Inquiry finds British committed genocide on Indigenous Australians
Posted by ObjectiveObserver420@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 323 comments
Posted by ObjectiveObserver420@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 323 comments
Stray_48@reddit
To all the people in this comment section who are saying that the British shouldn’t be blamed for this and that modern Australia should, or visa versa… guys, two things can be true. The nation that sent convicts and settlers to a new continent is responsible, and so is the nation that is now born from those actions. I don’t think most reasonable Australians deny the genocide that occurred. We are responsible for it. But at the same time, so is the United Kingdom, who set up these colonies. This isn’t politics, this is history.
Jack-White2162@reddit
How are Australians today responsible for actions they didn’t commit?
MuadLib@reddit
Think being conned into buying a house that did not actually belong to the person who sold it to you. You are not guilty but still have a duty to return it to the original owners.
Not that current Australians need to "return" Australia to the Aboriginal peoples, but they collectively do have a duty to alleviate the injust suffering that facilitated their current well-being, not out of guilt but justice.
MfromTas911@reddit
Maybe restricting the supply of alcohol to many indigenous communities would be a good idea - along with education services for young people and government funded jobs. Alcohol (and drugs) are absolutely decimating Aboriginal families.
Jack-White2162@reddit
There was no breach of contract with European settlement of the land that became Australia like there is with a stolen house. Conquest and settlement are universal. And if you’re saying that the right thing to do is give it back, but you also say Australians shouldn’t give it back, then you’re not sticking to your beliefs. Either start advocating for 27 million people to give up their country to a slim minority or accept that that’s life
Neomataza@reddit
Same way that, say, germans are responsible for the holocaust or americans are responsible for manifest destiny. People might have opinions on how much you can hold it against them, but they are kinda the inheritors of those that did.
MfromTas911@reddit
Sorry, my genealogical white British heritage does not make me responsible for what earlier white British individuals or governments did in the past. That’s fucking ridiculous. Even more ridiculous with regard to my husband, whose parents immigrated to Australia from Poland in 1950. And the immigrants more recently from Asia and elsewhere. Actually this attitude is quite racist when you think about it.
Electrical-Risk445@reddit
While not directly responsible, they benefit from it as a society that was built upon the atrocities. Also, it's important for the average Aussie to be aware of it so there's more respect for the Aboriginals.
hellbentsmegma@reddit
Bit hard to argue some white kid (or any other background really) in Australia who will never be able to afford to own their own home and probably never earn a genuine living wage is benefiting from Aboriginal dispossession.
pateencroutard@reddit
Well, this white kid is living on Aboriginal land that was never given back to the Aboriginals by the genocidal settlers who colonized Australia.
So yeah, its entire existence benefits and is built upon the genocide/colonization of Australia. Doesn't mean he has a direct responsibility in it, or that he should be expelled or pay for it. But he absolutely benefits from it.
joedude@reddit
Just saying since Rome, we should all just give up existing cause they did some really bad shit and we all benefit directly from things built up by Rome.
pateencroutard@reddit
No one said anybody should stop existing mate, you can wipe your crocodile tears.
joedude@reddit
Hey man I'm just saying, do you know what Aramaic tribes did to everyone around them?
Remember our entire foundational society of communication is descended from them.
SirShrimp@reddit
Aramaic is a language family...
Sufficient-Turn-804@reddit
This guy has no clue what they’re talking about…
joedude@reddit
Well ask the pre aramaics what happened to their culture lol, it's a completely valid comparison.
SirShrimp@reddit
Aramaic isn't an ethnic group, it's a Northwest Semitic language group and alphabet.
joedude@reddit
I mean cultures get decimated by mere language groups.
SirShrimp@reddit
Aramaic is one of the oldest recorded languages in the world, your problem would be with the Neo-Assyrian Empire who adopted Old Aramaic as their lingua franca, not the language itself which was a language from like, a dozen ancient city states in Syria.
joedude@reddit
but its popularity spread customs until there was almost only aramaic tradition left, based purely on it being good. it still wiped stuff out though, and people took huge benefit.
mrgoobster@reddit
Everybody is here because there ancestors did horrible shit to survive. I'm not saying we shouldn't catalog and acknowledge the horrible shit, but how far back are we willing to go? And what do we do with cultures that didn't even keep records of the shit they were doing?
pateencroutard@reddit
Aboriginals in Australia still directly suffer from all of this today, it's not just history.
It's the same dishonest crao I hear in Canada, like it's some ancient shit and what can we do for the poor natives while you have actual people now in their mid-20s who where tortured in special indigenous boarding schools in the 1990s.
mrgoobster@reddit
The topic that was being discussed in this chain was whether some poor kid in Australia was morally responsible for the crime, not whether it was a crime or what the consequences of it have been.
pateencroutard@reddit
That's literally the words that you wrote that I'm responding too. "It was a long time" and "what about them" bullshit.
mrgoobster@reddit
The fact that my post contains some words that resemble an argument you've seen before does not mean I'm making the same argument.
pateencroutard@reddit
You make no sense whatsoever, you're either some bot or just terminally stupid so I'm gonna stop here.
Lizardledgend@reddit
Do you in any way think that the colonisation of Australia was neccessary for survival lmao 🤣
Solarwinds-123@reddit
Yes it was, for the prisoners sent there.
mrgoobster@reddit
That isn't what I said, and I'm inclined to think your misinterpretation was motivated by malice.
Lizardledgend@reddit
Then how on earth is your comment relevant? Your sole argument agaimst the governmemt acknowledging blame is "Everybody is here because their ancestors did horrible shit to survive." If you don't think this was something done by ancestors (of merely a few generations, and some of which involved later events are still alive) to survive, what point are you making?
mrgoobster@reddit
I didn't make an argument against the government acknowledging blame. What a weird non sequitur.
The thread was about whether a poor kid in Australia bears any moral burden for crimes committed by members of his society in the past. My point is that if you if begin the project of trying assign culpability along such vague lines - not even by direct descent, but just by participation in the society - then it devolves quickly into absurdity.
Regular-Custom@reddit
Well, they’re alive aren’t they?
Electrical-Risk445@reddit
Fingers must be pointed at the colonial establishment and those who openly benefit from keeping most of the population in some sick modern feudalism.
Pick_Scotland1@reddit
I’m more surprised this needed an inquiry and not just a straight apology
LineOfInquiry@reddit
An apology isn’t needed: reparations are.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
Pot calling the kettle black there, ain’t it mate?
LineOfInquiry@reddit
Native Americans in the US need reparations too. This isn’t a problem exclusive to Australia, but it needs to be fixed in both.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
Well glass houses mate. We have ‘repatriated’ per se, land, back to the Aboriginal people in parts of this country. Monetary reparations for crown land is complicated - I’d be interested to see some proposals.
MfromTas911@reddit
Look the truth of the situation is that aboriginal people have been given significant land rights in this country. There are over 60 land rights councils, special aboriginal legal, housing and medical services funded by Australian governments. Numerous programs and grants aimed at aboriginal wellbeing. All for 3.5% of the population- and based on having some indigenous dna or even self identification. Practically every country on earth has been invaded at some time with many of the original inhabitants having being dispersed or incorporated. Nearly 250 years have gone by since the invasion - Australia as a nation and Australians in all their diversity - that’s the current reality. Of course, every school kid should be taught what happened, as well as other human rights violations and injustice. But to go on and on about it, only creates division and resentment.
anticomet@reddit
There needs to be reparations made, not just an apology
MfromTas911@reddit
Yeah, well in that case, apologies and reparations should also be made to MOST WOMEN OVER THE AGE OF 70, owing to the blatant discrimination that occurred against them by governments, banks and other institutions prior to the equal rights legislation of the 1970’s.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
The pot calling the kettle black: What reparations have you made for slavery? An apology was made the same year ours was made. Our racism here is so tame by comparison to yours, get a grip. Bloody seppos.
UnbiasedAgainst@reddit
Because the history has never been recorded. We are not taught about the massacres that took place here, and there are many people alive today who were stolen from their family under official government policy. No one kept a proper record of these things, indigenous people in Australia were treated as though they were wild animals.
LimeLimpet@reddit
I was taught about the massacres in school.
fre-ddo@reddit
Which country and when? I dont recall bneing taught about it in the 90s in the UK but at the same time I dont recall much from history lessons then they bored me to sleep.
LimeLimpet@reddit
Australia, which I guess makes sense. I remember the mile creek massacre specifically getting a lot of time.
Yodigz@reddit
Same
radred609@reddit
This inquiry was a good thing that included useful fact finding missions.
But let's not pretend that this stuff isn't taught in Australian schools.
We do learn about the aboriginal massacres, with a focus on the stolen generation, in High school
UnbiasedAgainst@reddit
Stolen generation sure, that is in living memory and pretty much everyone knows about it. The massacres though? I am not 30 yet but I got taught about Pemulwuy and basically nothing else. Keep in mind I was learning this in South Australia, and from my education I could've left with the impression that nothing like that had ever happened outside of the first colonies.
big_cock_lach@reddit
It’s very much taught, wdym? Sure, there’s a focus on the Stolen Generation but it’s made very clear that there were massacres etc too.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
We absolutely are. More to that it’s [the colonisation and consequences] is a point of contention and discussed most Australia Days as we reflect on our history. What generation are you to not be taught about the Stolen Generation and the colonisation of the country? I don’t understand. Did you go to a public school?
RobynFitcher@reddit
Part of the curriculum in state primary schools includes being taught about the Stolen Generations, as well as about NAIDOC week and Sorry Day. Some state primary schools also have Yarning Circles and areas of the playground which are dedicated to honouring Traditional Owners.
There's definitely been some encouraging progress over the past few decades.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
I don’t doubt and how good to see! Thanks for providing some clarity on this. That’s more than I’m familiar with so as to contribute to the conversation, knowing full well it has improved if anything. Primary school is 25 odd years back now, of course it’s changed. We only formally made an apology in 2008.
UnbiasedAgainst@reddit
We are taught that "these things happened". Not the stories of what actually happened, besides Pemulwuy. How many people died in massacres ordered by the state government of Australia that you were born a part of? Could you even place an estimate?
