[Pants-of-dog]

Yes - through parallel Australian laws, aka the goodwill of Australian legal institutions.

Thank you for agreeing.

I'm not going to prove a claim I did not make. Don't put words in my mouth, and we won't have an issue.

It must also be nice to not have to pay attention to the discussion and the exact nature of your claims.

Where does racism enter into it?

Because you are essentially blaming a race of people for their own oppression by claiming they are too lazy/drunk/(whatever other insulting generalisation you want) to be treated decently , rather than look at history.

I never said they were too lazy or drunk - though interesting your mind immediately went there. I said they lost. There are lots of reasons they lost, but I sincerely doubt the fact that they're black has a thing to do with it. And losers deserve to be treated like losers, whether they're German, Zulu, or Manchu.

They lost what? And when? Some mythical war?

Please note that no one (including you) ever claims that the Germans deserve to have the same treatment as Aborigines.

Why are you so hellbent on using debate terminators like "racism" anyway? Would the fact that I were a racist change the merit of my words? Hitler was a racist and a vegetarian. Does that say anything about vegetarianism?

If you don't say racist things, I won't call them out as racist.

You have provided no evidence that it is contrary to Australian attitudes.

We have already established that is contrary to Australian law and Australian ideals.

http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf ... ingsV1.pdf

The PDF is a study of Australian attitudes towards racism.

85.6% of Australians agree that "Something should be done to minimise or fight racism in Australia".

Regardless of whether it is or isn't, it's off topic. I'm not discussing that and I have no idea why you keep bringing up such a pointless tangent.

Like I said, it's not off topic for me.

My point is relevant to the topic. If you don't want to discuss my point, stop pressing the "Reply" button.

I have shown that my claims and points are more relevant to the topic. You have not. I have no idea how some unlikely future HFL (yet multicultural) Australia is more relevant to modern Australia than modern Australia is.

[Fasces]

Thank you for agreeing.

We do not agree. What the hell is wrong with you? Why do you always do this shit?

It must also be nice to not have to pay attention to the discussion and the exact nature of your claims.

Explains why you've been doing this for seven pages.

Because you are essentially blaming a race of people for their own oppression by claiming they are too lazy/drunk/(whatever other insulting generalisation you want) to be treated decently , rather than look at history.

Where does their race and the innate characteristics of that race come into play?

They lost what? And when? Some mythical war?

Back to this? Go back to page 2.

Please note that no one (including you) ever claims that the Germans deserve to have the same treatment as Aborigines.

They did in 1918.

But yes, if the Germans let themselves get conquered, they deserve anything that results from that. For example, the German people fully deserved the massive ethnic cleansing campaign that took place against them in 1945-1947 in Eastern Europe.

If you don't say racist things, I won't call them out as racist.

I haven't said a single racist thing.

"Something should be done to minimise or fight racism in Australia".

Most Europeans say that as well - until you ask them about the Roma.

What do the Australians think about the aborigines, specifically?

Like I said, it's not off topic for me.

Well, I didn't initiate a discussion with you. You did with me. So stop asking me for my opinion about shit that doesn't matter and trying to draw me into a separate discussion.

You have not.

Then by all means swallow your compulsive urge to get in the last word and let this topic die. If you continue talking to me about what I said, I will respond. If you do not believe it is on topic, then stop talking to me.

[anarchist23]

^
I have lived in Australia for 18 years..And as others posting here have said."Australians are generally openly racist." And it is true,they are at least 30 years behind.

[Pants-of-dog]

We do not agree.

Yes, we agree that the recognition of Aboriginal law is done through the process of recognising native land claims. The rest is semantics.

What the hell is wrong with you? Why do you always do this?

Please note that I make an effort to be polite even when my detractors act as rudely as you are doing here.

Explains why you've been doing this for seven pages.

We were discussing how you made the unsupported and illogical claim that Australians are right about all their opinions about Australia.

This is a logical fallacy because you are assuming that the truth of a statement is affected by the birthplace of the speaker.

Where does their race and the innate characteristics of that race come into play?

Because you are essentially blaming a race of people for their own oppression by claiming they are too lazy/drunk/(whatever other insulting generalisation you want) to be treated decently , rather than look at history.

Back to this? Go back to page 2.

