[Fasces]

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

I'm not the one half the forum makes jokes about here.

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

So it wasn't terra nullis. You can now respond to the rest of that statement.

After the attempted conquests of Napoleon and up to the attempted conquests of Hitler,

So your definition is limited to the dates between 1815 and 1945.

You do know Australia was settled by then, right?

Let me know when you get to the part where you realise the Crown never claimed right of conquest

The occupation of Australia predated the "right of conquest" under your definition. Your request is fundamentally absurd.

You may as well ask for proof that James I used radio.

there was never a nation-wide military occupation of Australia by British Forces in a war against the Aboriginals.

Yes, there was. It was called New South Wales. A state being, after all, a government with a monopoly over the legitimate use of force, and thus by definition militant.

Unless that was also the aboriginal name for it?

But anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathurst_War

This conflict literally instituted martial law over Australian territory.

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.

It would be a rule three violation if I said it was OK because they were of inferior gender, race, etc. which I did. It is OK, not because they're black, but because they were unable to compete against other societies. This has nothing to do with their faith, culture, race, etc.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm not the one half the forum makes jokes about here.

You win the popularity contest, I guess. Should we try to have a decent discussion now?

So it wasn't terra nullis. You can now respond to the rest of that statement.

Try rereading the link and my posts.

So your definition is limited to the dates between 1815 and 1945.

You do know Australia was settled by then, right?

Let me know when you get to the part where you realise the Crown never claimed right of conquest.

The occupation of Australia predated the "right of conquest" under your definition. Your request is fundamentally absurd.

You may as well ask for proof that James I used radio.

So, if the right of conquest did not exist at the time of Australian settlement, we can then agree that the right of conquest has no application to the settlement of Australia.

Yes, there was. It was called New South Wales. A state being, after all, a government with a monopoly over the legitimate use of force, and thus by definition militant.

Unless that was also the aboriginal name for it?

By that definition, all gov'ts are military dictatorships. Well done.

But anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathurst_War

This conflict literally instituted martial law over Australian territory.

Please quote the relevant text. Thank you.

It would be a rule three violation if I said it was OK because they were of inferior gender, race, etc. which I did. It is OK, not because they're black, but because they were unable to compete against other societies. This has nothing to do with their faith, culture, race, etc.

You supporting the genocide of a race seems like a rule three violation, but it's off topic and I don't really care.

[Fasces]

we can then agree that the right of conquest has no application

You're the only guy here talking about the "right of conquest." Stop shifting the goddamn goalposts for once.

I said they got conquered, the "act of the subjugation of an enemy by force".

By that definition, all gov'ts are military dictatorships

Dictatorships? No. Where did you get dictatorships from?

I love how you add little words like this to statements that don't need them, and then proceed to argue against those little words you chose to add in the first place like it matters.

Please quote the relevant text. Thank you.

Click on the link that says Proclamation of Martial law, bro.

It's even in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS.

NOW THEREFORE, by Virtue of the Authority in me vested by His Majesty's Royal Commission, I do declare, in Order to restore Tranquillity, MARTIAL LAW TO BE IN ALL THE COUNTRY WESTWARD OF MOUNT YORK

I'll draw it for you:



Everything left of the line.

Love that we're no longer arguing there has never been a war on Australian soil though.

You supporting the genocide of a race seems like a rule three violation, but it's off topic and I don't really care.

If you think there has been a rules violation, please report it in the Basement.

[Pants-of-dog]

You're the only guy here talking about the "right of conquest." Stop shifting the goddamn goalposts for once.

I said they got conquered, the "act of the subjugation of an enemy by force of arms".

I am not sure that they were conquered by force of arms. I assume they were dispossessed of the lands (rather than conquered) through multiple means including disease, rapacious settlement by settlers, force of arms, welshing on contracts, outright thievery, laws passed without Aboriginal consultation, and steps to destroy Aboriginal cultures.

Dictatorships? No. Where did you get dictatorships from?

I love how you add little words like this to statements that don't need them, and then proceed to argue against those little words you chose to add in the first place like it matters.

How silly of me.

Click on the link that says Proclamation of Martial law, bro.

It's even in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS.

NOW THEREFORE, by Virtue of the Authority in me vested by His Majesty's Royal Commission, I do declare, in Order to restore Tranquillity, MARTIAL LAW TO BE IN ALL THE COUNTRY WESTWARD OF MOUNT YORK

Since Trudeau declared martial law in Quebec, Canada gained ownership of Quebec through right of conquest in October of 1970. Got it.

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

You know, trolling is much funnier when you get pedantic about an unimportant detail, or you troll the status quo or privileged people. If you troll oppressed and marginalised peoples, it kinda comes off looking a little less "funny" and more "unoriginal racism".

I just thought you might like to know because you are usually careful to distance yourself from the racist aspects of fascism.

