ChatterBank2 mins ago
University Tells Students Britain 'invaded' Australia
And there’s me thinking the Aussies were down to earth, sensible people immune to the nonsense of political correctness. How disappointing.
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well obviously AOG every marauding group of people settling elsewhere and displacing, or one way or another trying to remove, the local populace is regrettable (understatement). But once European countries figured out how to cross the vast oceans, they made a particularly historically significant habit of it. And in the context of Australia, it seems appropriate to focus on the European aspect. Hey, at least I wasn't only blaming the British...
This "anti-British" jibe is rather harsh, too. Is pointing out that we weren't, and are still not, perfect really so "anti-British"? If it really is all that is needed, then I'm guilty of the charge and proud of that. Better to be anti-British than blinkered to our country's faults. For how else can we improve other than by recognising our mistakes?
This "anti-British" jibe is rather harsh, too. Is pointing out that we weren't, and are still not, perfect really so "anti-British"? If it really is all that is needed, then I'm guilty of the charge and proud of that. Better to be anti-British than blinkered to our country's faults. For how else can we improve other than by recognising our mistakes?
jim360
The trouble being though Jim, is the fact that from the Anti-British Brigade we only hear of Britain's faults and never of the advantages both in leaning and infrastructure she has bestowed on backward uncivilised countries.
To say nothing of the hand of welcome to our country that she has handed out to a large proportion of her ex Empire's peoples as well as others.
The trouble being though Jim, is the fact that from the Anti-British Brigade we only hear of Britain's faults and never of the advantages both in leaning and infrastructure she has bestowed on backward uncivilised countries.
To say nothing of the hand of welcome to our country that she has handed out to a large proportion of her ex Empire's peoples as well as others.
Invasions have been going on for thousands of years. In most cases it saw great advancement in the invaded countries (Except us of course who went backwards when the Roman left :-) ).
All finger pointing to the British does get a bit tiresome since we were probably one of the most invaded countries there was. I suspect this led to us being somewhat of a warring Nation given our ancestors were warriors from all over.
Who knows what would have happened if we had not dumped our scum down under. At the time lets face it things were very different from what they are today maybe the Aborigines would have died out, it's highly unlikely they would have advanced and simply would have been plundered by another NAtion who may well have wiped them out.
All finger pointing to the British does get a bit tiresome since we were probably one of the most invaded countries there was. I suspect this led to us being somewhat of a warring Nation given our ancestors were warriors from all over.
Who knows what would have happened if we had not dumped our scum down under. At the time lets face it things were very different from what they are today maybe the Aborigines would have died out, it's highly unlikely they would have advanced and simply would have been plundered by another NAtion who may well have wiped them out.
Well if you're going to throw "backward" and "uncivilised" around to describe the nations we visited, isn't that being "anti" everyone else? The point is -- again, surely one that you should sympathise with -- that it ought to be these people's free choice to be "backward" and "uncivilised".
I wouldn't deny that British, etc, influence in Africa, India, etc has had benefits. Of course it has. The question is in weighing those benefits against the obvious disadvantages of going to another country, saying to its people "we're clearly more civilised than you are so we'll just have this land, thanks", and then generally treating the locals poorly for a long time. That is a very difficult calculation indeed; in part because really the only way to truly appreciate the effects colonisation has had you'd need to run a new history in which it never happened. Nor should we be held directly responsible for all the negative effects either. One unfortunate consequence was the spread of diseases, but (except for one or two incidents in North America, eg at Fort Pitt) this was unintentional and "just" rotten luck. Other consequences were certainly deliberate, malicious, and shameful. I don't think that bringing roads, railways, and universities to these places can make up for that.
Having said all that, what happened happened. I don't believe modern Britain should be obliged to say "sorry" for its past. Few or none alive today had anything to do with it. Instead, I'm for acknowledging the past openly. I think "pro-British" people often seem determined not to acknowledge that there were mistakes at all, or to try and divert the blame elsewhere.
I wouldn't deny that British, etc, influence in Africa, India, etc has had benefits. Of course it has. The question is in weighing those benefits against the obvious disadvantages of going to another country, saying to its people "we're clearly more civilised than you are so we'll just have this land, thanks", and then generally treating the locals poorly for a long time. That is a very difficult calculation indeed; in part because really the only way to truly appreciate the effects colonisation has had you'd need to run a new history in which it never happened. Nor should we be held directly responsible for all the negative effects either. One unfortunate consequence was the spread of diseases, but (except for one or two incidents in North America, eg at Fort Pitt) this was unintentional and "just" rotten luck. Other consequences were certainly deliberate, malicious, and shameful. I don't think that bringing roads, railways, and universities to these places can make up for that.
Having said all that, what happened happened. I don't believe modern Britain should be obliged to say "sorry" for its past. Few or none alive today had anything to do with it. Instead, I'm for acknowledging the past openly. I think "pro-British" people often seem determined not to acknowledge that there were mistakes at all, or to try and divert the blame elsewhere.
um yeah Karl has it
for years - well around 200 y the standard view was that Oz was terra nullius ( didnt belong to anyone ) and so clearly it would be difficult to invade it
but now but now there is a belief that in fact the land belonged to the aborigines ....
Similar discussion over Normandy invasions of 1944 well zee fransh say you cant invade your own country and it should be 'landings' or ( debarquements )
Karl you will learn that these threads arent to be taken that seriously as PC, ooman rites, and dark muslims shooting everyone gets dragged into absolutely everything by the usual suspects whether it makes any sense or not
for years - well around 200 y the standard view was that Oz was terra nullius ( didnt belong to anyone ) and so clearly it would be difficult to invade it
but now but now there is a belief that in fact the land belonged to the aborigines ....
Similar discussion over Normandy invasions of 1944 well zee fransh say you cant invade your own country and it should be 'landings' or ( debarquements )
Karl you will learn that these threads arent to be taken that seriously as PC, ooman rites, and dark muslims shooting everyone gets dragged into absolutely everything by the usual suspects whether it makes any sense or not
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.