I find it to be quite odd that we Australians celebrate our Bush Rangers because in my opinion all of Australia's so-called 'bush rangers' were terrorists. To me Ned Kelly was a terrorist and I am happy that the Australian Government killed him. Same goes for Ben Hall and all of the no-name bush rangers that nobody has ever heard of. The only 'bush ranger' that I have any sympathy for is Australias first Bush Ranger - Black Caesar. Black Caesar was a big black African from Madagascar and he was brought to Australia as a convict. Since Black Caesar was such a massive black man he needed more rations than most other convicts and he was always very hungry. The constant hunger that living on convict rations caused Black Caesar compelled him to escape and become Australia's first Bush Ranger so that he could steal food. Black Caesar only became a Bush Ranger because he was so very hungry, and the coolest thing about Black Caesar is that there is no record of him harming anyone. Black Caesar would steal food from his fellow convicts and from the colony and he even robbed Aboriginals of food at gunpoint, but there is no record of Black Caesar killing or even really hurting anyone while he was running about stealing food as Australia's very first Bush Ranger. So as far as Black Caesar is concerned I am not sure that I would go so far as to label him a terrorist like Ned Kelly or Ben Hall because like I said he just just very hungry and he didnt actually hurt anyone while he was a Bush Ranger. Black Caesar certainly did terrorize many people as our first Bush Ranger but I do not think that he was a terrorist. One of the coolest parts of the Black Caesar story is that Black Caesar once cracked the skull of Aboriginal Pemulwuy. It certainly wasnt just Bush Rangers terrorizing early Australians but Aboriginals too, and this Pemulwuy character was pretty much the Aboriginal version of Osama Bin Laden. Pemulway and his tribe waged a twelve year guerilla war against the colony. Pemulway killed British people and he and his tribe would make raids on the colony and they would burn crops and kill livestock. If Pemulway was not a terrorist that I dont know what is. So on one of Pemulways terror raids Pemulway attacked a work party of convicts at Botany Bay, and the work party included our first Bush Ranger - Black Caesar. Like I said Black Caesar was always very hungry so he was not going to allow a bunch of Aboriginals to mess with his rations. Black Caesar managed to crack Pemulways skull while defending his rations and many believed that Black Caesar had killed Pemulway. Since Pemulway was basically an Aboriginal Osama Bin Laden everyone was really happy with Black Caesar for killing Pemulway. Cracking Pemulways skull made Black Caesar a hero throughout the colony. Even though Black Caesar had managed to crack Pemulways skull it was not enough to kill him and the terror attacks on the colony continued until finally a British sailor - Henry Hacking was able to shoot and kill Pemulway. Finally the twelve years of terror were over. The British were so happy about finally killing the Aboriginal terrorist Pemulway that they cut off Pemulways head and sent it back to England. Now you cannot deny that Aboriginal Pemulway was a terrorist because he used terrorism. Pemulway didnt care if he was attacking black people or white people or convicts or settlers - nobody was safe during Pemulways twelve year reign of terror. So was Pemulway a terrorist? Yes - Pemulway was an Aboriginal terrorist. Pemulway was a bigger terrorist than Ned Kelly. [video=youtube;tk_gx9LNLlw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk_gx9LNLlw[/video]
Kelly wasn't a terrorist, he was just a criminal. Your description of Pemulway could be said to fit into terrorism because it sounds like he was trying to push the settlers out, which is political, and that he targeted civilians in his efforts.
I agree, Kelly was a criminal, and Australia like most countries have romanticised early criminals mainly because the authorities at the time were just as crooked, just the same, they mugged people like you and me. I totally disagree however as you would expect lol with Permulway. He was a Guerrilla soldier, not a professional soldier or a fanatic with and agenda. He fought what he saw (as do most people) armed, trained invaders. Yes there was prisoners, and soldiers to guard them, but there was also marines. As more ships came so did more soldiers, they had claimed a landing spot and set up defenses against the "wildlife", remember tera nullus. Over the years methods of scaring "terrifying" the "wildlife" away were developed. Kill a few specimens and hang them from trees, they will get the hint. Permulway was a soldier, he practiced guerrilla warfare to try and repel armed trained foreign forces that had invaded his country and were actively and deliberately terrorising his people so as to ensure their settlement of the captured country.. Permulway was the first leader to defend Australia against boat people and terrorists, our first hero.
Aboriginals refer to him as feather foot, the man who's job it was to carry out retribution. It's sort of strange to even consider him a terrorists, especially in the instance that he was protecting his people and country so it seemed. So America dropping a bomb on Hiroshima and invading Iraq must have been acts of terrorism. Civilians were slaughtered??? Did pemelwuy slaughter innocent women and children??
