https://www.kooriweb.org/foley/news/2000s/2000/smh25mar2000.html

Paul McD wrote:

https://www.kooriweb.org/foley/news/2000s/2000/smh25mar2000.html

PaulMcD. Hi mate. Good article,thanks.

"so don't say a thing if you don't wanna go to war"
And who could blame the anger.....DEADLY. Crew on here in denial still don't understand what deadly represents. It's the mirror you refuse to look in.
or you could say a thousand meaningless uneducated and barbed comments like the previous poster...... .. war would be completely justified. I have chosen my side. The side of right. The usual slime on here will take that statement as a trigger.
Instead its the respect and recognition of humans. Suffering humans who do not need to suffer if not just for a change of perspective, a change of ideas.
Heal the past before you move forward. Not fight fire with fire, because we can expect the same consequences. The same ones this dogmatic structured institutionalised white system of the monarch has enforced for 200 years. At the expense of Indigenous Australians!! In their own country!!!!!!! Could you believe that!?
Time to give!!!!!! Reparation is not a dollar sign. It's giving and sacrficing what YOU 'believe' to be rightfully YOUR'S, where morally you know that deep down it was never yours to begin with.
Anyway, this songs dedicated to Goodsy...or was it Cyril, no i mean Eddy. And that's just a few years of bloody footy!! Imagine the real world! ha! Actually don't, no one want's to do that do they? Better just make a new policy eh??

Gday Alfred Wallace. Thanks mate.
btw the comment about the above commenter obviously wasn't you,.....10 guesses....although you'll only need one or maybe 3 for who it was. They walk amongst us!!!!! haha
Hope you're going well mate.
Cheers

Rachel Perkins journeys across the country to explore the bloody battles fought on Australian soil and the war that established the Australian nation, seeking to change the narrative of the nation. https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/watch/2067619395917 episode 1

Cheers Supa.

The Australian wars SBS episode 2 https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/watch/2069968963813

The Australian War Memorial has announced it will develop a 'much broader' and 'deeper' recognition of the Frontier Wars, the bloody conflicts fought between British colonialists and the sovereign First Nations following the 1788 invasion.

The War Memorial, which currently has no dedicated section to the only wars ever fought on this continent's soil, has been under building pressure to give greater acknowledgement to the significant and protracted battles fought across the mainland and lutruwita (Tasmania) across the for more than a century.

It comes as a new SBS/NITV documentary series exploring the dark era, The Australian Wars, attracts greater scrutiny of the period, and the lack of national awareness around it. https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/rachel-perkins-welcomes-war-memoria…

Yeah I heard this tonight @Supafreak great news and not before time!!

Yeah I heard this tonight @Supafreak great news and not before time!!

Hi, PaulMcD,Supafreak,GuySmiley. Excellent news, Let’s hope this is just the start of something that ‘holds our heads up as a nation’ and show meaningful respect to those events and the people affected.

Australian wars episode 3 https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/watch/2072687171882

Supafreak. Thanks. Interesting stuff.

Credlin the Cretin

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp is running an all out assault against the undertaking to include the Frontier Wars in the Australian War Memorial.

The appalling headlines & misleading content delivered by Peta Credlin are a disgrace!#Auspol #ThisIsNotJournalism pic.twitter.com/qwGWZzGCkK

— ☮️💧 Sleeping Giants Oz 📣 (@slpng_giants_oz) October 16, 2022

Disappointing isn’t it.
Historically and in their reality the locals were fighting wars against invaders. The invaders considered the locals didn’t even (humanly or legally)exist.
Turkey shoot anyone?

I dont have any issue with this.

But id be curious how they determine what a war is?

How many people does the conflict have to involve?

Also if they recognises conflicts between settlers and Indigenous people id hope they are also acknowledging conflicts and deaths between different indigenous mobs through the same period of history or even further back.

Otherwise we are getting an inaccurate politically tainted acknowledgment of history.

