Happy Martin Luther King Day

My favourite and one I truly believe in

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

Thorin wrote:

Sad how far they have moved from once being righteous

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Sad how far they have moved from once being righteous

Far more righteous than Australia

Israeli's are indigenous decolonisers, a people who were in exile returning to a land colonized by Arabs.
Australia was formed and born from colonial expansion at the expense of the indigenous population.
Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle east and yet some wrongly call it Apartheid, simply to make themselves feel justified in hating Jews. The ironic thing is. If they believe Israel is an Apartheid state, which has far more human rights and equality than any Muslim majority nation. Then what do they class Muslim majority nations? Nobody is calling for any boycott of these nations that daily abuse human rights. So it would be fair then to classify them as 7th century cesspits, if people are going to make false charges against Israel?

I LOVE the way you so frequently rewrite history to suit your own agenda,  Didge...

It was the British Admiralty who led the British invasion of Van Diemans Land in 1788, on behalf of the British Crown..

"Australians" didn't enter the picture until January 1st, 1901.

113 years later..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I LOVE the way you so frequently rewrite history to suit your own agenda,  Didge...

It was the British Admiralty who led the British invasion of Van Diemans Land in 1788, on behalf of the British Crown..

"Australians" didn't enter the picture until January 1st, 1901.

114 years later..

Really?

Show me where I denied how Australia was invaded?
I quite rightly said how Australia was formed through colonization at the expense of the indigenous
Australians became Australians, the moment they lived there.
Its you trying to whitewash Australian history

"Australia Day is the official National Day of Australia. Celebrated annually on 26 January, it marks the anniversary of the 1788 arrival of the First Fleet of British Ships at Port Jackson, New South Wales, and the raising of the Flag of Great Britain at Sydney Cove by Governor Arthur Phillip."

Like I say, Aussies often rewrite history to poorly attempt to get out of their past crimes. Accept a history buff like me, won't stand for such gibberish.

AUSTRALIANS became Australians in 1901...

Before that they were New South Welshmen, Victorians, Queenslanders, Tasmanians, South Australians or Western Australians --  natives to six British territories..

It was the British government, and later on London and Scottish based investment companies,  who were directly responsible for forcibly robbing the Aboriginals of their heritage..

British farmers being backed by British "troopers".

And it was British politicians and British academics who created the "Terra nullus" legislation that allowed the British aristocracy and Merchant classes to steal Australia off the original inhabitants..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

AUSTRALIANS became Australians in 1901...

Before that they were New South Welshmen, Victorians, Queenslanders, Tasmanians, South Australians or Western Australians --  natives to six British territories..

It was the British government, and later on London and Scottish based investment companies,  who were directly responsible for forcibly robbing the Aboriginals of their heritage..

British farmers being backed by British "troopers".

Revisionist tripe

You celebrate Australia day from the founding of Australia
"Australia Day is the official National Day of Australia. Celebrated annually on 26 January, it marks the anniversary of the 1788 arrival of the First Fleet of British Ships at Port Jackson, New South Wales, and the raising of the Flag of Great Britain at Sydney Cove by Governor Arthur Phillip."

Like I say, the moment people lived there, they were Australians

Stop being a poor apologist

THE CONCEPT of "Terra nullus" is an invention of the British guvm'nt,  Dodge...

Not Australian..

The early Euro' settlers were British,  not Aussies.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

THE CONCEPT of "Terra nullus" is an invention of the British guvm'nt,  Dodge...

Not Australian..

The early Euro' settlers were British,  not Aussies.

The name is Thorin, not dodge, which proves you are a revisionist by deflections

The moment someone resides in a nation, they become part of that nation, even if its a controlled by an overseas territory
So they are Australian and hence why your national day is celebrated based on 1788, not 1901, which proves your a poor apologist to Aussie barbarity. If it was 1901 as the bases for the nation, you would only state this date as the formation of Australia

Why can't WE have a Winston Churchill day?

nicko wrote:Why can't WE have a Winston Churchill day?

