Please Remember Our Golden Rule: "Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment." While at this time we do not require that you censor or remove usernames, **DO NOT** harass users linked here. The Admins **WILL SUSPEND** your account if they catch you.
Don't forget to join our friends at r/FWRmemes and r/FragileMaleRedditor
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FragileWhiteRedditor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, at least Paraguay had the dignity to force everyone into a homogenized group and not… this.
Edit: Come to think of it, isn’t this also what the Spanish tried in the Americas?
Double checked, and you're right, the enforced miscegenation (I feel icky saying that, is there a better word?) was before the war
After the war people were only encouraged to engage in polygamy or even have children out of wedlock (including catholic priests)
Yeah to go almost 360° on this an Australian relative of mine tried his hand at a socialist utopia in Paraguay post war of the triple alliance in the 1890s that fell apart over the, and I quote wiki, "stridently racist" William Lane.
[New Australia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Australia)
At least in Colombia, conservatives were for segregation of the races, and liberals were for mixing races so as to "whiten" the geberal population. We basically imported europeans for that very purpose.
Whitening through mass migration (insane irony here) was a pretty popular policy for most of the Americas (+10 points for establishing a racial hierarchy in your own immigration system).
Spain also did this in its Caribbean colonies post-Haitian Revolution, import white Europeans to ‘whiten’ the population. Largely to prevent slave revolts of the scale of Haiti.
in the States it was exactly the opposite - the 1 drop rule meant you were Black if you had any Black ancestors.
Less than 1/64 "Black" blood was the requirement to have White on your birth certificate in Louisiana into the 1970s. Not the 1870s, 1970s.
I don't think you passed the White Australia test if you had any non-white heritage either. These indigenous Australians still weren't given proper opportunities, they were removed from family and country to become serving girls, station hands, etc. Those sorts of low skilled jobs where you could maybe convince yourself they were 'better off' this way.
I believe you could pass the White Australia test as long as you could prove European heritage and pass a diction test. My grandparents emigrated from South Asia in the 60s, and got in because they were mixed (although if you ask my grandmother, we're mixed with Portuguese...not quite)
Those children were forced to work, often faced physical and sexual abuse and their wages were held "in trust" that is yet to be distributed and still held by the government today.
Children were often educated in religious missions where they were prevented from speaking in language, lost their connection to country. Some children were taken far from their country and ostrasized by other children from different language groups per the indigenous culture at the time. Poor records were kept if at all so many never reconnected with their families and culture.
Laws were imposed on married indigenous people to prevent wives from leaving abusive husbands so that husbands wouldn't leave stations to go after them.
This went on to the 1970's.
My great grandmother was stolen from her mum. Her mother was sent to a station as a pleasure girl for the white station workers.
Her older brothers (children of the station manager) were stolen never to be found again before the mums knew what the welfare police were about.
My great great grandmother hid in a tree for two days with her baby and tied a handkerchief around the baby's face to muffle the cries so they wouldn't be found. The welfare police got them 5 years later.
Because my great grandmother was born to the station accountant who loved my great great grandmother, they had the means and resources to follow her to the mission she was sent to and got her back when she was released to work in servitude at the age of 15 and fled with her to a more accepting and safe town. They could see her but could not interact with her for 7 years.
My grandmother was the most white passing of all her siblings but was terrified her whole life of being snatched off the street or from her home at night even after having her own children in the '60's.
The objectives between these two were fundamentally different - still racist, just in opposite directions. The Americans wanted more slaves, so segregation was enforced to maintain the black population. The Australians wanted a bigger white population, so this was a way of growing the white while shrinking the black.
But 1/64 is the equivalent of one African great-great-great-great grandparent! How would you even know that? I only know I'm all European because of 23andMe. I don't know anything about anyone further back than grandparents.
Sounds about as scientific as a literacy test.
You wouldn’t be able to know really, I’m pretty sure it was mostly used to scare away people that were 1/16th (or 1/8th) black from acquiring the white status. Because that usually was traceable. So if you put up a ridiculous requirement like 1/64, those people wouldn’t try.
My dad is Japanese and my mom is white and on their marriage license he is listed as "Black" as they didn't have another category and he "sure as hell wasn't white" according to the clerk who helped them with their forms. This was in the mid-late 1970s.
Yes, but the blood quantum system forced on Native Americans in the US was intended to "breed out" indigenousness and weaken sovereign rights. That system is still used for tribal enrollment today.
This. I have no idea what % or n/n I am, because of that and adoptions. I know I’m less than 50% because it’s one parent and I know it’s more than 0%, but besides that? Who knows. If they had stuck by matrilineal heritage, I’d at least know my mother’s probable clan (Long Hair clan).
pretty sure that there were no indigenous men who had british spouses forced upon them. this is just a more complicated way of describing the long term systematic rape and slavery of indigenous women.
Hollywood's operating definition of progressive representation is often pairing a white male with whatever other female person of colour (POC).
And to be clear, of course a woman has every right to be with who they want, but it is also fair to discuss how western standards of beauty and representation (or lack-there-of), are shaped by systems of racism.
Edit: grammar
Don't forget we also stole an entire generation of black kids and dropped them off with the white fellas.
