Paul,

"The Japanese were not white, but their aggression of 80 years ago cannot be justified"

Come off it!
I've lived in Japan and Japanese was my first foreign language after French.
I learned my initial Japanese in bed and I assure you that the Japanese are as white as any European and is some cases whiter.

Their aggression is another matter.

Well Issy, despite what you say, they didn't fit the White Australia policy. By white its generally accepted as European in origin.

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You asked :

« … how was the beach ? »

I didn't go to the beach, Joe. I attended the confirmation ceremony of my grandson who lives with his parents in Normandy.

Also, as I indicated in a previous post, land tenure in Queensland is different from that in South Australia. An organisation by the name of AgForce federates the three major rural associations in Queensland : Cattlemen's Union of Australia, the Queensland Graingrowers Association and the United Graziers' Association. AgForce indicates on its web site :

« Despite the excellent tenure reforms of 2014, only 30 per cent of Queensland is freehold land. Freehold land is a prerequisite to attract many forms of investment. It offers far greater security to landholders, with the removal of the risk of excessive, even ridiculous, annual rent increases, as has been seen in the past.

« With most perpetual leases transitioning to freeholding, it is the term lease estate that requires further attention if the State is to encourage continued good management, as well as the viability of the estate, industry and its surrounding rural communities, and to continue the good work that was legislated in 2014. It is time to turn our collective attention and thinking into how to provide the best possible tenure security to the term lease estate, which comprises over 50 per cent of Queensland. »

AgForce underlines the stability and security of freehold land compared to the uncertainties of the rental system of leesehold land, actively promoting conversion from leasehold to freehold, while pointing out, at the same time, that the cost of financing the purchase of freehold is no more expensive than the cost of renting leasehold :

http://agforceqld.org.au/?tgtPage=policies&page_id=706

.

.

Dear rhross,

.

You wrote :

« I said: And the idea that invasion and colonisation by those with pale skin is wrong and the same acts done by those with a bit more colour is right, is utterly racist

« You said: Yes, I agree if your expression "the same acts" includes "by the same or similar methods".

« So, your view is that migration and colonisation are perfectly acceptable and the only issue is method?  »

No, rhross, I was commenting on your first sentence concerning « invasion and colonisation », not on your last sentence concerning « migration and colonisation » which you have just now introduced follwing my comment.

I see nothing wrong with invasion and colonisation by anybody, irrespective of the colour of their skin, provided that the object of the invasion and colonisation is unowned and unoccupied, or provided the owner and occupier (should there be any) arrive at an amical agreement with the invader and coloniser on terms that the owner and occupier consider to be perfectly acceptable.

I see no reason to dfferentiate on the basis of skin colour. I see good reason to differentiate on the basis of prior ownership and occupation as well as on method of invasion and colonisation.

You may be right in thinking that successive waves of Aboriginal invaders and colonisers « slaughtered » their predecessors and took their land. They might also have simply chased them off their land and obliged them to move to further pastures. It's more than likely there was enough room for everybody in those early times, tens of thousands of years ago, when the sea passage from the Asian continent was relatively negotiable.

The method employed by the British colonisers was not much different. They simply chased the Aboriginal peoples off their land and « slaughtered »them if and when they resisted.

.

Paul,

"By white its generally accepted as European in origin."

Then there are some very dark "white' people!!

@Paul,

Let me get this straight, your view is that somehow, magically, remarkably, the many different peoples called Aboriginal by the British, descended from different waves of migration and never evolving beyond stone-age, were completely different to all other stone-age peoples in that they never went to war against other tribes to take what they possessed?

Would you like to make a considered case as to what could possibly have made these peoples 'other than human' in this way?

And since the Europeans quickly reported from 1788 that tribes were generally at war with each other and bigger stronger tribes would seek to wipe out weaker ones, i.e. reports of weaker tribes camping next to settlers for protection, then why on earth would you assume that prior to 1788 all was sweetness and light and each wave of migration was no more than a slap on the back and a jolly welcome etc. etc. etc. ?

Sorry mate, you need to apply a little reason and common sense to this issue.

If, as we do know, there were around 350 different languages/dialects amongst the peoples called Aborigines and often no common language source, then even if the British had not noted different racial characteristics indicating that different groups were very different peoples, we would know that the peoples living here when the British arrived were not one united group, indeed quite the opposite.

And since archaeological, anthropological, historical, sociological data shows that people tended to fight and attempt to kill those who were other or those who got in the way, simple common sense says that Aboriginal stone-age peoples were no different.

I find it funny actually that so many people trying to pretend Aboriginal peoples were other than human completely miss the reality that they are being total racists in this view.

We know they were different peoples. We know in 1788 most were at war with each other. Of course they did the same thing.