This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
K wrote:Do high-school students actually study Australian history? I don't think they did in my school. I think in primary school, history was more of the Burke and Wills stuff, not details of citizenship acts. By 11th and 12th grades, studying (almost) any subject is optional, but of all the different history courses, Australian history was regarded as the "veggie" course.
Neither of my kids did it at school, the curriculum are all over the shop these days.
Back when I went to high school in the late 70's early 80's, apart from maths and English, yr 7 and 8 were like a taster plate. You'd do variety of different subjects for a term or 2, then you'd do something different. That gave you an idea of what the different subjects were so by yr 9 and 10 you could choose most of your subjects.
I've always had an interest in history but didn't like the rubbish they taught in yr 7 and 8 so never studied it further. Now I just research topics that interest me on the net.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
OK, I get the thread split no dramas, and your "agenda" is that Australia had a bloody past. I get that too.
As I said, I'll read the link later (tomorrow) however I don't agree we had a bloody past if it's put in context with the time and compared to other colonised countries. We'll see how this plays out,.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
From their studies Clark and Gardner identified the key characteristics of frontier massacre.
- Usually takes place in response to the Aboriginal killing of a white person, usually a male who had abducted and sexually abused an Aboriginal woman, or the alleged Aboriginal theft of colonial property such as livestock which had occupied Aboriginal hunting grounds.
- Planned rather than a spontaneous event.
- Intention is to destroy or eradicate the victims or force them to submission.
- Assassins and victims usually know each other.
- Takes place in secret.
- Code of silence in the aftermath, makes detection extremely difficult.
- Witnesses, assassins and survivors sometimes acknowledge the massacre long after the event when fear of arrest or reprisal from the assassins is no longer an issue.
The characteristics matched those identified by international massacre scholar, Jacques Semelin in 2001.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
OK, I read your post above and decided to have a quick read. first thing I read was this.
From the moment the British invaded Australia in 1788 they encountered active resistance from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander owners and custodians of the lands. In the frontier wars which continued until the 1960s massacres became a defining strategy to eradicate that resistance.
Nah, sorry, website content does not pass the test of being factual and unbiased. That bit alone tells me all I need ti know.
Ba Bow, fail, try again.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
The facts and numbers may be researched, but the language it's presented in is from someone with a seriously biased agenda.
Use of the term "invaded" up front is the first big alarm bell as it's a provocative term that does not have universal acceptance. Also claiming that the massacres were part of some overall "strategy" shows again a level of bias.
"The centre for 21st century humanities"? Please
Can you find something written by a real scientist or researcher who knows how to present facts without putting their own emotive overlay on it?
edit, the Wiki article was good. I can see that happening and can almost understand how and why, without in anyway attempting to condone or justify it
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
premeditated in the case that groups deliberately went out hunting rather than tripped over and fell on an Aboriginal camp and killing them? I'll wear it in that context, but not in the case of some overarching strategy.
I assume most of the massacres follow similar themes and the overarching theme really is one that's been played out the world over. 2 disparate groups of people in conflict over the same patch of land and resources.
I grew up in the bush, it can be a harsh place to be a farmer or pastoralist. On one hand you have pastoralists trying to make a living on the land raising cattle, needing water and on the other hands groups of people just trying to live on that same land the way they always had. 2 groups in conflict, neither with a lot of sympathy for the other.
Each side has targeted responses to specific acts, whether it be natives killing cattle, or station hands raping Indigenous women. One side gets pissed off and people get killed. There is one or more reprisals, the side with the better weapons kills more people.
These are all isolated incidents with common themes and causes. Deeply regrettable yes, but understandable if seen through the lens of that time.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