Right. They lost some mythical war of conquest is not actually mentioned in history.

They did in 1918.

And? Aboriginal oppression is older than that.

But yes, if the Germans let themselves get conquered, they deserve anything that results from that. For example, the German people fully deserved the massive ethnic cleansing campaign that took place against them in 1945-1947 in Eastern Europe.

I don't care about your personal opinion. I am talking about general Australian opinion.

I haven't said a single racist thing.

Except that Aborigines deserve their oppression.

Most Europeans say that as well - until you ask them about the Roma.

What do the Australians think about the aborigines, specifically?

Why don't you look it up and then explain how it relates to my claim?

Well, I didn't initiate a discussion with you. You did with me. So stop asking me for my opinion about shit that doesn't matter and trying to draw me into a separate discussion.

Feel free to stop replying to me.

Then by all means swallow your compulsive urge to get in the last word and let this topic die. If you continue talking to me about what I said, I will respond. If you do not believe it is on topic, then stop talking to me.

Like I said, pointing out how irrelevant your claims are is a valid criticism of your claims.

[Fasces]

Yes, we agree that the recognition of Aboriginal law is done through the process of recognising native land claims. The rest is semantics.

We were discussing how you made the unsupported and illogical claim that Australians are right about all their opinions about Australia.

And I qualified it as being limited to the identity of the people, rather than factual claims.

Because you are essentially blaming a race of people for their own oppression by claiming they are too lazy/drunk/(whatever other insulting generalisation you want) to be treated decently , rather than look at history

And what insulting generalisation did I make?

They lost some mythical war of conquest is not actually mentioned in history.

I mentioned two. Black War and Bathurst War

Aboriginal oppression is older than that.

And?

I don't care about your personal opinion. I am talking about general Australian opinion.

Please note that no one (including you) ever claims that the Germans deserve to have the same treatment as Aborigines.

Except that Aborigines deserve their oppression.

What does that have to do with their race?

Feel free to stop replying to me.

When you stop putting words in my mouth or misrepresenting me.

pointing out how irrelevant your claims are is a valid criticism of your claims.

How?

[Pants-of-dog]

And I qualified it as being limited to the identity of the people, rather than factual claims.

Yes. And then I pointed out that these are unverifiable claims.

And what insulting generalisation did I make?

They lost some mythical war of conquest is not actually mentioned in history.

I mentioned two. Black War and Bathurst War

The Black war is irrelevant because it had to do with Tasmanian Aborigines. Tasmanian Aborigines were a separate nation (or nations) from Australian ones.This is the equivalent of claiming that the Koreans became US subjects when the Emperor of Japan conceded defeat.

The Bathurst War took place in one county during a short (less than a year) stretch of time. This is like claiming that Canada lost a war because Quebec was under martial law for a while in October of 1970.

And?

And why is the continued oppression of Aborigines fine while our attitudes towards Germans have changed?

Probably because Germans are white.

Please try to follow along.

Except that Aborigines deserve their oppression.

According to anyone other than you?

What does that have to do with their race?

We don't blame white people like this. No one ever says the Jews deserved the Holocaust.

When you stop putting words in my mouth or misrepresenting me.

I have not done so.

How?

Do you need me to explain how pointing out your irrelevancy also points out that your irrelevant claim is therefore not on topic?

[anarchist23]

No one ever says the Jews deserved the Holocaust.

Come on Fasces do you believe that they deserved the holocaust?

[Fasces]

And then I pointed out that these are unverifiable claims.

So what?

They lost some mythical war of conquest is not actually mentioned in history.

They were conquered in the same way all the natives in the Americas were conquered in the same way all the tribes in Africa were conquered.

And why is the continued oppression of Aborigines fine while our attitudes towards Germans have changed?

Because the German people have the might to propagate their own narrative and identity and the aboriginals do not.

According to anyone other than you?

Am I not allowed an opinion, or to voice it?

We don't blame white people like this. No one ever says the Jews deserved the Holocaust.

Because Germany didn't win. They don't have the might and can't make it right.

If we had a few decades under Nazi Germany, we'd care as much about the Jewish holocaust as much as we care about any minor genocide that didn't affect us or our political elites.

Do you need me to explain how pointing out your irrelevancy also points out that your irrelevant claim is therefore not on topic?

