Comments by "Keit Hammleter" (@keithammleter3824) on "John Anderson Media" channel.

@PJRayment It you look at Australia's oldest government buildings, it is remarkable how well built they are, yet were designed and constructed by convicts. Convict architects designed them, convict stone masons built the stone work, convict carpenters built the roof trusses, etc. The reason is that the British didn't just randomly pluck people out of their jails and send them to Australia. They picked out people who had useful qualifications and had only committed fairly minor crimes due to falling on hard times when there was no unemployment pension. The First Fleet included quite a number of convict carpenters, blacksmiths, shoemakers, tailors, bricklayers - trades that would be immediately needed in the new colony. Not after the invasion, with the invasion.
2
Napolean was not in the slightest bit military conquering or invadist then. He arranged for major scientific investigations wherever his troops went.
1
@ronaldmansfield.6439 did not Napoleon have conquering and invasion on his mind? And willingness to wage war for that purpose? According to you he should have had no scientists in train, none at all. Thus the presence of scientists etc does not in the slightest indicate that war is not a motive. Here is a more modern example: The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, going to war in order to do so. They brought scientists and others with them too. It was thought that Afghanistan had no natural resources to speak of, but the Soviet boffins did a comprehensive geological survey and discovered that Afghanistan is rich in rare earth minerals
1
@ronaldmansfield.6439 You didn't, but after I did, you said ""Cannot compare the two", which can only refer to Napoleon. Cook and his voyage has nothing to do with subject of this video or this thread, other than being spuriously thrown in by you. The British invasion of Australia began with Phillip and the First Fleet.
1
@PJRayment Yes, I watched this video. It is utter nonsense, and I explained why in another thread. There certainly was an invasion. Before Philip arrived in command of Bristish navy warships and transports, the only people living in Australia were the indigenous people. Within a few decades, most of the inhabitants were English, and the indigenous had absolutely no say in the matter. You must be an ignorant American or something. If you lived in Australia you would not be so ridiculous as to make such a claim as "there was no invasion."
1
@PJRayment You are being silly. Look up the meaning of invasion and invade in any good dictionary. The dictionary will tell you it is an occupation of a territory against the wishes of the indigenous people, particularly when they are not consulted and/or the rights and privileges the indigenous had are ignored, cancelled or overrode. This is exactly what happened. Your comment "the aborigines settled here, and later the British also settled here" would be valid if they both arrived at the same time or settled in geographically separate areas, but that is not what happened. The aborigines arrived in Australia first, at least 40,000 years prior to the British and occupied the entire land area. There a multitude of books that describe what sort of offences the transported convicts had committed, and you have agreed they did a good job on buildings when they got to Australia. It's pretty much self evident the British took care to send the trades the colony would need, comprising people that weren't too bad in character. To quickly find a thread I started, scroll to the bottom of the comments, then use your browser Find-on-page command to search for my name.
1
@PJRayment While the aborigines gained some rights and privileges, eventually, they also lost rights and privileges. Particularly the right to live, hunt, and gather food in large areas of the country. And they had absolutely no say in the matter. They also lost the right to settle their own disputes in their traditional way, since under the imposed English law, this was regarded as taking the law into one's own hand and itself is a crime. I'm not saying the aborigines didn't benefit from white settlement/invasion. They did. But it was forced by armed might and was against their wishes. This is sufficient to make it an invasion.
1
@PJRayment It was a top level comment. YT does sometimes hide things. But more likely you didn't scroll down far enough. Each time you mouse-drag the scroll bar down, you need to wait for the refresh to add the next lot of posts, which can take a second or 2 if you have a slow internet connection. But don't worry about it. I have made the important points in this thread anyway - viz it was an invasion because it was forced and the indigenous had no say in the matter. British law was imposed and they had no say in that either.
1
Who is this John Anderson twerp, spouting such utter nonsense? Obviously the arrival of the British was an invasion. They just came and seized possession - indigenous folk had absolutely no say. Jacinta Price may well be right in that modern aborigines have modern medical care etc, but it was still an invasion enabled by force of arms. Is he so naive that he cannot understand the British way of writing nice words so that when the S hits the F, the author can't be blamed? He says that if an indigenous person was attacked, he had rights as a British subject to appeal for redress. Yeah right. How were they supposed to know how and where to do that? Just pick up the phone in 1787 and call their lawyer in London?
1
Who is the twerp in this video? He talks utter nonsense. He seems to think that because large numbers of white children in Britain were taken from their mothers and transported to orphanages in Australia, that makes it right that aboriginal children were taken. But neither was the right thing to do, both were very wrong things to do. Children so taken. white and black, were supposed to be given a white standard education - but they were given very substandard education. Any two-bit developmental psychologist will tell you that we learn how to take care of our children from how our parents took care of us - and the mass transfer of children took away that link, so that their children are severely disadvantaged. My mother worked for many years in an orphanage dedicated to kids who for whatever reason had no living parents. It was run on traditional dormitory lines, boys in boy dormitory buildings and girls in girl dormitory buildings, and a common large kitchen. Fights and general bad behavior was the norm, and the orphanage kids never mixed with kids outside, never finished high school, only got menial jobs. Around 1975 the orphanage board decided to scrap the dormitories and common kitchen, and changed to a system of more or less normal size houses, each run by a husband and wife. Typically the husband had a job outside. Each house was allocated 4 or 5 children, of mixed ages and both sexes. The improvement in behavior was huge. The kids mixed with other kids from normal families, finished high school, some went to higher education, and they got a mix of jobs just as any young people do. Ad when they got married, they knew how to raise their own kids.
1