[Fasces]

Since Trudeau declared martial law in Quebec, Canada gained ownership of Quebec through right of conquest in October of 1970. Got it.

I'm not talking about the international law concept of right of conquest, you are.

The point about martial law is a counter to your claim that there was never a military occupation of Australia in a war against the Aboriginals.

Do I need to remind you what you said?

You know, trolling is much funnier when you get pedantic about an unimportant detail, or you troll the status quo or privileged people. If you troll oppressed and marginalised peoples, it kinda comes off looking a little less "funny" and more "unoriginal racism".

They can't possibly be oppressed or marginalized as they were never conquered.

[Solastalgia]

Fasces, you really have a distorted world view, to be completely honest. Your denial of the oppression/marginalization of Australian aboriginals is just ridiculous. You must be trolling, or you really are a closet racist that's having trouble coming to terms with it.

[ThirdTerm]

The Frontier Wars in Australia that lasted for 140 years were mostly minor skirmishes between white settlers and Australian Aboriginals and punitive expeditions were undertaken against particular Aboriginal tribes responsible for killing cattle and sheep belonging to white farmers. Frontier farms were vulnerable to such attacks aiming at discouraging white settlers from moving deeper into Aboriginal lands but most Australian Aboriginals avoided conflict with white settlers by moving further inland as they were far from warlike tribes ready to fight to the last man. Massacres were sometimes committed as a result of overreaction to Aboriginals' guerilla tactics that annoyed settler communities and the British Empire rarely resorted to this type of use of force.

The Frontier Wars began in 1790 when Bidgigal resistance hero Pemulwuy (c1750–1802) killed Governor Phillip's convict gamekeeper near Sydney. In response, Phillip ordered a punitive expedition to bring back any six Bidgigal or their heads. The expedition was a failure, though Phillip's order presaged countless such wanton reprisals against Australia's Indigenous people for the next 140 years. During this period there were violent confrontations and massacres across the continent. Many Europeans were ruined through despair and bankruptcy following Aboriginal raids on crops, huts and livestock. Native peoples fought the invaders on a tribe by tribe basis because each of them was a sovereign people defending their land. In a battle between the Duangwurrung people and George Faithful's party near Benalla in 1838, natives killed eight of his men. Faithful wrote of Aboriginal women and children running between his horse's legs to retrieve spears. Frontier conflict was the most persistent feature of Australian life for 140 years. This was an inescapable consequence of the invasion and colonisation of the continent. The invaders saw no need to negotiate purchase of land or make treaties as they had done in North America and New Zealand. Historians generally regard the Frontier Wars to have ended in 1928 with the killing of a large number of Warlpiri people (officially 30) by a police punitive party at Coniston, NT, in response to the death of a white man. Australian historian Henry Reynolds estimates conservatively that frontier violence caused around 2000 European deaths while Indigenous deaths were at least ten times that number. In his recent book, Forgotten War (Newsouth 2013), he says that in recent times, Australian military historians have followed the lead of conventional historians in acknowledging the Frontier Wars.
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=38789#.U36hIvmSxMU

[Bounce]

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

Perhaps you could do the opposite of what you usually done and engage with the topic and explain how you would deal with the issues.

[layman]

Your denial of the oppression/marginalization of Australian aboriginals is just ridiculous.

Are we reading the same argument here

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm not talking about the international law concept of right of conquest, you are.

The point about martial law is a counter to your claim that there was never a military occupation of Australia in a war against the Aboriginals.

Do I need to remind you what you said?

This is all a meaningless tangent. Yes, the Crown military occupied certain small portions of Australia for brief moments during the century and a half of settlement. This is not, as we seem to agree, enough to establish a right of conquest. And it is meaningless because the Crown never claimed right of conquest.

They can't possibly be oppressed or marginalized as they were never conquered.

If you were not conquered militarily, but you were dispossessed of your land, had your children taken away from you, been targetted for cultural genocide, had the gov't lie to you and steal your stuff, and were unable to access health and education services as freely as the majority, would you be oppressed or marginalised?

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

Perhaps you could do the opposite of what you usually done and engage with the topic and explain how you would deal with the issues.

You seem to be discussing me instead of the topic. Irony.

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

Your denial of the oppression/marginalization of Australian aboriginals is just ridiculous.

Are we reading the same argument here :?:

Fasces is obviously trolling. He has been open about his disdain for racism before, and a cursory examination of his actual political beliefs would show that he probably supports Aboriginal sovereignty. His satirisation of my position seems to be more about getting a rise out of me than it is about claiming that the Aborigines are not mistreated.

He is correct that there were military ventures during the settlement period and those contributed to the current oppression of Aborigines. I am pointing out that while this is true, this is not the only factor, nor the most important. Disease and dispossession of land were probably the two most important factors. After settlement, racism was probably the most important factor for continuing oppression.

[Fasces]

Yes, the Crown military occupied certain small portions of Australia for brief moments during the century and a half of settlement.

