By John Ray @ The Psychologist
"Black armband" historian Henry Reynolds is once again trying to make
Australians guilty about their past. His contention below is that the
British "stole" the land from the Aborigines. That is a popular
view on the Left and among Aborigines themselves. In support of that view
Reynolds sees the present ownership of Australia as being legally
defective. It seems to be his view that a transfer of ownership of the
land from Aborigines to the settlers can only legitimately be done by means of
a treaty between the two parties.
But that is nonsense on stilts.
Throughout history, changes in ownership
of territory have come about through armed conquest -- and Australia was no
different. There was in fact little organized resistance from the
Aborigines and the white men had guns. The British by and large took what
land they wanted and shot anybody who attacked them. That does not sit
well with the modern-day Left but it is what has happened throughout history.
It even happened at the hands of Leftists not so long ago. The seizure of
Cuba by American "Progressives" such as Theodore Roosevelt did not
happen as a result of a treaty with the Cubans. It occurred as a result
of a successful war on the Spanish defenders of Cuba. And the concept of the
Spanish conquistadores gaining ownership of Western hemisphere territory via a
treaty with the natives is a huge laugh.
And Reynolds has clearly not taken account of the "Trail of Tears"
in his account of American expansion -- which was done at the behest of Andrew
Jackson, founder of the Democratic party. Jackson's policies have been
criticized both at the time and subsequently but his territorial dispositions remain
pretty much as he left them
And if we were to unwind past conquests, the result would
be absurd. We would have to send the English back to where they came from
in the South Baltic 1500 years ago and give Britannia back to the Welsh,
Cornish and other Celtic groups who were there first.
Reynolds tries to strengthen his case by an emotional appeal. He speaks
of the "horrors" that the British settlers inflicted on the
Aborigines. And that is his schtick. He has been trying for years
to make what was a generally peaceful settlement into a sort of
holocaust.
But Keith Windschuttle has gone back to the early documents and shown that
Reynolds exaggerates to an epic extent. But Reynolds is not letting go of
his claims. He evidently NEEDS them to be true. And being now aged
80, his deceptions are his life's work. In his angry Leftist way, he
hates his own society and wants to hurt it. He is an old fool. The
acquisition of sovereignty over Australia by the British crown is a done deed
and going back in history to question it on shallow legal grounds is simply
anachronistic.
(Editor's Note: Although most Americans don't really know much about Australian history or even it's current events, I think that's a mistake as so many of the same issues arising here are being dealt with there. This is an issue that's not just about Australia. This is a worldwide endeavor by the left.
The left wants to make white settlers bad people, but European settlers were playing the same game everyone else in the world was playing, they just played it better than everyone else.
If you want to call them bad Christians, then you have a solid argument, since they espoused a philosophy that said they shouldn't be playing that game. But calling them bad people isn't appropriate, because that implies they were doing something different than the other people of the world were doing, and that's especially true regarding American Indians.
Oh, yes, one more thing. Andrew Jackson and his fellow Democrats were contemptible, because that was clearly an act of genocide based on greed. He and his supporters were bad Christians and bad human beings. That act was a crime against humanity. RK)
No comments:
Post a Comment