4 hours ago, Biffen said:

The British policy was to protect Aboriginal people from harm as much as possible at the time.

To kill a “native” was punishable by death in the 18thC and beyond.

 

 

I never know if Biff is extracting the urine when he posts but effectively wiping out a whole species of people like what happened in Tasmania doesn't sound like a harm minimization policy!

In Tasmania, there were around 15,000 Palawa people pre-colonisation. In the ensuing 30 years that number dropped to an estimated 400 people (full blooded Palawa's). That 400 was further reduced to around a dozen over the next decade with most dying in internment camps. Of that initial group, 200 were rounded up and put on Hunter or Flinders Island so they couldn't escape.

It is true that many died from European introduced diseases, but also subject to horrendous violence at the hands of settlers.

In what is known as the 'Black War', up to 1,000 Palawa and around 200 whites were killed in guerilla warfare. White folks were given legal immunity by the Governor of the day to kill aborigines. Also, rewards were given to settlers for the capture of aborigines and bounties were also paid.

One of the reasons for the Black War apparently was that among the colonists, there were six times more men than women and the settlers took to raping native people due to a lack of white women! The locals, perhaps understandably, didn't take too kindly to that!

Anyway, the Black War was an act of genocide no doubt. Here's an example: In 1827, two shepherds were killed by natives near Launceston, and settlers with the help of the 40th Regiment launched a reprisal attack at dawn that saw as many as 70 Aboriginal men, women and children slaughtered. 

Seventy unarmed men, women and children! Imagine if that happened today!

So Biff, your statement: "The British policy was to protect Aboriginal people from harm as much as possible at the time... and to kill a “native” was punishable by death in the 18thC and beyond..." is absolute bollocks! You are extracting the urine!

 

Edited February 11, 20214 yr by dee-tox

7 hours ago, Dame Gaga said:

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.

 

 

In a nutshell the above highlights why systemic racism is so pernicious and difficult to address.

I really wonder if Collingwood will lift because Eddie leaves or fall in a heap or neither......will be interesting.

8 hours ago, dee-tox said:

I never know if Biff is extracting the urine when he posts but effectively wiping out a whole species of people like what happened in Tasmania doesn't sound like a harm minimization policy!

In Tasmania, there were around 15,000 Palawa people pre-colonisation. In the ensuing 30 years that number dropped to an estimated 400 people (full blooded Palawa's). That 400 was further reduced to around a dozen over the next decade with most dying in internment camps. Of that initial group, 200 were rounded up and put on Hunter or Flinders Island so they couldn't escape.

It is true that many died from European introduced diseases, but also subject to horrendous violence at the hands of settlers.

In what is known as the 'Black War', up to 1,000 Palawa and around 200 whites were killed in guerilla warfare. White folks were given legal immunity by the Governor of the day to kill aborigines. Also, rewards were given to settlers for the capture of aborigines and bounties were also paid.

One of the reasons for the Black War apparently was that among the colonists, there were six times more men than women and the settlers took to raping native people due to a lack of white women! The locals, perhaps understandably, didn't take too kindly to that!

Anyway, the Black War was an act of genocide no doubt. Here's an example: In 1827, two shepherds were killed by natives near Launceston, and settlers with the help of the 40th Regiment launched a reprisal attack at dawn that saw as many as 70 Aboriginal men, women and children slaughtered. 

Seventy unarmed men, women and children! Imagine if that happened today!

So Biff, your statement: "The British policy was to protect Aboriginal people from harm as much as possible at the time... and to kill a “native” was punishable by death in the 18thC and beyond..." is absolute bollocks! You are extracting the urine!

 

Sorry mate but you are completely confusing issues.  The Admiralty's instructions to Phillip through the Letters Patent instructed him to afford the natives protection under the Crown.

In fact records note that there were 17 odd attacks or killings of settlers at Sydney Cove by natives before Phillip ordered a retaliation. Phillip himself was almost killed but declined to retaliate.

The situation in Tasmania was that the Palawa fought back against the whites taking their lands & war effectively broke out between them & Tasmanian settlers.

The circumstances were totally different.

43 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Sorry mate but you are completely confusing issues.  The Admiralty's instructions to Phillip through the Letters Patent instructed him to afford the natives protection under the Crown.

In fact records note that there were 17 odd attacks or killings of settlers at Sydney Cove by natives before Phillip ordered a retaliation. Phillip himself was almost killed but declined to retaliate.

The situation in Tasmania was that the Palawa fought back against the whites taking their lands & war effectively broke out between them & Tasmanian settlers.

The circumstances were totally different.

Bizarre response Cranky. Just because something happened in one part of Australia and not in another part it means it didn't happen?

