22 minutes ago, dieter said:

Your question should be, Why did Churchill have the power to send thousands of Australians to be slaughtered in a British Colonial War???????

Qutie simple to answer.He was Rear Admiral of the Navy.

good healthy arguments going on here.  please continue!

3 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Qutie simple to answer.He was Rear Admiral of the Navy.

So? That excuses him from sending thousands of Australians to a useless death??????????????????????Yes sir, Rear Admiral, I'm just following orders.

33 minutes ago, rjay said:

I'm not an Australian history buff 'Biff' but wasn't this policy drafted and set up by the Protectionist Party of Barton and Deakin?

Just asking for a friend.

You could link it directly to the Clunes riots.The Port Phillip mining company did not like paying the White anglo( mostly Cornish actually) miners at the rate commanded by the fledgling  ALP.

Are the Brits still waiting from an apology from the Vikings for their invasion day?

or the Irish for the Brits raping and pillaging them for hundreds of years?

lets move on and treat everyone well NOW.

6 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Are the Brits still waiting from an apology from the Vikings for their invasion day?

or the Irish for the Brits raping and pillaging them for hundreds of years?

lets move on and treat everyone well NOW.

What date to the Brits celebrate that invasion day? Or the Irish their invasion?

Easy to say 'move on' when it's not your invasion being celebrated.

43 minutes ago, dieter said:

Your question should be, Why did Churchill have the power to send thousands of Australians to be slaughtered in a British Colonial War???????

It might be surprising but many actually volunteered.

Now Military strategy on the other hand is actually quite interesting. 

26 minutes ago, dieter said:

So? That excuses him from sending thousands of Australians to a useless death??????????????????????Yes sir, Rear Admiral, I'm just following orders.

It doesn't excuse him anything. It was a bad decision made in the Dardanelles.One of many.

His remorse and self loathing from such failures may have contributed to his greatness in WW2 .Who knows.

It's as pointless to speculate his failures as it is to contemplate those of Captain James Cooks.

They are meaningless without the contrating achievements .

28 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

What date to the Brits celebrate that invasion day? Or the Irish their invasion?

Easy to say 'move on' when it's not your invasion being celebrated.

Well I’m Irish so it is personal. But I don’t hold it against brits or expect an apology. Things were so different hundred ago. 

best to move on and focus on a better future

35 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

What date to the Brits celebrate that invasion day? Or the Irish their invasion?

Easy to say 'move on' when it's not your invasion being celebrated.

The whole invasions point is interesting - the world has been invaded and evolved since the dawn of time. England itself isn't even made up of native people but a mix of cultures.

Is it also realistic to believe that Australia would have never been invaded at any stage in history and that the first nations people would by custodians until the end of time?

Does anyone really believe that in 200 years white Australia will even exist with globalism and expanding populations?

I just find the whole argument a bit confusing and wonder if the language should change around it. It is very much the typical USA argument of Us vs Them language which goes against the things i believe the first nations people are trying to seek, like equality etc.

Anyway at the end of the day nothing will change unless people stop yelling at each other. (not accusing you lord nev of anything this is just my mindless narrative).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 11, 20214 yr by Unleash Hell

4 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Well I’m Irish so it is personal. But I don’t hold it against brits or expect an apology. Things were so different hundred ago. 

best to move on and focus on a better future

You can't always just 'move on' when things have not even been dealt with properly, let alone still celebrated.

 

2 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

The whole invasions point is interesting - the world has been invaded and evolved since the dawn of time. England itself isn't even made up of native people but a mix of cultures.

Is it also realistic to believe that Australia would have never been invaded at any stage in history and that the first nations people would by custodians until the end of time?

Does anyone really believe that in 200 years white Australia will even exist with globalism and expanding populations?

I just find the whole argument a bit confusing and wonder if the language should change around it. It is very much the typical USA argument of Us vs Them language which goes against the things i believe the first nations people are trying to seek, like equality etc.

Anyway at the end of the day nothing will change unless people stop yelling at each other.

