"I did not claim that Australia was a ‘genocidal’ colony"

Yes you did Banjo. Here is a definition of genocidal:

"relating to or involving the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group"

"It’s a question of disapproval of what they did and what we decide to do about it"

Banjo, all the people involved are dead, so yes it does involve inheritance. Also, indigenous people do have native title over more than half of Australia, so traditional ownership is recognised. Where Australia has been settled you have people who are Australian citizens living in the community. Are you suggesting that some be treated differently than others because of their heritage or ethnicity?

"State and Federal legislation should accommodate our indigenous peoples' lore and culture and allow their elected representatives to have a say in such matters"

That's racist, Banjo. No group or ethnicity should have special recognition. That is what equality means in a society.

"all Australians are treated equally. But, they're not equal. That’s the problem."

Do you mean in the sense of not being identical? I think it a good thing that people are different. I'd call it diversity.

Thank you for your candor CM.

You remind me of the people who'd go on about pure "English bloodlines".
The irony is that England is very much a multicultural society with a history of much migration from surrounding lands.

Regardless of where it happened, would you agree that when modern human beings evolved they were much the same as one another? So why do people from different parts of the world look so different from one another today? To me, white skin is an adaptation that helps the body make active vitamin D in higher latitudes: in more equatorial latitudes it predisposes to sunburn and skin cancer. I don't see how ethnicity is an accurate measure of attributes. Shouldn't you just take people as you find them? I read of your annoyance at anti-white sentiment, but wouldn't it be better to take a generalist approach and object to any discrimination based on any ethnicity?

You might note that I am also arguing with Banjo: I think of you two like poles of a magnet: Both arguing for inequality, but pushing in opposite directions.

Interesting discussion.

.

Dear Fester,

.

You wrote :

« Here is a definition of genocidal: "relating to or involving the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group” ».
.

I quite understand what seems to you to be an evident relationship between my description of British colonisation and ‘genocidal’ crime as you define it – and sympathise with you. But it is not that simple.

This is what I wrote :

1. What the colonisers did : [They] “colonised the land … without offering them [our indigenous peoples] the slightest compensation but slaying and enslaving many of them, treating them as a sub-human race”.

2. Why they did it : “The colonisers did not seek to exterminate them, per se. They sought to chase them off their land, albeit by slaying and enslaving many of them”.

3. How they justified it : “The British claimed that the land belonged to no one, by application of the international legal concept of ‘Terra Nullius’”.

While, at first sight, that may seem to correspond to your definition of a ‘genocidal crime, on closer scrutiny, it is not – which is why I did not write what you accuse me of having written.

Please don’t take offence, but it would be far too long for me to explain all the intricacies of the legal context that justifies this negative outcome. The best I can do is to provide you with the links to some of the relevant documentation that I suggest you consult if you have the courage and time to wade through it all. It is worth the effort. I think you will find it quite enlightening :

UN Genocide Convention :

http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Genocide%20Convention-FactSheet-ENG.pdf

Human Rights Article :

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUJlHRights/2004/22.html

Senate Inquiry Anti-Genocide Bill 1999 :

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/publications/tabledpapers/11788/upload_pdf/HPP032016003800.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22publications/tabledpapers/11788%22

Report - Inquiry into the Anti-Genocide Bill 1999 :

http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/1999_02/anti_genocide/report/c03_pdf.ashx

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA - Nulyarimma v Thompson

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/1999/1192.html

.

It seems that Fester is just repeating the same questions he asked before... anyway...

Some years ago Woke/ Communists made unproven assertions in my view- asserters have the burden of proof- but certain powerful people went along with them because they were able to grow their own personal power franchise- and good people did nothing- at some stage society will decay from these mistakes. People that believe in distribution of power understand that sometimes we have to realise that some things are beyond us- and if we try anyway we will destroy what we have committed to save. ie. Don't squeeze the bunny too tight.

Q- You remind me of the people who'd go on about pure "English bloodlines".

A- Maybe. In Australia the people were never asked what they wanted- both parties conspired to avoid debate on immigration (Peta Cretlin referred to Hawke's Memoir's). What about 'cultural continuity' in other contexts- say with Hebrew's or Aboriginal's or Palestinian's or Japanese or Tibetan's. China could argue that forcible changes to ethnicities including Tibet are multiculturalism not genocide or cultural appropriation (where they are literally appropriating Tibetan cultural territory). Perhaps "the people who'd go on about pure "English bloodlines"" have a perspective- not saying it's perfect.

Q- The irony is that England is very much a multicultural society with a history of much migration from surrounding lands."

A- Disagree. Few Chinese in Dickensian/ Shakespearian England- despite Netflix insertionism. Did you see the movie about Mary Queen Of Scots?- offensive cultural appropriation- also The Last Samurai but gave Cruise a pass to explain Japanese civil war history to a Western audience.

Q- Regardless of where it happened, would you agree that when modern human beings evolved they were much the same as one another?

A- Depends what you mean. As I said you could say that "when land animals evolved they were much the same as one another". But that doesn't mean that all land animals are the same- the 'lung fish' evolved into reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians.

Human's have about 50% of the genetics of a pumpkin from memory- doesn't make human's pumpkins- well at least most human's. Human's have separate genetic lines over many hundreds of thousands of years. People struggle to adapt to changes over 10 years. I suspect that the length of human lifetime is important here to train young skills and traditions.

Q- So why do people from different parts of the world look so different from one another today? To me, white skin is an adaptation that helps the body make active vitamin D in higher latitudes: in more equatorial latitudes it predisposes to sunburn and skin cancer. I don't see how ethnicity is an accurate measure of attributes.

A- To me skin colour indicates the iceberg lying beneath phenotypes and the nature and nurture that led to their cultures. Living in the desert is different to ice, near the sea, near a river, etc let alone to ancient man. Also the same problems can be solved in divergent ways based on cultural traditions. In chaos theory small starting deltas lead to large end deltas. Agriculture and animal domestication are different by geographies. Just 100 years ago 90% of humanity lived in rural communities working in primary industries and had since the stone age. It's easy to see how humans and animals mistrust the inherent unstable influence of strangers from other cultures and tribes.

Q- Shouldn't you just take people as you find them?

A- Elon Musk says people reason by analogy/assumption because starting every interaction from first principles is inefficent and draining and you wouldn't get any production done through the day. People from the same culture share attributes but are different from other cultures. Why should people from all cultures be forced to be the same as each other? Isn't this in contradiction of the principles of democracy. Even if people choose to do the "wrong thing" shouldn't they have the freedom to make that choice. In philosophy there is much discussion about free will.