Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: The Value of Colonialism/New World Migration & Establishment

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Re: Europoid migration....

    Quote Originally Posted by Bridie
    You already are fully aware I'm sure that the VAST majority of Austalian land is uninhabitable, infertile and harsh (particularly harsh when you're fair complected). To get the same yield from a crop grown in Australia you need FAR MORE land than is needed in the UK and Ireland. Likewise, for more land is needed for grazing too. There never was an over-abundance of uninhabited land in Australia that was both fertile and habitable.(!)
    It depends on the region, and Australia is a huge continent; my point remains that, relatively speaking, there was plenty of land without needing to kill and drive out Aborigines. Much of Victoria is pretty fertile, and early estimates of the Aboriginal population here vary between 1000 and 6000; either way, that's a tiny population.

    Of course many abo's were driven off of their ancestral lands.
    No, because the aborigines were nomadic, meant that settlers took up the free land, no-one needed to be driven from it. Obviously it was their hunting grounds, but each group had a huge ranging area. By and large, they remained in their regions, but eventually with little land to hunt on; later a lot of them went on to reserves.

  2. #12
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    57
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,269
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    571
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    519
    Thanked in
    227 Posts

    Re: Europoid migration....

    Quote Originally Posted by Bridie
    My opinion is that it would make more sense, if Europeans need more living space (which of course they will do, assuming prosperity) that Europoids stay in Eruope and then expand occupation of the land from there.... pushing back people in the occupied neighbouring areas, so as to not allow inter-racial mixing. This way it seems more of a gentle evolution (well, I'm sure there would be plenty of blood spilt too)... and probably more acceptable in the eyes of many. And this way too, fragmentation will be seriously minimised. A united force is a strong one.
    The British tried that in Ireland in the 17th century. It did'nt work because Ireland was a settled country & the British were never a majority & Britain & Ireland are still dealing with the consequences.

    The Russians conquered neighboring areas and had a compact empire but again it did'nt do them any good because they were a minority in large parts of the empire which are now independent republics. Of course they still have Siberia but it is underpopulated & borders China. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

    France conquered Algeria & colonized it but Europeans were never more then 10% of the population. That ended badly. However the Algerians seem to be having more success at colonizing France.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Last Online
    Monday, August 21st, 2017 @ 11:37 PM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Illinois Illinois
    Gender
    Posts
    857
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Europoid migration....

    I believe that the Europoid emigration to the U.S.A. was a good idea. It gave influence and wealth to the newcomers by making opportunity in this country as well as balance out overpopulated areas of Europe. The only problem now isn't the Europoids who colonized the country, it's our corporate and government structure. Back then, the "melting pot" was meant for those of Indo-European heritage to mingle and share ideals, because they all shared a common ground of belief and heritage. Now the country is ruled by economics and the value of heritage and cultural tradition has steeped to a low level. We let anybody in this country because we supposedly "need them" and those of European ancestry are to be phased out by the process of "ethnic diversity". Jobs are being outsourced, suburban sprawl is everywhere, illegals are swarming the cities, and our government is too scared to say/do anything.

  4. #14
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    2,858
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Cool Re: Europoid migration....

    No, because the aborigines were nomadic, meant that settlers took up the free land, no-one needed to be driven from it. Obviously it was their hunting grounds, but each group had a huge ranging area.
    That's a load of rot. In order to live a nomadic lifestyle, a population needs a large amount of land to hunt on... otherwise its just not sustainable. Also, they had their spiritual "special" places (I can't think off-hand what the hell the proper terminology is! ), and they were stationary.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not all in for the abo's claiming "sacred" bloody land all the time (which always just "happens" to be very valuable land... ...), but it doesn't take a genius to see that the claiming of Australia as land of their own by the British govt of the day was wrong. Nothing we can do about it now though.... its not as if I want to give it back or anything. Hehehe We need some petrol left for powering vehicles after all...


    Anglo-Man.... that's true.


    Oh well, I seem to be the only one that thinks that Europoid emigration from Europe was/is a bad thing. Thems the breaks I guess.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Re: Europoid migration....

