And the elites over there still think Genocide is absolutely fine as long as its Whites doing it to non-Whites, hence their support for Israel and its Genocide.
Britain is maybe the best example there is of an European country which culturally didn’t evolve much from 19th century thinking, at various levels (their political system, too, is an earlier, partial form of Democracy easily subverted).
Plenty of people over there do have a XXI century mindset, but those aren’t the ones with actual Power.
Elita support genocide as long as they get paid.
Which kind of takes out the racism, but I’m not sure it makes it better. See also them turning their head to Rwanda, the Arabs slavery and so on, as long as they invest in western companies.
Palestinian fault’s was apparently to not invest in some shitty football team
And most of us Aussies voted no to recognise the indigenous voice in our constitution. It just never ends.
They needed an inquiry?
So now what ? Are the families or descendents of those indigenous australians alive today in australia ? After so many years what kind of compensation will be provided or what kind of justice will be provided ?
The Inquiry:
*Opens a 7th grade social studies class textbook.
They needed an inquiry for this? If the British showed up, they tried to genocide, that’s just what they do
It’s always been characterized as a police action against “criminals.”
In the US, we declared war against Native Americans, so it’s more obviously a genocide. Murders of aboriginal Australians have always been constructed as police actions.
If the British showed up, they tried to genocide, that’s just what they do
I mean only if it’s non-white people. They’ve helped white people out sometimes - of course only when it’s aligned with their interests.
That’s absolutely not the case, you do a disservice to yourself if you don’t spend some time to learn more about the history of British aggression against other white people groups.
The British literally helped my extremely white people gain independence. They don’t always genocide white people is what I meant. They only sometimes genocide white people. They always genocide non-white people.
Literally the opposite of what your comment says :)
Is it? Comment above mine says that if the Brits showed up, they definitely genocided you. Mine says that it was only guaranteed to be genocide if you’re not white. The “might still be genocided if you’re white” part was left for the reader to infer, that was an error on my part, as it was a bit too subtle for no reason.
Define “white”
Here in Estonia (very white folks, we’re pretty far north), the Brits lent us a few ships the first time we broke free from Russian rule. So what I meant is if you’re white, they’ll occasionally help you (probably to get back at another empire), but if you’re colored, they’ll genocide you and take your land for sure.
Yes, I’m highlighting that the definition of white has changed over time.
And Tasmanians, and Native Americans, and Indians, and Kenyans, and Irish…
Tasmanians
Tasmania is a state of Australia, all Tasmanian are Australian. Tasmanian Aboriginal peoples are the same as mainland Aboriginal peoples.
Torres Strait Islanders are the other indigenous peoples in Australia.
There’s an Australian Canadian co-production that goes into some of the atrocities the British got into:
It’s a great podcast. It would be nice if they made more episodes.
And it’s not like they’re lacking for material hah
Probably other brits…
Various forms of Gaelic are hardly languages anymore
We did all of those that identify as Celt, one way or another.
They also found the sky is blue and water is wet. (I know, technically it’s not)
My Aussie mate back in England told me that the British killed the First Nations and took their land, like his ancestors just turned up here to find swathes of unoccupied land and were like “crikey, what’s been happening here!” and immediately started doing Acknowledgement Of Country at the start of every office meeting.
I legit do not understand your comment.
My Aussie mate back in England told me that the British killed the First Nations and took their land,
With you this far. Yes your Australian friend (who was in England at the time) told you that the British killed the first nations people and took their land.
like his ancestors just turned up here to find swathes of unoccupied land and were like “crikey, what’s been happening here!” and immediately started doing Acknowledgement Of Country at the start of every office meeting.
Now you’re saying your Australian friend was foolish to ideate that his ancestors just turned up in Australia to find swathes of unoccupied land… and then start making Acknowledgement of Country statements.
First of all - how is this not contradictory to the first part of your analogy? He didn’t ideate that.
Second, the Acknowledgement of Country statements didn’t start until 200 years after colonisation… So this is really disingenuous representation you make of your “Aussie mate’s” position.
If his ancestors were Irish and were forced to Australia in the 1850s due to the famine, for example, the comment makes sense
I think they assume Anglo-Australians separate their own ancestors from the British colonisers.
What’s happening behind Pikachu?
Probably the British, sneaking up.
Brock is just standing behind him
If this inquiry has no power to actually do anything about this finding, I’m not sure I understand the point.
Anyone who ever read a history book already knows about the multiple genocides. The issue is what happens now?
They’ll formally apologize, as talk is cheap, and then do nothing further.
And no, I’m not at all kidding or exaggerating: this is THE most common strategy in British Political and Social Elite circles for getting rid of such “problems” when denying it doesn’t work.
Deny it, deny it was a problem, deny it was systemic, apalogize and claim it was too long ago and it’s pointless to do anything about it now, is a well travelled multi-step strategy in British politics (THE main strategy, even) to avoid actual consequences for their actions or lack of action.
for the same reason that everyone is entitled to due process even when things are incredibly obvious… it’s important to follow a process, to document formally, etc
True. This is what I am also thinking ? Everybody knows the colonial powers or imperial powers did lot of atrocities, exploitation. It is there in books.
I guess the point would be for everyone involved to say “never again” and if someone quotes Hitler they should not win elections.
Shocking
And here I thought folks just let the Brits displace them because they’re so nice!
Certainly the posh ones will tell you they value your input as you scream from the pain due the knife they plunged into your back.
And the American settlers genocided the native Americans. All the western super-powers are built of slaughter, rape and pillage.
My dude, pretty much all countries have been founded by genocidal settlers.
Problem is that some of them can’t get past it and keep being genocidal settlers.
Exactly.
The problem is those countries were the 19th century colonialist mindset isn “something we fortunately left behind” but instead is alive and well.
Absolutely true, but the point isn’t whataboutism (well, sometimes it is, but it shouldn’t be). The point should be admitting and owning our mistakes and doing what we reasonably can to:
a) admit that we did and validate the experience of the people who suffered from it
b) make sure we’re not still doing it (way too often we still are, just through subtler means)
c) try to make reparations if we canEven getting to step ‘a’ is a big fucking step. Nobody’s innocent, but honesty is the foundation on which improvements can be made.
Well, once you’ve had your country invaded by rabid psychopaths, there’s bound to be some gene admixture (to put that far too mildly) and so you’ve a chance that their descendents, even if it’s recessive and rare, will have the desire go on to do the same.
Of course, rabid psychopathy and the urge to invade other places can also come about on its own, but when you look at the way the Vikings and their Germanic cousins invaded western Europe a thousand years or so ago, and then note what happened a few hundred years later, it has to make you wonder whether it might have only happened the once.
This completely depends on the organisation of society and has nothing to do with genetics. I don’t even know what you are going on about.
BTW Germans were also invaded by Asian people multiple times. In fact, the most brutal genocide in history scaled to population size was committed by an Asian dude against mostly Europeans. It’s not like some nations were better with this than others. Middle-Eastern people did it just the same as Latins as well as Vikings and North, West and East Asians.
You think other empires weren’t. No slaves in Russia, Persia or china. Rest of the world was peaceful and dainty.
How about the americas pre Columbus. Do you think they were peaceful and had not slaves.
I mean, idk about the Aztecs but the Incas didn’t. But regardless, chattel slavery is a purely Western creation and for at least two millennia the European man has been the main source of grief and destruction in the world. Idc if you refute it, I understand why you would, but it’s neither productive nor honest.
The Inca routinely displaced entire ethnic groups to seed new lands…
Your “I don’t know” and your “I don’t care” pretty much sum up you grasp of history
What a shocker! The British are bad people?!
Were, anyway.
Now come on, I’m sure plenty still are.
That’s a pretty small list tbh. Should be 0, but at least it’s not half of Africa and Asia anymore.
Do you think it’s because the Anglo-Saxon man is slowly but surely gaining in humanity or because their relative power diminishes with every passing year? God willing it’s both, but we know that at least the latter is true…
Hoping it’s both but we all know the big colonies were given away because of revolutions, not out of their free will.
Yeah, they had a change of heart when they decided to abandon colonies.
