Did we settle or invade Australia?

[retep]

Is this some way of using the English language that I'm not aware of?

 

Perhaps you mean "how can you invade the land of a nomadic culture?"

 

Being nomadic means that the people don't build dwellings and stay in one place.

It doesn't mean that they don't consider the land to be theirs.

 

Settling on land which they periodically use without permission would be invasion.

 

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 18:33 ----------

 

 

Okay, so we agree that it was an effective genocide on the indigenous people.

I entirely agree that at the time people considered it to be acceptable. And I AM judging by the moral standards of today when I say it was invasion.

The university hasn't attempted to dictate to people how to think, they've suggested that invasion is a better way to describe what happened than other more ambiguous and misleading terms like "settling" or "colonising". I happen to agree with them. Clearly this makes some people feel uncomfortable as you can see throughout this thread.

 

 

So by your definition nomads consider land they don't settle on to be theirs,

that'll take some explaining, who would the settler ask permission from?

[sutty27]

How can you invade a nomad.

 

Good point, but the guilty will say it was their continent so no one else had the right to moved in.

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 19:32 ----------

 

Is this some way of using the English language that I'm not aware of?

 

Perhaps you mean "how can you invade the land of a nomadic culture?"

 

Being nomadic means that the people don't build dwellings and stay in one place.

It doesn't mean that they don't consider the land to be theirs.

 

Settling on land which they periodically use without permission would be invasion.

 

What would you think if today we discovered a new land mass the size of Australia that was sparsely populated with people living stone age existence.

 

Do you think we should leave them to it? or use the new land mass to help solve the worlds over population problems?

[Scozzie]

They may have been nomadic, but each tribe had their own lands. They didn't wander around Willy nilly.

Each tribe had sacred sites, natural shelters, hunting areas, waterholes, etc.

Tribes had rgeur own languages, traditions and stories.

Lumping Aboriginal together is like lumping the whole of Europe together.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/indigenous/map/

Edited April 3, 2016 by Scozzie

[sutty27]

They may have been nomadic, but each tribe had their own lands. They didn't wander around Willy nilly.

Each tribe had sacred sites, natural shelters, hunting areas, waterholes, etc.

Tribes had rgeur own languages, traditions and stories.

Lumping Aboriginal together is like lumping the whole of Europe together.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/indigenous/map/

 

The population of Britain in 1700 was about 5.5 million, thats 0.04km² for each person.

The population of Australia in 1700 is estimated to have been 700,000, that's 11km² for each person.

That means the average aborigine had 275 times more land than the average Britain.

 

Seems only fair that they shared it.

[Scozzie]

The population of Britain in 1700 was about 5.5 million, thats 0.04km² for each person.

The population of Australia in 1700 is estimated to have been 700,000, that's 11km² for each person.

That means the average aborigine had 275 times more land than the average Britain.

 

Seems only fair that they shared it.

 

Do you actually know how much of Australia is habitable?

 

...and just because I'm feeling particularly patriotic....

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Scozzie

[Cyclone]

The population of Britain in 1700 was about 5.5 million, thats 0.04km² for each person.

The population of Australia in 1700 is estimated to have been 700,000, that's 11km² for each person.

That means the average aborigine had 275 times more land than the average Britain.

 

Seems only fair that they shared it.

 

So you're trying to justify invasion and genocide with an argument of "they had more than us"?

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2016 at 21:50 ----------

 

Good point, but the guilty will say it was their continent so no one else had the right to moved in.

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 19:32 ----------

 

 

What would you think if today we discovered a new land mass the size of Australia that was sparsely populated with people living stone age existence.

]

I hope we'd think that we had no right to displace those people.

Do you think we should leave them to it? or use the new land mass to help solve the worlds over population problems?

 

Are you asking what is morally right? Because you already know that stealing from other people is wrong, I'm pretty sure your mum taught you that when you were a child, and that applies even if they have lots more toys than you do.

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2016 at 21:50 ----------

 

So by your definition nomads consider land they don't settle on to be theirs,

that'll take some explaining, who would the settler ask permission from?

 

Yes, of course they consider it to be theirs.

 

You've no idea what a nomadic culture actually is have you...

[Quik]

So you're trying to justify invasion and genocide with an argument of "they had more than us"?

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2016 at 21:50 ----------

 

]

I hope we'd think that we had no right to displace those people.

 

Are you asking what is morally right? Because you already know that stealing from other people is wrong, I'm pretty sure your mum taught you that when you were a child, and that applies even if they have lots more toys than you do.

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2016 at 21:50 ----------

 

 

Yes, of course they consider it to be theirs.

 

You've no idea what a nomadic culture actually is have you...

 

Colonialism has been the norm for those with the capacity for it throughout history. The idea that its wrong became trendy in the 60s and has currency in certain classes to this day. It is not some everlasting moral certainty as you are presenting it.

[sutty27]

Do you actually know how much of Australia is habitable?

 

...and just because I'm feeling particularly patriotic....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes its probably about 50% do you know how much of the UK is habitable?

[Cyclone]

Colonialism has been the norm for those with the capacity for it throughout history. The idea that its wrong became trendy in the 60s and has currency in certain classes to this day. It is not some everlasting moral certainty as you are presenting it.

 

So theft is okay if you're more powerful? It's not a moral absolute that to steal (and kill in order to make the stealing easier) is wrong?

[sutty27]

So you're trying to justify invasion and genocide with an argument of "they had more than us"?

 

No I'm simply pointing out that they had more land and they didn't want to share it.

 

I hope we'd think that we had no right to displace those people.

But you don't mind foreigners displacing people in the UK.

 

Are you asking what is morally right? Because you already know that stealing from other people is wrong, I'm pretty sure your mum taught you that when you were a child, and that applies even if they have lots more toys than you do.

 

Its morally right for those with the most to share, its not morally right to attack people that are just trying to settle on land than no one else as settled on.

 

 

Yes, of course they consider it to be theirs.

 

You've no idea what a nomadic culture actually is have you...

 

And the settlers considered it to be theirs.