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
I posted that earlier, long before this thread blew up: that outside of the potential for material numbers, the slavery and genocide of Aboriginals is not news to Australians. Am I arguing against inquiry? Lol no. I am not familiar with the events of that particular battle. But I was taught about the atrocities in Botany Bay and Tasmania in school, that is the point. Nobody denies the history of the Aboriginal people, we’ve made national films like Rabbit Proof Fence that received critical acclaim. More can be done, yes.
UnbiasedAgainst@reddit
Germans know what their grandparents did during the Shoah. Do you know what your great great grandparent did in order to clear his land for farming?
This is the clarity we need for any apology or reparations to actually mean something.
Obviously I wasn't suggesting that no one is taught about the Stolen Generation. We all watched Rabbit Proof Fence in school, I get it. If that's what you think I was saying then you just didn't understand my comment.
Millions of Australians leave school without a glimpse at a "battle" outside of Botany Bay or Van Diemen's Land, when there were so many massacres and retributive "cullings" that were ordered by successive colonial and state governments across the continent. You don't think that's worth mentioning?
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
Being honest, your question needs grammar dude. I just didn’t want to be that person haha..
I’ve lived with Germans my own age in Europe who like I, acknowledge their history and it is illegal to deny the holocaust (firstly), but they feel removed from the war. As do I, from the atrocities generations before me made. Should historians have an accurate account of the events in our country? Yes absolutely, that is worth mentioning. The Germans don’t deny theirs either. While the AfD have presence, Germany is a different place politically now. So are we.
I don’t think we are required to know anything further to warrant an apology, tbf. I mentioned elsewhere, before this blew up that was well received but lacked some nuance, we have apologised. It were always to be criticised, no way that would have landed perfectly - but that’s not the most important factor at all. I’m not for the shame and stigma because I don’t harbor guilt personally, but objectively it’s important that we collectively say sorry for what it stands for; reconciliation and efforts to move forward. The events of the past can be seen for what they are and I want the best for my fellow Australians, Aboriginals alike
UnbiasedAgainst@reddit
Yeah okay I'm not reading all that, sorry mate.
Nice grammar call out without any specific criticism or correction. Do you mind pointing out what part was incorrect? Or indecipherable to you?
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
Is that how you approach a book? Lol, just returning fire. But what a silly thing to say.
It would be this one “How many people died in massacres ordered by the state government of Australia that you were a part of?” Suggests grammatically I was a part of the massacres. It took me a read over att, but if I were your English teacher it’d go sth like “How many people died in massacres, ordered by the State Government of Australia (that you were born a part of)?”
We are pretty well in the same ballpark politically anyway, but that’s only lucky for you because you’re not good at it. Imagine getting a retort from an opp and you’re like, ‘bro all you did was talk for 2 minutes’ lol. Credibility out the window.
UnbiasedAgainst@reddit
The difference between your comment and a book is that a book actually has something to communicate. You are just repeating yourself with new words and not contributing anything to the discussion beyond what you already said in your first comment.
Your reformulation of my sentence is basically identical. You just have a very American-coded reliance on commas, and adding parentheses like that around a dependent clause would be a crime against any English style guide.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
Agreed, I wouldn’t frame my question like that at all. But at basic punctuation level, that illustrates your point. It’s also called the Oxford comma for a reason.
Well read from the beginning of the thread and contribute accordingly so things don’t have to be repeated. We were just having a basic conversation before you were too sanctimonious to fucking read.
UnbiasedAgainst@reddit
Oxford comma is the comma added to the penultimate item in a list of three or more. "A, B, and C" like that second comma. Not whatever you are referencing.
The conversation is pointless because we're talking past each other. You're arguing against something I never said. Did I say "Australians are never taught about any single act of violence between settlers and Aboriginal people"? No, I said "we are not taught about massacres that took place here".
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
I would argue that ‘But at a basic punctuation level, that illustrates your point.’ also demonstrates usage of an Oxford comma; a superfluous comma that frames the structure of a written sentence as typically spoken, usually at the conjunction of where one sentence could be two. Your example isn’t wrong. Mine being that two being a short list. That’s the nature of having parenthesis in the structure, because phonetically it lists. The only reason those brackets exist at all is because the question was framed so poorly:
“How many people died in massacres, ordered by the state government of Australia (that you were a part of)?”
If you wanna go nuts and bolts.. I’d rephrase it for you, weiting instead, “How many Aboriginals [Who?] died by order of the state; the Government of Australia? The country to which you were born and with a collective responsibility you share. Could you place an estimate?”
I didn’t want to be that guy because it’s v trivial. But you kept going there.
I am saying we are taught about the massacres here. Are we to know every event to pass an arbitrary test? That’s my point dude.
UnbiasedAgainst@reddit
No, you just used the term Oxford comma not knowing what that means. Meanwhile correcting someone's grammar.
You're actually referring to the stylistic practice of bridging clauses with commas, which is often overused (stereotypically by American English writers) to mimic speech patterns.
Let me rephrase my own question since you still misunderstand. "In the state in which you were born, how many people were murdered under the auspices of the government of the day?".
Let me further clarify my point for you. Assuming you were not educated in NSW or Tasmania, did you learn about any acts of violence that took place in your state as part of your Australian History education? As a South Australian, I did not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians
Take a quick look at the list. How many did you learn about in high school? Seriously?
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
I beg to differ. It’s the same way an is sometimes not used before a vowel, because phonetically it makes sense - consonants like M or H. I don’t say ‘And’ or ‘or’ because it’s a contraction of colloquial speech pattern. Particularly because my example starts with a conjunctive. It’s lay, sure, but true and I’m writing to represent my speech pattern; you’re right. Colloquially speaking, contractions are very normal. The glottal stop is the perfect example. Have fun writing in Danish haha
Splitting hairs. And again we are about to do so.
I’ll be perfectly honest mate, I don’t need to know about each massacre to know genocide took place. I’m not daft, you get to hearing the first, second, third or fourth story and by that time you begin to realise there was a bit of killin’ going on. To answer your finely surmised question (at last), yes man. I won’t tell you exactly where I was born, but where I am from had re enactments of the colonisation at the beach with their little pretend bayonettes. I was young then, haven’t seen it about recently and w how contentious you’re being - as a white dude - is it any wonder why? It’s hard enough to have a discussion with strangers on the internet, let alone meaningful change in parliament.
For sure you’re right, we could revise what is taught at school - but to say we aren’t made aware of it is bananas, sorry. There is also a heavy leaning on the political sciences in modern history, where knowledge of international relations in the last century is also vm critical. It would be great to know everything, I agree. I am not up with curriculum revisions although I don’t doubt it’s been revised since I was at school 20yrs ago.
OurLifeinBoxes@reddit
UK literally caused Famines in India which were deliberately caused by Churchill let alone all of the looting and other atrocities British committed for centuries. British Raj was evil and cruel.
mastah-yoda@reddit
Apologise? To whom?
butterfunke@reddit
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/national-apology
I don't think anyone would say it needed an inquiry. This is also a weird thing to make a headline about, it sounds like they're just a new organisation making a formal statement about something everybody already knew
big_cock_lach@reddit
They had an enquiry, made a formal statement, then provided recommendations about how much pay and land they needed.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
+1 for source
TedTyro@reddit
Apologies make a lot of guilty people who don't wanna admit theyre guilty very uncomfortable, especially if theres even the remotest fear of monetary liability. Those people have a lot of financial and political say, so their fears get huge airtime no matter how unrealistic. And from them, the bleeding obvious is treated like it's actually unclear when it really really isn't.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
If you were to take this to trial, let’s say, who do you find guilty exactly? If you are of British or Irish descent, do you personally feel guilt?
TedTyro@reddit
Not guilt. Anyone who didn't personally perpetrate isn't guilty for what happened. I'm not sure anyone seriously believes anyone to be personally responsible for things that happened before we were born, so guilt is a complete non-starter
What we have now is a 'be honest and take responsibilty' situation. I'm Aussie, so we have our Aboriginal people. We live, benefit and profit from the fact they were booted from the land. Anyone who tells you otherwise is kidding themselves - the very houses we live in, farms we tend, mines we dig, factories we work, roads we drive on - every foundation of our very prosperous economy relies on us having kicked the natives off way back when we had no say in it.
Meaning our land, money and comfort (such as it is) was bought at their expense. Displacing them made us rich as a country, and made them suffer as a people.
We continue to reap the rewards today, so today we have responsibilty to use a fair part of those rewards to try and rebalance the scales. By which i mean attempting to lift indigenous people to somewhere closer to the position they'd be in, if they hadn't been screwed so hard in the past. If we're talking 'on trial', this is the principle behind compensation. Put someone where they would have been if everyone had done the right thing.
So not guilt, but it's a coward move to claim that present generations bear no responsibility for the state of the nation and its people today, including to put things right as best we can.
Also, imho, it's greed. I suspect everyone would happily confront a lot more historical truth and present responsibility if it costed nothing - no discomfort, no money, no political capital. But thats what freaking responsibility is.
Anyone who chooses to dodge our collective present responsibility is guilty of that part, which might be why so many people are so sensitive about 'guilt' today - because they experience it in a misplaced way: "I DIdnT dO the GeNocIDe, wHy shOuld I HAVe to PAy?!? It's dishonesty and misdirection disguised as righteous anger in simple soundbite, intended to avoid the real question of what we need to do now.
"Because for goodness' sake, whatever you do, don't make me pay anything. I'm happy to turn a blind eye to the suffering of a people, the past is dead no matter how much I benefit now, this is all rather unpleasant and I hate being made to feel like I'm guilty" It's toddler-level stuff.
Wow that became a rant! Have just had too many conversations with people who choose to turn a blind eye and not look at the big picture, using simplified catchphrases and myopia for self-interest.
Spend some time with the people who still suffer because of this, they don't have our luxury of turning a blind eye.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
I just posited the question, but I don’t dispute anything you’re saying. The issue is complicated to address financially, how would you suggest it was done?
RobynFitcher@reddit
Well said.
Stray_48@reddit
I find that a lot of people who claim that reparations aren't needed haven't actually spent time in Aboriginal communities. There's a very big gap in almost every aspect of life. Systemic racism is real.
bathoz@reddit
It's an awkward time to apologise for the genocides committed by British settler colonies. What with a genocide being currently committed by a British instituted settler colony.
craptheist@reddit
With full support from the British government.
