Did we settle or invade Australia?

[retep]

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...

 

By your definition the travelling community here should take precedence over the rest of the population, you've no idea what a nomadic culture actually is have you.

[Cyclone]

Of course they invaded them. They then protected them and provided improvements. Its a trade off.

 

You know what a trade off is called when it's involuntary and imposed by violence?

 

---------- Post added 05-04-2016 at 07:31 ----------

 

I know precisely what a nomadic culture is, Australia was settled and the nomads attacked the settlers, the settlers fought back and people died. Do you think it is morally right for so few to have so much whilst so many have so little?

 

You're still trying to justify invasion and theft. You know it, I know it, everyone who reads your posts knows it.

 

---------- Post added 05-04-2016 at 07:32 ----------

 

By your definition the travelling community here should take precedence over the rest of the population, you've no idea what a nomadic culture actually is have you.

 

You can explain how that works "by my definition"... Go ahead.

[sutty27]

Y

 

You're still trying to justify invasion and theft. You know it, I know it, everyone who reads your posts knows it.:

 

I think you are struggling with your reading, no theft or invasion took place, what took place was the settlement of an unsettled area and the use for force to resist those settlements.

[Cyclone]

A transparent and desperate attempt at redefining what happened.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/09/australia.barbaramcmahon

[sutty27]

A transparent and desperate attempt at redefining what happened.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/09/australia.barbaramcmahon

 

First four words from your link.

 

Before white settlers arrived.

[Scozzie]

A transparent and desperate attempt at redefining what happened.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/09/australia.barbaramcmahon

 

Don't feed the troll.

[Cyclone]

First four words from your link.

 

Before white settlers arrived.

 

Settlers who invaded. It's not mutually exclusive. Invaders can leave, or they can stay and settle.

[sutty27]

Settlers who invaded. It's not mutually exclusive. Invaders can leave, or they can stay and settle.

 

 

 

 

Settlers who defended.

You can't settle then invade, you can invade then settle.

 

They didn't use force to settle, they settled and then defended, they didn't invade then settle. If they had used force to enter Australia it would have been an invasion, but they didn't so it wasn't an invasion, it was settlers settling then defending which subsequently turned into conflict.

[Cyclone]

Which is exactly what the British did, invade and then settle. Steal land from the indigenous people and then call it "murder" when they resisted the invading force.

 

If the French move into Dover and quickly "settle" it's still an invasion.

 

I've still no idea why you wish to avoid calling it invasion, but you've failed despite all the moral relativism and twisting and turning.

You've attempted to change the meaning of invasion, to narrow it until it has to be actively resisted from the start, but that's not what the word means.

[sutty27]

Which is exactly what the British did, invade and then settle. Steal land from the indigenous people and then call it "murder" when they resisted the invading force.

 

If the French move into Dover and quickly "settle" it's still an invasion.

I've still no idea why you wish to avoid calling it invasion, but you've failed despite all the moral relativism and twisting and turning.

You've attempted to change the meaning of invasion, to narrow it until it has to be actively resisted from the start, but that's not what the word means.

 

Only if they use force to gain entry, if they move over without any force and establish settlements, that isn't an invasion, if we then use force in an attempt to evict them, any use of force on their part will then be defensive.

 

In Australia, settlers landed without the use of force, established settlements without the use of force, but they did use force to defend those settlements when they were attacked and it did turn into a conflict with the loss of life on both sides.

 

I've still no idea why you wish to avoid calling it invasion,

 

Why would I want to call the settlement of land an invasion when it clearly was not an invasion.

 

I think it is you attempting to change the meaning of invasion.

Edited April 6, 2016 by sutty27