So let me get this right. You can invade a country, dispossess the natives of their lands, rape their women, carry out acts of war, gather up the natives and move them away from their homelands but if you declare you are protecting them, it is OK. FMD 

4 minutes ago, dee-tox said:

Bizarre response Cranky. Just because something happened in one part of Australia and not in another part it means it didn't happen?

Of course it happened.  The point me & Biffen are trying to make is that the British intentions were initially quiet honourable & early on relationships between the natives & settlers were quiet good. You can read Dancing With Strangers by Inga Clendinnen for an account.

Unfortunately things went pearshaped after that especially further out on the frontier with killings, massacres & then poisonings & diseases.

 

2 minutes ago, ManDee said:

So let me get this right. You can invade a country, dispossess the natives of their lands, rape their women, carry out acts of war, gather up the natives and move them away from their homelands but if you declare you are protecting them, it is OK. FMD 

No you cannot morally do that and its not ok but unfortunately that is the way humans have done business for thousands of years.

The British, French & Dutch just marched bach into their colonies, by force after WW2.

How do you think the Chinese got Tibet or ask the West Papuans about the Indonesian invasion.

18 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Couldn't care less if you agree or this whole idea of "narrative" you keep pushing, that's simply what it is and is why the 'others didn't get booed' logic doesn't stack up. You've just further made my point for me by bringing up Betts & O'Loughlin.

Long and Goodes' scenarios are not really similar.

You may want to look into the response Long got at first though, including death threats mailed to him. Doesn't seem you're really THAT up on the story mate. Plus there's the fact he was combating onfield racism and was strongly supported by the AFL. Wasn't exactly the same with Goodes hey?

Winmar had a poignant moment after being racially abused for a whole day in horrendous ways. Not at all similar to Goodes who was booed more intensely after winning Australian Of The Year and having numerous public appearances totally misrepresented by the media.

Let's not forget that Eddie said Goodes would have been treated better if he had 'given some warning' before doing his goal celebration; an Indigenous dance taught to him by Indigenous kids, after he (an Indigenous man) had just kicked an Indigenous ball through for a goal while wearing an Indigenous jumper in Indigenous round...

Stop making excuses for others and clearly yourself.

 

@Lord Nev 100% agree with your take.   Goodes' being a proud black man confronted people and made them think of the uncomfortable truth.  And we don't like the truth - that racism is alive and well in Australia.  So rather than face the truth we deflect by saying it was about Goodes 'singaling out a teenager' or the fact he was  a lair of a player.  Same way people wanted to ignore what Hertier Lumumba had to say because he was a bit of w*nker.  

1 minute ago, Cranky Franky said:

No you cannot morally do that and its not ok but unfortunately that is the way humans have done business for thousands of years.

The British, French & Dutch just marched bach into their colonies, by force after WW2.

How do you think the Chinese got Tibet or ask the West Papuans about the Indonesian invasion.

Now I get it. It is OK because others have done it. Seriously Cranky give up.

26 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Of course it happened.  The point me & Biffen are trying to make is that the British intentions were initially quiet honourable & early on relationships between the natives & settlers were quiet good. You can read Dancing With Strangers by Inga Clendinnen for an account.

Unfortunately things went pearshaped after that especially further out on the frontier with killings, massacres & then poisonings & diseases.

 

Ah, so there were initially good intentions! That makes the genocide that happened later much more palatable!

Most of the evil that is done in this world is done by those with good intentions. 

13 hours ago, Biffen said:

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

Wrong.  For a history buff your'e a bit loose with your facts.

He was never a member of the navy. He was First Sea Lord which is entirely a different thing. 

Sort of being Miister for the Navy in our lingo.

12 hours ago, Biffen said:

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 .

I have real problems with anyone who thinks a racist mass murderer is great. Unless you mean, he was a great racist mass murderer.

43 minutes ago, deegirl said:

@Lord Nev 100% agree with your take.   Goodes' being a proud black man confronted people and made them think of the uncomfortable truth.  And we don't like the truth - that racism is alive and well in Australia.  So rather than face the truth we deflect by saying it was about Goodes 'singaling out a teenager' or the fact he was  a lair of a player.  Same way people wanted to ignore what Hertier Lumumba had to say because he was a bit of w*nker.  

Yep.

I find the most telling aspect of this is that there's no unifying reason why people decided they were booing Goodes. You would ask 5 people and get 5 different reasons: 'he pointed out the racists girl', 'he did a dance', 'he didn't deserve Australian of the year', 'he faked for free kicks', 'he's a dirty player (after he slid into a pack)', 'he's just an anchor' .... etc. 

It was around people being told an uncomfortable truth when he was Australian of the Year. Before that there was almost no talk about any football related misgivings but rather pretty widespread acknowledgment as a respected community leader. 

People will try to justify it to themselves, and indeed probably convince themselves of it. But the origins of the booing were pretty clearly related to his uncomfortable truths during his time as Australian of the Year. 

