Tasmanian Story

Not many people know this story.
I thought some of you might be interested to hear it.
It is about the indigenous people of Tasmania.

Having lost the skills of sewing, fishing and making fire, the indigenous people of Tasmania lived more simply even than the Aboriginals on the Australian mainland from whom they had been isolated by rising sea levels around ten thousand years ago. When the ships bearing European settlers arrived in Tasmania in 1772, the indigenous people seem not to have noticed them. Unable to process a sight for which nothing had prepared them, they returned to their ways.

They had no defences against the settlers. By 1830 their numbers had been reduced from around five thousand to seventy two. In the intervening years they had been used for slave labour and sexual pleasure, tortured and mutilated. They had been hunted like vermin and their skins sold for a government bounty. When the males were killed, female survivors were turned loose with the heads of their husbands tied around their necks. Males who were not killed were usually castrated. Children were clubbed to death. When the last indigenous Tasmanian male, William Lanner, died in 1869, his grave was opened by a member of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Dr George Stokell, who made a tobacco pouch from his skin. When the last 'fullblood' indigenous woman died a few years later, the genocide was complete.
 
Very sad.
A completly individual race wiped out in less than 100 years

I bet the European settlers were all 'good practising christians'

Disgusting.

The worrying thing is people have not changed one little bit since then - Darfur, Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Congo, Yugoslavia to name but a few.
 
After reading some history about pre-European settlement in North America I have found that the Native American tribes were not much nicer to their neighbors than the Europeans were to them later on. The Europeans had bigger weapons and more technology...along with diseases...so the natives had little hope of surviving.

Let's all hope that as space exploration and settlement comes about in the future that we can live in the world that Gene Roddenberry created in 'Star Trek'...the Prime Directive is a good basis.
 
If I remember correctly, they also used Tasmania as a type of "Alcatraz" for murders and other dangerous types. Many genocides go un-discussed. Just look at the Armenian Genocide, or Rwanadan ?, and so on. It is horrific to say the least.
 
"the must have been very hungry" the cannibal said when he was told about ww1 where more than a million man died in a single battle.
Point is: they never killed more than they could eat while the europeans killed millions for a few square mtrs of land.
Who was the most barbaric and who´s to judge?

Fighting, killing and surpressing other people is the way humans have solved conflicts since the beginning. What puzzles me is that in almost any other aspect we have seen an evolution in our way to adapt and respond so why not here. The entire mankind would benefit if we found another way to deal with conflicts than just "kill´em all"
Svein
 
Tasmania was where they sent the real hardcore bad guys.

The only State that wasn't settled as a penal colony and was well planned out and governed was South Australia, capital Adelaide ... my home town. I left in 1990..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light%27s_Vision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Adelaide

The province and its capital were named, planned, advertised and largely sold before a single settler had set foot in their new home.

Free passage was given to "suitable" labourers, generally men and women under 30 years of age who were healthy and of good character, expected to carry out a promise of working for wages until they have saved enough to buy land of their own and employ others, a process taking at least 3 or 4 years.
 
[ QUOTE ]

What puzzles me is that in almost any other aspect we have seen an evolution in our way to adapt and respond so why not here. The entire mankind would benefit if we found another way to deal with conflicts than just "kill´em all"
Svein

[/ QUOTE ]

Treebear, It shouldn't really puzzle you........
Because human knowledge will very likely continue to grow and with it human power, but the human animal will stay the same: a highly inventive species that is also one of the most predatory and destructive.

Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I bet the European settlers were all 'good practising christians'

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like the Nazis
crazy.gif


Face it, religion doesn't exempt one from being human
santa.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Not from what I've witnessed in my travels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like what Oakwilt?

I meant human as in having that need for religion or spirituality that everyone has at some point in their life.

Marxism and Capitalism are both forms of religion.
 
I think having been told that one "needs" religion in their life differs from the argument that a religious dictate makes one's life more - or less responsible to the events or people around them.

Specifically I mention Christianity because the subjegation of the entire Western hemisphere that took place beginning slightly over 500 years ago, by colonial Europe, provides ample evidence that the notion of "needing" separate from changing what was in place, didn't affect a spiritual change but rather enforced a subserviant structure.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think having been told that one "needs" religion in their life differs from the argument that a religious dictate makes one's life more - or less responsible to the events or people around them.

Specifically I mention Christianity because the subjegation of the entire Western hemisphere that took place beginning slightly over 500 years ago, by colonial Europe, provides ample evidence that the notion of "needing" separate from changing what was in place, didn't affect a spiritual change but rather enforced a subserviant structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oakwilt, what I think Grover was trying to say was that the Christian morals of that time were transient and easily adaptable to suit the settlers own needs.

In this respect nothing has changed regarding Christian moral philosophy.

George W. Bush and Tony Blair believe God is on their side.

Which is of course absolutely meaningless as they are applying there version of the world onto other people who think entirely differently.

I'm sure the first settlers that went to Tasmania believed God was on their side as well.

Human needs are more powerful than any religion, but all to often religion that sets itself up as morally rightious fails to stop the the worst excesses of human conflict.
In fact sometimes it even encourages conflict.
 

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom