[anarchist23]

He told me he has encountered a lot of casual racism similar to that in the UK 30 years ago. Judging from asylum seeker policies I'd say that Australia is significantly more racist than Europe.

^
This is a sad but a true fact.
Where is the support for the "underdog" that Australians are famous for??

[Decky]

The only thing Austrailians are famous for being is drunk.

[Pants-of-dog]

There was. Not all wars are fought with trenches.

Go ahead and quote the relevant text that supports your claim.

I'm not talking about individuals when I say might makes right. I'm talking about the creation of moral systems on a societal level. All moral codes stem from a central authority that has the power to enforce them on the population.

For more information, read Foucault.

So, might makes right always when we are in one of Foucault's books. Got it.

The Westphalian system is an arrangement of international relations that holds that states have supreme authority within their own borders. This system was in place until the 1920s and the Treaty of Versaille, as a consequence of the religious wars in Europe.

Under an internationalist system, international laws, such as human rights or the prohibition of genocide, can be enforced by external actors, such as the UN or, more practically, the USA. State authority is not supreme over certain international agreements, and states which violate them lose their legitimacy. Under a Westphalian system, this would not occur - if Australia wanted to torture and exterminate every last aboriginal, no foreign power would have any right to intervene for any reason at any time.

As a result, Australia only has to tolerate the Aboriginals until that window of time when no major power has an established global hegemony.

So it's not on topic. Got it.

Sure.

Well, it isn't funny, so your point is not coming across.

[Fasces]

Go ahead and quote the relevant text that supports your claim.

War on drugs.

War on poverty.

War on crime.

War on cancer.

War on Christmas.

The culture war.

On topic: How about the Black War?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_War

So, might makes right always when we are in one of Foucault's books. Got it.

Maybe you should read more books.

So it's not on topic. Got it.

loooooooooool

Well, it isn't funny, so your point is not coming across.

I think that's on you, bro.

[Pants-of-dog]

War on drugs.

War on poverty.

War on crime.

War on cancer.

War on Christmas.

The culture war.

Then you agree that the term "war" is used too much and the claim that Australia belongs to settlers because of right of conquest is wrong.

Maybe you should read more books.

And maybe you should read them more critically.

loooooooooool
I think that's on you, bro.

[Fasces]

Then you agree that the term "war" is used too much and the claim that Australia belongs to settlers because of right of conquest is wrong.

Nope. The Black War was real. Aborigines lost.

You may as well claim there was no war on Aztecs or the Plains Indians, if there was no war with the aborigines.

Anyway, not all conquest is violent - though this one was. See the Ottomans, or the Austrians.

And maybe you should read them more critically.

Maybe you should actually offer a criticism beyond "its a book"?

[Pants-of-dog]

Nope. The Black War was real. Aborigines lost.

That was Tasmania.

You may as well claim there was no war on Aztecs or the Plains Indians, if there was no war with the aborigines.

There wasn't one.

Anyway, not all conquest is violent - though this one was. See the Ottomans, or the Austrians.

For the Right of Conquest to apply, it needs military occupation. Glad we agree that this is not the case.

Maybe you should actually offer a criticism beyond "its a book"?

And why should I offer more than a dismissive quip when you are obviously trolling and this whole "might makes right" tangent is unimportant?

[Fasces]

That was Tasmania.

Is Tasmania not part of the Australian commonwealth/society?

News to me.

For the Right of Conquest to apply, it needs military occupation. Glad we agree that this is not the case.

Yeah, white Australians don't have a military and they don't occupy the land, OK.

And why should I offer more than a dismissive quip when you are obviously trolling and this whole "might makes right" tangent is unimportant?

It isn't unimportant. This entire article and discussion is about the treatment of the aboriginal people by Australians.

The Australians have the might to treat the aboriginals however they want. No peoples have any inherent rights - only that which they create for themselves and which they can enforce against others. The aborigines are not a sovereign people - they are dependent on the goodwill of the Anglo Australian people, a goodwill that isn't required and which can be rescinded by Anglo Australian society.

[colliric]

And that link does nto mention a war or military occupation. It talks mostly about massacres and brutal police forces. Thank you for supporting my point.

Feel free to quote the text that describes the war and the military occupation.

No. Neither side was an organised military force nor was there any military occupation.

