Thank God, I'm Irish and not racist.

Getting a bit off topic. Bound to confuse poor old arry no end.

I read somewhere the biggest percentage of any one nationality that existed in Australia was 77% Irish during the transportation days.

I have since come across this interesting article from the Citizens Electortal Council. If only 50% correct it make interesting reading.


Quote:

Finally! The Real History of the Settlement of Australia!

For generations now, Australians have been spoon-fed the crock that the European settlement of Australia was caused by the need to “relieve prison overcrowding” back in good ol’ England, and that therefore our ancestors were mainly “convicts”—“bad stock” as the eugenicist Winston Churchill once put it. The CEC’s latest, hot-off-the press New Citizen demonstrates that “standard history” to be utter, lying hogwash.

In a first-ever presentation of original historical research entitled “The True History of the Founding of Australia”, a CEC team places that settlement in its actual strategic context: that the British had just been decisively defeated by the Americans in 1781; had been driven out of Ireland in 1782 by an American-inspired and aided revolution; and faced a mortal strategic challenge to their world-wide maritime empire following the Peace of Paris in 1783, by the Dutch, the Spanish, and the French, all of whom had aided the American cause.

Having lost America, and facing challenges in the Pacific, the British strategists centered in the British East India Company founded Australia to pre-empt a planned French settlement here (beating the French by less than two weeks), and to serve as a strategic outpost against their European rivals. Those “convicts” rounded up and sent here—often without even the fig-leaf of a trial—were overwhelmingly pro-American Irish and Scottish political prisoners, and even some English, while the new settlement was designed as a literal torture chamber to crush their republican spirit.

And that has been the faultline throughout Australian history ever since: between our greatest republican leaders, beginning with Rev. John Dunmore Lang, who were invariably pro-American and who schemed to establish a sovereign “United States of Australia”, and the East India Company-style, financier-directed British imperialism which has usually ruled our country despite courageous challenges to this London-centered “Money Power” by the old, pro-national banking ALP and its roster of true patriots, including King O’Malley, Frank Anstey, Jack Lang, John Curtin, Ben Chifley, Jim Cairns and Rex Connor.

Throw out the date-based, boring chronologies you remember from school, and read the true history, including the 17th and 18th century takeover of Britain by the “Venetian Party”, in which London replaced Venice as the center of worldwide monetarist imperialism. Read of Lord Shelburne, the grey eminence behind every aspect of the planning and execution of the new Australian colony: as the ruling figure in the British East India Company, he headed the “Venetian Party” in 18th century Britain; launched Captain Cook on his first voyage; was the boss of Lord Sydney; and oversaw a European-wide intelligence service whose agents included Captain Arthur Phillip, head of the First Fleet and Australia’s first governor.

This true history will make British-trained professors, with their boring, lying chronologies spit with rage, but open ordinary Australians’ eyes to the true nature of the British Empire whose monetarist imperialism (“globalisation”, “free trade”), still dominates the globe, so they can join LaRouche and the CEC to defeat it.

Unquote:

Very interesting and it certainly gives the lie to what were regarded as hitherto historical claims. Obviously the Irish outnumbered the rest by a great margin and just to prove the point I looked up my copy of Smee's Second Fleet Families of Australia and lo and behold of the approx 250 names in the index a full 20 are recognizeably Irish, obviously the majority were disguised as English to deceive future historians and their details such as birth places were also altered.

What will we find out next?

That Britain only claimed part of the continent of Australia and that the western half or so was French?

Just to stay OT for a while; there were a total of 1198 (or so) convicts on the 2nd Fleet and of these 78 had possibly Irish names although the only 'O', one John O'Hara, was born in Middlesex, England.
On the First Fleet of the 717 convicts, 77 had Irish names.

See http://members.iinet.net.au/~perthdps/convicts/1stfleet.html#Top

Hunter,
[quoteI have since come across this interesting article from the Citizens Electortal Council. If only 50% correct it make interesting reading][/quote]

I've had a read on their site, and if only 10% were correct it'd be a miricle

quote]

I've had a read on their site, and if only 10% were correct it'd be a miricle [/quote]

I only wish I used your 10% figure as a benchmark when the CEC were banging on about the global meltdown a good eighteen months before it hit. Some shares I follow went down to bargain basement prices and now have risen three fold since the 'recovery'.

We're only the mugs in the bigger picture Sam.

I think that, to give this subject a proper ethical consideration, we need to stop talking about groups and classes of people as if they were real entities with fixed attributes. We do know that we are talking about human beings, so that is probably an acceptable grouping.