'My dear you are ugly, but tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be ugly'

Some great quotes from Martin Luther King in this thread.

nicko wrote:Why can't WE have a Winston Churchill day?

Unfortunately, Churchill didn't stand for a great theme like MLK.  Don't get me wrong, I think he was a great man...but his life's cause was to rally the British people in a time of great challenge rather than introduce any new ideas or great themes. He didn't invent the light bulb, nor discover relativity, nor champion a vast social movement like MLK.

The one thing he was, was a rabid anti-communist, who probably more than anyone else was responsible for the Cold War.  Other than the Battle of Britain, his architecture of WWII was to cut-off the Soviets as far east as he could.  Hence the invasion of Italy rather than a much earlier Normandy.

How about Happy Queen Boudica day?

1) Will make the feminists happy.

2) Will make UKIP supporters happy (they will imagine butchering foreigners and burning their homes, just as Boudica did of the Romans and of Brits who collaborated. Mock towns made of lego, will be ritually burned to the ground to satisfy their blood lust)

3) She was a leader respected by her people (Celtic women had many rights and could own their own property and lead), the Britons, an early hero to these lands.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Why can't WE have a Winston Churchill day?

Unfortunately, Churchill didn't stand for a great theme like MLK.  Don't get me wrong, I think he was a great man...but his life's cause was to rally the British people in a time of great challenge rather than introduce any new ideas or great themes. He didn't invent the light bulb, nor discover relativity, nor champion a vast social movement like MLK.

The one thing he was, was a rabid anti-communist, who probably more than anyone else was responsible for the Cold War.  Other than the Battle of Britain, his architecture of WWII was to cut-off the Soviets as far east as he could.  Hence the invasion of Italy rather than a much earlier Normandy.

Revisionist history in regards to the strategies and it was Stalin that was responsible and Roosevelt for the Cold war. Roosevelt pandered to Stalin's demands, where as Churchill did not. Truman realized this only too late and hence why it was one of the reasons the A-bomb was used to show strength against the USSR. The Uk went to war over the self-determination of the Polish. Roosevelt, handed them over to Stalin on a plate. Italy was invaded, as it was believed to be a quicker route into knocking out both Italy and Germany.

Please, please, please stop making the most stupidest claims on history, that have no validity.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Unfortunately, Churchill didn't stand for a great theme like MLK.  Don't get me wrong, I think he was a great man...but his life's cause was to rally the British people in a time of great challenge rather than introduce any new ideas or great themes.  He didn't invent the light bulb, nor discover relativity, nor champion a vast social movement like MLK.

The one thing he was, was a rabid anti-communist, who probably more than anyone else was responsible for the Cold War.  Other than the Battle of Britain, his architecture of WWII was to cut-off the Soviets as far east as he could.  Hence the invasion of Italy rather than a much earlier Normandy.

Revisionist history in regards to the strategies and it was Stalin that was responsible and Roosevelt for the Cold war. Roosevelt pandered to Stalin's demands, where as Churchill did not.

Perhaps you don't understand.  The Cold War was not a cozy friendship, but two super powers opposed to one another.  Roosevelt was not the Soviet antagonist; he was not even alive at the end of WWII. He died in April 1945.

Thorin wrote:ruman realized this only too late and hence why it was one of the reasons the A-bomb was used to show strength against the USSR.

There's no evidence of that.  It's a dramatic plot rewrite in some post-war films. If anything, Truman was appalled that Roosevelt had to work so hard to tether Churchill.

Thorin wrote:The Uk went to war over the self-determination of the Polish. Roosevelt, handed them over to Stalin on a plate. Italy was invaded, as it was believed to be a quicker route into knocking out both Italy and Germany.

It could have started anywhere.  Poland was just the final straw.  But Hitler, while formidable, showed that Germany was no match for the Soviets.  That scared the piss out of Churchill.