If you believe my claim is off topic, please report it for Rule 15. However, it is on the topic of Australian attitudes toward aboriginals, whether you like it or not.

Come on Fasces do you believe that they deserved the holocaust?

In the same way many are blase about the genocide of the Native Americans, including the belief that their disappearance was tragic but ultimately necessary, I'm sure that if the Nazi regime had been victorious during WWII, and been allowed to use their might to enforce their historical narrative, I'd believe the same thing about the Jews. As it is, we have the reverse - a system of institutions where state power is used to coerce those in the opposite direction, by criminalizing apologies for the Holocaust.

The role power plays in the creation of the narratives we are taught as children, and which we use to construct our own ethical systems, cannot be denied. Might makes right because the strong get to write.

[Pants-of-dog]

So what?

So your logic for believing in what one person says over another is not based on verifiability, logic, evidence or anything other than how closely you think they approach an essential Australian.

They were conquered in the same way all the natives in the Americas were conquered in the same way all the tribes in Africa were conquered.

Almost by accident? Through greed rather than intelligence? Through disease rather than force of arms? By making promises and then breaking them? Sheer luck and the kindness of indigenous people?

is that what you mean?

Because the German people have the might to propagate their own narrative and identity and the aboriginals do not.

And why do they have the might?

Because we would not take the lands from white land owners and then blame it on them for hundreds of years, but we would do that for non-whites.

Am I not allowed an opinion, or to voice it?

Sure. Go ahead. I am allowed to point out when something you say is mere opinion or actually a true statement.

Because Germany didn't win. They don't have the might and can't make it right.

If we had a few decades under Nazi Germany, we'd care as much about the Jewish holocaust as much as we care about any minor genocide that didn't affect us or our political elites.

The Germans didn't win. Yet we still treat them with respect. Funny that.

The Jews didn't win either. Yet we still treat them with respect. Funny that.

Yet the Aborigines get shafted for centuries because "they didn't win". It seems like we have one standard for European people and another for non-Europeans.

If you believe my claim is off topic, please report it for Rule 15. However, it is on the topic of Australian attitudes toward aboriginals, whether you like it or not.

Your hypothetical situation in HFL where Australians can do what they like is not off topic. It's just not relevant.

In the same way many are blase about the genocide of the Native Americans, including the belief that their disappearance was tragic but ultimately necessary, I'm sure that if the Nazi regime had been victorious during WWII, and been allowed to use their might to enforce their historical narrative, I'd believe the same thing about the Jews. As it is, we have the reverse - a system of institutions where state power is used to coerce those in the opposite direction, by criminalizing apologies for the Holocaust.

I would like to (partially) agree with Fasces here. It is the myths, incorrect as they may be, that allow us to not only ignore historical oppression of indigenous people, but also ignore current oppression of indigenous people. For example, Fasces here (incorrectly) claims that the native Americans have disappeared. If we believe that, then we can pretend that current oppression of native Americans does not exist because "they are all dead anyway", despite the fact that they are still quite alive.

Yet we don't make up these myths about the Germans or our other European losers of wars.

The role power plays in the creation of the narratives we are taught as children, and which we use to construct our own ethical systems, cannot be denied. Might makes right because the strong get to write.

So, why do we write different narratives for indigenous people than we do for European peoples?

I will give you a hint: it has to do with stealing whole continents of land.

[Fasces]

So your logic for believing in what one person says over another is not based on verifiability, logic, evidence or anything other than how closely you think they approach an essential Australian.

When it comes to describing one's way of life, I think the person living it is the expert.

What evidence do I need to support such an obvious claim?

is that what you mean?

Who the fuck cares? They were conquered. They couldn't compete. They lost. They're the losers. They don't get a say anymore, except by the goodwill of the winners, or by their own strength. There are plenty of dead civilizations littered through history - if the aborigines don't want to be one, they should take control of their own destiny.

Because we would not take the lands from white land owners and then blame it on them for hundreds of years, but we would do that for non-whites.

What? Plenty of European nations have been conquered by other European nations. Shed me a tear for the poor oppressed aboriginal people of Burgundy or Aragon or Bohemia.

I am allowed to point out when something you say is mere opinion or actually a true statement.