I don't reckon anyone has ever said that Australia would never have been invaded otherwise or that invasion was an experience unique to Indigenous Australians. Neither of those things are points being raised.

Eddie's "proud day" is a microcosm of white Australia's approach to racism in this country. Don't admit any wrong doing, don't say sorry, just tell everyone it's in the past and they should just get over it as where not racist anymore, are we?

7 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Well I’m Irish so it is personal. But I don’t hold it against brits or expect an apology. Things were so different hundred ago. 

best to move on and focus on a better future

Do they have a day in northern Ireland,  where the protestants  celebrate a battle where the protestants beat the Catholics

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

I don't reckon anyone has ever said that Australia would never have been invaded otherwise or that invasion was an experience unique to Indigenous Australians. Neither of those things are points being raised.

Eddie's "proud day" is a microcosm of white Australia's approach to racism in this country. Don't admit any wrong doing, don't say sorry, just tell everyone it's in the past and they should just get over it as where not racist anymore, are we?

the natives of Australia are lucky that the British colonized Australia because if they didn't do it the French we're going to do it and the French were much more brutal and would have killed  many more.

1 minute ago, don't make me angry said:

the natives of Australia are lucky that the British colonized Australia because if they didn't do it the French we're going to do it and the French were much more brutal and would have killed  many more.

Sure Pauline.

6 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

the natives of Australia are lucky that the British colonized Australia because if they didn't do it the French we're going to do it and the French were much more brutal and would have killed  many more.

I see this one wheeled out a bit and it's simply not true; both were absolutely abhorrent to indigenous people.
It's hardly reassuring to say lucky you got British genocide, cos French genocide was much worse!

 

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

Sure Pauline.

You have no idea, James cook just made it to Australia before the French, ask all those African countries that the French colonized, history tells us the French where more brutal, and killed many more people in the countries they invaded,every country and every single people in the worlds  history have been invaded raped killed pillaged, every person has to take control of her own life and stop blaming somebody else, is colonisation wrong? of course it is, it just life, those that talk about the past live in the past and never achieved anything. How many indigenous friends have you got I've got heaps I grew up with them. See people like you think things are simple, just change the date and everything will change,  that will solve nothing, education and getting a job changes people live, not hate living in the past, and playing the victim.

15 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

I see this one wheeled out a bit and it's simply not true; both were absolutely abhorrent to indigenous people.
It's hardly reassuring to say lucky you got British genocide, cos French genocide was much worse!

 

Genocide you serious? There was no genocide, a genocide implies that there was a concerted effort to kill the whole indigenous population which is just not true, were there massacres yes there was, but genocide no, most where killed by introduced diseases that the  native  population had no immunity to, call it a invasion yes, but genocide that's going  way too far.

5 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

Genocide you serious? There was no genocide, a genocide implies that there was a concerted effort to kill the whole indigenous population which is just not true, were there massacres yes there was, but genocide no, most where killed by introduced diseases that the  native  population had no immunity to, call it a invasion yes, but genocide that's going  way too far.

Yeah- they wanted them all gone.

Displaced, killed off, bred out, denied their lands, culture and language.  It was attempted genocide.

 

26 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

You have no idea, James cook just made it to Australia before the French, ask all those African countries that the French colonized, history tells us the French where more brutal, and killed many more people in the countries they invaded,every country and every single people in the worlds  history have been invaded raped killed pillaged, every person has to take control of her own life and stop blaming somebody else, is colonisation wrong? of course it is, it just life, those that talk about the past live in the past and never achieved anything. How many indigenous friends have you got I've got heaps I grew up with them. See people like you think things are simple, just change the date and everything will change,  that will solve nothing, education and getting a job changes people live, not hate living in the past, and playing the victim.

They were/are victims. Are you going to tell jewish holocaust survivors and their families to just get over what the Germans/Nazi's did to them? 

I think most people would recognise that changing the date of Australia Day won't solve all the problems, in fact it would merely be a small step towards reconciliation. Much the same way that Kevin Rudd saying sorry was a small step in the right direction. How can we expect to celebrate Australia Day as a united nation when it's the day the British people essentially began the atrocities against ancestors of our first nations people? Regardless of whether the British were any better or worse than the French, Dutch, or Spanish.