There are undertones of racism here, as there are in posts by others who use an argument that Mungo Man was here first is, Aboriginals are not the "First people". An "out of the blue" topic on Pemelwuy and putting him at the same level as ISIS is really pushing the boundaries. Is racism alive and well in Australia, you bet. Here is one example that occurred within the past 4 weeks. Four weeks ago an Aboriginal lady I know came to visit. To come, she had to catch a train, well two trains, she had to change at Hamilton. She caught a daytime intercity express between Central and Hamilton and as usual it was fairly full. She found two empty seats and sat by the window and waited. The train filled and eventually the carriage filled except for the seat next to her. The train started to move and after a few minutes someone came through from the other carriage and came up to the vacant seat. Miss X looked up and smiled. The woman was mid 30's, well dressed and obviously pregnant. She returned Miss X's smile and holding the strap stood just slightly behind. As the train proceeded a man in a business suit in his late 50's to 60's noticing what had happened, stood up and came across and sat next to Miss X. He smiled and winked at her and continued to read a paper. Within seconds the lady who had been standing some 10 minutes by now, quickly jumped into the vacated seat. When they got off he said to Miss X. "I didn't do it to show pity on you, you have nothing to pity. I did it to show her up for what she was." Miss X is a well educated early childhood teacher, quite well know in Sydney child care circles for her expertise. She is approximately 5 to 10 years older than the girl was. As they were both females I can gather that the only difference and hence the reasons for the displayed action was that Miss X is an Aboriginal woman.
Isn't the definition of a terrorist someone who attacks a civilian target? 1) From 1792 Pemulwuy led raids on settlers from Parramatta, Georges River, Prospect, Toongabbie, Brickfield and Hawkesbury River. 2) In May 1795, Pemulwuy or one of his followers speared a convict near present-day Chippendale 3) In March 1797, Pemulwuy led a group of aboriginal warriors, estimated to be at least 100, in an attack on a government farm at Toongabbie. 4) In December 1795, Pemulwuy and his warriors attacked a work party at Botany Bay which included Black Caesar. Caesar managed to crack Pemulwuy's skull and many thought he had killed him, but the warrior survived and escaped. But this critically injured him afterwards.[10] Seems like good old Pemulwuy might have been a bit racist himself. When Pemulwuy grew into manhood he became Bembul Wuyan, which represents "the earth and the crow". According to historian Richard Green "he wasn't very impressed with the mix of cultures. He preferred that we stayed within our own peoples."[4] Another name for him was "Butu Wargun" which means "crow".[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemulwuy
No a terrorist is someone who commits acts of violence or propaganda that promotes terror in order to control or defeat an enemy. What he did was defend his country against boat people and terrorists. Most of the civilians were better armed then he was and most would have had no problems shooting an Abo that "trespassed" on "their" land. He was our first HERO
Are you for real? You would justify anything to fulfill your own agenda. You just don't want to admit that an Aboriginal was a terrorist, and committed acts of terror and violence against innocent civilians. Having a problem with Aboriginals not always being seen as the "goodie two shoes"?
OK Let's look at this like mature, intelligent adults. It is well documented that there were international treaties in place in the 18th century which meant that England could only claim Australia 3 ways. • If the country was uninhabited, Britain could claim and settle that country. In this case, it could claim ownership of the land. • If the country was already inhabited, Britain could ask for permission from the indigenous people to use some of their land. In this case, Britain could purchase land for its own use but it could not steal the land of the indigenous people. • If the country was inhabited, Britain could take over the country by invasion and conquest- in other words, defeat that country in war. However, even after winning a war, Britain would have to respect the rights of indigenous people. We know that Australia was inhabited, to say it wasn't would be pathetic and put you back at the intellectual level of the 18th Century. We know there was no negotiation about our settlement here. We know the first fleet included marines who would defend the landing against all comers. Therefore, it is quite obvious that England invaded what was to become known as Australia, that is to defeat the inhabitants by war. The warfare they used was basically terrorist warfare. Also many many actions were done which would be declared war crimes. https://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/national/myall-creek Most of this looks like terrorism to me. Look it's simple, don't be like the guy who when he misses his turnoff from the expressway backs back to take it, admit we, well the first settlers, the English invaders. They were wrong, it was illegal, because even under invasion the defeated have rights. I also believe that the Australian Government has a fiduciary duty toward the First Nations People of Australia and the establishment of aboriginal title to be a sui generis right.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) was passed on 5 July 1900 and was given Royal Assent by Queen Victoria on 9 July 1900. It was proclaimed on 1 January 1901 in Centennial Park, Sydney. Sir Edmund Barton was sworn in as the interim Prime Minister, leading an interim Federal ministry of nine members. The new constitution established a bicameral Parliament, containing a Senate and a House of Representatives. This became the "Australian Government" that represents all the Australian people. The office of Governor-General was established as the Queen's representative; initially, this person was considered a representative of the British government. This demonstrates a clear separation of power from the Australian Government, who represents the Australian people, and the Governor General, who represents the British Government. Australia was originally started as a penal colony for the British Government. It would be fair and reasonable to suggest that 95% of the human cargo during that original settlement were convicts and indentured servants transported to Australia from England against their will. Logic would suggest that Australians from their original ancestors DID NOT invade what is now called Australia. Logic would suggest that British Officers and British troops in the employment of the English Navy/Government invaded Australia; not their human cargo of convicts and indentured servants. Therefore, why do the indigenous people of Australia believe that the current Australian Government should have fiduciary duty to the indigenous people, and NOT the British Government?
