.

Dear John,

.

I see you shoot from the hip ... and there are an awful lot of holes in the target !

.

I will keep my Australian values thank you and you can keep your biased nonsense you would call your values.

The idea that indigenous nomads "owned" the huge land areas they roamed over, raped and burnt for a few days food is nonsense.

You own only what you and your forebears worked for and acquired by hard work and self control.

I refuse to be ashamed of the fact that I came for a group of people had the intelligence and drive to tap into the huge energy source of fossil fuels. If they had not done so 90 % of the world's population would not exist today for, without the huge increase in human productivity they created, there would not exist the means to produce transport and distribute the food and shelter needed for the survival of that 90%.

as long as they are not calling out 'allah akbar' in any language I don't care what they speak.

I should add that immigrants should also be treated equal under the law. Not like the Afghan teenager who assualted 8 women on the beach but was let off by the judge because of 'cultural' sensitivities. If was my grand daugter or daughter my Christian sensitivities would be severly tested.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/35171584/teenager-avoids-jail-for-sex-attacks-due-to-cultural-differences/#page1

Well, at least we have free speech which allows people like you to vent their spleen in totally useless fashion like you have done.

What are your values may we ask?

runner if you take out the "s" in https it will work properly

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/35171584/teenager-avoids-jail-for-sex-attacks-due-to-cultural-differences/#page1

I no longer read anything John Tomlinson writes. But from past experience of him, I know that I would agree with all the posts so far.

Runner here is another low life who got away via cultural differences.

Ali Jaffari, an Afghan refugee (let in compliment of Dudd and Dillard)

In January (around 2013) he was accused of child stealing and unlawful assault of a four-year-old girl at a Geelong West oval.
“He then grabbed the child’s hand and began to lead her away before she looked up, saw it wasn’t her father, started crying and pulled her hand away,” police prosecutor sergeant Brooke Shears told the court.
When interviewed, Jaffari told police: “For us, is not an issue.”
Magistrate Ron Saines stood the matter down in March, advising police if he were hearing the matter he would have reasonable doubt finding Jaffari guilty, citing cultural differences.
The charges were dropped.

@Runner,
Runner you really are a fool call yourself a christian, not only are you full of hate for your fellow man you don't even know your bible.

"as long as they are not calling out 'allah akbar' in any language I don't care what they speak."

Go look up Job 36:26 and then tell us why the phase God is great in Arabic is bad, as apposed to English or Aramaic or Hebrew

What you need Sir with the greatest respect; is a haircut, a close shave and a decent job; well away from this academic bilge that's obviously imbued your mind with absurdities and idiocy.

o sung wu,

Good on you! I've always thought what you have said. I don't believe that a person with so little-self respect and pride in personal appearance is worth listening to.

G'day there TTBN...

I understand this gentleman is a visiting scholar at the QUT, if so I wish he'd take his scholarship elsewhere, and annoy some other reluctant audience with his intellectual detritus. The real problem with many of these specific types:- They're too lazy to work, too frightened to steal, and haven't got the brains to get a real job!

Well, sometimes there are people who Graham lets into this forum who have something useful to contribute, but I have to say that this is not one of those occasions. The QUT should also have him charged with obtaining money under false pretenses.

David

Dr Tomlinson's article certainly seems to have
had quite an impact on some readers here on this
forum. He's certainly made his position clear -
unfortunately, I suspect that he did not want to
get the reaction that he's currently getting from his
readers. Not only has he succeeded in turning his
readers off, he's made them mad as well. Which is
not good because he could have achieved far more
had he taken a different approach, one with a more
balanced point of view perhaps? He needed to think more
about his audience if he wanted to persuade them to
think about what he was trying to say. But the way he
did it - was doomed to fail.

Foxy you are never going to get any balance from an opinionated pseudo communist academic. It no longer matters much, as no one pays the slightest attention to their yabberings.

That academia continue to have these clowns involved is going to cost them dearly in the long run.

//as long as they are not calling out 'allah akbar' in any language//

So we're not allowed to say that 'God is great', or words to that effect, in English?

Are you sure you don't want to think a bit more about that? Because most of your posts seem to be devoted chastising those who fail to recognise the greatness of your god.

Or maybe you don't think it's great? Which raises the question: why are you worshipping it?

I'm pretty sure you don't really mean that nobody should ever be allowed to sing praises to their chosen deity, because you'd be first up against the wall come the revolution. I think what you probably mean is that people shouldn't be allowed to use the phrase 'Allah Akbar', because you find it offensive.