Define "true". You pack a lot of assumption into words like this. If it is about the material display of Australian power over the aborigines, that has nothing to do with the discussion behind the ethics that motivate that action. You're not actually talking about the truth or falsity of my statement because you refuse to stay on topic.

The Germans didn't win. Yet we still treat them with respect. Funny that.

The Jews didn't win either. Yet we still treat them with respect. Funny that.

Yet the Aborigines get shafted for centuries because "they didn't win". It seems like we have one standard for European people and another for non-Europeans.

The Germans and Jews each have sovereignty. The Aborigines do not.

Regardless, I'm not saying that we should or should not teach the Aborigines with respect, or the merits of either case. Simply that they don't get a voice in that debate.

Yet we don't make up these myths about the Germans or our other European losers of wars.

They're still sovereign. We cannot make up myths because we treat them as equals - as fellow states. We do the same with the Papuans even though most of them are as "uncivilized" (I'm just using the word, not agreeing with the implication, don't jump down my throat) as the Aborigine people are/were.

So, why do we write different narratives for indigenous people than we do for European peoples?

You're right. It's because European people still have power. You don't insult people who can conceivably hurt you.

The indigenous do not. They got conquered. Their opinion is ultimately irrelevant. People will only know their story if their conquerors choose to preserve it, and they will only be known by the conqueror's narrative of them, not as they truly were or are.

[anarchist23]

Let's get back to the Aborigines in wider Australian society.
The aborigines are completely marginalized in Australia.The Australian Constitution is racist and Australians are openly racist.
The native Australians have been persecuted for over two hundred years,as are the Palestinians who have been persecuted for over 60 years.


Fasces.Is it true that you are a Zionist?

[Pants-of-dog]

When it comes to describing one's way of life, I think the person living it is the expert.

What evidence do I need to support such an obvious claim?

As long as we are clear about the limitations of such knowledge and we are clear how they can be wrong.

Who the fuck cares? They were conquered. They couldn't compete. They lost. They're the losers. They don't get a say anymore, except by the goodwill of the winners, or by their own strength. There are plenty of dead civilizations littered through history - if the aborigines don't want to be one, they should take control of their own destiny.

Endless repetition of your initial claim does not make it true.

So, I will assume that you agree that the Aborigines were "conquered" by settlers through accident, greed rather than intelligence, disease rather than force of arms, by making promises and then breaking them, sheer luck, and the kindness of indigenous people.

What? Plenty of European nations have been conquered by other European nations. Shed me a tear for the poor oppressed aboriginal people of Burgundy or Aragon or Bohemia.

And did they have their land taken from them wholesale?

Did they have their children taken away from them? Do they still have their kids being taken away from them?

No. Please do not pretend that there is some sort of equality of treatment here.

The Germans and Jews each have sovereignty. The Aborigines do not.

European Jews do not have sovereignty.

Regardless, I'm not saying that we should or should not teach the Aborigines with respect, or the merits of either case. Simply that they don't get a voice in that debate.

And I am talking about why they are told to shut up. Because of racism and because white settlers want their land.

They're still sovereign. We cannot make up myths because we treat them as equals - as fellow states. We do the same with the Papuans even though most of them are as "uncivilized" (I'm just using the word, not agreeing with the implication, don't jump down my throat) as the Aborigine people are/were.

And why do they get their sovereignty back after being conquered (actually conquered through military force) while Aborigines do not (even though they were never conquered through military force)?

Because they are white and because white people already own the land.

You're right. It's because European people still have power. You don't insult people who can conceivably hurt you.

The indigenous do not. They got conquered. Their opinion is ultimately irrelevant. People will only know their story if their conquerors choose to preserve it, and they will only be known by the conqueror's narrative of them, not as they truly were or are.

You keep using this "conquered" meme to distract yourself from the fact that the settlers do not have a legal claim to the land, according to their own laws.

Oddly enough, you only apply this meme to indigenous people and not conquered white people.

By the way, despite centuries of trying to annihilate Aboriginal cultures, Aboriginal cultures are still here. They are still telling their own stories their own way and making their own history.

[anarchist23]

PoD.I believe Fasces is a Zionist.I think with this information his arguments fall into place.Native Australians and Native Palestinians have a similar plight.

[Fasces]

Is it true that you are a Zionist?