WOW you certainly know how to change the topic. Could you first explain to me what the point of who's fiduciary duty it is has to do with Pemulwuy being a terrorist. As to the percentage of convicts.. 751 convicts and their children disembarked, along with 252 marines and their families on the first fleet. That's an 75% reduction in numbers in 100 years, policies were working well. Seems we make up the laws as we go along to suit ourselves.
Excuse me, but you changed the parameters of the topic and conversation in your posting #10. By launching into a tirade accusing England of invading what is now called Australia. You later added some references to justify that some indigenous groups had no option except to engage in terrorist activities. I didn’t see any need continuing a war of words and speculation based on old manuscripts that would further advocate hostility. The terms of reference for terrorism is a groups or individual who attacks a civilian target. Therefore it has already been historically established (if you believe these accounts) that British soldiers; some colonists and some indigenous Australians participated in past terrorism against each other. There is nothing more to be said on that subject from my perspective. ********************************************************************* Is there a reason why you never addressed any of my points in my posting #11 regarding England invading Australia? I will pick up one point that you offered as a reference, but you never gave a link to that reference. “In 1788, there had been over 300,000 Aboriginal people in mainland Australia, but by1888 there were an estimated 80,000.” I would like to know where this reference got the count of 300,000 Aboriginal people being in mainland Australia in 1788, when the whole country was never explored at that time period, and the reference goes on to say that 100 years later in 1888 that an estimate of only 80,000 was left. With all due respect, it seems that the reference you provided just picked these arbitrary numbers out of head without offering and evidence in how they arrived at these calculations. If the reference is flawed and corrupted to such a degree, that is submits false arbitrary data in the calculations of the indigenous population based on the Australia’s geographical exploration time-frame. Then why should I or anyone else believe this information, or anything this reference provides?
Look, there are proven and documented cases of government ordered raids carried out by the police and settlers (civilians) where sometimes up to dozens of men, women and children were hunted down and slaughtered, where it was assumed that a black man stole a sheep or two to feed his family. His natural food source gone or depleted by the mass slaughter of roos by settlers. Their choice was to move of the land that they hand inhabited for thousands of years to harsher climate areas. Justice would have been to find the guilty man, but what they committed was nothing but "terrorism". Why kill dozens? To teach them a lesson? Were they going to steal sheep? They did it to instill terror into the natives, to prove that they (settlers) were superior and at any time could totally wipe them off the planet. They were terrorist. The newly formed government of New South Wales ordered it's police force to engage with the civilian settlers in inflicting murderous reprisals on their defeated native inhabitants in such gruesome ways as to terrorise the remaining people into submission and total defeat. Those involved in the terrorist acts were the Government, the police, and the settlers. Just as the ISIS terrorists are not an army, but a collection of militia, civilians fighting for a cause, so were the settlers, sanctioned and supported by the police and government. Fighting terrorism then was no more terrorism itself then us fighting ISIS would be terrorism. The real issue is that in both cases, in the case of ISIS and Pemulway et al. We really started them both, we really only have ourselves to blame. The other common factor is that they both relied on greed, money, power and arrogance on our behalf.
The purpose in my honest opinion is to prove or disprove that Pemulwuy was or wasn't a terrorist. I am not sure if CD had some underlying agenda though, as it is his thread I would ask him.
I fail to see the necessity to prove or disprove that someone was a terrorist. I could start a thread asking the same about Billy The Kid or Butch Cassidy...whats the point...
I am as lost as you to the premise of this thread. This should have been resolved quickly by first determining what a terrorist actually is and then deciding if the person fits the determination agreed with. What I find funny is the fact you could ask is Pemulwuy (or who ever you want to say) a mercenary or not or any other thing you can think of. Just pointless meanderings.
Reasonable suggestion, but I would point out that due to the fact the original premise is pointless the underlying agenda that may or may not be present is just as pointless. I do believe that is the point of these comments, I may be wrong about the other poster but I believe it to be the case. Frankly trying to decide what somebody elses motives for their actions is pointless if one cannot understand what was happening and how people found it necessary to survive. Further to the point, just how do you think this will end??? Do you think somebody will come in and educate a decision of who is right and wrong??? And what is the measure for success??? It all just seems very pointless
No matter how many times you attempt to change the parameters of the topic or elicit sympathy from other forum members, the truth will always remain. Under the definition and terms of terrorism, there has been enough evidence produced to substantiate that Pemulwuy engaged in terrorism against British settlers. He attacked civilian targets, and that makes him and his group terrorists. You have changed the topic from Pemulwuy being a terrorist, to include British invasion, and now want to included your fantasies and assumptions of Mungo Man. Just have many more tangents are you going to wander off on, before you get what you want? You have no interest in having a logic and reasonable debate. You are only interested in wanting to prove the white man guilty, and the black man innocent regardless of any facts and evidence produced. I'm done with this.
Its become pointless for me, when someone pretends intelligence by discussing terrorism, but doesn't understand the meaning of the word "terrorist".
The whole argument is pointless, so why did you start the thread. What was your motive in starting the thread?
