cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

Here's more:

Explorer Michael Terry, giving details of 1932 central
Australian mining survey:

"I carried a length of dog chain, not for dingo -control,
but for Aboriginal-control, in case we became desperate for
water. The chain was to hold fast a tribesman who could
lead us to fresh water after we had fed him salt beef to
make him thirsty."

"Military Operations. Van Diemen's Land. 1831. Printed
by order of the House of Commons, 23 September 1831.

The Committee allude to those attacks which, it has
come to their knowledge, were then frequently made
by lawless and desperate characters for the purpose of
carrying off the native women and children; attempts which,
if resisted, the aggressors did not scruple to accomplish
with circumstances of dreadful and unnecessary barbarity.
A person named Carrots, since dead, is known to have
killed a native in his attempt to carry off his wife.
He cut off the dead man's head, and obliged the
woman to go with him, carrying it suspended round her neck.

There's plenty more but this will do for now.

Paul,

At the Alice Springs Hospital, Aboriginal women are something like thirty times more likely to be admitted for violent attacks by their beloveds than white women.

In all hunter-gatherer societies, such as ours (yours and mine) were barely a hundred years ago in part, and a thousand years ago in toto, violence is pretty much the only way to resolve issues - there are no jails, no system of fines, no community work procedures.

In every community I've ever known, violence was pretty common: one young bloke, I recall, had his head bashed in; his murderers were never charged (they shot through for a couple of years), although we all knew who they were. Women would often be beaten, sometimes (to our surprise and enjoyment) stripped first, or at least their tops, after which they would go around the house smashing all the windows and screaming with rage. Rape of young girls occurred; there seemed to be suicides almost every year - in 'communities' of barely a hundred people.

We have to recognise the truth, no matter how inconvenient it may be. Otherwise there can never be any moving forward.

Joe

Joe, I take what you say as being the truth, but none of that is relevant to the claim made that colonialism brought "benefits" to indigenous people. Just the opposite, from what you and Foxy and even Josephus have posted colonialism seems to have had a detrimental effect. That would be true given a conquered people are rarely shown much sympathy by the conquers.
The other claim; "Just look at how barbaric tribes treated each other and especially girls before colonisation." The three making this claim cannot provide any supportive evidence what so ever. It is simply a figment of their imagination

If it wasn't the English it would have been the French, Spanish, Dutch or any other country and the exact same atrocities would have happened.

Also what about the 2 yo child that was raped last year, do you think that is only a modern thing and never happened before white man came here, to what extent it would be happening without white man laws is anyone's guess.

Quote "The three making this claim cannot provide any supportive evidence what so ever. It is simply a figment of their imagination"

** Just because they have no evidence to support the claim does not make that claim false. **

Excerpt from a book, to balance Foxy's one-sided argument.

From our early mariners’ point of view there need be no ‘sense of guilt’ for alleged atrocities against the Aboriginal race. Indeed, the number of innocent, unarmed shipwreck survivors, including women and children, brutally murdered by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders well before any attempted white settlement of North Queensland in particular, leads to an entirely different conclusion. By their initial actions the natives were mostly seen at the time as barbarous cannibals, who could not be trusted, and their actions naturally brought the risk of some retaliation upon themselves later. Continuing atrocities made this inevitable.

//If it wasn't the English it would have been the French, Spanish, Dutch or any other country and the exact same atrocities would have happened.//
Phil has does that negate the culpability of the British colonials? A ridiculous line of argument.

//Just because they have no evidence to support the claim does not make that claim false//

Yes but since we are dealing in truth, and there is no evidence of truth provided here this claim is nonsense.

Here we have Indy throwing in his usual nonsense.

//there need be no ‘sense of guilt’ for alleged atrocities against the Aboriginal race//

Why is that? because the simple peaceful white folks, minding their own business, were set upon by the evil black cannibals. As much as they didn't want to do it the simple peaceful white folks naturally had to extract retribution on the evil black cannibals in the name of justice all their own fault serves them right! If darkie had simply rolled over and played dead then he would have been okay.

Proved it again Indy, when it comes to nonsense you are a master.