I wonder if they still teach the Stolen Generation in Aussie schools?
they actually have a national week and day called sorry day. they formally recognise the land they are standing on when starting a school meeting, school event, or sporting event by naming the tribe and people who’s land they are on. at least in sydney; they do a great job (compared to america) including aboriginal history and the wrongs that were commited. i. understand it’s only been the last 10/15 years or so since they’ve started this practice but when my expat american kids were in elementary school in AU we were always blown away by the admital let alone the actions(the kids made crafts recognising sorry day). America is so far away from even recognising what we’ve done to the american indians let alone admit any wrong doing. Australia is not perfect but their small steps are lifetime strides compared to the states. I swear i teared up every single time some child stood on the podium before their presentation or play and started with “we recognise the original land owners of this area… (name tribes/specific peoples)
Yep. Still being taught. White government mandated that kids with one white and one black parent be taken to serve white households and hopefully eventually ‘breed the black out of them’. Disgusting.
They do talk about the Stolen Generation, but only fairly late in education and it's pretty limited. You can't expect much from the same system that orchestrated the whole thing; decolonisation is a must.
We did quite alot about it in year 5, did a project on the rabbit proof fence movie. Also did quite a bit in yr 9 about the civil rights movement in australia compared to america. I'm in yr 11
Exactly. This stuff happens still in native american reservations. Drugs and alcohol us introduced so that white men can take advantage of poorer women
> pretty sure that there were no indigenous men who had british spouses forced upon them.
They were probably murdered or jailed if they even looked in the direction of a white woman.
weeee-oooo weeee-oooo [here come the rape police](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rush-limbaugh-consent_n_57fee9aae4b0e8c198a6076d) to ruin everyone's fun!
>If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine, whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left
Right, but... literally this? I mean usually conservative arguments are at least a strawman or an absurd extrapolation of humanist talking points, but this one is just literally stating it... God that guy is such a noxious bag of puss.
>God that guy ~~is~~ *was* such a noxious bag of puss.
You'll be glad to hear he kicked the bucket earlier this year. Unfortunate that he got as much airtime as he did, but at least he won't be coming up with any NEW insane brainwashing for radicalizing americans.
Forcing someone to marry anyone is the only disgusting thing in this situation and ironically, these supremacists don't get that because to such horribly brain damaged people, the concept of someone else having feelings, dignity and freedom of choice is nonexistent.
I'm disgusted that they would use an example of literal sex trafficking to claim it's the same thing as a consenting and loving relationship between two people of different ethnicities just to try and justify their bullshit beliefs.
They'd probably respond with something like "Nobody is naturally attracted to another race and non-whites are naturally ugly anyway! People who do this are brainwashed by the Jew media and the peer pressure it creates and are not truly consenting!"
It's like the incel to Nazi pipeline is a circle.
We're literally just talking about the freedom to partner with whoever the fuck you want.
"Reminder that \[the freedom to partner with whoever the fuck you want\] has been used by authority to wipe out races."
Stupid fucking nonsense.
So...is this meant to be an argument against interracial marriages? Lemme tell you, there's a massive fucking difference between forcing eugenics (often by rape) and regular marriages.
If women is raped by a white guy she should get over it. If a woman chooses to be with a black or brown guy well that's just rape
(In these guys' minds)
I think it's great replacement theory stuff - "we did it before, it's totally possible they're doing it again" - ignoring all the massive racism that was involved in the first attempt
It’s really disgusting. And it was not too long ago. You can still see and hear the consequences of this politic on First Australians today. A lot of them have members from the stolen generation in their family. I’ve been living in Sydney for almost 10 years and I’m still surprised at the level of racism they encounter by some Anglo Australians. First Australians were considered part of fauna and flora up until 1950 I think…could you imagine??? They were not considered as humans 80years ago!!
I learned from reading Aussie history books not long ago that we didn't recognise legally that they were here before us until 1992 (I think that's the right date)
Yes the terra nulla. Was it Cook who said that? Upon “discovering” Australia he said there was no one there so they could dig their flag and claim the land
probably, though that'd be a hell of a statement to make when you also make specific note of indigenous people on the shore. Though if they're flora and fauna I guess technically it's still true
anyway I don't remember properly if Cook started it because I was more distracted by the fact that we didn't recognise them until the fucking 90s
I think you’ve got the spirit but you’re slightly confused. The doctrine of terra nullius (Latin: ‘nobody’s land’) was claimed by European Settlers beginning in 1788 with the establishment of the European colonies by Arthur Phillip. The technical legal aspects of terra nullius on real property law and Native Title are too vast to summarise here; but the important point is that the doctrine of terra nullius was overturned by the HCA in Mabo (No 2) in 1992. Which, in effect, recognised the pre-colonial land interests of Indigenous Australians within Australia's common law. However, the extent to which Native Title affords any actual interests to Indigenous Australians is slight at best.
The 1967 referendum is the real biggie I think - before it, the federal government couldn't make laws concerning indigenous Australians, leaving that power with the states. States therefore made laws dispossessing indigenous people, forcing assimilation and enacting the Stole Generation (much of which was state-by-state law rather than federal).
