[Decky]

For fucks sake you are the person who bought it up and you are now hassling me about it as I was the one who did it? If it wasn't against forum rules I would question your sanity.

[KlassWar]

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.

Liberal bullshit. Class oppression against the working masses is an exercise of political violence, however many exsues, rationallizations and reams of reactionary legalese the class enemy's authorities happen to vomit to justify their tyranny.

[Maas]

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

That is just a childishly incorrect interpretation of reality.
When you stubbornly want your way and use violence to enforce it in the west, than you will receive more violence. Hence that is why your political preference is such a fail.

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

Well established? Global?

Yup. Check out the UN and the geneva conventions and such.
People who refuse such things on a large scale, get the warth of the world in some way.
And it looks like you're that ignorant that you didn't know that.

[Maas]

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

PoD... that's not a good comparison really. Banks and house owners got a contract and rules about when things get foreclosed. Both sides agree with it, without any pressure to decline, mutual consent etc. That makes it a normal business deal, and not conquest.

There is a fast difference with the aboriginals. You can say it was a conquest. I see no difference between a show of brute force to massacre aboriginals of their land, and people moving in on their land with a kind story... I arrange the massacre of your entire tribe if you don't fuck off what is mine.

[Pants-of-dog]

To me, the whole issue of conquest is moot.

The Crown never claimed right of conquest. The Crown, instead, claimed terra nullius, which is the idea that no one owned the land. Of course, the Aborigines had their own system of land ownership, but the Crown ignored it.

[Fasces]

Conquest never existed before 1815, ladies and gentlemen.

[Decky]

I think PoD is prentending to not understand the diference between the legal term "right of conquest" and the word conquest to try and win, it is (as usual) not fooling anyone.

[Pants-of-dog]

Conquest never existed before 1815, ladies and gentlemen.

I think PoD is pretending to not understand the difference between the legal term "right of conquest" and the word conquest to try and win, it is (as usual) not fooling anyone.

viewtopic.php?p=14410686#p14410686

ThirdTerm has already clarified exactly how small the role of military actions during the era of settlement.

I agree with his or her post to which I have linked. Do you have any criticisms of this post?

[Decky]

I have quite a few criticisms of the poster.

[Fasces]

I don't care about the conclusion - your argument is simply a complete non sequitur. My claim was that they deserved their marginalization because they were conquered. Right of conquest has nothing to do with whether or not a people is conquered, and is a completely pointless tangent with respect to my initial claim. Unless you truly believe the Roman Empire never conquered anybody because they didn't invoke a legal concept that wouldn't exist for 2000 years, what does whether or not the British invoked a right that wouldn't exist for another forty years even matter in this context?

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't care about the conclusion - your argument is simply a complete non sequitur. My claim was that they deserved their marginalization because they were conquered.

Sure. Go ahead and believe that the Aboriginal culture deserves extinction despite the fact that it seems inconsistent with your idea of organic change within cultures and your claims about cultural diversity, and use whatever definition of conquest that you want so that it is consistent with Australian history.

Right of conquest has nothing to do with whether or not a people is conquered, and is a completely pointless tangent with respect to my initial claim.

Sure. I apologise for thinking that you were commenting on my previous discussion with Rejn where we discussed conquest.

Unless you truly believe the Roman Empire never conquered anybody because they didn't invoke a legal concept that wouldn't exist for 2000 years, what does whether or not the British invoked a right that wouldn't exist for another forty years even matter in this context?

Sure. Like the Romans. The settlers were obviously comparable to legionnaires.

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

Do you guys have anything to say about the number of Aboriginal families that are being separated right now?

Or would you like to pretend that all the oppression and marginalisation happened during some mythical era of conquest?

[Fasces]

If conquest has nothing to do with whether or not the right of conquest is invoked - because you seem to recognize the conquest of Gaul as that even if Senate never invoked a certain legal claim - what does Britain not invoking the right of conquest prove?

Your argument is absolute gibberish.

[Decky]

Do you guys have anything to say about the number of Aboriginal families that are being separated right now?

Or would you like to pretend that all the oppression and marginalisation happened during some mythical era of conquest?

For fucks sake, did you even read my op?

[Pants-of-dog]

If conquest has nothing to do with whether or not the right of conquest is invoked - because you seem to recognize the conquest of Gaul as that even if Senate never invoked a certain legal claim - what does Britain not invoking the right of conquest prove?

Sure. I completely agree with whatever you are claiming here.

Your argument is absolute gibberish.

Yes, my argument, (whatever it is) is completely wrong.

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

For fucks sake, did you even read my op?

Yes, I did, which is what I am trying to discuss now.

You seem to think that this is founded in racism, which makes sense. However I would add that it also seems based on the (incorrect) idea that the injustices were all in the past and are not happening on a daily basis. Australians (like Canadians) believe that their mistreatment of Aboriginals is a historical fact and not a contemporary practice. This misunderstanding of modern oppression is what allows the "government to get away with these henious crimes without being punished for them."

[Decky]

You seem to think that this is founded in racism, which makes sense. However I would add that it also seems based on the (incorrect) idea that the injustices were all in the past and are not happening on a daily basis.

Did you even read the article I posted? At least try and ground your criticisms somewhat in reality.

[Pants-of-dog]

Did you even read the article I posted? At least try and ground your criticisms somewhat in reality.

Please tell me how my claim is unrealistic. Thank you.

[Decky]

You are moaning at me becuase you agree with both my op and the article I posted as if we didn't agree, what exactly is it that is wrong with you?

[Pants-of-dog]

You are moaning at me becuase you agree with both my op and the article I posted as if we didn't agree, what exactly is it that is wrong with you?

I am not moaning or otherwise having any emotional reaction to you.

I wanted you to criticise my position using logic or evidence. You don't seem to be doing that.

I do agree with your OP. I agree with and have added my own supporting claim. You say this claim of mine is unrealistic but do not explain why you think so.

This does not seem like it will be a fruitful discussion, Have a nice day, Decky.

[Fasces]

I wanted you to criticise my position using logic or evidence

Joke of the year 2014?

[Pants-of-dog]

Joke of the year 2014?

Yes. Hilarious.

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

I find it interesting that people tend to ignore the continuing break up of families in order to focus on the relatively small and unimportant aspect of military efforts during the era of settlement.

We have a similar issue here, in Canada. People here also have a skewed view of history where some sort of rugged pioneer subdues (conquers!) the native land and the natives themselves, bringing them civilisation.

This myth does two things: it enables the settlers (who would otherwise have to accept the fact that they live on stolen land) to believe the land is rightfully theirs, and secondly, it allows the settlers to believe that the oppression is over.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/native-children-i ... a-1.677743

Please note the date. That was three years ago. Just like in Australia, Canada is continuing to separate indigenous children from their families, continuing the cycle of abuse and insanity that perpetuates oppression and marginalisation.

In the end, it's pretty obvious why Canada and Australia are doing this: they are trying to keep the rightful owners of the land from becoming strong enough to claim what is theirs.