Politics QAnon and Sovereign Citizens

[Chief]

If you or someone you care about is under the influence of Qanon, please visit:

https://freedomofmind.com/what-to-do-about-the-qanon-and-those-ensnared-in-it-interview-with-travis-view/

 

[Malifice]

"Having said that, they weren't all the same thing either". Simple geographical variations are another factor in those differences.
In most cases, the "pitched battles" came after the initial colonisation efforts.

I'm not even sure what the point of this line of questioning is. Is this supposed to change my view on the word invasion being used in place of colonisation in Australia, and more importantly, why that replacement is becoming the norm?

No, I'm just confused why you're getting all up in arms over the term.

And to openly state Cortez (and many others) in Mexico, Custer (and many others) in the USA or the New Zealand wars against the Maoris were anything other than military campaigns of invasion and annexation is just ****ing weird.

Thats what they were. They were as much of an invasion as any other invasion.

 

[Episode IV]

No, I'm just confused why you're getting all up in arms over the term.

I'm expressing disagreement with the term being used, not only interchangeably with colonisation, but with greater frequency as political forces insist upon it.

As to why I'm expressing that disagreement, I think that was adequately covered in my last response to you (#871).
I do not think that dumbing down of language and the subsequent simplification of ideas, events and history is "progressive". The dichotomy between subjectivity and objectivity, and the subsequent ideological choice and expression of ideas as a result of adherence to one or the other in a discussion such this one, is one thing being lost.

And to openly state Cortez (and many others) in Mexico, Custer (and many others) in the USA or the New Zealand wars against the Maoris were anything other than military campaigns of invasion and annexation is just ******* weird.

Thats what they were. They were as much of an invasion as any other invasion.

For the second time, "Having said that, they weren't all the same thing either". I "openly stated" nothing of the sort.
And no, I disagree. As would most people who actually know the meanings of the words they're using, as opposed to conflating terms in order to achieve a emotive result in pursuit of a political objective. It's not "heckin'g weird", it's called an education, compounded with a lot of reading in which nuance becomes more apparent within context.

In the case of New Zealand, the description of that situation as "military invasions and annexation" is about as simplified as you can get - they were considerably more complicated than that. Even the Musket Wars often involved inter-tribal warfare which was occurring anyway, the introduction of the musket itself being an adjunct to that conflict and a notable development, not a direct cause of it... or direct European involvement in some cases. The musket wars themselves began prior to direct settlement, in the form of colonies (although whaling and trade stations were established), and continued afterward.

Look, its a big subject to get into and again, different to the colonisation of Australia in the way it unfolded. Which is not to say there weren't similarities, its to say there were differences... in some aspects major ones.
I'm not really all that inclined to go into it with you here, not least in part due to your unwillingness to actually look at the reality of different historical events and situations in favour of just shoveling them all into the same rickety basket and calling that understanding. To describe the colonisation of New Zealand as an "invasion" invokes images of troops storming the borders of Ukraine. It didn't happen that way. And in Australia, the First Fleet came over with a bunch of unwilling convict labourers whose purpose was to establish that settlement, not to wipe out the natives*.

To me, those differences are obvious.

Speaking of Australia, though, have you actually read Cpt. Cook's "secret orders"?
I have. There's another aspect potentially derailing your position that I'll throw out there in hopes that someone else will read them and discover there's a whole lot more to history than your over simplified version.

Heh. That scene in A Game of Thrones where Hot Pie is trying to explain what he thinks a battle is. Just popped into my head.

*edit - actually that's another aspect of the nature of Australian colonisation which is often ignored, particularly with respect to Tasmania. Probably not worth getting into unless someone really wants to, but one must also consider the types of people who arrived here in many cases, what they'd been through, and the privations they endured. I'm making this note not to excuse, but to make the point that in order to get to grips with the reality of the situation as it occurred back then, one should try to understand both groups of people - not just one or the other as it serves your particular narrative.

 

[kranky al]

 

[Malifice]

In the case of New Zealand, the description of that situation as "military invasions and annexation" is about as simplified as you can get - they were considerably more complicated than that.

