It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The history of relations between Australia’s Aboriginal population and the broader population is one of brutality and neglect. Tens of thousands of Aborigines died from disease, war and dispossession in the years after European settlement began in the late 18th century. Aboriginal people were not permitted to vote in national elections until 1962.
But a policy of placing Aboriginal children with white families or in state institutions to assimilate them is blamed for the most lasting damage.
Aboriginal reactions to the sudden arrival of British settlers were varied, but inevitably hostile when the presence of the colonisers led to competition over resources, and to the occupation by the British of Aboriginal lands. European diseases decimated Aboriginal populations, and the occupation or destruction of lands and food ressources led to starvation.
n the early years of colonisation, David Collins, the senior legal officer in the Sydney settlement, wrote of local Aboriginals:
"While they entertain the idea of our having dispossessed them of their residences, they must always consider us as enemies; and upon this principle they [have] made a point of attacking the white people whenever opportunity and safety concurred."
In a letter to the Launceston Advertiser in 1831, a settler wrote:
"We are at war with them: they look upon us as enemies - as invaders - as oppressors and persecutors - they resist our invasion. They have never been subdued, therefore they are not rebellious subjects, but an injured nation, defending in their own way, their rightful possessions which have been torn from them by force."
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I enjoy history in general.
But not when it is rewritten or mis-characterized by the self serving.
Of course a large body of study COULD be wrong and you COULD be the holder of the truth about the issue.
These thirty-eight men were members of the Dakota Nation. These men were leaders and heroes, men who fought for their people and their land. These men represented Dakota people who reacted to injustice, dishonesty, oppression, greed, and deception as any other group of people would react. In fact, these thirty-eight men and their people were not unlike the white colonists who rebelled against the injustice and oppression of their mother country and fought for their independence some 200 years ago.
Here is the summary of account from a family member that managed to survive the slaughter:
"Mr. Massipost had two daughters, young ladies, intelligent and accomplished. These the savages murdered most brutally. The head of one of them was afterward found, severed from the body, attached to a fish-hook, and hung upon a nail. His son, a young man of twenty-four years, was also killed. Mr. Massipost and a son of eight years escaped to New Ulm." (Bryant, at p. 141). New Ulm is a city located in Brown County, Minnesota. ...
"The daughter of Mr. Schwandt, enciente, was cut open, as was learned afterward, the child taken alive from the mother, and nailed to a tree. The son of Mr. Schwandt, aged thirteen years, who had been beaten by the Indians, until dead, as was supposed, was present, and saw the entire tragedy. He saw the child taken alive from the body of his sister, Mrs. Waltz, and nailed to a tree in the yard. It struggled some time after the nails were driven through it! This occurred in the forenoon of Monday, 18th of August, 1862."
Wow!!!!!!!!Let the truth be told,It's time for a dose of reality and the reality of things is a far cry from the fantasy we live in I'm so sick of the bullsh*!people try to spew out as truth,if we all said it like it is the world would be a far better place to live in!!!!I vote for you!!
Originally posted by Dock6
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
Oh please don't preach New World Order style UNTIL AFTER you have spent say .. twenty years living amongst them, ok ?
Do you know how BIG Australia is ? If not, go Google it
THEN, maybe you'll explain WHY these so called 'nature loving' 'environmentally aware' creatures FLOOD to the civilized areas and always HAVE, since the first TINY ship arrived on Australian shores.
Then, when you've done that, why not do some real research and learn how the early white pioneers made very generous provision for the aborigines, from the word go.
But the Aborigines were desperate to hang around white settlements.
Not the romantic version of noble savages wanting to 'protect their land'. Oh no. The aborigines, then as now, saw the whites as providers and no matter how many times they were encouraged to go back to their 'tribal lands', the aborigines insisted on hanging around white settlements for a free meal, a free drink, a free anything.
And nothing's changed. The Australian government has to spend a literal fortune to pay Aborigines to go live 'native style' and to perpetuate their 'culcha'. The Aborigines take the money, flop up and down in paint and grass skirts desultorily for paying tourists who want to experience 'the real Australia' ... and then in a flash, those 'proud indigenous people' drop the act and head back to the pub (their true ancestral home) until the next tourist coach is due.
And of course, I'm sure you're aware that there are MORE claiming to be Aboriginal now than at ANY time in history. A mere 2 to 3 hundred thousand when Cook landed. There are ten times that many now, claiming 'aboriginality'. Why not ? Who wouldn't take money for being slightly brown. The fact that many who claim 'aboriginality' have more Lebanese, Cook Islander, Maori and Afghani blood than indigenous doesn't matter a jot. It's the taxpayer who's paying for the glorification of browness, after all, not the politicians .. who don't have their aboriginal brothers living in THEIR suburbs, thank you very much.
Yes, they had 'their' land 'taken from them'. Wow.
With 200,000 to 300,000 Aborigines, all armed with spears, sticks, intimate knowledge of the terrain and pitted against a few dozen exhausted sailors who'd just completed a harsh round-world, six month voyage in a sardine can .... must have been an absolute blood-bath, right ? How could ALL those spear wielding Aborigines have 'lost' their land to such a TINY 'invading' force ? Tell me.
No? Can't explain ? Nor can anyone else, other than to say the Aborigines didn't so much 'lose' their land as 'offer it up for a bottle of rum'. And nothing's changed.
Always fascinated me, these claims of 'stolen Aborigine land'.
Never hear people getting their knickers in a knot about the 'stolen British lands', do we ? Yet the Romans invaded Britain far more aggressively than the poor handful of sailors who fell out of the row-boats and onto the coast of Australia.
Yeah .. go live with the Aborigines for a while. Do you a world of good. Seriously.
Originally posted by zooplancton
crazy kid brain...
future serial killer.
Originally posted by Fathom
this kid obviously has issues that need to be addaresed.
i would even venture to gues that he may be abused in some way at home or by some other family member. he holds a great degree of agression inside and is looking for a way to release it on someone that is less helpless than himself.
he obviously has been in situations where he feels helpless and this leads me to believe he is being abused in some way.
or he could just be a little a-hole