and you don't even need a gun

China has rampted up it's trade war with Australia to the extent that it has caused serious problems for the Chinese population.

Since October no Australian coal has been unloaded in China with some 70-100 ships standing offshore with loads of coal, but Chinese power stations need the coal and they are experiencing power system shutdowns. This is self inflicted misery and rather than giving Australia headaches they have inflicted more damage on themselves.

So The Chinese will not enjoy Australian lobster and wine for Christmas because of their shortsightedness, their beer will cost more and be of poorer quality, they will not enjoy Australian beef and lamb. Come Chinese New Year they will be in significant trouble

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-18/china-electricity-power-shortage-hunan-zhejiang-australia-coal/12993418

This is what a CCP planned economy gets you

and here I thought you favored a planned economy. If they can't burn coal then the powers that be at the Paris Climate agreement will be pleased. Xi said that China will reach peak emissions by 2030 instead of the 2060 goal agreed upon . wooohooo !!
Doesn't matter ....almost none of the countries are on a trajectory to achieve the unrealistic goals set by the Paris agreement . As always it is not the results that matter in the progressive world ..... it is the intent that matters .

Do the Chinese really eat a lot of Aussie lobster; beef ,lamb and drink a lot of Aussie wine ? and why couldn't they get it from other trade partners ? The coal I get . Aussie is the biggest exporter of that dirty energy . But there is no shortage of other countries that could supply them .Mozambique , Mongolia, Philippines ,and Canada have all ramped up their exports .So it is not like the Aussies have a monopoly on the supply .What they don't have is another market quite like China . So it appears that they have you by the short hairs .

Imagine that. China playing hardball to achieve it's own ends. Let them freeze and starve it's people then. Sell your dirt else where and don't send them any more. That goes for everything you trade. Or pay the tariffs.

The average Chinese probably isn't a lamb chop and wine connoisseur any way. They do have an advantage with whatever they need for population compliance too.

Do the Chinese really eat a lot of Aussie lobster; beef ,lamb and drink a lot of Aussie wine ? and why couldn't they get it from other trade partners ? The coal I get . Aussie is the biggest exporter of that dirty energy . But there is no shortage of other countries that could supply them .Mozambique , Mongolia, Philippines ,and Canada have all ramped up their exports .So it is not like the Aussies have a monopoly on the supply .What they don't have is another market quite like China . So it appears that they have you by the short hairs .

Yes we have a big market in China for those things and if we were to cut off the supply of iron ore we would have then by the short and curlies. We are a rational people where as we have caused the Chinese to loose face over covid 19 and orientals don't like to loose face. What they are forcing us to do is find other markets and this we will do and it eases domestic prices so the impact isn't what they think it is. You speak of our dirt as being dirty but in fact it is high quality and sought after.

Tal I though the Trump days taught you who tariffs are paid by

screw them and their losing face. Had they been up front about the virus then maybe it would've made a difference . Instead they locked down except for travel outside .

I agree with you about tariffs EXCEPT where national security is involved . Even Adam Smith recognized an exception to free trade in using tariffs to support domestic industries that are vital to national defense.

Their lockdown proved effective in confining the outbreak. As they are not a truly open society we cannot be assured of all they claim but no doubt they are not as afflicted as the US. Have to wonder if it isn't just a little too good

As I understand it, their lockdown was enforced in a pretty cruel manner.

undoubtedly

If they can't burn coal then the powers that be at the Paris Climate agreement will be pleased. Xi said that China will reach peak emissions by 2030 instead of the 2060 goal agreed upon . wooohooo !!Yet another reason I'm glad Trump pulled out of the Paris accords. As it turns out, for us at least, our carbon emissions have been trending down for a decade.

You've taught me something new. I didn't realize Australia was such a large producer of coal. What do the Chinese want from you?

to kowtow, to accept their belt and road, to be open to their investment, to break with our alliance with the US, to stop criticising them on human rights issues, to break with India and Japan and I expect to open our waters to their fisheries. In other words; to accept their exploitation

there is obviously a lot you don't know about us, we are big in many ways. in agriculture, In minerals, in medical research, in technology, in land mass, it is just our population is smaller

I learned today that you are also infested with snake filled sea foam .

Huge amount of sea foam washed up in Australia (matadornetwork.com) (https://matadornetwork.com/read/western-australia-snake-hiding-seafoam/?fbclid=IwAR3q6BdkZ5-9tRqBS0NlMzBa7Z9mGGgAyh7z2sA7SaeSr4IcXK6hBYvO-lk)

I admire what Australia has done. The non-stop criticism of the United States?? Not so much.

I admire what Australia has done. The non-stop criticism of the United States?? Not so much.

what you don't appreciate is a different perspective. Yes, we are far away, but far enough away to have a different perspective. I'm sure the people of the US are all great people, but the actions of your government, your President, defy understanding at times. I also don't like your multinational corporations who are predatory. All of this stems from what is described as manifest destiny, which is an arrogant, superior, attitude towards others. We now see such an attitude emerging in China


I learned today that you are also infested with snake filled sea foam .

Huge amount of sea foam washed up in Australia (matadornetwork.com) (https://matadornetwork.com/read/western-australia-snake-hiding-seafoam/?fbclid=IwAR3q6BdkZ5-9tRqBS0NlMzBa7Z9mGGgAyh7z2sA7SaeSr4IcXK6hBYvO-lk)

Storms do sometimes create sea foam and there are both sea snakes and others washed down in flooding. We have had some very big rain events lately along our east coast. Somewhat unseasonal weather associated with la nina. The article exaggerates the extent of the problem

All of this stems from what you described as manifest destiny, which an arrogant, superior, attitude towards others. We now see such an attitude emerging in China
Paraclete is correct:

LIST OF CONS OF MANIFEST DESTINY1. It takes away someone’s property to give it to someone else.
People who have been living and building their homes and communities in a specific area of land can just be forcibly pushed out so the new settlers can live there.
2. It seeds dissent.
When you take away something from someone without his consent, you will stir negativity. He will naturally feel angry and will find a way to reclaim what is his.
3. It causes violence and war.
Critics of Manifest Destiny argued that the ideology resulted to the civil war and war between countries. Native Indians who were defiant in not giving up their land and culture resolved to bloodshed and conflict.
4. It leads to the oppression of people.
Settlers can enslave and kill people whose land need to be taken in the name of Manifest Destiny. This is why most of the native Indian population was annihilated.
5. It encourages the use of the name of God and religion for personal gain.
Those opposed to Manifest Destiny believed that the philosophy manipulated the words that are attributed to God and used it to justify the act of killing someone in order to take their land.
Manifest Destiny was integral in shaping the current status enjoyed by the United States today, and that is as one of the wealthiest nations in the world. But are the means in acquiring such a status just and moral? Was it all worth it? These questions can be answered by each person on his own by weighing the pros and cons.
https://flowpsychology.com/10-pros-and-cons-of-manifest-destiny/

That's a pretty fair listing, but we are being silly if we think it was a purely American occurrence. Did Australia negotiate with the natives when it took over the country? The ground of Europe is soaked with the blood of centuries of wars of conquest. African tribes routinely took land from each other. For that matter, Native Americans warred constantly with each other for land. It doesn't make it right, but it does make it wide-spread.

That's a pretty fair listing, but we are being silly if we think it was a purely American occurrence.
No one said that.

No one said that.True, but no one said otherwise, and the U.S. was the only country under consideration. Few things bother me more than the many treaties we made, and then routinely violated, with Native tribes.

That's a pretty fair listing, but we are being silly if we think it was a purely American occurrence. Did Australia negotiate with the natives when it took over the country? The ground of Europe is soaked with the blood of centuries of wars of conquest. African tribes routinely took land from each other. For that matter, Native Americans warred constantly with each other for land. It doesn't make it right, but it does make it wide-spread.

When the British landed in Australia they were instructed to have good relationships with the natives, they did not come with the idea of taking something that belonged to someone else but in the mistaken belief that the land was terra nullius, an entirely different concept to manifest destiny. When Cook sailed the coast of Australia he saw no evidence of civilisation in any form and in reality had little contact with natives. It was the British who conducted wars with the natives and limited affairs they were. Australia has not conducted wars with its natives and although there is much to condemn early contact, there was no civilisation here in any form, as distinct from the situation in the americas. The indigenous of Australia were, and still are, stone age peoples with no idea of nation. They refer to country which consists of some 200 patches of ill defined tribal lands. Since the indigenous had no concept of land ownership it wasn't possible to acquire land by treaty and trade. Such wars as there were weren't about land per se but the result of conflict over hunting and such

https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.oXohY_ABXHIO0-KMWbLvDwHaGw&w=223&h=204&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&o=6&pid=3.1&rm=2

The indigenous of Australia were, and still are, stone age peoples with no idea of nation. They refer to country which consists of some 200 patches of ill defined tribal lands. Since the indigenous had no concept of land ownership it wasn't possible to acquire land by treaty and trade. Such wars as there were weren't about land per se but the result of conflict over hunting and suchI'm not sure what your point is. Is it OK to practice a manifest destiny against people as long as they are "stone age peoples" with "no concept of land ownership"? I bet they felt the areas where they lived and hunted were pretty important to them.

I'm not sure what your point is. Is it OK to practice a manifest destiny against people as long as they are "stone age peoples" with "no concept of land ownership"? I bet they felt the areas where they lived and hunted were pretty important to them.