You’re an imbecile @info

GuySmiley wrote:

You’re an imbecile @info

Your last three comments in different threads I've seen have just been insults and mocking people when people are actually trying to have proper discussions.

I think this speaks loudly about who the imbecile is, if you were so clever, you would go.

Well Indo or well Sypkan and engage in conversation bring a point of view or a counter argument or in this case answer the questions asked.

Of course you will say, but i dont have the time to explain or engage with (insert some insult)

Well then fine, if you dont want to have a proper discussion then just dont comment at all, because I'm really not interested in having some childish back and forth insult thing with some old man who sat behind a desk all his life and thinks he is above everyone.

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages

war

"a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country."

Gotta hand it to you @info thinking your latest brain fart remotely passes for “proper discussion”. You’re joking right?

I have to say Indo your last comment was wide of the mark.
False equivalence.
But you have inadvertently pointed out that the continent had established nations. Therefore defined borders and ownership. Culture and law. And as you said there no doubt was clashes between nations but I don’t ever remember reading that conquest and genocide was ever the purpose of these
wars if that’s what you want to call them.
You seem to be suggesting that as the established nations had conflict therefore an invading peoples from far away were justified doing what they did.

@ Seeds

Your going off topic, the discussion is not about if colonisation was right or wrong or justified or feelings around it, that's a different discussion

The topic is about what is classed as a war or wars and if its determined a war then yeah sure add it to the memorial .

I focus wrote:

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages

war

"a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country."

Yep so we can all agree we can use the word war or wars as an umbrella term for conflict between Indigenous people and colonist, even if these conflicts varied hugely in size and often not battles as such like spearing of livestock by indigenous people that then saw colonist seek revenge, and then sometimes even colonist dealt with by the law and even hung for their actions. (as the above article that trigger this discussion points out)

We all agree on this yes, and also all agree that if these incident are determined a war or wars then yeah sure it can fit in the memorial

If we agree with this broad term of a war, wars, then surely we can also agree that conflicts between different indigenous groups in this era and for thousands of years before colonisation where indigenous groups often clashed and fought over women, or resources or boundary's often in a more traditional warfare sense, even in some cases using shields for protection (that can even be seen in museums today), then surely we can also calls these wars???

Yes or no?

If we acknowledge one group of conflict as wars and agree they can be added to the memorial, then I love to hear a decent counter argument why the other conflicts were not wars? and love to hear why they should not be acknowledged in the memorial????

I’m off topic because you consider a comment you made yesterday is now a and or the discussion? Let’s not forget the title and first comment of this thread. Your point of wars between indigenous nations is fair enough but the purpose of these was not to take over entirely the lands of others and it certainly wasn’t to try and eradicate the people of other nations entirely.

FFS one meets the definition of war the other are conflicts stemming from breaches in tribal law or other words genocide v breaches in criminal law

Stop being so succinct GS. You’ll get accused of trolling.

Yep but as we know #there’salwaysanothercomment

Traditionally the war memorial was for remembrance and acknowledgment of Australian military in wars/military conflicts/operations , the reason for the wars being irrelevant and range over a whole host of issues as wars do.

This seems to be being redefined for non military conflicts on Australian soil as in the so called frontier wars which i personally dont really have an issue with but some do even those of military standing and the RSL national president, although they probably do have a point that a seperate memorial would make more sense.

If you are going too change the approach and definition which is quite a big change and acknowledge the so called frontier wars, which is an extremely broad umbrella term that includes all kinds of events, then its a no brainer that you would also included and acknowledge actual more traditional type wars between indigenous groups going back thousands of years.

Wars that were over a range of issues and NOT just broken tribal law (which varied between areas anyway)

And of course there is no new rule that says, any war can be included but just not ones that involve tribal law.

@indo , are you say that the military weren’t used in the frontier wars ? that you also refer to as “ so called frontier wars “

You’re an imbecile @info

seeds wrote:

You’re an imbecile @info

Look mate, it's a well know fact that when people start throwing around insults it's because they know they dont have a proper argument and know they have lost the debate.