Dude, the New Zealand wars between the British and the Maoris was clearly a military invasion and annexation:

Though the wars were initially localised conflicts triggered by tensions over disputed land purchases, they escalated dramatically from 1860 as the government became convinced it was facing united Māori resistance to further land sales and a refusal to acknowledge Crown sovereignty. The colonial government summoned thousands of British troops to mount major campaigns to overpower the Kīngitanga (Māori King) movement and also conquest of farming and residential land for British settlers.[5][6] Later campaigns were aimed at quashing the so-called Hauhau movement, an extremist part of the Pai Mārire religion, which was strongly opposed to the conquest of Māori land and eager to strengthen Māori identity.[7]

At the peak of hostilities in the 1860s, 18,000 British Army troops, supported by artillery, cavalry and local militia, battled about 4,000 Māori warriors[8] in what became a gross imbalance of manpower and weaponry.[9] Although outnumbered, the Māori were able to withstand their enemy with techniques that included anti-artillery bunkers and the use of carefully placed pā, or fortified villages, that allowed them to block their enemy's advance and often inflict heavy losses, yet quickly abandon their positions without significant loss. Guerrilla-style tactics were used by both sides in later campaigns, often fought in dense bush. Over the course of the Taranaki and Waikato campaigns, the lives of about 1,800 Māori and 800 Europeans were lost,[5] and total Māori losses over the course of all the wars may have exceeded 2,100.

New Zealand Wars - Wikipedia

 

[Schneebly11]

The filth at Sky ‘News’ can’t accept that one of their right wing white anti vaxxer ‘freedom’ types could possibly be evil:

There are ‘issues with Qld Police calling the Wieambilla shooting a ‘terrorist attack’

There are ‘issues with Qld Police calling the Wieambilla shooting a ‘terrorist attack’

www.skynews.com.au

 

[kranky al]

The filth at Sky ‘News’ can’t accept that one of their right wing white anti vaxxer ‘freedom’ types could possibly be evil:

There are ‘issues with Qld Police calling the Wieambilla shooting a ‘terrorist attack’

There are ‘issues with Qld Police calling the Wieambilla shooting a ‘terrorist attack’

www.skynews.com.au

Is it just me or are sky news articles more and more just stating a few lines of what they believe without even trying to justify or prove their case?

They just seem to be a couple of paragraphs saying “this is a very bad thing that’s happening.”

The end.

All it needs is : by andrew bolt, age 5

 

[Episode IV]

Dude, the New Zealand wars between the British and the Maoris was clearly a military invasion and annexation:


New Zealand Wars - Wikipedia

All of which occurred port-settlement - several years after settlement and subsequent land purchases, if I recall. It's even mentioned in the link you've provided.

As I've said, the reason you're so determined to use these words is probably more indicative of motive than this rather wearying little discussion over their definitions. It's an emotive issue, and you'd prefer it remained one rather than be distracted by petty concerns like historical facts. Easier to control the readership and thereby the votes.
Which is probably the primary motivation behind the use of histrionic language behind this issue. Yes?

 

[Malifice]

All of which occurred port-settlement - several years after settlement and subsequent land purchases, if I recall. It's even mentioned in the link you've provided.

So what? It was clearly a military campaign to take land off the Maori people (and extinguish their sovereignty, which eventually happened via the Treaty of Waitangi).

What do you call that if not an invasion?

 

[Chief]

Sort of like the crown of thorns starfish "settles" sections of the Great Barrier Reef.

 

[faible]

So what? It was clearly a military campaign to take land off the Maori people (and extinguish their sovereignty, which eventually happened via the Treaty of Waitangi).

What do you call that if not an invasion?

I'm enjoying how he posts talking down to people, using the biggest words he can find, but appears to lack any substantial understanding of any of the topics.

It's that thing where someone knows just enough to think they know a lot, but not enough to realise how little they know.

 

[Episode IV]

So what? It was clearly a military campaign to take land off the Maori people (and extinguish their sovereignty, which eventually happened via the Treaty of Waitangi).

What do you call that if not an invasion?

Settlement, colonisation, followed by war.
Same thing in Australia - settlement, colonisation, then war.