As I said not manifest destiny but a British concept of Terra Nullius, land belonging to no one. Of course the areas were important to them but their concept was the animals and what grew naturally on the land was theirs and what the white man built, and his animals, and what he produced from labour was his. When white development made game and native produce scarce, conflict ensued. Sort of like the american destruction of the buffalo. Originally white settlers occupied only small parcels of land. I live in a place which was home to a famed aboriginal warrior Windradyne, who fought a short war against some settlers, those who obviously possessed this stupid concept of manifest destiny. You could liken him to your Geronimo

Manifest destiny, biblically known as selfishness. It is the common affliction of mankind.

there was no civilisation here in any form how arrogant . Of course your natives had their own culture and civilization .

how arrogant . Of course your natives had their own culture and civilization .

Culture, yes. Civilization, no.

Culture, yes. Civilization, yes. They were no doubt the most advanced civilization on the Australian continent. But it's all a moot point. Their land was taken from them. If you don't believe that, then ask them. And the same is true on every continent. It's the sinful inclination of mankind to unjustly take from others.

Aboriginal Australians Are The World's Oldest Civilization (allthatsinteresting.com) (https://allthatsinteresting.com/aboriginal-australians-oldest-culture)

Well...that settles that.

Aboriginal Australians Are The World's Oldest Civilization (allthatsinteresting.com) (https://allthatsinteresting.com/aboriginal-australians-oldest-culture)

The article is incorrect. It equates an assembly of peoples into a group as a "civilization" (from the Latin civitas meaning "city"). That is not what a civilization is defined as. The Aboriginal Australians may be the world's oldest culture, but definitely not the world's oldest civilization.

The marks of a civilization include urbanization (city life), technological development, and monumental architecture among others, none of which the Australians ever achieved.

The marks of a civilization include urbanization (city life), technological development, and monumental architecture among others, none of which the Australians ever achieved.

Jl should note the many achievements that typify their "civilisation" perhaps he would like to emulate them. Cooking kangaroos, lizards whole, skin, guts and all. Hollowing out tree trucks for canoes, making possum skin cloaks, wandering from place to place. perhaps he confuses them with the Maori of New Zealand who built houses, lived in towns, made elaborate carvings

Yeah. It's OK to steal land from a people and subjugate them as long as they don't meet our high standards of what it means to be a "civilization". If you know of a more advanced civilization on the Australian continent than they were, let us know who they were.

https://www.smh.com.au/technology/aboriginal-scientific-achievements-recognised-at-last-20140423-zqxz9.html#:~:text=Australian%20Aboriginals%20knew %20more%20about%20tides%20than%20astronomer,such%2 0as%20the%20raids%20by%20Aboriginal%20warrior%20Pe mulwuy.

At any rate, the point remains. Their land was taken in a distinctly Aussie version of manifest destiny. Referring to it as Terra Nullius scarcely justifies it. That's not a criticism of Australia, but just an acknowledgement that selfishness is a world wide malady.

Yeah. It's OK to steal land from a people and subjugate them as long as they don't meet our high standards of what it means to be a "civilization". If you know of a more advanced civilization on the Australian continent than they were, let us know who they were.

https://www.smh.com.au/technology/aboriginal-scientific-achievements-recognised-at-last-20140423-zqxz9.html#:~:text=Australian%20Aboriginals%20knew %20more%20about%20tides%20than%20astronomer,such%2 0as%20the%20raids%20by%20Aboriginal%20warrior%20Pe mulwuy.

At any rate, the point remains. Their land was taken in a distinctly Aussie version of manifest destiny. Referring to it as Terra Nullius scarcely justifies it. That's not a criticism of Australia, but just an acknowledgement that selfishness is a world wide malady.

Spoken like a true American, It was the British not the Australians who took the land on this continent, whereas on yours it was the Americans who took the land from the native inhabitants. Yes, you have correctly identified the problem. Advanced civilisations don't make a difference, ask the Aztec or the Inca, but you can brush that off as being the Spanish

they had no reason to urbanize . Urbanization happens after an agricultural economy . There was nothing to grow that could be considered a high yield crop. They also lacked animals that could be herded and domesticated .

It was the British not the AustraliansSo the Brits came in, kicked the natives off their land, left, and then the Australians came in? Sorry. That's a little hard to believe. Those Brits were your ancestors, were they not?

So the Brits came in, kicked the natives off their land, left, and then the Australians came in? Sorry. That's a little hard to believe. Those Brits were your ancestors, were they not?
Check your reading again, please. He said, "It was the British not the Australians who took the land on this continent...."

From Wikipedia:
"The First Fleet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fleet) of British ships arrived at Botany Bay in January 1788[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia#cite_note-2) to establish a penal colony (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_colony), the first colony on the Australian mainland. In the century that followed, the British established other colonies on the continent, and European explorers (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_land_exploration_of_Australia) ventured into its interior. Indigenous Australians (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians) were greatly weakened and their numbers diminished by introduced diseases and conflict with the colonists during this period."