To which I say: what on Earth is offensive about an English cricket team made up of the great figures of English literature, even if they had a very poor grasp of Arabic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahakbarries

Do you realise that if you try and paint A.A. Milne as an Islamist, atheist or failed Christian that you will do me a physical injury? There is only so far a man can suspend his disbelief; if you try to push it past that point my head might explode: either that or I'll break something important in my throes of laughter.

one day both Cobber and Toni will overcome their Christophobic natures and allow the truth to penetrate their skulls. allah is not Jehovah God. What don't you understand about that?

There is nothing wrong with saying that Australia was invaded. It is a statement of fact.
However, discussing the negative things a group did and ignoring the positive is racist. Australia's history is more than the collection of massacres mentioned here.
Similarly, discussing one group's use of violence while ignoring other violence is also racist. The biggest threat to the safety of aboriginal people has always been other aboriginal people. Use of the phrase "first people" also ignores evidence of earlier invasions.

To quote something from your article.
"But I have met people who were born here and who have only a tenuous grasp of the English language"

The reason for this could be they were born here but educated in another country because if educated here the whole curriculum is in English.

.

Dear John,

.

Australia was ranked 8th Best Country in the world by the US News Report in 2017. The UK-based Economist Intelligence Unit ranked it the 10th most democratic country. The Serbian-based Numbeo ranked it 9th in the world for its Quality of Life this year.

You have done a great job presenting the case for the prosecution, John. May I suggest that you sit down at your desk once more and present an equally vibrant plea for the defence.

But, in fact, I should not be totally satisfied until, having carefully weighed-up the case, for and against, you take-on wig and robe and render a substantiated and well-founded final judgment:

« At last came the day of trial. Every seat in the Court was filled, and a mass of the unwashed hung over the gallery rail, gazing at the show provided for their entertainment. Mary Grant and Mrs. Gordon went into Court at the suggestion of their leading Counsel, Bouncer, Q.C., who was nothing if not theatrical. He wanted them there to see the overthrow of the enemy, and to lend point to his invective against the intruders who were trying to take away their birthright. A small army of Doyles and Donohoes, who had come down for the case, were hanging about dressed in outlandish garments, trying to look as if they would not tell a lie for untold gold. The managing clerks were in and out like little dogs at a fair, hunting up witnesses, scanning the jury list, arranging papers for production, and keeping a wary eye on the enemy. Punctually as the clock struck ten, the Judge strutted into Court with as much pomp as a man-of-war sailing into a small port; depositing himself on the Bench, he glared round for a few seconds, and said to the associate, “Call the first case,” in a matter-of-fact tone, just as if he did not know what the first case was going to be. A little rustle went round the Court as people settled themselves down for the battle »

http://www.telelib.com/authors/P/PatersonAB_Banjo/prose/OutbackMarriage/outbackmarriage_28.html

.

Hi Benk,

As far as I can tell, there has never yet been a single forensic examination of a supposed massacre site in Australia. Surely, one suspects, they happened ? But not a shred of evidence. UNLESS, of course, you define a 'massacre' as the killing of one or two people ? If so , yes: in South Australia, in about 1842, the Protector of Aborigines was told of a massacre of thirty or so Aboriginal people, up near Burra; he immediately sets off (he was a doctor) to investigate; by the time he gets to Clare, the number is down to six; when he gets to the area, he finds two bodies buried, those of a man cut down by a sabre and a woman shot. Thirty to six to two: be careful what barflies tell you. But by god, they fit into the Narrative so well.

And yes, there was a massacre of twenty eight people massacred on the Coorong in 1840, but they don't really count because they were white. There were quite a few other massacres of white families, but let's nor worry about those. In the case of one, the Rainbird family killed on Yorke's Peninsula in about 1862, the suspects were freed on the grounds that there wasn't an interpreter available: after all, as British subjects, Aboriginal prisoners were entitled to be able to defend themselves properly and those blokes couldn't do that if they couldn't understand the language of the court, could they ?

I look forward to the first proper forensic investigation of a massacre site, regrettably sometime in the distant future: investigators would need to distinguish between a white-Aboriginal massacre and an Aboriginal-Aboriginal massacre: the second would exhibit no traces of bullet wounds or sabre cuts or attempt to conceal or bury the bodies. As well, a mass grave may be evidence of deaths from epidemics, such as the pre-Contact smallpox epidemics that swept down from the North, one down the East Coast, another down the far West Coast, another down from the Gulf to the Darling and Murray.

Cheers,

Joe

The author airily writes of poisoned water holes. Again, it would be useful to have just one water-hole forensically examined, although poisoning dogs (dingoes) over a couple of hundred years would leave quite a bit of poison around in their bones, which might end up in wager-holes. So actual Aboriginal bones, with traces of poison, would be useful to establish some basis for the truth of the claim.