In my ideal world, all nations are sovereign and behave honorably with each other. Borders are decided simply by the land a people inhabits, not historical or bloody claims. The Jewish nation is not an exception.

Obviously, in the real world, there is a great deal of violence, and blood and soil nationalism prevent significant efforts to create peace. Serbia will never cede Kosovo, even if it is wholly Albanian. The Greek Cypriots will never let their northern shore go, even if it is fully Turkish. Israel won't abandon Jerusalem, even if it is indefensible. Nonetheless, I support all efforts at creating and maintaining sovereignty. The Israelis are the inhabitants of that region and have the right to protect themselves. I support the existence of Israel, which I suppose makes me a Zionist. But I have no particular affinity for Israel as opposed to Palestine.

So, I will assume that you agree that the Aborigines were "conquered" by settlers through accident, greed rather than intelligence, disease rather than force of arms, by making promises and then breaking them, sheer luck, and the kindness of indigenous people.

It doesn't matter how they were conquered - the result is the loss of sovereignty.

And did they have their land taken from them wholesale?

What happened to the Roman Iberians when the Visigoths arrived? The inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin before the Magyars showed up? How many Cathars can I talk to, today? What happened to the Christians of Southern Spain when the Muslims showed up? Where did the Irish go when the Ulster Scots showed up in Belfast? The Greek populations in Eastern Thrace during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire? Where are the German populations of Konigsberg? Of Danzig or Silesia? Of the Sudetenland? Are we denying Operation Black Tulip and others like it took place? Where are the former Croats that lived in Sprska? Or the Serbs that lived in Kosovo?

Did they have their children taken away from them? Do they still have their kids being taken away from them?

Go ahead and deny the existence of the devşirme to a Balkan person. Ask the fathers of the children taken by the Russian cantonist system if their children were ever taken.

Ask the Roma in modern Europe how many children get taken from them.

European Jews do not have sovereignty.

European Jews have control of their own narrative through the state of Israel, which account for a majority of immigrants to Israel, and remains the dominant ethnic group among Israeli citizens between the Ashkenazi, which are a full half, and the Sephardi. They have the institutions to promote their national myth, the resources to propagate it, and the might to maintain control of those institutions.

And why do they get their sovereignty back after being conquered (actually conquered through military force) while Aborigines do not (even though they were never conquered through military force)?

The Papuans are not white.

You keep using this "conquered" meme to distract yourself from the fact that the settlers do not have a legal claim to the land, according to their own laws.

They do, because all legitimate land claims in Australia stem from the authority of the crown. Native land claims are not recognized unless they are confirmed by a parallel, Australian, institution - as I showed earlier, which you ignored.

[Pants-of-dog]

It doesn't matter how they were conquered - the result is the loss of sovereignty.

You have a weird definition of conquered. Moving on.

What happened to the Roman Iberians when the Visigoths arrived? The inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin before the Magyars showed up? How many Cathars can I talk to, today? What happened to the Christians of Southern Spain when the Muslims showed up? Where did the Irish go when the Ulster Scots showed up in Belfast? The Greek populations in Eastern Thrace during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire? Where are the German populations of Konigsberg? Of Danzig or Silesia? Of the Sudetenland? Are we denying Operation Black Tulip and others like it took place? Where are the former Croats that lived in Sprska? Or the Serbs that lived in Kosovo?

Go ahead and deny the existence of the devşirme to a Balkan person. Ask the fathers of the children taken by the Russian cantonist system if their children were ever taken.

If you feel that any or all of these situations are comparable to the Aboriginal experience, please show how.

Ask the Roma in modern Europe how many children get taken from them.

This is more comparable.

Please note that this is also rooted in racism and differing views of property rights.

The Papuans are not white.

Feel free to explain how this is comparable.

They do, because all legitimate land claims in Australia stem from the authority of the crown. Native land claims are not recognized unless they are confirmed by a parallel, Australian, institution - as I showed earlier, which you ignored.

And now you are assuming (incorrectly) that the Crown never makes mistakes that just so happen to enrich the Crown.

And that the law of the land is all that is needed for legitimacy, which contradicts your previous claim that legitimacy comes not from laws but from cultural mores.

[Fasces]

If you feel that any or all of these situations are comparable to the Aboriginal experience, please show how.