So these people were not the direct ancestors of the Australians??

Check your reading again, please. He said, "It was the British not the Australians who took the land on this continent...."

From Wikipedia:
"The First Fleet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fleet) of British ships arrived at Botany Bay in January 1788[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia#cite_note-2) to establish a penal colony (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_colony), the first colony on the Australian mainland. In the century that followed, the British established other colonies on the continent, and European explorers (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_land_exploration_of_Australia) ventured into its interior. Indigenous Australians (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians) were greatly weakened and their numbers diminished by introduced diseases and conflict with the colonists during this period."

No one denies our history, and yes there would be no modern day Australians if not for the British, or maybe, the French, and Australia would have remained Terra Nullius instead of Terra Australis or maybe just BarBQarea. There were no indigenous Australians just many dissociated people groups. Your natives had some form of organisation, at least in certain parts of the country, and considered themselves nations. That didn't exist here. We don't even know how many there might have been and the last primitives made contact in the twentieth century, just a few desert dwellers in a vast area. In Fact, the death toll from war was relatively small as disease took many. In 1901 the colonies federated and the nation Australia came into existence

they had no reason to urbanize . Urbanization happens after an agricultural economy . There was nothing to grow that could be considered a high yield crop. They also lacked animals that could be herded and domesticated .

This time you're correct. You have, inadvertently perhaps but decidedly, proven the point. Thank you.

the point that you have a narrow definition of civilization

I would like to put this to rest, how many of you actually know any indigenous Australians. I have met a number and counted some among my friends over a number of years. I don't know any who carried overt animosity towards whites or followed an agenda of getting their land back. Many are well integrated into general society. Those that are not are generally located in remote communities


There was nothing to grow that could be considered a high yield crop. They also lacked animals that could be herded and domesticated .This time you're correct. You have, inadvertently perhaps but decidedly, proven the point. Thank you. I'm not sure that is totally true but certainly true of some regions

Bush fruits have been commercialised in recent years, kangaroo is a docile animal when unmolested and could be domesticated, crocodile have been farmed. The fact is, it didn't occur to them to do this, but some yams were "farmed" that is competing species were eliminated

There were no indigenous Australians just many dissociated people groups. Your natives had some form of organisation, at least in certain parts of the country, and considered themselves nations. That didn't exist here. I really don't know what your point is. Are you saying that the Brits running the aborigines off their lands was justified? BTW, I would say the aborigines were indigenous in the same way that the American Indians were. Neither group originated in either Australia or the U.S. They were descendants of others who moved into those areas, or at least so the theory goes, so I don't see the validity of that argument.

so I don't see the validity of that argument.

I don't think you see the validity of any argument other than your own. What the British did in many places is lamentable but doesn't change anything. The British didn't come up with the idea of manifest destiny, that is an American notion. the British came up with Terra Nullius, an entirely different notion. Manifest destiny is the idea that one nation is superior and has the right to rule whatever lands they lay claim to. Terra Nullius is the idea that the land belongs to noone as there are no established settlements there and therefore they have the right to lay claim to it

the point that you have a narrow definition of civilization

My definition is the truth - a notion you right-wing Republicans have abandoned.

Well I'll go with every news source that reported that the Aussie Aboriginals are the oldest civilization on earth .Those sources include CNN, Guardian, Smithsonian. The Euro definition is used as a pejorative against what they call primitive societies and are used as an excuse to abuse 'primitive people' .

But to use your definition ,the Aussie aboriginals were still in fact a civilization . They were not nomadic. They lived in villages near food sources . Their homes were often connected . The homes were domed shape contructed of cane reed and palm leave roofs . In Western Australia stone walls were used in the construction .

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WTPiOgTRyf0/UIAPdlaubkI/AAAAAAAAAHY/4L21AYrprdg/s1600/domesvillage_web.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_otY2M2UNKw/UIAPpAUWJtI/AAAAAAAAAHo/nrn7fdTIuv8/s1600/Memmott-2-183x300.jpg
Each group had a governing structure and land they occupied . Their laws were pass on from ancestral beings over the years .They called it 'dreamtime' or 'Tjukurrpa'

.They traded with other tribes ,they warred with other tribes . But it was not to take territory . The ancestral beings prescribed the roles of men and women for all aspects of life, religious and secular ; marriage, child bearing, death as well as the economy of the group. They also warned of the consequences if the taboos were not adhered to and had laws to enforce them.

Well I'll go with every news source that reported that the Aussie Aboriginals are the oldest civilization on earth .Those sources include CNN, Guardian, Smithsonian.

Every one of your sources are wrong. CNN and The Guardian each cited the same genomic study that examined the relation of Australian Aborigines to other groups in the area and examined their origins. The study was based on DNA. The Smithsonian cited The Guardian. NOWHERE IN THE ORIGINAL STUDY DOES THE TERM "CIVILIZATION" EVER APPEAR!