    Quote Originally Posted by Bridie
    That's a load of rot. In order to live a nomadic lifestyle, a population needs a large amount of land to hunt on... otherwise its just not sustainable. Also, they had their spiritual "special" places (I can't think off-hand what the hell the proper terminology is! ), and they were stationary.
    Exactly. They need a large amount of land to hunt on, which is why there was plenty of it when the British arrived.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not all in for the abo's claiming "sacred" bloody land all the time (which always just "happens" to be very valuable land... ...), but it doesn't take a genius to see that the claiming of Australia as land of their own by the British govt of the day was wrong.
    We're not discussing whether this was wrong, that's another issue. You were saying that the British government massacred and drove away the aborigines in order to take over their land; this wasn't even necessary. There were large amounts of what was effectively unoccupied land, even though it was all claimed as hunting grounds by various tribes.
    Nothing we can do about it now though.... its not as if I want to give it back or anything.


    Hehehe We need some petrol left for powering vehicles after all...
    Careful what you say!

  6. #16
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    2,858
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Wink Re: Europoid migration....

    Exactly. They need a large amount of land to hunt on, which is why there was plenty of it when the British arrived.
    Oh mate.... why is it that you're not getting what I'm trying to say here?.... haven't been getting the old nostrils stuck into a petrol tin have ya?? (God, I crack myself up! ) You know, they needed that land to sustain their nomadic lifestyle, so without it, they had their way of life, culture and self-esteem destroyed. They still have not recovered, we all know its true.


    We're not discussing whether this was wrong, that's another issue.
    Hard to discuss such topics without at some stage stating whether or not it was justifiable. But you're right, lets to my facts.... oops, sorry I meant "the facts".


    You were saying that the British government massacred and drove away the aborigines in order to take over their land; this wasn't even necessary.
    I didn't actually say "massacred", but yes they did. However, larger numbers were killed off via the introduction of "European" diseases.

    Look, as far as I can see, you are in complete denial that the British govt at the time of colonisation in Australia was cruel and underhanded.... you should study the facts. I've studied Australian history at uni level, and so have seen various sources of info that were not tampered with by the subjective interpretations of historians.... it was pretty clear to me the true horror of the situation. However, you might not think it was so bad... depending on how sensitive you are I suppose.

    You and I will most likely never see eye-to-eye on this matter, since I'm assuming you are a monarchist/royalist, and I am most definately a republican.

    Nevermind!

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Re: Europoid migration....

    Quote Originally Posted by Bridie
    Oh mate.... why is it that you're not getting what I'm trying to say here?.... haven't been getting the old nostrils stuck into a petrol tin have ya?? (God, I crack myself up! )
    Aboriginal blood!? No, not me
    You know, they needed that land to sustain their nomadic lifestyle, so without it, they had their way of life, culture and self-esteem destroyed. They still have not recovered, we all know its true.
    True, I agree with that although their lifestyle and culture wasn't so much destroyed by having land settled on per se. But I'm objecting to the idea that the British elite deliberately practised ethnic cleansing and running Aborigines off their land. By and large, the British elite were fairer on them than a lot of colonists, from whom they had to be protected in many cases. However, their nomadic hunter gatherer lifestyle really depended on the availability of the various animals they hunted, and this continued well after their lands had been settled by white men.

    They rapidly declined mainly due to introduction of diseases (which often weren't fatal to Europeans) and alcohol, the latter given to them by lawless colonists. Of course, there were also conflicts between settlers and natives.

    Hard to discuss such topics without at some stage stating whether or not it was justifiable.
    Yes, it's just that the point I was making wasn't related to the question of being justifiable.

    I didn't actually say "massacred", but yes they did.
    Do you have any specific instances? I'm not trying to be nit-picky, and I know it's not always possible to remember a particular example, but I need something I can look into and see just what they're saying, and whether it's supported by real evidence. It would help to know where you're coming from.

    Look, as far as I can see, you are in complete denial that the British govt at the time of colonisation in Australia was cruel and underhanded....
    I'm not suggesting they were a bunch of angels, but by and large, they were nothing like the monsters they're made out to be by modern revisionists.

    you should study the facts. I've studied Australian history at uni level, and so have seen various sources of info that were not tampered with by the subjective interpretations of historians....
    Believe me, a university is just the sort of place I would expect to find such distortions of our history. These people have effectively hijacked the education system. You may have heard that the Prime Minister has suggested something should be done about the way history is taught here. One must look a little deeper to find out the true situation; a great deal of misrepresentation is going on. Try reading some older books, and there is also at least one modern historian (Keith Windschuttle) I can think of who sometimes takes the trouble to refute the claims that do the rounds. And a few years ago I saw a "meet the press" (ABC tv) session whose guests were a historian and his former history professor. This professor had, according to the historian, taught him a highly distorted version of the facts, and he was angry that the professor had misled him.

