bentaxlebabe wrote:

---

These arent my words but taken as a copy from FB today.

Form your own opinions.....

COON BRANDED CHEESE IN AUSTRALIA

Coonabarabran = aboriginal word for inquisitive person.
Coonamble = local aboriginal word for lots of faeces
Coonalpyn = aboriginal word for barren woman.
Coonawarra = aboriginal word for honeysuckle
Coongulmerang = local aboriginal word for waterholes

Coon = a brand of cheese very common in Australia

Did we note that white folk werent offended with the above towns

Some Australians just need to harden up.

Regards

Angie

---

 Had Steven Hagans mother been a coonalpyn,  we would still have Coon cheese. White people will not be offended by this comment.

Craig1 wrote:

---

Ang, it was the Canadian Boss of Saputo( they own Coon Cheese and Warrnabool Dairies etc etc.) who lacked SPINE

---

Craig 1 

Yes the decision is disturbing as is the initial grief or complaint.

All these unnecessary things really detract from the more important issues in this country.

Phillipn

I hear you....

Regards

Angie

Brownie 64 wrote:

---

The BLM movement over here has lost any chance of ever gaining any respect from me.


Recently in Perth at their protest, I saw via a broadcast a Aboriginal Elder ranting from the podium with real hatred in his voice quote,


`You can still smell the stench of colonialism here today` & the crowd cheered.


As a proud Australian whose 5th great grandfather first stepped foot onto this land on the 26/1/1788 & 5th great grandmother arrived on the second fleet, I find it difficult to understand his reasoning, Australia has developed into arguably the best country in the world because of colonialism.


I understand the past had its fair share of brutality & that both sides played their part in that, but you what, its now 2020, history is history & it cant be changed, seems some wont let it go.


My surname is Brown & damned proud of it!

---

dorian wrote:

---

Why do AngloSaxons think that their brand of colonialism/imperialism was benevolent? To me it's all repugnant, no matter who's doing it. The protester was right, colonialism stinks.


If you want to argue about the contributions made by Australia's conquerors, then just think where a country with the lion's share of all the world's resources would be today, economically, if Japan had won the war. We'd be making stuff, lot's of it, not just digging holes in the ground. That's our Menzoid legacy, courtesy of his British masters.

---

Craig1 wrote:

---

Just think how they made the Burma Railway, mate

---

Well said, a salient reminder.

dogbox wrote:

---

if japan had won the war, they usually treated their conquered populations as slave labour .

---

You're forgetting the coolies and kanakas who were exploited in the making of this country, or do you think that blackbirding is OK when you're doing it?

BTW, my reference to Japan was economic, not societal. Of course they would have been ruthless masters, but that wasn't the point I was making. I was addressing the argument that the British were entitled to this country because they made better use of it than the aboriginals. By that same argument, the Japanese would have felt entitled to this country because they would have made better use of it than the British.

In fact the British could have purchased this country from the aboriginal owners for a song, but they chose to steal it instead. Remember that Manhattan was purchased from the native Americans for a handful of wampum beads, or so the story goes. Terra Australis wouldn't have cost much more, and we wouldn't have a Mabo legacy to contend with.

dorian wrote:

---

In fact the British could have purchased this country from the aboriginal owners for a song, but they chose to steal it instead. Remember that Manhattan was purchased from the native Americans for a handful of wampum beads, or so the story goes. Terra Australis wouldn't have cost much more, and we wouldn't have a Mabo legacy to contend with.

---

So you consider that a technically advanced race who understand much about the value of this land "purchasing" it from a stone age tribe for a few shiny baubles is a morally superior position?

Today we call such behaviour insider trading.

The British were not perfect colonisers (no one ever could be) but they brought many advantages to the countries they occupied and the world as a whole.

History is gone - it's as dead as that parrot and people need to stop wasting their lives whining about the past and instead get on with making a better world for tomorrow.

Mike Harding wrote:

---

 

So you consider that a technically advanced race who understand much about the value of this land "purchasing" it from a stone age tribe for a few shiny baubles is a morally superior position?

History is gone - it's as dead as that parrot and people need to stop wasting their lives whining about the past and instead get on with making a better world for tomorrow.

---

Who is to say that what is a "bauble" to you isn't valuable as currency to another? 

As strange as it may seem, a white fella in today's world will pay as much as $1 million for a diamond, but to me it's just a useless rock (a "shiny bauble", as you put it).

As for history, people should acknowledge their country's past wrongdoings, not laud them. Imperialism was bad and will always be bad, and people should not attempt to justify it. Moving Australia Day to a mutually acceptable date would be a painless thing to do, and it would do much to heal the rifts with indigenous peoples. For example, the real Australia Day should be the day that this country became a federation. Any reference to Invasion Day would then be moot.

dorian wrote:

---

Mike Harding wrote:

---

 

So you consider that a technically advanced race who understand much about the value of this land "purchasing" it from a stone age tribe for a few shiny baubles is a morally superior position?

History is gone - it's as dead as that parrot and people need to stop wasting their lives whining about the past and instead get on with making a better world for tomorrow.

---

Who is to say that what is a "bauble" to you isn't valuable as currency to another? 

As strange as it may seem, a white fella in today's world will pay as much as $1 million for a diamond, but to me it's just a useless rock (a "shiny bauble", as you put it).

As for history, people should acknowledge their country's past wrongdoings, not laud them. Imperialism was bad and will always be bad, and people should not attempt to justify it. Moving Australia Day to a mutually acceptable date would be a painless thing to do, and it would do much to heal the rifts with indigenous peoples. For example, the real Australia Day should be the day that this country became a federation. Any reference to Invasion Day would then be moot.

 

 

-- Edited by dorian on Wednesday 5th of August 2020 07:32:06 AM

---

 What a load of crap.

dorian wrote:

---

---

Who is to say that what is a "bauble" to you isn't valuable as currency to another? 

As strange as it may seem, a white fella in today's world will pay as much as $1 million for a diamond, but to me it's just a useless rock (a "shiny bauble", as you put it).

As for history, people should acknowledge their country's past wrongdoings, not laud them. Imperialism was bad and will always be bad, and people should not attempt to justify it. Moving Australia Day to a mutually acceptable date would be a painless thing to do, and it would do much to heal the rifts with indigenous peoples. For example, the real Australia Day should be the day that this country became a federation. Any reference to Invasion Day would then be moot.

---

 Very well said.

dorian wrote:

---

dogbox wrote:

---

if japan had won the war, they usually treated their conquered populations as slave labour .

---

You're forgetting the coolies and kanakas who were exploited in the making of this country, or do you think that blackbirding is OK when you're doing it?

BTW, my reference to Japan was economic, not societal. Of course they would have been ruthless masters, but that wasn't the point I was making. I was addressing the argument that the British were entitled to this country because they made better use of it than the aboriginals. By that same argument, the Japanese would have felt entitled to this country because they would have made better use of it than the British.

In fact the British could have purchased this country from the aboriginal owners for a song, but they chose to steal it instead. Remember that Manhattan was purchased from the native Americans for a handful of wampum beads, or so the story goes. Terra Australis wouldn't have cost much more, and we wouldn't have a Mabo legacy to contend with.

 

 

-- Edited by dorian on Wednesday 5th of August 2020 06:14:13 AM

---

Dorian: your attempt to divert the discussion rather than deal with the moral conflict you created for yourself is noted.

In any event:

Remember: without Invasion Day there would be no Centrelink....

Mike Harding wrote:

---

Dorian: your attempt to divert the discussion rather than deal with the moral conflict you created for yourself is noted.

---

It should be possible to objectively quantify the value of a wampum bead. I'll leave you to make the comparisons and do the arithmetic.

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

"The purchase [of Alaska from Russia] added 586,412 square miles (1,518,800 km2) of new territory to the United States for the cost of $7.2 million, or 2 cents per acre (4.7 cents per hectare)."

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

"The Louisiana Territory was vast, stretching from the Gulf of Mexico in the south to Rupert's Land in the north, and from the Mississippi River in the east to the Rocky Mountains in the west. Acquiring the territory [from France] doubled the size of the United States, at a sum of less than 3 cents per acre."

dorian wrote:

---

Mike Harding wrote:

---

Dorian: your attempt to divert the discussion rather than deal with the moral conflict you created for yourself is noted.

---

It should be possible to objectively quantify the value of a wampum bead. I'll leave you to make the comparisons and do the arithmetic.

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

"The purchase [of Alaska from Russia] added 586,412 square miles (1,518,800 km2) of new territory to the United States for the cost of $7.2 million, or 2 cents per acre (4.7 cents per hectare)."

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

"The Louisiana Territory was vast, stretching from the Gulf of Mexico in the south to Rupert's Land in the north, and from the Mississippi River in the east to the Rocky Mountains in the west. Acquiring the territory [from France] doubled the size of the United States, at a sum of less than 3 cents per acre."

 

---

dogbox wrote:

---

---

 was it theirs to sell ?

---

I was addressing the question of whether the native Americans got a fair price for Manhattan Island. That was the basis of Mike Harding's accusation in regards to a perceived moral conflict. To answer the question I examined two land purchases between two Caucasian/European parties with similar value systems. The total area of the island is 33.58 square miles so, at 3c per acre, that works out to $645. That's the value that Europeans would have placed on the property in 1803, almost 200 years after the original sale.

Dorian: when you are at the bottom of the hole... stop digging.

Mike Harding wrote:

---

Dorian: when you are at the bottom of the hole... stop digging.

---

I don't have any problem with anything I've said. On the contrary, those people who are extolling the virtues of imperialism really ought to stop and examine their consciences.