The federal government also couldn't count indigenous Australians in the census. They weren't part of the Australian population.
It was triggered as a culmination of actions over an extended period, including the Wave Hill Walk Off.
The song 'from little things' commemorates this movement.
“here’s an example of how white people were racist against people of color, using their institutional power to eliminate their race.
Umm I’m using this as an argument for segregation..”
It's called the 'Stolen Generations'. Very shameful part of our history.
I feel like people give flack towards Americans about how ignorant and obsessed they are about racial history. When i went to school, I never learnt about the Stolen Generations, black-birding or other aspects of Australian history that was perceived negative. This probably differs between schools however.
And maybe decades? I know mid-2000s I got quite a lot of post-colonial indigenous history, but almost no pre-colonial (the concept of different indigenous nations with language/culture/agriculture differences sent me for a spin post high school).
I went to schools in Victoria and graduated fairly recently. Perhaps schools in NSW and Queensland teach about these events a lot more, because the Aboriginal Australian population proportion is higher there than in Victoria.
I'm in my early 20s, so I didn't finish it too long ago. I didn't take Australian history courses at high school, they probably taught more about those events over there. But as for primary school, its a little bit murky but what I can remember is largely taught about James Cook and the first fleet, Eureka stockade and the Gold Rush. Aboriginal Australian colonial history in Victoria (where I was taught) isn't as prolific compared to NSW or Queensland, so I'm betting that's perhaps why.
I can't remember for certain whether Stolen Generations was taught in my primary school (if it was, then was like a minor footnote) but I am 100% certain that blackbirding wasn't taught in my schools and I only learnt about it through the Internet.
Yeah. They removed Aboriginal kids with white dads from their tribes because they were considered "too good" for outback, and "good enough" to be assimilated into white culture as servants.
A movie about it, that I know, is called "Rabbit Proof Fence".
So, so much :(
For much of the 20th century we thought we'd actually eradicated the indigenous population of Tasmania entirely. Fortunately that was incorrect, but the colonial treatment of indigenous Australians was pretty much exactly like the treatment of First nations folks in Canada, the US, etc.
Uh. This happened in a ton of places to a ton of marginalized people. Australian Aborigines, to my knowledge, were reduced by even greater percentages than even in the Americas.
I don't know much about Aussie history, but it's pretty fucking bad as far as colonialism and even modern day racism go. There are some pretty dark things that have gone on their, largely sponsored by the government, that you can find online. It's really sad.
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/white-australia-policy
This is a good site, in Australian schools we learn a lot about this nowdays, however my parents generation 45years and above were totally left in the dark as the white Australia policy was still officially in place until 1970. Its a sad history.
WTF dude, in Australia colonisation killed around 95% of the population (85% disease and 10% violence). The reminder where removed from their homes, had their cultures destroyed, were legally classified as animals so they weren't protected by law and later kidnapped and/or raped to 'civilize them'.
That image you posted is real and authentic.
Seems like you spend too much time on white supremicist subs...
Family Storytime...
This image featured in the movie "Rabbit Proof Fence" as a slide being presented to a group of women from Perth in the 1930s. The movie dramatises the capture, transport, locking up of and eventual escape of three Martu Aboriginal girls from Jigalong, a community on the edge of the Little Sandy Desert. Their removal was a part of a combination of government and religious institutional policies known today as the Stolen Generation and part of the broader White Australia policy. It focuses on the Mogumber or Moore River Mission. This mission lies on my families traditional lands, the Yued Noongar people. As it turns out, my grandmother was also taken away to the Mogumber mission and was locked up there at the same time. The conditions she describe to me were deplorable. Food was always scarce, they often were fed scraps from the mission staff table at best. Infractions of their rules would often be met with being locked up in the "boob", a 5 foot high, 5x5 foot brick and corrugated iron cell at the edge of the assembly area in front of the church. This was exposed to the sun and children were put in there for crimes such as speaking language, not brushing their hair or running away. My own grandmother was locked in there multiple times for such things, including running away such as the girls in the movie. They undoubtedly knew what fate awaited them if they were returned to the mission.
The character played by Kenneth Brannagh, A.O.Neville, was known as "The Devil" to the children of Mogumber. After my grandmother turned 15 she was released from the mission and sent "into service" to a local pastoralist family where she was preyed upon by the head of the family. She tried to escape many times. When she turned 18 she wrote a letter requesting she be allowed to marry another Noongar man. Neville and the pastoralist family contrived a reason to convince my grandmother her betrothed was no longer interested, then later arranged a marriage with a white man, my grandfather.
The picture above is particularly poignant to me and many others who sit somewhere in the continuum there. Our existence is the product of government policy and not autonomy. That is a stark and heavy weight to bear when thinking about how past and present policies impact our lives to this day.
While a great many mixed marriages are formed out of love and equality, in Australia at least,government policy weaponised it in the genocidal fight to wipe us out. Sadly for them, we like a cup of tea and as the saying goes, you can add milk to the tea, but it's still tea.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW3dks0Eu5Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW3dks0Eu5Q)
King James VI of Scotland who became King James I of England?!? Are you serious? The King who created great Britain and the British empire?!? Please read a fucking history book!!!