Pvt_Lee_Fapping@reddit
Honestly it might be the best time to do that. Fascism is on the rise again, and we are on the verge of WW3. Those who want to be on the right side of history need to show a united front. If we can get people to come to the table and apologize for past transgressions while agreeing to make reparations, then we might just avoid turning our kids into the 21st century's greatest generation; because they are going to be the ones out fighting in the trenches like our grandparents were against the Axis.
BassoeG@reddit
Bullshit. None of our leaders are true believers, they wield guilt over past atrocities as a weapon to browbeat their own lower classes while committing all the same atrocities. The very same bureaucrats and oligarchs telling us we need to be dispossessed in retaliation for the genocidal colonialism and slavery of centuries ago are actively engaged in propping up a genocidal colonial state right now and want to bring back slavery with us as the slaves.
And we're not gonna be the ones fighting in the trenches, that's somewhat of the point, because we recognize a Liu Bang scenario when we see one. Consequences of being cannon fodder in a World War, direct warfare between superpowers, aka nuclear apocalypse, certain death. Consequences of a Civil War to overthrow the genocidal slaving tyrants who want to conscript us into a World War, uncertain death, we might win and stop them before they can launch The Bomb.
In either case, all assurances of comfort and safety are lost anyway as risking your life fighting and dying, total destruction of infrastructure ensuring that even if you win, your country’s quality of life will be third world tier for the rest of your lives and authoritarian rule given that governments always seize upon "wartime emergency" as an excuse to grab more power for themselves all happen anyway in modern war even if you "win".
Pvt_Lee_Fapping@reddit
Well you can sit and mope like it's futile if you want, but I'm going to pretend be naïve as long as I can because faking it sometimes leads to making it. Sorry if that makes you feel like you wasted your time writing all that out but that's kind of the point of making the effort in the first place: hoping for the best while mentally preparing for the worst.
aykcak@reddit
I urge you to find a period of time in the past that was not the case
AmarantCoral@reddit
Look on the bright side, we'll get an apology in 2212
PeacefulAgate@reddit
We have to get there first
ApologizingCanadian@reddit
Only 187 years to go. If humanity survives until then.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
There has been an apology, acknowledged by Kevin Rudd in 2008, who is a Labor politician FYI. We are all very aware of the genocide, outside of the potential for material numbers, this is not news.
DeadGoddo@reddit
Dude it totally is news to a significant portion of Australia's population
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
I don’t think that’s true man. Did you go to school here? Were you not taught this?
DeadGoddo@reddit
The older generation and migrants Don't have that education
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
The older, ignorant, generation you might be right. As for Migrants, this is a fair point, because I simply don’t know what’s involved with our citizenship test - you would hope that it involves Aboriginal history. I expect that it involves something about the history of Australia Day though, so I sort of doubt it ?
Electrical-Risk445@reddit
It's the same shit in Canada. There's a pattern.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
?
Electrical-Risk445@reddit
A lot of ignorance in both countries around the genocides perpetrated by the Brits in their colonies.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
Yeah, there is
milesjameson@reddit
That wasn’t an apology for genocide, or the systemic, mass killing of indigenous people.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
You’re right actually. There is nuance I’ve missed there for sure and consequently I rescind my comment. I recognise we could do better politically, though that isn’t new to me. It is certainly recognised as a national shame as part of our history however. Ofc you will find bigoted racists here still that don’t care, but we are educated in History at school on this. It is known: the genocide, I am referring to. A combined apology on the matter between Aus and the British Crown I think would be most appropriate there, as that differs to the Stolen Generation. You could make the argument though that we are still under the Crown (as we were then)… it’s a pretty difficult conversation. The Voice referendum would have went a long way as well.
FearGaeilge@reddit
Good luck getting an apology from the British establishment for anything.
HalfLeper@reddit
User flair checks out.
ycnz@reddit
Flair could be from like, half the planet.
HalfLeper@reddit
True 😂
UInferno-@reddit
Ultimately, the big thing with "water is wet" declarations is that you still need to point to a verifiable authority regarding debates. With how much denial there is for basic ass truths, sometimes you do need someone to go "Yes the earth is round we checked."
aykcak@reddit
They whole things urges the reaction "fucking obviously, duh"
Bartellomio@reddit
No one is responsible unless they themselves ordered, participated in, facilitated, aided or abetted. Nations don't hold responsibility, individuals do. And the British and Australians of today are not responsible for actions committed by their ancestors.
ChaosKeeshond@reddit
And yet, Britain as an institution has learned nothing and continues to engage in the same behaviour today by assisting an ally in the Middle East using the tax money you and I both pump in.
I'm literally funding a genocide, right now. We don't inherit the sins of our father, but we do inherit the ability to choose to adopt those sins voluntarily, and adopt them we have.
thedybbuk_@reddit
Damn. Well said.
IEatWhenImCurious@reddit
That's an awfully convenient stance to take aye?
Bartellomio@reddit
It seems more like your logic, that nations are sapient entities that can hold responsibility for things centuries after they happen, is very convenient for you?
MuadLib@reddit
Silly you, States are legal entities and can be held responsible for what previous administrations have done, even long after the person in charge at the time have died. Eg.: Germany still pays WW2 reparations.
BrazilianTomato@reddit
Institutions are in fact capable of being flawed and doing bad things. You can't just scapegoat a handful of people for systematic problems.
Bartellomio@reddit
The issue is that when you blame 'institutions', it's not 'institutions' you're asking for reparations. It's the people living in the UK today.
BrazilianTomato@reddit
Institutions only start to change when people want them to, nothing will ever change if the ones with agency insist on pushing responsibility on people who can't take responsibility, like the dead. Slavery and segregation only ended when enough people put the need for justice and conciliation above their own comfort. If everyone had decided to follow your logic instead then these things would've never ended because the ones benefiting from them wouldn't want to have to pay to fix the problems their ancestors created.
Lizardledgend@reddit
So acknowledging the history, trying to formally lay out what happened, make reparations for any treaties broken by the Aussie/British governments, and providing benefits to the communities and cultures in a disadvantaged position because of past attrocities sgould be easy then? Like nobody should consider any of that to be a personal attack on them?
Bartellomio@reddit
We'll send the bill to the dead government officials, military leaders, and war criminals who committed all those crimes generations ago. And as soon as they get back to us with the cash, the Aussies will have it. But they're not having mine.
Nethlem@reddit
It's both: Colonial settler politics shaping history, and the profiteering descendants being in denial of the suffering and death most of their modern-day wealth is built on.
The denial is important, that way countries like the UK, Australia, the US, and even Canada can keep on insisting they are only what they are because of "their own hard work" and/or their inherent "exceptionalism".
While glancing over centuries of colonial politics that have in large parts shaped our modern day geopolitical landscape, complete with built-in friction points smoldering to this day i.e. what has become of "British Mandate Palestine", Hong Kong still somehow being considered British, and the many other smaller military colonies present in basically every ocean.
Pika_DJ@reddit
You can't really seperate modern Australia from this anyway, only got the right to vote in the 60s
RBZRBZRBZRBZ@reddit
I wholeheartedly agree that such a scale of death and destruction is genocide. Numbers matter
75% of aboriginal people
Like the 70% of the Rwandan Genocide
And the 70% of the Holocaust
And the 90(!)% of the Russian genocide of the Circassians
And the 90(!)% of the Turkish genocide of the Armenians
But not like the 4% of the Syrian civil war
And not like the 3.5% of the Israel Gaza war
Or the 3% of the Russia/Ukraine war
operating5percpower@reddit
Rwanda Genocide was mainly the result of people stabbing each other with blade
Holocaust was the result of people being stripped naked and forced into gas chamber
Russian and turkish genocide were the result of soldier shooting or delibertly starving people to death,
75% of the Aboriginal were almost entirely the result of disease nondelibrately brought over by colonist.
Intent matter.Genocide is a intentional act.The Victorian colony was not deliberately trying to genocide the aboriginal. Even if it was convenient that plague left the land open for colonization.
RobynFitcher@reddit
There is a Massacre Map of Australia by the University of Newcastle that is still being updated as evidence is confirmed.
There are also historical records of massacres in the National Archives.
operating5percpower@reddit
I didn't say there weren't but those massacre only constituted probably around 2% of the population decline of the Victorian aboriginal the rest were from disease.
RobynFitcher@reddit
Those massacres were widespread and the perpetrators were rarely, if ever prosecuted.
Prohibiting people from speaking their own language and living within their own culture and community are part of what is legally defined as genocide, and there are plenty of examples on record that demonstrate that those injustices were legislated and thus intentional.
HintOfMalice@reddit
Numbers matter, but they do not erase tragedy, war crimes and genocide just because they sometimes happen on a smaller scale.
Bartellomio@reddit
Tfw I have to pay money to Australians because my great-grandparents, who worked in the mines from the day they could work and died of coal-lung, were apparently evil genocidal maniacs.
Lizardledgend@reddit
Take a look around, who tf is saying that. Your government should pay the reparations for attrocities it commited yes, nobody is talkimg specifically about your grandad. If your taxes go up because of that, blame your government for taxing you more instead of the wealthy.
Bartellomio@reddit
My government would be paying with my money. And I haven't done anything wrong.
Wwhhaattiiff@reddit
And where does your current wealth come from?
From generational exploitation of the world. You wouldn't be in the position you are if your ancestors didn't exploit people around the world.
omgu8mynewt@reddit
Many people in the UK can afford rent, food, clothes and not much else. We have less purchasing power per person than Australia. Streets are not paved with gold here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Wwhhaattiiff@reddit
and you would be even poorer if you haven't exploited the world.
What about the people in Congo, Liberia.. all the countries you milked dry and continue to do so.
Your current life exists on exploitation, you'd be totally fucked if you lived on your own merit.
omgu8mynewt@reddit
Possibly. Possibly Congo and Liberia would have been fucked by other African empires, such as the Benin empire or the Kingdom of Kongo, which encompassed modern day DRC and had its own slave trade. Conquest and empires have existed for thousands of years, they are not a British invention and Britain was also victim to the Roman Empire, Viking raiders, French invasion and rule.
DownrangeCash2@reddit
The Kindom of Kongo only encompassed a relatively small portion of the modern DRC.