Your sources simply added the word - carelessly, I might add - as a catch-all for "culture". It is common to use the words interchangeably, but not when a specific society is being examined to determine whether its culture could be classified as "civilization". That is the situation here.

Your other marks – trading, warring, gender roles, religious and secular life, marriage, childbearing, and death, etc. – are all signs of a culture. All societies possess these. In addition to the cultural signs you mentioned, civilizations possess far more characteristics as I outlined in post #27.

I don't think you see the validity of any argument other than your own. What the British did in many places is lamentable but doesn't change anything. The British didn't come up with the idea of manifest destiny, that is an American notion. the British came up with Terra Nullius, an entirely different notion. Manifest destiny is the idea that one nation is superior and has the right to rule whatever lands they lay claim to. Terra Nullius is the idea that the land belongs to noone as there are no established settlements there and therefore they have the right to lay claim to itSo you can take land from native peoples as long as it's called Terra Nullius rather than manifest destiny? Your approach seems to be that it's OK as long as it was done in Australia, but wrong when done in the U.S. If you take the land that people are living on and dependent on, then call it what you will, it is still wrong. Their numbers are about a third of what they were when white settlers began to arrive. They were not given the right to vote until 1962. It has been a history of oppression and mistreatment.

"By the 1870s all the fertile areas of Australia had been appropriated, and Aboriginal communities reduced to impoverished remnants living either on the fringes of European communities or on lands considered unsuitable for settlement."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians


Every one of your sources are wrong.Everyone is wrong. Only Athos is right. Why am I not surprised?

Tom, aboriginals are not a civilisation, very few ever lived in villages or built huts, they constructed temporary shelters, their game moved so they moved, the idea that they stayed long term in one place is false and would only have been possible for coastal people. Torres Strait Islanders are a whole different issue, a different people. After colonisation, many died out either from disease or warfare. Because there were limited populations in any place, there were perhaps 20,000 killed, there was very limited organised resistance which could be expected if a civilisation existed. There were no capital cities to be conquered.

I have a suspicious feeling that the aboriginals of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries would have had a somewhat different outlook than yours, and that suffering so much loss under the principle of Terra Nullius rather than manifest destiny would have made but little difference to them.


Because there were limited populations in any place, there were perhaps 20,000 killed, there was very limited organised resistance which could be expected if a civilisation existed.An absolutely incredible statement which is being used to justify the crimes carried out against these largely defenseless people since, after all, they were supposedly not a civilization. Just incredible. Hopefully you misstated that.

Indigenous peoples believe the land isn't owned, but is open to and free for everyone's use.

Civilization -- NOUN

the stage of human social development and organization which is considered most advanced.

"they equated the railroad with progress and civilization"
synonyms:
human development · advancement (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+advancement&FORM=DCTRQY) · progress (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+progress&FORM=DCTRQY) · enlightenment (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+enlightenment&FORM=DCTRQY) · edification (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+edification&FORM=DCTRQY) · culture (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+culture&FORM=DCTRQY) · cultivation (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+cultivation&FORM=DCTRQY) · refinement (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+refinement&FORM=DCTRQY) · sophistication (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+sophistication&FORM=DCTRQY)

the process by which a society or place reaches an advanced stage of social development and organization.

which is considered most advanced.Then plainly the American Indians were not civilizations, for they were FAR removed from being the most advanced or anything even close to it.

I'll say it again. There was unquestionably no more advanced, "human social development and organization," on the Australian continent that the Aborigines.


Indigenous peoples believe the land isn't owned, but is open to and free for everyone's use.Weren't the American Indians indigenous peoples? If so, then the land was not owned and was free for everyone's use, so then how was manifest destiny wrong?

I don't agree with that idea since I thoroughly disagree with your basic premise.

Weren't the American Indians indigenous peoples? If so, then the land was not owned and was free for everyone's use, so then how was manifest destiny wrong?
Yes, they were -- and are.

Manifest Destiny said the land is for everyone's use? No land will be sold and will be enjoyed by all?

"Manifest Destiny was the concept that the United States had a God-given right to take over territory all the way to the Pacific Ocean. The phrase "Manifest Destiny" was created in 1845 by a newspaper writer named John L. O'Sullivan."
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

Yes, they were -- and are.

Manifest Destiny said the land is for everyone's use? No land will be sold and will be enjoyed by all?MD did not say that, but you did. I was using YOUR definition. "Indigenous peoples believe the land isn't owned, but is open to and free for everyone's use." Now you say they were, and are, indigenous peoples, so wouldn't that mean the land, according to your definition, "isn't owned, but is open to and free for everyone's use?"

Native Americans: "We believe the land isn't owned, but is open to and free for everyone's use."

Manifest Destiny: "Explore this great land and crash through whatever you have to in order to get to the west end of it. Cheat or even kill anyone who gets in your way. Meanwhile, grab and hold on to as much land as you can."