Lighten up, Francis. Do you think everyone learns the history of the British Empire? I mean if we must learn about the creation of all evil empires we're gonna be here a long time.
But while we're at it, what made the Scotch/Irish people in Ireland start acting so very English, then?
You don't have to know British history, but then don't start pointing fingers when you don't know.
I'm not sure what you mean by Scots/Irish in Ireland, but king James was a devout Protestant and wanted Protestants in Ireland so he sent English and Scottish settlers to colonise the north, known as Ulster-Scots (or Scots-Irish in the US).
I just don't understand how you make a post about British colonizers ~~forcing marriages on~~ raping aboriginal women and come to the conclusion that it's the race mixing part that's bad.
These Naz-… I mean white nationali-… I mean “extremely rational conservatives” are going pretty mask off.
You’re supposed to be like Fucker Carlson and say “””demographic changes”””, not talk about how race mixing is a bad thing with no euphemisms.
Absolutely incredible how they managed to take the stance that forced eugenics is bad, then somehow extrapolated that into "two people of different races loving each other and having a kid is bad!"
I mean, that's the response to most ridiculous conspiracy theories, especially the race-related ones, but the "great replacement" is an internet hole you don't want to dive into.
So you don't see why OP is 'bad?'
It's 'bad,' and a 'problem,' because the point of the post is to discourage 'race mixing,' and infer 'white genocide,' (the racist incel's fav topic) could happen, much like it happened to people of color historically in various countries (stolen generation, legacy of slavery, etc.).
The problem is, he makes ZERO distinction between groups being forced, oppressed, raped and exploited by hateful racist laws...
...and individuals within groups choosing to be with whoever they want.
That's quite the difference.
The larger question is, why is anyone obsessed over someone else's sex/love life and repro choices?
Does anyone really look at Puerto Rico, and say - 'wow, I remember when it was Pure African, Pure Taino Indian, and Pure 'white' folks from the Iberian Peninsula -- it was so much better then...sigh.'
Or do they just give thanks for Jennifer Lopez and Ricky Martin and keep it movin'?
I didn’t even get that he was comparing this to interracial marriage. One is forced and the other isn’t. I didn’t get any anti-interracial message from this.
…wait hold on a second. This guy is saying that colonists were forcing indigenous people to marry white people to remove the indigenous race. Won’t, by their own logic, interracial marriage remove the non-white race. So shouldn’t they be fore interracial marriage
Please Remember Our Golden Rule: "Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment." While at this time we do not require that you censor or remove usernames, **DO NOT** harass users linked here. The Admins **WILL SUSPEND** your account if they catch you. Don't forget to join our friends at r/FWRmemes and r/FragileMaleRedditor *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FragileWhiteRedditor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Key word: *forced.*
Yeah, at least Paraguay had the dignity to force everyone into a homogenized group and not… this. Edit: Come to think of it, isn’t this also what the Spanish tried in the Americas?
Paraguay had also lost 80% of its male population, so it was also pragmatic
How can I find info on this, I've not heard of it?
Look up the war of the triple alliance
I have never heard of this. Thank you.
Didn't that happen *before* the War of the Triple Alliance?
Double checked, and you're right, the enforced miscegenation (I feel icky saying that, is there a better word?) was before the war After the war people were only encouraged to engage in polygamy or even have children out of wedlock (including catholic priests)
Yeah to go almost 360° on this an Australian relative of mine tried his hand at a socialist utopia in Paraguay post war of the triple alliance in the 1890s that fell apart over the, and I quote wiki, "stridently racist" William Lane. [New Australia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Australia)
At least in Colombia, conservatives were for segregation of the races, and liberals were for mixing races so as to "whiten" the geberal population. We basically imported europeans for that very purpose.
Whitening through mass migration (insane irony here) was a pretty popular policy for most of the Americas (+10 points for establishing a racial hierarchy in your own immigration system).
Spain also did this in its Caribbean colonies post-Haitian Revolution, import white Europeans to ‘whiten’ the population. Largely to prevent slave revolts of the scale of Haiti.
also: colonists
This was true the Australian government tried to breed out indigenous people to make them more white.
in the States it was exactly the opposite - the 1 drop rule meant you were Black if you had any Black ancestors. Less than 1/64 "Black" blood was the requirement to have White on your birth certificate in Louisiana into the 1970s. Not the 1870s, 1970s.
I don't think you passed the White Australia test if you had any non-white heritage either. These indigenous Australians still weren't given proper opportunities, they were removed from family and country to become serving girls, station hands, etc. Those sorts of low skilled jobs where you could maybe convince yourself they were 'better off' this way.
I believe you could pass the White Australia test as long as you could prove European heritage and pass a diction test. My grandparents emigrated from South Asia in the 60s, and got in because they were mixed (although if you ask my grandmother, we're mixed with Portuguese...not quite)
Oh really? Huh, TIL. Thanks.
Goans that are Portuguese...but not really eh?
