The need for an apology is widely accepted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578552/Britain-should-apologise-to-Aborigines.html

When will those Normans apologise to the Saxons?

Swagman wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 12:59pm:

When will those Normans apologise to the Saxons?

I often wondered whether the rumours were true. Poms interbred with Australian fauna.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

Swagman wrote on Nov 19th, 2013 at 12:59pm: When will those Normans apologise to the Saxons? I often wondered whether the rumours were true. Poms interbred with Australian fauna.

And created….you?

I mean you whinge like a dam Pom and appear as bout as useful as a Quokka……..

Easy answer to that question.......when hell freezes over!

Swagman wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 12:59pm:

When will those Normans apologise to the Saxons?

This..

Too right, we should all apologise to the abbo for removing them from their pathetic animal like existence eeking out a living in the dirt like grubs, I bet their isn't an aboriginal around today that doesn't wish he could go back to that existence, walking around naked in the sun, half starved, diseased and worrying about where in the hell your next meal is coming from, what an idyllic lifestyle.      ;D

FriYAY wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 19th, 2013 at 1:16pm: Swagman wrote on Nov 19th, 2013 at 12:59pm: When will those Normans apologise to the Saxons? I often wondered whether the rumours were true. Poms interbred with Australian fauna. And created….you? I mean you whinge like a dam Pom and appear as bout as useful as a Quokka……..

You appear to have posted in the wrong place.

You obviously intended to post in "Are most "Australians" just angry closet poms?" exemplifying the anger and hostility of a closet pom who has had his lineage excised.

I have provided a link to the correct forum to guide you.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1384137380

FriYAY, darling, please don't thank me. I consider your effusive, grovelling, fawning, obeisance offensive.

When are the Australians going to leave Australia and give the entire continent back to the Abos?

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 11:05am:

The need for an apology is widely accepted. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578552/Britain-should-apologise-to-Aborigines.html

When are the Italians AND Norwegians going to apologise to us for the atrocities committed against our Saxon populations?

See how ridic it is and a waste of time...

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 10:04pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 19th, 2013 at 11:05am: The need for an apology is widely accepted. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578552/Britain-should-apologise-to-Aborigines.html When are the Italians AND Norwegians going to apologise to us for the atrocities committed against our Saxon populations? See how ridic it is and a waste of time...

When are the Romans going to apologise for murdering Queen Bouddica's husband, King Prasutagus, and raping her two daughters?

This happened in the year 60, so an apology is 1,953 years overdue.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

Swagman wrote on Nov 19th, 2013 at 12:59pm: When will those Normans apologise to the Saxons? I often wondered whether the rumours were true. Poms interbred with Australian fauna.

Was that an attempt at humour or are you just trying to be offensive and stupid?

Cofgod wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 10:09pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 19th, 2013 at 10:04pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 19th, 2013 at 11:05am: The need for an apology is widely accepted. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578552/Britain-should-apologise-to-Aborigines.html When are the Italians AND Norwegians going to apologise to us for the atrocities committed against our Saxon populations? See how ridic it is and a waste of time... When are the Romans going to apologise for murdering Queen Bouddica's husband, King Prasutagus, and raping her two daughters? This happened in the year 60, so an apology is 1,953 years overdue.

SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY


does that cover everything???

it escapes me but what is it about the word SORRY?

why do some people find it healing.. when most people dont bloody mean  it.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 10:04pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 19th, 2013 at 11:05am: The need for an apology is widely accepted. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578552/Britain-should-apologise-to-Aborigines.html When are the Italians AND Norwegians going to apologise to us for the atrocities committed against our Saxon populations? See how ridic it is and a waste of time...

Afrikaaners had no Saxon populations.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

Swagman wrote on Nov 19th, 2013 at 12:59pm: When will those Normans apologise to the Saxons? I often wondered whether the rumours were true. Poms interbred with Australian fauna.

Well, Aussie has had to have come from somewhere. There's the explanation. An Aussie is a British & Merino X.

And who would be apologizing for the on-going neglect?

GA wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 8:19am:

And who would be apologizing for the on-going neglect?

