The irrelevant "what if" argument is often used by the apologist to justify certain actions. In this case we have the "what if" the so so imperial power had colonised Australia and not the British. This in some convoluted way implies that Aboriginal people are better off and should be thankful for British colonisation. All that is important is the effect the British had, and not some guesswork about "what if" so so had colonised instead.

Nor is there any credence in the notion that if the British had not colonised Australian then some other colonial power would have. This notion of inevitability is seen again as a justification, it to is irrelevant, it didn't happen, therefore its not in the bounds of the argument.

Paul.

"Nor is there any credence in the notion that if the British had not colonised Australian then some other colonial power would have. "

Quite right, if Britain had not done the deed then all the other powers would have left Australia alone and today there would be a Utopian aboriginal land unsullied by modern medicine, electricity and Aboriginal university graduates.

Hi Paul,

A hell of a lot that has happened throughout human history is unjust. Much of it may not have been inevitable. But, for any rapacious country/society - and that includes close to 99 % of all countries and societies - the existence of an unconquered continent like Australia would have been too tempting, once it had the means of conquering and occupying it. History has many sorry lessons and that's one of them.

But inevitability doesn't justify what is done: it simply makes it irreversible. Do you think that Australia would never have been conquered or occupied, forever ? Do you think that was has happened is irreversible ? Certainly, let's always draw attention to how it was done, but no amount of attention can reverse history.

Joe

Hi Joe and Issy,

What didn't happen has no relevance to what actually happened. Issy tries some glib non valid assertions, Joe tries with some irrelevant questions as to what I think. What I think concerning non events has nothing to do with the discussion. What is important is what actually happened.

A well done to all those who have kicked the butts of the British apologists and deniers on this thread.

Paul,

"Nor is there any credence in the notion that if the British had not colonised Australian then some other colonial power would have. "

But there is credence and your statement is wrong, some other power would have occupied Australia, of that there can be no doubt.

Shew us one desireable territory in the world that has not been occupied.

Paul,

"What is important is what actually happened."

And can't un-happen. That's exactly right. Thank you, Paul.

By the way, you mentioned Kipling. He settled in the Kentish/South Sussex village where my grandma was growing up, in about 1910 - a village called Burwash, pronounced for some arcane English reason, 'Burridge'. To her credit, and that of her schoolmates, they used to throw stones on the Kipling roof, enraging his American wife. He owned the first motor-car in the district. A village of smugglers, he noted, often passing some dripping-wet bloke with a heavy load at two in the morning. Of course, English and thievery seem to have a long common history.

Cheers,

Joe