And since Arsenic and Strychnine are elements, which do not break down, traces would remain forever, as long as the bones do. So there's another fertile area for 'Indigenous research' if it ever really gets off the ground.

Dispossession: as it happens, earlier this week I was reading the earliest reports of the [second] Protector here in SA, Bromley, in about July 1837: he notes that the Governor has ordered that any land being used by the local Aboriginal people was not to be intruded on, it was to be reserved from use or sale.

By this time, the ration system had become well-established: the local people had become so used to flour that they refused to try rice or oatmeal when the flour supply was exhausted. Whether deliberate or not, the ration system - free food, for no effort - sucked people out of the countryside, especially since all elderly people, women with babies, children and sick people, could get plenty of food, without the able-bodied having to find it for them. So able-bodied people really had to supply food only for themselves, and the law allowed them fully to do so, by either hunting, fishing and gathering, OR working for farmers.

Plenty of food ? Try it: a loaf of bread each day, a pound of meat each day. Give it a go, just for a day, and see how hungry you'll feel.

Joe

Hi there BENK...

I'm somewhat puzzled by your contribution where you claim inter alia - '...Australia was invaded, it's a statement of fact...'? Was it? Was a single British vessel with only a minimum complement of armed Marines on board, capable of 'invading' a massive Island the size of Australia; well I guess I should dedicate much more time to study our early history?

Although I dunno; to my way of thinking; Invading somewhere, means to intrusively enter a country in large military strength, in order to attack it, for the purpose of trying to subjugate or occupy it. Somehow Capt.James COOK RN. together with his cohorts were in no position whatsoever to mount any sort of campaign (attack), let alone invade it. Still it is your opinion, as is mine? Thank you BENK.

Hi O Sung Wu,

That raises the thorny question, the Big One: what would have happened if the British had not settled/occupied/invaded the continent of Australia ? Does anybody seriously think that it would never have happened otherwise ? That the French, Russians, Japanese, etc. etc., would - all of them - have left it alone ?

And this raises another difficult question: would the Indigenous people here have been better off if they had had no contact of that sort with the outside world ? I suppose the answer is in what Indigenous people have done since, and could easily still do now - stay as hunters and gatherers.

Are there any Indigenous people relying entirely on hunting and gathering now, today, in 2017 ? No ? What does that say about their preferences ? Everywhere and everybody ?

Never forget the past, especially since it can't be undone and re-run differently. But acknowledge what is now the situation. And for all the talk, maybe nobody wants to return to the 'noble life'. I had a bit of a laugh once when one of my student, very 'cultural', complained one Winter morning that her air-conditioning was playing up. She had a house with a big back-yard, so I wondered if she could just go out and make up a fire to sit around. Ideally with just a possum skin.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi there LOUDMOUTH...

A great piece there Joe, you certainly pose some interesting questions for sure. I've no doubt the English probably made many mistakes initially, in the way they interacted with our indigenous people. But I don't believe for a moment, any of it was perpetrated through malice or in any attempt to conquer them per se?

As you said earlier on, I wonder whether or not (in time), we'll discover any mass burial sites? Provided those interred therein didn't expire through some horrific disease - who precisely was responsible for burying the victims, and was it them, who actually killed them? If not who? And why were they killed? From my limited understanding, neither James COOK or Arthur PHILLIP were ever responsible for any such massacre.

//And since Arsenic and Strychnine are elements which do not break down, traces would remain forever, as long as the bones do.//

Jesus, who taught you chemistry?

Arsenic is an element: it's a non-metal in group 15 of the periodic table, with atomic number 33 and symbol As.

Which group would I find Strychnine in (I'll give you a hint - its name ends in -ine. There is one particular group in the periodic table where all the names end in -ine, and they're the only elements with that suffix). What is its atomic number and symbol? Is it classed as metal, semi-metal or non-metal?

I already know all the answers to these questions, but I'm leaving it as an exercise for the reader. That way you might learn something.

Oops, sorry Tone,

I was thinking of Thallium for some reason, not Strychnine. My point was (probably now buggered) that those poisons would leave traces: the arsenic itself; and perhaps some tell-tale compounds of strychnine, or traces of it. The bottom line is that, if Aboriginal people were deliberately poisoned, there would some evidence of it.

Perhaps people who wish to assert some atrocity but have, or need, no evidence, should stick to the one about pushing people off cliffs into the sea. That's a beauty: you either believe it, without any need for evidence; or you don't, in the absence of any evidence.

Cheers,

Joe

//I was thinking of Thallium for some reason, not Strychnine.//

Thallium is an element - atomic number 81, just to the left of lead (Pb). Not sure how one manages to confuse a heavy metal element with a complex organic molecule like strychnine, but at least you have learnt something so it's all good.