Manifest Destiny: "Explore this great land and crash through whatever you have to in order to get to the west end of it. Cheat or even kill anyone who gets in your way. Meanwhile, grab and hold on to as much land as you can."Well, that's your version of it. It was not, however, completely accepted nationwide.

"Historians have emphasized that "manifest destiny" was a contested concept—Democrats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Democratic_Party) endorsed the idea but many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln),[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny#cite_note-9) Ulysses S. Grant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant),[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny#cite_note-10) and most Whigs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States))) rejected it.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny#cite_note-11) Historian Daniel Walker Howe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Walker_Howe) writes, "American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity ... Whigs saw America's moral mission as one of democratic example rather than one of conquest."[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny#cite_note-12) Historian Frederick Merk likewise concluded: "From the outset Manifest Destiny—vast in program, in its sense of continentalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continentalism#Continentalism_in_North_America)—wa s slight in support. It lacked national, sectional, or party following commensurate with its magnitude. The reason was it did not reflect the national spirit. The thesis that it embodied nationalism, found in much historical writing, is backed by little real supporting evidence."[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny#cite_note-13)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

Now as I've said, I think our treatment of the Natives was terrible. It is likely something we should address as a nation, but your view of how indigenous people looked at the land certainly leaves MD as an ethical possibility since, after all, you cannot take land from people who do not consider it to be their property.

Might add that, so far as I know, MD was never an official government policy.

We stole land that was their living space, waterways, and hunting grounds. They didn't understand the concept of selling land.

They didn't understand the concept of selling land.I think they understood better than you think. They certainly made treaties that involved swapping land for payments of one sort or another.

The core of this whole thing went back to the Australian treatment of the Aboriginal people which was every bit as bad as our treatment of the Native tribes, but only on a smaller scale.

They certainly made treaties that involved swapping land for payments of one sort or another.
Yup, once they figured out what those white guys were up to. And they still got screwed --and, to this day, STILL ARE getting cheated....

I think they understood better than you think. They certainly made treaties that involved swapping land for payments of one sort or another.

The core of this whole thing went back to the Australian treatment of the Aboriginal people which was every bit as bad as our treatment of the Native tribes, but only on a smaller scale.

Yes we didn't send regiments into the field to murder them

Yes we didn't send regiments into the field to murder them
I suppose that makes the taking of their lands and the enormous diminishing of their numbers a little more palatable for you, but there is really not much difference, and especially considering this.

"On the mainland, prolonged conflict (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Frontier_Wars) followed the frontier of European settlement.[62] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians#cite_note-62) In 1834, John Dunmore Lang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dunmore_Lang) wrote: "There is black blood at this moment on the hands of individuals of good repute in the colony of New South Wales of which all the waters of New Holland would be insufficient to wash out the indelible stains."[63] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians#cite_note-63) In 1790, an Aboriginal leader Pemulwuy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemulwuy) in Sydney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney) resisted the Europeans,[64] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians#cite_note-64) waging a guerrilla-style warfare on the settlers in a series of wars known as the Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkesbury_and_Nepean_Wars), which spanned 26 years, from 1790 to 1816.[65] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians#cite_note-65) In 1838, twenty eight Aboriginal people were killed at the Myall Creek massacre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myall_Creek_massacre); seven of the convict settlers responsible, six white men and one African man, were tried, convicted and hanged for the murders. Many Aboriginal communities resisted the settlers, such as the Noongar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noongar) of south-western Australia, led by Yagan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yagan), who was killed in 1833. The Kalkadoon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalkadoon) of Queensland also resisted the settlers, and there was a massacre of over 200 people on their land at Battle Mountain in 1884. There was a massacre at Coniston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coniston_(Northern_Territory)) in the Territory of Central Australia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Australia_(territory)) in 1928. Poisoning of food and water has been recorded on several different occasions. The number of violent deaths at the hands of white people is still the subject of debate, with a figure of around 10,000–20,000 deaths being advanced by historians such as Henry Reynolds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Reynolds_(historian)). However the methodology behind figures such as this one has been criticised due to the fact that only white deaths were documented in frontier conflicts, forcing historians to estimate a country-wide white-black death ratio in violent confrontations and infer from this the number of Aboriginal deaths.[66] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians#cite_note-66) Reynolds, and other historians, estimate that up to 3,000 white people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people) were killed by Aboriginal Australians in the frontier violence.[67] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians#cite_note-67) By the 1870s all the fertile areas of Australia had been appropriated, and Aboriginal communities reduced to impoverished remnants living either on the fringes of European communities or on lands considered unsuitable for settlement."

You might as well face up to it. Your example of how to treat indigenous people is a pretty sad and selfish one, and sadly similar to ours.

