How far back should conquerors apologise and be sorry?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 30^th, 2024 at 1:00pm:


Once again, it’s there in black and white. Twist the facts however you like, at this point, I doubt even you believe your own spin.

I gave you a clean slate, answered your demands (hardly a polite request) to share my views on reconciliation. I requested simple reciprocity: I'd answer your question, then you'd answer mine.

What did I get? Not even the courtesy of acknowledgement. When I answered, in full, and in good faith as you insisted, you ignored my question and set out even more demands.

That's not good faith. That’s entitlement.

Don't pretend you weren’t treated with respect; you were, far more than you deserved.

And as I’ve had to remind you before, if you don’t like it, be better.

You’ll be treated exactly how you treat me, "Crappler." If you find that unpalatable, then earn some respect.

And if you can’t manage that, at least do us the favour of sparing us the incessant whining.

You are no victim.

You, of all people, should disdain the notion of being easily offended, yet here you are, calling me "abusive" for simply pointing out your inability to engage sincerely.

So, Crappler, here’s the choice: be better, or receive the treatment you so freely dole out to others.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Oct 30^th, 2024 at 8:36am:


Yes ... but it is his ... of which you speak.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 30^th, 2024 at 2:19pm:


Try 250,000 years - that's what the clown Brendan Kerin said in his (You're not) Welcome to Country at the AFL Grand Final. 

Gnads wrote on Oct 31^st, 2024 at 11:04am:

Well, the awe of majesty is focussed on that of the reigning monarch, regardless of who that monarch is, not so much to the Queen-Consort, who is not the head of state; as George VI was the main act, above his Queen-Consort Elizabeth, or the Prince-Consort of Elizabeth II, Phillip.

Something commented on a few years ago was, what would people think of Charles, who was relatively unpopular as the Prince of Wales, once he became king. One historian commented, presciently then, that the mystery and awe of majesty would transform him, in the people's psyche, the moment he became monarch.

He was right.

Geoffrey Blainey says Indigenous Australians ‘far far better off’ since 1788

Prominent conservative historian Geoffrey Blainey says Indigenous Australians are “far far better” off since colonisation and are benefiting from a dramatic increase in life expectancy since 1788.

Professor Blainey rejected suggestions it was a national shame that the life expectancy of Indigenous people was eight years lower than other Australians, backing leading No campaigner Jacinta Price’s claim colonisation had been positive for First Nations people.

Professor Blainey, one of Australia’s most prolific historians writing more than 40 books, ­argued the life expectancy gap ­between Indigenous and non-­indigenous Australians was “misleading” when used as a lone fact.

“The life expectancy of us all, Aboriginal peoples included, has improved dramatically since 1788,” he writes in The Weekend Australian’s Inquirer section.

“I myself believe that most ­Aboriginals and Torres Strait ­Islanders are far, far better off today than if they were living in 1788.

“This land is infinitely more fruitful than it was in 1788, and most Aboriginals are now the gainers … Here in this continent arose a democratic society which, for all its imperfections, offers liberty in a world where liberty is not normal.”

Professor Blainey says the life expectancy of Indigenous Australians – recorded in 2018 as 71.6 years for men and 75.6 years for women – is “about the same as the average citizen of the world”.

“Every country in Africa has a much lower life expectation than Indigenous Australians. Even the European Union displays more than an eight-year gap between member nations,” he writes.

“There is a wide gap between north and south England. Today the Aboriginals have a life expectancy equal to that of Bulgaria and Romania. Their life expectancy is higher than that in peacetime Russia and Ukraine.”

Among other contentious claims in his piece, the 93-year-old pours doubt over the future of remote Indigenous towns, critises the Native Title Act and ­refers to the “so-called Stolen Generation” as being made up of “Aboriginal children who had to be rescued for the sake of their own safety and welfare”.