I think the Abo’s can apologise to themselves for that.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 6:33pm:

FriYAY wrote on Nov 19th, 2013 at 1:23pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 19th, 2013 at 1:16pm: Swagman wrote on Nov 19th, 2013 at 12:59pm: When will those Normans apologise to the Saxons? I often wondered whether the rumours were true. Poms interbred with Australian fauna. And created….you? I mean you whinge like a dam Pom and appear as bout as useful as a Quokka…….. You appear to have posted in the wrong place. You obviously intended to post in "Are most "Australians" just angry closet poms?" exemplifying the anger and hostility of a closet pom who has had his lineage excised. I have provided a link to the correct forum to guide you. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1384137380 FriYAY, darling, please don't thank me. I consider your effusive, grovelling, fawning, obeisance offensive.

Nice useless whinging reply..... ::)

when will the romans apologise to the UK

When will the Abo's apologise to the Abo's?

when will the victorians apologise to the gold coast

Innocent bystander wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

Too right, we should all apologise to the abbo for removing them from their pathetic animal like existence eeking out a living in the dirt like grubs, I bet their isn't an aboriginal around today that doesn't wish he could go back to that existence, walking around naked in the sun, half starved, diseased and worrying about where in the hell your next meal is coming from, what an idyllic lifestyle.      ;D

Compared to what they've got now it would have been.

FriYAY wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 9:15am:

GA wrote on Nov 21st, 2013 at 8:19am: And who would be apologizing for the on-going neglect? I think the Abo’s can apologise to themselves for that.

The only alcohol around when Aussie landed was that, that he'd brought with him. He also brought diabetes and heart disease due to his bad diet. Should Aussie apologize?

aquascoot wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 9:22am:

when will the victorians apologise to the gold coast

this would be the only thing, I would ever agree with aquascoot on.

Cofgod wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 10:02pm:

When are the Australians going to leave Australia and give the entire continent back to the Abos?

Aussie can't wait to leave. That's why he has stickin' close to the ocean ports, just waitin' for his ship to sail. So make some room for him. Moor some old converted oil tankers on the Thames, cos there he'll feel right at 'ome.

Aussie go 'ome! Aussie go 'ome! Aussie go 'ome!

Go 'ome! And leave Australia to its rightful owners, the Australians.

GA wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 9:29am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Nov 19th, 2013 at 4:29pm: Too right, we should all apologise to the abbo for removing them from their pathetic animal like existence eeking out a living in the dirt like grubs, I bet their isn't an aboriginal around today that doesn't wish he could go back to that existence, walking around naked in the sun, half starved, diseased and worrying about where in the hell your next meal is coming from, what an idyllic lifestyle.      ;D Compared to what they've got now it would have been.

Ah, so whitey makes them drink too much, neglect their children, abuse their women, eat crap food?

Well, in that case, seeing that they are incapable of making better choices, whitey should force them into the correct choices: prohibit alcohol, take away the abused kids, severely punish abuses, prohibit process food purchases by anyone with at least 1/8 aboriginality.
Oh, and say sorry every time they want to act like free grown ups: "Sorry, Jimmy, not allowed, you can't be trusted to make the right decisions for yourself or your family.

Would that work for you?

more Soren selective racist bigotry

You filthy rotten putrid scoundrel

GA wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 9:35am:

FriYAY wrote on Nov 21st, 2013 at 9:15am: GA wrote on Nov 21st, 2013 at 8:19am: And who would be apologizing for the on-going neglect? I think the Abo’s can apologise to themselves for that. The only alcohol around when Aussie landed was that, that he'd brought with him. He also brought diabetes and heart disease due to his bad diet. Should Aussie apologize?

Nope

About time the Abo’s took responsibility for them selves.

Though I fear the grog will be good compared to what ICE is going to do to the younger ones.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 10:24am:

more Soren selective ignorance and racist bigotry You filthy rotten putrid scoundrel

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 11:05am:

The need for an apology is widely accepted. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578552/Britain-should-apologise-to-Aborigines.html

NOT ONLY TO THE ABORIGINALS BUT TO THE WHOLE AUSTRALIA.

Quote:

He also brought diabetes and heart disease due to his bad diet

What BS.... you don't catch diabetes or heart conditions like a disease. They are acquired through the personal choices people make in regards to their diets.

No one forces anyone to eat junk foods & abuse alcohol as a staple diet.

Rudd said sorry that should be the end of the matter.

