Just wondering if those of you that live/visited Austrailia noticed a hostile environment. Austrailia was founded by pirates from England and the "hostile" genes have supposedly been passed down. So, just reply if you have noticed a significant example.
Australia is a very friendly and safe place. Australia was colonised by Britain, who transported convicts for crimes including stealing loaves of bread to feed their starving families (and some even worse things than that!) Today, most of the inhabitants of Australia are not descended from the British convicts. Most are children of free immigrants. Judging by crime statistics, the US is a much more violent place than Australia.
**** you, ya ****ing ****faced ****ing rat! Who the **** do you ****ing think you **** are, ****head?! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think aggression in a community increases as a function of population density. Here we have so much room that generally it's pretty relaxed.
well if u happen to be this bloody mouse that wants to go EVERYWHERE BUT where i want it to then yes we r hostile *goes searching for a big hammer* to everyone else we r coolPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Dont get angry, i was just wondering. I guess the community does have the most influence on a person, and i dont have first hand knowledge of this, but i was just looking for insight.
Depends where. Each city has its own personality. Its not genes that carry personalities, its societies. Australians partially descended from the few englishmen without their heads up their asses in that time period. Thus, they carry the better part of that society to where they are. Most of the criminals were in fact debtors, not violent offenders. *note: the cranial-rectal inversion percentage of england has varied over the years. Currently they are only slightly inverted. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
actully my family are PURE irish imigrents we came overs um i forget but both sides of my family were free irish setlers
hope ur planes r better than our hornats they r speed limited so they dont fall out of the skyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Really? they speed limit them so they dont fall out of the sky? Asguard.. I'll tell you a secret. Did you know that they have secret nuclear missile silos in some elevator shafts in Australian major cities? Don't tell anyone I told you though, ok?
god ur dumb i wasnt making some stupid coment im telling u what was in the papers they releced it to justify the expenditure on that joint australian, british and US project u know how they want to replace ALL our planes
"By the standard of the times Barton was restrained when he said: ‘I do not think that the doctrine of the equality of man was really ever intended to include racial equality between the Englishman and the Chinaman.’ What was to become the White Australia immigration policy was seen by some as liberal and democratic in aspiration, based on the latest scientific evidence, and wisely concerned with the political, social, economic, moral and cultural well being of Australians. But the language in which it was expressed often drew lavishly and luridly on the lexicon of vilification. What is now graffiti language was then part of public discourse. William Lane, the utopian labour writer, did not restrain himself when he said: ‘I would rather see my daughter dead in her coffin than kissing a black man on the mouth’. Nor did the cultivated literary critic A.G. Stephens when he wrote: ‘Next in importance to the preservation of the national life is the purification of the national blood.’ And it wasn’t restrained for a Bulletin writer to lampoon the Chinese as ‘not morally or physically or intellectually fit to sit down in the same continent as Europeans’. The policy was to become ingrained as a principal definition of Australia. When he came back from the Treaty of Paris in 1919, Billy Hughes said that Australians had died ‘to maintain those ideals which we have nailed to the very topmost of our flagpole - White Australia, and those other aspirations of this young Democracy’." "When gallant Cook from Albion sailed, To trace wide oceans o’er, True British courage bore him on Till he landed on our shore. And there he raised old England's flag, The standard of the brave. With all her faults we love her still. Britannia rules the waves! When 10,000 people sang that stanza in 1901 no one laughed. No one laughed when massed bands played it in 1907 at the naming-of-Canberra ceremony. No one laughed when my school friends and I used to sing it on Empire Day at Muswellbrook District Rural School in the early 1930s along with those other patriotic Australian airs ‘Rule, Britannia!’, ‘Land of Hope and Glory’ and ‘Three Cheers for the Red, White and Blue’. Along with ritualised rhetoric, sacred phrases, historical tales, imperial slogans and iconic images, these patriotic airs also ingrained a principal definition of an Australia linked to Britain by ‘the crimson thread of kinship’, and still so strong that in December, 1941, fifty years after Henry Parkes coined that phrase, John Curtin’s first call was not to ‘look to America’ but to preserve in Australia ‘the British-speaking race’. Some day someone should write a book about all this. " "Now I’ll put in an interlude. We’ll stage it in December, 1960, when I had just taken over the editorship of The Bulletin which, in a contradictory metaphor, had turned into a living museum of decaying attitudes - attitudes that were soon to be swept out of public sight throughout Australia, and were to be swept out of The Bulletin in a couple of rough months. The slogan on its leader page was still ‘Australia for the White Man’. (In a more rabid period it had been ‘Australia for the Australians. The cheap Chinaman, the cheap Nigger, and the cheap European pauper to be absolutely excluded’.) The first thing we did was to pluck that out of the page and throw it into the waste bin. We no longer found it necessary to run pieces on how the newspapers were ‘making pets of Colombo Plan Asian students’ and, in general, we put an end to its self-proclaimed campaign of (to quote) ‘keeping Australia racially in one piece’. We cut out the Abo jokes and the girlie jokes (DENTIST TO YOUNG WOMAN WITH UPLIFT: When I said what lovely falsies I was only referring to your teeth) and the reffo jokes. (By that stage the reffos no longer had Yid noses.) We no longer found it necessary to commission weekly articles such as the one that said that immigrants from ‘places like Cyprus, Poland and the depressed toe of Italy’, each living in ‘its national enclave, sticking to its racist and religious habits’, were challenging ‘the fibre of Australians’ and ‘weakening our British ties’. Or how ‘occasionally some Continental lashes out at a crowd with an axe or wipes out a family’, committing ‘horrifying crimes unknown to Australians’. And The Bulletin was also a depository of the stereotype of Australians as a people of the Bush (with the Digger as a lad from the Bush in military uniform and the Bondi Lifesaver as a lad from the Bush in a cossie), of true Aussies defined by certain kinds of landscapes and certain kinds of rural and nature verse and by certain kinds of fauna. " "It was at that time that, instead of speaking, in a way we were getting used to, of a diverse Australia made up of many strands we began to hear the words ‘mainstream’ and ‘minority interests’ as if Australians were divided into two main classes - the main mob, who were a uniform class of good, worthy real Australians (whose grandparents might have laughed at The Bulletin’s Abo and reffo jokes); the breakaways were a threatening rabble of un-Australians. There was a dirty name for these dissidents: it was ‘minority interests’. They were, however, a special kind of ‘minority interest’. They weren’t natural minority interests like cotton farmers, or war veterans, or people living under Sydney airline flightpaths; they were members of ‘the Aboriginal industry’ or ‘the multicultural industry’, or ‘the welfare industry’, or ‘femocrats’ or ‘econuts’. Of course there is nothing unusual in calling your opponents funny names: I fight for diggers rights; you are part of the RSL industry, etc. But the mainstream idea was producing concepts of an Australian normality that made it un-Australian for some people to put up a case for themselves. That was a privilege that applied only to some groups and if it applied to them they weren’t really ‘minority groups’ (although of course they were). " http://www.abc.net.au/rn/sunspec/stories/s243865.htm the positive stuff is in the rest of the article Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