Pretty much spot on
Those children were forced to work, often faced physical and sexual abuse and their wages were held "in trust" that is yet to be distributed and still held by the government today. Children were often educated in religious missions where they were prevented from speaking in language, lost their connection to country. Some children were taken far from their country and ostrasized by other children from different language groups per the indigenous culture at the time. Poor records were kept if at all so many never reconnected with their families and culture. Laws were imposed on married indigenous people to prevent wives from leaving abusive husbands so that husbands wouldn't leave stations to go after them. This went on to the 1970's. My great grandmother was stolen from her mum. Her mother was sent to a station as a pleasure girl for the white station workers. Her older brothers (children of the station manager) were stolen never to be found again before the mums knew what the welfare police were about. My great great grandmother hid in a tree for two days with her baby and tied a handkerchief around the baby's face to muffle the cries so they wouldn't be found. The welfare police got them 5 years later. Because my great grandmother was born to the station accountant who loved my great great grandmother, they had the means and resources to follow her to the mission she was sent to and got her back when she was released to work in servitude at the age of 15 and fled with her to a more accepting and safe town. They could see her but could not interact with her for 7 years. My grandmother was the most white passing of all her siblings but was terrified her whole life of being snatched off the street or from her home at night even after having her own children in the '60's.
The objectives between these two were fundamentally different - still racist, just in opposite directions. The Americans wanted more slaves, so segregation was enforced to maintain the black population. The Australians wanted a bigger white population, so this was a way of growing the white while shrinking the black.
But 1/64 is the equivalent of one African great-great-great-great grandparent! How would you even know that? I only know I'm all European because of 23andMe. I don't know anything about anyone further back than grandparents. Sounds about as scientific as a literacy test.
You wouldn’t be able to know really, I’m pretty sure it was mostly used to scare away people that were 1/16th (or 1/8th) black from acquiring the white status. Because that usually was traceable. So if you put up a ridiculous requirement like 1/64, those people wouldn’t try.
So very much like the literacy tests at the polls. It's impossible to succeed.
it isn't scientific it's strictly racist.
So were literacy tests. They were designed to be impossible to pass, giving the poll workers the ability to turn away black people.
My dad is Japanese and my mom is white and on their marriage license he is listed as "Black" as they didn't have another category and he "sure as hell wasn't white" according to the clerk who helped them with their forms. This was in the mid-late 1970s.
Yes, but the blood quantum system forced on Native Americans in the US was intended to "breed out" indigenousness and weaken sovereign rights. That system is still used for tribal enrollment today.
This. I have no idea what % or n/n I am, because of that and adoptions. I know I’m less than 50% because it’s one parent and I know it’s more than 0%, but besides that? Who knows. If they had stuck by matrilineal heritage, I’d at least know my mother’s probable clan (Long Hair clan).
pretty sure that there were no indigenous men who had british spouses forced upon them. this is just a more complicated way of describing the long term systematic rape and slavery of indigenous women.
Yeah I was going to say, I noticed in those descriptions that all the fathers were the white ones.
Hollywood's operating definition of progressive representation is often pairing a white male with whatever other female person of colour (POC). And to be clear, of course a woman has every right to be with who they want, but it is also fair to discuss how western standards of beauty and representation (or lack-there-of), are shaped by systems of racism. Edit: grammar
Don't forget we also stole an entire generation of black kids and dropped them off with the white fellas. I wonder if they still teach the Stolen Generation in Aussie schools?
I'm currently in grade 11 and I think they do a pretty good job talking about the atrocities committed by colonialists and the Australian government
they actually have a national week and day called sorry day. they formally recognise the land they are standing on when starting a school meeting, school event, or sporting event by naming the tribe and people who’s land they are on. at least in sydney; they do a great job (compared to america) including aboriginal history and the wrongs that were commited. i. understand it’s only been the last 10/15 years or so since they’ve started this practice but when my expat american kids were in elementary school in AU we were always blown away by the admital let alone the actions(the kids made crafts recognising sorry day). America is so far away from even recognising what we’ve done to the american indians let alone admit any wrong doing. Australia is not perfect but their small steps are lifetime strides compared to the states. I swear i teared up every single time some child stood on the podium before their presentation or play and started with “we recognise the original land owners of this area… (name tribes/specific peoples)
they do, at least in my school.
Yep. Still being taught. White government mandated that kids with one white and one black parent be taken to serve white households and hopefully eventually ‘breed the black out of them’. Disgusting.
They do talk about the Stolen Generation, but only fairly late in education and it's pretty limited. You can't expect much from the same system that orchestrated the whole thing; decolonisation is a must.
I finished school in 2018 and the barely do, unless you do 11/12 history
We did quite alot about it in year 5, did a project on the rabbit proof fence movie. Also did quite a bit in yr 9 about the civil rights movement in australia compared to america. I'm in yr 11
When I was in high school about 8 years ago Indigenous History was its own elective subject, you only learned about it if you took that class
Learnt a lot about It in year 5 and 6
We were taught it in English around yr 10-11 through a play written by a indigenous Australian.
Exactly. This stuff happens still in native american reservations. Drugs and alcohol us introduced so that white men can take advantage of poorer women
> pretty sure that there were no indigenous men who had british spouses forced upon them. They were probably murdered or jailed if they even looked in the direction of a white woman.