Soren wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 10:13am:

GA wrote on Nov 21st, 2013 at 9:29am: Innocent bystander wrote on Nov 19th, 2013 at 4:29pm: Too right, we should all apologise to the abbo for removing them from their pathetic animal like existence eeking out a living in the dirt like grubs, I bet their isn't an aboriginal around today that doesn't wish he could go back to that existence, walking around naked in the sun, half starved, diseased and worrying about where in the hell your next meal is coming from, what an idyllic lifestyle.      ;D Compared to what they've got now it would have been. Quote: Ah, so whitey makes them drink too much, neglect their children, abuse their women, eat crap food? Well, these are some of the main cultural traits that define Aussie, to be sure. But this not the real problem. What these people need are occupations so that they can rebuild there self esteem. It's Aussie's love of the artificial and disdain for the traditional that has left many indigenous people without work in the (their) outback. If horses were to once again replace the motorbikes & helicopters used to move livestock there would be a lot more employment available for the indigenous people. The men would spend less time drinking & fighting, more time making money. These things would work together to help rebuild their confidence. And at the same time make our beef more marketable in places like Europe as untrucked, unrailed, pasture-fed, free-range etc. But the stupid Aussie grazier, being a non-traditionalist, can't see this. His only concern is for the quick buck, not his employees or livestock. [quote] Well, in that case, seeing that they are incapable of making better choices, whitey should force them into the correct choices: prohibit alcohol, take away the abused kids, severely punish abuses, prohibit process food purchases by anyone with at least 1/8 aboriginality. Oh, and say sorry every time they want to act like free grown ups: "Sorry, Jimmy, not allowed, you can't be trusted to make the right decisions for yourself or your family. Would that work for you?

Their behavior is similar to any other minority that has been deprived of choices. They need work that is in some way similar to what they were used to doing. They need to be taught how to build things like sandbag houses. Because building and working would be prerequisites to re-establishing their pride. There are plenty of answers, but don't expect them to come from politicians.

My Grandfather was killed by krauts and they never apologised, last time I went to see the doctor he said causes of death can be hereditary so I steer clear of Germans now.

Gnads wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 2:40pm:

Quote: He also brought diabetes and heart disease due to his bad diet What BS.... you don't catch diabetes or heart conditions like a disease. They are acquired through the personal choices people make in regards to their diets.

Then why are they both considered as being diseases, moron. And they are not personal choices, moron. They are culturally related diseases in Aussieland, moron. If they were truly personal choices they wouldn't be so common, would they, moron.    


Quote:

No one forces anyone to eat junk foods & abuse alcohol as a staple diet.

And no one forces Aussie to be a moron either. He just can't help being a moron. Maybe he needs some help?


Quote:

Rudd said sorry that should be the end of the matter.

Yes it should be the 'end' of the matter, because gestures like saying sorry should have been preceded by actions to restore decent standards of living to these people.

Innocent bystander wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2013 at 4:10pm:

My Grandfather was killed by krauts and they never apologised, last time I went to see the doctor he said causes of death can be hereditary so I steer clear of Germans now.

 

:D :D :D :D

GA wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2013 at 4:48pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 21st, 2013 at 2:40pm: Quote: He also brought diabetes and heart disease due to his bad diet What BS.... you don't catch diabetes or heart conditions like a disease. They are acquired through the personal choices people make in regards to their diets. Then why are they both considered as being diseases, moron. And they are not personal choices, moron. They are culturally related diseases in Aussieland, moron. If they were truly personal choices they wouldn't be so common, would they, moron.     [quote] No one forces anyone to eat junk foods & abuse alcohol as a staple diet.

And no one forces Aussie to be a moron either. He just can't help being a moron. Maybe he needs some help?


Quote:

Rudd said sorry that should be the end of the matter.

Yes it should be the 'end' of the matter, because gestures like saying sorry should have been preceded by actions to restore decent standards of living to these people.
[/quote]


1 out of 10
F minus.
must try harder ;)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 10:24am:

more Soren selective racist bigotry You filthy rotten putrid scoundrel

i cant quite see what arguement youre making there chimpy. 
personally i think aboriginals who dont work, drink too much , beat their women and dont feed their kids are filthy rotten putrid scoundrels.
thoughts ?

aquascoot wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2013 at 7:36pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 21st, 2013 at 10:24am: more Soren selective racist bigotry You filthy rotten putrid scoundrel i cant quite see what arguement youre making there chimpy.  personally i think aboriginals who dont work, drink too much , beat their women and dont feed their kids are filthy rotten putrid scoundrels. thoughts ?

you sound like a bigot as well

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 11:05am:

The need for an apology is widely accepted.

I think apologies are just a current fashion statement.