Secondly, there are probably some universals priorities when dealing with people being offended when you cross the line in their mind.
1) Don't go out of your way to cause offence
2) If you are causing offence in an incidental way then stop for a moment to consider if what you are doing is important. Proceed accordingly.
3) Don't prohibit people from causing offence, otherwise nobody could do anything at all
4) If you decide not to do something because you wished to avoid causing offence in one circumstance this does not constitute a 'precedent' to be applied to other people or other circumstances.

Thats very good dan , usefull little set of guidelines .
I especially like number 3.

I was going to post 'Huh?' but I took cognisance of 1).

No one in this forum was suggesting the prohibition of causing offense so don't really know where that came from...

Wow!

What drivel!

Too much passion and not nearly enough rational thinking or critical argument.

I came to an ethics forum to talk ethics not read flamewars usually present on a teenage computer game forum.

The one exception, Airzone, thank you for your level headed rational comments. More of that! Less of this other rubbish.

I wouldn't set foot on Uluru unless I thought that the dollars that it cost me would lead to better lives for the indigenous people of this land. I'm a consequentialist and would weigh up the situation based on it's merits and so should you. My interest in climbing the rock must be balanced with the interests of those who are affected by my choice. Offending the indigenous people is not worth it purely based on my want to climb a steepish rock. If it were Arapiles or the Grampians that would be an entirely different question

D.

Oh wow! We have a self- appointed forum monitor! Do you support freedom of speech? Just because people write things you don't want to read/ don't like doesn't mean they shouldn't be written, nor that they are 'unworthy' as you imply- that is a subjective evaluation from one person, you. I suggest sticking to the actual arguments/ ethical debate rather than becoming the self- appointed censor

arry



As opposed to attcking the individual, perhaps you could debate his/her argument?

Define 'attacking the individual'?

Well, this is interesting. Now I have been presented me with my own little ethical dilemma.

First, in this particular forum Dave stated that I am one of the few speaking to the topic of ethics. I thank you Dave for those nice words. He/she also makes what I believe to be some valid and good points in his post.

I wanted to comment upon Dave's statement that many of the posts here appear to not relate to ethics, but seem to be largely drivel. Because I think there is a slightly different aspect that needs to be taken into account.

However, my dilemma was that if I respond, I may end up being seen also criticising individuals, while I am really trying to critique various arguments. After a couple of days of thought, admittedly sporadic thought, I decided it would unethical of me NOT to respond. I think I have a valid point to make and it is unethical in my mind not to put it forward. Exchange the word ethical with right/useful/interesting if that assists in explaining why I see this as an ethical question for myself.

Anyway, back to Dave's post. It has been my observation that many contributors to this forum, including the forum in previous years, do take a simplistic personal, gut feel approach to many questions. This reflects the way we all act day to day, because an ethical analysis of every decision is impractical and rather time-consuming. It is my personal hope that the forum contributors who do take a more considered position, can usefully illustrate how ethics can apply to one's daily life and to life generally. This may provide good examples others can use to our overall benefit. So, I have no problem with the mix of contributors. If anyone wishes to get personal in my direction, I simply block/ignore them etc while trying to tidy up my position with reference to ethics and the actual point under discussion. Some people simply cannot accept that we all have different views and seem to believe that being insistent or a constant barrage of emotive words will change another person's mind. It has never worked for or with me!

Attacking the individual rather than the argument reflects on the attacker badly. The attacker is seen in the mind of others, as someone whose posts can largely be ignored and have little value except for entertainment purposes. I understand that some people do this deliberately, and in internet speak are called internet trolls, who trolls around the internet stirring up arguments on various forums just to watch the reaction of other forum members. These can be seen on forums that debate race, nationality, religion and the like. These are definitely not nice to read.

I would encourage everyone to critique the argument and not the individual or group of individuals because it reflects better on all of us. It is easier said than done however. If anyone does attack the individual, such criticism is best ignored or reported to the administrator.

Let's enhance the drivel, be positive in response to well reasoned arguments and largely ignore the personal stuff.

I would also point out that contributors do leave the forum for a range of reasons, and I think we all more or less want a large number of contributors? Many of the contributors who were active a couple of years ago appear not to have resurfaced. Dave offers one reason why this is so. I think the forum adds value and would like to see it remain as an active focus of ethics discussions.

And I'm talking to myself here too, I would like to re-word several of my own previous posts of the last few years.

Question: Should I have ignored or responded to the last few posts? Why?

I mostly agree airzone. Sometimes it can be very frustrating.

Dave was giving his opinion and that's fine. I was joking when I called him the 'forum censor'- didn't mean to cause offense Dave!

I would make one point however: argument that is not explicitly linked with 'ethics' is not necessarily 'drivel'. A person can make a good/ important point without explicitly tieing it to ethical theory I think.