Besides, even the Crown does not claim Australia through right of conquest. Instead, they claim that that no humans were living in Australia, since the Aborigines did not put up fences the same way that Brits did.

If you'd bothered to read the whole page and not only the intro, you would have read this

It may be inaccurate, however, to depict the conflict as one sided and mainly perpetrated by Europeans on Indigenous Australians. Although many more died than Europeans, some cases of mass killing were not massacres but military defeats, and this may have had more to do with the technological and logistic advantages enjoyed by Europeans.

In otherwords, it was partly organised warfare, and may be inaccurate to describe as otherwise.

Try reading the wiki article linked to above.

Yes, and you should read the entire article....

Both of you are in the wrong.

There were unjust massacres and there was also open warfare over landownership in which the Aboriginal aggressors were defeated.

Some were victims of massacre, others died in battle and killed 2500 Europeans.

[colliric]

That was Tasmania.

Lol.... I bet you don't even realise New Guinea was an occupied Australian Territory at the time it was attacked and invaded by the Japanese?

As in they invaded an Australian Territory... As in Warfare has occurred on what was at the time occupied "Australian Soil".

Man I really dislike "No war has ever occurred on Australian soil" enthusiasts.

They treat Tassie as not part of the country and don't realise PNG was under Australian occupation at the time the Japanese attacked it.

What is this bullshit they teach in schools these days???

[Bounce]

What is this bullshit they teach in schools these days???

PoD isn't Australian. He's Canadian I believe. He also wants to be the torch bearer for the 'antiracist' and colonially disposed.

I don't know how PoD expects society to merge non-modern cultures into modern organisation. If I remember properly, the USSR had this problem with their eastern tribes and dealt with the issue by providing education and allowing voluntary assimilation.

The industrialisation of the world is not something that is going to leave. Thus, these cultures will have to change in order to access these productive forces (or not and remain in a state of poverty).

The first form of ownership is tribal [Stammeigentum] ownership. It corresponds to the undeveloped stage of production, at which a people lives by hunting and fishing, by the rearing of beasts or, in the highest stage, agriculture. In the latter case it presupposes a great mass of uncultivated stretches of land. The division of labour is at this stage still very elementary and is confined to a further extension of the natural division of labour existing in the family. The social structure is, therefore, limited to an extension of the family; patriarchal family chieftains, below them the members of the tribe, finally slaves. The slavery latent in the family only develops gradually with the increase of population, the growth of wants, and with the extension of external relations, both of war and of barter.
[....]
The production of life, both of one’s own in labour and of fresh life in procreation, now appears as a double relationship: on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relationship. By social we understand the co-operation of several individuals, no matter under what conditions, in what manner and to what end. It follows from this that a certain mode of production, or industrial stage, is always combined with a certain mode of co-operation, or social stage, and this mode of co-operation is itself a “productive force.” Further, that the multitude of productive forces accessible to men determines the nature of society, hence, that the “history of humanity” must always be studied and treated in relation to the history of industry and exchange.

I do recognise that the position of the first Australian's has been forced upon them (dispossession, death, ect...). (I'm also unsure how to approach the issue other than providing better schools and job prospects that aren't really there). However, as a broader issue I don't see how the social organisation of some cultures can work in modern society.

[Maas]

The Australians have the might to treat the aboriginals however they want. No peoples have any inherent rights - only that which they create for themselves and which they can enforce against others. The aborigines are not a sovereign people - they are dependent on the goodwill of the Anglo Australian people, a goodwill that isn't required and which can be rescinded by Anglo Australian society.

People do have rights, simply because they are people. That "goodwill" you speak off is actually a demand by their own law and international law. Those laws come from a world wide accepted norms about how to behave towards others even when they are different. Does this ring a bell somewhere Fasces?


While might doesn't make it right. Might makes it that they can get away with it eventhough it's to the total disgust of everybody. And "everybody" gets to say what is right, "everybody" gets to economically bully and mock the warcriminal.

[Pants-of-dog]

Is Tasmania not part of the Australian commonwealth/society?

News to me.

Feel free to describe how a four year war on another island somehow make the Right of Conquest applicable.

Yeah, white Australians don't have a military and they don't occupy the land, OK.

I assume you are trolling because I know you are not this stupid.