They had their land stolen from them by foreigners, as you said.

Maybe you shouldn't talk out of your ass. Seriously? Claiming that the Europeans have never, in all their history, experienced ethnic cleansing or population resettlement?

This is more comparable.

Please note that this is also rooted in racism and differing views of property rights.

Who cares about the reason - you stated simply that this sort of thing never happens to white Europeans, which it does and has.

Feel free to explain how this is comparable.

Comparable to what? You said the Papuans only got independence because they were white. They're not white. They are of the same genetic background as the Aborigines, and both share denisovan DNA. They are from the same region, and often interacted, especially through the Torres Strait Islanders.

You stated that white people would never respect the sovereignty of aboriginal people, or that their racism would keep them from treating them equally on a bilateral basis or respecting their traditions. The healthy relationship between the Australian and Papuan people disproves this claim.

And that the law of the land is all that is needed for legitimacy, which contradicts your previous claim that legitimacy comes not from laws but from cultural mores.

What? You were the one that brought up law in the context of land rights. All I stated was that Aboriginal common law plays no role in the Australian legal system whatsoever.

Can you keep a single thought consistent between one post and the next? In your rush to argue, do you even remember your own fucking claims?

[Pants-of-dog]

They had their land stolen from them by foreigners, as you said.

Maybe you shouldn't talk out of your ass. Seriously? Claiming that the Europeans have never, in all their history, experienced ethnic cleansing or population resettlement?

Please provide evidence for these claims. Thank you. I ask this because I want to see if the situations are historically comparable.

Who cares about the reason - you stated simply that this sort of thing never happens to white Europeans, which it does and has.

White Europeans do not consider the Roma to be white Europeans.

Comparable to what? You said the Papuans only got independence because they were white. They're not white. They are of the same genetic background as the Aborigines, and both share denisovan DNA. They are from the same region, and often interacted, especially through the Torres Strait Islanders.

You stated that white people would never respect the sovereignty of aboriginal people, or that their racism would keep them from treating them equally on a bilateral basis or respecting their traditions. The healthy relationship between the Australian and Papuan people disproves this claim.

Please provide evidence for these claims. Thank you. I ask this because I want to see if the situations are historically comparable.

What? You were the one that brought up law in the context of land rights. All I stated was that Aboriginal common law plays no role in the Australian legal system whatsoever.

Sure. Whatever.

That does not change the fact that the settlers do not have a legal claim to the land, according to their own laws.

It does not change the fact that the Crown pretty much deliberately did so (i.e broke their own laws) in order to get the land.

It does not change the fact that such actions make the question of legal legitimacy very debatable.

It does not change the fact that such actions are not morally legitimate according to your own criteria.

[Fasces]

Please provide evidence for these claims. Thank you. I ask this because I want to see if the situations are historically comparable.

Time for the completely predictable PoD response to anything he can't actually refute.

Is Google broken? I named them all. You can look them up. Or be lazy - up to you.

I provided evidence. I won't provide a fucking bibliography.

White Europeans do not consider the Roma to be white Europeans.

Yes, they do. Their culture may be regarded as shit, but no one denies they're white Europeans. They're as white and European as the Ashkenazi or Irish. A people don't have to be colored to be held in poor esteem or the victim of oppression, and it is despicable that you seem to think this way.

Please provide evidence for these claims. Thank you. I ask this because I want to see if the situations are historically comparable.

I did provide evidence.

Papua New Guinea, furthermore, was part of Australia until 1975.

That does not change the fact that the settlers do not have a legal claim to the land, according to their own laws.

They do. Because the land was terra nullis. Because common native land rights have no place in Australian legal tradition. Because they have no legal authority unless a parallel law is passed. Stop stating the same false claim over and over, a claim I have shown has no basis in fact.

It does not change the fact that the Crown pretty much deliberately did so (i.e broke their own laws) in order to get the land.

Which law did the Crown break? Specifically?

It does not change the fact that such actions make the question of legal legitimacy very debatable.

Nope. Not debatable at all. A law, to be a law, needs to be enforced by definition. Australians have the power to enforce their laws. Their laws derive legitimacy through that force, as all laws are.

It does not change the fact that such actions are not morally legitimate according to your own criteria.