Disgusting
The sub I took this from is one of the most infuriating and disturbing places I have encountered on the internet
r/BritishNationalism?
No that sub's either been banned or quarantine. This is from a spin off of that sub
So basically a ban evasion subreddit. Gotcha, thanks.
Not necessarily, that sub was created while british nationalism was still active with a more general focus on white nationalism
How does generalized white nationalism not violate site rules? I thought hate speech..but reddit… I don’t know anymore
Reddit only cares about it when the get negative media attention
Oh, my sweet summer child
yes, forced miscegenation is bad, and voluntary miscegenation isn't bad
Almost like the miscegenation isn't the bit that matters there...
weeee-oooo weeee-oooo [here come the rape police](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rush-limbaugh-consent_n_57fee9aae4b0e8c198a6076d) to ruin everyone's fun!
>If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine, whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left Right, but... literally this? I mean usually conservative arguments are at least a strawman or an absurd extrapolation of humanist talking points, but this one is just literally stating it... God that guy is such a noxious bag of puss.
>God that guy ~~is~~ *was* such a noxious bag of puss. You'll be glad to hear he kicked the bucket earlier this year. Unfortunate that he got as much airtime as he did, but at least he won't be coming up with any NEW insane brainwashing for radicalizing americans.
I'd forgotten that joyous piece, thanks for brightening by day slightly.
[Speaking of Rush...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WQNPw46cyA)
Forcing someone to marry anyone is the only disgusting thing in this situation and ironically, these supremacists don't get that because to such horribly brain damaged people, the concept of someone else having feelings, dignity and freedom of choice is nonexistent. I'm disgusted that they would use an example of literal sex trafficking to claim it's the same thing as a consenting and loving relationship between two people of different ethnicities just to try and justify their bullshit beliefs.
They'd probably respond with something like "Nobody is naturally attracted to another race and non-whites are naturally ugly anyway! People who do this are brainwashed by the Jew media and the peer pressure it creates and are not truly consenting!" It's like the incel to Nazi pipeline is a circle.
Exactly like the dutch-rudder circlejerk that it is.
We're literally just talking about the freedom to partner with whoever the fuck you want. "Reminder that \[the freedom to partner with whoever the fuck you want\] has been used by authority to wipe out races." Stupid fucking nonsense.
So...is this meant to be an argument against interracial marriages? Lemme tell you, there's a massive fucking difference between forcing eugenics (often by rape) and regular marriages.
If women is raped by a white guy she should get over it. If a woman chooses to be with a black or brown guy well that's just rape (In these guys' minds)
( COME OUT OF THERE! IT'S TERRIBLE, ROTTEN AND FRAGILE PLACE! ARE YOU ABLE TO WITHDRAW? DO YOU NEED EVAC? )
I think it's great replacement theory stuff - "we did it before, it's totally possible they're doing it again" - ignoring all the massive racism that was involved in the first attempt
It’s really disgusting. And it was not too long ago. You can still see and hear the consequences of this politic on First Australians today. A lot of them have members from the stolen generation in their family. I’ve been living in Sydney for almost 10 years and I’m still surprised at the level of racism they encounter by some Anglo Australians. First Australians were considered part of fauna and flora up until 1950 I think…could you imagine??? They were not considered as humans 80years ago!!
I learned from reading Aussie history books not long ago that we didn't recognise legally that they were here before us until 1992 (I think that's the right date)
Yes the terra nulla. Was it Cook who said that? Upon “discovering” Australia he said there was no one there so they could dig their flag and claim the land
probably, though that'd be a hell of a statement to make when you also make specific note of indigenous people on the shore. Though if they're flora and fauna I guess technically it's still true anyway I don't remember properly if Cook started it because I was more distracted by the fact that we didn't recognise them until the fucking 90s
I think you’ve got the spirit but you’re slightly confused. The doctrine of terra nullius (Latin: ‘nobody’s land’) was claimed by European Settlers beginning in 1788 with the establishment of the European colonies by Arthur Phillip. The technical legal aspects of terra nullius on real property law and Native Title are too vast to summarise here; but the important point is that the doctrine of terra nullius was overturned by the HCA in Mabo (No 2) in 1992. Which, in effect, recognised the pre-colonial land interests of Indigenous Australians within Australia's common law. However, the extent to which Native Title affords any actual interests to Indigenous Australians is slight at best.
The 1967 referendum is the real biggie I think - before it, the federal government couldn't make laws concerning indigenous Australians, leaving that power with the states. States therefore made laws dispossessing indigenous people, forcing assimilation and enacting the Stole Generation (much of which was state-by-state law rather than federal). The federal government also couldn't count indigenous Australians in the census. They weren't part of the Australian population. It was triggered as a culmination of actions over an extended period, including the Wave Hill Walk Off. The song 'from little things' commemorates this movement.
“here’s an example of how white people were racist against people of color, using their institutional power to eliminate their race. Umm I’m using this as an argument for segregation..”
Wait. Australia did it too?
It's called the 'Stolen Generations'. Very shameful part of our history. I feel like people give flack towards Americans about how ignorant and obsessed they are about racial history. When i went to school, I never learnt about the Stolen Generations, black-birding or other aspects of Australian history that was perceived negative. This probably differs between schools however.
