South Africa

That's the problem South Africa doesn't have it's shit together.

Also I didn't say anything about Jews owning a lot of slaves, that is incorrect.

They were just the most over represented group in profit of the trans Atlantic slave trade.

I'm not sure if that's anti semetic, Jews have historically always been very good businessmen.

The Brittish conquered Australia, it's just what happened. Some aboriginals died. There are more aboriginals now than pre colonization and they have full citizenship, some genocide hey?

You can say that for almost every genocide ever.

So "almost every genocide ever" resulted in there being an increase in the population, quality of life and technological advancement of that race?

Wow man. Seems like genocide is a good thing after all.

So "almost every genocide ever" resulted in there being an increase in the population, quality of life and technological advancement of that race?

Wow man. Seems like genocide is a good thing after all.

You're confused about what "resulted to" means.

Colonization was an overall positive experience for the aboriginals, they now live in a first world nation with full citizenship and government sponsored assistance. I disagree with the use of the term "genocide."

The stolen generation was a mistake. The British thought they could raise aboriginals as British children and they would turn out like Brittish men and women. They were wrong because they didn't factor in that tens of thousands of years of being an isolated race of hunter gatherers gave them different strengths and weaknesses.

If the people had understood the reality of race (evolutionary biology) perhaps the stolen generation wouldn't have happened?

Did you even put the slightest bit of thought into that post? What if someone invades your country and slaughters your people, but 200 years from now the life quality is better? Would you then call it an "overall positive experience"?? That's so fucked up.

Also please spare us the 4chan genetics. Of course you can raise children of any age as any culture. Not if you steal them from their parents and introduce them to a hostile environment in an attempt to "civilize" them. Oh and if you think the stolen geberation was the only attrocity commited, you're badly mistaken.

>muh feels.

I absolutely stand by that colonization was an overall positive experience for the aboriginals. Someone was going to take Australia, there was too much land here that was occupied by a race technologically hundreds of years behind. If it wasn't the British it would have been the Chinese.

We could debate who would have been kinder to the Aboriginal people?

I really didn't want this to turn into a "white people are evil" thread but here we go I guess.

The Boer in South Africa really do need help.

Is your argument "genocide was good for them because maybe someone would have genocided them worse"?? The issue is not so much that they took over Australia. Yes, that was indeed going to happen. It's their treatment of the indegenous populations. Taking over countries is bad, but there's taking over countries with respect to the indegenous populations and their culture and then there's taking over countries while genociding them, or enslaving them or stealing all they have.

Dispute cannot be serious in this. God, please let it rain brain...

The most intersting thing to notice is the backflip Rayzor has done in this thread when Crutonius' trap failed.

Gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8.

What trap?  The only trap in this thread was me thinking that you wanted an honest discussion about this when in fact it seems you only want to shitpost.  Which I fell for.  So you win this round.

We didn't genocide the aboriginals. They are still here, there were mass killings in Tasmania. That was wrong.

And yes sometimes you have to look at the reality of a situation instead of looking at it in the lens of a perfect world.

Do you think Australia would still be a land of hunter gatherer aboriginals after the year 2000 without anyone taking the land?

Seriously.

...

You are making a logical fallcy. You are thinking that if at time b things are better than at time a, this means that everything between time a and b had to be good and progressive.
That is wrong.

We didn't genocide the aboriginals. They are still here, there were mass killings in Tasmania. That was wrong.

And yes sometimes you have to look at the reality of a situation instead of looking at it in the lens of a perfect world.

Do you think Australia would still be a land of hunter gatherer aboriginals after the year 2000 without anyone taking the land?

Seriously.

Are you under the impression it's not a genocide if there are people left?? And did you even read my post where I said that obviously someone would have taken the land, which isn't an excuse for the attrocities commited?

Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 06:36:21 AM

...

You are making a logical fallcy. You are thinking that if at time b things are better than at time a, this means that everything between time a and b had to be good and progressive.
That is wrong.

I'm not. Thats why I said overall it was positive. I didn't say it was wholly positive that would've been a logical fallacy.

Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 06:36:21 AM

We didn't genocide the aboriginals. They are still here, there were mass killings in Tasmania. That was wrong.

And yes sometimes you have to look at the reality of a situation instead of looking at it in the lens of a perfect world.

Do you think Australia would still be a land of hunter gatherer aboriginals after the year 2000 without anyone taking the land?

Seriously.

Are you under the impression it's not a genocide if there are people left?? And did you even read my post where I said that obviously someone would have taken the land, which isn't an excuse for the attrocities commited?

We acknowlege what happened. It's not genocide if there wasn't a policy to exterminate the Aboriginal race, which there wasn't.
They fly their flag alongside the Australian flag today. Aboriginals are treated as Australian citizens in our society which is being treated better than 80% of the world so they're doing just fine.

That's not how genocide works. A genocide is an intentional effort to kill off part or whole of a certain ethnic group. Which is exactly what happened in many cases between the 18th and early 20th centuries. It's not like it's not a genocide unless there's a specific policy to kill all of them. I'm not saying they're doing bad now. I'm saying that the fact they're doing good now does not excuse the attrocities commited.

