Society/Culture The Welcome/Acknowledgment of Country thread

[Chief]

What message?

"This sort of detail." Being whatever detail they think they can attack.

"Message" being whatever message they actually want to distract people from.

Changing the detail (Cook) doesn't change the issues with colonisation.

 

[RedStarUncle]

You want to keep sport out of politics altogether ok then...

What do you do when someone wears a swastika or rainbow flag shirt to a match? Do you throw them out for displaying a political message, or let them stay? Either decision is political.

What about if a patron wears a burqa the day after a politician calls for a burqa ban in parliament? What do you do if you let them stay and surrounding patrons complain, citing the politician's comments about banning it?

What do you do if a player makes a Nazi salute on the field after scoring a goal? What about kneeling before the anthem? Do we punish players for all and any political gestures? What if a player makes a peace sign is that a political gesture? What about a Christian player making the sign of the cross?




Unless you've got a way to deal with all these scenarios that fairly, reasonably, and consistently "keeps politics out of sports" then you can't keep politics out of sports.

I can get on board with a bit less of the fanfare and political messaging and so on that forms part of the official pre-match whatever. But even then having "none" means doing away with 100 years of history because "none" means no national anthems. Probably it means get rid of the team banners. Do we have to do away with music and dancers and so on in case they're perceived as overly biasing one particular line of politics?

So I don't think there really is a reasonable avenue to have "none" of it, which means you have to draw a line somewhere, which means you have to make a decision on whether welcome to country is on one or the other side of that line.

 

[Bostonian]

It seems strange to consider the context of the British's colonisation of Australia as some sort of vague sense of national pysche, as opposed, to the more written, documented and obvious conclusions of it being a strategic geo-political advantage to have a colony in that location, for potential economic reasons (such as growing things in the colony), and to have a place where they could dump convicts that they were storing in overcrowded prisons, given they no longer had the American colonies to dump convicts in too. All of this is documented and researched, and the cause and effect is not that difficult to understand here? The British were able to establish the best global colonial setup in the 16th-19th century because they were an island nation that by its nature made them more seafearing than other similar economic powers in Europe, much like how Spain and Portugal were the first to colonise and discover outside Europe in the 15th century for no major reason than the geographic realities that they were the southern and westernmost European countries.

It was part of the psyche of the ruling classes of those who colonised the British Isles starting with the Romans.

It grew from there.

The inhabitants of the British Isles namely the Celt tribes weren't pushing out from there to engage in wars of conquest with other groups of people over Europe.

That came later in its history.

Plenty of evidence to show that with each new group arriving in the islands the more they pushed out and engaged in external conflicts.

None of what you listed happens without these new groups arriving and changing the ruling class and landscape of Briton.

The Normans played the largest part in what you have described.

 

[RedWhite4Ever]

Changing the detail (Cook) doesn't change the issues with colonisation.

Which is?

 

[Gavin Excell]

There isn't a great deal of evidence that confirms the Portuguese visiting the east coast in the 16th century, so the notion is still largely hypothetical. McIntyre's theory has been seriously challenged by other scholars as well. A relative of mine, Captain John Mills supposedly saw a shipwreck somewhere around 1843 in the dunes to the west of Warrnambool and south of Tower Hill that's since been dubbed the 'Mahogany Ship' and is often postulated as evidence for a possible Portuguese visit. He (and others who also saw it) seemed to imply that the wreck was of unknown identity and predated European colonization of Victoria, thought to begin with whalers in about 1828. So, as evidence to support the theory it's fairly poor, until at least the remains of the wreck are found and the wood scientifically analysed.

There were some maps too which were central to his theory. In yr12 HSC we studied this as part of Australian History subject. Sort of surprised (in retrospect) it made the reading list

 

[Chief]

Which is?

Read up on what more knowledgeable people than I have said about colonisation.

 

[RedWhite4Ever]

Read up on what more knowledgeable people than I have said about colonisation.

What about the benefits of it?

 

[South of the Yarra]

What a seriously crap comment. A nothing comment that shows you don't have much of an argument.

Facts are facts. You seem to ignore facts that don't suit your agenda. And make up others. And then throw mud and call people racist.