//My point was (probably now buggered) that those poisons would leave traces: the arsenic itself; and perhaps some tell-tale compounds of strychnine, or traces of it.//

Arsenic would, and Thallium too - the strychnine would have decomposed many moons ago, and I have considerable doubt that skeletal remains would be sufficient to demonstrate strychnine poisoning. Elevated levels of Arsenic or Thallium would be a dead giveaway of deliberate poisoning, and quite easy to measure.

//Perhaps people who wish to assert some atrocity but have, or need, no evidence, should stick to the one about pushing people off cliffs into the sea. That's a beauty//

But rather dependent on geography. The further you get from coastal cliffs, the less plausible it becomes.

//Allah is not Jehovah God//

That's hilarious, runner. Allah is Arabic for God. Jehovah is a Latinisation of Yahweh, which is Hebrew for for God. So apparently God means God when you're speaking Hebrew, but not when you're speaking Arabic.

Might be hilarious to you Toni however a billion or so muslims would stone you for declaring Jehovah or Yahweh the One true God. Allah of course derives from the moon god many arabs worship. To equate them as the same just displays ignorance.

so we have a moon God. Probably the same one that has been staring down here all these years. I am glad I have nothing to do with all of this ancient scriptures of uneducated souls that have passed uneducated words down for centuries.

Rest and be restive there are better things to think of.

I thought we already had this discussion, runner.

<<Allah of course derives from the moon god many arabs worship.>>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7741#238090

‘Allah’ is simply ‘god’ in Arabic. So, of course the Pagan and Abrahamic gods are going to have the same label.

From the Qur’an:

“Say ye, “We believe in … what was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the Patriarchs; and in what was given to Moses and Jesus; and in what was given to the prophets - from their Lord.” (Surah 2:87)

“And when his Lord tested Abraham with certain words, and he fulfilled them. He said, “I am making you a leader of humanity.”” (Sura 2:124)

“The Angels said, “O Mary, Allah gives you good news of a Word from Him. His name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, well-esteemed in this world and the next, and one of the nearest.” (Sura 3:45)

“When Jesus sensed disbelief on their part, he said, “Who are my allies towards Allah?” The disciples said, “We are Allah’s allies; we have believed in Allah, and bear witness that we submit.”” (Sura 3:52)

There are literally hundreds more mentions of Jesus and Abraham in the Qur’an. We can go through the rest of them if you’d like?

Allah’s not looking like much of a Pagan moon-god to me, though. Indeeed, he's looking entirely Abrahamic. The Qur'an even says so.

<<Might be hilarious to you Toni however a billion or so muslims would stone you for declaring Jehovah or Yahweh the One true God.>>

Yes, they're probably as ignorant as you. You mob have a lot more in common than just your god, after all.

It’s not a “billion or so”, though. According to multiple polls taken around the world, less than 15% would.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx

(That domain name is sarcastic, too, before you get your knickers in a twist.)

Hi Joe and o sung wu, I was unaware that the existence of massacres had been questioned and I don't know what forensic evidence could survive several decades. However, the British arrived, they were determined to have the land and they used violence to get their way. That can accurately be called an invasion. However, there have also been several attempts to deal fairly with aboriginal people and these should also be mentioned.

Hi Benk,

The problem with forensic evidence not surviving is that, if there isn't any, how do you know ? But the good news is that, it may well have survived. All anybody has to do is follow up on some site that is notorious for massacres and start digging.

Somewhere, anywhere, that would be a start. It would be valuable to be able to say for certain, about each claimed site, that yes or no, there was or there doesn't appear to have been, a massacre on this site.

Definition: any killing of more than three people ? Would that count as a massacre ?

Then there would be the issue of differentiating natural deaths from a massacre: individual and isolated burial, perhaps signs of disease of old age, proper burial and no signs of violence ?

Or signs of violence ? The next issue would be to differentiate between inter-Aboriginal massacres and massacres of Aboriginal people by non-Aboriginal people: how todo that ?

Well, if the bones had signs of bullet-holes or sabre-cuts, that would be pretty conclusive. But if they had skull crushing, or spear-wounds, then probably not. Did such things happen ? Well, there was one such massacre near Mt Eba here in South Australia in about 1872: men in the group exterminated by neighbouring groups had married wrong.

More than likely, in inter-Aboriginal massacres, bodies would not have been buried, the bones would be above ground, and scattered by dogs. But if bodies had been hastily buried or burnt, the culprits would most likely be whitefellas. If they were burnt, the massacre could be dated to within a few years by Carbon 14 testing of the charred remains.

If DNA could be extracted, it might even be possible to identify which group the murdered people cam from. I don't understand why nobody has ever done such a full study, there would be so much to learn from just one proper forensic investigation. .

Cheers,

Joe