Churchill and Roosevelt worked together, that is true.  Goodwin, Doris Kearns, No Ordinary Time (1994).  But internally, Roosevelt had to rein in Churchill drastically.
Churchill wanted to keep the war going and move on east from Germany to wipe out the scourge of communism.  Churchill was a fanatic.  It's no mystery why Eisenhower was made Supreme Allied Commander and not Churchill's man, Montgomery.

Thorin wrote:Please, please, please stop making the most stupidest claims on history, that have no validity.

if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. --Harry S. Truman

1) And you are fundamentally ignoring history. Stalin was the main cause of the cold war and Roosevelt pandered to his demands. If he of stood up to him, more Eastern European nations would not have been under the sphere of Stalin control. Thus Stalin was instrumental in the cause based on his expansion of Communist control.
Like I said, you are making up history

2) What on earth are you going on about?
Both Hitler and Stalin agree on a non-aggression pack to carve up Poland, of which they did through invasion. A fact many people forget, of which neither accepted the self-determination of Poland. It also had Hitler give the green light to Stalin to annex the Baltic states.

3) Rubbish again, the Russians only won with the help of aid from the west and it was reliant on this from 1941 to 1943. Without this, they would have lost in 1942, possible 1943. It would have not been able to survive without weapons, tanks, planes, trucks etc, when it was at its most weakest. In fact most trucks the Russians used were American, which without they would have never been able to accomplish their later great encirclements. Whilst nothing can be taken away by their sacrifice and later great victories, they would have been beaten without aid.

Please, please, please stop making the most stupidest claims on history, that have no validity.

Thorin wrote:Stalin was the main cause of the cold war and Roosevelt pandered to his demands. If he of stood up to him, more Eastern European nations would not have been under the sphere of Stalin control.

All you are doing here is recycling old Churchill arguments. Could-of, should-of, and would-of's are not history. We might have liberated eastern Europe, or we might have had 20 more years of war...and lost, as we eventually did the Cold War.

Churchill was on an anti-communist crusade, and Roosevelt was trying to quiet neutrality sentiments back home. Churchill never understood American politics, nor did he care. Unfortunately for him, the US was the big dog and they won.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:Stalin was the main cause of the cold war and Roosevelt pandered to his demands. If he of stood up to him, more Eastern European nations would not have been under the sphere of Stalin control.

All you are doing here is recycling old Churchill arguments. Could-of, should-of, and would-of's are not history. We might have liberated eastern Europe, or we might have had 20 more years of war...and lost, as we eventually did the Cold War.

Churchill was on an anti-communist crusade, and Roosevelt was trying to quiet neutrality sentiments back home. Churchill never understood American politics, nor did he care. Unfortunately for him, the US was the big dog and they won.

Never mentioned Churchill in my last post, which shows you are deflecting from your previous errors with deflections. I know he was anti-communist, but you are ignoring Stalin's expansionism through basically annexing eastern European nations. No different to Hitler's expansionism. That is the cause and Stalin was doing this before WW2

Here are the points again.



1) And you are fundamentally ignoring history. Stalin was the main cause of the cold war and Roosevelt pandered to his demands. If he of stood up to him, more Eastern European nations would not have been under the sphere of Stalin control. Thus Stalin was instrumental in the cause based on his expansion of Communist control.
Like I said, you are making up history

2) What on earth are you going on about?
Both Hitler and Stalin agree on a non-aggression pack to carve up Poland, of which they did through invasion. A fact many people forget, of which neither accepted the self-determination of Poland. It also had Hitler give the green light to Stalin to annex the Baltic states.

3) Rubbish again, the Russians only won with the help of aid from the west and it was reliant on this from 1941 to 1943. Without this, they would have lost in 1942, possible 1943. It would have not been able to survive without weapons, tanks, planes, trucks etc, when it was at its most weakest. In fact most trucks the Russians used were American, which without they would have never been able to accomplish their later great encirclements. Whilst nothing can be taken away by their sacrifice and later great victories, they would have been beaten without aid.

Please, please, please stop making the most stupidest claims on history, that have no validity.
.