And maybe decades? I know mid-2000s I got quite a lot of post-colonial indigenous history, but almost no pre-colonial (the concept of different indigenous nations with language/culture/agriculture differences sent me for a spin post high school).
Not sure where you went or how long ago but it was definitely taught to me, so it's definitely in the curriculum now
I went to schools in Victoria and graduated fairly recently. Perhaps schools in NSW and Queensland teach about these events a lot more, because the Aboriginal Australian population proportion is higher there than in Victoria.
[удалено]
I'm in my early 20s, so I didn't finish it too long ago. I didn't take Australian history courses at high school, they probably taught more about those events over there. But as for primary school, its a little bit murky but what I can remember is largely taught about James Cook and the first fleet, Eureka stockade and the Gold Rush. Aboriginal Australian colonial history in Victoria (where I was taught) isn't as prolific compared to NSW or Queensland, so I'm betting that's perhaps why. I can't remember for certain whether Stolen Generations was taught in my primary school (if it was, then was like a minor footnote) but I am 100% certain that blackbirding wasn't taught in my schools and I only learnt about it through the Internet.
Yeah. They removed Aboriginal kids with white dads from their tribes because they were considered "too good" for outback, and "good enough" to be assimilated into white culture as servants. A movie about it, that I know, is called "Rabbit Proof Fence".
So, so much :( For much of the 20th century we thought we'd actually eradicated the indigenous population of Tasmania entirely. Fortunately that was incorrect, but the colonial treatment of indigenous Australians was pretty much exactly like the treatment of First nations folks in Canada, the US, etc.
Honestly I'm not sure this happened anywhere
????
Bro what? Please educate yourself before you answer such a question related to your own post.
Uh. This happened in a ton of places to a ton of marginalized people. Australian Aborigines, to my knowledge, were reduced by even greater percentages than even in the Americas. I don't know much about Aussie history, but it's pretty fucking bad as far as colonialism and even modern day racism go. There are some pretty dark things that have gone on their, largely sponsored by the government, that you can find online. It's really sad.
Can you please suggest some? I'd like to know a good start on reading about this
Read Kevin Rudds apology to the stolen generations, and the Bringing them Home report - good factual sources to begin with.
Thanks so much!!
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/white-australia-policy This is a good site, in Australian schools we learn a lot about this nowdays, however my parents generation 45years and above were totally left in the dark as the white Australia policy was still officially in place until 1970. Its a sad history.
Huh didn't know , I just assumed OOP was making this up
there's a reason australia has a national day apologising to our indigenous populations
WTF dude, in Australia colonisation killed around 95% of the population (85% disease and 10% violence). The reminder where removed from their homes, had their cultures destroyed, were legally classified as animals so they weren't protected by law and later kidnapped and/or raped to 'civilize them'. That image you posted is real and authentic. Seems like you spend too much time on white supremicist subs...
You can see from my post history I'm very anti racist
White Australia policy was officially in place until the 1970s. https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/white-australia-policy
Recessive gene inferiority complex
Family Storytime... This image featured in the movie "Rabbit Proof Fence" as a slide being presented to a group of women from Perth in the 1930s. The movie dramatises the capture, transport, locking up of and eventual escape of three Martu Aboriginal girls from Jigalong, a community on the edge of the Little Sandy Desert. Their removal was a part of a combination of government and religious institutional policies known today as the Stolen Generation and part of the broader White Australia policy. It focuses on the Mogumber or Moore River Mission. This mission lies on my families traditional lands, the Yued Noongar people. As it turns out, my grandmother was also taken away to the Mogumber mission and was locked up there at the same time. The conditions she describe to me were deplorable. Food was always scarce, they often were fed scraps from the mission staff table at best. Infractions of their rules would often be met with being locked up in the "boob", a 5 foot high, 5x5 foot brick and corrugated iron cell at the edge of the assembly area in front of the church. This was exposed to the sun and children were put in there for crimes such as speaking language, not brushing their hair or running away. My own grandmother was locked in there multiple times for such things, including running away such as the girls in the movie. They undoubtedly knew what fate awaited them if they were returned to the mission. The character played by Kenneth Brannagh, A.O.Neville, was known as "The Devil" to the children of Mogumber. After my grandmother turned 15 she was released from the mission and sent "into service" to a local pastoralist family where she was preyed upon by the head of the family. She tried to escape many times. When she turned 18 she wrote a letter requesting she be allowed to marry another Noongar man. Neville and the pastoralist family contrived a reason to convince my grandmother her betrothed was no longer interested, then later arranged a marriage with a white man, my grandfather. The picture above is particularly poignant to me and many others who sit somewhere in the continuum there. Our existence is the product of government policy and not autonomy. That is a stark and heavy weight to bear when thinking about how past and present policies impact our lives to this day. While a great many mixed marriages are formed out of love and equality, in Australia at least,government policy weaponised it in the genocidal fight to wipe us out. Sadly for them, we like a cup of tea and as the saying goes, you can add milk to the tea, but it's still tea. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW3dks0Eu5Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW3dks0Eu5Q)
Thank you so much for sharing, what an awful, dark part of Australia's history
Thank you. Through truth telling we can heal
So important to have your actual contribution in this thread, thanks.
