ANZAC day does not glorify war. Quite the opposite.
Agree with the docos. No matter what side they were on all veterans have a tear in their eye when reflecting on what they went through
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Australia Day 26 January
- Thread starter Tigaman
- Start date
ANZAC day does not glorify war. Quite the opposite.
Agree with the docos. No matter what side they were on all veterans have a tear in their eye when reflecting on what they went through
I’m happy to celebrate Australia Day. On any official date declared. Whether it’s Jan 1st or March 3rd or whatever date, I’m sure there would be some group whinging about it. Whether something happened in the “old country” on that day or it’s a “holy day” or whatever.
There would some who would be offended.
I don’t subscribe to “Invasion Day” “Murder Day” or any other term used. There’s no doubt there were atrocities committed by both the incoming British and indigenous people. Many of the British didn’t have a choice when they were transported here. Petty criminals transported here. Especially the Irish.
Native populations the world over were treated poorly.
Imagine if the Dutch, French or Spanish colonised the country before the First Fleet arrived. Given how they treated native people in their colonies, I imagine things could have been a hell of a lot worse.
NOT that justifies any actions taken over the last 250 years or so. But the constant division by some whites and blacks (not the majority) needs to be addressed.
To me it’s celebrating the best country on earth. Warts and all. We’re still damn lucky in many ways.
There would some who would be offended.
I don’t subscribe to “Invasion Day” “Murder Day” or any other term used. There’s no doubt there were atrocities committed by both the incoming British and indigenous people. Many of the British didn’t have a choice when they were transported here. Petty criminals transported here. Especially the Irish.
Native populations the world over were treated poorly.
Imagine if the Dutch, French or Spanish colonised the country before the First Fleet arrived. Given how they treated native people in their colonies, I imagine things could have been a hell of a lot worse.
NOT that justifies any actions taken over the last 250 years or so. But the constant division by some whites and blacks (not the majority) needs to be addressed.
To me it’s celebrating the best country on earth. Warts and all. We’re still damn lucky in many ways.
There's a good book on the subject of White / Black relations in the early days. t's called "Blood on the Wattle"!
The Brits were trying to do the right thing by the indigenous population but the further you ent out from the main city centres, the worse things got. Having said that, racism back a hundred or so years ago was openly embarrassing. You only have to read a book about Jack Johnson's fight against Tommy Burns early in the 20th century for the world heavy weight title to see what attitudes were to where blacks were in relation to whites. Jack Johnson was called horrible things. This fight took place here. In fact a Richmond footballer in fight before the Jack Johnson fight, knocked Tommy Burns down for a count of 7 before he got up.
Another eye opening read is The Life and Adventures of William Buckley, a convict who landed i think on the Geelong side of Port Phillip Bay. Having lived with the Aboriginals for decades, his writings are a first hand view of exactly how primtive the natives were and how violent they were. He tried his best to ensure there was no blood shed between whites and blacks, but he ended up moving out of tribal life, and living by himself before eventually finding whites again, simply because of the tribal violence.
He literally says that the population of aboriginals is retared greatly by the amount of killings, particularly of women and children. Often mothers would kill their own babies because they couldn't be bothered raising them. She might have one or 2 or maybe more, before deciding "that's enough" and killing any more that came later.
He spoke of neighbouring tribes coming through and enjoying feasts with other tribes, but then in the dead of night, they'd return to slaughter the tribe they'd just enjoyed a meal with, simply to take their stuff.
This book can be read freely online:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/115045/2/b12742697.pdf
All of this doesn't excuse attrocities of whites, as we'd like to believe we were civilized enough to behave better, but that often wasn't the case. It's a complex subject, but in my view if we keep looking backards, it's hard to progess forward in any meaningful way. Changing Australia Day's date ain't going to solve anything, as activists will keep pushing no matter what you do. They want to justify their existence by their activism, so you will never appease them. The best way to hold a people down is to keen treatingthem as victims and not equals.
It also grates on me that people who are far more white than black lecture us on attrocities. Adam Goodes likes to hit the rest of us with this stick, but he's half Spanish, who are historically amongst the biggest genocidal maniacs on the planet when it comes to native tribes. Just ask wha's left of the South American tribes.
The Brits were trying to do the right thing by the indigenous population but the further you ent out from the main city centres, the worse things got. Having said that, racism back a hundred or so years ago was openly embarrassing. You only have to read a book about Jack Johnson's fight against Tommy Burns early in the 20th century for the world heavy weight title to see what attitudes were to where blacks were in relation to whites. Jack Johnson was called horrible things. This fight took place here. In fact a Richmond footballer in fight before the Jack Johnson fight, knocked Tommy Burns down for a count of 7 before he got up.
Another eye opening read is The Life and Adventures of William Buckley, a convict who landed i think on the Geelong side of Port Phillip Bay. Having lived with the Aboriginals for decades, his writings are a first hand view of exactly how primtive the natives were and how violent they were. He tried his best to ensure there was no blood shed between whites and blacks, but he ended up moving out of tribal life, and living by himself before eventually finding whites again, simply because of the tribal violence.
He literally says that the population of aboriginals is retared greatly by the amount of killings, particularly of women and children. Often mothers would kill their own babies because they couldn't be bothered raising them. She might have one or 2 or maybe more, before deciding "that's enough" and killing any more that came later.
He spoke of neighbouring tribes coming through and enjoying feasts with other tribes, but then in the dead of night, they'd return to slaughter the tribe they'd just enjoyed a meal with, simply to take their stuff.
This book can be read freely online:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/115045/2/b12742697.pdf
All of this doesn't excuse attrocities of whites, as we'd like to believe we were civilized enough to behave better, but that often wasn't the case. It's a complex subject, but in my view if we keep looking backards, it's hard to progess forward in any meaningful way. Changing Australia Day's date ain't going to solve anything, as activists will keep pushing no matter what you do. They want to justify their existence by their activism, so you will never appease them. The best way to hold a people down is to keen treatingthem as victims and not equals.
It also grates on me that people who are far more white than black lecture us on attrocities. Adam Goodes likes to hit the rest of us with this stick, but he's half Spanish, who are historically amongst the biggest genocidal maniacs on the planet when it comes to native tribes. Just ask wha's left of the South American tribes.
By today's standards, no-one was very civilized two or three hundred years ago. As a general rule most people are way more civilized now than they were back then. But as the meedjia shows every single day there's still plenty of individual club swingers and Govt kaboomers roaming around the planet to contradict just how civilized we like to pretend we are. Not much changes, we just get way *smile* better at being atrocious.
That's an interesting one, Armistice Day has a lot less fanfare and focusses on the minute of silence. It is more mournful so I would say no Armistice Day does no glorify war in the way ANZAC Day does.
DS
Ah yes, the Andrew Bolt trope....not really indigenous
Adam Goodes was raised as indigenous and he is undoubtedly an indigenous man who is accepted as such by the indigenous people. His mother was stolen generation FFS, the history of indigenous people post white settlement has directly effected his family one generation away from him and most probably him as the son of member of the stolen generation.
The book you reference is not "his writing" nor a "first hand view". It was written by someone else, based on conversations, and some of it more salacious details are disputed.
And how do you think the Brits took over land for settlements- prime land on bays and rivers? Was that by "doing the right thing"?
And we shouldnt look bqackwards, but it is vital we hold Australia Day on the date an event happened nearly 250 years ago? Other than the claim that people will whinge anyway, no one can actually give a reason why Australia Day needs to be celebrated on the day the English raised the English flag in the name of the English King.
Okay Brodders, I will make this a little easier for someone as simple as you.
It was written by someone who sat down and took William Buckley's story down straihjt
Not a first hand view?
Let's make this understandable even for a simple person like you.
The writer sat down with William Buckley and took his story down. Is that accurate enough for you? And how is this not written at the time? William Buckly landed in 1803 and spent 30 or 40 years living in the wilderness before finding his way back to a white settlement and then told his story, which was published in 1852.
It wasn't written on bark whilst he sat out under a gum tree, constantly added to over the 3 or 4 decades he spent with the Aboriginals.
To say it wasn't written at the time is splittin ghairs and a comment acting to deceive. That he didn't pen it personally, but told his story to the writter, is hardly something to hang your hat on either as a "gotcha"!
As for the reliebility of the story, William Buckley had a deep affection for Aboriginals, and worked in later years to help protect them from harm from white settlers, even to the point of being accused of being a spy for the Aboriginals.
But i guess, like the rest of history, we have to re-write it to suite the agenda of the left. How do i think the Brits took the land from the Aboriginals? In most cases they simply landed and built a settlement, then traded with local aboriginals. Often disputes would arise and there'd be violence. Often there were disputes black on black, and there'd be violence.
Blood on the Wattle does cover white attrocities on black, and some were pretty horrific. I never disputed that.
I'm going to refer to The Life and Adventures of Willam Buckley to give me an idea of the reality of Aboriginal life back then. You can refer to Dark Emu, which i'm sure you do, and believe in Aboriginal cities of thousands of people who farmed kangaroos and emus and grew crops and flew before the Wright brothers and landed on the moon 2 centures before us dopey white people.
You can also sit and believe the whole "First Nations" lie because this country clearly was not a 'nation' of aboriginals, but just a collection of scattered tribes beating the sh!te and raping the crap out of each other. Sorry if the truth is a little confronting for a little lefty lke you.
There's a little safe space for you to sit and recover >>> ( _____________)
We could celebrate "Federation Day"not Australia day. That’s when we Officially became Australia, rather than a group of 6 separate Colonies.
It means we'd be celebrating on January 1st
Another option is the 3rd of March, which is the day the "Proclamation of Australia Act" breaking the connection between Australian law & British Parliament & Laws.
I think its time we removed the Union Jack from Our Flag & replaced it with the Aboriginal Flag. A lot of folks won't agree but so be it.
It means we'd be celebrating on January 1st
Another option is the 3rd of March, which is the day the "Proclamation of Australia Act" breaking the connection between Australian law & British Parliament & Laws.
I think its time we removed the Union Jack from Our Flag & replaced it with the Aboriginal Flag. A lot of folks won't agree but so be it.
Reckon we can *smile* can Federation day as all the Covid *smile* a couple of years ago unequivocally proved that we are still a loose gathering of 6 separate colonies.
Nice rant!
But could someone not as simple as I explain to Frickers what "first hand" actually means. and explain to me where I said it wasnt written at the time.
You probably could have tried to explain your case without the abuse, but then i guess your post would have been a lot shorter, a lot less amusing, and probably wouldnt have got the thumbs up from the usual suspects.
I didn't think it was amusing B17.
Abusive - yes. Conceited - yes. Entertaining - no.
The story of William Buckley is a fascinating one though.
Although not sure what Frick's point is and it doesn't really explain why 26th Jan is so important. Nor did it discuss much about centuries of mistreatment.
I think he is saying Aboriginals were a scattered, violent lot that continually killed each other and europeans gave the gift of civilsation? It wasn't as much disposession as demonstration on how to build a society/work the land etc?
Yes. The British empire was of course the bastion of civilisation at that time. They never oppressed anyone or mistreated any individuals or groups in their empire. Their society was a great example of giving people opportunity, had no class system making sure the downtrodden remained there. They never stole the natural resources of the countries in the empire or their cultural treasures.
They never took control of any lands by force or waged any wars. They never enslaved anybody to do the manual labour for them or sentenced people on a draconian way for minor misdemeanours.
They were truly civilised the British, pity those natives didn’t copy them or fall into line.
I guess it depends on your definition of civilisation.