They are morally legitimate according to my own criteria, because my ethical system does not go that far nor does it hold law to be the ultimate authority. Stop trying to expand my claim.

[Pants-of-dog]

Time for the completely predictable PoD response to anything he can't actually refute.

Is Google broken? I named them all. You can look them up. Or be lazy - up to you.

I provided evidence. I won't provide a fucking bibliography.

You made verifiable claims and now refuse to provide evidence for said claims. I am not here to build your arguments for you and then take them apart.

Yes, they do. Their culture may be regarded as shit, but no one denies they're white Europeans. They're as white and European as the Ashkenazi. A people don't have to be colored to be held in poor esteem.

No. Sorry.

They do. Because the land was terra nullis.

Finally.

Okay, terra nullius is the argument that they have a legal claim to the land because nobody lived there at the time of discovery.

Is this factually correct? No, it is not.

Because common native land rights have no place in Australian legal tradition.

Except for the land claims cases previously mentioned.

Because they have no legal authority unless a parallel law is passed.

They do for Aboriginal communities.

Stop stating the same false claim over and over, a claim I have shown has no basis in fact.

I have no idea what you are talking about nor do I care.

Which law did the Crown break? Specifically?

It falsely claimed that there were no inhabitants to the land when it was discovered. Terra nullius is not actually applicable.

Nope. Not debatable at all. A law, to be a law, needs to be enforced by definition. Australians have the power to enforce their laws. Their laws derive legitimacy through that force, as all laws are.

That is not how constitutional law works. Laws have to be consistent with bills of rights and other laws. if they are not, thy are not considered legally legitimate.

They are morally legitimate according to my own criteria, because my ethical system does not go that far nor does it hold law to be the ultimate authority. Stop trying to expand my claim.

It has nothing to do with you.

My claim was that such a claim is also not morally legitimate. You have no rebuttal for this, so I will assume that you agree.

[Fasces]

You made verifiable claims and now refuse to provide evidence for said claims. I am not here to build your arguments for you and then take them apart.

I did provide evidence for my claims.

My claim: European peoples have suffered similar land removal efforts as indigenous populations abroad.
Evidence: All those things I individually listed for you.

It's not my fault you're too lazy to follow up. I'll assume you just agree your claim was laughably false.

Okay, terra nullius is the argument that they have a legal claim to the land because nobody lived there at the time of discovery.

Is this factually correct? No, it is not.

Doesn't matter - it's a legal fact, or was until 1994 (and even then, wasn't overturned in the way you'll immediately claim). The aboriginals were not legally people at the founding of the Australian legal system, and all recognition of aboriginal rights in modern Australia stem from that legal system.

Except for the land claims cases previously mentioned.

Every single one of those cases depended on a parallel Australian law existing to legitimize the claim to have any grounds in court. Aboriginal land rights do not exist without the consent of the Australian government - as I demonstrated and you continue to ignore.

They do for Aboriginal communities.

To qualify as an aboriginal community, and to qualify for the legal rights afforded to "Aboriginal communities" you have to be declared one by the Australian government - you cannot self-declare as an aboriginal community, even if your tribe has a fifty thousand year history. You need a parallel Australian law to be able to press your claims, as an aborigine.

I have no idea what you are talking about nor do I care.

It is painfully clear to everyone that you have no idea what anyone talks about.

Terra nullius is not actually applicable.

Law doesn't work that way, buddy.

Terra nullius, as invoked by English law, determined whether a territory was inhabited by the presence of civilized society, which the aborigines were not regarded as, rightly or wrongly.

Every single suit by aboriginal activists taking your position - that terra nullius did not apply - has been explicitly rejected by every Australian court as absolutely without merit or basis. Until Mabo, there was no recognition of any sort of native title law at all. Even after Mabo, where native title law contradicts Australian law, Australian law supersedes. Mabo, however, upheld that the sovereign of Australia could suspend all native title law at will. And it wasn't until the passing of the Native Title Act in 1993 that native title law had any way of even being pushed into courts or a Mabo decision was even possible. Ultimately, the capability to enforce these native claims depends on the existence of a parallel Australian law.

My claim was that such a claim is also not morally legitimate. You have no rebuttal for this, so I will assume that you agree.

You haven't made any effort to express an argument. Morally legitimate to you, or in general? Why is it not morally legitimate?