Thorin wrote:never mentioned Churchill in my last post, which shows you are deflecting from your previous errors with deflections. I know he was anti-communist, but you are ignoring Stalin's expansionism, which was the cause of the cold war.

No doubt that's the reason why you missed the mark.  You didn't account for the Churchill factor.

Churchill was instrumental in drawing the US into the war.  That was his main purpose in moving into the White House in the latter part of 1941.  The US was under constraint of no less than four neutrality acts, and extreme measures had to be taken to get the US involved.  Indeed, the Germans were maneuvered into declaring war on the US, not vice-versa.

But once Churchill was successful in drawing the US into the war, Roosevelt learned that Churchill was a fanatic about his anti-communism.  Churchill saw the war as one swoop, taking out Germany and going on to remove the Soviets.  Malta and Pottsdam were largely about restraining Churchill.  The Allieds got as far as Germany, and then Roosevelt gave Churchill an emphatic NO.

The War ended...but the residual started the Cold War.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:never mentioned Churchill in my last post, which shows you are deflecting from your previous errors with deflections. I know he was anti-communist, but you are ignoring Stalin's expansionism, which was the cause of the cold war.

No doubt that's the reason why you missed the mark. You didn't account for the Churchill factor.

Churchill was instrumental in drawing the US into the war. That was his main purpose in moving into the White House in the latter part of 1941. The US was under constraint of no less than four neutrality acts, and extreme measures had to be taken to get the US involved. Indeed, the Germans were maneuvered into declaring war on the US, not vice-versa.

But once Churchill was successful in drawing the US into the war, Roosevelt learned that Churchill was a fanatic about his anti-communism. Churchill saw the war as one swoop, taking out Germany and going on to remove the Soviets. Malta and Pottsdam were largely about restraining Churchill. The Allieds got as far as Germany, and then Roosevelt gave Churchill an emphatic NO.

The War ended...but the residual started the Cold War.

1) More deflections/

2) Conspiracy bullcrap. No extreme measures had to be taken. Roosevelt wanted to help Britain and Russia, before pearl harbour. It did not take anything from Churchill for Roosevelt to make money out of the situation.

3) The US was not drawn into war, it had the Japanese attack them by declaring war and then Germany declaring war on the US. So you are talking a load of rubbish again.

4) So if their had not been Soviet expansion and influence, would their have been a cold war?

No

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No doubt that's the reason why you missed the mark.  You didn't account for the Churchill factor.

Churchill was instrumental in drawing the US into the war.  That was his main purpose in moving into the White House in the latter part of 1941.  The US was under constraint of no less than four neutrality acts, and extreme measures had to be taken to get the US involved.  Indeed, the Germans were maneuvered into declaring war on the US, not vice-versa.

But once Churchill was successful in drawing the US into the war, Roosevelt learned that Churchill was a fanatic about his anti-communism.  Churchill saw the war as one swoop, taking out Germany and going on to remove the Soviets.  Malta and Pottsdam were largely about restraining Churchill.  The Allieds got as far as Germany, and then Roosevelt gave Churchill an emphatic NO.

The War ended...but the residual started the Cold War.

1) More deflections/

2) Conspiracy bullcrap. No extreme measures had to be taken. Roosevelt wanted to help Britain and Russia, before pearl harbour. It did not take anything from Churchill for Roosevelt to make money out of the situation.

So...I take it you have never heard of the Neutrality Act. In early 1941 most of the US wanted to stay out of "Europe's war". (How Churchill and Roosevelt engineered it is another story.) If you are not familiar with the pre-war struggles of Roosevelt to get America into the war, what am I to say? Go back to school.

Thorin wrote:3) The US...had the Japanese attack them by declaring war and then Germany declaring war on the US. So you are talking a load of rubbish again

.

Is there an echo in here? I just said that.

Thorin wrote:4) So if their had not been Soviet expansion and influence, would their have been a cold war?

No

Even a game of ping-pong needs another player across the table. All I am saying is that Churchill was the more vociferous anti-communist, and his persistence led to the Cold War.

Don't forget Thorin IT was America that won the war without the help of any one else. Did you know Errol Flynn? won the war against the Japs

1) So the bases of your argument is based on public opinion Quill?
PMSL which is irrelevant to the points being discussed. This is not about whether the US should have gone to war pre being attacked. Where its known the majority did not want to get involved in a war, but supported the British none the less in their fight against Germany. The part of the information you left out.

2) You then claim engineered? Based off conspiracy babble. It was due to German success on the eastern front that led to the Japanese deciding to attack the US. That had originally planned to attack the US in 1946. German success led to them believing Russia would soon be out of the war and that the US would be drawn to save Britain in a long drawn out western war. If the Japanese had waited a couple more weeks, they would have shelved their plans. As the Russians counter attacked before Moscow. So what you are proposing is opinion not backed up by any facts.

3) So in all my points, you invented history, changed history and avoided all my points

nicko wrote:Don't forget Thorin   IT was America that won the war without the help of any one else.     Did you know Errol Flynn? won the war against the Japs

Didge understands, nicko. But the issue isn't between the Americans and the rest of the Allieds over who contributed more.

The issue is over which was the more rabid anti-communist...Churchill or Roosevelt?

nicko wrote:Don't forget Thorin IT was America that won the war without the help of any one else. Did you know Errol Flynn? won the war against the Japs

Ha Ha Ha, which scarily seems to be how it is taught within the US, but luckily that is not fully the case.
There certainly is some revisionist nonsense that does the rounds, but love your aptly put reality of how some yanks perceive the war

Thorin wrote:1) So the bases of your argument is based on public opinion Quill?

No, not at all. The basis was law. Let me give you a quick course in the history of the neutrality acts.

encyclopedia.com wrote:The Neutrality Acts were laws passed in 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1939 to limit U.S. involvement in future wars. They were based on the widespread disillusionment with World War I in the early 1930s and the belief that the United States had been drawn into the war through loans and trade with the Allies.

The Neutrality Acts were laws drawn up by Congress. They were the law of the land. For a president to go directly against Congress is an impeachable offense.

Thorin wrote:It was due to German success on the eastern front that led to the Japanese deciding to attack the US. That had originally planned to attack the US in 1946.

It was the move of the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor that immediately provoked the Japanese to attack--where?--why, on Pearl Harbor, of course. We can't say anything more because we are not in the heads of those who made the decision. Imaginings about the state-of-mind of the Japanese--how they might have felt about the successes of Germany--are nothing more than speculation.

1) I do not need any lesson when you are talking crap. Nobody went against congress either, so your deflection on neutrality is again bullcrap

2) The Japanese attacked the US.

3) Germany declared war on the US

4) Roosevelt had nothing to do with either

5) Crap, no move of the fleet caused the attack, it was German success, as stated they originally planned to attack in 1946. A fleet move would not advance plans, but the success of an axis partner would. So you are talking bullcrap. In fact the carriers were not in harbour, showing such an attack was flawed, when the main aim was to take out these ships. So your claims is based on conspiracy rubbish, not facts

Thorin wrote:1) I do not need any lesson when you are talking crap. Nobody went against congress either, so your deflection on neutrality is again bullcrap

2) The Japanese attacked the US.

3) Germany declared war on the US

4) Roosevelt had nothing to do with either

5) Crap, no move of the fleet caused the attack, it was German success, as stated they originally planned to attack in 1946. A fleet move would not advance plans, but the success of an axis partner would. So you are talking bullcrap. In fact the carriers were not in harbour, showing such an attack was flawed, when the main aim was to take out these ships. So your claims is based on conspiracy rubbish, not facts

Didge...I've already won. Bye...

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:1) I do not need any lesson when you are talking crap. Nobody went against congress either, so your deflection on neutrality is again bullcrap

2) The Japanese attacked the US.