Is very clear that you have no counter argument at all.

Yawn!! No I retract those exclamation marks. Yawn.

!!!!!!!!!!

Supafreak wrote:

@indo , are you say that the military weren’t used in the frontier wars ? that you also refer to as “ so called frontier wars “

The incidents that the umbrella term Frontier wars, involved indigenous people and settlers and police and yes people you could classify as military. (brain fade forgot what they are called in that era)

I guess you could even say indigenous warriors with shields and spears were also military.

It's actually a decent point to look a it that way though, but as i said I'm happy to acknowledge both as wars, but if you acknowledge conflict between indigenous people and colonialist as wars, then you also have to acknowledge conflict between tribes as wars too and if add a memorial one must add a memorial for the other, if you cross that bridge you can't seperate the two they a too similar.

Even Seeds acknowledged above indigenous vs indigenous conflicts were also wars which painted himself into a corner which meant he had no chance of a come back, hence the frustration and insults.

Is that what I did Indo? You really do create the narrative you like.

Look out @info is changing the goal posts again

Hey @info your village called….

Look out @info is changing the goal posts again

Hey @info your village called….

indo-dreaming wrote:

Supafreak wrote:

@indo , are you say that the military weren’t used in the frontier wars ? that you also refer to as “ so called frontier wars “

The incidents that the umbrella term Frontier wars, involved indigenous people and settlers and police and yes people you could classify as military. (brain fade forgo what they are called in that era)

I guess you could even say indigenous warriors with shields and spears were also military.

It's actually a decent point to look a it that way though, but as i said I'm happy to acknowledge both as wars, but if you acknowledge conflict between indigenous people and colonialist as wars, then you also have to acknowledge conflict between tribes as wars too.

As Seeds did above which painted himself into a corner.

The frontier wars are not commemorated at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. The Memorial argues that the Australian frontier fighting is outside its charter as it did not involve Australian military forces. This position is supported by the Returned and Services League of Australia but is opposed by many historians, including Geoffrey Blainey, Gordon Briscoe, John Coates, John Connor, Ken Inglis, Michael McKernan and Peter Stanley. These historians argue that the fighting should be commemorated at the Memorial as it involved large numbers of Indigenous Australians and paramilitary Australian units.[58] https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars. Just curious indo if you watched the series on SBS …. Australian wars ?

Like i said guy, everybody knows when people start throwing around insults its because they are defeated, they dont have a counter argument, if you had a decent counter argument, you'd jump on it.

I’m not defeated. What a cop out. What a pathetic self serving comment.
Everybody knows blah blah etc etc and yes Indo it is etc not ect off course

You still don’t get it do you @info unlike any other person on these forums you can’t just make complete and utter shit up, present it as fact and then expect people to constructively engage you in a “proper discussion”.

If it looks and smells like bullshit, well, it’s bullshit and nothing you’ve offered up here is worthy of a considered reply. Again!

Supafreak wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

Supafreak wrote:

@indo , are you say that the military weren’t used in the frontier wars ? that you also refer to as “ so called frontier wars “

The incidents that the umbrella term Frontier wars, involved indigenous people and settlers and police and yes people you could classify as military. (brain fade forgo what they are called in that era)

I guess you could even say indigenous warriors with shields and spears were also military.

It's actually a decent point to look a it that way though, but as i said I'm happy to acknowledge both as wars, but if you acknowledge conflict between indigenous people and colonialist as wars, then you also have to acknowledge conflict between tribes as wars too.

As Seeds did above which painted himself into a corner.

The frontier wars are not commemorated at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. The Memorial argues that the Australian frontier fighting is outside its charter as it did not involve Australian military forces. This position is supported by the Returned and Services League of Australia but is opposed by many historians, including Geoffrey Blainey, Gordon Briscoe, John Coates, John Connor, Ken Inglis, Michael McKernan and Peter Stanley. These historians argue that the fighting should be commemorated at the Memorial as it involved large numbers of Indigenous Australians and paramilitary Australian units.[58] https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars. Just curious indo if you watched the series on SBS …. Australian wars ?

