PDA

View Full Version : The Invasion of Australia: Official, At Last



ktlight
3rd July 2011, 09:29
FYI:

The City of Sydney has voted to replace the words “European arrival” in the official record with “invasion”. The deputy lord mayor, Marcelle Hoff, says it is intellectually dishonest to use any other word in describing how Aboriginal Australia was dispossessed by the British. “We were invaded,” said Paul Morris, an Aboriginal adviser to the council. “It is the truth and it shouldn’t be watered down. We wouldn’t expect Jewish people to accept a watered-down version of the Holocaust, so why should we?”

In 2008, the then prime minister Kevin Rudd formally apologised to Aborigines wrenched from their families as children under a policy inspired by the crypto-fascist theories of eugenics. White Australia was said to be coming to terms with its rapacious past, and present. Was it? The Rudd government, noted a Sydney Morning Herald editorial, “has moved quickly to clear away this piece of political wreckage in a way that responds to some of its supporters’ emotional needs, yet it changes nothing. It is a shrewd manoeuvre.”

The City of Sydney ruling is a very different gesture, and admirable; for it reflects not a liberal and limited “sorry campaign”, seeking feel-good “reconciliation” rather than justice, but counters a cowardly movement of historical revision in which a collection of far-right politicians, journalists and minor academics claimed there was no invasion, no genocide, no Stolen Generation, no racism.

The platform for these holocaust deniers is the Murdoch press, which has long run its own insidious campaign against the indigenous population, presenting them as victims of each other or as noble savages requiring firm direction: the eugenicists’ view. Favoured black “leaders” who tell the white elite what it wants to hear while blaming their own people for their poverty, provide a PC cover for a racism that often shocks foreign visitors. Today, the first Australians have one of the shortest life expectancies in the world and are incarcerated at five times the rate of blacks in apartheid South Africa. Go to the outback and see the children blinded by trachoma, a biblical disease, entirely preventable, eradicated in third world countries but not in rich Australia. The Aboriginal people are both Australia’s secret and this otherwise derivative society’s most amazing distinction: the world’s oldest society.

In its landmark rejection of historical propaganda, Sydney, the country oldest and largest city, recognises black Australia’s “cultural endurance” and, without saying so directly, a growing resistance to an outrage known as “the intervention”. In 2007, John Howard sent the army into Aboriginal Australia to “protect the children” who, said his minister for indigenous affairs, were being abused in “unthinkable numbers”. It is striking how Australia’s incestuous political and media elite so often rounds on the tiny black minority with all the fervour of the guilty, unaware perhaps that the national mythology and psyche remain culpably damaged while a nationhood, once stolen, is not returned to the original inhabitants.

Journalists accepted the Howard government’s reason for “intervening” and went hunting for the lurid. One national TV programme used an “anonymous youth worker” to allege “sex slavery” rings among the Mutitjulu people. He was later exposed as a federal government official and his “evidence” discredited. Of 7433 Aboriginal children examined by doctors, just four were identified as possible cases of abuse. There were no “unthinkable numbers”. The rate was around that of white child abuse. The difference was that no soldiers invaded the beachside suburbs, no white parents were swept aside, their wages diminished and welfare “quarantined”. It was all a mighty charade, but with serious purpose.

The Labor governments that followed Howard have reinforced the new controlling powers over black homelands: the strict Julia Gillard especially: a prime minister who lectures her compatriots on the virtues of colonial wars that “make us who we are today” and imprisons refugees from those wars indefinitely, including children, on an offshore island not deemed to be Australia, which it is.

In the Northern Territory, the Gillard government are effectively driving Aboriginal communities into apartheid areas where they will be “economically viable”. The undeclared reason is that the Northern Territory is the only part of Australia where Aborigines have comprehensive land rights, and that here lies some of the world’s biggest deposits of uranium, and other minerals. The most powerful political force in Australia is the multi-billion dollar mining industry. Canberra wants to mine and sell and those bloody blackfellas are in the way again. But this time they are organised, articulate, militant, a resistance of conscience and culture. They know it is a second invasion. Having finally uttered the forbidden word, white Australians should stand with them.

source
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25484

Anchor
3rd July 2011, 23:02
I would be very careful before celebrating this as anything close to something that makes sense in the bigger scheme of things.

I am no fan of revisionist history, and the past should ideally be accurately documented - but this is from politicians who do not represent our best interests (usually)

For example: what does being labelled an invader do to ones right to live on the land?

realitycorrodes
3rd July 2011, 23:23
Note the mind control in the article that uses phrases like "holocaust deniers" and "watered-down version of the Holocaust" as if it is an absolute that no-one can challenge the exaggeration of the holocaust for the benefit of zionist interested parties and their agendas. So an article about supposed aboriginal issues in australia is subliminally being used as a promoter of zionist mind control by the zionist owned media.

Noble Hops
4th July 2011, 00:26
For example: what does being labelled an invader do to ones right to live on the land?

Guess you'll eventually find out. They'll start using that word in grammar school textbooks now, if they don't already. An instilled white guilt complex is the biggest weapon of them all. I'd advise all my Aussie friends to arm themselves to the teeth now, whether it's legal or not.

What's the ratio of aborigine to "invader" in Australia, BTW? :becky:

Flash
4th July 2011, 00:45
Well, up to now, nobody paid too much attention to the following but see what happens when you are deemed the invader (wich your ancestor may have been truly)

We have an Indian reserve right next to my few millions inhabitants city. Because of "invasion", the reserve has been asking the whole territory back, including the whole city and its surroundings. The white complex would give in? I hope not. There is better ways to go.

astrid
4th July 2011, 02:25
They are sure to put some sort of fine print disclaimer along with this change,

so they can't be held accountable...

Also i would suggest, even if this gesture comes from the right intention,

it's mostly for the whites guilt than to help our native first Australians.

It's funny how rarely they ask the people that have been marginalized what it is that THEY NEED, in the healing process......

oceanz
4th July 2011, 03:01
Removing the words "European arrival" and replacing it with "invasion" the disclaimer to this change so they can't be held accounable will be to add the word "conquer" so the new wording would have to be "invaded and conquered" as it was years later when Aborginies were given back their rights.