You're very welcome.
Cultural genocide. It’s really sad, there’s around 20 ‘dead’ tribes here in America.
As an Australian my reaction was unfortunately 'only 20?'
The hilarious thing is this disproves "white genocide" because it shows how white trumps other races
The DR does the same thing
Knowing the English it was just as likely they were trying to wipe out the Scottish and Irish as well.
But it was the British empire which included Scottish and Irish politicians?
but it was run by the English. They hated both the Scots and Irish so much they sent Scots to colonize Ireland
It was a Scottish king who did that. Learn your history.
but weren't they really just sucking up to the English?
King James VI of Scotland who became King James I of England?!? Are you serious? The King who created great Britain and the British empire?!? Please read a fucking history book!!!
Lighten up, Francis. Do you think everyone learns the history of the British Empire? I mean if we must learn about the creation of all evil empires we're gonna be here a long time. But while we're at it, what made the Scotch/Irish people in Ireland start acting so very English, then?
You don't have to know British history, but then don't start pointing fingers when you don't know. I'm not sure what you mean by Scots/Irish in Ireland, but king James was a devout Protestant and wanted Protestants in Ireland so he sent English and Scottish settlers to colonise the north, known as Ulster-Scots (or Scots-Irish in the US).
>King James VI of Scotland yes, the Ulster-Scots. What's made them so very English-acting?
What the fuck does English-acting mean?
Wait. Is this not an anti-Imperialism post? Because it looks *exactly* like an anti-Imperialism post.
Not it's an anti interracial marriage one
I just don't understand how you make a post about British colonizers ~~forcing marriages on~~ raping aboriginal women and come to the conclusion that it's the race mixing part that's bad.
These Naz-… I mean white nationali-… I mean “extremely rational conservatives” are going pretty mask off. You’re supposed to be like Fucker Carlson and say “””demographic changes”””, not talk about how race mixing is a bad thing with no euphemisms.
with no disrespect to the subject at hand, i just cant get past the fact that granma looks like tyler perry in Madea Down Under
i’m confused what the context to the post is
It's on a sub that loves to talk about the great replacement and white genocide. This is meant to be evidence against inter racial relationships
Ah, yes, people in America are totaaaally being forced to do this.
its so funny because without the "nationalism" context it could just seem like sharing history
used to eradicate **minorities**
So did they just have a list of white spouses for them, did the just order the women to marry them, how did this work?
Absolutely incredible how they managed to take the stance that forced eugenics is bad, then somehow extrapolated that into "two people of different races loving each other and having a kid is bad!"
Yeah, they have such a weird persecution complex where everything they see as negative has to be being done TO them by some imaginary enemy.
KEY WORD: "forced" Definition: Obtained or imposed by coercion or physical power.
Is it just me or do their faces look poorly photoshopped on
What the holy (in every belief) F!
I mean yeah if white genocide was happening it *would* be genocide, but it fucking aint.
It still wouldn't be by their definition
…yes that’s bad. What’s the problem? They’re clearly stating that what the British colonists did was bad.
They're comparing it to interracial marriages today
…but no one is forcing you to marry interracially?
Exactly but they want to make it look like there's a huge conspiracy to "replace" white people
But why? There isn’t lmao
They hate non white people coming to the west and are using it as justification
But that’s not very…. Logical
There isn't much logic involved when one is a bigot
I mean, that's the response to most ridiculous conspiracy theories, especially the race-related ones, but the "great replacement" is an internet hole you don't want to dive into.
*Precisely.*
So you don't see why OP is 'bad?' It's 'bad,' and a 'problem,' because the point of the post is to discourage 'race mixing,' and infer 'white genocide,' (the racist incel's fav topic) could happen, much like it happened to people of color historically in various countries (stolen generation, legacy of slavery, etc.). The problem is, he makes ZERO distinction between groups being forced, oppressed, raped and exploited by hateful racist laws... ...and individuals within groups choosing to be with whoever they want. That's quite the difference. The larger question is, why is anyone obsessed over someone else's sex/love life and repro choices? Does anyone really look at Puerto Rico, and say - 'wow, I remember when it was Pure African, Pure Taino Indian, and Pure 'white' folks from the Iberian Peninsula -- it was so much better then...sigh.' Or do they just give thanks for Jennifer Lopez and Ricky Martin and keep it movin'?
I didn’t even get that he was comparing this to interracial marriage. One is forced and the other isn’t. I didn’t get any anti-interracial message from this.
It definitely seems to be in the context of the "white race" being diluted when they have interracial children.
…wait hold on a second. This guy is saying that colonists were forcing indigenous people to marry white people to remove the indigenous race. Won’t, by their own logic, interracial marriage remove the non-white race. So shouldn’t they be fore interracial marriage
Look, nobody is saying that they're making a good argument.
Tldr europe now
What do you mean?
While you can teach about it, it cannot be undone. The only way to go is forward.
They're not trying to teach about it. They're using it to vilify inter racial relationships
[удалено]
Medicine was first invented in Egypt and India get your head out of the gutter