on โ06-06-2020 08:50 AM
If you're fighting to protect people's lives, why not start by not risking the innocent lives of everyone elses. Find another time. I will have more respect for you. I was just saying the other day: Thank God that Australians aren't as crazy as Americans and we have at least some common sense not to choose this time to protest.
on โ25-07-2020 08:17 PM
@davewil1964 wrote:The convicts were British, so they were as required to follow British law as they were in Britain. Although not following the law is what got them sent here.
The aborigines were already here and had British law imposed on them. An entirely different matter.
So what are you suggesting? The treatment of convicts was justified, but the treatment of aborigines was not! Is that it?
on โ25-07-2020 08:49 PM
@not_for_sale2025 wrote:
@davewil1964 wrote:The convicts were British, so they were as required to follow British law as they were in Britain. Although not following the law is what got them sent here.
The aborigines were already here and had British law imposed on them. An entirely different matter.
So what are you suggesting? The treatment of convicts was justified, but the treatment of aborigines was not! Is that it?
Not at all, as a cursory reading of my post would attest.
What I'm saying is the the convicts were British and subject to British law. The aborigines weren't British and had British law imposed on them. They weren't even Australians until 1967. And their entire culture didn't have an embedded respect for the authority of anybody but their own elders. And they had their land taken from them.
The difference is that the convicts, once they had done their time, became free men and women. The aborigines became dispossessed. Some convicts (a lot) even ended up as landowners (of previously aboriginal land) and pillars of society. Not my great-great-great-grandfather - he was an Irish seditionist. While he ended up with a reasonable chunk of land, I doubt he was a pillar of society. He was a traditionalist, though, and carried on the defiance of the English by tax-dodging. He probably would have harboured Kellys if he'd still been alive when they were around.
on โ25-07-2020 09:47 PM
@davewil1964 wrote:So what are you suggesting? The treatment of convicts was justified, but the treatment of aborigines was not! Is that it?
Not at all, as a cursory reading of my post would attest.
"Not at all". So you think the treatment of convicts was unjustified?
on โ25-07-2020 09:55 PM
I'll refer you to my last post.
If you can't understand that, it is unlikely anything I write will penetrate.
on โ25-07-2020 10:09 PM
@davewil1964 wrote:I'll refer you to my last post.
If you can't understand that, it is unlikely anything I write will penetrate.
Ok Dave, I thought you'd be more amenable, given the Raiders' victory. I read your last post and it wasn't a cursory reading either. That's why I queried your comment. But you are entitled to decline a response - it's a good back door.
on โ25-07-2020 11:05 PM
@not_for_sale2025 wrote:
@davewil1964 wrote:I'll refer you to my last post.
If you can't understand that, it is unlikely anything I write will penetrate.
Ok Dave, I thought you'd be more amenable, given the Raiders' victory. I read your last post and it wasn't a cursory reading either. That's why I queried your comment. But you are entitled to decline a response - it's a good back door.
It's also a valid stance. If you don't understand what I'm saying no repeats will clarify what I'm saying.
Go Raiders! Viking clap. And we had a home game at home. Awesome.
on โ25-07-2020 11:09 PM
I very much understood what you wrote Dave, and you know it.
The Bunnies nearly got them. It was a riveting match.
on โ25-07-2020 11:19 PM
I will have one more go.
The British convicts were subject to British law. As such, any punishment meted out to them could not have been unexpected. And there was, for the majority, a ticket-of-leave at the end of their time, at which point they became effectively free men and women.
The Australian aborigines were unwillingly subject to British law, but they hadn't been convicted of a crime and there was no ticket-of-leave available, even 200 years down the track.
Therefore, the treatment by the British of convicts and aborigines, whilst similar on the surface, is in no way the same in reality.
on โ26-07-2020 12:54 AM
@davewil1964 wrote:I will have one more go.
The British convicts were subject to British law. As such, any punishment meted out to them could not have been unexpected. And there was, for the majority, a ticket-of-leave at the end of their time, at which point they became effectively free men and women.
The Australian aborigines were unwillingly subject to British law, but they hadn't been convicted of a crime and there was no ticket-of-leave available, even 200 years down the track.
Therefore, the treatment by the British of convicts and aborigines, whilst similar on the surface, is in no way the same in reality.
And I will have one last go too Dave, and then that's it for me.
You seem to regard the punishment inflicted on the convicts as lawful, under British governance. I don't know how much you have read about early Australian history. But I regard some of the punishment, according to history, to be barbaric, intensely cruel but totally consistent with the British legal system at the time. These are the same people who murdered aborigines, beheaded them and shipped the trophies home to England for research and display.
The violent use of power under the guise of law, whether it is directed at convicts, white people or black people should never be justified. The British legal system during the 1800's was notoriously gruesome. Nobody deserves to be mistreated by the establishment, irrespective of whether they are willingly or unwillingly subject to the law. I wonder if the families of the convicts and aborigines suffered with any great difference, in reality!
on โ26-07-2020 06:46 AM