Edited February 11, 20214 yr by Pates

35 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

You have no idea, James cook just made it to Australia before the French, ask all those African countries that the French colonized, history tells us the French where more brutal, and killed many more people in the countries they invaded,every country and every single people in the worlds  history have been invaded raped killed pillaged, every person has to take control of her own life and stop blaming somebody else, is colonisation wrong? of course it is, it just life, those that talk about the past live in the past and never achieved anything. How many indigenous friends have you got I've got heaps I grew up with them. See people like you think things are simple, just change the date and everything will change,  that will solve nothing, education and getting a job changes people live, not hate living in the past, and playing the victim.

You took quite a long paragraph there to illustrate how much you don't understand.

No one has said change the date and everything is fixed.

Your straw man arguments are plain silly.

1. Telling Indigenous people they should get over it because if it was the French it may have been worse is idiotic.

2. Other invasions happening through history don't diminish the suffering felt by Indigenous Australians.

3. "Take control of their own life"....? You've managed to illustrate with that statement how much you don't understand.

4. 'How many Indigenous friends do I have?' Is that a serious comment? Does having Indigenous friends mean you understand systematic racism and the hurt of Australian society felt by them? Pretty obviously not given your ignorant comments. Members of my family, including my kids, have Indigenous ancestry. My best mate is an Indigenous artist and Reconciliation Speaker. I still have close mates from sports years where I played in predominantly Indigenous teams. I've also stayed in remote communities volunteering in arts & education programs for Indigenous kids. Does that start to paint a picture for you? Does that give me cred in your eyes now? No? See how that works. I couldn't give a stuff about you parading your "heaps" of Indigenous friends around, it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on your abhorrent views.

5. You don't know me. We've never met. Your assumptions about me say more about you.

6. If you truly had "many Indigenous friends" I very much doubt you'd be throwing around this "victim" narrative you've chosen to throw about.

5 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Dieter you do understand that repeating your claim about Goodes again and again is not actually evidence & u sound like Trump & the stolen election.

And BTW every country throughout its history been racist and supremacist either white, black, yellow or brown. Maybe you can enlighten us with some exceptions - Germany maybe or Ruanda, Brazil, india, maybe Japan ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

2 hours ago, Biffen said:

Churchill was responsible for the mass slaughter of Australians in Gallipoli.Was it deliberate?

No.

What were his thoughts on Kurds and Palestinians?

Edited February 11, 20214 yr by Dr. Gonzo

57 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

Genocide you serious? There was no genocide, a genocide implies that there was a concerted effort to kill the whole indigenous population which is just not true, were there massacres yes there was, but genocide no, most where killed by introduced diseases that the  native  population had no immunity to, call it a invasion yes, but genocide that's going  way too far.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Definition

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

Anyway, back to Eddie and the report which brought him down.

I watched an interesting interview on the ABC news app with Tony Armstrong, a former Collingwood player and ABC commentator (he is indigenous). He gave an insight into how the playing groups of the Collingwood clubs came to issue that letter of apology. The players felt frustrated their feelings couldn't be heard with all the distractions surrounding the first press conference, hence the reason for their letter.

Armstrong also made a good point about football playing groups always going to be young. These younger generations are more open minded and socially aware. More open minded than perhaps the ones in charge of the clubs or the 'old guard'. 

When someone is in power for so long and used to doing things their own way, and getting other people to do things their way, they are in danger of becoming inflexible and blinkered. 

Eddie saw himself as the saviour of his beloved club when he first became President - "When I came to Collingwood, it was a club driven with rivalries, enemies and division." He succeeded in making the club a powerhouse, but he also became in a sense bigger than the club. Perhaps he was blinded by his own success and never learned an important word - humility.

He also didn't learn how to listen to others when they were trying to tell him something he didn't want to hear. He had to be the one to do the talking. That was his biggest problem. The talking came before the thinking.