No i havent watched it, sounds interesting.

Yes some think it should some think it shouldn't, like i said I'm not against it being acknowledged i just believe if you are going to included the conflicts contained under the umbrella term of frontier wars, then you also need to acknowledge and provide a place for the long history of indigenous vs indigenous conflict/wars.

Thats the problem with all this truth telling stuff its often far from truth telling, it more just acknowledging one aspect of history often not talked about, but generally fails to acknowledge the other aspects like pre colonial indigenous violence, or in colonial era or even violence today.

Real truth telling is exposing all the bit's people dont want to talk about or keep hidden, not just picking and choosing the bits that suit one groups views to create a narrative wanted.

GuySmiley wrote:

You still don’t get it do you @info unlike any other person on these forums you can’t just make complete and utter shit up, present it as fact and then expect people to constructively engage you in a “proper discussion”.

If it looks and smells like bullshit, well, it’s bullshit and nothing you’ve offered up here is worthy of a considered reply. Again!

And what exactly have i made up????????????????????????????????????

Quote what i have made up?

My discussion point is about the case that if the frontier wars are acknowledged and given a place in the war memorial, then why shouldn't the long history of indigenous on indigenous wars be acknowledged and also given a place in the memorial???

And i havent as yet heard a decent case as to why, if anyone has come close its Supa definitely not you or Seeds that have only reverted to personal insults and its a very well know fact this is what people do when that have no counter argument, that's not bull shit thats a well known fact.

BTW, Its something you do quite regularly not to just to me but other's like Spkan or Blowin, any time you read something you dont like its just post a silly video or name call.

@indo , Have a look at Australian Wars , 3 x1 hour episodes , it’s a warts and all doco that left me with a variety of emotions, none that were good. I think everyone acknowledges that there were wars amongst the indigenous Australians before the British turned up , same with the Native American Indians . Not sure what your point is for including them in the Australian war memorial is though.

The opening scene had some pretty suspect native gibberish. Ooga booga I think whitey mcfuckhead interpreted it as but it was really complex in the end.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=arse%20hat

This is an interesting one.
Reinharts reply not surprisingly....shes already thrown 300million at the local indigenous crew so shut the hell up, play netball and don't bite the hand that feeds!!!
Been some interesting and refreshing commentary on it in the WA media last few days. Its a curly one.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-18/pressure-building-for-diamonds-n…

Supafreak wrote:

@indo , Have a look at Australian Wars , 3 x1 hour episodes , it’s a warts and all doco that left me with a variety of emotions, none that were good. I think everyone acknowledges that there were wars amongst the indigenous Australians before the British turned up , same with the Native American Indians . Not sure what your point is for including them in the Australian war memorial is though.

Warts and all is good will watch it.

The question is more why wouldn't these wars be added???

Once they have that means all loose ends will be acknowledged and the acknowledgement or all wars involving Australians will be remembered.

A war memorial i guess does a number of things.

1. It acknowledges wars/conflicts that Australians fought in and it educates people.

2. It's a sign of respect and remembrance for those Australians that fought and died.

Thinking about it more, i think all indigenous wars both frontier and between indigenous should be in the same war memorial, not seperate to me the symbolism of one country and one people is important, to seperate in a seperate memorial does the opposite.

BTW. I dont think most people know about wars and conflicts between indigenous people, especially these days, even here there has been people try to claim before colonisation it was a peacefully utopia, to even suggest it was not these days makes you a target.

Anyway you and me have done this conversation pretty well, maybe we should try to just leave it there and agree to disagree if we must rather than start going into done before territory and things get heated.

FFS

Is wilful ignorance a thing these days that passes as acceptable behaviour?

Judging by your comments then yes 100%

Noel Pearson Boyer Lecture

https://iview.abc.net.au/show/boyer-lecture-2022-noel-pearson

.