Well it is in fact you and the red neck racists you despise holding this country back from healing and actually becoming a better place to live. Too busy living in the past hating each other to actually move on and improve the lives of all Australians.

Maybe go for a holiday to Northern China and talk with the locals, you may just start understanding how lucky we all are here. And just how unlucky some people are even in a so called advanced modern society.

1 I didn't realise it was an argument
2. I am not arguing, I am offering a perspective that you cannot.
3. If someone is racist, I will call them out every time. Perhaps you should try that.
4. I have been to Northen China, several times. Have also been to North Korea and many other Norths.
5. You actually have no idea what you are talking about

 

[Chief]

What about the benefits of it?

That was a quick read.

 

[kickazz]

To funny. Have a look at the age demographic of all the protesters such as the flogs at the weapons convention throwing acid and horse shit. Climate change protestors and virtually every protest is dominated by young naive uni fools and students.

Did they offend you?

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

What about the benefits of it?

None of us would be here if it wasn’t for colonisation. NONE of us.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

You do realize Polynesian people were quite barbaric in their own right?
It does not excuse what Cook and the people of his time did but let's not pretend there were innocents. Life was incomprehensible to what Westerners experience today.

Wow. That is racist . It was their country being invaded you moron. They have the right to defend it and the right to stop Cook using their women snd resources.
You better delete that.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

Wow. That is racist . It was their country being invaded you moron. They have the right to defend it and the right to stop Cook using their women snd resources.
You better delete that.

That word gets thrown around so much these days.
Imo, the people that spout about it the most are in fact the most racist ones.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

That word gets thrown around so much these days.
Imo, the people that spout it the most are in fact the most racist.

That's rubbish .

 

[Pt Augusta Power]

Love the bottled outrage when news.com goes for a trigger point or whenever SkyNews decides to rile up its viewers.

But it’s the uni students and protesters who are naive , yep.

 

[Roylion]

There were some maps too which were central to his theory.

The Dieppe Maps.

Sort of surprised (in retrospect) it made the reading list

It's an interesting, if not that well supported, hypothesis.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

That's rubbish .

Nope, it's not rubbish at all.
Imo, your opinion on my opinion, is rubbish.

 

[schneebly111]

It does not excuse what Cook and the people of his time did but let's not pretend there were innocents. Life was incomprehensible to what Westerners experience today.

I mean where in any discourse are we told to pretend that indigenous people are completely innocent?

I could sell 17 bales of hay with the amount of strawmanning going on in this thread

 

[South of the Yarra]

That word gets thrown around so much these days.
Imo, the people that spout about it the most are in fact the most racist ones.

You think so? Actually, those that I label racist are well, um racist.

 

[Chief]

I mean where in any discourse are we told to pretend that indigenous people are completely innocent?

I could sell 17 bales of hay with the amount of strawmanning going on in this thread

Judging the worthiness of the parties is a way to distract from the facts.

You see it in the "unworthy victim" story spun around every injustice.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

That's not a civilization.

The oldest civilizations developed around 3000-4000 BCE

I think you'll find it's now believed to be 10,000 - 12,000 BCE

See Gobekli Tepe

 

[Malifice]

The oldest civilizations developed around 3000-4000 BCE

Thats not even close to being true.

 

[2Knights]

Shit thread. Send it to S/R/P where it belongs.

 

[Pie eyed]

I guess the difference is that NZ has fully embraced the Haka as a concept of Kiwi identity, not just Māori identity. You will see both white and Māori All Blacks perform the Haka, and you don’t see any (as far as I can tell) opposition to the Māori concepts being part of New Zealand’s overall identity. You wouldn’t never see former All Blacks criticise the Haka like Tony Shaw criticised the WTC for instance.

The difference is a lot of Australians believe the WTC/AOC and other Indigenous culture is not a part of their “Australian” culture. That is something separate to their culture, and therefore want no part of it.

At least I haven’t seen any footage of people actively opposing a WTC/AOC, booing it, walking out of one etc. If that were to happen I think the conversation would take a far different turn.

Hence the real issue.
Some people are too set in their ways to accept that they are Australians.
Not some former nationality, whence they or their forebears came from.

Some of the immigrants even think they are the only actual Australians.

 

[Chief]

acid and horse shit

Only confirmed "acid" has been police spraying their own horse.