That isn't to say that the ways Aborigines were treated back in the early days of our history weren't appalling. They were.
I've read some of the accounts and people were often  brutal and inhumane.

Conditions even now are not good, but a lot of the problem has(I believe) to do with generational poverty and many of the next generation of children with damaged brains due to foetal alcohol syndrome. Just throwing a bucket of money at it won't fix it. Apologies won't fix it.

If someone does something wrong, they should apologise.
But those who did the most wrong in the past are long dead and you know what, I bet they went to their graves not sorry about a thing. We can't apologise for them. We shouldn't.

And the people who had the most wrong done to them, most of them are dead too, so it is too late.

We can have the govt say they are sorry those things happened, and that has been said.

But times were different, they were brutal times. I think we are trying to judge people from the past by today's standards and it is just we have a different mind set.

I wonder what, in 50 or 100 or 200 years time, people will look back at in our present society and wonder how on earth we didn't notice it or do something about it.

Apology does not need to be glib or arrogantly false.

It can be a sincere expression of sorrow and guilt for past crimes.

This was a heinous crime of genocide against Australian aboriginals.

Innocent bystander wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2013 at 4:10pm:

My Grandfather was killed by krauts and they never apologised, last time I went to see the doctor he said causes of death can be hereditary so I steer clear of Germans now.

I'm sure everyone steers clear of you, so that wouldn't be hard.

If you're going to apologise, at least do it while some of the actual offenders are still alive.

...doing it after they're dead is lame.

...doing generations later is, well.... gay.

If the offenders were alive they would be facing the international court for acts of genocide.

The issue of an apology represents accepting accountability for the wrongs and saying so publicly.

The UK education system does not use the word genocide in its description of UK transgressions during the projection of empire.

What England should really apologise for is granting independence to all those African and Middle Eastern countries too soon. They have evidently been unable to make a go of it. They have been orphaned too soon. They could have done with a bit more education and guidance in modern civilisation.

It doesn't make sense for British queen to apologies.
At the  present Apologizing to Australia is like apologizing to herself because she is still Australian monarch and head of state of her colony called Australia.
Britain is waiting for Australia to become independent and sovereign country with own monarch or president and than to apologize for everything what was done in the past by British empire including:

- Establishing first world Gulags in Australia ( Robert Hughes "Australia beyond the fatal shore")

- Genocide on Aborigines

- Killing unknown number of people by caring out nuclear tests on Australian soil.

At this point of time this apology was issued by majesty's loyal servant Kevin Rudd.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2013 at 3:56pm:

Apology does not need to be glib or arrogantly false. It can be a sincere expression of sorrow and guilt for past crimes. This was a heinous crime of genocide against Australian aboriginals.

I agree we can express sorrow for things that happened in the past.
But guilt?
I don't agree with that. Guilt belongs to the guilty.

I think the holocaust was heinous, but I don't feel guilty about it. I don't think young Germans should feel guilty either.
They need to acknowledge it happened and condemn those responsible.
But the guilt isn't theirs.

In a similar way,no one should have to feel guilt about Aborigines and the events of the past, just because of having white ancestry.

Surely it is more important to go on from here, deal with the present day Aborigines who may need help or support.

sherri wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 23rd, 2013 at 3:56pm: Apology does not need to be glib or arrogantly false. It can be a sincere expression of sorrow and guilt for past crimes. This was a heinous crime of genocide against Australian aboriginals. I agree we can express sorrow for things that happened in the past. But guilt? I don't agree with that. Guilt belongs to the guilty. I think the holocaust was heinous, but I don't feel guilty about it. I don't think young Germans should feel guilty either. They need to acknowledge it happened and condemn those responsible. But the guilt isn't theirs. In a similar way,no one should have to feel guilt about Aborigines and the events of the past, just because of having white ancestry. Surely it is more important to go on from here, deal with the present day Aborigines who may need help or support.

I agree Sherri. If man was meant to feel guilty about the past then every country on earth and it's people would be guilty of something. Picking the scabs off history just doesn't help in anyway.

If you cut off the head the body dies.

Perhaps the royal family can be put on trial for failing to protect its subjects from genocide?

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 1:44pm:

If you cut off the head the body dies. Perhaps the royal family can be put on trial for failing to protect its subjects from genocide?

Intentional elimination of a race isn't what happened in Tasmania. And if anything it could be argued that it was a chance event. For example, suppose the indigenous Tasmanians were the exact same race as those on the mainland, a similar thing might have happened, but we wouldn't be calling it genocide, and then if it weren't for Tasmania being an island it wouldn't be bothering us at all, anyhow. The facts are that it was never the intention of the British to eliminate native people. But because it did happen without there ever being any intent, it should be taken as a warning that it could even happen again in some other way, at some time in the future. And this time it might be 'gendercide' that happens, but there won't be anyone to protest or even discuss it happening. So it's best not to forget that Australia too is an island.

The US gave the natives reservations to live on with Casinos!  Australia should do that.

GA wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 5:55pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 24th, 2013 at 1:44pm: If you cut off the head the body dies. Perhaps the royal family can be put on trial for failing to protect its subjects from genocide? Intentional elimination of a race isn't what happened in Tasmania. And if anything it could be argued that it was a chance event. For example, suppose the indigenous Tasmanians were the exact same race as those on the mainland, the same thing would have happened, but we wouldn't be calling it genocide, and then if it weren't for Tasmania being an island it wouldn't be bothering us at all, anyhow. The facts are that it was never the intention of the British to eliminate native people. But because it did happen without there ever being any intent, it should be taken as a warning that it could even happen again in some other way, at some time in the future. And this time it might be 'gendercide' that happens, but there won't be anyone to protest or even discuss it happening. So it's best not to forget that Australia too is an island.

So hundreds of thousands of Australian aboriginal deaths from bullet in the head or club on the head were chance events?

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 6:09pm:

So hundreds of thousands of Australian aboriginal deaths from bullet in the head or club on the head were chance events?

Hundreds of thousands?

Really, dude, I don't know where you got your history lessons because you obviously didn't listen in school.

And just as obviously, have done no research on the subject you're so outraged about.

Who owes the Celts an apology?

Now, moving forward into the 21st century, armed with the knowledge of historical atrocities, isn't it a little early to be demanding apologies?

I see plenty going on at the moment that may require an apology in the future.

Let's not distract ourselves with ancient wounds when we could be doing something now.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 6:09pm:

GA wrote on Nov 24th, 2013 at 5:55pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 24th, 2013 at 1:44pm: If you cut off the head the body dies. Perhaps the royal family can be put on trial for failing to protect its subjects from genocide? Intentional elimination of a race isn't what happened in Tasmania. And if anything it could be argued that it was a chance event. For example, suppose the indigenous Tasmanians were the exact same race as those on the mainland, the same thing would have happened, but we wouldn't be calling it genocide, and then if it weren't for Tasmania being an island it wouldn't be bothering us at all, anyhow. The facts are that it was never the intention of the British to eliminate native people. But because it did happen without there ever being any intent, it should be taken as a warning that it could even happen again in some other way, at some time in the future. And this time it might be 'gendercide' that happens, but there won't be anyone to protest or even discuss it happening. So it's best not to forget that Australia too is an island. So hundreds of thousands of Australian aboriginal deaths from bullet in the head or club on the head were chance events?

Got evidence of that?  ::)

Lionel Edriess wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 6:27pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 24th, 2013 at 6:09pm: So hundreds of thousands of Australian aboriginal deaths from bullet in the head or club on the head were chance events? Hundreds of thousands? Really, dude, I don't know where you got your history lessons because you obviously didn't listen in school. And just as obviously, have done no research on the subject you're so outraged about. Who owes the Celts an apology? Now, moving forward into the 21st century, armed with the knowledge of historical atrocities, isn't it a little early to be demanding apologies? I see plenty going on at the moment that may require an apology in the future. Let's not distract ourselves with ancient wounds when we could be doing something now.

True enough.

But I don't reckon it is out of order for the Poms to acknowledge they had an overwhelming advantage both in armaments, and numbers (if required.)

I do not have the slightest hesitation in stating and acknowledging as fact that the Poms militarily defeated Terra Australis way back then, dating from 1770.

When will the All Blacks apologise to the Wallabies for beating them so frequently?

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 6:09pm:

GA wrote on Nov 24th, 2013 at 5:55pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 24th, 2013 at 1:44pm: If you cut off the head the body dies. Perhaps the royal family can be put on trial for failing to protect its subjects from genocide? Intentional elimination of a race isn't what happened in Tasmania. And if anything it could be argued that it was a chance event. For example, suppose the indigenous Tasmanians were the exact same race as those on the mainland, the same thing would have happened, but we wouldn't be calling it genocide, and then if it weren't for Tasmania being an island it wouldn't be bothering us at all, anyhow. The facts are that it was never the intention of the British to eliminate native people. But because it did happen without there ever being any intent, it should be taken as a warning that it could even happen again in some other way, at some time in the future. And this time it might be 'gendercide' that happens, but there won't be anyone to protest or even discuss it happening. So it's best not to forget that Australia too is an island. So hundreds of thousands of Australian aboriginal deaths from bullet in the head or club on the head were chance events?

It was the genocide aspect that was relevant. And estimates were that a maximum of fifteen thousand natives were living in Tasmania at the time of colonization by the British. Most of these people died because of their susceptibility (due to their isolation) to introduced diseases.

Wiki:

"According to James Bonwick, the start of the Black War is 1804.[12] The first conflict between colonists and Aboriginals was on 3 May 1804. There were three surviving eyewitness accounts of what happened on that day. It is known that a large group of Aboriginals, possibly numbering 300 or more, came into the vicinity of the British settlement. The official report by Lt Moore, the commanding officer at the time, referred to an ‘attack’ by Aboriginals armed with spears and indicated that two Aboriginals were killed and an unknown number wounded."

And it wasn't the British that were shooting and poisoning the native people of this country, it was Aussie. But it was the British justice system that did manage bring at least some of these murderers to justice. So stop blaming the British for our crimes.

GA wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 24th, 2013 at 6:09pm: GA wrote on Nov 24th, 2013 at 5:55pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 24th, 2013 at 1:44pm: If you cut off the head the body dies. Perhaps the royal family can be put on trial for failing to protect its subjects from genocide? Intentional elimination of a race isn't what happened in Tasmania. And if anything it could be argued that it was a chance event. For example, suppose the indigenous Tasmanians were the exact same race as those on the mainland, the same thing would have happened, but we wouldn't be calling it genocide, and then if it weren't for Tasmania being an island it wouldn't be bothering us at all, anyhow. The facts are that it was never the intention of the British to eliminate native people. But because it did happen without there ever being any intent, it should be taken as a warning that it could even happen again in some other way, at some time in the future. And this time it might be 'gendercide' that happens, but there won't be anyone to protest or even discuss it happening. So it's best not to forget that Australia too is an island. So hundreds of thousands of Australian aboriginal deaths from bullet in the head or club on the head were chance events? It was the genocide aspect that was relevant. And estimates were that a maximum of fifteen thousand natives were living in Tasmania at the time of colonization by the British. Most of these people died because of their susceptibility (due to their isolation) to introduced diseases. Wiki: "According to James Bonwick, the start of the Black War is 1804.[12] The first conflict between colonists and Aboriginals was on 3 May 1804. There were three surviving eyewitness accounts of what happened on that day. It is known that a large group of Aboriginals, possibly numbering 300 or more, came into the vicinity of the British settlement. The official report by Lt Moore, the commanding officer at the time, referred to an ‘attack’ by Aboriginals armed with spears and indicated that two Aboriginals were killed and an unknown number wounded." And it wasn't the British that were shooting and poisoning the native people of this country, it was Aussie. But it was the British justice system that did manage bring at least some of these murderers to justice. So stop blaming the British for our crimes.

There weren't any Aussies until 1901. Prior to that everyone, including the aboriginals (by conquest) was British.

GA wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2013 at 4:01pm:

Their behavior is similar to any other minority that has been deprived of choices.

You mean 'minorities' given choices - and not knowing what the bugger to do with the new choices and so resorting to ignoring them via grog -which is what grog is for. Blotting out choices.
Blotting it responsibility.
I drink - therefore it's whitey's fault.

Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 8:20pm:

GA wrote on Nov 22nd, 2013 at 4:01pm: Their behavior is similar to any other minority that has been deprived of choices. You mean 'minorities' given choices - and not knowing what the bugger to do with the new choices and so resorting to ignoring them via grog -which is what grog is for. Blotting out choices. Blotting it responsibility. I drink - therefore it's whitey's fault.

Aussie has completely failed to adapt to this country despite being in the majority, yet you expect that a handful of people that have been displaced and corrupted by our cockney convict culture should somehow manage to overcome their problems themselves.

The simple fact is that governments have failed to help because they themselves are a product of the choice of the majority of the people. In other words the people represented by government are the same people responsible for the problem in the first place. Evidence of that is that by handing out money instead of providing real assistance they are in fact exacerbating the problem. 

Completely failed to adapt? It's a pretty successful country.
On the other hand, aborigines are said to have been adopted very well for 40 thousand years  - and were the most wretched people on earth for all that time.



Anyway, there are plenty of well-integrated Aborigines, living normal, productive lives. So it can be done and without the government.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 8:11pm:

GA wrote on Nov 24th, 2013 at 7:37pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 24th, 2013 at 6:09pm: GA wrote on Nov 24th, 2013 at 5:55pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 24th, 2013 at 1:44pm: If you cut off the head the body dies. Perhaps the royal family can be put on trial for failing to protect its subjects from genocide? Intentional elimination of a race isn't what happened in Tasmania. And if anything it could be argued that it was a chance event. For example, suppose the indigenous Tasmanians were the exact same race as those on the mainland, the same thing would have happened, but we wouldn't be calling it genocide, and then if it weren't for Tasmania being an island it wouldn't be bothering us at all, anyhow. The facts are that it was never the intention of the British to eliminate native people. But because it did happen without there ever being any intent, it should be taken as a warning that it could even happen again in some other way, at some time in the future. And this time it might be 'gendercide' that happens, but there won't be anyone to protest or even discuss it happening. So it's best not to forget that Australia too is an island. So hundreds of thousands of Australian aboriginal deaths from bullet in the head or club on the head were chance events? It was the genocide aspect that was relevant. And estimates were that a maximum of fifteen thousand natives were living in Tasmania at the time of colonization by the British. Most of these people died because of their susceptibility (due to their isolation) to introduced diseases. Wiki: "According to James Bonwick, the start of the Black War is 1804.[12] The first conflict between colonists and Aboriginals was on 3 May 1804. There were three surviving eyewitness accounts of what happened on that day. It is known that a large group of Aboriginals, possibly numbering 300 or more, came into the vicinity of the British settlement. The official report by Lt Moore, the commanding officer at the time, referred to an ‘attack’ by Aboriginals armed with spears and indicated that two Aboriginals were killed and an unknown number wounded." And it wasn't the British that were shooting and poisoning the native people of this country, it was Aussie. But it was the British justice system that did manage bring at least some of these murderers to justice. So stop blaming the British for our crimes. There weren't any Aussies until 1901. Prior to that everyone, including the aboriginals (by conquest) was British.

Wake up! Aussie voted to remain British in 1998. All we got in 1901 was federation of the colonies. And it was in 1788 that Aussie came into existence. Why else has "Australia Day" been declared from that date (even though Anzac Day would have been a better choice, because our invasion of Turkey to fight Britain's war, and to lose, better symbolizes what it means to be an Aussie).

Wrong darling. Australia was part of UK until 1901 independence day.

GA wrote on Nov 25^th, 2013 at 9:01am:

Soren wrote on Nov 24th, 2013 at 8:20pm: GA wrote on Nov 22nd, 2013 at 4:01pm: Their behavior is similar to any other minority that has been deprived of choices. You mean 'minorities' given choices - and not knowing what the bugger to do with the new choices and so resorting to ignoring them via grog -which is what grog is for. Blotting out choices. Blotting it responsibility. I drink - therefore it's whitey's fault. Aussie has completely failed to adapt to this country despite being in the majority, yet you expect that a handful of people that have been displaced and corrupted by our cockney convict culture should somehow manage to overcome their problems themselves. The simple fact is that governments have failed to help because they themselves are a product of the choice of the majority of the people. In other words the people represented by government are the same people responsible for the problem in the first place. Evidence of that is that by handing out money instead of providing real assistance they are in fact exacerbating the problem.

yes , aborigines would have been better served by the church missions and working as stockmen on cattle stations then they have been by whitlam and his big government approach.

since canberra took over from the church missions and cattle producers , the aboriginal community have seen drastic increases in

alcohol and drug abuse
domestic violence
child neglect
poor school attendance
sexually transmitted diseases
diabetes
renal dialysis.
rates of incarceration

says it all about what happens when you get canberra to try to help ;)

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 25^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

Wrong darling. Australia was part of UK until 1901 independence day.

"1 Legislative power
The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth.

2 The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom."

Sorry sweetheart. But until we have our own Queen we will still be a federation of British colonies.

And don't blame the British for this situation as they had to comply with the laws when preparing this part of our constitution (and they only gave us all of what we had asked for, anyhow).

And just think of the embarrassment that we would have had to live with if they had orphaned us back in 01.