    In any case, the picture is quite different if you look at the other side of the story, you'll find it's not accepted fact by all; these revisionist ideas aren't the "common knowledge" they're claimed to be.

    it was pretty clear to me the true horror of the situation. However, you might not think it was so bad... depending on how sensitive you are I suppose.
    I'm sure some horrible things occured, but this idea of the British government (or even colonists in general) engaging in ethnic cleansing and brutality simply isn't realistic.

    You and I will most likely never see eye-to-eye on this matter, since I'm assuming you are a monarchist/royalist,
    Yep And until our education system was taken over by Socialists, I think there weren't too many Republicans around

    and I am most definately a republican.
    I figured that

  8. #18
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    2,858
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Grin Re: Europoid migration....

    Do you have any specific instances? I'm not trying to be nit-picky, and I know it's not always possible to remember a particular example, but I need something I can look into and see just what they're saying, and whether it's supported by real evidence. It would help to know where you're coming from.
    Hmmmm.... I'll have to get back to you on this one. How many will have to have been killed for it to be considered a massacre?? You know.... you could probably Google it and find some massacres.... a bit of light entertainment before bed. (Hey, we all need a hobby! )


    Believe me, a university is just the sort of place I would expect to find such distortions of our history. These people have effectively hijacked the education system. You may have heard that the Prime Minister has suggested something should be done about the way history is taught here.
    Wasn't little Johnny talking about history at high school level though? At uni level its not so much about learning events, dates etc by reading other historians accounts of it.... its about learning how to source and analyse the info/primary sources for oneself. Sometimes though, various historians interpretations are studied to compare and contrast. Uni students are given the tools to discriminate and analyse. I don't think its what you think it is.

    What the hell do you want to hang onto Pommie Land for? Okay, I will start another thread on this one. Sooner or later.

  9. #19
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Cole Nidray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, January 20th, 2017 @ 05:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Danelaw
    Subrace
    Nordoid
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Zug Zug
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    Chicken farmer
    Politics
    Democracy
    Posts
    534
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: Europoid migration....

    Quote Originally Posted by Anglo-Hoosier
    But Whites were never the majority in South Africa & that demographic fact has pretty much doomed that nations White minority.
    When Jan van Riebeeck arrived in SA on April 6th, 1652 there we no Negroes for more than one thousand miles. In the 1820's when the Groot Trek was undertaken by the Boer people, there still werent any Negroes for more than 500 miles.

    Europeans were a majority in South Africa until massive Bantu immigration.

  10. #20
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    57
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,269
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    571
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    519
    Thanked in
    227 Posts

    Re: Europoid migration....

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulfhednar
    When Jan van Riebeeck arrived in SA on April 6th, 1652 there we no Negroes for more than one thousand miles. In the 1820's when the Groot Trek was undertaken by the Boer people, there still werent any Negroes for more than 500 miles.

    Europeans were a majority in South Africa until massive Bantu immigration.
    But was'nt there a Capoid/Bushmen population in the area. And the Dutch had a large number of slaves from India & Java that I believe outnumbered the free White population. Beside the Dutch never made much of an effort to colonize the Cape. There was only about 25,000 White settlers at the Cape when the British took possession.

    Europeans were never the majority in South Africa. There was Always the colored servant population which was greater then the European population during Dutch rule. And the Bantu's were in Natal, Orange Free State & Transvaal before the Boers arrived there. Their numbers were small but the number of Boers were less. The Boers could have driven off the Bantu's but let them stay in the area as a source of cheap labor. The dependence on cheap non-White labor is what doomed the Whites of South Africa.
    Last edited by Madoc; Tuesday, April 11th, 2006 at 06:11 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Decolonization or Colonialism?
    By Sól in forum The Germanic New World
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 4 Days Ago, 02:42 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 11th, 2018, 09:14 PM
  3. Africa Before and After Colonialism
    By Nachtengel in forum Germanic Diaspora, Enclaves, & Influences
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Monday, August 28th, 2017, 11:21 PM
  4. An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right
    By Huginn ok Muninn in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Tuesday, May 10th, 2016, 02:53 PM
  5. The Jewish Establishment
    By Peeps in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, March 18th, 2005, 06:06 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •