Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "John Anderson Media" channel.

"they were also the world’s number one colonial power, subjugating and siphoning wealth from around the globe." And bringing government, law, unity, and medicines. It's not all one-sided.
10
@dannysullivan3951 "I seriously doubt I'm going to change your mind on this issue." Well, you're certainly not going to change my mind if you don't even make a case. Which you still haven't!
8
@dannysullivan3951 "And in your estimation does the monarchy and its supporters ( ie this speaker) owe a debt to the formerly colonialized or enslaved?" No. Why should they?
5
@williamsullivan3702 "You liked it immediately because you are one sheep in a heard." and "Just because you might agree with someone politically doesn't make their content worth watching" On the other hand, there are other reasons for liking something. Not simply because you agree with them politically, but possibly because you know that they always produce worthwhile stuff. You're assuming too much about motives. EDIT: As Minedframestudios adds, another reason could be that they've already seen the full video that this is a section of. "There isn't any new information here it's second hand, poorly done, boring." Typical leftist comment. Try and stop the spread of truthful information, and then when some manages to get out, downplay it as already known. How is it poorly done? And what is boring about it?
4
@dannysullivan3951 "Ahhh." I answered your question. Why didn't you answer mine?
4
"No preconceived ideas, like Howard did, just do we want a Australian as head of state!" That's the same problem as the 'voice' proposal: What would you be actually voting for?
2
Funny man.
2
"...rarely bring two botanists, artists and scientists with them..." Or Christian ministers.
2
"Coming from a decades long mate of Jimmy Saville." So being a supporter of someone whose crimes only became known later is a bad thing? That's dangerous territory.
2
@dannysullivan3951 "not sure about unity, they were adept at playing India’s factions against one another,..." But as a result, they united the various groups into one country. "...but point taken. It’s never, or rarely one sided." Correct.
2
@aachoocrony5754 "Like how the steam engine increased piracy in the name of morality such as 'anti-slavery'? Yes I agree." Still wrong.
2
@iceman4660 "I agree with you." Thank you. "Its probably fair to say that it was in Protestant christendom that the drive to end slavery originated." Much as I'd like to credit Protestantism (being a Protestant), I don't know that that's correct. I've read that several popes disapproved of it, albeit with limited results. Jeremiah J. Johnston, in his book Unimaginable, ties it up with racism, but indicates that it was much earlier. “Christianity has successfully abolished slavery not once, but twice before—in late antiquity and again in the 1800s,...As you may recall, as far back as our available sources take us, philosophers, politicians, and playwrights expressed racist opinions and dogmas. But starting in the fourth century, widespread racism ended for hundreds of years. Why was this? That's when the Christian movement emerged as a dominant cultural force in the Roman Empire, and the bold socio-theological statement "There is neither Jew nor Greek" took hold. Unfortunately, racist ideology, and with it justification for slavery in the West, reemerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries." Wilberforce and his colleagues were of course Protestants (assuming you count Anglicans as Protestants). But if it was first abolished starting around the fourth century, that predates Protestantism by about a millennium.
2
@SnoweyViking "Truth? You're as gullable as the rest of the people in this chat" No, he speaks the truth. What's your evidence to the contrary? "he said Britain didn't invade Australia while also saying Britain annexed Australia." They are not synonyms. So that's not evidence supporting your claim. "That's the definition of an invasion." No, it's not. "Australia wasn't terra nullis..." Where were their title deeds? "And whoever this guy is denying that violent acts did not occur against Aboriginal australians." He never claimed that violent acts didn't occur. Perhaps you should watch it again. "My opinion is that ignorant people like the above commenter will turn to this pseudo scholar to support their racist beliefs." This "pseudo scholar" is a teacher of European and Australian history. What's your qualification? And why should we take any notice of your opinion? "I did not. It must have been flagged as offensive. I'm not surprised" A lot of inoffensive stuff gets hidden by the leftist YT algorithms.
1
@SnoweyViking "live in that bubble of yours, have fun :)" So you've got no evidence to support your claim and no qualification, and therefore choose to insult me (with fiction) instead. I guess that shows you're not credible.
1
@Jumbo-k4t "Thank you for reporting me bullying what a joke lol" Who are you talking to?
1
@SnoweyViking "that's not true, ..." What's not? And I note still no evidence or qualification provided. "...there's no point arguing with someone so disingenuous and indoctrinated" And yet here I am arguing with you. "I also don't argue with trolls haha" Which I'm not, so why make yet another evidence-free insult? Because you've got nothing better, presumably.
1
@SnoweyViking "keep trolling 🤣" How can I keep doing something I'm not already doing? Yes, I know, you won't answer, except to insult me again. Grow up.
1
@jeronimotamayolopera4834 "THINK." No, you made the claim, it's your responsibility to back it up. Nobody eles's. It seems that you have no evidence.
1
@jeronimotamayolopera4834 "TAN BELLO." Huh?
1
@Yishai-Of-Zion "Invaders have always done such things. They bring their people and people of all occupations." After the invasion, perhaps, but for the invasion itself, they'd only bring military people, unless the others could assist with the invasion itself.
1
@keithammleter3824 "The British invasion of Australia began with Phillip and the First Fleet." What invasion? Didn't you watch the video? There was no invasion.
1
@keithammleter3824 "It is utter nonsense, and I explained why in another thread." So you should be able to in this thread as well. I can't see another thread with your name on it and I scrolled a fair way. "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." How does that equate to an invasion? The aborigines settled here, and later the British also settled here. That does not equate to an invasion. "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."" You must live in a leftist bubble to think that. I'm born and bred Australian, and I'm by no means the only one who rejects the claim of 'invasion'. "It you look at Australia's oldest government buildings, it is remarkable how well built they are, yet were designed and constructed by convicts." Yes, I know. "The reason is that the British didn't just randomly pluck people out of their jails and send them to Australia." What's your evidence for that being the reason? "Not after the invasion, with the invasion." What invasion? Apart from your claim to have shown this video to be "utter nonsense" somewhere else, you've not shown that there was an invasion.
1
@keithammleter3824 "You are being silly." Nope. "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." No, it's not. The aborigines gained rights and privileges; their existing ones were not ignored, etc. "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." Those requirements are not necessary for it to be valid. Besides, what do you mean by "geographically separate areas"? Different countries? Different states? Different towns? Different streets? Different blocks of land? "The aborigines arrived in Australia first, at least 40,000 years prior to the British..." How long before is irrelevant, but your figure is based on naturalism, a philosophy that is bereft of evidence and which I don't hold to. "...and occupied the entire land area." Again, what does that mean? Every square foot? Every acre? What? "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." So you don't have any actual evidence, just inference. You may be right, but without evidence, I'm not going to assume you're right. "To quickly find a thread I started,..." With the number of comments, it's not that quick, but okay, I'll have another look.
1
@keithammleter3824 "... scroll to the bottom of the comments, then use your browser Find-on-page command to search for my name." Sorry, didn't work. YT must have hidden it. (It was a top-level comment, not a response to someone else?)
1
@keithammleter3824 "Particularly the right to live, hunt, and gather food in large areas of the country." Who gave them those rights in the first place? Or did they just assume them? "They also lost the right to settle their own disputes in their traditional way, ..." Yes, the British brought law and order. That's a good thing. "But it was forced by armed might and was against their wishes. This is sufficient to make it an invasion." And yet it wasn't an invasion. It was a settlement that also brought law and order. "YT does sometimes hide things. But more likely you didn't scroll down far enough." No, I scrolled all the way. "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." Which is why I didn't go all the way the first time, and why I rejected your claim that it could be found "quickly". "British law was imposed and they had no say in that either." British law was also imposed on the British. That's the nature of laws—they are imposed.
1
"The British didn't invent anti-slavery." True, it was actually effectively abolished in Christendom well before it returned and Wilberforce and others fought against it. But then Holland was part of Christendom.
1
@dougdownunder5622 "Do you know what I heard? Sheep." No, you heard human beings and misinterpreted them as sheep because you can't see properly.
1
@dougdownunder5622 "I've heard that herding sheep is best done by Peruvians on legitimate work visas." So you've clearly got nothing sensible to say. Dismissed.
1
@AmiiNguyen-n6m " "Trash" is being generous." No, it's being nasty. Unless of course you can prove that.
1
@deejay19699 "can you prove it’s not trash? Bet you can’t" He doesn't have the onus to. He didn't make the claim. The original poster has the onus, and he has failed to show it, despite replying to comments here.
1
What's new?
1
@davidemmet7343 "Sorry that you fell for it." I didn't. And at that time I hadn't seen it. I was just saying that many, many, threads have that sort of thing.
1
@Jumbo-k4t "I don't think you even know what you're talking about" And yet you didn't point out anything incorrect.
1
@wadetewano " "eradicating them totally" ... Is that striving to work with indigenous people? ... Just eradicating them a little bit?" NOT eradicating them totally. In fact "totally" is redundant. The British didn't try to eradicate them. Full stop.
1
@Reginaldesq "You, your country Australia, was invaded by the English." False. Watch the video. "You were defeated and gained independence again in 1901." Huh? We were not defeated. "Or 1960's if you are Aboriginal." More invention. Aborigines gained independence from Britain at the same time as the rest of the country. "The day is like Gallipoli (we fought and lost)." What fighting? "Celebrating Australia should just be on another day. What does it cost us to move the day?" It costs us the dignity of not being controlled by the loony left that hates the country and Western Civilisation.
1
@Jumbo-k4t "I have made many comments one of which was reported God knows why ?" Reported? By/to whom? "... you don't offer any alternative viewpoints. " The alternative viewpoint is in this video. Duh! "You say I don't know what I'm talking about but ... What is it I don't know what I'm talking about?" I didn't say that you didn't know what you're talking about. The only thing in my comment along that line was me quoting you saying that. Do you know what quote marks mean?
1
@DJ.LakeSea "Van Diemen's land, Rottnest Island for example, that guy in the vid is wrong about slavery." How is he wrong? He didn't say that there was no slavery, but that "Arthur Philip even explicitly said upon arriving here in 1788 that there will be absolutely no slavery in this colony". That there might have been some later doesn't make "that guy in the vid" wrong.
1
@mrniceguy9086 How so? What's your evidence?
1
"He only tells 10% the story." This was only a short section (10%?) of a longer discussion.
1
@dieterbarkhoff1328 "10% of some of the most racist rubbish I've ever heard is more than enough." What was racist about it? I certainly heard nothing racist. Further, what was "their system of land title"? They had no title deeds.
1
"It was the convicts who were slaves..." Evidence please.
1
"that could redefine the word slavery far beyond what it has meant in the past." You might have a point, but then it's meaning has changed in the past too. For example, what was indentured servitude was often called slavery, but they are not the same thing, even if similar.
1
"Why are we listening to this absolute liar?" What lies? You haven't shown that he's a liar.
1
@iceman4660 "Which other nation or ethnic grouping actually took a stance to end slavery?" It was effectively abolished in Christendom before it made a return around the time of the so-called 'enlightenment'.
1
Robert Knight "Brits were the first to acknowledge this universal sin publicly..." Actually, slavery was effectively abolished in Christendom before it later made a return during the so-called 'enlightenment'. After which a group of Christians, including Wilberforce in parliament, got it abolished again.
1