They were just the most over represented group in profit of the trans Atlantic slave trade.

You actually said this on page 2:

Nearly all of the biggest funders and profit takers of the African slave trade were Jewish.

Yet you provide no evidence for either assertion.  Both are untrue.

It would make sense if they were overrepresented. They were overrepresented at trade, and trade included slaves too. That doesn't really say anything.

Captain Arthur Phillip who led the settlement here did want to co-exist peacefully with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Phillip

Phillip also had to adopt a policy towards the Eora Aboriginal people, who lived around the waters of Sydney Harbour. Phillip ordered that they must be well-treated, and that anyone killing Aboriginal people would be hanged. Phillip befriended an Eora man called Bennelong, and later took him to England. On the beach at Manly, a misunderstanding arose and Phillip was speared in the shoulder: but he ordered his men not to retaliate

Captain Arthur Phillip who led the settlement here did want to co-exist peacefully with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Phillip

Quote

Phillip also had to adopt a policy towards the Eora Aboriginal people, who lived around the waters of Sydney Harbour. Phillip ordered that they must be well-treated, and that anyone killing Aboriginal people would be hanged. Phillip befriended an Eora man called Bennelong, and later took him to England. On the beach at Manly, a misunderstanding arose and Phillip was speared in the shoulder: but he ordered his men not to retaliate

Lol, phillip was 100% gay af.
He probably wasn't just 'speared' in the shoulder.

Quote from: Shifter on February 22, 2018, 12:56:19 PM

Captain Arthur Phillip who led the settlement here did want to co-exist peacefully with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Phillip

Quote

Phillip also had to adopt a policy towards the Eora Aboriginal people, who lived around the waters of Sydney Harbour. Phillip ordered that they must be well-treated, and that anyone killing Aboriginal people would be hanged. Phillip befriended an Eora man called Bennelong, and later took him to England. On the beach at Manly, a misunderstanding arose and Phillip was speared in the shoulder: but he ordered his men not to retaliate

Lol, phillip was 100% gay af.

So what if he was. What does that have to do with anything except reveal your homophobia. Odd given your a Swede. I thought you were all closet gays

Quote from: User324 on February 22, 2018, 01:13:36 PM

Quote from: Shifter on February 22, 2018, 12:56:19 PM

Captain Arthur Phillip who led the settlement here did want to co-exist peacefully with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Phillip

Quote

Phillip also had to adopt a policy towards the Eora Aboriginal people, who lived around the waters of Sydney Harbour. Phillip ordered that they must be well-treated, and that anyone killing Aboriginal people would be hanged. Phillip befriended an Eora man called Bennelong, and later took him to England. On the beach at Manly, a misunderstanding arose and Phillip was speared in the shoulder: but he ordered his men not to retaliate

Lol, phillip was 100% gay af.

So what if he was. What does that have to do with anything except reveal your homophobia. Odd given your a Swede. I thought you were all closet gays

I'm pretty sure most homophobes are closet gays.

Even by the minitrue Australias colonization was not a genocide.

Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word génos ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -cide ("act of killing").[1] The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[2][3]

The term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe;[4][5] it has been applied to the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide and many other mass killings including the genocide of indigenous peoples in the Americas, the Greek genocide, the Indonesian killings of 1965–66, the Assyrian genocide, the Serbian genocide, the Holodomor, the 1971 Bangladesh genocide, the Cambodian genocide, the Guatemalan genocide, and, more recently, the Bosnian genocide, the Kurdish genocide, and the Rwandan genocide.[a]

Where did everybody go? Tell us more about the Australian """genocide."""

Go on.

Where did everybody go? Tell us more about the Australian """genocide."""

Go on.

I do not know the situation in South Africa, but why are you only concerned when people who have the same color like you are suppressed by people who don't?

True fact: Aboriginal genocide has zero results when you search it on Google. Try. So it obviously isn't a thing.

Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 08:12:03 PM

Where did everybody go? Tell us more about the Australian """genocide."""

Go on.

I do not know the situation in South Africa, but why are you only concerned when people who have the same color like you are suppressed by people who don't?

No I'm concerned with people having their land and farms stolen, not by a conquering army but from politicians.

You don't care about anyone but yourself and virtuebux.

Groups of Indigenous Australians were massacred on many occasions between the start of the British colonisation of Australia in 1788 up to the 1920s. These massacres were the fundamental element of the frontier wars.[1]

We wanted their land not the extermination of their race. Calling it genocide is just incorrect.

@User the logical fallacy you were looking for was actually "appeal to emotion" and it's not being used by me.

Quote from: FalseProphet on February 22, 2018, 08:19:01 PM

Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 08:12:03 PM

Where did everybody go? Tell us more about the Australian """genocide."""

Go on.

I do not know the situation in South Africa, but why are you only concerned when people who have the same color like you are suppressed by people who don't?

No I'm concerned with people having their land and farms stolen, not by a conquering army but from politicians.

You don't care about anyone but yourself and virtuebux.

No, you are concerned with people having their land and farms stolen, when they have the same colour like you.

Where else is this happening currently?
Oh
Only in South Africa.