Small portions?



But at least we've let go the absurd argument that there was neither a war nor a military occupation against the aboriginal population.

I am pointing out that while this is true

While this is true? You just spent three pages denying it outright.

And it is meaningless because the Crown never claimed right of conquest.

Neither did Isabella. Or Genghis. Or Atilla. Or Caesar.

You're making a fool of yourself.

If you were not conquered militarily, but you were dispossessed of your land, had your children taken away from you, been targetted for cultural genocide, had the gov't lie to you and steal your stuff, and were unable to access health and education services as freely as the majority, would you be oppressed or marginalised?

I'd be a bitch for not fighting back and forcing them to conquer me militarily.

[Pants-of-dog]

So there were wars, and there was a military occupation.

While this is true? You just spent three pages denying it outright.

Feel free to reread my post:

I am not sure that they were conquered by force of arms. I assume they were dispossessed of the lands (rather than conquered) through multiple means including disease, rapacious settlement by settlers, force of arms, welshing on contracts, outright thievery, laws passed without Aboriginal consultation, and steps to destroy Aboriginal cultures.

viewtopic.php?p=14410632#p14410632

Neither did Isabella. Or Genghis. Or Atilla. Or Caesar.

You're making a fool of yourself.

I am pointing out that the Crown decided that it owned Australia not through right of conquest, but because Aborigines did not build fences like white people do.

I'd be a little bitch for not fighting back and forcing them to conquer me militarily.

Thankfully, the aboriginals were not little bitches.

And that's great.

However, I would appreciate an answer to my question: do you think they are marginalised or oppressed?

It's about showing how shallow your reasoning is. The fact that you, to protect your position, have declared the Aztecs were never conquered, says all I need to say about it, really.

The Aztecs are a different situation altogether. I have not mentioned them at all.

[Fasces]

I am pointing out that the Crown decided that it owned Australia not through right of conquest, but because Aborigines did not build fences like white people do.

Nobody cares about the international law concept right of conquest besides you. You brought it up. You're the only one harping on about it.

Your argument is tantamount to claiming there was no conquest ever prior to 1815 or after 1945.

do you think they are marginalised or oppressed?

Of course they are. They are the victims of conquest and colonization by a white society that has worked to deliberately force them into parallel communities for hundreds of years.

The Aztecs are a different situation altogether. I have not mentioned them at all.

Really?

viewtopic.php?p=14410057#p14410057

[Pants-of-dog]

Nobody cares about the international law concept right of conquest besides you. You brought it up. You're the only one harping on about it.

Your argument is tantamount to claiming there was no conquest ever prior to 1815 or after 1945.

Actually, Rejn brought it up and colliric continued the discussion. I inroduced into our discussion when you claimed that Australia was conquered in a war. The fact that an insignificant amount of land was under military occupation for an insignificant amount of time does not somehow translate into a war of conquest. The latter implies that the land was taken primarily through force of arms. This is not the case.

Of course they are. They are the victims of conquest and colonization by a white society that has worked to deliberately force them into parallel communities for hundreds of years.

If you were to remove the words "of conquest", I would completely agree.

Really?

http://politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopi ... #p14410057

Yes, you mentioned the Aztecs. I did not.

I replied that there was no war against the Aztecs and the Plains Indians. While small battles were fought against both peoples (or groups of peoples) there was no organised military exercise that is comparable to war.

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

What do you think of the ongoing separation of families? Do you agree that this is another forced assimilation program?

[Fasces]

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, have a good day, Fasces.

[Decky]

Disease and dispossession of land were probably the two most important factors.

AKA conquest.

[Pants-of-dog]

AKA conquest.

So, when Europeans are dispossessed of their lands by capitalists through judicial rather than military means, would you say that they were conquered by the capitalists?

EDIT: What is the relationship between the claim of conquest and the OP you posted?

[Decky]

So, when Europeans are dispossessed of their lands by capitalists through judicial rather than military means, would you say that they were conquered by the capitalists?

Yes I would actually, just becuase a capitalist happens to be born on the same rock as you does not mean it is any diferent than another country sending an army, some dickhead has still turfed you out of your home.

EDIT: What is the relationship between the claim of conquest and the OP you posted?

None whatsoever, so I have no idea why have been making such a big issue about it here. Really you should hvae started a new thread if you wanted to make bizzare claims that Australia was not conqured.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes I would actually, just becuase a capitalist happens to be born on the same rock as you does not mean it is any diferent than another country sending an army, some dickhead has still turfed you out of your home.

So, when banks foreclose on properties, the banks are "conquering" the houses and the previous owners are "conquered people".

Congratulations. You have now made the word "conquest" effectively useless.

None whatsoever, so I have no idea why have been making such a big issue about it here. Really you should hvae started a new thread if you wanted to make bizzare claims that Australia was not conqured.

Then we agree that it is meaningless.

Why did you bring it up again?