3) Germany declared war on the US

4) Roosevelt had nothing to do with either

5) Crap, no move of the fleet caused the attack, it was German success, as stated they originally planned to attack in 1946. A fleet move would not advance plans, but the success of an axis partner would. So you are talking bullcrap. In fact the carriers were not in harbour, showing such an attack was flawed, when the main aim was to take out these ships. So your claims is based on conspiracy rubbish, not facts

Didge...I've already won.  Bye...

Well I think all can see you are at best piss poor at WW2 history and this is about the tenth time, I have had to correct your woeful errors. You came up before with conspiracies on Roosevelt

So I am fine, that you want to run away with your tail between your legs

I suggest you watch and learn

Quill, you'v clearly lost, otherwise why would you piss off suddenly?

Thorin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

THE CONCEPT of "Terra nullus" is an invention of the British guvm'nt,  Dodge...

Not Australian..

The early Euro' settlers were British,  not Aussies.

The name is Thorin, not dodge, which proves you are a revisionist by deflections

The moment someone resides in a nation, they become part of that nation, even if its a controlled by an overseas territory
So they are Australian and hence why your national day is celebrated based on 1788, not 1901, which proves your a poor apologist to Aussie barbarity. If it was 1901 as the bases for the nation, you would only state this date as the formation of Australia

Nope, 'Invasion day' 26th jan 1788 was the Day the British invaded.

it wasn't a nation until 1901, they were British citizens

And it completely ignores that we are mixed now Aboriginals ARE NOT a separate people in most of the country.
So your whole argument is based on a fallacy that Aboriginals are only the Very dark people in the desert they are the MINORITY of aboriginals. Most live in cities many are not even dark, most have some European blood too many have even more than that as well, it is not uncommon to have Polynesian, Aboriginal and mixed European blood.  

PLUS to show how fake you argument is that it is from the first Brit to Arrive.
Do you think the moment the first Brit step on Australian soil he magically transformed from the soft pasty whining pommie to the Brave, hard and adventurous Aussie? obviously we have evolved and that doesn't happen over night it is generations of harnessing the land of flood and fire while enduring the 150 years of trying to get out form under the British boots of oppression.

HOW is what originally arrived Aussie Culture, it is quiet clear Our culture is vastly different than British culture then or now? so the guys that did the damage had British Culture as they were British peoples.

they cant be Aussies until they have been 'enhanced' by living in the land of the great rainbow serpent.

nicko wrote:
Don't forget Thorin   IT was America that won the war without the help of any one else.     Did you know Errol Flynn? won the war against the Japs

Errol Flynn was a Tasmanian..



I thought it was John Wayne who beat the Japs single handedly ?

Ohh wolf beat me to it
Nicko of Corse Errol did he was Aussie

And Also Churchill is a top example of how we have Split and it isn't until the 1900's that Australian really having an independent culture. Where being on the other side of Churchill incompetence and cowardice, we recognize him as being rather shitty.

Well I see the Happy went out of the thread for MLK.

well Thorin had to Racist didn't he

MLK inspired Aussie Culture, even more than he did the USA. Nothing has been the same since MLK inspired Vincent Lingiari and started the cultural change in relation to Aboriginal Land rights and recognition.
Even Today we are not done, While the Union jack remains on the Flag and the First Peoples are not recognized in law. when the day comes that the union jack is gone and we embrace OUR 50,000 year history we will become truly 'Australians'.

I don't fight over land or who has the best country. It's so boring and everyone knows Veya, that to have French blood is the best.

it not about being best it is the fact that it is racist, the image Thorin presents is like the worst forms of Black face
Pretending a oppressed people (in this case the convicts) enjoyed it, or should be grateful etc.
We are NOT the image in his propaganda and the fact our skin is mainly white doesn't make it any less racist.

I don't think Brits Really appreciate how offensive they can be. you guys might see the union jack as something to be proud of but for us it is a reminder of the invasion and oppression of peoples we now count as ourselves. (let alone so many of us have come and intermarried in the last 60 years from other nations and cultures, that the British elements are greatly diluted)

I feel more connected to the Aboriginal culture than British. I have never been to Britain. Aboriginal culture is about connection to the land, And I feel connected to no other lands than Australia.

AND more Aboriginals are closer to white than black today, that is just the reality of interbreeding because WE ARE NOT SEPERATE PEOPLES.

we have strived to become as close to MLKs dream as we can, yes we can still improve but we seem closer than almost anyone else, his dream just went straight in the Cultural 'bank' it was so fitting with the long held Aussie Ideal of 'Fair go mate'.

Australia is a nation with a Racist history desperately trying not to have a racist future.

You're preaching to the converted Veya. I'm not very patriotic. I don't feel any overwhelming loyalty to England just because I was born here, never have.

I know Eddie but others can read it too.

nicko wrote:
Why can't WE have a Winston Churchill day?

Maybe a few like-minded Brit's could lobby to have VE day change it's name to ''Winston Churchill Day", and declared a national holiday in remembrance of his contributions during that era ?

Same holiday, a more broader meaning --  could probably also make the day more relevant to future generations ?

And also -- because it's actually VP day that marks the end of WWII -- VE day is largely irrelevant to 90% of the world (it really only matters to Britain, France and Russia..)..

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:

The name is Thorin, not dodge, which proves you are a revisionist by deflections

The moment someone resides in a nation, they become part of that nation, even if its a controlled by an overseas territory
So they are Australian and hence why your national day is celebrated based on 1788, not 1901, which proves your a poor apologist to Aussie barbarity. If it was 1901 as the bases for the nation, you would only state this date as the formation of Australia

Nope, 'Invasion day' 26th jan 1788 was the Day the British invaded.

it wasn't a nation until 1901, they were British citizens

And it completely ignores that we are mixed now Aboriginals ARE NOT a separate people in most of the country.
So your whole argument is based on a fallacy that Aboriginals are only the Very dark people in the desert they are the MINORITY of aboriginals. Most live in cities many are not even dark, most have some European blood too many have even more than that as well, it is not uncommon to have Polynesian, Aboriginal and mixed European blood.  

PLUS to show how fake you argument is that it is from the first Brit to Arrive.
Do you think the moment the first Brit step on Australian soil he magically transformed from the soft pasty whining pommie to the Brave, hard and adventurous Aussie? obviously we have evolved and that doesn't happen over night it is generations of harnessing the land of flood and fire while enduring the 150 years of trying to get out form under the British boots of oppression.

HOW is what originally arrived Aussie Culture, it is quiet clear Our culture is vastly different than British culture then or now? so the guys that did the damage had British Culture as they were British peoples.

they cant be Aussies until they have been 'enhanced' by living in the land of the great rainbow serpent.

Wrong, your Australian day is as stated from 1788
Its you reinventing history as you wish to excuse the wrongs by Australians
And I am not being racist another false charge which is often what you do when you are constantly wrong
So the bases of your argument is that some are mixed ethnicity?
And?
How does that excuse the wrongs of the past and present, when many aboriginals are still being wronged?
It does not, so screaming racist, when no racism is being offered, does not make you right.

So by your logic all Indians under British rule were not Indian but English?
That is the bases for your argument
Like I said, as soon as people reside in a nation, they are part of that nation, even if they are also controlled by an overseas territory.
Are you telling me the Boers, were British, when South Africa was ruled by the British?>
Hence why your reasoning is wrong

veya_victaous wrote:well Thorin had to Racist didn't he

MLK inspired Aussie Culture, even more than he did the USA. Nothing has been the same since MLK inspired Vincent Lingiari and started the cultural change in relation to Aboriginal Land rights and recognition.
Even Today we are not done, While the Union jack remains on the Flag and the First Peoples are not recognized in law. when the day comes that the union jack is gone and we embrace OUR 50,000 year history we will become truly 'Australians'.

Sorry, how was I racist?
So the bases for your claim of racism, is something you invent I never said?