Native Americans had about as much choice as imported slaves. Take the deal or die. Some choice. This has been repeated throughout the history of man with pretty much the same outcome. Conquest of land and resources and the suppression, subjugation and oppression of the conquered peoples. The labels and names for those actions have changed and varied to justify such actions and protect the conquerors.

Works every time until Hitler got carried away.

You might as well face up to it. Your example of how to treat indigenous people is a pretty sad and selfish one, and sadly similar to ours.

Once again, it was the British who did these things, my own family were free Irish settlers who had a good relationship with natives in a remote corner of New South Wales. Even then the British did not march armies across the land to dispossess the natives so while there was violence and bad things happened, what happened here was not on the same scale as what happened there. Saying all the fertile areas had been appropriated is only saying that parts of the coastal fringe and some grass lands had been taken over. There were vast forests, rugged mountain ranges and an inhospitable inland.

while there was violence and bad things happened, what happened here was not on the same scale as what happened there. That's already been said, so we can agree on that. But you neglected to note that, "By the 1870s all the fertile areas of Australia had been appropriated, and Aboriginal communities reduced to impoverished remnants." Being reduced to "impoverished remnants" says a lot. "Reduced" indicated a large reduction in population, and "impoverished" says poverty, poverty, poverty, so neither Australia nor the U.S. has anything to boast about in their treatments of native populations.

That's already been said, so we can agree on that. But you neglected to note that, "By the 1870s all the fertile areas of Australia had been appropriated, and Aboriginal communities reduced to impoverished remnants." Being reduced to "impoverished remnants" says a lot. "Reduced" indicated a large reduction in population, and "impoverished" says poverty, poverty, poverty, so neither Australia nor the U.S. has anything to boast about in their treatments of native populations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_land_exploration_of_Australia

please note nowhere in this account are there details of military expeditions.

There is nothing to say that before colonisation the natives were not impoverished by european standards. It is very subjective to make and rely on such statements. Such accounts are rhetorical since the natives had no concept of property, poverty or possessions as the europeans did. They were a hunter/gatherer society and when resources were depleted they moved on

That's all fair to say, but if you are trying to suggest that there was any nobility or honor in your treatment of the Aborigines, then I'll have to completely disagree with you. The fact that their numbers were reduced from several hundred thousand to a several tens of thousands speaks volumes.

The fact that their numbers were reduced from several hundred thousand to a several tens of thousands speaks volumes.
And many of them died from diseases that had been introduced to the continent by the Europeans.

And many of them died from diseases that had been introduced to the continent by the Europeans.Similar to what happened to the Aztecs, I suppose.

That's all fair to say, but if you are trying to suggest that there was any nobility or honor in your treatment of the Aborigines, then I'll have to completely disagree with you. The fact that their numbers were reduced from several hundred thousand to a several tens of thousands speaks volumes.

It is doubtful the numbers reduced as much as you say, there was a decline in settled areas. As I have said before regrettable things happened. The colonists, from the outset, were under instruction to have good relationship with the natives. Unfortunately, this did not persist in all areas due to cultural differences and misunderstandings, but you need to remember that the circumstances of many of the early settlers being convicts, weren't much better than the natives. Disease was responsible for a great many native deaths. The British, who were supposed to be enlightened demonstrated little enlightenment as you witnessed for yourselves

regrettable things happened.I guess that's one way of putting it. I imagine the Aborigines would use a little stronger language. Were the Brits responsible for the natives not getting the vote until 1962?

I guess that's one way of putting it. I imagine the Aborigines would use a little stronger language. Were the Brits responsible for the natives not getting the vote until 1962?

As a Student of Australian history you would be aware that we didn't cut our ties to Britain fully until the second half of the twentieth century. The aborigines are not mentioned in the constitution which expressly forbad the parliament to make laws in respect of race. During the first half century this nation saw itself as British. It wasn't until WWII that we realised we were alone and Britain could not be relied upon.

The aborigines, in response to various international rabble rousers, have become increasingly militant and may I remind you that it wasn't until the second half of the twentieth century that your own nation stopped discriminating against blacks, so that is a rocking pedestal you have mounted

may I remind you that it wasn't until the second half of the twentieth century that your own nation stopped discriminating against blacks, so that is a rocking pedestal you have mountedI am on no pedestal. I have said several times that our treatment of the native populations was very bad. I am only pointing out that Australia does not occupy the moral high ground in this issue, and to portray your own behavior as "regrettable" is the understatement of the year. Both our policies and yours were deceitful, dishonest, and murderous.

Why past tense? Discrimination and even murder not only of indigenous peoples but also of Blacks (whom the whites brought here to be slaves) and other poc is still going on as we speak.

You mentioned minorities. Are you aware that the greatest killer of black Americans by far is liberal dem promoted abortion. The greatest perpetrators of murder in the black community, by far, are...other black Americans. Government endorsed killing, other than abortion, is basically non-existent. The rare cases that occur are very properly denounced and the killer is prosecuted.