It isn't unimportant. This entire article and discussion is about the treatment of the aboriginal people by Australians.

And the concept of might makes right applies how, exactly?

The Australians have the might to treat the aboriginals however they want. No peoples have any inherent rights - only that which they create for themselves and which they can enforce against others. The aborigines are not a sovereign people - they are dependent on the goodwill of the Anglo Australian people, a goodwill that isn't required and which can be rescinded by Anglo Australian society.

Australia is a liberal democracy. Please rethink your post in this light.

---------------

If you'd bothered to read the whole page and not only the intro, you would have read this

It may be inaccurate, however, to depict the conflict as one sided and mainly perpetrated by Europeans on Indigenous Australians. Although many more died than Europeans, some cases of mass killing were not massacres but military defeats, and this may have had more to do with the technological and logistic advantages enjoyed by Europeans.

In otherwords, it was partly organised warfare, and may be inaccurate to describe as otherwise.

And that does not make it a military conquest and occupation.

Yes, and you should read the entire article....

Both of you are in the wrong.

There were unjust massacres and there was also open warfare over landownership in which the Aboriginal aggressors were defeated.

Some were victims of massacre, others died in battle and killed 2500 Europeans.

For the nth time, this is meaningless since the Crown does not and did not claim Australia through Right of Conquest.

Lol.... I bet you don't even realise New Guinea was an occupied Australian Territory at the time it was attacked and invaded by the Japanese?

As in they invaded an Australian Territory... As in Warfare has occurred on what was at the time occupied "Australian Soil".

Man I really dislike "No war has ever occurred on Australian soil" enthusiasts.

They treat Tassie as not part of the country and don't realise PNG was under Australian occupation at the time the Japanese attacked it.

What is this bullshit they teach in schools these days???

Don't you have a movie to criticise instead of going on about an unimportant tangent?

-------------

PoD isn't Australian. He's Canadian I believe. He also wants to be the torch bearer for the 'antiracist' and colonially disposed.

I don't know how PoD expects society to merge non-modern cultures into modern organisation. If I remember properly, the USSR had this problem with their eastern tribes and dealt with the issue by providing education and allowing voluntary assimilation.

The industrialisation of the world is not something that is going to leave. Thus, these cultures will have to change in order to access these productive forces (or not and remain in a state of poverty).

You could ask me what I think instead of bringing up irrelevant Marxism, or (incorrectly) assuming that I (or Aboriginal people) am against industrialisation.

[Fasces]

That "goodwill" you speak off is actually a demand by their own law and international law.

Law are norms which are enforced through the use of coercive forces, often violent.

Feel free to describe how a four year war on another island somehow make the Right of Conquest applicable.

Aboriginals ran Australia.

Aboriginals were slaughtered in the thousands.

White people now run Australia.

Conquest.

After all, the Australian legal system recognizes that Aboriginals had land rights (Mabo, etc), and thus the occupation of the land by English settlers constitutes an annexation. Or was Australia terra nullis, in which case the indigenous had no rights to the land at all and absolutely no basis on which to complain about the presence of Anglo settlers on soil they traditionally inhabited?

And that does not make it a military conquest and occupation.

What is your definition for conquest (not military, YOU added that one, quietly shifting the goal posts) and occupation?

I assume you are trolling because I know you are not this stupid.

I didn't realize that the idea that the government of the Australian Commonwealth - which does not represent the interests of the Aboriginal people - occupies a certain geographic territory and protects that territorial integrity with a military force which occupies land within that area was a controversial idea.

And the concept of might makes right applies how, exactly?

Because Aboriginals deserve to go extinct and that's OK.

Australia is a liberal democracy. Please rethink your post in this light.

That's irrelevant. Australia is a liberal democracy in 2012. My entire point is that governing forces can change over time. Mabo and cases like it only matter as long as the Australian government says it matters.

The fact that you seem to believe that contemporary ethical norms and political systems are eternal and unchanging is hilarious.

[colliric]

^
PoD
There is much merit in what you are saying.

There is also much sillyness.

Tasmania isn't just "another Island", it is an Australian State. Things that happen in Tasmania, happen on Australian soil, IN AUSTRALIA!

It has equal representation in the upper house of Australia as the other states do.

[Maas]

Law are norms which are enforced through the use of coercive forces, often violent.

