JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Her grandfather immigrated from Scotland (Lennox clan), so no (potato famine) "convicts" in the family tree. I know about the "lost generations", subjegating the aboriginals, the WW-II kidlets, and those horrid orphanages, etc.

What I mean by "forged in blood" is throwing King George out on his arse during the revolutionary war, while Australia still has their election of the PM "approved" by the queen. Given Aussie history at the hands of the British (like Galipoli) I'm often dismayed that there's still plenty of "royalists" in Australia (mostly the elderly, my mother in law among them). o_O

From the books I read the first generation colonists that fought in the revolutionary war lost most of the battles to the English. And your less free now than you were then.

Considering poor old george was opposed to slavery, and actually gave away his own money to the poor in his constituency, and opposed war with the colonies he wasn't half bad as far as evil tyrants go. But then despised men do not get to write their own history.

Galipoli was a rotten mess for sure, but it pales in comparison to what your poor boys susufferein WWII at the hands of your own friendly fire. Its all swings and roundabouts in the end.
 
Australia is a smallish country.

Only in population terms.

In physical size it's right up here with a tad under 3 million square miles, most of it empty.

By comparison, ALL of the US, including Alaska and Pacific Islands, is just 800,000 sq miles bigger and 663,000 sq miles of that is Alaska alone.

Population density of Australia in 2015 was 3.08 people per square mile.

Population density of the USA for the same year was 91.

tac
 
From the books I read the first generation colonists that fought in the revolutionary war lost most of the battles to the English. And your less free now than you were then.

Considering poor old george was opposed to slavery, and actually gave away his own money to the poor in his constituency, and opposed war with the colonies he wasn't half bad as far as evil tyrants go. But then despised men do not get to write their own history.

Galipoli was a rotten mess for sure, but it pales in comparison to what your poor boys susufferein WWII at the hands of your own friendly fire. Its all swings and roundabouts in the end.

Which books are you talking about?

The Revolution was about being a citizen and not a subject. A benevolent ruler can change his or her mind at any time and can be succeeded by a tyrant as well. In fact, George III went into an insane rage (per English description not ours) after the Boston Tea Party and his actions triggered our war of Independence. See The Intolerable Acts

So, just what did your George III do about the slavery he was supposedly opposed to? Our George at least supported restricting the power of slave holding states through the 5/8ths count of slaves for apportioning in the House of Representatives. I do applaud the UK Parliament for ending slavery 20+ years prior to our Civil War.

All people are less free now including those in the UK. Had we stayed we would be even less free here than we currently are. That we are less free than we should be is due to free men and women making poor choices in the voting booth, and not by decree of a master. We also retain (still) the ability to restore our freedoms without blood shead, if we would but wake up and do so.
 
Last Edited:
Let's get real....automation and innovation did more to end slavery than kings or politicians. Just like it will end most minimum wage jobs in the fast food industry, like robots making cars, like it did in the grain harvest...etc.
upload_2016-12-31_12-17-8.png

upload_2016-12-31_12-19-44.png
 
Personally, I think we should stop comparing ourselves to other countries and ignore what they have to think about us.


It an apples to coconuts debate...

I always have ignored these countries that put down our rights, they know first hand which country have Patriots & which ones kneel to a high born woman!!!:cool:
 
Last Edited:
We really don't get what an Armageddon WWI was for the commonwealth. It scared them and changed them profoundly.

We can't shame them. In WWI, the US lost 0.13% of its population, Australia lost 1.2% of their population. But then, Serbia lost up to 27% of its population, :eek: the Ottoman Empire up to 15%, Romania around 8%, and France, Austria-Hungary, and Germany around 4% (about twice the rate that the UK lost).
World War I casualties - Wikipedia

It's weird how we talk about "Australians do this" and "Americans do that", as if we are just one big collectivist Borg or something. :)
 
Let's get real....automation and innovation did more to end slavery than kings or politicians. Just like it will end most minimum wage jobs in the fast food industry, like robots making cars, like it did in the grain harvest...etc.
View attachment 332272

View attachment 332273

I'd argue that the absence of slavery created the need for automation. Why spend the money to replace something that's already free?

You do also realize that even with the abolishment of slavery in the West and automation that there are currently more slaves that at any other point in history? The fact is that if you ate chocolate that wasn't marked "free trade" it almost certainly had chocolate that was grown and harvested by slaves in equatorial Africa? According to CNN a few years ago you could buy a family for about $100 USD. Almost anything you buy that was sourced in Africa, Asia, or even parts of South America is potentially the product of slaves.
 
Simple economics doesn't allow an industry to change without a viable replacement....you can't end the use of one form of production without it's replacement already known and proven functional, being an improvement in efficiency, and cost effective.
The idea that slavery ended and that caused the invention of it's replacement to happen is ludicrous.
As far as buying families in Africa for $100...if that's really the case, get all your friends together and buy as many as you can, then set them free... it's cheaper than what UNICEF says it takes to feed them.
 
Simple economics doesn't allow an industry to change without a viable replacement....you can't end the use of one form of production without it's replacement already known and proven functional, being an improvement in efficiency, and cost effective.
The idea that slavery ended and that caused the invention of it's replacement to happen is ludicrous.
As far as buying families in Africa for $100...if that's really the case, get all your friends together and buy as many as you can, then set them free... it's cheaper than what UNICEF says it takes to feed them.
No offense, but since slavery was outlawed here, not replaced, is it possible that the economic rules that you reference might not apply in the same way in this instance?
 
Simple economics doesn't allow an industry to change without a viable replacement....you can't end the use of one form of production without it's replacement already known and proven functional, being an improvement in efficiency, and cost effective.
The idea that slavery ended and that caused the invention of it's replacement to happen is ludicrous.
As far as buying families in Africa for $100...if that's really the case, get all your friends together and buy as many as you can, then set them free... it's cheaper than what UNICEF says it takes to feed them.

Rights group: 21 million now in forced labor

So how is it that with all the automation that's available we have somewhere between 20-30 million slaves worldwide today? Seems I recall the Emancipation Proclamation was made by President Lincoln and not the President of John Deere.
 
Our country was forged in blood, theirs was not. It's a cultural mindset difference but when logical facts and arguments are presented, more often than not they'll go from a "why does anyone think thy need a gun?", to "yeah, I never thought about that!"






If I remember right. The white people of Australia were put there by the English. The English used Australia as a penal colony during the 15th, 16th , 17th centuries. If you were a bad guy, you got exiled to Australia.
 
If I remember right. The white people of Australia were put there by the English. The English used Australia as a penal colony during the 15th, 16th , 17th centuries. If you were a bad guy, you got exiled to Australia.

Not quite three centuries, more like just sixty years, between 26 January 1788 until about 1866.

The fifteenth century, BTW was from 1 January 1400AD to 31 December 1499AD, but Australia was not actually exploited until the navigator and astronomer Captain James Cook claimed the whole of the east coast of Australia for Great Britain on 22 August 1770, almost THREE hundred years later, naming eastern Australia 'New South Wales'. Before that, it was certainly known about by Dutch navigators, but ignored.

European discovery of Australia - School A to Z

tac
 
Last Edited:

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top