No one moved onto the beaches with intent to kill anyone, it was later on that the war started.
An invasion is Russia moving straight into Ukraine, the difference is fairly pronounced.

Hence, we have two different words with similar meanings but subtle variations. Nuance.

 

[Episode IV]

I'm enjoying how he posts talking down to people, using the biggest words he can find, but appears to lack any substantial understanding of any of the topics.

It's that thing where someone knows just enough to think they know a lot, but not enough to realise how little they know.

You've just described yourself, sans the linguistic knowledge. Or the historical knowledge. Or any idea of the deeper issue regarding the use of language for political purposes.
I don't think there'd be too many people who find it difficult talking down to you. Particularly when, in spite of your little interjection, there are people around who know significantly more about the history involved than you do. If you don't want to be talked down to, then don't be ignorant and shut up when your betters are talking. It's fairly straightforward

 

[CD Xbow]

Settlement, colonisation, followed by war.
Same thing in Australia - settlement, colonisation, then war.

No one moved onto the beaches with intent to kill anyone, it was later on that the war started.
An invasion is Russia moving straight into Ukraine, the difference is fairly pronounced.

Hence, we have two different words with similar meanings but subtle variations. Nuance.

I think it's simply a POV issue. For indigenous folks it's an invasion, for the Europeans it was colonization. End of story.

 

[South of the Yarra]

I'm enjoying how he posts talking down to people, using the biggest words he can find, but appears to lack any substantial understanding of any of the topics.

It's that thing where someone knows just enough to think they know a lot, but not enough to realise how little they know.

I would love to know more about your knowledge of Aboriginal people, colonisation /invasion (I won't get into that debate), the New Zealand Wars (I am no expert on this matter) and the Frontier wars. Perhaps you could even give some insight into Stolen Generation as well.

 

[Episode IV]

I think it's simply a POV issue. For indigenous folks it's an invasion, for the Europeans it was colonization. End of story.

Yes and no. The usage of the term invasion in place of colonisation (using this example) has come about as the result of emotive terms rather than reasonable ones becoming the norm in political discourse - identity politics. The aim being to whip up emotional responses (outrage) rather than discuss the actual issues.

I've recently read something - don't remember exactly where - where an American politician has admitted that identity politics has become their focus and that it isn't unreasonable to take that direction. The red flags are there already.

 

[Episode IV]

I would love to know more about your knowledge of Aboriginal people, colonisation /invasion (I won't get into that debate), the New Zealand Wars (I am no expert on this matter) and the Frontier wars. Perhaps you could even give some insight into Stolen Generation as well.

Heh. Me too.
This'll be interesting.

 

[CD Xbow]

Yes and no. The usage of the term invasion in place of colonisation (using this example) has come about as the result of emotive terms rather than reasonable ones becoming the norm in political discourse - identity politics. The aim being to whip up emotional responses (outrage) rather than discuss the actual issues.

I've recently read something - don't remember exactly where - where an American politician has admitted that identity politics has become their focus and that it isn't unreasonable to take that direction. The red flags are there already.

I would suggest you are adding the baggage to the term, from an aboriginal POV it was an invasion, and they should be allowed to call it that. It may be confronting to a European POV but the fact is, that's what the aboriginal experience was, an invasion. To deny that point of view is simply a denial of reality.

 

[faible]

You've just described yourself, sans the linguistic knowledge. Or the historical knowledge. Or any idea of the deeper issue regarding the use of language for political purposes.
I don't think there'd be too many people who find it difficult talking down to you. Particularly when, in spite of your little interjection, there are people around who know significantly more about the history involved than you do. If you don't want to be talked down to, then don't be ignorant and shut up when your betters are talking. It's fairly straightforward

Seems like a lot of words involving talking down to someone, whilst demonstrating little-to-no knowledge of a topic.

Interesting approach you've gone with here, reinforcing the exact thing you've been accused of.

I particularly enjoy the bolded, as one can only take it as referring to yourself, which is really quite illustrative.

 

[faible]

I would love to know more about your knowledge of Aboriginal people, colonisation /invasion (I won't get into that debate), the New Zealand Wars (I am no expert on this matter) and the Frontier wars. Perhaps you could even give some insight into Stolen Generation as well.