You mentioned minorities. Are you aware that the greatest killer of black Americans by far is liberal dem promoted abortion. The greatest perpetrators of murder in the black community, by far, are...other black Americans. Government endorsed killing, other than abortion, is basically non-existent. The rare cases that occur are very properly denounced and the killer is prosecuted.
Thus, that gets the white guys off the hook. Those minorities are killing themselves.

What a strange response. I guess it’s what is said when you cannot refute the data. Just say something racial in the grand tradition of liberal dems.

What a strange response. I guess it’s what is said when you cannot refute the data. Just say something racial in the grand tradition of liberal dems.
It's exactly what you said but less grandiosely -- Black Americans are killing themselves by getting abortions and by murders/shootings of each other in the Black communities.

Black Americans are killing themselves by getting abortions and by murders/shootings of each other in the Black communities.Exactly correct. Now that's not ALL I said, but you come back with no data, and only a weird racial statement about white people getting off the hook. That, of course, is strictly make believe. It's a shame that you liberals love so much to avoid the truth, and thus prevent the real problems from being addressed.

But if you have data that refutes what I said, then by all means post it.

Exactly correct. Now that's not ALL I said, but you come back with no data, and only a weird racial statement about white people getting off the hook. That, of course, is strictly make believe. It's a shame that you liberals love so much to avoid the truth, and thus prevent the real problems from being addressed.

But if you have data that refutes what I said, then by all means post it.
YOU said it; I didn't. "The greatest perpetrators of murder in the black community, by far, are...other black Americans."

Yes. 90% of black murders are carried out by other black Americans. Are you questioning that???

Yes. 90% of black murders are carried out by other black Americans. Are you questioning that???
You questioned why I had no data (for what?? you made the statement) and said I'd made a weird statement about whites getting off the hook. If, as you say, Blacks are killing each other via abortion and guns, how do white people fit into that equation?

What data was I supposed to refute? You had it all wrapped up and tied with a big bow.

White people could start with stopping abortion. That would be the equivalent of 300,000 George Floyd’s a year. Are you ready to join in that movement, oh white person? Is it only words with you?

White people could start with stopping abortion. That would be the equivalent of 300,000 George Floyd’s a year. Are you ready to join in that movement, oh white person? Is it only words with you?
Why only white people stopping abortion? How?

(George Floyd's what? Why possessive?)

Forget it. You’re back to your usual silliness. These issues are not jokes to me.

Forget it. You’re back to your usual silliness. These issues are not jokes to me.
Then stop your bad behavior. I ask again: Why only white people stopping abortion? How?

Blacks are killing each other via abortion and guns, how do white people fit into that equation?Are you completely unable to remember your own questions???

But I'll ask again. If stopping abortion will save 300,000 black lives a year. are you on board, or are you just all talk? Have a little courage and answer the question. Do you have that kind of courage???


Already I know that you will not answer the question. It's your pattern.

Are you completely unable to remember your own questions???
You aren't able to answer them?

But I'll ask again. If stopping abortion will save 300,000 black lives a year. are you on board, or are you just all talk? Have a little courage and answer the question. Do you have that kind of courage???
Courage??? What about white lives? As they say, All Lives Matter, right?

As I said, I knew you wouldn't answer. You never do. Instead of giving a serious, thoughtful reply, you just come back with inane comments. I think that is very unfortunate. You are so fearful of actually thinking about a topic, and where it might take you, that you refuse to do it. Oh well. Can't say I didn't try.

As I said, I knew you wouldn't answer. You never do. Instead of giving a serious, thoughtful reply, you just come back with inane comments. I think that is very unfortunate. You are so fearful of actually thinking about a topic, and where it might take you, that you refuse to do it. Oh well. Can't say I didn't try.
You are talking about yourself -- refuse to answer my questions. My past suggestion of a mandatory, reversible vasectomy at age 11 or 12 would solve the abortion problem. Amputation of hands would solve the shooting/murdering problem.

not very practical and a fascist solution, why not try the WWI solution of bromide in the water

bromide in the waterWhat was that about?

why not try the WWII solution of bromide in the water
Oooooh, 'Clete, I'd forgotten about that!

What was that about?

said to reduce desire and performance, was apparently provided to the troops

said to reduce desire and performance, was apparently provided to the troopsAh! The ravages of war.

said to reduce desire and performance, was apparently provided to the troops

It's a myth. Every army has a substance that the soldiers think the brass is putting in their food to reduce libido, but it's only a legend. In my service days, it was saltpeter.

It's a myth. Every army has a substance that the soldiers think the brass is putting in their food to reduce libido, but it's only a legend. In my service days, it was saltpeter.
During my college days, we were told the chef put that into the food.

Ah! The ravages of war.

It was designed to prevent some of the ravages of war