12 hours 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

They are not as different as you think, Db. Hence the relevance of this debate. You are aware, no doubt, of the wars the US has perpetrated since WW2? Allow me to list some of  them: Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Cambodia, Cuba, Lebanon, Bay of Pigs, Laos 1953, their part in the IRanian Coup 1953, Dominican Republic, Lebanon 1981, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, First Gulf War, arming IRaq and Iran pre first Gulf war, arming Saudi Arabia to rape Yemen, Sudan...We won't even mention the coups by stealth in Chile, Columbia, Puerto Rica, Venezuela, Honduras, Bolivia etc

In other words, this notion which is a direct descendant of the notion of White Supremacy, a notion inherited from the British, that it has the right to wage war and interfere in any country it chooses to. I believe it is the reason the US is such a basket case - simply because from day one of its history it has lied to itself and to the world about what it stands for.

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

What were his thoughts on Kurds and Palestinians?

I have a great book called Human Smoke by Nicholson Baker. It is comprised of newspaper cuttings from around 1900 until 1942 and it allows the bit players and protagonists of the trail that led to the Nazi camps in Poland, to the mass murders further East, to speak for themselves. Churchill is quoted quite often, mostly for his ghastly and contemptuous prejudices against Kurds, Iraqis, Arabs in general, all Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis ,Jews, in fact any people you'd care to nominate. 

Whatever about the intentions we all know the consequences. The fate of indigenous Australians is the same as every vanquished people the world over since time began. Defeat, subjugation and dispossession.

We can argue all day about the history of it but it won’t change anything about where we are at which is that the indigenous population of this country feel justifiable resentment and anger because of the ongoing consequences of the colonisation of this country.

As a nation, we have to deal with this issue. The uluru statement from the heart offers a pathway. I think we should all engage with it and hopefully we can create a future where our indigenous population feel a part of this country. I mean, what do we have to lose?

By far and away the most disappointing aspect of this sorry affair is that Collingwood, a major sporting and cultural institution in this country, had the perfect opportunity to start a conversation, to lead the way. And instead, buffhead Eddie completely stuffs it. Another wasted opportunity.

2 hours ago, Demon17 said:

Wrong.  For a history buff your'e a bit loose with your facts.

He was never a member of the navy. He was First Sea Lord which is entirely a different thing. 

Sort of being Miister for the Navy in our lingo.

He was the Rear Admiral of the Navy.[censored].

1 minute ago, Biffen said:

He was the Rear Admiral of the Navy.[censored].

Sorry.  I know I've come in at the end of this thread.  But, are we still talking about Eddie??  Didn't know he was a sailor!

1 hour ago, dieter said:

I have a great book called Human Smoke by Nicholson Baker. It is comprised of newspaper cuttings from around 1900 until 1942 and it allows the bit players and protagonists of the trail that led to the Nazi camps in Poland, to the mass murders further East, to speak for themselves. Churchill is quoted quite often, mostly for his ghastly and contemptuous prejudices against Kurds, Iraqis, Arabs in general, all Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis ,Jews, in fact any people you'd care to nominate. 
 

so now he is an anti- Semite despite his Pro Zionist stance and a long history of support for the Jews.FMD

2 hours ago, dieter said:

I have real problems with anyone who thinks a racist mass murderer is great. Unless you mean, he was a great racist mass murderer.

2 hours ago, dieter said:

I have real problems with anyone who thinks a racist mass murderer is great. Unless you mean, he was a great racist mass murderer.

You’d be speaking Russian if not for Churchill.

26 minutes ago, Biffen said:

He was the Rear Admiral of the Navy.[censored].

 

23 minutes ago, Vagg said:

Sorry.  I know I've come in at the end of this thread.  But, are we still talking about Eddie??  Didn't know he was a sailor!

I guess he got the a... so that's pretty close to Rear...

1 hour ago, Biffen said:

He was the Rear Admiral of the Navy.[censored].

Are your ears painted on?

First Sea Lord is NOT the same as a Rear Admiral Officer posting.

One is a political appointment, the other is a professional officer appointment. 

He would have had trouble leading his battalion on the western front when he left the Admiralty from the deck of a warship presumably anchored in the Channel. (Being an army officer at the time also)

Maybe you read that somewhere in your research and thought it sounded OK?

He was instrumental though in having the R N fully prepared for war - which was admirable!

1)Curtin overruled Churchill to bring troupes home to defend australia instead of defending the jewel in the Crown, India, by sending them directly into Burma. You wouldnt be speaking Russian if Churchill got his way, youd be speaking Japanese. 2)Churchill still saw Aussies as canon fodder in WW2 after he had been sacked as 1st lord of the Admiralty for his ##up at the Dardinelles in 1915.

At least Biff you got it right as it was the navy. And you spelt Churchill correctly.