Wwhhaattiiff@reddit
Your argument is if I was robbed by someone, I have the inherent consent to rob other people... and if I didn't rob them, someone else would.
omgu8mynewt@reddit
My argument is that the British empire was no different from the thousands of other empires from history, and there will be more in the future.
Wwhhaattiiff@reddit
and my argument was that you would be poorer if you and your ancestors weren't engaged in genocide, ethnic cleansing, explorations etc...
omgu8mynewt@reddit
Yes probably.
Wwhhaattiiff@reddit
Then why the fuck are you arguing?
omgu8mynewt@reddit
I'm not the one calling people "Nazi fucks" on the internet.
CameraRollin@reddit
How are you that delusional...
Lizardledgend@reddit
No they wouldn't, that's not how government spending works. Everyone gets taxed at varying amounts for different things regardless of the plans to spend that. As I said, if your taxes get raised for it then you can blame your government for that. You don't owe Australians anything, your government who committed genocide against them certainly does by any definition, even if you argue it shouldn't be paid monetarily.
Bartellomio@reddit
Where does it come from then mate?
I would definitely blame my government for handing a load of cash to Australians.
Also Irish people were vastly overrepresented in the armies and navies of the empire so I hope you get your wallet open too.
My government hasn't done that. I'm not a fan of labour but they mainly just botch economic policies, they haven't genocided anyone.
hubmeme@reddit
Where tf you think the money would come from? Of course his taxes would pay for it.
Lizardledgend@reddit
Taxes ≠ your taxes
hubmeme@reddit
It’s the taxes of the British tax payer whether it’s mine or my neighbours? Unless you’re proposing we try taxing the Americans again to get them to pay for it?
Roryrhino@reddit
And while we're at it southern ireland should give back the land it stole?
teslawhaleshark@reddit
However, the victory over the Spanish Armada is still recent and commendable
Bartellomio@reddit
No one thinks that
teslawhaleshark@reddit
"Hitler is too long into the past but Beethoven is very recent"
teslawhaleshark@reddit
Urine is wet and Australia is dry, Britain isn't going to cough up any subsidies for reconciliation
Fucking hell, look at how Britain is handling Mauritius and the Chagos
WillTheWilly@reddit
Britain is literally broke, I should know. 14 years of austerity and no money in the coffers, a new government unwilling to raise taxes and close loopholes on the top corporations and earners. No way the govt would cough up money in reparations at this stage.
omgu8mynewt@reddit
Try living in the 85% of the rest of the world that is less wealthy, the UK is like the 5th wealthiest country in the world. Try travelling a bit to learn more about how most people around the world live.
WillTheWilly@reddit
5th wealthiest and hanging on by threads.
Besides, I wasn’t bragging about how British wouldn’t bother paying. I am saying that as a first world country, Britain’s many obligations and domestic commitments that come before paying reparations overseas.
Since the UK never really lost a large war in recent history or lost the colonies in a sort of revolution akin to the U.S. recently (most of the recent decolonisation was done through handing power away and granting independence), there hasn’t really been a pushing factor to make Britain have to pay reparations thanks to essentially letting go of the colonies, and granting independence without much bloodshed in the process.
Reparations are mostly just a thing a winning side imposes on a losing side. And well they work in this scenario because the losing side has no other choice.
In regard to asking for reparations centuries later and in a place the UK essentially handed away without bloodshed, I wouldn’t count solely on acts like before when now the UK has a mountain of problems to deal with: debt, deficit, immigration, crime, housing, outdated infrastructure etc.
Getting onto your big point: YES, it is true third world, developing countries etc have bigger fish to fry, bigger issues that matter with life and death.
This does in no way, shape or form, invalidate the problems Britain faces today, which seems to be what you’re trying to say. It makes our problems pale in comparison, but it doesn’t turn them into non-problems.
Before the UK can pay out billions in repaying the remnant families of the genocide, Britain must make sure that money is procured without problem, and that means fixing a ton of problems in our economy beforehand.
Slapped_with_crumpet@reddit
Look up how the British economy works. A lot of the wealth is centralised in London. Not saying people outside London live like people in Haiti or Equatorial Guinea, but they're a lot less well off than that 5th biggest economy might suggest.
Britain just isn't in a place to pay reparations right now, you can say "well look at how these other people live" but that doesn't magic up money that isn't there. Just because Britain is better off than a lot of places doesn't mean it can pay for this.
evil_brain@reddit
"We're sorry. You can't have your land back. But we're so sorry."
o0CYV3R0o@reddit
Actually
While I do agree that lands unjustly taken should, in principle, be returned, I rarely see comparable attention paid to other empires throughout history that also seized territory.
Britain also recently returned Hong Kong to China, which, in hindsight, seems to have been a mistake. The people there now live under CCP oppression, with the freedoms and rights they once enjoyed under British rule being rapidly dismantled.
There seems to be a disproportionate focus on our own empire which, to some extent, is understandable given its vast reach but shouldn’t there be an equal reckoning for other nations that likewise appropriated land?
It’s the same with stolen artifacts in museums Britain always seems to get called out and pressured to return these items, but I rarely see the same level of attention given to other countries that also hold artifacts taken from elsewhere.
himesama@reddit
This isn't true. Hong Kong enjoys more freedoms today than they ever did during British rule, even though it's still less freedoms than they want.
apewithfacepaint@reddit
Hahaha and on what planet is that true? Not on this one
himesama@reddit
It's literally the facts. When the UK was in charge, there was no democracy until the very final years of colonial rule. The colonial governor was appointed by the British crown and acted effectively as a dictator. Today, there's multiple parties, you get to run for office and vote for candidates, subject of course, to the national security law.
operating5percpower@reddit
It not a democracy if you can only vote for the people the ccp want. That a facade of a democracy.
himesama@reddit
Like I said, it's more freedoms than what the UK granted, but less than what Hong Kongers want.
operating5percpower@reddit
The British were planning to introduce democratic reform in Hong Kong in 1960. The Communist informed them that if they did so China would invade Hong Kong. They were fine with the British ruling Hong kong as long as it had no democratic legitimize. But freedom and Democracy are not the same thing freedom is personal the right to organize speak believe all those freedom were greater under the British.
himesama@reddit
You mean right after the pro-CCP riots? It was shelved not just because of threats from the PRC, it would have been political suicide to do so, see https://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/3114457/hong-kong-still-paying-price-britains-failure-bring-democracy-when
operating5percpower@reddit
No 6 years before those riots China in response to British plans for democratic reform threatened that any change in how the colony was governed would result in a invasion.
himesama@reddit
Which one are you referring to?
Cautious-Ad-2425@reddit
Its public record from declassified documents. Basically a memo sent to the prime minister in 1958 states that although many Hong Kong representatives and british ones were in favor of giving more power to Hong Kong as an independant city/country, Zhou Enlai threatens that any move towards dominionship of Hong Kong like that of Singapore, would be a very unfriendly act and that China wanted the status quo to continue.
A couple years after that they also threatened invasion of Hong Kong if democracy/independance were to happen, too.
himesama@reddit
If you're referring to the Young Plan, which took place around the same time, it certainly wasn't threats from the mainland that killed it. Young's successor Grantham was very much against democratic reforms, and not primarily because of the threat of communist invasion. Democratic representation was just never high on the British's list of things to do then, and it would have been practically suicide anyhow due to sympathy for the communists.
See p. 27 of https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Functional_Constituencies/10XDGJLrTK0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Functional+Constituencies:+A+Unique+Feature+of+the+Hong+Kong+Legislative+Council&printsec=frontcover
Cautious-Ad-2425@reddit
Its January 30th 1958, so this is a decade after Young left(1947), and actually after Grantham left and was just replaced with Robert Black. So no, not really having anything to do with Youngs plan.
Most likely, china was afraid that Black, having been the governor of Singapore previously and Singapore having done the very thing that China did not want Hong Kong to happen to, i.e. Independance, was afraid that with Black in office he would push Hong Kongs independance.
And although I dont think that it was the only reason why democratic elections were pushed away, its naive to think that this had no impact whatsoever. As to how much of an impact, is impossible really to tell. I dont think we can point to a single thing and say "This killed it", i think its more complex than that.
But yes, i also absolutely believe that Hong Kong had more rights near the end of British rule and at the very start of the two systems one country rule, than it does now.
o0CYV3R0o@reddit
I know it was pointed out immediately and I put a line through the entire comment and admitted my mistake seems that wasn't enough though.
WileyApplebottom@reddit
Sure, but y'all should start it as y'all obviously benefitted the most from rape, pillage, and genocide. And yes, IT SHOULD HURT. Your way of life is built on crimes against humanity.
HmmWhyHow@reddit
Literally and objetively wrong. Well known fact that pre-Empire Europe enjoyed a higher quality of life, and that most colonies weren't net positive. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Solarwinds-123@reddit
Who should it hurt? Why? The people responsible are long gone, you can't hurt them anymore.
BonzoTheBoss@reddit
I think that you would be hard pressed to prove that the majority of British people alive today directly benefitted from empire. (Especially as a growing minority of them are immigrants themselves.)
One report I read said that it is more accurate to say that those in power benefitted the most, i.e. the ones at the top got all the "cream" off to top of empire, while the rest of us were left to pay for it.
Back then, as now, the benefits were privatised and the losses were socialised...
WileyApplebottom@reddit
I agree. We should abolish the rich and give their wealth to the oppressed. I don't think that option is on the table though.
pateencroutard@reddit
Monolingual English-speaker from the birthplace of the British Empire consuming news exclusively in English from either the UK or former British colonies is surprised the British Empire is more talked about, example 144442234666
There are constant talks and debates in the French-speaking or Spanish-speaking world about colonialism and its heritage, you're just stuck in your bubble mate.
ctant1221@reddit
As someone from Hong Kong, please fuck off.
o0CYV3R0o@reddit
So you like communist rule under the CCP? If so what was the Umbrella movement about and why are so many from Hong Kong requesting asylum in the UK?
ctant1221@reddit
"Hitler was terrible, so therefore stalin wasn't that bad, actually".
BonzoTheBoss@reddit
Jesus, calm down.
We "literally" didn't do anything, the entirety of us weren't even born yet while all this was happening.
o0CYV3R0o@reddit
Please don't put words in my mouth I wasn't implying anything like that!
I get that you're angry but please let's be civil and respectful!
