FFC Mariner
Well-Known Member
Racism is defined by who has the power which is why in this country you can't racially vilify a white person.
-
Join ccmfans.net
ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!
If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.
ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.
That's a bit racialist?
- Thread starter sydmariner
- Start date
Racism is defined by who has the power which is why in this country you can't racially vilify a white person.
true believer
Well-Known Member
really . let me refer you to this weeks episode of media watch (4:30) about something that isn't the case
because it's a level playing feel right ?
maybe we can rename january 26 to happy small pox day .
FFC Mariner
Well-Known Member
No. It's not a level playing field. That's the entire point.
true believer
Well-Known Member
the point was role reversal . without historical context
Stuartmcateer
Well-Known Member
Actually the point was that bad behaviour is bad behaviour and should be called out as such regardless of the backgrounds of those involved.
Don’t forget get the key part “typically”
Was about to call BS and thought I better read it first and was interested to see the definition. Not sure the definition fits today’s society but technically i find it hard to argue against you based on definition.
Is what she said discrimination. Yes
Is it racism. Depends how much weight you put on the word typically. The first part is yes but the typically could change the meaning.
Very interesting. Learn something everyday.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
noun
- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
Hello Sailor
Well-Known Member
I think the 'genocide' claim is contested along with the myth of the so called 'stolen generations'
Blackbirding Melanisians was a fact. Massacres occurred, genocide no.
Looks like Sam hasn't been heeding Fifa's "No to racism".
Last edited:
Hello Sailor
Well-Known Member
It seems that Intelligent people aren't immune from a good conspiracy theory if it fits their narrative.
I would expect intelligent people to question assertions, consider agendas, and look at the evidence even if some truths are unpalatable.
Cook wasn't IN Australia when the first outbreak occurred in 1789. Nor was the flora obsessed dilettante Banks. They had left a decade before, so where's the evidence of these supposed genocidal maniacs trading smallpox infected blankets with Australian aborigines?
This from an indigenous friendly source the National Museum of Australia.
No reference to blankets or intent to commit genocide here.
On "Sorry Day" last month Albo admitted that under HIM more aboriginal children are in care today than before (22,000) because they are at risk of harm in their family homes.
Yet he happily condemns those who removed at risk children in the past as racist, cruel, or genocidal. White children were similarly removed from homes for the very same reasons [the benefit of the child].
The first big compensation test case in the NT [2000 Gunner and Cubillo] was dismissed by the Federal Court because the evidence did "not support a finding that there was any policy of removal of part-aboriginal children such as that alleged". Cubillo was taken into care when this eight year old was found alone in a camp with her dead mother and grandmother. Gunner was sent away by his mother for schooling.
Since then the Courts have still not found one case where a child was stolen just for being aboriginal.
I would expect intelligent people to question assertions, consider agendas, and look at the evidence even if some truths are unpalatable.
Cook wasn't IN Australia when the first outbreak occurred in 1789. Nor was the flora obsessed dilettante Banks. They had left a decade before, so where's the evidence of these supposed genocidal maniacs trading smallpox infected blankets with Australian aborigines?
This from an indigenous friendly source the National Museum of Australia.
No reference to blankets or intent to commit genocide here.
On "Sorry Day" last month Albo admitted that under HIM more aboriginal children are in care today than before (22,000) because they are at risk of harm in their family homes.
Yet he happily condemns those who removed at risk children in the past as racist, cruel, or genocidal. White children were similarly removed from homes for the very same reasons [the benefit of the child].
The first big compensation test case in the NT [2000 Gunner and Cubillo] was dismissed by the Federal Court because the evidence did "not support a finding that there was any policy of removal of part-aboriginal children such as that alleged". Cubillo was taken into care when this eight year old was found alone in a camp with her dead mother and grandmother. Gunner was sent away by his mother for schooling.
Since then the Courts have still not found one case where a child was stolen just for being aboriginal.
Last edited:
pjennings
Well-Known Member
The evidence is in Bank's journals. They are in the State library. My wife was cataloguing them after they were donated to the library from a deceased estateIt seems that Intelligent people aren't immune from a good conspiracy theory if it fits their narrative.
I would expect intelligent people to question assertions, consider agendas, and look at the evidence even if some truths are unpalatable.
Cook wasn't IN Australia when the first outbreak occurred in 1789. Nor was the flora obsessed dilettante Banks. They had left a decade before, so where's the evidence of these supposed genocidal maniacs trading smallpox infected blankets with Australian aborigines?
This from an indigenous friendly source the National Museum of Australia.
No reference to blankets or intent to commit genocide here.
On "Sorry Day" last month Albo admitted that under HIM more aboriginal children are in care today than before (22,000) because they are at risk of harm in their family homes.
Yet he happily condemns those who removed at risk children in the past as racist, cruel, or genocidal. White children were similarly removed from homes for the very same reasons [the benefit of the child].
The first big compensation test case in the NT [2000 Gunner and Cubillo] was dismissed by the Federal Court because the evidence did "not support a finding that there was any policy of removal of part-aboriginal children such as that alleged". Cubillo was taken into care when this eight year old was found alone in a camp with her dead mother and grandmother. Gunner was sent away by his mother for schooling.
Since then the Courts have still not found one case where a child was stolen just for being aboriginal.
FFC Mariner
Well-Known Member
No RWNJ cooker facebook posts for you ?
Back to your facts
Hello Sailor
Well-Known Member
So you are saying that Banks' journals state that he and Cook traded smallpox infected blankets with Australian aborigines in 1770? Love for you to post a copy of it {it would be history making] and please also explain how the epidemic was delayed for 18 years after the trade since the first outbreak was in 1789.
pjennings
Well-Known Member
I don't have a link. It is in the rare books area of the State Library. Cook only came ashore a few times in 1770 - he mostly stayed on board even when they were moored near land. If it was isolated to a small area then any deaths may never have been reported. As academics study the journals (the only ones that can view them) then we may hear more.
If I was to guess where it happened my best guess is that it was likely to be at Reconciliation Rocks but I never saw the journal.
JoyfulPenguin
Well-Known Member
Regardless of the allegations of smallpox or not, which at the very least was a common British colonial technique, there was undisputed genocide.
Forensic Academic source produced by the University of Newcastle:
Hello Sailor
Well-Known Member
So that's a No then. The Journal is digitised [perhaps not in its entirety yet]and what I looked at this afternoon there was no such reference to Cook or Banks trading diseased blankets with Australian aborigines.
Last edited:
Hello Sailor
Well-Known Member
The claim of genocide is usually connected to the so-called 'Stolen Generations' and it IS disputed.
Massacres are NOT disputed, nor is murder on both sides, or slavery in the form of South Sea Island 'indentured labourers' and the sale of convict labour to farmers and businesses.
FFC Mariner
Well-Known Member
/unsubscribe
Hello Sailor
Well-Known Member
Interesting link-thank you, but it does raise some questions.
It looks like a lot of conflict and it IS, but over what timeframe? What, maybe 150yrs-so how many/yr? How many were ‘Frontier War’ skirmishes, or punitive raids after attacks on settlers/stock raids?
Were they generally on the fringe of settler expansion [where misunderstandings and more aggressive competition for resources would occur]?
How many were officially sanctioned verses murderous frontier whites?
The term genocide was coined to describe the horrific, industrial, and complete state-driven slaughter of an entire people.
The allegation of Genocide implies Australians are comparable to the Nazi's treatment of the Jews. This is just not true.
Gov Phillip bent over backwards to foster friendly relations. He even took a spear at Manly to demonstrate this and he OK'ed a punitive raid only after the murders of some convicts at Rushcutters Bay.
Our Constitution permitted laws to advantage aborigines; the Nazi introduced the Nuremburg Laws to persecute Jews. Natives were provided with rations, and sent to missions. The Jews were starved and sent to death camps.
The use of the term is offensive and it's link to the fictitious "Stolen Generations' cheapens the experiences of the Jews that truly were subjected to it. It should not be used lightly for political purposes or to gain some advantage, moral or otherwise.
I have never denied the occurrence of massacres, but the allegation of 'genocide' IS contested.
Hello Sailor
Well-Known Member
Read Windschuttle's "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History Vol.1" Very well written researched and supported by references.
Last edited:
Online statistics
- Members online
- 20
- Guests online
- 358
- Total visitors
- 378
