White, black, yellow, red...does it really matter? If we go back to "the beginnings" (The book of Genesis) we see Adam and Eve in the Garden in the Tigris/Euphrates Rivers region. Probably they were dark haired and olive skinned (the colour of the region) as was Jesus later on. With the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) we see the peoples of one language spit up into many languages for their arrogance of trying to build a skyscraper into Heaven. It would be here at the Tower that the colours of peoples also came into being. For the white races to claim superiority is a bit much. The Creator is happy with all colours and languages and especially in the fact that we care about each other and help each other and all come to know His Saviour Jesus Christ. Born-again christians are in all cultures. Genesis is a great book to read. It even has giants, the product of Angels having sex with earth girls (Genesis 6:4 King James version). So much have we forgotten with our busy lives.

CountryGal wrote: "being a result of the "evil" Europeans, maybe it’s just the way of the world, part of the process of evolution"

Are you supporting this racism as 'just the way of the world' -part of the process of evolution?

Using your logic the Jewish holocaust was inevitable, even justified - because that’s how things work.

Rather lazy and it lets you off the hook thinks me.

Dispossession did not happen 200 years ago in one fell swoop. It happened incrementally and as recent as yesterday.

And to other posters, I’m astounded how badly read you all are -but stoically profess to have an intimately knowledge of ‘Australian’ history. LOL

You’ve got to start reading more broadly than newspapers and magazines. Really, there’s a whole world waiting for you to discover.

"CountryGal wrote: 'being a result of the "evil" Europeans, maybe it’s just the way of the world, part of the process of evolution'

Are you supporting this racism as 'just the way of the world' -part of the process of evolution?"

As Rainier knowa, this is classic social Darwinism, i.e. the ideology that Europeans used to rationalise their rape of the colonial world. Sorry, CG - it was immoral sophistry in the 19th century and it hasn't become any more ethical in the intervening period.

As Rainier and others point out, such thinking can justify any invasion of territory and dispossession of sovereign peoples - at least, from the perspective of the conquerors.

However, it doesn't make it right.

Here we go again with the same old self flagellation perceiving the Yanks as the root of all evil.China is not far from becoming the next world power.

Will the left in our society have the courage to suffer in the luxury of a Chinese totalitarian state that dominates the entire planet with no American democracy or freedom of thought?

It is not a matter of "White Supremacy" but a matter of a superior political/economic system that has made the Europeans the dominant force on the planet.An absolutely powerful China will not be as forgiving or understanding as a USA on a path of political introspection.Since WW2 the US could have dominated the entire planet,yet tried in most cases to premote democracy.

Hi Rainier, been a while since we had a chat. You were rather mean to quote a soundbite without including the next sentence "I am not entirely convinced...", as it puts the comment in a different light - ie I was just suggesting an alternative viewpoint rather than stating fact. I get your point about the Jews, although its a bit of a different scenario than invade and conquer. Its a bit more akin to the attempts of the native Kenyans (the name of the group escapes me at this hour) to rid the country of europeans, as the Jews were not native to Europe. I'm not trying to paint over what happened here either. There were some bloody shocking things happen, and these should be acknowledged at a minimum. What I WAS trying to do was to put it in context of world history, specifically that every country in the world has now been subject to the situation at some point in their history, and not everything can be blamed on Europeans (although in modern history they have tended to be the aggressors). This is not to moralise about it. The rationale inference to draw is that we can expect that it will happen again at sometime in the future (maybe even not too distant), and NONE of the current inhabitants will be overly impressed with the results, if they survive it.

I'm a bit dubious about this whole Terra Nullius thing. The concept seems to have been thrown up in the 1970s in the wake of indigenous agitation for land rights, in (for example) the Gove land rights case.

When Cook claimed the Australian east coast in 1770 he was "confident that it had never" been "seen or visited by any European before us, and .... in the name of His Majesty King George the Third [I] took possession of the whole eastern coast..." He didn't claim the west coast, as it had already been claimed by the Dutch. The unspoken assumption was that only a European could lay claim to the land. Prior occupation by Aborigines was ignored, only European claims counted.

I suspect it ultimately comes down to a question of firepower. Europeans mattered because they had the guns to enforce territorial claims. This attitude propelled the "scramble for Africa" as late as WW1. We surely have to leave this attitude behind.