Colonisation or invasion?

[Son of Cathal]

Should the British settlement of Australia be looked upon as being colonisation or invasion?

I have been arguing with a friend on this forum for quite some time about which is right. I call it colonisation, she calls it invasion.

My argument is that, in the eyes of the British it was colonisation, the same as what they did in India and numerous other places. It was perfectly acceptable by the standards of the era, hell, every European country was trying its hand at colonialism. That said, in the eyes of the Aboriginals, it would be seen as an invasion and even now, the Aboriginals call Australia Day (the day that commemorates the First Fleet arriving in Australia) invasion day.

What do you think?

[Heidi XX]

There is two views to this story,one of the native land owner,and the men who found a new land too call home.
For the native land owners,it is an invasion too them (just like how britons stated that they fear a german invasion and the invasion of poland and france from german soldiers).
To the men who wanted a new home ,it is colonisation.
I see it as not being an invasion like other invasions in the past,Cook found the land with out even knowing that there were a different race of persons living on that land,unlike past history before-Germany invasion of poland/frace and plan invasion of briton,and in 1700 when france tryed to invade Briton,the nation who was invading knew there was living souls living on that land compared to the Austrlain first settlers.

[vera]

I would say, too, that is all in the eye of the side you're on. Every colonization is an invasion, and the fact that everybody else is doing so doesn't make it less of an invasion.

There is also usually the reasoning that America, Australia, Africa were sparesely populated at the time, by small tribes. That, too, is the logic of the conqueror. If you belong to the tribe living in the place colonised - you will see the newcomers as invasion of your home.

If man ever makes it to planets where we may live, and the insigenous population will for some joke of nature be small red flowerlike creatures, the colonisation will be an invasion still.

[Voskhod]

Both. Colonizing an already populated area also makes it an invasion. For Europeans of the 19th century, colonization is a useful euphemism for invading and subjugating a country or people perceived to be inferior.

[cannelidis1]

Should the British settlement of Australia be looked upon as being colonisation or invasion?

I have been arguing with a friend on this forum for quite some time about which is right. I call it colonisation, she calls it invasion.

My argument is that, in the eyes of the British it was colonisation, the same as what they did in India and numerous other places. It was perfectly acceptable by the standards of the era, hell, every European country was trying its hand at colonialism. That said, in the eyes of the Aboriginals, it would be seen as an invasion and even now, the Aboriginals call Australia Day (the day that commemorates the First Fleet arriving in Australia) invasion day.

What do you think?

I think you have said it and it all depends on your perspective and I am sure the aborigines today believe it was an invasion much like many Native Americans believe the same. I do not know much about Aussie history to be honest but I would love to go there someday after I see Alaska. I am sure the Aborigines all have a different view on this. I remember hearing how a Native American women told my mother she was happy the white man came because her ancestors the Sioux would sometimes have to cut open the gut of a buffalo to keep warm in the -50 below F. winters. The movie Star wars has a scene like this and while I do not know how true this is it points to the fact that not all natives are unhappy. Is this also true about some of your native people? A Sioux women told me that the white man brought the Word of God and the horse so she saw these things as a blessing but it as complicated as simply being human is and opinion vary

[pinguin]

It was an invasion.
Now, it could be argued if the invasion was pacific of violent, but it was an invasion anyways.

Actually, any immigrant is an invasor; just that they come without guns... (and usually without money, either)...

[Wobomagonda]

I would say, too, that is all in the eye of the side you're on. Every colonization is an invasion, and the fact that everybody else is doing so doesn't make it less of an invasion.

There is also usually the reasoning that America, Australia, Africa were sparesely populated at the time, by small tribes. That, too, is the logic of the conqueror. If you belong to the tribe living in the place colonised - you will see the newcomers as invasion of your home.

If man ever makes it to planets where we may live, and the insigenous population will for some joke of nature be small red flowerlike creatures, the colonisation will be an invasion still.

The planet of Tulipia or Rosica? :p

[lackofhistoriography]

Cathal, while one can argue the semantics of colonization and invasion, it is important to note that the indigenous peoples of any territory will indubitably view the 'colonizers' as outsiders..........it is the label that makes one perceive events differently........But in most countries reeling from the effects of colonialism, 'colonizers' and 'invaders' are still viewed in a very negative light and for descendants of those who were enslaved or colonized, this is a very difficult thing to reconcile..........