I was asking genuine questions because I wanted to hear your side not sit here and be insulted how are we supposed to know the other side without asking.
BonzoTheBoss@reddit
That's enough as far as the internet is concerned.
Flimsy-Relationship8@reddit
We returned Hong Kong because we leased the city for 99 years, it wasn't a colony in the same way that Australia and New Zealand were
BonzoTheBoss@reddit
Technically the 99 year lease was only for the New Territories on the mainland, the island of Hong Kong itself was granted "in perpetuity."
However, the Chinese made it VERY clear that failure to return HK when the 99 year lease expired would result in it being retaken by force. And considering that HK got/gets all of its utilities from the mainland it would be as simple as turning the water and electricity off... Yeah there was no way the UK was going to keep HK.
himesama@reddit
Only the New Territories were leased for 99 years, Hong Kong island itself was ceded in perpetuity. It was a colony, but China would have invaded and gotten everything back if the UK wasn't willing to give the land back.
Ok-Discount3131@reddit
We returned Hong Kong because China were going to roll in the tanks if we didn't. If they had any way of defending the territory they would have ignored the 99 year thing and kept the British flags up.
o0CYV3R0o@reddit
You are absolutely correct I forgot this.
HalfLeper@reddit
Because Spain is broke 😂
TheBoizAreBackInTown@reddit
There definitely should be more pressure on other empires and colonial forces - mainly modern USA, but others as well. That being said, British empire was the worst, so, naturally, it gets the most shit for it. It's not really disproportionate, imo.
AlexRyang@reddit
“Bad luck Ghorman.”
Bartellomio@reddit
Why should the people of today pay money for crimes committed generations ago by totally separate people?
AlexanderTheIronFist@reddit
Because your entire society, infrastructure and luxuries you enjoy currently were only possible to achieve because your empire raped, pillaged and genocided the rest of the world for centuries.
Bartellomio@reddit
My ancestors worked in the coal pits until they died so I don't think they were exactly benefitting or participating. The wealth of empire only went to a select few.
Eldhrimer@reddit
The wealthy few that propped up their country so they can enjoy the level of development they have in the current times.
Is not about individuals, but the acts of the rulers and the benefits those acts provided that are the reasons of giving money for reconciliation.
The same happened with coal. England used coal as a way to quickly develop and are now in a place they don't need it, but many countries still need to use coal to develop themselves and cannot do it on the basis of the damages already done to the environment.
Bartellomio@reddit
Not really. I mean the UK was a pretty shit place to live immediately after the war. Rationing didn't end until the end of the 50s. The UK reached the prosperity it has today because of the people in it, not because of colonial wealth.
omgu8mynewt@reddit
....Erm very debatable. The British Empire in 1912 had over 400 million people and 23% of the world population, and all the profits of all the trading came back to the UK. Soldiers 'looked after' colonised countries and merchants profited from the new trade goods and markets. Industrialisation at home allowed the manufacture of expensive (at the time) goods to sell around the world. It wasn't coal mining in Wales or Yorkshire that made the UK wealthy...
SzeShaun@reddit
It is amazing, knowing the history of Britain, when you see these people who thibk Britain consisted of only cousins of royalty aristocrats who all owned slaves and all chipped in to galavant around the world taking over where we could.
Ambiwlans@reddit
So do the natives living in the country.
_The2ndComing@reddit
That's the entire history of the world. The Indigenous Australians also did that to each other, they weren't all one giant happy tribe before the British showed up.
Its a pretty obviously horrible thing to deal with, but it how the world behaved for everyone back then.
teslawhaleshark@reddit
They aren't people of today
HIP13044b@reddit
I'm not sure what your point is.... the UK followed the advice of the UN when it came to the Chargos Islands. That's the global communities fault.
eldomtom2@reddit
An "inquiry" establishing the official line on events that happened over 150 years ago, and judging them based on legal concepts not established until a century later, is of course absurd.
But such will remain the state of things until historians actually interrogate how their field makes normative claims, and examine whether government-mandated "truth-telling" actually sheds light on anything.
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
The destruction of the Aboriginal people was ongoing until the late 70s mate.
eldomtom2@reddit
Did you even read the article?
TheRichTurner@reddit
The genocide of the indigenous people of Tasmania, the Palawa, was the nearest to complete in recorded history. Only a handful survived after 1870. There are no Palawa today except a few mixed-heritage descendants.
British settlers even took to hunting the last remaining Palawa as a form of sport, like a traditional fox hunt.
I'd be ashamed to be British if it weren't for the fact that the people who live in Britain today are largely the descendants of people who didn't do any of this shit, but instead stayed in Britain.
The real bastards were the British and other Europeans who went off to populate Australia, South Africa, Namibia, New Zealand, Australia, South America and North America. Their descendants are the white people who live there now, and they're still reaping the benefits of their ancestors' genocidal crimes.
operating5percpower@reddit
"The genocide of the indigenous people of Tasmania, the Palawa, was the nearest to complete in recorded history."
That because they were almost completely wiped out by disease like 97% of the deaths were from disease not killing by settlers. The Colony actually in the end went to quite commmendale length to try and preserve the Palawa but they couldn't protect them from disease that modern science at the time barely understood.
TheRichTurner@reddit
I've just read the Wikipedia article on the indigenous Tasmanians, and I know that puts me far from having anything like in-depth knowledge on the subject, I think your account must be a rather distorted oversimplification.
operating5percpower@reddit
Was my comment more or less nuanced then your the British genocide the whole race by hunting them for sport?
TheRichTurner@reddit
If that's what you think I said, then you probably need to reread it.
operating5percpower@reddit
"The genocide of the indigenous people of Tasmania, the Palawa, was the nearest to complete in recorded history. Only a handful survived after 1870. There are no Palawa today except a few mixed-heritage descendants.
British settlers even took to hunting the last remaining Palawa as a form of sport, like a traditional fox hunt" That does appear, what you say!
TheRichTurner@reddit
British settlers resorted to hunting Palawa for sport, but I didn't say that the genocide was achieved solely by this means. It's just an extreme example of how cruel and sadistic the genocide was. There were many ways in which this genocide was achieved, such as by kidnapping and raping hundreds (possibly thousands) of Palawa women and rendering them sterile through venereal diseases, and corralling Palawa into camps where many died of malnutrition and exposure to harsh weather. That's just another two examples. There are many more.
It seems that a huge number died by being exposed to diseases their immune systems were unprepared for. This happened through contact with British and American explorers and seal hunters in the late 18th century. The Palawa had been isolated even from other indigenous Australian tribes for about 8,000 years, so they must have dropped like flies.
If you really think I said that the British genocide of the indigenous population of Tasmania was achieved by hunting them down for sport, you need to work on your reading comprehension.
operating5percpower@reddit
It the example you gave when describing the genocide. The truth is that thousand were not kidnapped,and when the colonial governor tried to get some of those who were kidnapped to return they didn't want to go because apartently there British kidnapper where kinder then there own men.
They didn't not die from malnutrition in the camp set, up to keep them safe from further conflict with settler, and how can people who never had shelter die from exposure when the British provide them with shelter.
The fact is that they could not survive the new disease and those few that survived formed to low of a population and were just adsorbed into the larger white British population.
98% of the population die from disease and 2% from a real military conflict between the aboriginal and the British. Then characterize the "genocide" as stemming from aborginal being hunted for sport then you are clearly trying to misrepresent the facts.
TheRichTurner@reddit
Yes, it was the example I gave. I said that the British settlers even did that. They did. But I think now you're just being willful by insisting that I meant that hunting for sport was the method used for genocide. I clearly didn't.
So you know what I meant now. Are you too embarrassed to admit that you had misinterpreted it? Is English your first language? If it isn't, then forgive me for judging your comprehension skills harshly. I ask this because your writing of English is often incorrect and therefore quite difficult for me to interpret.
But thousands were. Whether some settled happily with the settlers or not, they had no choice in the matter. They were kidnapped. This left the Palawa short of women, and many of those who were still with their tribe had been made sterile by exposure to venereal diseases.
Many did. They were transported away to a ramshackle campsite surrounded by land of low agricultural worth and with little to hunt. The supplies of food that were promised soon ran out. The Palawi had been promised that this was a temporary arrangement, and that they could return to their homeland later. That was a simple lie.
The reason why there were conflicts with the settlers was that the settlers took up land and resources from the Palawi, who had to trespass and steal to survive. Those who were caught were shot on sight.
They were moved to Flinders Island, which was often cold, wet and windy. They weren't used to this. They had no resources. They could no longer live their lives, as they were effectively imprisoned. The shelters that the British provided were woefully inadequate.
Let's be clear about this. No Palawi man fathered children with a white female settler. The Palawi women were varyingly prostituted, kidnapped, raped, sold into slavery or sold as "wives" to settlers. Some were ultimately treated in a way that they accepted, apparently. I don't know if you're aware of a thing called Stockholm Syndrome. If you haven't, I suggest looking it up.
Some children were taken from their parents to work as slaves and to be "educated". This meant stripping them away from their families, their language and their culture.
Where on Earth did you get those statistics from?
Does only military conflict count when a genocide is happening? What a strangely narrow way to skew your argument.
Thankfully, I did not claim that the genocide stemmed from indigenous Tasmanians being hunted for sport, so I wasn't trying to misrepresent the facts.
You, however, must be either willfully misrepresenting what I wrote or incompetently misunderstanding it. Which is it?
operating5percpower@reddit
"admit that you had misinterpreted it" I read it as you wrote it if that wasn't your mean that fine but that clearly how it read. "But thousands were" But we do not have accounts of such a large number of woman taken
"The supplies of food that were promised soon ran out" not according to what I have read if you have a source of them being starved please post it. "They were moved to Flinders Island, which was often cold, wet and windy" That Tasmania I think they were used to it. Look this isn't the 18th century were we blame disease on leaving the window open the cause of there death was not the cold weather. "No Palawi man fathered children with a white female settler. The Palawi women were varyingly prostituted, kidnapped, raped, sold into slavery or sold as "wives" to settlers" None of that change the fact that almost all there deaths were from disease "98% of the population die from disease and 2% from a real military conflict between the aboriginal and the British." It a rough estimate we presume around 15,000 people was there original population 600 were killed by the british so around 14,500 from disease so around 97% from disease. "Does only military conflict count when a genocide is happening? What a strangely narrow way to skew your argument." Genocide require a degree of intent like murder. If the major cause was no intentional deaths then it hard to attribute there destruction to genocide. It was definitely a form of ethnic cleansing but not a attempt to destroy them as a race.
operating5percpower@reddit
It a comment section of course it a simplification,but so was your original comment,history is to messy for our modern countenance of monsters and villains.
LinkinParkU4Lyf@reddit
I mean perhaps sure it was the direct result of actions perpetrated by those who travelled to Australia. But although they might have eventually benefitted from travelling to Australia and aren't entirely absolved of blame, a large portion of the first lot of people who settled here were forcefully displaced and brought over due to over filled jails from the volume of petty crimes caused by widespread poverty.
I'm not saying the convicts are innocent or they were as affected by the colonisation, but they were still victims of human trafficking and forced labour in many instances. The bulk of the responsibility is on the government officials and officers who worked directly under the crown, who implemented and enforced the genocide, as well as the government officials in Britain and their royal family.
Settlers who arrived as freemen would also hold blame, as they willingly chose to follow through with supporting the genocidal efforts and accepting the use of Indigenous people as slave labour. These were choices with limited negative outcomes if they refused the norms and are thus not absolvable.
Really there should be a joint apology from the Australian government, and the British government and crown acknowledging the genocide against Aboriginal and Torres strait Islander people. In an ideal future Britain would be held accountable much like nations who cause war are, to provide support and funding the the rebuilding of the communities and cultures, honestly for at least as long as the First nations people have been harmed by government policy and the actions that were perpetrated on behalf of their rule (which would be all the years from when colonisation first occured to now) as well as the Australian government to allow them to self govern and have jurisdiction over their peoples own needs in collaboration with the government, sort of how reservations where Native Americans have their own recognised courts and systems run by and for their own people.
In short it is entirely the fault of almost exclusively the british because Australia wasn't an independent nation until 1901 which means it was under the jurisdiction of the british, and technically because of the constitution, is still under their jurisdiction. White Australians today are absolutely to blame for the atrocities as well as ancestors of the colonisers in most cases, but it was the laws of the British that allowed this mistreatment in the first place. This is as they encouraged the culture of dehumanising fellow people, with the practices being continued even after 1901. Naturally the British are not to blame for all of Australia's actions since Federation as that is over 120 years for Australia to change their stance on the matter, but the fact the policies such as the removal of Aboriginal children occurred first under British rule is.
I recognise that I benefit from my position as a white person in society, and don't think Australians who benefit from this system should just write it off as all the fault of the british and defer blame, but should instead demand the government to hold the British government accountable alongside our own government. It's disgusting to still read about the continuation of the stolen generations under the guise of welfare services. I am currently training as a social worker and it's disturbing how much the situation is masked by the system. From what I've studied and learnt thus far, it makes me want to work in child protective services in hopes of changing how the system works. Paradoxically, it also makes me realise how little influence I would have if the situation is still occurring after centuries, making want to avoid those roles all together to avoid the ethic dilemmas and contributing to the problem.
PTMorte@reddit
More white people have immigrated to Australia in the past 50 years since those policies ended, than even lived in Australia in 1970.
TheRichTurner@reddit
I can't disagree with a single word of what you said.
someNameThisIs@reddit
Britain massively benefited from it too, much of the wealth from the extraction of resources here was sent back to the UK.
TheRichTurner@reddit
True. Though, as usual, a disproportionate amount of that wealth went to the wealthy. It only found its way into the pockets of working class Brits through hard-fought social reforms and unionisation.
Nethlem@reddit
The UK is still the 5th richest country on the planet, the average Brit has a quality of life the vast majority of the rest of the people on the planet can only dream about.
Yet these comments are full with Brits insisting they never profited from the colonialism because they never colonized, they just stayed and enabled the colonial projects "at home" by working for the empire in its core.
It all sounds kind of funny, considering not too long ago most of Reddit was hellbent on blaming every single Russian, who stayed in Russia, for what's happening in Ukraine.
But I guess that'd be something "totally different!"?
Slapped_with_crumpet@reddit
As opposed to what? Starve? The vast majority of Brits during the empire lived absolutely miserable lives. Look up pictures of places like Whitechapel and other slums, it was awful. Wealth inequality was and still is a big issue in the UK. A lot of the wealth of the UK is centralised in London. People living outside London (and a lot of places inside London depending on the area) are far less well off than "the fifth biggest economy" would suggest.
I'm not saying Brits today haven't profited from colonialism, but the average brit during the empire was very poor and didn't really have a choice but to work in factories or something equally terrible or starve to death.
Bartellomio@reddit
British elites benefitted from it. The average Brit wasn't exactly rolling in resources or cash.
JamyyDodgerUwU2@reddit
It was the poor that built those ships and guns and wore those boots which marched on other lands
TheRichTurner@reddit
That sounds like a line of Kipling's. Its great. Is it a quote?
JamyyDodgerUwU2@reddit
Idk I just made it up now, probably said before tho
Lizardledgend@reddit
No nit their jobs were run by that elite, the infrastructure they use payed with the spoils. Food taken from colonies where workers were massively underpaid was shipped back to the core, what welfare programs there were were funded again by empire. Trickle down economics is bullshit but to say the average British person saw no economic benefits from empire is just so beyond wrong too.
Doctor-Malcom@reddit
No one wants to admit that our way of life is wrong, and by upholding that society we are wrongdoers and "bad guys". We also know that dismantling society is easier than rebuilding society from scratch, that often times the replacement is worse than the original. So we collectively tolerate the system that we have, and hope for private and public security while raising a family.
Just because trickle-down economics is a lie sold to the masses as you said, it also means we are all complicit by allowing vast tax cuts for megacorporations and billionaires -- and some of the upper class -- while gutting welfare for the lower and middle classes.
All that to say, as a senior citizen of the United States who now also lives in the United Kingdom, once I see what my tax dollars to DC and London have been funding since the Cold War, along with the power of compound interest and lost generational wealth, I understand my role in enabling all of this.
mujahidean@reddit
A very good point that often isn't appreciated enough by modern settler colonial nations. However, I will say, when it comes to Africa and India, de-colonisation saw many settlers "return" to the metropolitan UK, we do have quite a lot of people here who have blood on their hands from those days.
Prime23456789@reddit
No one today has blood on their hands from murders their ancestors committed. What an absolutely fucking insane take
TheRichTurner@reddit
Yes, and as someone else on this thread pointed out, we all eventually reaped some benefits from the Empire here in the UK, even if we had no active role in it.
cassowaryy@reddit
Don’t act so high and mighty. I’d bet money some of your ancestors murdered and enslaved people as well
TheRichTurner@reddit
You can bet someone in everyone's ancestry has murdered or (maybe) enslaved people. Nearly all my ancestors that I know of were builders, agricultural labourers and domestic servants, so if you go back far enough, there must have been a murderer among them, but I doubt there's a slaver among them.
Lone_Grohiik@reddit
You known you dickheads sent convicts here right?? The British that ‘didn’t go overseas’ are blameless for that at all.
TheRichTurner@reddit
You say that as if you think that Britain was some kind of democracy. We didn't all have a debate and then vote to send convicts to Australia.
The rich British landowners ground the poor into the dirt, and whatever they did to try to survive was a punishable offence. Being sentenced to work as a slave in Australia was a death sentence for most. These people built Austraia and worked the land. Whose buildings? Whose land? The same rich British landowners.
The rich have been screwing over the poor. That's the story of all colonialism.
scotty_dont@reddit
Disgustingly racist comment. Only a fraction of Australians can trace their ancestry back to the early days of settlement, and roughly half of Australians have a parent who was born overseas. This ain’t the topic for race baiting. Do better.
HalfLeper@reddit
There were exactly 2 Pequots left after the Pequot “War.”
Zuldak@reddit
Voters rejected the 2023 referendum. I think politicians who continue to support these sorts of commissions will find voters not on board with any sort of reparations.
cassowaryy@reddit
And why should they? It’s unjust and illogical to make decent law-abiding people responsible for paying century old crimes of past relatives. Not to mention the fact that racial reparations favoring people’s great great great grandchildren who have not personally experienced abuse is a type of favoritism that destroys all credibility to a society that claims to favor genuine equality.
RobynFitcher@reddit
These crimes didn't end a century ago.
Look up the Wave Hill Walkoff, Stolen Generations and when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people finally got the vote. This is recent history and some injustices are current and ongoing.
Zuldak@reddit
I agree. Honestly I think we are seeing a big questioning of this idea of what exactly equity means.
EccentricHubris@reddit
Colonizers butchered and murdered thousands of indigenous peoples....
More news at 11.
Cmon how is this news or even surprising? At this point its expected. Trust me, my country was colonized by Spain for 333 years and then America for a little bit afterwards. Even Japan took a bit out of it, they didnt last very long and they still killed hundreds.
Tricky_Weight5865@reddit
I think thats just common sense? I dont see Brits or Aussies particulary proud of it and they sure wont pay any reparations. Almost every country or culture genocided another at some point in the past. No need to white-wash it, but also no need to have sleepless nights over it now, generations after.
omgu8mynewt@reddit
The Roman Empire from Italy took over England for six hundred years. The French invaded and became the royal family until Tudor times. The Vikings from Scandenavia frequently raided lots of the European coastline. Where would we even draw the line on historical 'crimes'?
TheRichTurner@reddit
Rudyard Kipling was a British poet who wrote a lot about the British Empire. Those words that you wrote got me curious, and as far as I can tell, they're from "The Ballad of Birmingham" by Dudley Randall.
LastAccountPlease@reddit
Also known as, the current Australians ancestors. I hate the way aussies blame the British, compared to for example Germans owning upto their history.
EternalAngst23@reddit
This has to be the dumbest comment I’ve read on this sub. I’m Australian, and literally nobody here blames the current British population.
Taey@reddit
Literally never heard anyone blame the British. We teach our countries history, we teach the horrible treatment of what happened, and we teach how the events in history shaped our modern culture. Were also taught that these atrocities like the stolen generations occurred until very recently.
A huge % of Australians or their parents wernt born in Australia, and were possibly the most multicultural place on earth, so the idea that theres some collective narrative amongst Australians as a whole that were blaming the British for our countries atrocities that were occuring up till the 1970 when federation happened in 1901 makes no sense.
LinkinParkU4Lyf@reddit
I think it's fully appropriate to hold the British ruling class accountable, but yeh I don't think any blame lies with their common folk. The British crown and government were the ones who guided the genocide, and should be held accountable much like countries after a war are held responsible for the harm caused, whether it is like Germany's debt, or the responsibility of the Brits, french, USA and russia to assist in rebuilding their societies and structures. Of course these are not the best examples due to especially the USSR turning an entire fraction of a nation into a Soviet prison, but they represent a precedent for being held accountable for mass killings and other crimes against humanity.
More reasonable suggestions would be a treaty directly between the British government and crown, the Australian government, and a representative body with elders from all recognised Indigenous nations that would outline the British having a responsibility to support both financially and through recognise legislation the self determination of first nations communities. A system sort of like how reservations in the US have elements of self governing. Obviously this would be in an ideal future and after the voice got knocked back is probably never a possibility, what with a treaty being protested for, for decades now.
Roryrhino@reddit
That's still asking people who never had any interaction with australia to pay up. The government pays for things with our money. All my ancestors for the last however many years are english scottish and irish.
Collective punishment is wrong.
LinkinParkU4Lyf@reddit
Yeah it would also set a precedent that would result in dozens of ethnic groups impacted expecting the same treatment and thats why i described it as an ideal morally right future, and considering the vast fucked upness of Britain's actions against other nations and being one of the most prolific and only modern surviving colonialist nations, would have nothing left to feed their own people. The same demands aren't really made of other empires in history as they already fell.
Realistically the best option would be an apology from the British government, crown, and Australian government explicitly acknowledging the cultural genocide, and then have treaty made up or legislation made up that mandates a portion of the profits collected from the export and mining of Australia's minerals must go towards Indigenous run support services. This would not only benefit Indigenous people, and acknowledge that mining has even recently been a contributing factor of the continuation of the cultural genocide, but also acknowledge that the land is theirs to sell.
Unfortunately this option inherently goes against many of their beliefs however, as their roles are the land's custodians, but the Australian government is never going to stop mining practices until the country is mined empty. At least this way money from the destruction will go towards supporting first nations people. It would also hopefully urge the government to regard the resources the same way that Scandinavian countries do, and stop under valuing the resources that result in the nation being torn up. It's like cheap prostitution rn.
In the current timeline this outcome isn't even on the minds of anyone with political standing and would potentially lack support from the progressive parties due to the fact it encourages mining, regardless of the fact it would provide more funding for public services and provide reparations and support to First nations people.
Clearly I'm a naive optimist and my thoughts are based purely on fiction and socialism, I must sound like a loon talking like any of this is even being discussed. Even more so after the Indigenous voice to parliament got shot down, showing that Australia isn't yet ready for supporting self determination and autonomy of the First nations.
612513@reddit
Tbh I don’t thinkGermany shouldn’t be the standard either. They’re so shackled by such a short period of their history that they don’t seem to be able to move on from it. How many generations, regardless of how far removed from the war, need to say how sorry they are?
There must be a middle ground between not taking responsibility for your actions and creating generational guilt
SurturOfMuspelheim@reddit
Germans have literally been on the wrong side of history since the 1930s. They still are. It's not just history. They continue to support genocide to this day.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
Well this is crazy coming from an American, but let’s find out more… how? How do Germans support genocide?
TheRichTurner@reddit
The German government and a huge proportion of the German people are fully supportive of the genocide being committed right now in Palestine.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
Why do you suppose that is?
TheRichTurner@reddit
I think it's because the German government has misunderstood the lesson of history.
They seem to have held on to the idea that racism and genocide are bad but narrowed it down to their own specific experience. So the motto became "Don't be nasty to Jews". Now they've narrowed it down even further to mean "Be nice to Israel".
They've somehow not noticed the 180⁰ turn that global politics has taken under their feet, which has turned Israel into the new Nazi country that's committing genocide.
They've always tended to be a little bit literal-minded, the Germans. They don't seem to fully grasp the idea that "the map is not the territory". I think that's fair to say. And you can say what you like about the British, as it's probably also true.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
Good last minute acknowledgement there haha
But yeah this is really how it appears to me as well, I just don’t know how accurate I am
MrCharmingTaintman@reddit
I mean, Germany isnt exactly speaking out against the current genocide going on in Gaza and is actively supporting it by exporting arms to Israel.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
Do you think it is their guilt re Nazi Germany and their treatment of the Jews? Israel being the resolve after WWII. Anyway, it does seem willfully blind given recent events.
MrCharmingTaintman@reddit
That probably plays some type of role. I assume more so for citizens than for the government. For the German government it’s mostly about profit, and keeping their buddies in the defense sector happy. The economy always comes first for Germany. Fuck the people.
SurturOfMuspelheim@reddit
America is definitely on the wrong side of history, too, and has been since 1946 and before 1941... shit, and during 1941-1946, they just happened to be on both the good and bad side of history.
By consistently refusing to even admit Israels wrongdoings for one.
On 12 October 2024, Scholz stated that "there is only one place for Germany: alongside Israel," repeating that "Israel's security is a 'reason of state' for Germany."
They deny genocide in Gaza.
They cut funding for Palestinian NGOs.
They require by law that you recognize Israels right to exist to become a citizen or get a grant.
They've been arresting protestors speaking out against their support of genocide.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
I see! This is more than I know about their domestic affairs or foreign policy. Our official policy is a two-state solution but that doesn’t appear to be very successful. I do not pretend to have a solution but to deny the atrocities in the situation is outrageous. Germany are in probably the most scrutinised position in the world regarding this politically, one would think. But you’re right and I agree with you. There were more civilian deaths today; Palestinians trying to reach food and aid. The IDF are not beyond reproach simply for the fact that they’re Jewish, imho.
Squaredeal91@reddit
Germans don't have to say how sorry we are. We need to learn our history and not do it again/stand up against similar modern instances of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Sadly Germany hasn't done much to come to terms with it's genocide of the herero people, and it has been completely against calling out Israel, but it still does a better job of understanding the Holocaust than most countries do of understanding their own history
Fear_mor@reddit
Yeah but then you guys lecture the descendants of your victims about the crimes your ancestors committed against them, so it could be better tbh
Squaredeal91@reddit
What? We (Germans) lecture descendants of our victims (Jews) about the crimes committed against them (the Holocaust). Are Germans known for lecturing Jewish people about how bad the Holocaust is? I've never heard of this being an issue
Fear_mor@reddit
It’s actually shocking how clueless are, do you think Nazi Germany invaded Israel or something? It was a lot more than just Jews being killed in the holocaust. Eg. Poles, Russians, Serbs, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Roma, gay people, trans people, communists, etc.
Think those people
Squaredeal91@reddit
"How clueless are" missing a you. I'm aware there are other victims, just that the main targets of the Holocaust were Jews and you didn't specify. Anyways, you didn't really answer my question. Where is the epidemic of Germans lecturing these groups on how bad the Holocaust was. What are you even talking about 🤣
TheRichTurner@reddit
Germany doesn't have a long history of genocide because it doesn't have a long history of anything. It didn't exist before 1866. However, it got off to a running start 40 years after it's foundation with one of the most complete acts of genocide in recorded history. Between 1904 and 1908, Germany almost completely wiped out the Herero and Nama people of Namibia.
612513@reddit
The HRE revival of 962 was the start of Germany as a “state”, though if you want to get pedantic you could argue it became Germany when it was renamed to “The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” in 1512.
You can’t start all of German history at the point of confederation, which only came about because of its fracturing by the dissolution of the HRE by napoleon. Thats like saying English history started in 927 with the creation of the kingdom of England and unification of Wessex, Northumbria, Mercia etc.
With that thought process, the modern Germany only has a history from 1949, as the current Federal Republic of Germany is technically a different entity to the German Reich.
As for those killings, I won’t defend them, but I could probably list on my hands the number of countries in the 1800s that hadn’t undertaken mass killings (America, UK, France, Belgium, Japan, China, Russia…..). Germany wasn’t unique at all, it was the behaviour of the time.
Lizardledgend@reddit
One can absolutely single Germany out as one can single the rest on. Individual attricities can be talked about on their own without needing to being up "bu- bu- but everyone else was doing it!"
HalfLeper@reddit
Just wanna point out that the way you’ve phrased it makes it sound like the countries you’re listing are the ones who hadn’t committed mass killings, rather than their largest perpetrators.
ebekulak@reddit
Germans are not sorry at all tho. They are only sorry for killing another group of white people using the methods that are a-OK to be inflicted upon non-whites. If Germany focused its genocidal campaign on Romanis, Homosexuals, Poles, and etc no one would bat an eye and Adolf would be revered among his equals such as Churchill, King Leopold, and so forth
Pick_Scotland1@reddit
Poles are white people
most people who think of the holocaust do think of the gays Romanis disabled people and other political prisoners sent to the camps
ebekulak@reddit
sigh ya boi Adolf considered Poles along with other Eastern European nations as inferior, and that sentiment was, and still today is, not a uniquely Nazi sentiment.
Congratz on the most people, that’s what any person with a gram of backbone should be doing. But if you think the European national & international politics, and mass media gives two flying fucks about them, there’s approximately 70+ years worthy of global media and politics that says otherwise.
greendayshoes@reddit
I'm genuinely confused about what point you are trying to make here?
That bigotry still exists? we all know that.
decimeci@reddit
Dude is trying to prove that Jews were considered more white than Polish people
Pick_Scotland1@reddit
Shockingly most Europeans don’t take the views of Nazi race categorisations as the majority of Europe doesn’t like hitler or the Nazis
Which media? History books don’t forget them school textbooks don’t forget them
dog_shit666@reddit
Lol Australia didn't colonise itself? Was it not British fleets that landed? Is the union jack not on the flag?
LastAccountPlease@reddit
Australia didn't colonise itself lmao. What's wrong with people on this platform, some sort of downs? Like literally, the BRITISH who arrived are NOW Australians. Yet the Australian blame the British, as if its people other than themselves. The British didn't just genocide then go home. Jesus
Zran@reddit
For a lot of the convicts they either came here or were sentenced to capital punishment, not much of a choice eh? Go to a strange new land and have a chance of living tomorrow or die today.
At the time British jails were over capacity due to the loss of America as a place to send them. What choice would you have made?
LastAccountPlease@reddit
Irrelevant to the point entirely. If you look at the UK now and Australia now, seems like a good deal tbh
Zran@reddit
It is not irrelevant at all. Many early "Australians" had no realistic choice in the matter. So I'll repeat the entirely relevant question what choice would you make die today by execution or potentially live albeit an entirely new life in a savage land? Why is it Australians no matter their origins, that must answer and not the British Crown which technically still rules the land?
LastAccountPlease@reddit
Im so glad I moved out of Australia, it got to the point that I started counting the intellectual conversations I had a month there. Literally happier living in any other country.
Drab_Majesty@reddit
I am gonna have to assume the intellectual conversations were being had without you...
lithiumcitizen@reddit
Thanks, we’re all happy that you did too.
LastAccountPlease@reddit
And 99% of British people had not only no impact on what happened in colonies, but also no impact on Australia. I'd argue that random prisoners who got a new life in the country, would have had much more impact than a random "British" person.
TheRichTurner@reddit
It's the British ruling class who did this. They did as much of their shit as they could get away with to indigenous people everywhere they could, including the indigenous British. They even sentenced some of the poor buggers to hard labour in Australia.
SongFeisty8759@reddit
Um... I can tell you for a fact we don't blame the English , we know it was us.
Intelligent_Key_3806@reddit
Yeah this is the first I’ve heard of this lol. Coming from ppl who aren’t Australian.. as though we aren’t collectively aware of it every Australia Day. We know.
fluffychonkycat@reddit
Wouldn't it have been heavily influenced by British policy at the time? The highest authority at the time would have been the British Crown. Not all of the people making decisions about Australia's future would have actually settled in Australia permanently and some probably never even visited. Being a kiwi I'm more familiar with how things went down in NZ and during the Victorian era we basically had a succession of governors shipped over from the UK and they reported to the British crown. A lot of the money made out of colonization also flowed back to people in the UK via businesses like The New Zealand Company.
nufan86@reddit
You have zero brains.
Human-Mind100@reddit
54 percent of Australians identify as 'Anglo-Celtic' that's at least half the population from the British Isles.
I'm Australian of entirely British ancestry and I usually put 'Australian ethnicity (non indigenous) on the census and many others do. All of my great grandparents were born in Australia.
The point is a significant amount of white Australians are partially or entirely descendants of English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish and Cornish heritage aka British (except Ireland).
teslawhaleshark@reddit
Some re-settled from America, Herbert Hoover could have become Australian if he applied during his miner days
Critical-Bread-3396@reddit
Saying that the Australians committed genocide against the aboriginals would imply that aboriginals aren't proper Australians.
CannerCanCan@reddit
Nations often perpetrate genocide against their own people. However, until 1948, there were no Australian citizens. We were all British.
Standard-Ad-4077@reddit
Talk about a hot take lol.
You could post this in r/unpopularopinion and would get top post of the decade.
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
Half of our population was either born overseas or one of our parents were.
FilthyWubs@reddit
And who are Australian ancestors? Predominantly British as an Australian identity, culture and country did not yet exist. Not that I’m (Aussie) blaming Brits for this, but it’s a pretty moot point.
SongFeisty8759@reddit
Yep, when I saw the headline I immediately thought it wasn't the English.. it was us.
Palpitation-Itchy@reddit
Log off for a bit
Zran@reddit
You say that like our ancestors all wanted to be here. I literally have in my family tree convicts and those who were meant to keep them in line. Neither wanted to be here one side had no choice the other followed orders which if they didn't they would have simply become the other or worse so that wasn't much of a choice either. So yes I do blame the British rulers of the time, but not the common folk.
Realistically the Indigenous should be putting this to the British Crown as when these things happened Australia was naught but a name and not even a dream. Not so coincidentally to these specific finding a disproportionate amount of British Nobility founded Melbourne, compared to other capital cities.
RGB755@reddit
… and also the current British ancestors. Your distinction is nonsense.
How about this: the British from a few hundred years back genocides the fuck out of lots of people, including indigenous Australians.
pimmen89@reddit
Raphael Lemkin was so disappointed in the final convention on genocide that the UN drafted, since it was so watered down. The European colonial powers, the US, and the USSR realized that their purges, forced displacements, massacres, kidnapping of children, and population control of undesirables would qualify as genocide under Lemkin’s original definition, especially Europe’s colonial history, so they watered it down so that they could call Germany’s actions genocide but not be accused of genocide themselves.
I’m happy that we are progressing, even if it’s at glacial speed and with countries like Israel and China still being brazen enough to commit genocide in broad daylight.
RBZRBZRBZRBZ@reddit
I wholeheartedly agree that such a scale of death and destruction is genocide. Numbers matter
75% of aboriginal people
Like the 70% of the Rwandan Genocide
And the 70% of the Holocaust
And the 90(!)% of the Russian genocide of the Circassians
And the 90(!)% of the Turkish genocide of the Armenians
But not like the 4% of the Syrian civil war
And not like the 3.5% of the Israel Gaza war
Or the 3% of the Russia/Ukraine war
pimmen89@reddit
Numbers don’t matter in the definition, that’s why the ICJ judged that the Bosnian genocide that only killed around 1% of Bosnians was still a genocide.
AustinYQM@reddit
Can you give me an example of what he wanted in the definition that didn't make it? I've tried looking it up but all I found so far is that he pushed for "political groups" to be considered and not much else.
pimmen89@reddit
The main problem was that it was too vague and broad, which can make it next to impossible to argue. For example, section C of the definition;
”(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”
Is famine that only afflicts a target one group something that falls under this section? In that case, the Irish potato famine, Bengal famine, Holodomor, and the famines that ravaged Indian reservations in the US are considered genocide but it’s so vague that the great powers were able to argue that they were in the clear. That’s how Israel is able to skirt around the genocide accusations too.
Lemkin however made it abundantly clear that yes, government engineered famines that only target one group is indeed genocide.
AustinYQM@reddit
Gotcha. I don't have a vast history of famines but I think I would agree that a famine that was caused intentionally, say by cutting off the water supply to a country, with the intent of harming a specific group.
A famine without intention even if through the actions of another would be more questionable. Such as a blight affecting the crops of one country while another country refuses to help them. Certainly bad, evil even, but not genocide.
(Any relation to actual events is incidental, all examples fabricated from thin air for illustrative purposes.)
pimmen89@reddit
Yeah, intent is a big part of the convention. When it comes to the Irish potato famine for example, historians who ague that it's a genocide point to the correspondence within the British government that references Malthusian theory and that the Irish needed a famine to learn how to sustain themselves. They argue that withholding aid had the intention to cause the Irish population to be destroyed in part to "teach them a lesson", and thus would qualify.
A famine happening somewhere that you can stop but is just not a priority would be harder case to argue for sure. I would argue that the Bengal famine qualifies, I'm not an expert on famines either, but to me the Irish potato famine looks a lot more like a stronger case because Churchill's priority of sending crops to the military worsened the famine but I wouldn't argue that it was genocidal. Evil though, like you said.
AustinYQM@reddit
Taking what you've said as truth (and I'm not arguing it isn't) I'd come to the same conclusion around the Irish potatoes famine. Destroying in part even if the desired outcome is for the remaining to improve, having "learned a lesson", is still the goal of destroying in part.
HalfLeper@reddit
If I recall correctly, they also did the same with “colonialism” so that Russia and China wouldn’t be on the hook.
Randthrowaway975@reddit
I wholeheartedly agree that such a scale of death and destruction is genocide. Numbers matter
75% of aboriginal people
Like the 70% of the Rwandan Genocide
And the 70% of the Holocaust
And the 90(!)% of the Russian genocide of the Circassians
And the 90(!)% of the Turkish genocide of the Armenians
But not like the 4% of the Syrian civil war
And not like the 3.5% of the Israel Gaza war
Or the 3% of the Russia/Ukraine war
LeGrandLucifer@reddit
Is that surprising? I'm told a slur for aborigines is "boongs" and it supposedly comes from the sound it makes from running one over in a pickup truck. I've never heard of any other ethnicity having a slur like that which is just a reference to killing them. I can't imagine the utter contempt the colonists must have had for them.
joedude@reddit
Lol it was less than 20 years ago when they finally stopped slaughtering and displacing them piecemeal.
They're by far the worst treated aboriginal group on earth.
JimmyTheBones@reddit
Definition 2 is pretty horrific
the_snook@reddit
Please employ a little bit of critical thinking before repeating such nonsense. Yes that word exists, but the supposed etymology you've given is just a hateful, racist "joke" told by racist arseholes for the amusement of other racist arseholes.
The origin of the word is unknown, but first appears in print in 1914, well before the invention of the pickup truck (or the ute, which is what an actual Australian would call that type of vehicle).
LeGrandLucifer@reddit
Well that's a bit reassuring then.
ComfortableDesk8201@reddit
I'm Australian and I have never heard that term.
PotsAndPandas@reddit
AFAIK it's the sort of thing you wouldn't hear unless you lived in proper rural areas.
butterfunke@reddit
I've heard the slur plenty (unfortunately) but never the etymology. Sounds made up, probably much more likely it's just derived from aboriginal
Outrageous-Unit-305@reddit
An old term for African american children in southern USA 'gator bait
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alligator_bait
C3PO-Leader@reddit
As diversity increases, politics becomes more tribalistic. Link. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/business/economy/racial-identity-and-its-hostilities-return-to-american-politics.html?_r=0
empleadoEstatalBot@reddit
Maintainer | Source Code | Stats
ThatHeckinFox@reddit
This... Needed an inquiry?
MrsKittenHeel@reddit
They did. I’m Australian. My ancestors should be ashamed of themselves. The British monarchy sent criminals over here, and then freed them and used them to colonise the country and genocide the locals. Our history is written in the blood of aboriginal people. Lots of Australians don’t like to hear it, but it’s true.
sarcasmusex@reddit
Are there reparations discussed? Also, interesting enough, while this comes out, Australia is supporting Israel in yet another genocide. How these countries close their eyes for some wealth 🤑
formula-duck@reddit
To be clear, this inquiry was done by the State government of Victoria, which does not dictate foreign policy.