Correction: People who use violence with breaking norms / laws reviece a heck of a lot of violence.

And still it has nothing to do with "goodwill". It's rather well established world wide norm to not mistreat others because they are different. Also in Australia. Your personal opinion becomes out matched by the masses and so irrelevant. Better wake up in reality.

[Fasces]

People who use violence with breaking norms / laws reviece a heck of a lot of violence.

So the use of violence, or the threat of it, is used to enforce behavioral norms. Glad we concur.

It's rather well established world wide norm to not mistreat others because they are different.

Well established? Global? The last recognized genocide was less than a decade ago. Omar al-Bashir is still in office and more popular than ever. Clearly the northern Sudanese muslims who form his support base have absolutely no qualm with mistreating the people of Darfur for being different.

This isn't just a "savages" problem. Less than twenty years ago, plenty of white Europeans were slaughtering each other for being different in the Balkans. Today, Ukraine is a hotbed of "mistreating people for being different" with widespread support for doing so among the members of the respective factions.

[Decky]

I really don't understand why you people bother with him, he will even claim that Tasmania isn't part of Australia to try and win when he is pinned down. If you confront him with objective facts he just ignores than carries on acting as if he had disproved them (rather than having just ignored them or moved the goalposts), it is a total waste of your time.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

I really don't understand why you people bother with him, he will even claim that Tasmania isn't part of Australia to try and win when he is pinned down. If you confront him with objective facts he just ignores than carries on acting as if he had disproved them (rather than having just ignored them or moved the goalposts), it is a total waste of your time.

This is not logical. Do you have evidence and the proper citations to support this statement?

[Pants-of-dog]

Aboriginals ran Australia.

Aboriginals were slaughtered in the thousands.

White people now run Australia.

Conquest.

Fasces, at least pretend to have a smattering of knowledge if you are going to troll me.

After all, the Australian legal system recognizes that Aboriginals had land rights (Mabo, etc), and thus the occupation of the land by English settlers constitutes an annexation. Or was Australia terra nullis, in which case the indigenous had no rights to the land at all and absolutely no basis on which to complain about the presence of Anglo settlers on soil they traditionally inhabited?

I have a suggestion. Read the links already provided, or my posts, where I discuss it.

What is your definition for conquest (not military, YOU added that one, quietly shifting the goal posts) and occupation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_conquest

After the attempted conquests of Napoleon and up to the attempted conquests of Hitler, the disposition of territory acquired under the principle of conquest had to, according to international law, be conducted according to the existing laws of war. This meant that there had to be military occupation followed by a peace settlement. If there was a territorial cession, then there had to be a formal peace treaty.

In post-World War II times, when the international community frowned on wars of aggression, not all wars involving territorial acquisitions ended in a peace treaty. For example, the fighting in the Korean War ended in an armistice, without any peace treaty covering it.

I didn't realize that the idea that the government of the Australian Commonwealth - which does not represent the interests of the Aboriginal people - occupies a certain geographic territory and protects that territorial integrity with a military force which occupies land within that area was a controversial idea.

Let me know when you get to the part where you realise the Crown never claimed right of conquest, and thus also realise that this whole tangent is useless.

And no, there was never a nation-wide military occupation of Australia by British Forces in a war against the Aboriginals.

Because Aboriginals deserve to go extinct and that's OK.

Since you're a moderator (or admin, whatever), I am not going to bother trying to get you on a rule 3 violation, but this is one if I ever saw one.

That's irrelevant. Australia is a liberal democracy in 2012. My entire point is that governing forces can change over time. Mabo and cases like it only matter as long as the Australian government says it matters.

Well, then your point might be applicable when the fascists (who have less power in Australia than the Aborigines) come to power.

The fact that you seem to believe that contemporary ethical norms and political systems are eternal and unchanging is hilarious.

The fact that you think that about me shows that you have not paying attention to my views on the cultural origin of rights.

------------------

here is also much sillyness.

Tasmania isn't just "another Island", it is an Australian State. Things that happen in Tasmania, happen on Australian soil, IN AUSTRALIA!

It has equal representation in the upper house of Australia as the other states do.

Feel free to describe how a four year war on another island somehow make the Right of Conquest applicable.

Also, this is meaningless since the Crown does not and did not claim Australia through Right of Conquest.