Donate SIGN UP

University Tells Students Britain 'invaded' Australia

Avatar Image
naomi24 | 07:22 Wed 30th Mar 2016 | News
75 Answers
And there’s me thinking the Aussies were down to earth, sensible people immune to the nonsense of political correctness. How disappointing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-35922858
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 40 of 75rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

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.
Wow naromi, you certainly opened the flood gates for the Anti-British Brigade.


jim360

/// and everywhere else Europeans reached in their explorations ///

Why blame it all on the Europeans, the likes of Attila the Hun, and the Moors all took part in invasions.
Who is being anti British?
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?
It appears that tribes of indigenous natives are still unable to find water in their own countries after thousands of years of existence.May be the aborigines,smart as they are in the bush,might not exist now if it wasn't for the white fellas ?
Question Author
AOG, this thread was intended to focus on the nonsense of politically correct language but if people prefer to dissect the past, so be it. Overall, I'm actually rather proud of our country and its history.
Naomi...so am I but the transportation of inconvenient to the other side of the planet was hardly our finest hour.

Now I must get ready for lunch with DTC !
Question Author
Mikey, //Now I must get ready for lunch with DTC !//

Why the exclamation mark? Do you find the prospect of lunch with DTC alarming? ;o)

But I digress. I get fed up with people criticising this country at every opportunity. In retrospect we realise our history isn't all roses, but whose history is?
" In retrospect we realise our history isn't all roses, but whose history is?"

Australia's was until they were invaded
Question Author
Probably.
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.
We should have left the aborigines to the warm embrace of the Japanese or the Belgians, perhaps.
Pity we didn't have a penal colony now where we could send Islamists and their left wing enablers.
Well I suggest the Australian people apologise to the native Aboriginals and get on the next boat out of there
steg

" In retrospect we realise our history isn't all roses, but whose history is?"

/// Australia's was until they were invaded ///

Oh! and you are naive enough into believing that all Australian tribes/communities, got on together all hunky-dory, did they?
Question Author
AOG, Best indulged. He wouldn't know. Who recorded it?
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.

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.
anotheoldgit, aye
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
Peter Pedant

You admit to being one of the 'usual suspects' do you? Since it is only you so far, who has mentioned dark skinned Muslims shooting everyone.

21 to 40 of 75rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

University Tells Students Britain 'invaded' Australia

Answer Question >>

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.