it? I do welcome comments from those who want to challenge my opinions even from antagonistic numpties like you, allowing you to use my bandwidth to sprout your opinions. Have any of those other sites that have banned you been anywhere near as generous to you as I have? I think not.

    Now when it comes to abuse, can I remind you of the things you have hurled at me in this thread and the previous one where the discussion started:-

    * that my family history is “mythical”
    * that my qualifications and education are “mythical”
    * that my work experience is “mythical”
    * that I have “blood on my hands”
    * that my forefathers were murderers
    * that I was spawned by whores
    * that I am a n*******

    and so on.

    You brought that upon yourself mate for a couple of reasons, in the first instance I wanted to point out just how little any of us really know about our own ancestors (I did make the point that ALL of us probably have the same sort of skeletons in our ancestral closets but that obviously flew straight past your scientifically trained perceptions) , secondly I wanted to mock you for continuing to appeal to your own authority even though doing so is ridiculous for someone who posts anonymously

    You have also spent years on your “man of science” meme where you accuse me of absolutely no qualifications of any sort, and lord it all over me with your microscopic Arts degree. Yet the instant I tell you what I am actually qualified in (which is something that many other people on other blogs have been smart enough to figure out – unlike you) …… well you’re suddenly the expert in the “university of life”

    And had you not been so paranoid and so keen on the secret squirrel stuff then you might have been believed but don’t blame me because you chose to act like such a brat and such a bad guest here.

    I’m sorry Iain, but you are a very low form of human life.

    And I’m done with you.I told you that this was the last discussion I’d have with you and that is a fact.

    You have been my foil to oppose prevailing opinion on a number of topics – that’s all.

    Oh yeah I’ve heard that before, frankly I don’t care if you never comment again or if you are back to night for another attempt to have the last and definitive word.

    Now the problem with prevailing opinion – if you oppose it – is that you don’t speak out against it, it doesn’t move. You’ve given me a platform to do that, which is good because I’m banned from a number of other sites (climate denialist sites in all cases*). So I thank you.

    But it’s over.

    Its hardly surprising that you have been repeatedly banned JM I suspect that when you can’t persuade anyone that you are right on a particular topic you switch to abuse until they get jack of your crap and ban you which allows you to believe that you are a martyr to the cause. I noticed it here on several occasions where you attempted to push my buttons so I would ban you. Did you notice that I resisted your strategy?

    You are an idiot. But you have been a very useful idiot

    * oh and the Australian and Andrew Bolt, but I guess we should take that for granted.

    Mate I’m smart enough to have your measure and without a shadow of a doubt I’m a nicer person as well even if I say so myself.

  131. GD says:

    Swansong?

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: