freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 3:14pm:


Don't lie Freediver. Tasmania is the most isolated place in the world yet European settlers surprised the Aborigines there and wiped them out.

Arnhem Land was near to friendly European-run ports like Coepang in the Dutch East Indies only a few hundred km away. Compare that to the Hobart Town settlement where the nearest European-run port was more than 1000 km away. Or compare it to the settlement of Sydney where the nearest European-run port was several thousand km away.



Attempts were made to settle Arnhem Land before Melbourne. The main difference between the two was the resistance of the Aborigines.

In places like Melbourne or Tasmania, the Aborigines had no idea what was going on. They thought the Europeans were ghosts or even friendly visitors. Due to their ignorance of the true nature of these European foreigners, they failed to put up any meaningful resistance and were soon genocided off their lands.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 10:09pm:


Freeliar it was you who claimed that Arnhem Land was not settled by Europeans because of its 'isolation', conveniently ignoring that Sydney, Perh and Hobart were established in far greater isolation.

Quote:


No Falah. Again you get it completely backwards. I claimed that it remained isolated because of it's unsuitability for european farming methods. Europeans travelled all the way round to the cold, far side of the continent because for them it was better land. It was not to get as far away from the hostile Yolngu people as possible.

It's a shame that 10 pages in, you still haven't gotten past the first sentence.

Perhaps now, taking into account what my argument actually is, you could try saying whether you agree with it. Do you agree with these statements:

The isolation of the Yolngu people is what allowed them to get away with ongoing hostility and violence, rather than being a result of it.

If they had been in the fertile areas of Australia's southeast, even in the same numbers, with the same resistance to disease and the same social organisation, they would have been rapidly subdued by immigrant farmers or the military, and would have only survived after giving up the stance of violent hostility. They would have made life harder for every other aborigine in the country.

Grey:

Quote:


The ones that specialise in primary producing are cut out for it. After all they have taken over from a lot of our smaller family type farms.

In any case, in a situation where it is "impossible not to make money" they generally find a way. If not them, then a non-mega company does, and if they do it well enough, they too become a mage company that is no longer capable of doing what made it so rich.

Quote:


It is only unacknowledged if you get around with your hands over your ears.

This would be reflected in the land value. Plenty of people have had success purchasing mistreated land at bargain prices and carefully restoring it's health.

Quote:


This can obviously happen in cropland agriculture, but I hope you realise that horses were always a secondary source of manure.

Quote:


...potential that no-one has realised. Even your economist friend conceded that we would have to let asylum seekers do it. Have you asked him whether it would work if we had to pay those people 'fair' Australian wages? Do you think he meant that asylum seekers know more about how to farm in the Ord basin, or do you think he meant they would work hard for less money?

Quote:


We are in Australia Grey. At least, I am.

Quote:


Not many people would want to immigrate to the middle of nowhere if the only work opportunity is growing food for yourself or to trade with your neightbour for food, especially if it does not rain for 6 months at a time and the nearest river is packed full of crocodiles. We have enough trouble getting people to places like this for high paying mining jobs. No-one is going to do it for an experimental farm where the best possible outcome is feeding yourself.

Quote:


What makes you think it is not possible? Why not just get together with a bunch of other hippes and split up a large holding?

Quote:


Why would small holdings and market gardens need marketing and distribution structures?

Quote:


Ask your friend the economist about how much more money it makes.

Quote:


The government has  been trying to get people up there for over a century. No takers.

Quote:


Was this over all of Europe, or over a few little market gardens in Paris?

Quote:


By generalising a few little market gardens that could capitalise on the need to dump all the city's horse manure somewhere to the entire continent?

Quote:


It has barely been used.

Quote:


So split it up.

Quote:


OK then, why is a market garden even relevant if they are so far from anywhere else? Do you want to import horse manure from France to dump there?

Quote:


Who do you think paid for the lake?

Quote:


For the same reason we don't make refugees clean our toilets for 50c a day.

Quote:


What two bites at the same cherry It is as I said, in Europe up to 400 tons of horse manure was used per acre. The 'maraicheres' of Paris were the gun growers but naturally they were imitated, to greater and lesser extents.

Quote:

]
Now you're flailing churlishly If you check market records for London to Madrid you'll find just how much of Europes produce was coming out of those 'few little narket gardens'.

Quote:


It has been badly abused.

Quote:


Easier said than done, the legal wrangles I referred to.

Quote:


Maybe they wouldn't be if Australian cities weren't planted and subsequently allowed to spread over the arable land available to supply them food. But as we know transport costs are not really that great.

Quote:


If it were possible to dump it on your stoop, there are times I'd be sorely tempted

Quote:


The gubmint. Who do you think paid for it?


Quote:


No we'd sooner incarcerate them for years and then send them back or have them drive taxis for 50c a day. Look as I've said before, it's not always about money. Give refugees the opportunity to settle in Australia in a particular region, make them the offer and let them decide. Win - win solutions to problems are often a good idea.

Quote:


I don't think there's anything wrong with people earning the rights of citizenship. Australia has precedent in the Snowy Mt. scheme, of course the conditions can be as onerous or luxurious as the people see fit. I think it a much better idea than detention camps.