[jlisenbe]

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

[tomder55]

there was no civilisation here in any form

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

[Athos]

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

Culture, yes. Civilization, no.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[tomder55]

Aboriginal Australians Are The World's Oldest Civilization (allthatsinteresting.com)

[jlisenbe]

Well...that settles that.

[Athos]

Aboriginal Australians Are The World's Oldest Civilization (allthatsinteresting.com)

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.

[paraclete]

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

[jlisenbe]

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/ab...ior%20Pemulwuy.

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.

[paraclete]

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/ab...ior%20Pemulwuy.

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

[tomder55]

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 .

[jlisenbe]

It was the British not the Australians

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?

[Wondergirl]

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 of British ships arrived at Botany Bay in January 1788^[2] to establish a 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 ventured into its interior. Indigenous Australians were greatly weakened and their numbers diminished by introduced diseases and conflict with the colonists during this period."

[jlisenbe]

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

[paraclete]

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 of British ships arrived at Botany Bay in January 1788^[2] to establish a 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 ventured into its interior. 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

[Athos]

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.

[tomder55]

the point that you have a narrow definition of civilization

[paraclete]

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

[jlisenbe]

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.

[paraclete]

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