It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Boy, 7, kills rare animals in Australian zoo rampage

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:03 AM
reply to post by Dock6

Lol, I grew up with another group of displaced and disgruntled indigenous people, and I live in state surrounded by yet another set, I dont need to go to Australia to see the effects of it.

Why dont you just admit to being racist explicitly instead of pretending it is justified by the actions of the Aborigines themselves? There was really no need in the context of this thread to bring up the childs possible ethnicity at all except to provide an excuse to vent some racist views.

And in terms of the history, you are so right. Nothing was done to them at all to justify my statement.

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.

I am well aware of what happened to the people of what is now called the UK when the Romans marched up.

I actually do know the history of what are my ancestors as well. (To the extent that is possible, when so much has been lost due to the lack of the written word among the pre Roman inhabitants)

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.

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."[5]

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."[7]

But what are actual witness accounts in the face of your superior knowledge?

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 08:12 AM

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.

Historical accounts are always a bit slanted. Right now I do believe they are often heavily slanted to portray certain cultures as complete victims, with an absolute black-out on all information that could portray them in any sort of balanced light.

Example, I watched a show that discussed the Mankota Indian Executions, the largest mass hanging in U.S. history. The show discussed how indegenious Americans were forced into defending what little land they had, and how the white settlers were so enraged they executed 38 innocent Indians in a most horrendous fashion.

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.

Of course this article, and the TV show that highlighted this incident never ONCE mentioned the incident that started the conflict and resulted in the hangings. The conflict was sparked when a family of settlers were murdered in a most horrendous fashion, and this incident caused panic among the settlers in the area (many of whom lived in isolated cabins and were quite vulnerable to attack).

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."

The final accounts estimate over 400 white settlers and about 78 Indians were killed in total (from the conflict and subsequent 38 hangings). Modern accounts of this story now typically leave out ALL mention of the original incident that sparked the conflict, and if they do bother to mention what started it they somehow spin it to be “Indians defending their lands.”

Some Indian tribes practiced extreme methods of torture and mutilation. They took the practice seriously and they were good at it. Those customs and incidents are now routinely censored from most all modern historical accounts. Now were the native Americans treated badly and forced to give up their lands? Yes they were. Were they ultimately nearly wiped out? Yes they were. But why not portray the conflicts in a balanced light?

[edit on 5-10-2008 by Sonya610]

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 12:39 PM
reply to post by Sonya610

My point was not really to claim that the Aborigines (or any indigenous people) are sainted and never do anything violent.

I think Dock was the one trying to portray my argument as attempting to make them into nature loving peaceful noble savages.

In your example, to find the first cause of that conflict, one really could not even stop with that one settler family's murder as the originator of the conflict. One would have to go through the history of the contact between the tribe and the Europeans and sort out who did what first, though a good argument could be made that simply settling upon and assuming to "own" someone else's land is enough to justify a "beginning" of the conflict.

Honestly though, that is not my point.

I dislike racism. Period. I was criticizing the child who broke into the zoo and his family too. Based on the behavior of the child, and his brother once that was brought to light. One can criticize an individual without making it about their ethnicity, their religion, or their gender. I dont remember anyone saying "Well he was male, we all know that males are violent and cruel." Though one could make just as good an argument for that as Docks against the Aborigine.

I objected to the fact that someone of one race was being blatantly racist against another race, a race that up to that point really had nothing to do with the thread at all. We did not, and I still do not, know the ethnicity of the child, nor even if I did and were he Aborigine would I consider that argument against the whole group of people called "Aborigine." There are the unsavory in every "group" you can imagine.

I dont even feel, despite my argument, that the European settlers of Australia, (the majority of them in any event,) were "evil." Many of them had absolutely no choice in the matter and were doing what they needed to do to survive. I have great empathy for the colonists both there and here in America, and anywhere in the world the forced export of people to colonize another land was enacted.

Empathy, however, does not mean one has to take sides. I have empathy for both the settlers AND the Aborigines. I feel, and what I was objecting to, it is wrong to portray a displaced and dispossessed people as inherently flawed for what, (if we look honestly around the world) is a pretty normal reaction to being displaced and dispossessed.

I would just have quickly called an Aborigine a racist if I heard him say that "All white people are soulless devils." (A bit of racist rubbish I have heard from the indigenous peoples I have lived around.)

One does not need to reach into the bag or racism or sexism or religion to criticize someone. There was no point for it to be brought up at all as it related to this incident, but if it is, I dont see why I or anyone should have to just let it remain unchallenged.

posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 09:47 AM
he is just a boy and He probably thinks that he is just having fun, yes the death penalty should be reinstated for people like this. He is old enough to know what he is doing kill him as he killed the animals and what is wrong with people these days, If you want to speak your mind then just say it.

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 02:47 PM
9 out of 10 children are boys who do perhaps it has to do with that a little

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by zooplancton

both me thinks

posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 02:54 AM
This story is BS how can someone post such beligerent lies about this kid at a zoo... People today are so delusional in their interest with little boys at the zoo...

posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:11 AM
reply to post by zooplancton

i think the second one.
a serial something for sure.


posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:40 AM
reply to post by angrydog
And there lies the problem,in the last portion of the article they stated he cannot be held accountable for his actions??Oh yes he can and should be held accountable!as well as the parents,holy crap parents afraid of parenting!It's outrageous and wrong in so many ways,it reminds me of the Chinese girls sitting on the rabbits,maybe they should put that kid in with the crocodiles for awhile and have something really big sit on the Chinese girls.

posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:57 AM

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.

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!!

posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:35 AM

Originally posted by zooplancton
crazy kid brain...


future serial killer.

I'm inclined to go with option 2 ... I've heard many times where harming / killing animals as a child is a common point in serial killers.

Still none the less shocking when you see it in action so to speak ... let's just hope that some kind of action is set in place so that we don't read about this little guy in 20yrs time for all the wrong reasons ... the signs are already there apparently.


posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 07:07 PM
I laughed.
I wish I would've done something like that at his age.

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 07:44 PM

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

That's what I think too Fathom, that he may have been abused. And the fact that his brother is the same way also leads me to believe that. Perhaps both kids were abused, or have mental problems. In any case, I would be checking the parents out for sure!

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in