I'm intrigued whether you've rolled out this line authentically, or sarcastically.

Especially regarding the bolded, where I know I have read a number of your posts on the topic and believe that not only have I learned a lot from it, that we've not disagreed regarding anything in these topic areas nor (to the best of my memory) have we ever argued opposing positions regarding them.

I assumed initially it was sarcasm, as the last time we interacted was in another thread where someone was attempting to tell you about the Aboriginal community and we had a chuckle at the ridiculousness of them doing so to you specifically. But then you went with liking Episode IV's post so perhaps it wasn't sarcasm but a genuine comment?

 

[Malifice]

Settlement, colonisation, followed by war.

Which differs from invasion in what meaningful way?

People come, kill people already there, take shit that isn't theirs, stay.

And are you seriously calling Cortez's expedition against the Aztec Empire 'not an invasion'. He came by boat, with a military force, headed to the capital (recruiting locals on the way) and then took over Tenochtitlan (now called Mexico City) by force.

And this:

The American Indian Wars, also known as the American Frontier Wars, and the Indian Wars, were fought by European governments and colonists in North America, and later by the United States and Canadian governments and American and Canadian settlers, against various American Indian and First Nation tribes. These conflicts occurred in North America from the time of the earliest colonial settlements in the 17th century until the early 20th century. The various wars resulted from a wide variety of factors, the most common being the desire of settlers and governments for Indian tribes' lands.

As settlers spread westward across North America after 1780, armed conflicts increased in size, duration, and intensity between settlers and various Indian and First Nation tribes. The climax came in the War of 1812, when major Indian coalitions in the Midwest and the South fought against the United States and lost. Conflict with settlers became less common and was usually resolved by treaties between the federal government and specific tribes. The treaties often required the tribes to sell or surrender land to the United States.

American Indian Wars - Wikipedia

Also not an 'invasion' to you?

The only difference seems to be that when the First Fleet, Cortez and the Mayflower got their colonies, they didnt have to fight their way up the beaches and met no initial armed resistance (that only came later).

I highly doubt the people already living there, knew what was in store for them (and their sovereignty) and regarded the newcomers as a curiosity. Only later on, when the newcomers started to multiply and take land that was already being used by the people already there, did hostilities tend to actually escalate.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Settlement, colonisation, followed by war.
Same thing in Australia - settlement, colonisation, then war.

No one moved onto the beaches with intent to kill anyone, it was later on that the war started.
An invasion is Russia moving straight into Ukraine, the difference is fairly pronounced.

Hence, we have two different words with similar meanings but subtle variations. Nuance.

It was just bad luck that local got shot before the first foreign boat even landed

 

[Gough]

Yes and no. The usage of the term invasion in place of colonisation (using this example) has come about as the result of emotive terms rather than reasonable ones becoming the norm in political discourse - identity politics. The aim being to whip up emotional responses (outrage) rather than discuss the actual issues.

I've recently read something - don't remember exactly where - where an American politician has admitted that identity politics has become their focus and that it isn't unreasonable to take that direction. The red flags are there already.

I guess you wouldn't be too fussed if China colonised us then. Invasion is such an emotive term.

 

[faible]

I guess you wouldn't be too fussed if China colonised us then. Invasion is such an emotive term.

I believe Russia is engaging in a special colonisation exercise in Ukraine presently.

 

[Episode IV]

I guess you wouldn't be too fussed if China colonised us then. Invasion is such an emotive term.

That's a silly comment. I haven't seen China transporting boatloads of settlers anywhere recently, have you? If China were to lay claim to areas of Australia without permission, it would require an invasion.

Having said that, I suppose you could claim that China is currently occupying Australian territory without permission.
Several Chinese bases, ostensibly for scientific research purposes but which have not been inspected by anyone to verify their actual purpose or to determine a military presence, have been established in Australian Antarctic Territory for some years now.

Please enlighten us, Gough. Are we being invaded, or colonised?

 

[Mofra]

"to the nation or its political stability".
That's a qualifying statement. Do you need some time to go look that up?

Killing citizens of a country is generally regarded as a threat to the nation.
Do you think murder isn't a big deal?